New doctoral thesis analyses the impact of military doctrines

In his doctoral thesis, John Nisser investigates how military doctrines are applied in practice, using three case studies analysing American, Norwegian, and Swedish doctrines.
"I aim to understand why doctrines are not always followed and what consequences that might entail", he says.

Military organisations are generally guided by doctrines – documents outlining how they should be structured and operate during war and crisis. But how much do these documents actually influence real-life operations? This is the central question in a new dissertation exploring the relationship between written military doctrines and their practical implementation.

"I began reflecting on this while serving as an officer in the Air Force. We had guiding documents, but I often felt they weren’t always adhered to. Later, in my research, I noticed that scholars frequently assume that the military acts according to these documents – but it's not that simple", says John Nisser, doctoral candidate in War Studies at the Swedish Defence University.

Four factors that influence doctrine compliance

The dissertation is based on studies of doctrine implementation in the US, Sweden, and Norway. The findings show that adherence varies significantly, both across countries and within organisations. To explain this variation, Nisser developed a theoretical framework based on four key factors:

1. Clear authority behind the doctrine increases compliance.
2. Well-defined processes for development and implementation make a difference.
3. Cultural anchoring – if the organisation has a tradition of following doctrines, adherence increases.
4. The quality of the doctrine – the clearer, more concise, and comprehensible it is, the more likely it is to be used.

The US shows highest adherence

The study reveals that the US military demonstrates the highest level of doctrinal compliance, partly due to the size of the organisation, which demands extensive coordination. The situation differs in Sweden and Norway, where doctrines have often served more as educational tools than as direct operational guidance.

"Sweden does not have a long tradition of formal doctrine development. It wasn't until 2002 that the first official doctrine was adopted. However, I see that the Swedish Armed Forces have become better at working with their doctrines, and today there’s a clearer link between strategic and tactical documents", says Nisser.

An important tool but not always the answer

Doctrines can be used in various ways: to coordinate military operations, as instruments of political control, or to drive organisational change. However, they can also limit flexibility and lead to predictability.
"An example of the limitations of strict adherence is France during the interwar period and the early stages of World War II. Their high compliance made them unable to respond quickly enough."

Besides functioning as an internal guiding tool, doctrines can also serve other purposes.
"Most doctrines are public, meaning they serve two purposes: to inform your own forces how to act and to signal capability and intent to potential adversaries."

Nisser highlights Russia as an example, where earlier doctrines projected a high level of military competence.
"While I haven’t studied Russia specifically, their doctrine emphasised deception, surprise, and sophisticated use of both military and civil power. But in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, we saw that this doctrine was not put into practice."

Contributions to research and practice

In addition to offering new insights into how theory translates into practice, Nisser's dissertation provides practical advice to armed forces: How should a doctrine be designed to make an impact? How can it be implemented effectively? What purposes should it serve – control, change, or education?

"I hope my findings will benefit both teaching and those working with doctrine in practice. Ultimately, this is about how military organisations are governed and what actually happens when theory meets reality."