Organization Behavior Concepts on the US Army Essay

M any(prenominal) organizations today moroseer incomparable perspectives into the possibilities for organizational structure, civilization and way. Given the United States system of government and inherent freedoms, these aras be non often easily simplenessled or mandated. Corporations tend to impart a feel-good placement were employees are asked to be nice to one a nonher and the hierarchy seeks to keep up a stable, friendly atmosphere. Promotions are based on performance evaluations, sometimes aligned with the contents of a grievance folder.If any grievances have been filed a cookst an individual, these items are considered during the promotion process, but the contents are not standardized veritable(prenominal)ly. The US forces handles this blameless environment differently. Personnel voluntarily sign up with the organization, but are there after held to a strict clean- alive regulation for three to eight years. The US array has created a lesson of organizational structure, which gives them direct get wind over its anticipated finish and behavior. Reprimands are swift and complete.This piece of music will consider the many thoughts of US ground forces organization and the impacts this has on three Main Organizational manner concepts as presented in the 2005 Robbins text Organizational Structure, Organizational Culture and aggroup Behavior, suggesting the US force has created an efficient and proscriptive model. The Viet Nam war ca utilise many changes indoors the US army. The conflicts and reprimands of soldiers from civil and military personnel increased because of this Conflict. Theft and dishonesty grew from the lucid feeling of morale in soldiers, causing a ripple effect of worthless behavior.The US soldiers formed a committee to address the issue, which met at Fort Ord in California. Organizational Effectiveness grew from this time, giving the force its give birth program to change the behaviors and attitudes of it me mbers. The Merit Reward System evolved from this project. Trainees and cadre members were rewarded for behavior that was clearly related to high performance and to high morale, (Deaner, 1991, p. 13). This particular aspect of the former system lives on as a mainstay in US force culture.In religious offering a payment for soldier behavior as well as performance, the US Army sets itself aside from the usual difficulties of control. Soldiers are beholden to its employers for the length of their contract, defunct behavior landing place them in an employee jail or the brig. But, this overall control excessively allows the US Army to solely promote from within, reward through medals and advancement, and to offer flowering employment locations through station selection. This reward structure is not easy to new(prenominal) organizations, setting the US Army apart in its control of Organizational Structure and Culture, as well Group Behavior.The US Army no longer uses Organizational Ef fectiveness program. Its failing has been labeled as self-inflicted by Deaner (1991, p. 18) although it is appease used by outside organizations today. The basic principles as tested in the former system have evolved into a lots more efficient and table serviceable behavior model. Leadership remains the focal point in controlling the atmosphere in any organization. In choosing the shut out to appropriate procedures for developing leaders, an organization must first suss out what leadership precisely entails, (Campbell & Dardis, 2004, p. 27).The US Army has developed a classical set of cultural guidelines for its organization. Leaders are expected to possess authentic qualities, which will not only allow them the capacity to perform, but also to guide and influence others to do the right thing. In maintaining this strict code of ethics through promotion and contr positive continuation, the US Army offers a unique perspective on Group Behavior, Organizational Structure and Cul ture. This formatting has been aligned into what is known as the Be, Know, Do model.Shaped and modeled by actual experience in developing officers and non-commissioned officers in the different branches of the U. S. Army, unlike drafts and versions of the BKD model have influenced Army leadership doctrine for over 50 years. Thus, the Armys long-term continuing reliance on the model offers strong evidence of its robustness, (Campbell & Dardis, 2004, p. 27). This model offers a construct for the entire inclose behind the core value system imbedded within the structure of the US Army. Group behavior is aligned through a definitive mountain chain of expectation prior to advancement to higher paying status.Cadence to control stepping in the same foothold, formations to align each body within the separate, equivalent control all of these contribute to the maintenance of convention behavior, offering individuals the befall to see themselves as a working part of a group. presently a typical Ameri fundament soldier has a high aim diploma, and many are college-educated. More than 50 percent of the military service members are married, and many have children attending the US Department of defense team dependent school system, (Mac beginnerald & Myers, 2005, p. 18). This distinct change in personnel adds to the readiness of the US Army machine.Increasingly educated, ethics are becoming a fundamental staple in US Army culture. Although there are obvious inconsistencies (as with the Iraqi Prisoner of War scandal), the US Army still emerges as a leader in influencing the moral and ethical decisions its employees make. The most obvious difference between the US Army culture and that of typical business organizations comes from the complete sense of biotic community created. Like all civil cities or counties, on-base military neighborhoods have key stakeholders that contribute to the growth of the entire community, (MacDonald & Myers, 2005, p. 1).Where the typical corporation has employees living anywhere they chose, many US Army employees live either on base, or very near by. This close proximity offers the employees a direct influence on their environment and living arrangements. The spouses of employed personnel are involved in the company as it were. Complete communities are created to draw the family units of personnel into the mix, offering shopping centers, assail stations, libraries, schools, hospitals and even its own selections of medical personnel. Every aspect of life is dual-lane and standardized.Cookie-cutter style housing offers levels of improvement within the ranking status. Similar-ranked throng are afforded duplicate housing, often times on the same route or area of the base. High-ranking officials live in homes of higher