Change Management: The Irish Defence Forces Re-Organisation 2012 - Literature review Example

Change Management: The Irish Defence Forces Re-Organisation BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Change Management: The Irish Defence Forces Re-Organisation 2012 Introduction A recognised defence budget of €688 million for 2012 was insufficient to sustain previous organisational structure for the Irish Defence Forces, leading to sweeping changes that include task role consolidation, facilities divestiture, and reduction of combat service and support units. Concurrently, the organisation intends to maintain its previous commitment to effectively maintaining arms capability and sustaining military strength even with a reduced volume of Brigade personnel. In most non-military organisational models, significant reductions in facility and personnel volume create complications to change implementation, ranging from tangible resource inefficiency to human capital-related declines. It is often through emergent learning that efficiencies, change commitment, and new best practice are realised, meaning that change management can be an elongated, experiential learning experience. However, the dynamics of the Irish Defence Forces as a public service organisation and one with considerable operational transparency to external stakeholders forbids lack of capacity to implement a rapid and successful change program. Inefficiencies, change resistance, lack of productivity, and poor resource utilisation pose substantial risks to the Irish people, thus demanding competence from all internal stakeholders and systems to ensure satisfactory protectionism. The physical restructuring of the organisation is not the most critical dimension when attempting to examine change projects and the consequences of sweeping organisational restructuring and personnel downsizing. The human behavioural characteristics associated with perceptions and attitudes regarding the change will significantly impact whether the change project meets with rapid and long-term positive outcomes. This essay examines change management as it applies to the Irish Defence Forces, the principles and best practice models available to ensure successful change implementation, and proposes effective strategies to reduce change in order to guarantee stakeholder commitment to satisfying change imperatives. Towards a best practice model of change management Change management takes many forms, however the process generally includes reorganisation of personnel, resources or work teams from a previous state to a future, desired state. Examples of changes occurring with the organisation that require a change management approach include alterations to existing mission and vision, operational changes, technological implementation, or ensuring attitudinal changes of key personnel. Change management is about ensuring proper alignment between strategic expectations and human interaction within a change model to ensure commitment, efficiency, and human productivity. Change management removes potential distractions occurring within the organisational environment in order to maximise the benefits of a desired change program (Kotter 2011, p.54). The human behavioural components of a change management program and their influence in whether the concept meets with short- and long-term success cannot be over-stated. In the case of the Irish Defence Forces, routine budgetary analyses determined the most efficient and cost-effective methodology of restructuring support teams and facilities, which led to a new organisational model that was logical and competent in terms of physical resource reallocation. However, in a message to troops by Lt. Gen. Sean McCann, he spelled out many concerns that could arise from the change program, which required establishing divisional champions to take account for a variety of diverse stakeholder problems (Defence Forces Ireland 2012). In the same message, McCann identifies the potential problems that can impact personnel and family members, intimating that the change program could create a variety of psychologically-based or sociologically-based problems that will be addressed by the Defence Forces Implementation Group assigned to champion problem resolution outside of physical resource allocation. McCann’s acknowledgement of the need to address complex problems stemming from the reorganisation iterates the importance, when attempting to determine a best practice model of change management, of giving special emphasis to satisfying characteristics stemming from human behaviour. Grieves (2010, p.8) pronounces that change must be negotiated between stakeholders in the organisation in order to gain commitment to a change process. Ideologically, negotiation would include such factors as shared decision-making or establishment of socially-reciprocal relationships in order to build a team methodology supportive of a change program. However, the Irish Defence Forces, as with many militaristic organisations, are very rigid, structured hierarchies with very clear and distinct chains of command and authority, thus creating conflict in establishing a consensus-based program of change. To gain consensus, theoretically necessary to fulfil human motivation and establishment of a positive attitude toward change, this would require the Irish Defence Forces to break down very critical tiers of authority that are necessary to ensure compliance and behavioural obedience. The development of the Defence Forces steering group was launched to ensure that proper transitions to the change process were occurring according to strategic intention, thus facilitating a more cooperative methodology of change and also establishment of an appropriate evaluation system to identify potential problems with the restructuring processes. Bridges (1991, p.87) refers to change as transition, defined as the psychological processes that individuals experience while attempting to