There is critical need to ensure transformative change in the US Armed Forces through the training and development of managers. Over the years, leaders within the organization were brought about by their experiences in tackling wars and overcoming the enemy. In this regard, it is evident that the practice was a reactive method of identifying leaders in the force. The emergence of training and development measures will be integral to the realization of highly skilled and talented leaders. When one thinks of leaders in the Armed Forces, one usually picture individual who are old and beyond their time. However, through training and development of managers for tomorrow, the US Armed Forces will have energetic men and women ready to tackle any obstacle they may encounter. Current changes in the modern society will also put pressure on the organization as women and other discriminated groups in the community will be given opportunities to lead.
Background
The US Armed Forces for the entire duration of over 240 years of existence has been recognized as an institution of developing and providing leaders and soldiers with a high moral standing who serve their country selflessly. The ingenuity, indomitable spirit, and heroism portrayed by the soldiers even in the most difficult situations is a clear measure of the capability of the leaders in the face of the worst possible situations (Okunogbe, Bannon, & Myatt, 2017). The commitment to achieve freedom in 1775, uniting the Nation during the US Civil War, World War I and II, and the Vietnam War are just some of the major world events that the leaders in the US Armed Forces have shown their true capability. In each scenario, the primary determinant for the meeting the security challenges have been the Armed Forces. Since the turn of the 21 st Century, the operational requirements of the US Armed Forces have changed drastically including peacekeeping and rescues in high intensity conflict areas. The organization is experiencing major reductions in terms of its budget and will require major changes to training and development of managers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Systems Thinking
The information age has seen a high level of interdependent nature of events. In this case, components within the environment should not be investigated individually rather a system thinking approach should be adopted where the interactions between components are studied (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). Systems can either be relatively closed or open where the latter depicts the nature of the Armed Forces. The relatively open systems have an effect on the organization’s external environment while the reverse is also true (Okunogbe, Bannon, & Myatt, 2017). The US Armed Forces encounter open systems from the high levels of bureaucracy to the battlefield. Systems thinking also points out the emergence of complex adaptive systems (CAS) which is adaptive (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016), self-organizing, vulnerable to minor events, and sensitive to initial conditions. The required strategy of transformation within the Armed Forces should take into consideration the interactions of organizational components rather than focusing on just one.
The systems thinking approach shows that the problems arising in one area may be a result of issues in another. For instance, the identity crisis of the US Military in the Post-Cold War era is an indicator of the fact that there is need to change training programs such that the troops have an identity independent of wars. The US Armed Forces should be able to create results that they truly desire through establishing a learning organization approach (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). Hereby, each of the numerous components of the society look towards understanding its various issues and providing solutions that will benefit the military as a whole. The approach will take identify the need for talented leaders who require the highest level of training with limited resources (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). The systems thinking also evaluates the nature of the world events in terms of upcoming terror groups and advancement of technologies in ensuring that their military personnel are not left behind in the changes taking place.
Focus of Systemic Transformational Change
The US Armed Forces assigns leaders under the basis of competency. The leader must develop knowledge and skills that will help accomplish the mission of their roles. For instance, a leader in tactical warfare will have to understand the various techniques incorporated by the US in previous offensive events and the changes that have taken place overtime. Therefore, technical competence will be of great importance in becoming a leader (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). The trait is not enough as one should demonstrate high level of character where the individual’s worldview, values, and personal nature is of great importance. He or she must demonstrate the need to serve the nation selflessly and not demonstrate reluctance to obey commands. Ability to withstand the challenging conditions during the training process is integral to attain the role.
In systemic transformational change, the primary aim is to influence change to the entirety of the organization. The US Armed Forces is described as one with a history of educational excellence (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). However, knowledge and skills are highly perishable. If the skills learned are not used today, they will be gone and forgotten tomorrow. The 21 st Century is seen as a world experiencing drastic changes within a short period of time. As a result, leaders with the organization should note that all component part of the Armed Forces will require regular and transformational change in their techniques (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). Each department will need to acquire knowledge differently and acquire it fast to implement it at the appropriate time. In this regard, the BE component of the military is the most important as those who have just the right character can effectively adopt the various transformations.
