Organizational Behavior in the United States Army - Report Example

The HR Problem in the Army Introduction The U.S. Army is that branch of the U.S. armed forces that is charged with land-based military operations. The largest established branch of the military, it is likewise the oldest, predating even our nation’s birth, having been formed as the Continental Army on the 14th of June, 1775. Currently, the Army is composed of three components: the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The reserve components are comprised mainly of part-time soldiers who train one weekend every month (i.e., the Battle Assembly or Unit Training Assemblies), and undergo an additional two weeks annual training. The U.S. Army is under the leadership of the Secretary of the Army, a civilian. The Secretary of the Army reports to the Secretary of Defense, and in turn oversees the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. The Army Chief of Staff, on the other hand, is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who advise the President and the Secretary of Defense on military matters. The Problem Situation The current protracted military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taxed our fighting men to the point that the available manpower strength has been gradually lagging behind the planned requirements for the operations. The Army is having trouble attracting and maintaining the soldiers and officers it needs to sustain its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Dreazen (2008), the Army has fallen short of its target to recruit and keep troops. So far, big cash bonuses (as much as $35,000 each) and other cash incentives are being offered for successful referrals of new recruits; however, the program has only been able to maintain 11,933 captains to commit to an extension of their service; this is short of the goal of 14,184. This means a pay-off of $349 million in bonuses to the officers who opted for the extension. Those who agreed to serve and additional one to three years in the Army comprised 65.6% who were eligible for the program, short of the 80.5% of eligible captains which the Army had intended to retain. The Army hopes to add tens of thousands of soldiers, including thousands of new captains, by 2010, and is ready to put up the necessary resources for the needed incentives program. The heavy reliance on captains may wreak a heavy social toll. Many young captains have had as many as three or four tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, resulting in their having young children they have never seen, or their wives leaving them for another partner because they got tired of waiting for the soldiers to come home. (Dreazen, 2008) With this in mind, the Army seeks to attract new officers via two strategies. The giving of cash bonuses is but one approach. Another would be the promotion of many more officers than usual, probably resulting in virtually all existing lieutenants becoming captains and all presently existing captains becoming majors. At the same time, the military must stem the departure of troops by coming up with incentive schemes to encourage them to remain long-term with the Army. (Dreazen, 2008) On the page following is a diagram showing the levels of Army officers per rank, from the years 2001 to 2005. The chart shows that the requirements per rank are barely complied with. Thus it is thus to be expected that Dreazen’s figures for 2008 would tend to indicate that a slight shortfall has been experienced in 2008. Aside from the bonus paid out for those who opt to extend their active duty, there is also the “$2K Referral Bonus Program”. This program allows Regular Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guards Soldiers, Army retirees and DA civilians the chance to assist with the Army’s recruiting efforts. As the name implies, a single pay-out of not more than $2,000 will be awarded whoever among the former would be able to refer applicants for enlistment in the Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard. For the award to be consummated, the person referred must subsequently enlist and complete Initial Entry Training. (2008 Pocket Recruiter Guide) An article by Baer (2008) also dealt with the shortage, and aside from the cash and bonus incentives for retention, also focused on the revision of promotion policies of the Army as an additional “come-on” to attract and maintain good soldiers for the long term. The Human Resources Command seeks to recruit, train and retain soldiers by modifying policies. The changes are part of Army transformation, designed to streamline the recruitment, training and promotion processes (see diagram on page following). For instance, for Junior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), the new HR program allows specialists and sergeants to be included in the promotable list upon meeting certain promotion point requisites. Under automatic list integration, soldiers who properly qualify need not appear before a promotion board in order to be promoted, which they would have otherwise done following the normal procedure. "We have to support readiness. If these people have been in the Army for that long, they have good records, they served in combat on multiple tours, if we dont recommend them for promotion, theyre going to walk. Theyre going to leave the Army," explained Maj. Michael Croom, sergeant major for the deputy chief of staff for personnel, Department of the Army. (Baer, 2008) Purpose Chart of the U.S. Army Transformation Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Purpose_chart_of_US_Army_ Transformation.jpg Senior NCOs will also benefit from this Army transformation. Under the usual procedure, sergeant majors often have only a few weeks to decide whether to take command sergeant major assignments or not. "In most cases, you either take it, or you come out of the program, and thats not fair to the senior enlisted grades in the Army," Croom said. Under the new procedure, master sergeants who pass the background check and attend school