Senge's Fiffth Discipline

1. THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE It is vital that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble. This is challenging because it is much harder to integrate new tools than simply apply them separately. But the payoffs are immense. This is why systems thinking is the fifth discipline. 

2. It is the discipline that integrates the disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. It keeps them from being separate gimmicks or the latest organization change fads. 

3. But systems thinking also needs the disciplines of building shared vision, mental models, team learning, and personal mastery to realize its potential. 

4. Building shared vision fosters a commitment to the long term. 

5. Mental models focus on the 

openness needed to unearth shortcomings in our present ways of seeing the world. 

6.Team learning develops the skills of groups of people to look for the larger picture that lies beyond individual perspectives. 

7. And personal mastery fosters the personal motivation to continually learn how our actions affect our world. Without personal mastery, people are so steeped in the reactive mindset ("someone/something else is creating my problems") that they are deeply threatened by the systems perspective.

8.  Lastly, systems thinking makes understandable the subtlest aspect of the learning organization-the new way individuals perceive themselves and their world. 

9. At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind-from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something "out there" to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience.

10. A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality. And how they can change it. As Archimedes has said, "Give me a lever long enough... and single-handed I can move the world."

Learning Organisation (LO) Considerations in Higher Learning Institution

There are tension in managing strategies when involve dollarship and scholarship. Initiatives become undermined due to pressure to achieve results. In turn it jeopardize the relationship both structural and personal which stood as fundamental in operating the learning Organisation. Today we seen LO has been astray from its supposed culture in term of system properties and behaviour.

University as organization that stood for promotion of learning are identified by their display of management culture, structure of goal setting, policies and administrations. Current funding constraints demand act of good faith in establish and implement policies in extreme pressure.

University strategic plan should covers target area that include reputation, learning & teaching quality , excellence of research, strong community relationship and effective management resource. As for performance indicator, they should implicitly or implicitly express in term of goal and time scale that determine the rate of achievement for existing standard. For instance, the published research paper can be indicated as desired numbers of paper to be published in 5 year time. Or also percentage target over the current state.

Universities have to be aware of artificial internal structure. This structure may indicate whether the institution in debt or surplus. Some structures are amendable because it derive from institution own creation and at will can be altered.  Normally a faculty in debt when they impose appointment freeze in order to eliminate its debt.

Another paradox, is known as false dichotomy.  In this case, an active researcher is not replaces because they feel no longer have expertise in the area. They may think the policies are salary saving but it also a loss of future revenue.

In situation, a positive loop occur when a faculty enrolment increase hence increase the income earned. In contra it also reducing the money value received per student when total funding is become limited, which is consider as negative loop. This tremendously effect the slowest growing in the institutions and led to emerging of university and losers.

Increasing workloads that occur on reduced staff creating further loss of funds and pressure for more staff reduction. The decision toward short term appointment meaning to exercise flexibility may impact the whole process.

Managers must aware the universities context of LO which to a degree different from the business community. Business has portray most example of LO culture that draw enough to evaluate of the outcomes compare to higher learning organisations.

It’s suggested for a university to enshrine its strategic plan by continuous update. Hierarchical management structures require faculties to construct plans in line with the overall purpose, while schools consistently do the same for their faculty. University structure must create teams rather than committee.

In nutshell, the biggest challenge to the application of LO is in deciding its leverage points. They have to start thinking how optimum input in turn generate greater output force. At this point, the boundaries of institutions are stretch further

 

 

 

Leadership and Change

 

Leaderships and Change

 

Introduction

 

Organizations today constantly facing milieu that require to adapt to new realities. This situation posed biggest challenges for the organization to cope and involves continuous shift for survivability. In reality, many organizations are still struggling and coping to accept new changes especially in short notice and has led to the resistance among employees. This resistance rooted   from the complacency of the organization that comfortable with the normal practices and reluctant to accept something new in their work routine. In different light, leadership has brought great impact and influence to direct people collectively in achieving organization change.  Leader’s visions and actions aligned people in the organization to be effective and efficient by embracing change process. Shortcomings which occur due to resistant of change greatly demand appropriate leadership style. In essence, leadership and change are corresponding to each other to ensure change can be implemented smooth and successfully without major resilient from the adversary members in the organization.

 

In nutshell, this essay attempts to examine various leadership styles and models in relation to how it contributes and effects to change in the organization. Few leadership styles including coercive, authoritarian, participative and democratic   be brought into spotlight in order to measure the outcome to change that it could bring in the organization. Further this   paper spells out some contemporary guiding leadership models mainly transformative, transactional, charismatic and visionary in order to find intersection points for optimum   change process in the organization. In the end part, conclusions are drawn to generalize all leadership styles and models in term of their conduciveness to change agendas.

