Introduction
When organizations undertake to change their overall strategy, they use change agents as transformative tools for achieving their overall vision. Change must be implemented systematically through a predefined framework in order to achieve the desired goals. An external or internal change agent leads the transformative process.
This proposal takes a look at the urgent need for change in the US army. It utilizes kotter’s 8 steps change process as its framework Kotter(1996), looks at the factors driving the need for change, how organizational structures, systems, and organizational culture affects the change process, and what appropriate personal skills the change agent must posses to lead the proposed initiatives. The change agent in this case was a team well skilled in change management initiatives.
Urgent need for change
Utilizing kotter’s (1996) first step of the change process, the team undertook to determine why the need for change within the US army was deemed urgent. The team’s findings pointed to a paradigm shift in the wars the US army has fought over the years in Asia particularly
Pakistan that has translated to many losses of lives, huge financial costs, socio-economic impact, and poor international relationships. These were identified by the team as drivers for change. In addition to the never ending war, terrorism does not seem to abate in view of the investment done on waging these wars. In addition, the team identified misuse of funds, rising cost of the wars as additional drivers for change. A report by the United States Government Accountability Office (2008) determined that:
Prior to ODRP’s increased verification efforts, the average percentage of Pakistani claims disallowed or deferred for January 2004 through August 2006 was a little over 2 percent.
In comparison, the average percentage of Pakistani claims disallowed or deferred for September 2006 through February 2007 was 6 percent and for the most recent claims (March 2007 through June 2007) processed in February 2008, was approximately 22 percent. However, ODRP’s continued oversight activity is not assured, as Defense had not developed formal guidance delineating how and to what degree ODRP should attempt to verify Pakistani claims for reimbursement”. P.3
Therefore the approach by the military leaders in waging war in Pakistan was identified as the reason for the desired need for change. Leupp (2010) argues that 3000 soldiers have been reported killed since the wars started with US involvement while three and half million people have been displaced in the fighting.
Socio-economic consequences are disastrous. These wars have undermined any could be national consensus. That has been a major cause for concern both within the US army, Pakistan, and other regions affected by the wars. On the basis of the above findings, the team proposed that a change be initiated within the US army in terms of the way funds were reimbursed to the Pakistan government.
It was proposed that there was need for the army to incorporate elements of civil rule in its war against the elements of terrorists (United States Government Accountability Office, 2008). In addition, the proposed change could require the US army incorporate the people in fighting the terrorists to avoid the huge movement of people from their homelands, and integrate social economic activities. This activities could include building of schools, dispensaries, roads, etc. that may serve to improve the image of the US army.
To bring about these changes, a powerful team was formed to lead the change process. This was according to Kotter’s second step in the change process initiative (Kotter, 1996). It should be a powerful coalition guiding team (Stanleigh, 2004). According to this proposal, the change agent approved was a team of skilled and experienced people in change management initiatives.
It was characterized by good communication and interpersonal skills, authority to act, bias for action, with credible strong analytical skills (Gardener, 1993). In addition to that, the team members underwent training to broadly understand the context of the change effort, the basic structure of the organization, and the basic reasons for initiating change (Why you need a change management strategy, 2008).
Boland (2009) argues that a participative approach to managing change be a characteristic element of the team. Each member’s contribution to the change process was valued. In addition, the team was characterized by members who shared responsibilities in the change process.
Boland (2009) has determined that unity of purpose, alignment of purpose, a strong focus on the tasks ahead, forecast on future tasks, excellent use of skills, and abilities to seize upon opportunities and act decisively are skills that should characterize a change agent, as demonstrated by team members. The strength and efficiency of the team was enhanced by developing codes of conduct and cultural values within the team. This could make the team cohesive and members to work effectively to achieve the team’s vision and goal.
Kotter’s third step of the change process calls upon team members to create a vision for the organization and define what to do (kotter, 1996). The team’s vision was to improve the army’s image, transform it into civilian friendly institution by incorporating the community members in its wars against terrorists.
According to its vision, the team identified the efficient utilization of funds with reimbursements based on actual activities done by the Pakistan military without any duplication. In addition to thoroughly verifying the reimbursement of funds, a clear guidance should be developed for exchange rates with the Pakistan government against the US dollar. This could make the army efficient in utilizing funds in addition to enabling the defense department monitor any overbillings.
The team realized that the terrorists the US and Pakistan governments were fighting lurked among the civilian population. To integrate the people in waging war against the terrorists, the army, according to the team, had to interact with the people by actively participating in socio-economic activities such as building schools within the affected areas, providing healthcare services, building roads, improving and build water and sanitation facilities, and encourage the civil population to engage fully in agricultural activities by providing them with the prerequisites for farming.
With all these facilities available, the image of the army could be transformed from that whose objective is to kill and destroy to that of a benevolent yet assertive master.
In the team’s vision, these could transform the region into an economic zone with well developed communication facilities, water, and health facilities. It could spur economic growth and demolish the region’s poverty.
In turn, once the local population’s needs have been addressed, terrorism could die down since local people’s needs could be met. In essence, the local population could find itself up in arms against whoever could practice terror. Gradually, it could translate to a peaceful region, and costs incurred in the perpetual wars could no longer be an issue. The team also undertook to identify
Kotter (1996) considers the fact that initiating change could need the change team to communicate its vision to the organization, as the fourth step in the change process. This could be one of the most difficulty tasks for the team. White (2005) asserts that a good strategy would enable the change agents to identify and sensitize every one within the target organization about the impeding change.
The strategy would enable the team identify and understand the experiences those affected within the organization would undergo, the number of people to be affected, how to manage the changes, how previous changes had been effected, the kind of changes going on, and a common vision shared within the organization.
