Changes of Organizations

Changes in Organizations

Change is inevitable as time goes on, and leaders that support change mitigate stifling growth (MacIntyre, 2020). Change may happen in the blink of an eye, but most changes in strategy evolve over time. The United States Military is no stranger to change. The Army specifically has gone under massive renovations since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism. These changes range from enlistment standards, the size of the Army, the Uniform Code of Military Justice changes policy changes, and the way we train and retain.

Inevitable is defined as “incapable of being avoided or evaded” (Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, n.d.). As American society has evolved, it is natural that government agencies and our military will make changes. “Change is the only solution for today’s organizations” (Moradpour et al., 2017, p. 1333). Organizational members that resist change ultimately alienate themselves as evolution occurs. The ‘person-organization value congruence’ is important when achieving strategic goals; however, the buy-in responsibility does not lie solely on the organization leaders (O’Sullivan & Partridge, 2016, p. 282). Employees, or in this case, Soldiers, have a responsibility in their receptiveness to change.

Organizations, especially the larger conglomerates, are the “dominant structures in society” (Scott & Davis, 2016, p. 340). The text goes on to highlight that the organizations that we belong to typically shape a good portion of our lives. The Army has a foundation made of seven values. These values are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. These foundations mold every aspect of Army life, how we conduct business, how we carry ourselves, and how we evolve as a unit. Our honor to live up to all of our values in the Army outweighs any desire to resist change. Soldiers understand that change is in the best interest of all organization members.

The last sixteen months have shown the world that change is inevitable and that resisting change does nothing more than prolong evolution. Children have had to learn the navigate within a virtual classroom, parents have learned how to become teachers, medical protocols have evolved, and the Army has adapted to remaining the premier fighting force while social interaction was restricted. The entire world and all of humanity have experienced change brought on by the same change agent. The global pandemic has pushed everyone beyond their comfort zone, and regardless of political stance or personal belief, we have all evolved from the challenges brought on by this change agent.

Changes in recruitment. The United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) is responsible for filling the ranks within the Army. The Second Indochina War, better known as the Vietnam War, was when young men of fighting age were drafted. However, since 1973 the military has been an all-volunteer force. Recruiting was a function of the Army since 1964 but mainly for processing purposes only. Since 1973, the military has worked tirelessly to create strategies in marketing that showcase the branches of service have ore to offer that a one-way ticket to a war zone. Since September 11th, 2001, the military has had both success and failure with recruitment. There have been periods of time where patriotism has reached an all-time high and additional periods of time where patriotism is hard to spot. In addition to battling an adverse reaction to the multi-global conflicts, and politics the generational divide has also imposed challenges on the Army’s ability to fill its ranks.

Combating the negativity bias of serving in the Army has been an uphill battle. The United States Army is the biggest branch of service. The Army currently sits around having 480,000 men and women, but that number is spread over three different components. The three components are the active duty SOldiers, the reserve Soldiers, and the National Guard. Over the past few years, recruiting goals have not been met, thus requiring a retention strategy to augment our need to fill end strength. The ultimate concern is our adversaries, as pacing threats have assembled large militaries while we have been facing more domestic issues. Our military currently stands at the same size as when our nation was struck on 9/11. Growing the force structure is necessary; therefore, the Army has outsourced to campaign specialists and professionals that specialized in understanding the new generation of Americans.

Millennials were perceived as being difficult in regards to motivating. Millennials are the generation of people born between 1982 and 2000. This generation is labeled as being more tech-savvy, which did not pose a major threat for recruitment. The Army has been at the forefront of technological advancement since the inception of computer technology. Millennials want an environment where collaboration and innovation are appreciated. These were the prime category of people that the ARmy needed during the first ten years of the Global War on Terrorism. A heightened sense of patriotism after the attacks on American soil coupled with the goals of Millenials and the ARmy being in line made recruiting slightly easier than life during a pandemic. Since then, we (Americans) have faced an unprecedented political environment, a deadly virus that has engulfed the world, civil unrest, and a change from Millenials to Gen Z.

Generation Z personnel are the prime age for military entrance. This population is surprisingly larger than the population of Millenials. This generation thrives on social reward and constant affirmation. Many refer to this generation as the trophy generation, as in ‘everyone gets a trophy’. The one surprising factor with this generation is that just over half of the population actually prefer face-to-face interaction. This is useful information when tailoring recruiting efforts. “Recruitment campaigns sell a life choice that requires a commitment of time, autonomy, and personal safety and unavoidably ties with war, violence, and death” (Hakola, 2018, p. 1540). Recruiting strategies aim to motivate a multigenerational workforce while maintaining integrity. The Army works to appeal to all the society needs, generational needs, national security needs, and all while maintaining integrity. The integrity stems from the ‘selling’ of a lifestyle that may result in war, violence, and death. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of war, Soldiers focus on ‘thrilling experiences’ (Hakola, 2018, p. 1557).