adjust to a change program and new operational situations. In the case of the IDF, personnel are accustomed and trained to function under rigid and autocratic management systems which would seem, theoretically, to drive much more legitimate compliance to change demands. Operant conditioning theory in psychology, as one example, indicates that such compliance behaviours are the product of reinforcing consequence for undesired behaviours (Weiten and Lloyd 2005, p.211). Operant conditioning is a common obedience training tactic utilised by militaristic regimes, often designed to drive out pre-existing negative attitudes and behaviours that pose risk to establishing a readiness force in this type of public service environment. What makes the Irish Defence Forces case study so unique is that operant conditioning and other compliance-generating authoritarian systems are not generally present in decentralised organisational environments outside of military services organisations. Theoretical literature on change management strongly indicates such dimensions as establishing shared decision-making, social and professional inter-group consultations, and attempting to inspire motivation through leadership practices. Whatever the non-military organisational change strategy, best practice in change management nearly consistently and recurrently articulates the need for psychological and sociological reinforcements to gain change commitment and dedication (Fairholm 2009; Kotter 1996). Thus, theoretically, the Irish Defence Forces should have a rather uncomplicated and painless methodology in place to ensure effortless success in achieving successful change by utilising pre-existing autocratic systems with clear reward and punishment structures established. In an environment where catering to every emotional response from disgruntled or unhappy service personnel at the IDF would complicate management processes, maintaining confidentiality, or ensuring obedience necessary for service readiness, existing management methodology of top-down control would seem to be the most appropriate for successful change management. This system of control, however, that negates human behavioural needs is consistently reinforced by organisational theorists as being ineffective under best practice of change management. According to the eight-point change management model offered by Kotter (1996, p.55), the business must consistently iterate mission and vision, create stakeholder empowerment, and open lines of communication in order to gain change commitment. Thus, best practice in change management is to create an organisational culture that is dedicated to meeting vision and mission goals whereby these values and behaviours are disseminated throughout the entire organisation and where employees are given opportunities to share in knowledge transfer and shared decision-making. We can look toward examples from the United States military, as one reference, to understand whether autocratic management systems or liberal managerial policy is more effective during change practices. After failing to satisfy the military objectives during the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army went through a similar downsizing and restructuring effort as the resources required for war and volume of service personnel were no longer required. This structural and staffing reorganisation was governed under highly political and bureaucratic management systems, which led to increased hostility between service personnel and declines in ethical behaviour (Riker-Coleman 1998, p.9). Officers and service personnel were allowed to carry the perception that colleagues were utilising political power within the organisational model to take advantage of career advancement opportunities. Concurrently, internal de-motivation was being experienced by the U.S. Army as a result of failing to meet objectives in Vietnam, leading to mistrust, backbiting, and dishonest behaviours (Riker-Coleman 1998, p.9). Old and established organisations, such as the U.S. Army, lack flexibility which leads to a type of inertia that impedes acceptance of internal transformation. It is the homogeneity of stakeholder attitudes and beliefs about the change that will impact whether team-based commitment to meeting change imperatives will be realised. In the case of the U.S. Army, the organisation had no choice but to accept a more transformational model of organisation since the pervading negative stakeholder sentiment throughout the entire model was conflicting successful change utilising traditional autocratic management systems. The case of the U.S. Army is decidedly important in the pursuit of identifying a relevant best practice model of change management that can be utilised in a militaristic organisation. There was a pervasive, widespread belief in multiple ranks of authority that believed political actors were abusing their power resources in order to gain favour from influential members of Congress and other stakeholders (Riker-Coleman 1998, p.16). Coupled with negative attitudes from lack of complete militaristic victory in Vietnam established an organisational culture with little more than concern for sustaining individual needs rather than focusing on collectivist strategies to improve the organisation. In the end, the U.S. Army had no choice but to adopt models of leadership tingeing on transformational leadership, one in which models of coaching and relationship development are paramount concepts (Fairholm 2009; Schlosberg 2006). With acknowledgement that the United States Army could no longer ensure compliance to change needs through dictatorial systems common in the militaristic organisation and was forced to adopt a more transformational model, this could be a predictor of success probability for the Irish Defence Forces reorganisation plan. Unfortunately for analysis purposes, the change is relatively new, only announced in mid-2012, and whether such change