Initiating Change
As mentioned earlier, the US Armed forces is depicted as a relatively open system consisting of a group of interrelated, interacting, and interdependent components. Therefore, once there are changes or significant events occurring in one area, it is likely that the effects will be felt in all affected parts (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). The current officer personnel legislation was established based on experiences of World War II as effective measures of coping with the Cold War. In this case, a large number of troops was necessary to initiate competitive advantage in terms of numbers. The Cold War led to significant reduction in officer corps as there was a change in national security and the military strategy (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). Congress along with the department of Defense called for proper management of officers as an effective measure of coping with the changing times.
The events of the post-Cold War era are an indicator of the drastic nature of changes that may affect military organization. To initiate change, it essential that the government through Congress sets up policies of reviewing technical and tactical practices of the armed forces (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). The fundamental examination will be geared towards improving the nature of strategies as well as the technical capabilities of the troops. The process of initiating change will require critical focus on ensuring operational effectiveness. The practice is more appropriate that just reducing the funding to the military (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). Transformation will also look towards empowering line personnel by setting up clear expectations and holding them accountable for their achievement. This approach is preferred to the traditional transformation program that utilizes a project team. Additionally, while initiating transformation, it is particularly important that one resists the urge to make shuffles within the organization (Okunogbe, Bannon, & Myatt, 2017). The most important factor would be securing a major will that will bring momentum of the program. This will compel majority of the personnel to embrace the change and enable its smooth transition into the next phase.
Assessing the Impact of Change
The Army Leader Development Strategy (ALDS) 2013 is a fundamental framework that enables the US Armed Forces to identify the approaches to make during the process of transition. It serves as a road-map with clear identification of development and training of leaders to meet the challenges facing the nation. Leader development is seen as a deliberate, progressive, and continuous practice that mold soldiers into competent and committed professional leaders with character of Army standards (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). The Army Leadership Requirements Model is used in the ALDS as a means of measuring the expected competencies and attributes of every leader (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). To ensure all the traits are met, leaders experience career-long synthesis training, education, and experience. The institutional, operational, and self-development domains are supported by peer and developmental relationships to achieve the set goals (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). The strategy can only work when the firm begins with identifying those with highest leadership potential. In this regard, unique talents, skills, attributes, and behaviors should be recognized early in their careers and progressing well into the future.
It is important that the US Armed Forces conduct a review of the impact the training and development of managers has had on the organization as a whole. As mentioned earlier, the military is recognized for its open systems where it can not only influence the internal environments but also the external ones too. The transformational change is intended to be an effective means of improving the efficiency of the troops (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). In this case, tasks that were carried out within 30 days should be reduced significantly. Regular audits of the program should be observed such that the organization can make the necessary corrections to revert back to the road-map set. It is noted that there are cases where implemented change may be resisted and may hinder the achievement of the set goals.
Facilitating Change
One of the major challenges of enforcing transformational change in the military mind is getting the old beliefs and practices out. The size, complexity, and culture of the Armed Forces make it almost difficult to enforce change. Despite widespread awareness of such practices, defense leaders will usually underestimate the degree of resistance that they might face (Chinn, & Dowdy, 2014). As a result, a plan of overcoming the resistance should be instituted to minimize its effect. Successful leaders of transformation incorporate an end-to-end approach to overcome the resistance.
There are two major ways in which the facilitator to the change implement. To begin with, a clear vision and ambition of the transformation should be set. In particular, it should be one that emphasizes the link to the overall mission of the organization, clarifies need for the program, and outlines a journey map that is clearly known among the troops (Chinn, & Dowdy, 2014). The success of such a structure is evident in the Danish Defense that restructured to take a more expeditionary posture leading to reduced support costs by a third. Additionally, the Danish military was able to achieve the set goals within four years as highlighted when the transformation began.
