THE UNITED STATES NAVY: A NEED FOR CHANGE | | | | | Stephanie Williams | Course-MGT:435/Organizational ChangeInstructor: Gregory WeinkamDate: 1/24/2013 | |

Introduction

I work for an organization that undergoes constant change in policies on a somewhat daily basis. Our daily routines that were taught throughout boot camp and then later on out in the Naval fleet, is what is instilled in the minds of every sailor nationwide. From our early morning routines including eating in the mess hall to saluting the American flag at morning colors, sailors, like many other individuals in the Armed Forces, are groomed for commitment to the military mission at all times. But, is there a need for change in the military? I enlisted in the United States Navy in 2002 out of Fort Dix, NJ, and was eager to learn the ways and policies of the Armed Forces. I was very obedient throughout boot camp, as in the civilian world, and had no problem with authority and delegation from others. That’s how I knew that the military was the right decision for me after high school. As time went on and I advanced in rank, a newer generation of sailors embarked toward their naval journey, and in about 2007 I noticed a peculiar difference in the way obedience and authority was handled. Newer recruits were becoming more carefree and seemed to ignore the orders of hierarchies and senior subordinates. What has influenced this change? I believe that John Kotter’s eight step approach to organizational change would be a successful concept to help promote change. Making a change last will leave an everlasting impression on future leaders. “The need for large scale transformational change requires comprehensive planning approaches that both the OD and change management fields offer. Multistep roadmaps that are among the most popularly used by all types of organizations are those of Kotter (1996) and Cooperrider and Whitney (1999). These two approaches include’’…leadership, shared need, guiding coalitions, commitment, communicating, changing structures, empowering others, and making change last” (Gilley, McMillan & Gillan, 2009),”(Weiss, 2.4).

Company Overview

There are literally hundreds of different specialized jobs in the Navy all requiring different leadership styles and organizational structures. The United States Navy is an enormous organization spanning the entire globe. The chain of command covers everyone involved with the Navy from the President of United States all the way down to the eighteen-year old just checking into his first command. Overall the entire United States Navy is based on a mechanistic organization with some variations throughout do to the wide variety of job fields. For instance my particular job field is one of the more technical fields in the Navy so we generally have some differences in organizational structure than that of the sailor painting the ship painted. Although the Navy does not have a formal organizational network, its’ use of informal organizational networks are critical to its success. Many times during a military career the member will make friendships with other members in the same job field. As time goes on and the members transfer from one facility to another they are able to call on one another for solutions to problems they may come across. With the rise of the Internet these networks are being used in situations that in the past would have been impossible.

