Introduction
Downsizing first gained popularity, as an organizational change, in the 1980s and early 1990s in America. It is an effort to make organizations lean and mean to withstand an increasingly tough industrial climate (Baumol, Blinder, & Wolff, 2003).
This essay discusses downsizing as an organizational change in the U.S. military. It describes stakeholders’ interests and the approach used in management of change. Furthermore, the essay recommends actions that would minimize adverse effects of downsizing.
Stakeholders
The military serves the national government’s responsibility of keeping the nation safe from external aggression. The military forms a triad together with economic and political elements to guarantee national security.
A number of structural policies and strategies guide the military; these provide explanations on the business of the military and the values it upholds. The main policy governing the military is the national security policy. Under the national security policy, there are the strategies for formulation, economic planning and political planning of the military.
The military has limited resources, however, the threats it deals with are global. Therefore, the military has to exercise a judgment of the most important interests to pursue based on its substance and intensity. The strategic planning process powers the decision to downsize the military. Historically there have been two approaches for planning the military downsizing.
One approach is threat based which prevailed during the Cold War. The magnitude and frequency of threats during this period informed the calculated size of the military. In addition, the national command decides on the appropriation of regional and functional commands in a precise way that is coherent to key policy makers.
Another approach to planning occurs when threats are ambiguous. Under this condition, threat scenarios are unclear and less useful to planning. Therefore, military planners consider general missions and their objectives. They develop approaches to deal with uncertain conditions.
Thus, the military strategic plan at any given time is always about shaping up the international environment. Secondly, it is a consideration of a response to the continuum of crises and lastly, a preparation for the present and future uncertainties.
Global conditions facing the military are dynamic. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus on the specific interests, which the military should protect and promote. A combination of the lack of consensus and the risk of short-term factors influence politicians to advocate for deployment of military from one crisis to the next. The military needs to have always a grand strategy to meet the high expectations using its limited resources.
The judgment to the correct size of military force is a political one and considers the prevailing conditions of a given time. The judgment includes an explicit and implicit grand strategy committing public resources, a summary of the expectations of vital interests and a demarcation of likely problems (Gargan, 1999).
The main cause of downsizing in the military is to save on cost. Military stakeholders, namely Congress and the public identify civilian workforce as a significant cost driver. Moreover, civilian reductions are necessary in line with the restructuring of the military and the reduction of military funding from the state.
Between 1993 and 1999, the DOD carried out a 19 per cent reduction of its civilian workforce. The civilian workforce reduction happened on specific workforce groups within the military. These groups included the procurement, finance functions, supervisors and headquarters staff (Cameron, 1998).
Impacts
The consequences of downsizing the military in the last decade have been an increased workload on the military. The workload has resulted to an increased tension between personnel and the resources available. The main culprit of this tension is the quality and quantity of combat training.
Gradually the quality of life of military personnel also deteriorates. Moreover, the limited use of the existing military equipment contributes to their premature aging. Deployment present new demands to personnel and have had a negative impact for the highly skilled ones.
For example, air force pilots find it hard to cope in their deployed positions and decide to quit. The result is an insufficient supply of expertise. Additionally, the existing personnel faces a hard time meeting their workload requirements.
Although publicly the Pentagon appears ready for any war, in the event that there are two consecutive wars, it cannot win because it lacks the resources to meet its basic strategic goals. Long-term impacts of downsizing include the inability of assigned units to respond to conflict situations. Moreover, fewer units lead to a reduced number of command positions throughout the military.
Unfortunately, for the military, promotion to a higher rank requires one to have the necessary experience and downsizing limits these positions for promotion. The limited numbers of high-ranking positions prompts officers to micro manage out of the fear of making mistakes that would deny them a promotion (Cameron, 1998).
Another setback for the military as it downsized was the loss of its core competence. As the military contracts out core functions, it has to relearn their execution. Outsourcing allowed military personnel to gain employment elsewhere but came at a price for the military to learn how to use products designed elsewhere (Huntington, 1999).
Management of Downsizing in the Military
According to Cameron (1998), large organizations have an uphill task when they decide to downsize and mostly end up worse off. Analysis of the impact of downsizing for any organization will use two variables of overall effectiveness and performance factors that associate with organizational improvement. Current public debate supports the downsizing of the military.
This is not surprising given the present level of national debt and a military size rivaling a combination of other militaries in the world. One argument for the downsizing of the military is to increase its reliance of new technologies. However, political interests in Congress limit the number of military bases that can be closed; consequently, this limits the gains in technological use (Huntington, 1999).
Congress is always willing to shrink military budget when there is no war but has to consider the impact of other industries depending on military expenditure. Most military units contract constituents and this fact presents a dilemma to congressional representatives on where to cut the military budget. A huge sum of the military budget goes to personnel hence, downsizing efforts first target personnel.
Similar to other government levels, the military employs hiring freezes to limit its growth. Additionally, it lets positions disappear by deliberately failing to promote individuals to vacant positions. Another common approach has been to induce early retirements by offering cash incentives (Nat, 2010).