 

Defining Leadership

 

Leadership has been the most popular and debated topic in last few decades and until recently abundant of researches attempted to derive to the precise meaning. Dawson (2014) stated that there is still remain no commonly accepted definition of leadership because it has been widely researched in light of different disciplines such as sociology, political science and psychology. In order to get into consensus, the generally accepted definition of leadership revolves around the element of influencing people and achievement of goals, objectives and vision (Dawson 2014 p. 34). House et al 1997 (cited in Dawson 2014) supported this generic understanding by define leadership as ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enables other to contribute towards success of organizations.

 

Even leadership has been associated with underlying ability to influence people, a leader at certain extends need to possess the consciousness of right skills and attitude in context of managing change. Leaders need to become the agent that sows the seed of change in the organization and set a role model that first to embrace the shift. 

 

 

 

 

Defining Change

 

Change is an obviously complex process and demands everyone participation at all level right from the top to the bottom line. The ability to change and adapt to new demanding realities provide pure advantages against other competitors in the uncertain future. Dawson (2014) clarified that it’s impossible to have a universal theory for change because organization always change with time and sometimes obscure to predict.  In broader sense, change is generally accepted as movement overtime from an ongoing present to emerging and uncertain future that is sometimes planned and manage and sometimes unplanned for an unforeseen (Dawson 2014 p. 11). Change normally refers to new ways of working that advocate the fundamental of innovation and creativity especially in the era of globalization and evolving technology.

 

Relation between Change and Leadership

 

From above elaboration, change is undoubtedly challenging and foreseeably impose positive effect to the organization wellbeing. It is also important that change need to be aligned to organization culture, value, people and behavior to promote the desirable outcome.  Therefore, leadership must act as agent and play key roles in the success of change process. It certainly would not be smooth and easy course because transformations will definitely result in resistance and discontent by some employees. This is due to social and psychology impact of fear and the lacking of technical capability in coping with new procedures. As David (2004) emphasized, leaders with their leadership are accountable for overcoming employee resistant by displaying strong management skill and adapting to change oriented leadership. This is choice that the leaders have to make and they must be free in making these decisions so be able to create shared mindset and synchronization of change culture (Cooper 2014 p.2). Only by the roles of sound leadership the resistant of change can be minimized and the change process will take place in more efficient way.

 

Leadership Style

 

Leadership has been never ending studies and until now scholars and even laymen still debating on its best approaches. In this particular study, we try to converge the concept of leadership in the light of promoting successful in the organizations. Generally, many literatures suggest that leadership should be aligned with global environment and few others promote that leaderships itself initiates change to the organizations.

 

Dawson (2014) supports that leadership is necessary for change, but what style, how its attributes may respond to change of different environments and how different types of leader maybe appropriate at different context are the pressing issues that worth to be researched. The point of elaborations will dwell on whether ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ leadership are highly celebrated in promoting change will be further discuss and enlighten.

 

‘Hard’ Leadership:  Coercive and Authoritarian

 

Coercive simply defined as using force or threat to compel someone to obey or do something   for achievement of objective. Contextually, in organizations this style espouses hard approach to change that may result both and positive and negative outcomes. Goleman (2010) categorized this type of leaders expect an immediate compliance from the employee. Normally leaders with coercive approach are highly competent, strong character, dominant in self-control, and great initiative in achieving the desired result. Commonly, coercive leadership pay high intention that change can be achieved without allowing too much resistant from employees. The detrimental of this approach that it can affect the feelings and morale. In some turn, it also may down grade the motivations levels of employee to outstandingly perform. Majority of cases, coercive leadership style denoted as quick fix and only reliable for short term sighted where it doesn’t really remedy the root and bottom line of the resistant problem. Therefore, this approach can be labelled as the least effective due to potential of negative impacts that it could bring to organization climate in long term. 

 

In different context, coercive style can be fairly useful method and work best in respond to crisis situation where rapid change immediately required. It also a best way to overcome some problematic figures knowingly as hard-core resistance of change. In this light coercive style may help to recover organizational imbalance to change and provide the bottom line remedy in shorter time.

