Browsing by Subject "tactics"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Board Games: How Ceos Adapt To Increases In Structural Board Independence From Management(1998-09) Westphal, J. D.; Westphal, James D.This paper presents a model that incorporates the behavior of chief executive officers (CEOs) into an explanation of how boards of directors affect organizational outcomes. Hypotheses are tested with archival data on corporate strategy, CEO compensation, board structure, and demographics, together with data from an original survey of both CEOs and outside directors from 221 large- and medium-sized U.S. corporations. The findings indicate that(1) changes in board structure that increase the board's independence from management are associated with higher levels of CEO ingratiation and persuasion behavior toward board members, and (2) such influence behaviors, in turn, serve to offset the effect of increased structural board independence on corporate strategy and CEO compensation policy. Implications for theory and research on CEO-board power and effectiveness and the larger literature on power and influence are discussed.Item The Human Factor: The Enduring Relevance of Protecting Civilians in Future Wars (Summer 2022)(Texas National Security Review, 2022) Muhammedally, Sahr; Mahanty, DanielThe U.S. military has shifted from a counterinsurgency “population-centric” approach to an enemy-centric one, focused on destroying an enemy through decisive victory. And yet it should be careful not to cast aside measures to protect civilians as a vestige of the counterinsurgency era. In the future, wars are likely to be fought in urban areas, thus making the protection of civilians more relevant than ever. The U.S. military and its allies should take steps now to adapt planning, training, tactics, and tools in order to better protect civilians in scenarios in which they may find themselves fighting in densely populated areas.Item The Meaning of Strategy: Part II: The Objectives (February 2018)(Texas National Security Review, 2018-02) Freedman, LawrenceItem A self-verifying theorem prover(2009-12) Davis, Jared Curran; Moore, J Strother, 1947-; Emerson, E. Allen; Harrison, John; Hunt, Jr., Warren A.; Kaufmann, Matt; Lifschitz, VladimirPrograms have precise semantics, so we can use mathematical proof to establish their properties. These proofs are often too large to validate with the usual "social process" of mathematics, so instead we create and check them with theorem-proving software. This software must be advanced enough to make the proof process tractable, but this very sophistication casts doubt upon the whole enterprise: who verifies the verifier? We begin with a simple proof checker, Level 1, that only accepts proofs composed of the most primitive steps, like Instantiation and Cut. This program is so straightforward the ordinary, social process can establish its soundness and the consistency of the logical theory it implements (so we know theorems are "always true"). Next, we develop a series of increasingly capable proof checkers, Level 2, Level 3, etc. Each new proof checker accepts new kinds of proof steps which were not accepted in the previous levels. By taking advantage of these new proof steps, higher-level proofs can be written more concisely than lower-level proofs, and can take less time to construct and check. Our highest-level proof checker, Level 11, can be thought of as a simplified version of the ACL2 or NQTHM theorem provers. One contribution of this work is to show how such systems can be verified. To establish that the Level 11 proof checker can be trusted, we first use it, without trusting it, to prove the fidelity of every Level n to Level 1: whenever Level n accepts a proof of some phi, there exists a Level 1 proof of phi. We then mechanically translate the Level 11 proof for each Level n into a Level n - 1 proof---that is, we create a Level 1 proof of Level 2's fidelity, a Level 2 proof of Level 3's fidelity, and so on. This layering shows that each level can be trusted, and allows us to manage the sizes of these proofs. In this way, our system proves its own fidelity, and trusting Level 11 only requires us to trust Level 1.