Abstract
This paper aims at exploring the appropriate way of managing changes in the United States Army. Beginning with the introduction of the theme, the paper proceeds with the specification of the challenges that need to be addressed by defense leaders, including such issues as external and internal contexts. After that, it discusses fundamental change principles that can be employed by the United States Army leadership, focusing on evaluation, planning, informing, and resistance addressing techniques. The paper emphasizes the significance of such basic tenets of leadership as effective communication with personnel, resistance mitigation, conversion strategies, etc. The subsequent section provides the US Army with a range of valuable recommendations such as the need to invest in capabilities as well as others based on the discussed assumptions. Ultimately, the conclusion encompasses all the key points that were revealed in the course of this paper.
Introduction
The modern world sets new challenges and opportunities in the field of the military that force the United States Army leadership to consider a constant change to act on an agenda. The initiatives taken by leadership representatives are to be comprehensive and timely, thus meeting the current needs of society. In this regard, this paper will identify the US Army as an organization, reveal its key challenges that need to be addressed, and suggest possible change strategies to transform it into the body that will be able to successfully execute its functions in the conditions of the modern world. Let us consider each of the mentioned elements in detail.
Situation Analysis
The United States Army is Continuously Changing
The US Army is regarded as one of the strongest armies in the world. The country that had no opponents on its continent was able to shape one of the most powerful Army forces the current strength of which is approximately 475 thousand military personnel as well as over 500 thousand civilians (Stulberg & Salomone, 2013). It should be emphasized that the US Army leadership incorporates the concept of management, thus providing an opportunity to consider these concepts as a whole. The United States Army changes its leadership at least every three to four years along with its mission and vision. The mentioned facts are caused by a range of issues that will be discussed later in this paper. However, these initiatives are typically focused on organizational changes, including strategic, tactical, and operational spheres.
It is critical for the safekeeping of the United States Armed services that the changes do not affect the quality of performance. Indeed, the process of transformation is to be directed at the enhancement of the US Army performance, making it innovative and relevant. Change management is a key factor in the successful implementation of the change system and organization development as a whole (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009). Therefore, leadership must understand the challenges that may occur and how to manage them.
Challenges Requiring Change Intervention
To discover managing change, it is necessary to evaluate the challenges that need to be addressed. First, the ever-changing complicated environment plays a crucial role in identifying potential problems. Such issues as the events of September 11, 2001, the global crisis in 2008, and continuous armed conflicts in Syria can be noted. The set of the above events as well as others occurring on the global scale lead to the tendency of spending limitation. At this point, Chinn and Dowdy (2014) claim that “procurement, logistics, and maintenance” are core areas that encounter intensive changes that require accurate interpretation and corresponding managing strategies (para. 3). The transformation programs that are to be developed by experts should be constructed comprehensively so that to suit the modern requirements.
Second, the internal state of the US Army is also in need of change. The existing leadership techniques become outdated and cumbersome that makes the military system ineffective. Besides, the goals set before this organization also tend to change, becoming more extended and global. The technological and economic changes that are implemented into the operation of the US Army require changes as well. After the identification of the challenges, it seems appropriate to proceed with the managing strategies.
Stakeholder Analysis – Managing Change Strategies
Change Elements
Change management accepted in the US Army can affect such fundamental organization elements as personnel, processes, corporate knowledge technology, and organizational system including structure, responsibilities, and relationships. Being based on universal requirements of integrity and authenticity, changes may require different methods and approaches (Palmer et al., 2009). At this point, change management elements related to personnel and corporate knowledge are to be considered based on socio-psychological approaches in the context of personal change management. The elements that are associated with the organizational structure, processes, and technology can be executed in the framework of organizational change management.
Change Principles
To ensure operational effectiveness, the leaders are to focus on the consistent development and implementation of the change process. To begin with, there is a need to specify a clear definition of the objectives of change (Palmer et al., 2009). To manage the changes, it is of great importance to comprehend what goals a leader wants to achieve. For instance, defense leaders should understand that staff engagement is likely to benefit more rather than simple cost reduction. The understanding of the current state of affairs in the organization is the second milestone on which the personal level changes should be correlated with the organizational ones. To provide changes in the work of the staff, defense leaders have to be aware of how the work is carried out and what factors cause the personnel to do the work in a certain way.
The next phase focuses on planning changes as effective management is impossible without it. The planning is essential to identify the prospective benefits of changes as well as alternatives and possible constraints in their implementation. After the plan is ready, leaders should inform the staff, making sure that everyone properly understands circumstances and ramifications. One of the most effective ways to manage change is to “persuade their staff to understand why changes are good for them, a process that involves asking employees lots of questions about how they are feeling” (Dobinson, 2012, para. 2). During the introduction of changes, people are trying to get as much information about why and how changes are carried out as possible. Ignorance of that criterion can cause anxiety in personnel. It is, therefore, necessary to regularly inform personnel about ongoing developments and expected results.
Conversion Strategies and Vision
The leaders must connect the organization’s vision with the conversion. The vision of the core goal acts as a motivating force that leads personnel members on their way to success. The research illustrates that “leaders of successful defense transformations empower line personnel, set clear expectations of them, and hold them accountable for the transformation’s success within the established chain of command” (Chinn & Dowdy, 2014, para. 8). This helps personnel to realize their role in the organization and understand how they are expected to act in the situation of change. In other words, such a conversion strategy implies leading through the line when the identification and accomplishment of a change program depend on personnel to some extent, yet controlled and stimulated by the leadership. As a result, the mentioned approach contributes to the development of military culture and command integration.