 

As for authoritative leadership style, it almost similar to coercive but more considered as a leader that directing people in the organization to move towards achieving the vision by ensure people are following strictly the implemented strategy. Goleman (2010) advocates that it can be seen as coercive but rather more flexible in the approach because people are permitted to be creative and apply innovation. This leadership style may best suits for organization that in need of new visions and directions. Pressing issue that may derive from this approach is the more experienced people in the organization will faced difficulty to accept this style of leadership. It raises a preconceive mind among the ‘older’ employee that they were being dominated by younger leader in the organization. In this sense, the leaders always accuse as being excessive using their power to get people under him to obey.

 

Another opinion came from Northouse   which center on same perspective style of authoritative leadership approach. Northouse (2009) stated that the authoritarian leadership constantly give direction and design the best work structure to be implemented by the people in the organization. In the bright light, people in the organization simply have to follow the way and modus operand on how they should move in the organizations. In darker light, this leadership approach will instill dependence to the leader shoulder, grievingly may result interest downturn and potential of discontent among employee of their work and responsibility.

 

In all viewpoint given above, we may generalize that authoritative and coercive leadership style are alternative for addressing difficult contextual situation in the organization. In this context, people in the organization in relation change equate to Mc Gregor Theory X which stated that people work due to forcing element, they avoid responsibility, lack of ambition and always resort for work security. In this sense, people need to be constantly directed, pushed or even rewarded to make them work effectively. In some reason prolong resistant of change without any counteraction may jeopardized the organization wellbeing in particular time and situation. This believe based on that authoritarian leader compels to be in charge and provide the direction to the people and always need to put them under control most at all time.  CEO Bill Gates once considered as an authoritative leader when he dictated change within entire Microsoft management array to direction where the industry is currently growing (Authoritative Leaders, 2017). Conclusively the hard leadership style that based on coercive and authoritative bring reasonable outcome to manage change catered for short pressing time. It would be most suited during organizations need proper direction and require a leader that take the responsible to create vision in managing change.

 

‘Soft’ Leadership: Affiliative and Democratic

 

In contrast with previous leadership postures, affiliative leadership style provides softer approach and people oriented. The leaders with affiliative leadership always make effort to make the people feel satisfy by create strong emotional bond and positive communications in managing change. In certain occasion, people in the organization were given freedom to conduct their work as they think most effective. The positive impacts of this leadership style made it ‘all-weather’ and effective posture to be implemented particularly when leader trying to build synergy, boasting morale and rejuvenate trust among each other. Kotter (1999) further supports that communication of ideas seen as demanding need in the organization change. Therefore, the affiliative leadership style can be considered as conducive approach in promoting change because is communicate the logic and the importance in every people mindset. Goleman (2010) in another aspect look in to the drawbacks of affiliative and denoted that using this style constantly leading to poor performance and distort focus due to over praise of employees.

 

Another different of ‘soft’ approach is democratic leadership style that focus mainly on getting the involvement and participation of employee in giving their opinion for change. Goleman (2010) emphasized that leaders welcoming employee voice and their concerns in order to maintain the morale of the employee at the highest level.  While Northouse (2009) similarly clarifies that democratic leadership impeccably treat the employee equal and concentrate on the people voices to obtain their support. Deductively the best application of democratic leadership style as related to the McGregor Theory Y assumptions where people are keen to work, self-motivated and positively seek responsibility. They are less to be controlled and this leadership approach in no doubt optimized the change process in the organizations. 

 

Some weaknesses bearing this leadership approach are it may impair the change process when the leader receive enormous influx of ideas and opinions resulting difficulty in making rightful decision. Leaders sometimes intend to put off in making crucial decision by allowing other people to take charge which slip employees to feel leaderless. In that case, even though participation and involvement help overcome resistance to change, but it must be carefully place in order not to trap into those drawbacks. On the account with the right organizational context, democratic approach could be considered as a good style of leadership to manage change.

 

Contemporary Leadership for Change.

 

Today’s change faced by organization is greater and wider ever underpinning by globalization and evolving of technology. In these challenging scenarios, leadership is necessary for change and how different type of leaders may be appropriate are all contentious issues (Dawson 2014 p. 306). To put change in ideal picture, theorists have applied and developed contemporary leadership approach that advocates common and compatible ground. Few contemporary leadership models will be further discussed in this part including transformational and transactional leadership, charismatic leadership and visionary leadership and how these models reflect to the outcome of change in the organization.

 

Transformational and Transactional Leadership.