experienced resistance is not publicised in available literature sources. For a company that maintains such a powerful public image, transparent in a variety of media sources, to publicise inefficiencies associated with human behavioural problems or lack of commitment would create perceptions of mistrust and incompetence from those stakeholders in society that rely on efficiency and productivity within the public service model. However, it should be highlighted that the IDF did establish a supplementary team to handle the multitude of problems or concerns that might stem from service personnel, thus allocating labour and tangible resources to the human resources function. This is where the Irish Defence Forces and the U.S. Army differ, IDF seems to recognise the importance of removing potential mistrust and hostility early in the change implementation process to ensure that a culture of de-motivation does not get constructed. Why is this so critical to ensuring change? Lientz and Rea (2005, p.68) iterate that “fear of change is contagious”, and will actively project these fears upon others, thus creating a culture of fear if allowed to pervade the organisation and impact relationships. The Irish Defence Forces senior leadership, without breaking down necessary layers of autocratic leadership, manage to open effective lines of communication that illustrate personnel empathy and willingness to provide support in the event of problems occurring (either behaviourally or resource-based) as it relates to the change. The IDF, as compared to the U.S. Army, took a more appropriate and theory-supported approach to ensuring that a culture of fear or mistrust was not developed which is more in-line with models of best practice in change management methodology. Utilisation of appropriate media sources to release statements stemming from senior management in the IDF illustrate adherence to best practice models of change management by opening lines of communication and also iterating vision or mission principles to obtain cultural support internally, identifiable with Lt. Gen. McCann’s acknowledgement of leadership needs as part of the change process. Additionally, France’s military restructuring was a transforming effort from unilateral decision-making and management systems to that of cooperative management, involving a variety of partnerships with European Union member countries to facilitate a more effective transition from the Gaullist posturing to a transformational design utilising bilateral management systems (Eliassen 2002). Due to budgetary problems and changes in social sentiment about national sovereignty, France determined that slashing 54,000 military service jobs and creating cooperative procurement strategies for armaments would be the appropriate method to satisfy budget constraints. Under this methodology, collaborative management systems with diverse service-member cultures were necessary for development. This closed system military was forced to adapt to a transparent and collectivist mentality in a military structure that is highly individualistic at the cultural level. Under theories of culture, individualists demand reward and recognition for individual accomplishment whilst collectivists operate more effectively under group-oriented reward (Cheung et al. 2008, pp.88). This altered the entire dynamic of the French military as it pertains to leadership and management through a new necessity to change organisational culture to adapt to collectivist mentality, which impacts psychological and emotional adjustment throughout the organisational model. Thus, the human resources function in the French military restructuring transformed from a hard approach to HRM to a soft approach, one that aligns leadership to a new attention on the minds and heart of employees to ensure change resistance does not occur and de-motivation is eliminated (Armstrong 2007). According to Sirkin, Keenan and Jackson (2006, pp.2-3) any time an organisation undergoes a transformation process, it must develop an evaluation system to ensure controls and to measure whether the change is meeting with resistance. These authors suggest creating bi-monthly reviews, especially in a change scenario that will endure for over eight weeks (Sirkin et al. 2006), as in the case of the IDF that will require significant time to ensure proper allocation of resources and development of appropriate management systems under new organisational models of operations. Research, however, did not uncover internal evaluation tools utilised at the Irish Defence Forces to facilitate a more effective change program and measure quality of stakeholder involvement except for the steering group which oversees the transformational processes. Again, however, the steering group responsible for identifying metrics associated with the change illustrates a more transformational leadership style that is different from the previous, long-standing bureaucratic structure that requires significant adaptability internally throughout the organisational model. There is another phenomenon that occurs often in many organisational models when change is present: the self-fulfilling prophecy. This phenomenon involves maintaining a set of false, self-generated beliefs that predict a fictitious conclusion to an organisational event. This false conclusion then inspires behaviours aligned with these beliefs, attempting to justify these artificial perceptions in an effort to substantiate the prophecy (Ford, Ford and D’Amelio 2008, p. 366). It was previously identified by Lientz and Rea (2005) that fear of change is contagious and will rub off on others in the organisation, thus creating a potential culture of fear. Individuals in the organisation with a propensity to engage in self-fulfilling prophecy maintain many risks to securing a culture that is dedicated to meeting change goals and objectives. Consistently reinforcing false beliefs, stemming either from fear of change