Such practices in the military are particularly important for the US Armed Forces especially since the recent administrations have called for reduced expenditure in military practices. The saved monetary funds can be redirected into more important and crucial operations for the deployable forces (Okunogbe, Bannon, & Myatt, 2017). Therefore, the second measure that military leaders may use in the transformation process will include the provision of visible and credible support to the changes made. In this case, the top leaders are the most likely to resist change as they believe experience trumps new ideas brought by the young leaders (Chinn, & Dowdy, 2014). However, in review of the primary mission of the Armed Forces which is to serve the nation, they will identify this process as an integral factor realizing a stronger structure capable of coping with future challenges. The top-level leadership are essential in the swift enforcement of the change while minimizing expected resistance.
Developing Political Support for Change
The US Congress is an integral part of the various activities and operations that the Armed Forces undertake. It is evident that the military cannot undertake major missions without approval from the Congress. In the year 2004, the 9/11 Commission found out that the government is to blame for failure to anticipate and respond to terrorist attacks on that fateful day (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). The findings were a means of highlighting the broader issues on the managements of problems associated with the 21 st Century (Misra, & Maxwell, 2016). The transformation of the military through training and development of leaders is a critical issue of concern that requires the associated political leaders to support it (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). Such practices may bring about positive influence in the implementation of the change as it will meet less resistance from the soldiers and associated civilians. Additionally, support may come in the form of additional funds will be integral in the development of course module such that it suits the modern issues that soldiers encounter. Funds from the government will ease opinions that are raised against the transformational program.
Expanding Mind-Sets
The arduous process of changing the practices that have become a norm in the US Armed Forces is likely to cause significant resistance from the individual members. Recent evidence is seen back in 2000 when the US Army’s Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki delivered a speech on various changes that would take place (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). Among them were readiness reporting system, increased size of the personnel to alleviate deployment strain, and improvements to the beleaguered medical system in the military (Dilanian, &Akiwowo, 2016). However, an afterthought announcement was that all soldiers would be issued with a black beret. The aftermath made it seem as though all other transformative changes were irrelevant as the protests followed almost immediately (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). Congress was forced to intervene and a slight nudge from White House would put the plan on hold. This incident is critical to help understand why broadening mindsets is important.
The primary reason for the difficulty in changing Army minds is the frames of reference. These are the complex knowledge structures usually acquired from personal and professional experiences that influence and limit how individuals approach issues (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). In this regard, to broaden the mindsets of the associated military troops, it is important to conduct self-awareness at the individual level. Army leaders and their subordinates will learn and understand how they process information and its influence on the beliefs they hold (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). Additionally, the use of feedback instruments that seek out opinions of will help improve possibility of changing one’s mindset. Another recommendation includes broadening where dissonance is forced on Army officers to ensure they expand their ways of thinking opening them up to embrace transformative changes in the organization.
Planning Systemic Transformational Change
The proposed transformational change in the US Armed Forces involves training and development of managers. As noted in the previous section, senior leaders in the Army are highly resistant to change and may push back at attempts to eradicate the traditional practices. However, with the multiple techniques highlighted on changing their mindsets, it is now possible to progress to the next phase, planning. At this stage, it is essential that a clear vision and concept be established in regards to the transformational change that will take place (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). Leaders who are now in support of the change will assemble a planning team who will take charge in putting the concept into action. Although the leaders will still maintain control over making the important decisions, it is essential that they provide guidance in launching efforts of change, synchronize progress, and measure the impact.
Demonstrating Disposition for Change Leadership
Leadership in the US Armed Forces, like any other organization has the ability to influence operations and overall performance. In the process of process of training and developing managers, Army leaders have the ability to influence the subordinates and realize positive outcomes. Disposition refers to the inherent qualities of the mind and character of an individual (Gerras, & Wong, 2013). In regards to this research, it identifies the need for army leaders to portray behavior that advocates for transformational changes within the organization. The traits ensure that there is minimal resistance while encouraging young soldiers and civilians to step up in the pursuit of future leadership roles. The leaders will also demonstrate an open mindset to allowing young soldiers to take up leadership roles.