 

Models that emerged and deliberately expound on the effectiveness of leadership are two prominent transformational and transactional leadership. This concept originally focusses on political leader but modifications have been made and gradually develop by theorist Bass in 1985 and 1996 (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.2). Generally transformational leader stimulates and inspire employee to achieve outstanding and extraordinary outcome (Robbin cited in Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.3). They arouse and inspire others to give more effort to gain high level of achievement. This leadership approach intricately creates positive change in the organizations in order to channel group interest for change. In another hand, Eisenbach & Watson (1999) states that transformational leadership behaviors go beyond ordinary leadership by motivate employee to identify leader’s ultimate vision and sacrifice their self-interest for the sake of organization. Transformational leaders usually enact change by instill core organizational values to employee.

 

In contrast, the transactional leadership pay attention on the role of supervision, organizing and group performance that intend to promote compliance of employee through both reward and punishment (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p. 4). This leadership style not intentionally to promote change but just keep up with the routine process in the organization. In some cases, this style of leadership rather make change to individual employees by imply immediate correction either by contingent reward or contingent punishment (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.4) The leaders normally want to overcome escalation of conflict by fixing any prompting resistant of change. It applies to low level need of change and being more managerial in style.

 

Comparatively both transformational and transactional leadership offer strength and weaknesses in cultivating change in the organization. It applies subjectively whether to sustain short or long-term change culture and both can address different context of employees as explain in Mc Gregor Theory X and Y.  Further, the transactional style works quite well within the existed organization culture for change while transformational fits for   implementing new ideas or innovations.

 

Charismatic Leadership

 

Leadership studies become very critical especially involving change of value. Nadler and Tushmen (1990) stated that the emerging of Charismatic Leadership has exclusively refer to special ability to mobilize and sustain activity within organizations through specific personal action mixed with perceived personal characteristic. Charismatic leadership recently consider type of leadership that successful bring about change in organizational values and goals.

 

Initially Charismatic Leadership exist with 3 main components of envisioning, energizing and enabling (Nadler and Tushmen 1990 p.6) These components generate meaningful purpose, energizing through motivation and help employee psychology in the face of challenging change situations. Some instance of Charismatic leadership is portraying by Paul O’Neill at ALCOA where he has espoused clear vision underpinned by quality, safety and innovations. He made the vision compelling, provide ongoing support and energized his vision through his extensive personal contact (Nadler & Tushmen 1990 p. 7). From these evidences, thus clearly see how changes are conducive to be implemented and supported in organization by charismatic leadership. It built personal bond between leader, employee and organization as whole and become the source of sustained energy for change.

 

There are still inherent limitations to only based change in charismatic leadership. Many underpinning form of risks associate with the leadership style revolve around individuality supremacy.  Some identified pitfalls of this style are about unrealistic expectations in creating visions that straining employee in getting energized and potential feeling of betrayal when the process of change went to failure. In considering these shortcomings, the approach always being denoted as necessary component of change but not sufficient.

 

Visionary Leadership

 

From the term vision, we can fairly define this leadership style are working on with imagination, insight and boldness. This leader constantly promotes organized learning, creativity and develop strong innovation culture within organizations. Robbins & Coulter (2002) signify that visionary leadership articulate and create a realistic, credible and attractive vision of the future that improves the present situation. The term ‘credible’ implies as the leader who walk the talk, ability to explain vision to the employee and apply vision to different context.

 

From the comprehensive study by Lowe (cited in Groves 2006) can be conclude that visionary leadership is strongly related with employee job satisfaction. Other results also found that visionary leadership have contributed in change process in organization and change in leaders’ style itself.  In contrary, this leaders’ behavior alone may be inadequate for generating commitment in organization change. Leader must be aware of employee emotions when initiating organizational change agendas. With recent study new finding suggests that visionary leadership skills and attributes allow to establish an emotional connection with the employee that may overcome resistance of change (Conger 1998).

 

Innovation also as vital element in visionary leadership, allows organization to grow, improve and find new way to achieve goals. It also strives on creativity to change, this leader allows creative thinking and enhancing problem solving skills in employee. A visionary leader sees the use of new ideas in culturing better way in manage change in the organizations.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Few leadership style models are discussed to look in to the issues and to provide lights to new leaders in meticulously applying the mix of these leadership styles.  It is concisely clear that each leader style offers its own strong and weak points contextually. In more definite, leadership style must respond appropriately to organizational climates that may be vary, in term the state of employee motivations, level of conflicts, the tense of change resistant and adaptation elasticity to change. Timing factors and the urgency of change will also decide the style need to be opted in the organization, whether long or short-term change agenda. Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) furtherance that effective leadership for change is increasingly enclose combination of personal characteristics, skills, style and behavior.