or egotism, and then working to ensure justification of the fictitious prophecy can, under social learning theory, be a credible and attractive concept that will be role modelled by other organisational stakeholders. The dogma of those who trust in the self-fulfilling prophecy and its potential risk to establishment of positive organisational culture iterates why human behavioural dimensions must be included in a change program. Some of this risk is clearly alleviated by senior leadership at the Irish Defence Forces by opening lines of forthright communication that provides legitimate details of activities, budget and potential impact on the lives of dedicated personnel. This would seem to be aligned with the most respected best practice models of change management whereby communications are deemed one of the most effective deterrents for change resistance. Conclusion As illustrated through the research process, change management is a complex and dynamic function of organisational management that must have certain critical features in order to achieve positive transformational end results. Human attitude cannot be negated, as was illustrated in the case of the United States Army post-Vietnam, and as supported by many theorists that reinforce the necessity of establishing human resources-centric policies to meet these psycho-social characteristics. The U.S. Army allowed a culture of fear and mistrust to be developed by not addressing these factors under a very vertical, authoritarian hierarchy that had significant negative outcomes for building a cooperative and mutually-rewarding model of transformation. Though the Irish Defence Forces does not strictly follow best practice models of change management, there is evidence that this organisational leadership does recognise the importance of adopting transformational leadership and embracing some dimensions of HR policy in order to gain change commitment and reduce resistance. This is also present in the French military restructuring processes moving from hard to soft HRM policies aligned with best practice in change leadership. Having established what change management entails and some best practice methodologies to combat resistance, it should be said that the Irish Defence Forces is well on its way to successfully blending autocratic management structure with human-centric systems that are largely well-structured against respected theoretical models of change implementation and evaluation. The goal in this type of militaristic structure is to ensure a culture of cooperation and compliance that are necessary when operating under inter-dependent social and professional systems. The IDF makes public and blatant attempts to take a leadership role that includes opening lines of communication, establish support systems for the complicated needs stemming from personnel and leaders, and reinforces empathetic values that have the most likelihood of establishing trust and mutual respect. There is little evidence that the Irish Defence Forces are utilising grossly-inefficient change management philosophy, especially under a difficult management model that imposes strict rules and needs for compliance where HR-centric values are often negated. Future research into the state of the IDF restructuring and reorganisation in 2013, an empirical case study approach, would determine the level of resistance occurring at the Irish Defence Forces and whether elements of transformational leadership design and aforementioned best practice models of change management have been utilised properly to gain commitment and reduce change resistance risks. All in all, the IDF appears closely-aligned with best practice models of change management and should be commended for achieving better alignment than that of the United States Army. References Anderson, L.A. (2011). The Change Leader’s Roadmap: How to navigate your organisation’s transformation. New York: Routledge. Armstrong, M. (2007). Handbook of Strategic Human Resource Management. London: Kogan Page. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. William Bridges and Associates, Inc. Cheung, F., Cheung, S., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. and Yeh, K. (2008). Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp.81-108. Eliassen, K.A. (2002). European defence procurement and industrial policy: The case of France, Norwegian School of Management [online] Available at: http://www.bi.edu/CenterFiles/CEAS%20files/02-12-France.pdf (accessed 26 December 2012). Fairholm, M. (2009), Leadership and Organizational Strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story, Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp.362-377. Grieves, J. (2010). Organisational Change: Themes and Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kotter, J. (2011). Change management versus change leadership – What’s the Difference?, Forbes Magazine. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs-change-leadership-whats-the-difference/ (accessed 23 December 2012). Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Lientz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (2005). Breakthrough IT Change Management: How to Get Enduring Results. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Riker-Coleman, E. (1998). Lessons not learned: The United States Army and Institutional Resistance to Organizational Transformation after Vietnam, UNC Chapel Hill. [online] Available at: http://www.unc.edu/~chaos1/lessons.pdf (accessed 22 December 2012). Schlosberg, P.B. (2006). Transformational Leadership: A Holistic View of Organisational Change. MagPro Publishing. Sirkin, H., Keenan, P. and Jackson, A. (2006). The hard side of change management, Harvard Business Review. [online] Available at: http://www.ilinc.com/pdf/HBR%20The%20Hard%20Side%20of%20Change%20Management.PDF (accessed 23 December 2012). Weiten, W. and Lloyd, M. (2005). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Thompson Wadsworth. Read More