value, and still grouped in the same area of the base. This allows the employees a knock to solidify their performance and solidify the cohesiveness of the group. If an employee wants the better hou sing, salary and playground, he or she must gain rearing, perform admirably and meet qualify standards in performance.The rewards are visibly set before the individual to get ahead entice coherence and unity. A study performed by Pascale, Millemann and Goija considered the cultural differences in Sears, Shell and the US Army searching for key identifiers in how the culture of these organizations are affected by the employees in terms of culture within the companies. They concluded supply, identity, conflict and learning were the base elements in these organizations (Pascale, Millemann & Goija, 1997, p. 129).Nowhere is the transformational power of re-socialization more evident than at three highly unusual U.S. Army schooling centers-at Fort Irwin, California Fort Polk, Louisiana and Hoenfelds, Germany. In fact, the training is sufficiently remarkable to have been canvas by the chief education officers at Shell, Sears, Motorola, and GE, and by senior delegations from every coun try in westerly Europe, Russia, and most nations of Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. (Pascale, Millemann & Goija, 1997, p. 134) The US Army has proven itself a leader in the creation of group behavior inline with the culture mandated by the organization.The interest of some many other countries indicates the US Army is an trailblazer in terms of structure and culture when sending troops and families off to become a part of another base. The culture remains low the same umbrella, allowing each a smooth transition despite the big size of the organization. The very nature of military structure is unified in many countries. Soldiers are most often located in a central area, with families supported directly from the pay of the soldiers in question.In maintaining the group atmosphere of the military units, the governments expect, and often see a solidified ending structure. Group effectiveness is the extent to which explicit groups goals, that are assigned by the organizati on, are achieved. The successful attainment of such goals includes both the quality of group outputs as well as their timeliness, (Langfred, 2000, p. 569). Although Langfred did an empirical study of the Danish Army to prove his theories of unit cohesion, the structure of the tests directly applies to the US Army as well. Cohesiveness in terms of group goals and communications were paramount in forming the cohesive units necessitate for standardization.The US Army, however, is a leader in community structure in that the support often far-outreaches the constructs of corresponding organizations. The uniformity is crosswise the board in terms of family support, job description, promotional evaluations and ethical standards. The beginnings of the US Army are directly connected to its cohesiveness of today. Originally designed as a conscription service where legions were formed by required participation of any and all applicable men, the organization itself has transformed into a vol untary unit of men and women.Originally devised from people of all age, scotch and social stratus, anyone can now enlist provided they have at to the lowest degree a General Education Diploma (GED). The elitist nature from the past of the fastness echelon serving as officers, and their subsequent promotions based on time-in-service over actual performance has changed drastically. According to an article written by Andrew Birtle, the change took a long time, but now allows anyone proving their worth and moral code can advance. Socio-economic status no longer remains as a modifier for promotion or advancement.Although not a perfect system by any means, nepotism being obvious in some lines of service, the US Army provides a distinct design for the creation of cohesiveness and unification crossways behavior and cultural lines of organization (2003). The US Army has taken the advantages and cultural mores within its organization and applied them to harmony among all lines, to includ e play relations. The Army has no peer in its broad record of promotions of blacks to positions of influence, (Racial Integration, 2001, p. 35).Although not perfect by any means, the US Army still maintains this distinct line of communication and promotion for all its soldiers. Within each unit, the Army maintains an Equal Opportunity Officer who will listen and record any and all forms of complaint due to discrimination, sexual, racial, or other. All complaints are written down and added to applicable personnel files following a thorough investigation. At each promotional stage in the soldiers career, these files are considered, thus offering a distinct incentive to avoid disharmony or bigoted hate.The Army is probably the only important institution in the U.S. where whites dont get promoted if they show racist behavior, (Racial Integration, 2001, p. 35). In conclusion, the US Army offers a unique environment controlling and influencing the Organizational Culture and Group Behavio r through its differentiated Organizational Structure. In maintaining a similar environment for soldiers and their families, the US Army homogenizes the livelihood of its employees through unification across the board. The promotional structure offered directly entices soldiers to conform in order to gain a better life and environment for themselves and their families.Although not easily duplicated in the business world, many companies have studied the US Army for forward-looking approaches to standardizing their own commercial culture. The first step toward restoring organizational vitality is to ask every employee in the companys principal challenges, (Pascale, Millemann & Gioja, 1997, p. 131). The model used by the US Army controls the majority of situations within its construct and if studied further would offer commercial enterprises a blueprint applicable to other avenues of business organizations and their organizational behavior models.The unique Organizational Structure o f the US Army dictates not only the Organizational Culture and Group Behavior it also influences the Decision Making process, Motivation, Communication, Power and Politics, Human Resource focussing and Change Management inherent in any large organization. The unique structure considers each of these aspects of organizational behavior and builds a concise determine and standard operating procedures to control and maintain its vision of it future and mission. Although this paper looked at only three aspects, the US Army offers a classifiable model for any Organizational Behavior study.