The organization selected for analysis in the US Army. The structure of the organization depends upon and is influenced by strategy and size. In contrast to other organizations, the Army is based on strict discipline and control. The US Army has a team-based structure with a strict organizational hierarchy. Similar to other larger organizations, the US Army requires greater control over its operations and has a centralized and bureaucratic structure based on the span of control. In the Army, the power and authority are centralized based on formal relations and communication inside the group. In stable environments where change and interaction are at a minimum, a centralized organization can be more effective. However, there are specific situations when the military outperforms the functional units of the traditional hierarchically structured organization (The US Army Home Page. 2009).
Following the Burke-Litwin Causal Model, the next step is to identify tasks and skills. Military do not need unique skills and knowledge but excellent physical training and knowledge of tactics and strategy.
First, the military is effective as coordinating and integrating mechanisms, especially for complex tasks requiring specialized knowledge. Therefore, teams are used more effectively in a knowledge/service-based organization. The capacity to coordinate in a team environment is especially useful within a structured organizational environment where information tends to get held up in organizational channels—some military need knowledge in technology and psychics, medicine and chemistry, etc. Now more than ever, military commanders are turning to personal to accommodate new technologies and achieve creative, significant performance within their organization. The centerfold for creating, developing, and managing an innovative team is a clearly defined goal. The true measure of a team’s effectiveness is how successful it is in accomplishing the goal or purpose (More et al. 2008).
The remarkable feature of the US Army is highly centralized decision0-making. Decision-making has a great impact on the Army’s development and successful operations. The five steps in the decision-making process are a statement of the problem, alternatives identification, evaluation of alternatives, decision stage, and implementation of the decision. Other management tasks include the use of consensus for decision-making in an organization. Centralized decision-making requires unity but not unanimity or concurrence. Centralized decision-making may or may not represent the majority. In the final analysis, the military agree to support the team decision even though members may still disagree with some aspects of it. Many times, consensus represents a compromise. Military personal must guard against compromising too soon and thereby failing to consider all the alternatives. The result may be groupthink, a form of peer pressure that causes individuals to withhold comments about a decision that they know is wrong. Other tasks include ensuring that the team is staying on the topics at hand and not wasting time. A danger is that it may become a social forum. This is because military generally try to get along in teams. They can drift off track, and it is the leadership’s task is to keep them focused on the task. Centralized decision-making requires a careful analysis of the situation and evaluation of all alternatives. It is past time to break with tradition and to start using teams more effectively. Good commanders will take advantage of this powerful mode of interaction when and where appropriate. An effective decision-making process develops a kindred spirit by focusing the strengths of each member on a clear and challenging goal. The factors mentioned above are closely connected with each other as they create a core of military organization and structure (The US Army Home Page. 2009).
Today, information technology and military innovations play a crucial role in army development. Similar to other organizations, special departments and units are responsible for financial control, information systems and human resources. Performance is the primary objective, while a team remains the means, not the end. It is the degree of the team’s commitment to the goal that makes the team function as a unit and, in large measure, will determine its success. At this point, integration takes place. Through these discussions, military commanders attempt to attain alignment between their goals, the individual’s goals, and the organization’s goals. This step integrates the strategic planning process with individual goal setting. However, given that the individual has been allowed to set his or her own goals, even if there is agreement to support the military commanders and organizational goals, that still does not guarantee a deeply felt individual commitment More et al 2008).
Work climate and motivation are determined by individual goals and morale of military personal. The main strategy followed by commanders is a healthy climate and positive relations between all people. In the Army dogmatism is not logical; thus, it does not have a place in the logic of systems planning. Technology calls for personal working together who can capitalize on the combined mental capacity of those involved. The mind becomes the basic planning tool. Those who demonstrate the vision, who will take the needed risks, who possess the will, discipline, judgment, and the inclination to use data, who demonstrate the logic, and who know the planning process and the subject or area being planned are the planners most likely to succeed. Individual needs and goals are praised by the commanders thus social and military goals are dominant in the Army. The choice of military career detainees goals and needs of a person who joins the Army (Falletta, 2005). High pay system motivate military personal and ensure adequate supply of new professionals.
In general, all steps mentioned above are interrelated and based on the unique nature of the Army and military service. Then, just as in decision-making models, various planning models are used to depict the need for listing alternatives or options to be considered in achieving specified goals. A segment that deals with ordering or organizing the steps to be completed is not included in all models. In some models, the assumption has been made that the steps will be sequenced in a way that enables the persons using the plan to achieve the desired outcomes. In one form or another, implementation is contained in most models. When structures and procedures designed to achieve staff empowerment are used, an adequate mix of structure and leadership forces should be present to make up that development and investment of power. The four main techniques of OD are culture, technology, human resources, and structure. If leaders expect major changes, an understanding must be developed that change comes primarily when people, not organizations or tools, change (Falletta, 2005).
In sum, the military need to be led to understand the need, to be involved with focusing on a vision, and to clarify the direction they and the organization will be moving. As change facilitators lead and nourish people to change as individuals, they must be supported in every possible way. To foster growth or change in military personal requires many things: understanding and managing change, the investment of major prime resources, creating a productive climate, providing continued reinforcement and support; in short, changing staff is a major investment and requisite.
References
More, H. M. et al. (2008). Organizational Behavior and Management in Law Enforcement (2nd Edition). Prentice Hal.
Falletta, S.V. (2005) Organizational Diagnostic Models: A Review and Synthesis. Web.
The US Army Home Page. (2009).