Clearly, the team undertook to identify the kind of structures in place to determine their effectiveness in managing and supporting change. Thus, the team’s strategy was characterized by situational awareness. In addition to all these, the team member’s leadership skills were assessed to determine if they merged with the challenges facing the team in communicating its vision to the US army’s command.
Findings pointed to the facts that structures in place could support the desired change. The army was acquainted with information regarding civilian and soldier casualties, losses that have been incurred due to flawed reimbursement claims as reported by the United States Government Accountability Office (2008), socio-economic consequences of the wars in addition to a well disciplined and organized army.
For a team to be reliably effective, team members have to be easily approachable and should incorporate an open door policy with an appropriate use of authority used wisely and sensitively (White, 2005). The team leadership, according to White (2005), clearly indicated a sense of confidentiality as key in conducting meetings. Elements of respect and trust for team members were also incorporated in the team. According to White (2005), other factors to incorporate were self motivation that could facilitate harmony between team members.
Since the team had to develop through various stages, White (2005) identifies group dynamics as a tool that balances the weaknesses and strengths of team members for achieving best results. White (2005) asserts that a team should asses their weaknesses, strengths and should focus on their weaker areas to start working on how to improve them. Excellent communication skills and inter-personal relationships also characterized the team members.
To communicate the vision, various obstacles were reportedly observed. Among them was the organizational structures and culture of the US army. The army’s approach and culture to an enemy is to destroy him or capture him, a far cry from the proposed vision. The proposed vision entrenched a friendly approach to the war with an all out inclusive approach.
The Pakistan and US armies have a scotched earth policy of pursuing their enemies. Moreover, those fleeing the fighting as civilians could also be the insurgent terrorists. This called for the use of their skills in appropriately communicating the vision to the leaders of the US army so that they could entrench it in their structures.
According to the team, members with negotiation skills were assigned the duty of meeting the highest in command to communicate to them the need for change, by demonstrating from available evidence and observations on the ground on the need for the change and the urgency for the same. In addition to that, other team memebers could be given the task of communicating the vision with other members of the military force.
The team identified the fact that a research could be conducted to analyze the feelings of the army’s response with the proposed new change. Each team member could be empowered to act in the capacity of an individual’s specialization and skills. This could be in accordance with Kotter’s fifth step in the change process (Kotter, 1996).
The culture of the military may impede the change initiative process as the new vision incorporates different elements opposed to those the army upholds. This could include the culture of impunity to prosecution in a foreign country for an American soldier. However, to overcome that, the team proposed to introduce culture change initiatives in the new vision and to educate all members within the army to appreciate the new changes with the benefits that may accrue as a result.
This brought the team to the sixth step of kotter’s steps in organizational change (Kotter, 1996). This sixth step calls upon a plan for visible performance improvements. These improvements should be created and all who participate in the improvements rewarded and recognized.
However, this process must intensively involve the higher ranks of the military command structure. In essence, the US army is not a democratic institution but a military one at its best. The team, in addition to establishing clearly defined objectives and goals, the team could undertake to develop performance measures against which success could be metered.
In the short term the team had to look for ways of clearly defining the achievements and performance improvement strategies. Achievements could be measured against the degree of acceptability of the US army and the impact the proposed changes could have on those affected by them.
It was noted that a survey could be conducted regularly to determine degree of success in the change process (Kotter, 1996). Short term gains should be observable and seen by the people involved. In addition, the team could device means to identify how actively the military personnel could be active in bringing about the desired change. Thus, the team could incorporate analytical thinking in analyzing the extent to which the vision has been achieved.
Kotter (1996) warns that “Do not declare victory too soon”. Change is difficulty to implement. Until changes sink deeply in the army, the team should not celebrate too soon on the victory that has been achieved. This could adversely affect the momentum in the change process. At this point, the new culture could develop to replace the old culture of the army.
Kotter (1996) clearly recommends that improvements that have been achieved should be consolidated. It was proposed that the team should use credibility earned to change the army’s systems, structures, policies, and which did not fit in the vision.
In addition, success, though achieved in the short term, should be celebrated after the whole system was transformed and the vision achieved in line with the team’s strategies. Perhaps, credibility earned due to short term success would be used to consolidate the gains made and act as a basis for solving future and bigger challenging problems. Change must come with its own challenges and problems.
In order to drive the organization towards the vision and ensure results are permanently impressed, the change process had to be reinvigorated with new processes, themes, and new change agents, calling upon team members to be philanthropic about their work (Kotter, 1996).
According to Kotter (1996), the last implementation stage calls upon team members to articulate the connections between new behaviors and corporate success in the context of the organization. These calls upon the team to develop strong corporate goals outlining how these quantifiable targets ought to be achieved, hence, corporate success.
In conclusion, initiating change could be a challenging task that could require a team well skilled in change management initiatives. The military’s culture could need to be changed as the new vision could incorporate a new culture. In addition, the team would have to develop performance metrics to measure success and consolidate it by continually reinvigorating the change.
Reference
Boland, J. (2009). The Essential Characteristics of a Good Team. Web.
Gardner, J. W. (1993). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Leupp, G. (2010). The Real Costs of Obama’s War in Pakistan: Blowback of the Drones. Web.
Stanleigh, M. (2004). Effecting Successful Change Management Initiatives. Web.
United States Government Accountability Office (2008).COMBATING TERRORISM: U.S. Oversight of Pakistan Reimbursement Claims for Coalition Support Funds. Web.
White, B. (2005). Ten Relationship Traits and Skills for Good Leadership. Web.
Why you need a change management strategy (2008).Developing a solid change management strategy (1996-2009). Barbara White Level: Platinum. Web.