are automatically promoted to sergeant major upon their graduation. They then serve at least one year as a sergeant major before they compete for command sergeant major position. Once selected, command sergeants major are paired with their commanders and attend the Pre-Command Course together, in order for the new command sergeants major to get to know the commanders they will work with; they also have one year to establish command philosophies before arriving at their next assignments. This arrangement also allows spouses and children to meet and get acquainted. (Baer, 2008) Concerning the promotion of army personnel, there is a further irritant secondary to the major problem of soldier retention. In our multi-component unit, it is perceived by most of the soldiers that the rules for promotion, pay, and training are very different between the active and the reserve components, and generally considered unfair. According to law, commissioned officers of the Reserve Components who are listed in the RASL (Reserve Active Status List) are automatically considered for promotion once they have served the required years in grade (Powers, 2008). The reserve soldier trains one weekend and month and 2 weeks out the year. They get their rank much faster, because as explained earlier, promotion is automatic when compliance with the minimum requirements is achieved. Active Duty Soldiers seem to think that this is unfair. The Active Duty and AGR Soldiers work everyday, but their promotion to the next higher rank necessitates an act of Congress. This means that it takes a lot longer for those on active duty to attain the next rank, and is subject to a lot more politics than the promotion of reservists to the next rank. The training program is also significantly quicker for reserve soldiers then Active Duty and AGR Soldiers. Analysis of the Situation: Application of Organizational Behavior Theory Models of Organizational Behavior Incorporated with the analysis will be a brief discussion of the relevant model, theory, and social system. According to Clark (2008), there are four basic models of organizational behaviour. These are the autocratic, custodial, supportive, and collegial models. The Autocratic model has been characterized as the exercise of power, with management leadership oriented on the exercise of authority. The employees respond to this exercise of authority with obedience, their execution aimed at compliance with the orders of the boss. The resulting performance thus satisfies the minimal acceptable level, as exceeding the minimal or introducing creative initiatives may be interpreted as exceeding the authority. The employee seeks only to satisfy his subsistence needs. This model employs almost entirely McGregor’s Theory X. Traditionally also, this model is that most commonly perceived of and attributed to the military service (i.e., the Army). Secondly, the Custodial model is based on economic resources, with management oriented on money. The employees are motivated with the aim of attaining security and benefits with dependence on the organization. Thus performance is anchored on passive cooperation. Third, the Supportive model is based on Leadership, and support is its managerial orientation. The employees are focused towards attaining exemplary job performance through engagement and participation, in order to meet their needs for status and recognition. The result of participation and performance is awakened drives. Finally, the Collegial model finds its basis in partnership between management and employee, with an orientation towards teamwork. The employees satisfy their need for self-actualization through responsible behaviour and self-discipline. The result of the employees’ efforts is moderate and long-term enthusiasm in the attainment of both their personal and the organizational goals. These last three models have varying combinations of Theory X (authoritarian) and Theory Y (participative) styles of management. As mentioned, the Army is most associated with the Autocratic model. This, however, appears to be slowly changing. A cursory survey of literature on military training shows that the trained soldier is afforded a high level of education and training that seeks to maximize his potential. The Army is not comprised of mindless soldiers who blindly follow orders as Hollywood and stereotype would have us believe. The Army as an organization is composed of highly competent men and women who rely on values to guide their judgment and actions. Each soldier is expected to abide by a code of professional ethics, grounded on seven values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. The 2008 Pocket Recruiter Guide is so emphatic on the multifaceted strength of the Army that it bears reproducing here, in order to demonstrate the culture pervading the U.S. Army: “ARMY STRONG “There is strong. And then there’s Army Strong. Army Strong is a unique brand of strength. Everyone is familiar with the tangible power of the U.S. Army: the Apaches, the Humvees, the weaponry, the push-ups. This campaign highlights the true strength of our Army — the strength that lies within each and every Soldier. It is harder to see, but it is the strength that makes the U.S. Army the preeminent land power on Earth. “Being Army Strong is about much more than being physically fit. It is mental and emotional strength. It is the confidence to lead. It is the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It is the compassion to help others. It is the desire for lifelong learning. It is the intelligence to make the right decision. It is making a difference for yourself, your family, your community and our nation. “Army Strong is also the kind of strength that endures. It is the strength that comes form challenging training, teamwork, shared values and personal experience. A Soldier’s time in the Army may come to an end, but he or she will always be Army Strong because the lessons learned and the values gained are timeless. They will serve as a springboard to life beyond the Army and will