The beginning of military downgrading in early 1990 focused on eliminating excesses and redundancies. As the downsizing got underway, the redundancies no longer formed part of the reasons for downsizing due to their elimination.
Similarly, there was need for frequent communication between units that performed well and those that did not. However, later on, it was no longer necessary because of the realization of downsizing targets.
Within the military, overall downsizing has had bad effects however; positive effects on the top management are worth mentioning. This positive effect is likely to be a result of the different way in which the military responded to downsizing issues. Whereas normal organizations wait for a crisis to prompt their downsizing, the military anticipates this change in advance.
Secondly, on the issue of vision, the military at any given time has an articulated strategic vision of the future while most organizations have a short-term vision. The military looks at its competencies in the future and carefully analyses its activities to streamline them. On the other hand most organizations move into an across the board downsizing effort without any prioritization.
In terms of resources, the military focuses on its work requirement and cases of minimum resource levels while a typical organization will undertake a massive cutback to reduce the bottom line. The military uses a multi scenario approach that creates flexibility and target specific functions.
Contrariwise, normal organizational downsizing strategy is to use a single approach and target workers. On human resource, the military considers personnel to be resources while normal organizations see personnel as costs.
The military downsizing of the last decade happened during a transformation of the strategic role of the military. The entire organization was moving from a war strategy to a peacekeeping strategy. Under such circumstances, normal organizations would focus on the survival of the present crisis.
The military, while looking at the present crisis, also analyzed its core competency after the downsizing. There was a consensus on the overall goal of the organization and each level of military was engaged in identifying its central competency (Gargan, 1999).
During the last decade, the military undertook a resource requirement survey to determine how much the organization can endure while retaining its capability of accomplishing its strategic vision. Workload and skill transportability analysis formed the main criteria for determining the correct interpretation of the survey.
Moreover, alternative employments methods, identification of disruptions in current employment levels in relation to the military mandates employment levels for individual units and a projection for future growth were other key considerations.
The military used a transitional strategy to move current employees into positions and units that ranked higher in priority on the downsizing program.
Positions that did not form a strategic importance to the goal of the military become transitional and their occupants effectively become transitional employees. Gradually all transitional employees relocated into positions that are more important, rendering the transitional position obsolete (Gargan, 1999).
Recommendations
The difference in the success of the top command downsizing and that of the overall military lays in its execution. The military downsizing effort relies on a specific headcount rather than cost savings or revenue increase as in many organizations.
Thus, it is very difficult for the military to execute the downsizing. Furthermore, a limited budget amid a projected resource requirement increase further ties the hands of the military. Stakeholders comprising of the public and Congress would not allow the military to increase its head count.
Proper leadership plays a key role in downsizing. When leaders are visionary, motivate their organization and are accessible, then organizational downsizing will have positive results. Additionally, the procedure used in downsizing influences its impact on employees. The procedure used should fairly redesign work and provide sufficient time for planning and preparation.
There should be proper management of procedures such as reduction of redundancies and wait times. Teams’ execution of work is appropriate and the workflow should be synchronous with other operations of the organization. Above all, there should be no mention or presentation of downsizing as a threat within the organization (Baumol, Blinder, & Wolff, 2003).
Management of the effectiveness and performance improvement of downsizing is possible because these factors depend on actions rather than the environment. Actions can be planned and implemented; however, environmental factors are beyond the control of managers. Cameron (1998) further notes that the manner of downsizing presents no significant effect on its effectiveness.
Thus, it does not matter whether downsizing happens through layoffs, buyouts or any other means. Moreover, Cameron (1998) disputes the importance of changes done in the appraisal systems and reduction of management levels. Although these factors form the focus downsizing reports, they influence little improvement in efficacy and performance.
These factors become important when they are absent; however, their minimization also acts as a procedural effect of downsizing. The main factors accounting for real impact of downsizing lay under management control.
Conclusion
The real impact of downsizing the military is subject to interpretation bias. Different stakeholders have their own perception of the effectiveness, processes and procedures. Nevertheless, there are key points emerging from the whole process of organizational change that should form the benchmark for successful downsizing. In the initial stages of downsizing, an always-present and visionary leadership is important.
Secondly, there should be a fair and gradual implementation of the program. The staffs remaining and those leaving the organization need supporting and an equal participation chance. Lastly, the effectiveness of downsizings depends on its perception stakeholders. Therefore, its presentation needs to demonstrate that it is an opportunity for crucial improvement of the organization.
References
Baumol, W. J., Blinder, A. S., & Wolff, E. N. (2003). Downsizing in America: reality, causes and consequences. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cameron, K. S. (1998). Downsizing: an extreme case. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 185-229.
Gargan, J. J. (1999). To defend a nation: an overview of downsizing and the U.S. military. Management, 2(3), 221-232.
Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35-49.
Nat, W. (2010). Downsizing the military needs to happen. Web.