Organizational Changes in the Patton (1970) - Movie Review Example

? ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES IN THE MOVIE PATTON Organizational Changes in the Movie Patton (1970) The multi-awarded movie Patton, released in 1970 portrays the strong willpower of a military leader in achieving goals such as defeating the enemy and doing this in the fastest way possible, but not without any insubordinations along the way (Schaffner, 1970). This movie shows the effects of several changes within the structure of the military organization to certain groups of people during the Second World War, and that the changes that happen within the chain of command could affect both the morale of the officers as well as the troops. The movie is able to show not just the character of the main protagonist as being resistant to change, but also his actions that made or broke his career (Schaffner, 1970). Such differential responses to changes within the organization are valuable learning tools for the study of changes. It is very pertinent to study the need for changes inside organizational structures, in this case the military organization as well as within each of its members. This is because more often than not, being unable to respond quickly to changes could result in numerous life-threatening situations that might sway towards defeat (Davies, 2001). The consequences of the protagonist, General Patton reflect the importance of the leaders being flexible and open for changes, as well as accommodating suggestions from other sources such as people with a higher authority. In the movie, there are three key moments that show an organizational change. The first one is when General Patton has to share the command of troops in North Africa with a member of the British Army, General Montgomery, and the former had to outwit and outperform the British General so that he would be recognized as the better man for the job (Schaffner, 1970). The second one that showed an organizational change is when instead of putting General Patton out in the front lines of the German army, he and his troops were sent to England to act as decoys so as to give enemies other ideas of their tactics, not to mention keeping Patton out of the way (Schaffner, 1970). The last organizational change was when Patton was relieved of his military duties, due to his inability to tone down his personal thoughts as well as being tactless in important events such as press conferences (Schaffner, 1970). With the world war already ended, Patton ended up doing nothing else to do but walk his dog, with him becoming a resounding name in the US military history. In all of the three organizational changes, the main protagonist was rather reluctant to adjust according to the changes needed in the tactics that the military had to undertake. As a result, there had been restructurings within the chain of command, even cutting him out of this link just so that the allies could implement their own military strategy. It has been a resounding theme in the movie that Patton is very insubordinate with his superior officers, even defying them blatantly (Schaffner, 1970). His strong resistance to changes may have been effective in some areas, but not to others. Also, such resistance could become a liability in the long run because when it comes to tactics, more often than not those that are able to make minor adjustments stay ahead of the game. Becoming stagnant within a military organization could prove fatal, especially when many lives are at stake (Farrell & Terriff, 2002). Thus, it is just that the superior officers of Patton, President Eisenhower and the former second-in-command, General Bradley initiated changes because aside from keeping the chain of command as structured as possible, by removing factors that could add up to the unpredictability of their tactics the groups could carry out their missions as planned. However, because Patton was undeniably a skilled tank tactician, he was not kept out of missions that much, and in fact Bradley even recommended for him to return to the force and have his services enlisted (Schaffner, 1970). This shows the capacity of allowing minor changes within structures and tactics, if that would mean an improvement in the organization’s plans. The military environment as shown in the movie was able to affect the leaders’ management of changes based on the context during the 1940’s. For example, because the US was one of the members of the Allied Forces, it must not only rely on its own plans, but also to the strategies of the other members of its team. But because it is always expected that the battlefield may not act as similarly in the simulation and strategic planning, there are always some margins allowed for small deviations, which account for minor changes in some of the original plans and tactics (Davies, 2001). Another example of the handling of changes is in the case of keeping the face of US Military by removing a member that brings upon the disgrace, even if the person is a high-ranking official (Schaffner, 1970). Because the environment during the 1940’s requires a person or an organization to maintain a clean and reliable image, in the case of President Eisenhower he had to remove one of his skilled tacticians lest the media start naming the military all sorts of derogatory or insulting names. In my personal opinion, should I have been in the place of any of the military leaders in the movie that would have to handle key events in organizational changes, I would these, as they are things that I may not have full control of, despite being at the topmost portion of the command chain. However, I would also assert my rights to know as to why such things are to be done, as well as putting up my suggested tactics up on the wall, or even agreeing on a compromising deal that would give a win-win solution to all members of the unit. In the case of being in charge of implementing changes, I would employ meetings as well as open communications among unit members about the need for implementing changes, and at the same time giving a leeway of maintaining some tactics which they are familiar to them should things do not turn out according to the original plan. Lastly, if I was in the place of Patton, I would entertain changes in my military tactics, seeking out other possible options aside from pinpointing out the most efficient one, as well as remaining level-headed at all times so that I could choose the appropriate action based on the current environment I am in. This is the essence of being adaptable to change: setbacks would not be that great because all possible scenarios are accounted for, and allowing such margins could make things easy for people in achieving what things are needed to be done, as well as getting the expected results. References Davies, M. (2001). Commanding change: war winning military strategies for organizational change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Farrell, T., & Terriff, T. (2002). The sources of military change: culture, politics, technology. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Schaffner, F. J. (Director). (1970). Patton [Motion Picture]. Read More