My passion lies in understanding how technology shapes culture and how culture, in turn, drives technological advancement. The first relationship is easy to recognize—we’ve all seen the effects of mobile device addiction, the erosion of face-to-face communication, and the rise of clickbait-driven misinformation. What’s often overlooked, however, is how culture influences the development of the very tools we use.

Military as a Case Study in Technology Adoption

The military, particularly Special Operations Forces (SOF), offers a prime example of how culture drives technological development. Warfare has evolved at a dizzying pace over the last century, with major technological leaps—from railroads to helicopters—fundamentally reshaping strategy. The Nuclear Age stands apart, but since the introduction of the helicopter, SOF has not only been an early adopter of emerging technology but, in some cases, has actively driven its development.

SOF has influenced military innovation in processes, tools, systems, and ethos. Everything from pockets on the sleeves to machine guns, missiles, and headgear SOF has been an example leaders use when thinking about improvements. While it’s not the center of gravity of military innovation and invention its first truth— “Humans are more important than hardware”—captures the essence of what drives them. No organization embodies this truth more than the 75^th Ranger Regiment.

The Abrams Charter and the Ranger Ethos

Post-Vietnam, when the U.S. Army was at a low point, General Creighton Abrams issued a directive to form two battalions of Rangers, establishing them as:

“An elite, light, and the most proficient infantry battalion in the world... Wherever the battalion goes, it must be apparent that it is the best.”

Abrams’ vision extended beyond their combat role—he intended for Rangers to return to conventional Army units to elevate standards. However, after 9/11, the Rangers became almost exclusively aligned with elite SOF units. Despite this shift, Ranger standards remain Army standards—enforced with unrelenting discipline. Their mission-focused approach, mastery of fundamentals, and clarity of purpose make them a model for where military technology development should reside.

The Balance Between Technology and Tactics

Having worked in both the military and commercial sectors, I’ve witnessed how technology can enhance tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)—or create vulnerabilities if over-relied upon. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a prime example. While indispensable, it also presents a single point of failure—one that scientists have spent decades working to mitigate.

A key concept in technological adoption – the penultimate test of successful product deployment – is the Technology – Organization – Environment (TOE) framework developed by Louis G. Tornatzky and Mitchell Fleischer in the 1990s was introduced in their book The Processes of Technological Innovation. The TOE framework explains how three key factors influence the adoption of technology within organizations:

1. Technological Context – The availability, compatibility, and perceived benefits of new technology.

2. Organizational Context – The company's structure, culture, and resources that affect adoption.

3. Environmental Context – External factors like competition, regulations, and market dynamics.

SOF Culture and the TOE Framework

The Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) Framework helps explain SOF’s approach to technology adoption:

• Technological Context – SOF embraces tools that enhance mission effectiveness but rejects overly complex, impractical systems.

• Organizational Context – SOF’s decentralized, adaptable structure enables rapid adoption of useful technology while fostering skepticism of externally imposed solutions.

• Environmental Context – SOF operates in unpredictable, resource-constrained environments, favoring technologies that offer immediate, tangible benefits.

To be successfully adopted, technology must be mission-enabling, co-developed with operator input, and seamlessly integrated into SOF’s operational framework. This is done by incorporating the three pillars of invention in SOF.

The Three Pillars of Invention in SOF

One of the reasons SOF is highly effective at technological development is the structured relationship between:

1. The User (Subject Matter Expert - SME)

   • Must be actively engaged in the job or returning to it—ensuring commitment to real-world outcomes.

2. The Scientist/Engineer/Functional Expert

   • Must be appropriate to the task and capable of developing solutions tailored to operational needs.

3. The Resource Provider (Sponsor/Funding Authority)

   • Preserves project integrity and should be held accountable for the success of the invention.

Many organizations fail by misunderstanding these roles. Without proper alignment, inventions can become disconnected from the real-world problems they aim to solve.

Final Thoughts

Technology and culture exist in a constant feedback loop—each shaping the other. Nowhere is this more evident than in SOF, where technology must serve the mission, not drive it. Understanding this relationship is critical, not only for military success but for any organization operating at the intersection of human performance and technological advancement.