last long after physical strength fades. “The Army is successful in its mission because of the strength of its Soldiers. The Army Strong campaign exists to honor this simple fact.” (2008 Pocket Recruiter Guide) Social system, culture and individualization The above values and orientation of the soldier in the U.S. Army is indicative of the social system, culture and level of individualization in the organization. According to Clark (2008), all organizations operate within the framework of a social system, which is comprised of the cumulative, complex social relationships of all its stakeholders. The organization’s culture is that which is accepted as conventional behaviour by the social system, and includes beliefs, customs, knowledge and practices. It guides peoples’ behaviour and thus lends stability and flexibility to the organization. Part of the organization’s culture is the system’s tolerance (or encouragement) of individualization. When individuals are allowed to exert significant influence in an organization, they in effect challenge the prevailing culture. This could be either a destabilizing factor, as in an organization that is patterned after the authoritative model; or a factor that enhances growth and dynamism, such as in an organization that emphasizes on initiative and creativity. The blend of socialization and individualization creates different effects in an organization. This is depicted in Schein’s diagram on the page following. When there is too little of both socialization and individualization, the result is cultural isolation of employees. Where socialization is high but individualization is low, conformity is created. Conversely, when socialization is low but individualization is high, rebellion results. When both individuali-zation and socialization are high, creative individualism is fostered, which is normally ideal for a business organization in a competitive environment. In the armed forces, one cannot be separated from the group. The very mandate of the function of the Army, for instance, is for the individuals to act as an integrated whole in the accomplishment of the mission. In other words, the degree of socialization in the Army must always be high. This does not negate the degree of individualization, however. The recent initiatives of the Transformation program and the values and ethics by which each soldier is expected to abide shows that the degree of engagement of the individual is indeed high. Thus in the diagram below, there are two alternative open to the U.S. Army in developing its culture: that of conformity, or creative individualism. It is to the best interest of the Army that the blend of policies should encourage a midpoint between the two – with a healthy level of conformity and a reasonable measure of creative individualism where such could be tolerated. Source: Schein, 1968 as cited in Clark, 2008 Motivation Recalling the problem of retention and recruitment being experienced in the Army, it is imperative that if the service were to recruit and retain competent men and women for the long term, there is a need to pay attention to the social and psychological needs of the individual, especially giving importance to recognition of achievement. For the purpose of this situation, it is ideal to consider the Motivation Theory of Frederick Herzberg (otherwise known as the Hygiene/Motivation Theory). This theory is based on the precept that people are truly happy when they experience work accomplishment. Thus, people work first and foremost to satisfy their personal interests, and through this maintain a level of mental health. Needs are classified into two types: animal needs (hygiene factors), which include salary, working conditions, interpersonal relations and the need for supervision; and human needs (motivators) – include the need for recognition, for meaningful work, for exercise of responsibility and attainable prospects for advancement. Unsatisfactory hygiene factors can act as de-motivators, in which case resentment or resistance are created in the person. However, when hygiene factors are satisfied, they have negligible effect as motivators. On the other hand, the absence of motivators (fulfilment of animal needs) do not necessarily de-motivate, but their presence creates powerful encouragement for people to improve their performance. In the case of the Army, in Dreazen’s article it was shown that the offer of substantial bonuses and monetary awards are not sufficient to entice the necessary number of soldiers to extend their stay in the service, creating the shortfall. This is indicative of the fact that certain needs of soldiers, other than the physiological, are not being met during their stay in the service. Material sufficiency (that addresses the hygiene factors or “animal needs”) The chances that their children are born and grow up without them, or that their spouses file for divorce or take new partners, are devastating consequences for the military personnel’s choice to extend their service. These and similar incidents violate the soldiers’ need for security and the company of their loved ones – a human need. Another de-motivator for most military service personnel are the inequitable treatment of active duty vis-à-vis promotions. This is best addressed by the Equity Theory, developed by John Stacey Adams in 1963. The name implies “fairness”, and it calls for a fair balance to be maintained between an employee’s inputs (hardwork, level of skill, enthusiasm, effort, loyalty, etc.) and his outputs (salary, benefits, recognition, etc.) When the employee perceives an unfair, or disadvantageous, balance between his inputs and outputs, he experiences de-motivation, that may manifest itself as reduced effort, becoming disgruntled or, worse, disruptive, even to the point to separation from the organization in the extreme. (Mind Tools, 2009) Adam’s Equity Theory thus extends beyond the individual worker, and incorporates the influences and comparison of others’ (such as peers, friends or colleagues) situations, in forming