Leader development. Investing in the best is a talent management strategy that focuses on retention (Qureshi, 2019). The Army has done a complete overhaul on leader development, promotion, and retention. Over the last three years, the Army has changed the way that senior enlisted members are selected for promotion. In the past, Noncommissioned Officers competing for senior promotions were evaluated by a centralized board composed of panel members of the most senior enlisted rank that share the same career management field. Promotions were based on strong records and a twp year projection on what the Army needed as far as personnel in a specific rank. Now Noncommissioned Officers are evaluated for a ranking, then deleted for promotion as needed by the Army on a quarterly basis. Those that invest personal time in self-development are most competitive for promotion and ultimately retention.

In the 1990s, the Army went through a major force reduction. Post Operation Desert Shield, later named Operation Desert Storm, the Army had an excess of personnel with no imminent threats looming. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Defense was ordered to downsize. The DOD did just that but did not expect that the world would change forever within the next six years. On September 11, 2001, nineteen Al Qaeda members hijacked American planes and conducted suicide missions that struck the twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon, and an additional plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. The war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, and the war in Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The strength of the military, the Army specifically, was not anywhere near the number that we needed during these two conflicts. The military branches promoted service members as needed to fill leadership billets that led men and women into combat operations.

Fast forward twenty years later, and the military looks quite a bit different. The United States has slowly pulled a mass number of service members out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Though we have not completely evacuated, the mission in that part of the world has changed. The aftermath of fast growth and record-breaking promotion rates has left the military as a whole relooking what is important. In the Army, Soldiers were promoted based on stellar combat performance and the need for senior leaders in combat. The opportunity cost has proved to experience that is needed for strategic planning. As our pacing threats have evolved along with technology, the need for more experienced and educated leaders is in high demand. While growing the Army, we also need to grow the leaders within. As the military is faced with challenges with recruiting and the end strength resembles the strength on the day of the 9/11 attacks, the Army is determined to not make the same mistakes with promotions. The Army aims for a more sustainable force of leaders that will have the ability to operate at the same level of competence, whether at home or in combat.

Leader development ranges from institutional training, organizational training to self-development. Institutional training takes place in Army Centers of Excellence (COE), accredited by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET). Organizational training happens in the small units that include Army mandated training and the training that is designed to develop subordinate leaders to eventually be successors. Self-development is the most crucial aspect of leader development. Organizations and career fields mandate what is necessary for service members, but what a service member does on their own is what sets them apart from peers and deems them as competitive in their respective career fields. Promotions have evolved from heavily weighted combat tours to heavily weighted education, both civilian and military. “One size does not fit all in the leadership context” (Germain, 2017, p. 171). One size does not fit all with promotions, and the military has learned that a one-trick pony does not equate to mission success.

Conclusion

Evolution is inevitable. As a leading organization within society, the Army leads the drive towards change as the Army is front and center in the news.” Digitization has drastically changed the way firms interact with consumers and the way they do business” (Kretschmer & Khashabi, 2020, p. 86). Technology is a driving force for the changes within the Army. The technological advances are not only from the home front but also the advancement of our contemporaries. The need for change with how our nation recruits and with how we develop our leaders is more prevalent than ever. Organizations go through change every day, but military changes are more often than not strategically executed as approval for change takes a significant amount of time. The Army employs a rational organization system that has a clear objective that is not only inherent in the role of a Soldier but is also expressed through written order that the Uniform Code of Military Justice upholds. Each step is outlined, explained, and is provided with a resource to aid in execution.

Wisdom and humility are the key elements in change. Wisdom denotes a level of experience that acts as a lubricant during the change process. Humility allows one to express the need to seek wisdom. The story of Solomon is an example of both keys. “God invites us to ask for wisdom, and God loves to give it” (Merida, 2015, p. 23). Experinev provides a level of wisdom that no formal education or military education can provide. The wisdom that Solomon sought was to augment his lack of leadership experience. He ‘demonstrated his humble dependence’ (Merida, 2015, p. 24) with his prayer to God for assistance. Noble leaders exercise humility and forego ego when making a decision that affects more than themselves. The execution of or employing of wisdom sought are the true keys to organizational change. Often leaders will seek guidance for selfish purposes. That purpose is to appear as wanting to self-develop and present the facade of servant leadership. Servant leadership is mistaken with self-serving leadership. In this case, Servant leaders act on behalf of the best outcome for the organization and the employees rather than focusing oneself.

USAREC is the organization charged with providing the strength. The strength, or end strength, is the number of personnel ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America. The burden is heavy, especially when faced with the reality that our nation may face another devasting event. How we recruit, our enlistment standards, how we develop, and how we promote are crucial in our future. The biggest changes create fear and a certain level of discomfort. Then again, growth happens when people are uncomfortable.