Military Organization Structure and Promotion of Innovation

The way how organization is designed contributes to conduciveness in nurturing innovation and creativity. In turn, it would lead to rapid process of change in the organization. Organizational change must take into consideration of its structure to subsequently create the environment that allow the whole change process to take place. It’s almost impossible to decide the most appropriate organization structure that already exist since dinosaur like military, but to understand the way organizations are organize could spare some insight to military commander to exercise his command that could ignite some creativity dynamic. According to Draft (1998) in order to enable growth and seize opportunities in the organization, the managers have to deal with challenges involved in organization design. The six element that involve design decisions are work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization/decentralization and formalization.

Among the six-key element mentioned above, we often associate military with the tall structure in chain of command. For instance, in Army organization structure, the Chief of Army will be at the top of the hierarchy and commanded the vast operational, training   administrative and logistic division. This conventional setting is prevalent and common in commonwealth defence organizations. But in some flexibility, there are specialized small unit or brigade that directly report to the Chief of Army such as Special Force (Commandos), Quick Reaction Force (Parachute Brigade) and Army Aviation because of their exclusive nature of operations. In another word, the military organization support both span of control, flat and tall structure. Military also noted as its multi-layer work specialization in order to successfully conduct the assigned operational mission. For instance, in Army Brigade consists of different task specializations, the infantrymen (fought the battles as frontlines), Artillerymen (giving fire supremacy and support in the battlefield), Engineers (provide mobility and survivability) and signaler (provide communications). All the different specialization was grouped as sub unit (departmentalization) and formed a Brigade organization structure.

How does the military promote innovation in their original organization structure? From my observation military always maintain its tall regimental structure in its operational and administrative approach. Existed organization structure doesn’t hinder the cultivation of innovation and creativity as long it’s not interfere with defence government control of the service, the chain of command or disciplinary process. Innovation where emphasized throughout the organization levels, new ideas are welcome to be implemented by organizing innovation awards annually. Total Quality Management (TQM) become the key focus in the organization in order to provide Army   with a team that is  solid and balanced in terms of equipment, modern armaments and high technology. At larger scale, National Blue Ocean Strategy (NBOS) is highly implemented, where it’s an inter-government department initiates to work cooperative and strategically to boast national economic outcome.

“The soldier is the Army. No army is better than its soldiers. The Soldier is also a citizen. In fact, the highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country”

“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

- General George S. Patton

Change Dilemmas: Back to the Reality

Conundrum of change explained change will be ever complex process that’s impossible to fully control or predict. The prolonged uncertainties on change complexities have provoke us to make change that’s more make sense to our organization. Tiring and complex models, frameworks and concept plunged organization in rat race to embracing change in no time. I disagree in some way about explaining movement from current state to desired future state in linear change process, change would rather work and move in continuum. The logic is future state would soon be appeared as current state due to span of   time, with new people in flux into organization and changing of environment. What could be the ideal is to embrace change that uphold the pillar of sustainability and continuous growth. We should learnt not be content of our status quo, because the wheel of change may put us again at below.

Democritus, a Greek philosopher concludes that change only happen in their positioning and space, while Heraclitus in his famous analogy of life to the river wisely saying that ‘no man ever steps in the same river twice, for tits not the same river and his not the same man.’ Both universal and fluid entities theories unravel the deep understanding the whole purpose of change. Covey mentioned that change is the journey to reached the goals of certain purpose, and we must hold to our objectives compass so it will always redirect us whenever we deviate from right way. Covey again asserted that people don’t make the change but principles does. As long as we hold tightly to the underpinned principles, they change is always on his way.

Another paradox is the gap in defining the outcome of the change. It is very critical decision in realizing change especially involves creativity and innovation because of different perspectives in change result.  For instance, the British Railway in the verge of implementing the computerized system for its train operation, received multiple respond from different stake holders especially the worker’s union. They finally success in implementing the system after engage in long participative communication to realizing the importance of the system for the organization. Beer and Nohra (2000) in ‘cracking the code of change’ bravely stated the brutal facts that about 70% initiative fails. When there is no silver bullet or magical wands on how to manage change successfully, its urging that organizations embraced some distilling principles of change to resort paradoxes and ongoing ambiguity. Six distilling principles required organization to fathom are learn from the past, maintain peripheral vision, exploit and explore, diversify, games changes and be mindful of larger scale change.

Effective leaders always provide advantages to changes and determine the efficient of the change process.  Kotter argues that there is some tension between the leadership and management terms. Management while carrying the set of process, leadership in different aspect creates vision of the future, the strategies to get there, motivates and inspires to make it reality. Leaders always grab hidden opportunities and extensively set the standard that compatible to the organization.

Change need back to reality, going to its root and foundation. Organizational change would be less success if the individual within resist to change or disunite.  How collective we are but the substance always the individual particles. To endeavor and strive change as a team there must element of integration and coherent of purpose. I do agree it’s always practical and demanding to answer ‘how’ to change (theories, framework) but in reality, what really propel the process of change is the question ‘why’ we need to change….

From Buchanan & Badham to Jabri and Dawson.