The absence of clarity of what is projected to occur as a result of change completion is something a commander should avoid. While planning and accomplishing a change program, a defense leader is to specifically determine the expected outcome for himself or herself as well as for personnel. Organizations in which innovation can take place and opportunities for change constantly emerge have greater chances for success in a rapidly changing external environment.
Addressing Resistance
In case changes are likely to lead to resistance of the staff, defense leaders need to prevent it immediately. The leadership needs to have the ability to quickly identify signs of resistance to change as timely countermeasures can significantly mitigate the resisting forces. Chinn and Dowdy (2014) argue that “size, complexity, and culture” are the most common reasons for resistance (para. 5). Effective communication with subordinates can help leaders to establish trustful relationships that, in turn, are likely to decrease the probability of resistance occurrence.
The leadership should remember that soldiers do not like unnecessary changes within the organization due to uncertainty. According to recent research, “only 23% of civil servants understand why the changes to the civil service are good for them personally” (Dobinson, 2012, para. 6). In other words, they can be confused by potential changes that are likely to change some points in their performance. In this regard, in case of changes are not supported and stimulated by the leadership, people tend to return to the previous working methods. Therefore, it is required to encourage any, even the smallest achievements of the staff, while promotions should not only be material but also moral (Palmer et al., 2009). Besides, the leadership should promote engagement and involvement of personnel in the decision-making process. In the course of the implementation of changes, the staff should have an opportunity to discuss the usefulness of transformation with the leaders. This feedback will allow leaders to evaluate the outcomes of transformation.
At times, the leaders within the company can act as change resistors as well. For example, they may doubt their competence. Some leaders may resist the implementation of change because they doubt whether they will be able to initiate them successfully or not (Stulberg & Salomone, 2013). In the role of another reason, there may be a reluctance to change the existing relationships with personnel. The introduction of a new system or approach of operation can modify relationships in the team, while leaders may be afraid of it, especially when these relationships are friendly and quite comfortable. In this connection, defense leaders need to be aware of the mentioned factors that can restrain the concept of change and address them as appropriate.
Stress Moderation
Nowadays stress becomes one of the most popular concerns of leaders. This is one of the most expensive forms of the organization’s costs, making the adverse impact on the productiveness of personnel and the success of the US Army. At this point, the most productive strategy of stress elimination or at least decline relates to the establishment of specific and achievable tasks, even fairly complex that is likely to not only reduce the risk of stress but also provide a high level of employee motivation (Dool, 2010). Another positive factor is the constant feedback between the leaders and their subordinates on the implementation of specific activities such as, for example, evaluation of terms of performance and quality of the intermediate stages of the tasks.
Focusing on specific tasks, the model of 5Cs to combat stress was suggested. In particular, Dool (2010) assumes that the deployment of the following 5Cs can help defense leaders to achieve their goal: communication, collaboration, confidence, cohesion, and climate. This model is based on multiple studies regarding the US Army leadership that prove its credibility. According to the research conducted by Dool (2010), “the U.S. military has learned that stress cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed and directed toward a cohesive purpose” (p. 262). This implies that soldiers learn to perceive a change in a more resilient manner, thus reducing stress level and resistance. Let us overview the discussion that was presented above and make appropriate recommendations for further changes in the US Army.
Recommendations
From the above observations, it becomes evident that defense leaders should pay attention to both internal and external contexts of the US Army in managing change. The external exposure of change is determined by social, technological, economic, and political factors that are beyond the power of the organization. In their turn, internal factors of change are often associated with such issues as the need to increase productivity, enhance quality or motivation, and others that can be controlled by the organization. In this regard, it is possible to recommend the defense leaders to consider such a strategy as leading through the line by establishing trustful and open relationships with the staff members.
It should be noted that any changes in the operation of personnel are associated with the emergence of some resistance as changes may undermine a comfortable and stable state to which they are accustomed. A change program implementation success increasingly depends on the ability to understand and overcome the resistance rather than on compulsion. Therefore, defense leaders should focus on resistance diminution strategies.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is essential to pinpoint the fact that managing changes in the United States Army requires several approaches to ensure successful change accomplishment. In particular, both external and internal environments are to be taken into account as well as personnel’s viewpoints related to change benefits and pitfalls. It was revealed that among the most common change constraints, one may note staff resistance, the lack of understanding of change purpose, and stress. To address these challenges, the leaders may employ such change management strategies as the 5Cs model and establishment of open and trustful relationships in a command. At this point, the following phases need to be regarded in the course of change: evaluation, planning, informing, and implementation per se. Thus, despite the existing challenges, the United States Army can be managed successfully in the context of the modern requirements related to different aspects of organizational change.
References
Chinn, D. & Dowdy, J. (2014). Five principles to manage change in the military. Web.
Dobinson, K. (2012).Armed forces leaders are the best at managing change, study shows. Web.
Dool, R. (2010). Lessons from the military: A new framework for managing change (C5). Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(3), 253-263.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Stulberg, A. N., & Salomone, M. D. (2013). Managing defense transformation: Agency, culture and service change (2nd ed.). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.