There are basically four major types of boundaries affecting businesses today, the authority boundary, task boundary, political boundary and the identity boundary. The Navy has all four of these boundaries firmly in place. Although the Navy could definitely benefit by piercing some of these boundaries, it could never become a true boundary-less organization. The authority boundary will always need to be in place. This boundary is essential to proper functioning of any military organization due to the threat of war. In time of war it is imperative that orders are followed without hesitation whether they are agreed upon or not. Although it may not be as important during peace time the Navy still requires this boundary due to the countless hazardous jobs supervisors are required to order subordinates to do onboard ship. The boundary that the Navy would most likely benefit the most from is the elimination of the political boundary. In the Navy, our promotions are directly tied into the evaluation process. Many times senior personnel get so caught up in getting an outstanding evaluation and forwarding their career, they tend to forget the organizations ultimate goal. The Navy already has programs in place to educate managers in how to differentiate between win-win and win-lose situations. Many managers don’t feel the need to change. After all, we all learn how to be a manager from the people that managed us when we were coming up through the ranks. These programs do help, but this is a problem that won’t go away overnight. The Navy will never be a true network-based, boundary-less or team-based organizational structure but it could and will continue to benefit from the gradual change in some of these areas. Eliminating the task boundary could possibly help some parts of the Navy. Eliminating this boundary would not only be illegal but dangerous as well. Diagnosis The diagnosis for this situation is quite simple. As scripted from Wikipedia, a diagnosis is “the identification of the nature and cause of anything”. So in this case, the diagnosis would be upholding military authority to the standards of honor, courage, and commitment as prescribed in our Naval Creed. There are some key concepts that may help with the diagnosis of the problem and strengthen leadership, because that is where it all starts. I call it leading by example. Managers who want to become better leaders must develop sound leadership practices as part of their daily routine. These practices revolve around five key concepts: motivation, attitude, communication, integrity, and decisiveness.
Motivation:
True leadership can be seen in action when managers motivate their teams to meet their mission. The key to motivating employees is for managers to know where they are going and to set expectations high. If managers expect greatness from themselves, their employees will follow. If a manager's vision is to have the best security department around, the best-trained guards, or a successful loss prevention program, everyone--from the most junior security guard to the CEO--should know that this is the goal.
For example, while I was the director of security for a Regional Navy Command, our recruiting and retention numbers were awful. I implemented a goal that within a year we would be fully staffed, have people trained, and have those people at their stations ready to work. To meet this goal, I assigned a quality employee to full-time recruitment duties. Then, I revamped the security department's entire training pipeline so that no matter when someone joined the organization, they could undergo advancement training immediately. (Previously, a new employee would have to wait weeks before joining a training program, wasting time and money.) I also began talking about what we were doing up and down the chain of command. I met with my division heads on how we were going to get the job done, what the milestones were, and whether any strategy revisions were necessary. In the end, we met our goal with a few months to spare.
Attitude
Attitude dictates performance. A positive mental attitude is contagious, and if a leader has it, his or her department will catch it. During the staffing crisis just discussed, I always believed that we were going to achieve our goal. When I first launched the program, I talked to my division heads about the plan, but they were skeptical.
They had already been told that due to problems with logistics, pay, and benefits, we would never be able to reach the goal. However, eventually, my confidence rubbed off on them and, as we made progress, the positive attitude grew.
A critical part of attitude is empowerment. It is an over-used word, but the only accurate one. Individual leaders don't have all of the answers, but groups of knowledgeable problem-solvers might. I had the opportunity to test this theory when I was put in charge of my first security department. I was new to the area and had never supervised so many personnel at once. What's more, I had never tried to execute so large a budget. Complicating matters even more was that my predecessor had made all decisions by himself and had penalized division heads for acting independently. This meant that all decisions landed on my desk. Granted, some needed to come to me, but 80 percent could have been made by others in the chain of command.