Mastering the Art and Science of Systemic Transformational Change
The 21 st Century has largely been depicted as a period of rapid change within in all sectors of modern life. The Armed Forces is no exception to that trend as the knowledge learned today will be old news in just a matter of time. The old guard that includes army leaders who are resistant to the transformations taking place will prove to be a stumbling block in moving forward. However, once all associated personnel have bought into the idea of transformation and witnessed the positive outcomes, it is now an issue of how to sustain it. The leaders who have a mastery of the art and science of systemic transformational change will be at the fore of sustaining its continued occurrence. Courage, vision, and passion in organizational transformation will be a necessary trait in the leader. Three set of skills should be mastered to fully grasp systemic transformational change. First is the “Mastery of awareness” that involves developing skills in collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting on the required data to draw people toward change. Secondly, “Mastering deliberate intention” which involves skills in the creation and communication of compelling vision that is desirable for the future of the US Armed Forces. Finally, “Mastering methodology” that pertains to enhancing skills in application of methodology that are designed to create and sustain systemic transformational changes.
Planned and Unplanned Change Processes within a Learning Organization
It is not always that the changes taking place in an organization are a result of the direction given by administrators. Unplanned changes usually occur randomly and have a disruptive effect on the organization as a whole. The Armed Forces seldom experience unplanned changes as all of its operations are meticulously planned. However, in the event that they occur, they can arise from interpersonal conflict where various leaders in the organization may resist change. High ranking officers should be able to recognize the incidence of unplanned change and take significant measures to mitigate its effect. The officers should undertake the roles of cultural guardians as well as cultural catalysts whereby they influence eradication of past practices while enforcing the new strategies.
Stakeholder Behaviors in Response to Change
In the US Armed Forces, there are numerous stakeholders meaning their behaviors will contrast in response to change. For instance, the high-ranking officials will demonstrate mixed feelings towards the change. Although the training and development is beneficial to the army, it would mean that their jobs are under threat and could be replaced in no time. The young soldiers will demonstrate eagerness to take the opportunity of becoming future leaders. However, some may be reluctant fearing retaliation from their superiors when they challenge them. Political leaders will identify the importance of transformational change as it aligns the skills and competencies of the Armed Forces to tackle the problems facing the nation.
Behavior and Targets for Performance
Once change efforts have been launched, it is evident that the various stakeholders will interact in an effort to attain the set goals. The senior leaders of the Army will engage in collaborative efforts with their subordinates. The training and development process are critical to the future of the army. Therefore, it is expected that the young learners will receive assignments of different structure and scope as they are tested for their grasp of the content. In this regard, the primary aim is for all soldiers to understand that learning is a career-long practice essential to improve the individual as well as the organization as a whole. Additionally, this systemic transformational change is intended to bring about broadened mind-sets that are more receptive towards current and future change practices.
Strategies to Facilitate Change in Learning Organizations
Educational excellence is a trait that is closely associated with the US Armed forces. However, there are various practices that are cemented into the culture and traditions of the organizations. To facilitate change in the learning organization, there are various strategies that may be employed. The first is starting off at the sharp end with the aim of maintaining operational effectiveness creating stronger engagement and acceptance of change. Secondly, line personnel are tasked with empowering line personnel by setting clear expectations and holding them accountable (Chinn, & Dowdy, 2014). It is at this point that transformation will require resistance to reorganize the organization and instead start off with securing positive outcomes associated with the change. To enforce change, one has to expect and develop a plan to overcome resistance to change through broadening mind-sets (Chinn, & Dowdy, 2014). Finally, the organization will invest in building the capabilities of the junior staff as they work towards developing a workforce that can eradicate the challenges faced in the 21 st Century.
References
Chinn, D. & Dowdy, J. (2014) Five principles to manage change in the military . McKinsey & Company, Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/five-principles-to-manage-change-in-the-military
Dilanian, A., &Akiwowo, T. (2016). Improving Army readiness for the 21st century . Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/169567/improving_army_readiness_for_the_21st_century
Gerras, S. J., & Wong, L. (2013). Changing minds in the army: Why it is so difficult and what to do about it. Army War College Carlisle Barracks PA. Strategic Studies Institute.
Misra, S. & Maxwell, J. (2016) Three Keys to Unlocking Systems-Level Change . Stanford Social innovation Review, Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/three_keys_to_unlocking_systems_level_change
Okunogbe, A., Bannon, B. L., & Myatt, C. A. (2017). Identifying Promising Approaches to US Army Institutional Change: A Review of the Literature on Organizational Culture and Climate . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1588.html