Bundles of models and frameworks are offered to organisation to promotes their change process. Some frameworks are simplified in the form liner stages model and others more updated approaches such as non-liner time. Kurt Lewin ideally put planned approach for change while Dunphy & Stace are more inclined towards situational approach. Kotter believed in effective leading in order to secure successful change.  Organizational Development evolution in another hand develop new Appreciative Inquiry to promote sustainable change.

In reality change is full of uncertainties and paradoxes. As asserted by Alvesson (2008) organizational change is not mainly a matter of carrying out a sequential list of steps. It’s too complex and chaotic in reality with unforeseen sequences, resistance, political process, ambiguity and diverse interpretations.  This non-liner nature of change has shifts the model of change from sequential model to process oriented approach. More recent powerful change tool of storytelling and narratives approach has added the spices to modern concept organizational change. Buchanan & Badham (1999) advocate the power political dimension to change, standing that the need of expertise of the change agent and political astuteness in managing change. The smooth going of this approach would largely depend on the degree of acceptance and contest from employee. If the change more incline toward contested, it will less collaboration and need more forceful and manipulative strategy.

In another hand, Jabri chooses to be subtler and sustainability in his idea of change. He advocates the need for talk, dialogue and conversation in engaging everybody in the change process. Jabri in his view of force-field analysis draws an illustration model of how important communication take place in ahead to build readiness from resisting forces and promoting forces.

Dawson (1994) in his processual perspectives identified the important of ongoing processes engage with substance, contexts and political of change. He strongly encourages examine multiple voices, capturing and retelling of change histories and viewing change as complex non-liner process. The outcome of the process will provide readable narrative of how change unfolds in practice and enables distillation of practical guidelines.

How far we have advanced in change conceptually, I always remember the core of it is to shift from defective to betterment progressivel and gradually. Changing people as told by beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is like to shift a mountain to another place. It will not be smooth sailing and easy going but took a lot of courageous, sacrifices and sincerity in action.

“He among you who sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue; and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) by his heart; and that is the least of faith” (Muslim).

   

other thots

3 Beginnings of Organizational Development

Living in the era of blossoming trees, we often have mislead in understanding the whole picture and fail to retract from where is everything originated. High rises and multiple facet of organizations, implementing hybrid and complex development concept and frameworks ended up us with ambiguity and perplex of what underlying entity that contribute to organization success. In McLagan’s model, what define the state of successful competitive organization: productivity, quality, Innovation and human resource fulfillment. These are powerful element and great catalyst form to shift their state to readiness to change.

Bob Marshak explained that Organizational development, relate it the concept of growing tree. OD has progressing on long and winding journey and now has reached at the peak of organizational framework complexities. In more structural understanding, OD has grown from its roots to foundations and subsequently branches. Currently OD at its blossoming state and bear the fruits of sophistication in organizational practice. But what has been the roots that allow such lush blooming of organization? According to Kurt Lewin 3 beginnings, what has been the initial underlying core element of OD are value, method and principles. Derived from these 3 beginnings, over timely OD has shift from deficit focus thinking to positive-focused thinking where organizations are more interested to ponder on what really works and what is most effective. OD at blossoming stage no longer advocate of finding the main problems but focus on period of high enthusiasm and how to create sustain engagement and positive feelings.

My reflection on the organization where I served, military also inevitable to be part of parcel of OD blooming state. From regimental top down orders and instructions, we have emphasized on charismatic leadership that uphold to win heart and mind of our subordinates. Even in our directive and structural culture, nevertheless we still welcoming participation of ideas and illuminate group dynamic. In new military generation upbringing, even how far we have move to newly form of identity, we still always going back to our basic, our 3 beginnings: value, methods and principles.

On urgency, heart and mind.

I always have this notion: Mind is the prime minister and the heart is the king. Although prime minister does most of the works, but the king will be the authoritive deciding power. That is a human nature, mind do the thinking which the cognitive part, but the behavioral part do the doings. Thinking may have some trigger to our feeling but the heart is predominant black box the remain mysterious to ponder. Kotter urged for organization leader to hit the feeling part rather the thinking part of employee. He denoted that in most firms, 90 % manager only focus for cognitive reason but only 10 % have initiatives to ignite the emotional part.

During Malayan Emergency campaign (1948 to 1960), my country fought guerrilla war in pre-and post-independence. Winning the "hearts and minds" of the people has become enshrined as a pivotal component of counter-insurgency warfare ever since 1952 when General Sir Gerald Templers declared it would be the key to success in fighting the communist. We did it successfully and this shinning paradigm of heart and mind was considered most applicable in fighting counter insurgency warfare.

Is there urgency for change? Real or spurious? According to Kotter false urgency make people become resistance to change. Change for sake to change solely a disastrous kind of urgency to organization. Urgency for change must first rooted from effectiveness (do the right thing) and follow by efficient (do the thing right).  The urgency for Malaysia in 1957 to gain his independent from British empire was the conscious move and urgency to reunite multi races and cultures at that time which now become the fruits of social everlasting social integration and harmony.