Kotter’s 8-step approach

Kotter’s approach would not only be successful to the Navy and other military forces, but this approach would be success for any and every business/organization in the civilian sector as well. 1. Establishing a sense of Urgency “The sense of urgency refers to the “pressing importance” of action needed to address critical issues…now (Kotter, 2008),” (Weis, 2.4). In order to change you have to establish change from the ground up, and by doing this I would announce and propose weekly meetings to discuss possible needed changes for the unit. This would include gathering all members of the unit, not just higher echelons that would later create the infamous “trickle down” effect, and taking notes of everyone’s inputs. The more involved individuals are in the meetings, the more likely they will observe the seriousness of change. 2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition As stated in Kotter’s first approach, weekly meetings would be proposed and ran by senior leaders, not necessarily officers, but leaders to whom the entire command can relate to such as First Class Petty Officers, like I, and Chief Petty Officers. This will also be part of the change because rarely will you find leaders of that type to propose change to an entire unit. It is normally the Commanding Officer of like officers. 3. Develop a Vision and Strategy “Not only is a vision articulated but strategies for achieving that vision are also laid out,” (Weis, 2.4). This is very true and very key to the approach. At times this can be troublesome in my unit, because often times a vision is seen and heard but seldom followed through. Other duties and distractions take place throughout any given day, and the vision soon fades. This is where the sense of urgency comes into play. Calling for change for policies and authority in the Navy, should not at anytime be set to the back burner. Developing a vision and strategy will be routinely proposed at weekly meetings, and then updates on the developments would be made weekly. 4. Communicate the Change Vision
Having a vision, a great attitude, and a hardworking staff is useless if you cannot communicate with your employees. This means both talking to them and listening to what they have to say. This is a challenge in today's world of e-mail, PDAs, and cell phones. For example, I found that when staff members came to my office to talk about critical issues, I was always distracted by the "ping" of the incoming e-mail. To solve the problem, I ended up moving my computer off my desk altogether. I also turned off the speakers during meetings so that I was not bothered by incoming mail. Great listening requires active participation. This is accomplished through taking notes, asking questions to confirm understanding, and repeating back points for clarification. Without this kind of attention, the mission is less likely to be achieved. Communication also means getting to know employees as people. Managers should set aside time each day to talk with staff. Though it may sound simple, one of the most difficult jobs a manager faces is to be human. For example, one day a young man came into my office and asked for time off. When I asked why, he explained that his wife had just miscarried and that they were having a hard time dealing with it. I then shared with him that my wife and I had gone through the same thing several times before we had our first child. He left knowing that I understood and that he wasn't alone. It is critical to understand that taking care of employees does not mean coddling. One of the best people I ever worked for was someone who constantly pushed me to my limits. But even with his huge workload, he never forgot to ask me how I was doing or how my family was.
In the end, there are always new missions, new goals, and new perspectives. What really is important is the impact you have on the people along the way. This impact occurs all the time, and managers must be mindful of it. Some managers feel that they don't need this kind of response from employees as long as the work gets done. However, respect and loyalty based on position or organization is one thing. It can be perfunctory and grudging. Respect and loyalty based on honesty, integrity, and care is completely different. It is given freely and often greases the wheels during difficult times. Be genuine in your concern; treat your people as people, and then respect, loyalty, and motivation will come. 5. Empower others to Act on the Vision This step in my eyes is the leading cause for the need of change: empowering others. Most individuals of the unit want all the glory of praise by themselves and are too busy honoring self merit. Why not empower others to produce a clear vision to change what’s right? It must be done to successfully get the message out there. 6. Generate Short Term Wins “Once these improvements are created, it is important to recognize and reward employees involved in the improvements,” (Weiss, 2.4). Without this step, there would be no sense in drive or motivation to complete the vision of change. Each quarter, merit awards of a job well done, days off or special liberty will be granted, and so on would be experienced in the unit to promote the importance for change. Others who are not as motivated will have a sense of interest to better their personal evaluations for a successful career. This will keep the vision long-lasting. 7. Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change Within this approach, new leadership roles develop and more change erupts. Giving power to those who are awarded within the unit promotes a positive change and helps with empowering others to act on the vision. “They can also hire, promote, and develop employees who can implement the vision and reinvigorate the process,” (Weiss, 2.4). 8. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture
“This is accomplished by increasing performance through customer and productivity-related behaviors,” (Weis, 2.4). This approach works hand-in-hand with consolidating gains, because with these new roles in leadership there will be increased performance responsibility to sustain the role. Conclusion Is there a need for change in the United States Navy? This is a question that has so many answers depending on how it is viewed. Within the Navy, there are thousands of policies and missions that are revamped due to fear and failure of change. No policy or mission is set in stone or established for a prolonged period of time because they are at times no carefully evaluated. Some policies are followed simply because of the excuse of “that is the way it has always been”. Will any necessary changes result on a bad decision or have successful progress at all? Many managers say that the only bad decision is indecision. How often are opportunities missed by failing to make a decision? How many times have you waited for your boss to decide what to do? Managers must learn to trust themselves and make a decision. There is nothing wrong with a deliberative decision that takes time to achieve. This is often necessary, so long as a decision gets made in the end. However, many times the influx of too much information or the fear of making the wrong decision keeps any action from being taken at all. Hopefully John Kotter’s 8 step approach is introduced and implemented before old decisions are left at a standstill.

References

Larry, R. (2012). John Kotter’s eight step model. 21st Century Leader, Meadowfield, Oxenhope, West Yorkshire. Retrieved Jan 21, 2013 from http://www.21stcenturyleader.co.uk/?s=kotter%27s+eight+step+approach.

Weiss, J. W. (2012). Organizational Change. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Kotter International. (2012). The 8 Step Process for Leading Change. Retrieved Jan 21, 2013 from http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps/changesteps.