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.  

Military and 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. Its 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) play important roles 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.

Failure of change?

Do we still stand for larger and conscript defense force? Or we have 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?

On Change

Human as civilized beings are constantly change, and this natural process marked how we are progressing through ages. There are three types of people denoted their life conditions, passive reactive and proactive. In facing modern world challenges, and to, we require to plan and manage our change in such way that leads us to betterment in life. Like saying, in order to predict our future is best by design it ourselves…

Modern Long - Term Organizational Success

Today increasingly for organization to stand successful, is largely based on their capability to manage change, nurture creativity and to promote innovation. Creativity, innovation and change are intertwined catalyst to give organization competitive advantage to stay ahead in changing world of business.

Taylor ( 1856-1917)  vs Mayo (1880 -1949)

Taylor was first initiated modern scientific management in British Industrial Revolutions (1730-1850) and spelled the mechanism of efficiency in modern industry by replicate ‘human machines’. His studies provided big leap in productivity but has led to discontent among industrial workers on the way human are treated. He further assumed on his approach: money motivates people and people have tendency to idleness (I think it stills relevant nowadays where most workers need to be monitored on their job by timely performance appraisal, punch card and overtime pay)

Later Elton Mayo came in to scene to improve above concept with his Human Relations Theory. He against Taylor remarks and expand ideas on productivities by his infamous Hawthorne Study for Western Electric Company. He delved on how the physical conditions of work effects productivity and came out with findings that Human factors rather than physical working conditions determine worker satisfaction and performance. (It can be observed how ergonomics now being emphasized in factories from the chair, lighting and tables they used in industry).

Change in Nut Shell

It is vividly shown here how important change has become and inevitable in our daily life. Change is not just about new ideas but also useful and for betterment, this meant positive change. In order to achieve this, change has to be plan and manage meticulously so that the impacts are sound and beneficial to society at large. In nutshell ,change is the movement over time from current ways of doing things to new ways of workings.

what is our intention

On my to work, from KL to Gemas , I had opportunity to listen morning motivation  radio program by Ust Ebiet Liew. He brought  topic on how to achieve peace of mind , life contentment and happiness.

As human we constantly need to re- evaluate and rectify our purpose and intention in  life. Most of the times we feel bad and undermine when people start belittling you. If we set in this life  just to achieve God   Will we easily can lead happy life . Problem starts to arise  when we continuously seeking human  pleasure.  We must remember that happiness don't derive from our   wife , kid or mom , but happiness is pursuit of His pleasure.

Our noble religion  continuously urge  to do prayer and invoke to  Him sincerely and not to arrogantly show  our deeds to other people. I'm sure you will feel anxious when your spouse start to grumble over how things she did in the family, as if you have done nothing on your behalf. . Surely anger can easily sparks when we  start throwing all the blames . By seeking His pleasures the perception and paradigm will be entirely different and we become more calm in taking wise decision even situation seems turmoil.

Be like the heart which still beating even though it veils in you . Even you  are in sleep but it still serve and give you life. . If anybody reprimand you,  its not matter  of those did it   but about you and God. Many times in life  we being tested  and remember anything valuable  don't  just fall from the sky. Start telling yourself  we don't need other to  appreciate when we do good  but we do for the sake of pleasing Him.

Always rectify your intention in life . Peel all the hatred in your heart. and  forgive everyone everyday.  Insha Allah.