a comparative perception of what is fair. In the case of the disparity in promotion procedures between the active duty and reserve soldiers, it is possible that the upper echelons see the reserve soldiers as requiring a greater incentive to remain within the service or revert to active duty. This is because as far as they are concerned, the Army competes with the reservists’ civilian careers, which inevitably provides a greater attraction because of family security, personal safety, and greater personal freedom. The ties that bind the reserve soldier to the Army are less tenable than those who are in active duty and thus already committed full-time to the service. This, however, does not provide a valid excuse. The full-time, fully-committed Active Duty Soldier is entitled to the same, if not greater, recognition than the Reserve Soldier. This is squarely within the application of the Equity theory. To maintain proper motivation, promotion prospects (“outputs”) should be commensurate to the effort exerted (“inputs”) by the individual. Thus, if the Reserve Soldier is entitled to promotion by operation of law, thus the Active Duty Soldier should likewise be entitled. The preceding diagram visually depicts the balance that should exist “in equity” between effort and reward. In an effective incentive plan, the weights should be perceived as either balanced (“fair”) or favourable to the persons made the subject of the program. Conclusion: The U.S. Army is faced with the problem of retaining its current complement of soldiers and attracting new recruits, in order to satisfactorily meet its human resources requirement for future operations. Despite the offer of substantial monetary awards, the HR programs have been unsuccessful in attracting and retaining the needed personnel. Furthermore, perceived inequities in promotions of Active Duty and Reserve Soldiers have fostered discontent among the former. Because of this, it is likely that demotivation may result and further attrition experienced among the present personnel complement. Upon closer analysis, it is perceived that the U.S. Army is undertaking a Transformation process by which it is comprehensively modifying its organization towards greater effectivity and efficiency. Recent changes made to the promotions process for non-commissioned officers have been initiated, and it is likely that other similar initiatives would be undertaken. The fact that the Army is taking an integrated approach towards updating and realigning its policies and procedures is a welcome indication that it is open to change. Hopefully, even as the Army provides for its Soldiers’ basic physiological needs, the changes to be adopted will fully address their higher psychological and social needs for security, safety, and self-actualization, and their perception of fairness in the recognition and just reward of their efforts. Appendix Motivation theories (Source” http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/a_motivation.htm)     Here are academic theories about motivation as quoted from above site. Acquired Needs Theory: we seek power, achievement or affiliation. Affect Perseverance: Preference persists after disconfirmation. Attitude-Behavior Consistency: factors that align attitude and behavior. Attribution Theory: we need to attribute cause, that supports our ego. Cognitive Dissonance: non-alignment is uncomfortable. Cognitive Evalution Theory: we select tasks based on how doable they are. Consistency Theory: we seek the comfort of internal alignment. Control Theory: we seek to control the world around us. Disconfirmation bias: Agreeing with what supports beliefs and vice versa. ERG Theory: We seek to fulfill needs of existence, relatedness and growth. Escape Theory: We seek to escape uncomfortable realities. Expectancy Theory: We are motivated by desirable things we expect we can achieve. Extrinsic Motivation: external: tangible rewards. Goal-Setting Theory: different types of goals motivate us differently. Intrinsic Motivation: internal: value-based rewards. Investment Model: our commitment depends on what we have invested. Opponent-Process Theory: opposite emotions interact. Reactance Theory: discomfort when freedom is threatened. Self-Determination Theory: External and internal motivation. Self-Discrepancy Theory: we need beliefs to be consistent. Side Bet Theory: aligned side-bets increase commitment to a main bet. The Transtheoretical Model of Change: Stages in changing oneself. REFERENCES Baer, R. (2008) Army streamlines process for some. 20 March 2008. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Businessballs.com, Adams’ Equity Theory. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Clark, D. (2008). Organizational Behavior. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Dreazen, Y. J. (2008). “Army Effort to Retain Captains Falls Short of Goal”. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 26 Jan.2008, Vol. 251 Issue 21. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Mangelsdorff, A.D. (2009) Organizational Behavior and Theory. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Mind Tools, Adam’s Equity Theory. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Nall, D.L. (2005) “Developing Leaders in the Army Reserve”, USAWC Strategy Research Project. U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Powers, R. (2008). “Army Guard/Reserve Commissioned Officer Career Information, Promotion Selection Eligibility”, USMilitary.About.Com. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Powers, R. (2008). “Military Commissioned Officer Promotions”, USMilitary.About.Com. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Schein, E. (1968). “Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management”, Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. United States Army, (2008). The 2008 Pocket Recruiter Guide Wright, R. (1983), “June 14th: The Birthday of the U.S. Army”, The Continental Army, Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, pp. 23-24. Retrieved 20 July 2009 from Read More