 

 

Conclusively, leadership provides prerogative catalyst for change, but change is not simple as it may sound and done. Leadership styles solely will lead to astray without understanding the right mechanism of change that need to be meticulously knitted. Both fields leadership and change even they are mutually dependent but it stands exclusively with their own right of complexities.  As saying from Heraclitus nothing is permanent but change, bespeak that there will be no ending for leadership styles for change as to managing change agendas.

 

(3100 Words)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

'Authoritative Leaders' 2017, in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., viewed 10 July 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritative leaders

 

 

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N., 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

 

 

Cooper, L. 2014. Dilemmas: Leadership in Public Services: Bridging the Management Gap. In 17th International Research Conference, Dilemmas for Human Services 2014

 

 

David, H, 2004, January. Shared leadership and group interaction styles in problem-solving virtual teams. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.

 

 

Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation.  2 edn. Sage.

 

 

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M., 2005. Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), pp.105-123.

 

 

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R., 1999. Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of organizational change management, 12(2), pp.80-89.

 

 

Goleman, D. and Lueneburger, C., 2010. The change leadership sustainability demands. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(4), p.49.

 

Groves, K.S., 2006. Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7), pp.566-583.

 

 

Kotter, J., 1999. Change leadership. Executive Excellence, 16(4), pp.16-17.

 

 

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L., 1990. Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California management review, 32(2), pp.77-97.

 

 

Northouse, P.G., 2009. Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

 

 

Odumeru, J.A. and Ogbonna, I.G., 2013. Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), p.355.

 

Robbins, S. and Coulter, M., 2002. Organizational Structure and Design. Management. New York: Prentice Hall.

 

 

 

 

Military and Change Management

 

Military and Change Management

 

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 reach 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.

 

Military and Change

 

Having served in defense sector for almost 20 years, I observed the ever-changing facets of change that the ministry ever trying to embrace and embed. Long term-vision and periodical objectives intermingle which ponder as prerequisite of modernization agenda of change.  Ironically, at the height of certain level of change, there was still slogan ‘back to basic’ for the organization to revert and this realize how important for the organization to stay rooted of its core belief. I always have stern stand that there should be no compromise over basic requirements of defense operational. Even defense has lately considered as most highly reduce budget compare to other sectors, but cost reduction over deployment and operational capabilities impede the whole organization credibility and consider undermining type of change. We always believe that change is catalyst for any organization survivability but consistency of performing foundation roles of defense cannot be put at peril.  Business organization have their products values for financial outcome, but military service agendas offer product of sovereignty with no pecuniary values to compare.

 

‘Organic’ aspects of military organizations

 

In general, and common understanding, military organizations uphold mechanistic form of organizations. It’s complex, formal and specialized with tightly controlled roles. Procedural and rules are imminent in executing conventional operations and this inevitable when man and machines are integrated to accomplished objective and mission. In what aspect that this vast, regimental organization can be informal and focus to ‘rejection of the one best way approach’ (contingencies theory)?

When man and machine are modus operandi of securing organizational objections and missions, socio technical system (STS) plays important role to ensure how effective objectives can be achieved. This had respond to more organic form of approach in military, and how significant innovation and responsiveness to today revolutionized threats. At strategic level, military organizations need to be flexible to overcome unpredictable threat and roles of military personnel no longer revolve around ‘bread and butter’ but has expand to more global environment demand.

The implementation of National Blue Ocean Strategy (NBOS) is one novel initiatives towards innovation, creativity and responsiveness of armed forces. The participative evolution combined with charismatic transformations illuminates the critical need for each governmental sector combined as teams to prosper national progress and development. Even in term procedural and execution still concrete mechanistic form, but the whole effort strategically promotes to more organic form of military organizations.

 

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, Quick Reaction Force 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.

 

Failure of change?

Do we still stand for larger and conscript defense force? Or we have to tremendously downsized our organization for better manage of change? Why now the security guard of restricted military camp shifted to privatized company to play the roles? What are underlying rationale behind this change, intended, unintended or partially intended? This questions remains in black box our change agents in defense sector. Are the organizations respond to newly accepted trending of change or its consequences of failure to change in military realm?

 

Mejar Shamyl Shalyzad bin Shamsuddin (3006611)

51 RAD, Kem Syed Sirajuddin,

Gemas, Negeri Sembilan.

 

 

REFERENCES

Buchanan, D. and Badham, R.  2008. Power, politics, and organizational change: Winning the turf game. Sage.

 

 

Covey, S.R., 1989. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

 

 

Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing change, creativity and innovation. Sage.

 

Jabri, M. 2012. Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan.