Running head: PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 1
Pressures for Change in the Military
Francis Frenette
Liberty University
Dr. Cook
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 2
Abstract
Within this paper, you will find three types of changes that military organizations often
face and the challenges connected to them. All pertinent information gathered from the article
titled, How Pressure for Change Challenge Military Organizational Characteristics and my own
personal experiences. I will cover how the three different types of external pressures create
challenges for military Units. Furthermore, it contains information regarding normative,
structural, and functional pressures and how they are received in the US Army. In the course text,
you will find three types of changes, adaptive, innovative, and radically innovative; I use them to
compare the article to lessons learned throughout the course. I also researched historical
examples of how the US Army reacted to changes in the past. The US Army as a whole has
gotten better at accepting change, but change at lower levels is somewhat resistant. The Kotter
model offers certain steps that we as leaders can use to implement change within the US Army.
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 3
Step 1
Description of the Organization
The largest branch in the Department of Defense (DoD) is the US Army with 471,990
soldiers on active duty, 336,388 in the National Guard, and 288,275 in the Army reserve
(Statista, 2020). The US Army has gave birth to many changes in its vast history that dates back
to 1775 (The birth of the US Army). First from the continental Army to the Union Army during
our Civil War. The US Army has also fought in two separate World Wars, Vietnam & Korea to all
present wars. This is what helped shape the modern Army of today; the Army our country's
primary land force and defends the interests of the US abroad. With a constantly changing
geopolitical atmosphere, new world enemies are on the rise. By legal statute, the Army is ran by
civilian leadership, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF). The
Secretary of the Army has statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 3013. The Secretary of the Army
is charged with recruitment, training, and equipping the Army’s soldiers as well as assigning
troops to Combatant Commands at the direction of the SECDEF. The Secretary of the Army is
assisted by his or her Civilian counterparts to help oversee various aspects of the organization.
Mostly uniformed personnel with some civilian leaders at the operational level develop and lead
the Army.
It is vital for soldiers and civilians to understand command authorities that drive the US
Army. The Army’s many challenges come from both outside and within the organization and are
constantly changing. However, leadership in the Army is constantly changing, both on the
uniformed and civilian side of the house. This causes issues with change and the climate of the
Army as an organization. Psalm 144:1-2 says, “Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who
trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; he is my steadfast love and my fortress, my
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 4
stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples
under me” (NIV).
Organizational Challenges
As an organization, the Army is constantly changing, evolving, adapting, and modernizing
its force, but civilian constraints and flexibility constraints make it hard to implement any type of
significant changes. One example is the recent changes to physical fitness evaluations, now
called Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT). Since 1980, the Army had been using the old physical
fitness standards of the 2-mile run, sit-ups and push-ups. The new implementation of the physical
fitness test will go into effect on 1 October 2020. Army leaders and soldiers deliberated on
current test standards and found they could not accurately assess a Soldier's physical fitness and
combat readiness. The ACFT was designed to better assess Soldiers' abilities to perform common
tasks to reflect combat readiness through six events: the dead lift, standing power throw, hand-
release push up, sprint-drag-carry, leg tuck hold and 2-mile run. While the ACFT is intended to
improve Soldiers' physical performance and health in the long term, as with any new physical
activity, it comes with potential injury risks. The new events have a miniscule resemblance to the
warrior tasks and battle drills conducted by the Army. They are not strong predictors of
successful physical performance on the battlefield or in full-spectrum operations" (Whitfield B.
2013). Too often during the last decades, research on military organizations has been focusing on
adaptation of military organizations to various transformation processes. Military organizations
have been found to be bureaucratic and hierarchical when it comes to change, even in small areas
of emphasis. When an organization as large as the Army tries to enact broad change across the
enterprise, it is stymied by its characteristics of being bureaucratic and hierarchical (Holmberg &
Alvinus, 2013). These formalities and changes to the regulations are difficult for certain
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 5
functions of the military. This can include, battle drills, physical fitness, and field training.
However, when applied these changes or process can prove to be detrimental to the force.
Another significant change that the US army has implemented is the structure in what
determines what the military does in terms of peacetime and wartime activities. I have personally
lived through these changes as I deployed 3 times while in the Army. Each time was different,
and there were multiple changes to the combat environment. During peacetime military
organizations, focus on education and training at long-term military compounds or bases, where
officers live on-site, ships or camps. This kind of organization can be described as a total
organization (Goffman 1961). I also find the Army to be a total organization, and am proud to be
a part of it.
Challenges and Environmental Issues
Hierarchies are considered important tools for bureaucracies to function ideally. With
respect to militaries, hierarchies are also seen as a mechanism for discipline and order. We
consider it a characteristic that is commonly associated with the military organization. The
military, ruled by political power, is in the literature considered a “uniformed” entity signaling
rank, authority, competences, status, and exclusivity (Soeters et al. 2006). Hierarchy contributes
to avoiding resistance and various forms of subversive activities within the organization, and
therefore it is as a tool for internal control of the military. This characteristic become visible in
the empirical material when references to order, discipline and supervisory relationships. Another
related feature is that military organizations are meritocratic (Castilla and Benard 2010).
Meritocracy goes hand in hand with and supports the organizational feature hierarchy, as the
organization promotes the individuals considered to contribute to the goals of the organization at
any given point in time.
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 6
Another organizational impact to the Army is our rank structure, it is vary skewed.
Furthermore, the Swedish Army, which is referenced in this article, is not as racially and as
culturally diverse as our country. The empirical illustrations used in this article draws on
experiences from the Swedish context and the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF). The security and
defence sector in Sweden was comparatively isolated during the 20th century, due to this
country’s policy of military non-alignment and the limited international interactions of the
military organization that followed from this policy. However, the Swedish security and defence
sector have been through major changes during the last decades (Holmberg 2015). Nevertheless,
because the US is so diverse and we have so many different states the military pool also becomes
more diverse. It is important to know how change is implemented, and vital to understand the
characteristics of the organization.
The characteristics I mentioned earlier are how the analysis was conducted throughout the
article. As I researched the article, situational factors that surround the military became more
evident to me, with the outcome of military objectives. These characteristics become visible
through the narratives of the respondents, in their stories about work-life and the organizational
culture. When we see or experience things like bureaucratic and hierarchical components as
inputs and processes, we tend to restrict our ability foster change. A classic example is that
military organizations demand from their members that they should be prepared to sacrifice their
life as part of their mission within the organization. I do not believe we have to sacrifice our lives
for our greater to obtain a greater good. All lives are important weather you decide to serve in the
military or not.
Greedy organizations can also control their members in other ways, such as through
emotion control and high demands upon accessibility and working-hours (Coser 1974). These
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 7
characteristics become visible through the narratives of the respondents, in their stories on how
work-life is and should be according to the organizational culture. In all, the dominant
characteristics associated with the military organization suggest that an instrumental view of the
military organization is prevailing.
Step 2
Author's View
The article I chose titled, “How Pressure for Change Challenge Military Organizational
Characteristics”. The authors capture three pressures that the US Army face on a daily basis and
they are normative, structural, and functional pressures. Furthermore, it lists three characteristics
that define military organizations; bureaucratic, narcissistic, and greed. Du Gay and Vikkelso
claims that the organizational change literature treat the concept of change as something
absolutist and abstract. The focus has been on what organizations need to do in order to manage
change, rather than examining in detail the empirical landscape of change management (Du Gay
and Vikkelso 2012, p. 132). In recent decades, various fields of research have begun to address
mainly external pressure for change in military organizations. The article states that changes are
"abstract, immaterial and usually not carried by a specific change agent." (Holmberg & Alvinus,
2019, p. 135). I believe the authors are trying to convey how we the public view the Army as an
organization. They point out the implications of disregarding normative pressures to enact
change within the organization and caution us on ignoring them. They also touch o bit on the
high turnover rate of the military, or an inability to recruit new soldiers to fill the ranks.
Organizational Behavior Concepts
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 8
Organizational change is “the process in which a company or any organization changes its
operational methods, technologies, organizational structure, whole structure, or strategies, as well
as what effects these changes have on it." (Cambridge, n.d.). History, old soldiers insist, does not
give the nation the luxury of choice. President Johnson did not want to fight in Vietnam, and
President Clinton did not want to put U.S. troops in the Balkans. The first President Bush did not
want to invade Panama, and his son did not want to attack Afghanistan. Sometime in the future,
the U.S. will require thousands of troops when a major conflict looms. The types of changes
listed in our text are Adaptive Change, Innovative Change, and Radically Innovative change.
One reason the Army is not reinventing itself at its current size is that no one with any sway is
forcing it to do so. Lawmakers, who increasingly lack any military background, give those in
uniform wide berth. The Army has the influence to push, cajole and otherwise convince
Congress that change shows no sign of taking on that mission. Since the height of the Cold War,
the number of soldiers per officer in the U.S. Army has dropped 45%, so we can see how change
really affects our organization.
Author's Views on Change and Organizational Behaviors
Adaptive change is the "reintroduces a familiar practice either in a different unit or in the
same unit at a different point in time (Kinicki & Fugate, 2018). This is the least complex type of
change and can be managed very easily. Change in the Army begins with its leaders and can be
broken down in three categories; structural, normative, and functional. I will incorporate
structural change and adaptive change in the same category moving forward as they are similar
to one another. Each Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Airman brings a unique set of characteristics
and experiences to the classroom. They have different task proficiencies inside and outside their
mission roles, different operational and leadership experiences, and different sustainment skills.
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 9
Thus, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to training may be ineffective and inefficient in meeting
individual or team training needs in a timely manner. For this reason, and for many other
reasons, the military has made adaptive training, and in particular, adaptive training technology, a
high priority. These approaches, and adaptive training approaches in general, range on a
spectrum from lower levels of adaptation that qualify as macro-adaptive strategies to more
sophisticated types of micro-adaptive training. Potential challenges to military organizational
characteristics from globalization and internationalization relates to new tasks in the international
domain, which diminish the space of the military as a total institution. This structural change
may affect the bureaucracy and the system of hierarchy since new interactions develops which
may alter the division of power within the organization. This can challenge the system of
meritocracy, as new tasks and experiences need to be assessed and valued within the
organization. The increased pressure upon the organization may spur narcissism as the whole
organization or parts of it either embrace or resist the new roles and tasks that follow from
internationalization.
Innovative change is the next change that I will cover in reference to the article.
Technological innovation and development have played a great role in thinking about war and
strategy, in particular in the USA (Carvin and Williams 2015). However, with the threat of total
annihilation that came with the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War,
technology have increasingly been used to make war more specialized and detailed in the field,
rather than total. The Typology of Organizational Change chart pictured in our textbook places
innovative change in the middle of the continuum when measuring for complexity, cost,
uncertainty, and resistance to change (Kinicki & Fugate, 2018). Thus, during the end of the 20th
century technology was a means to gain control over the battlefield and over battle and making it
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 10
more limited. This process used to be termed a “revolution in military affairs” in the 1980s and
1990s. However, Carvin & Williams argue that technology did not manage to limit wars as much
as imagined. Other developments also proved important, as the war on terror testified. In
addition, the ambition to keep up with the technological development as a driving force for
Western military organizations. The technological development is expected to fit quite well with
the military characteristics outlined above. Potential challenges might; however, be that
technological development is expensive and may make the organization more specialized and
something that can challenge bureaucratic, meritocratic and narcissistic traits.
Radically Innovative Change is the last type of change that I will discuss. Finally, a theory
of modernity presents itself. Indeed, it may be what underlies our understanding of (almost
constant) change in the security and defense sector. Hartmus Rosa, sociologist and political
scientist, has argued that the temporal dimension is important, and three forms of social
acceleration characterize that modernity. All have connections with globalization (Rosa 2013). At
least two of these processes are driven by the growth of the modern state, and the military played
an important part in it. The military institution spurred technical innovation and contributed in
structuring the lives of a large part of the populations of the modern states. However, at the end
of the 20th century, both the state and the military became caught up in processes of social
acceleration. The potential challenges to military organizational characteristics due to social
acceleration are numerous and complex. For instance, certain individuals may feel attracted to
the military’s hierarchical structure and the ease of not having to make their own choices.
However, this poses a danger to the organization, as it may end up with individuals that do not
adhere to societal developments.
Step 3
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 11
Providing Leadership Vision
Organizational culture is defined as "the set of shared, taken-for-granted implicit
assumptions that a group holds and that determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to
its various environments" (Kinicki & Fugate, 2018). Most respondents recognize social
acceleration as an important transformation process. The pace of work are perceived to increase,
there are high demands upon availability and the information flow is high. This situation
demands a lot of energy, both from the individual and the organization. The officers experience
stress and uncertainty regarding priorities. The focus is seen to be moving from quality towards
fast results, which is considered frustrating. The military organization has difficulties managing
changes fast enough. Sometimes a few individuals have to make decisions very quickly. Another
consequence that the respondents point to is the external information management and a function
that were not present ten years ago. Social media and news need to be managed properly. There
is also a potential threat in the information arena. With the demands to speed and information, no
respect is granted the exclusivity of the military organization, nor is there room for placing
higher demands upon the personnel, which is already under high pressure. Even the bureaucratic
demands may have to stand aside if the pace of transformation in the organization is high. In this
kind of situation, the personnel may experience lack of motivation, stress and uncertainty, which
indirectly challenges hierarchies and meritocratic systems.
Immaterial pressures for change are more difficult for the military organization to manage
than material pressure for change. In addition, the normative pressures for change discussed are
“external” to the military organization; their origins are international and societal. The
respondents reflect a largely static view of the organization and through their answers resistance
towards pressure for change may be detected. These views and perceptions influence how
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 12
pressures for change within the military organization. In addition, here, students of military
organizations need to understand how these processes can facilitate the organization and not to
lose legitimacy.
Currently, the Army is entering a transformational period. The amount of pressure for
change in the military organization as a whole is severe. Perhaps the most worrying consequence
of the misfit between traditional characteristics and normative pressures for change is lack of
legitimacy both social and political. The most obvious indication of reduced legitimacy is
reduced attraction of the military professions, both at the level of soldiers and officers. The
legitimacy of the military organization in society deserves attention in many areas of research
like political science and sociology to begin with.
Further demands come with the specialization that technical development implies. This
creates problems in relation to personnel supply and internal competition for personnel. It is also
noted that military organizations have moved from leading technical development towards
following civilian technical development, making necessary adjustments. The respondents do not
value this loss of control on the part of military organizations; it is a loss of prestige and
exclusivity and a bureaucratic challenge. This socialization is where behaviors, skills, attitudes,
and knowledge of the organization begin. (Kinicki & Fugate, 2018).
Specialization and academization is a difficult process and hollow out the common frames
of reference and the unity that used to be present within the military organization. A number of
problems and challenges are identified: it becomes difficult to experience unity within the
military organization as more and more interest is focused towards the specific task of the
individual; the risk for conflict between different groups or between generations increases.
Conclusion
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 13
Change is often hard to accomplish, and can be even harder for those seeking the change.
We as leaders need to know how our organizations characteristics need to shaped or
implemented. However, the implementation of change is necessary for growth and vital to the
survival of the military. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 says, “For everything there is a season, and a time for
every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to
build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast
away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from
embracing” (NIV).
References
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 14
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.) Organizational change. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/organizational-change
Carvin, S. and Williams, M.J., (2015). Law, science, liberalism and the American way of
warfare: the quest for humanity in conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Statista (2020) Active and reserve U.S. military force personnel numbers. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/232330/us-military-force-numbers-by-service-branch-
and-reserve-component/
Holmberg, A., Alvinius, A., (2019). How pressure for change challenge military organizational
characteristics. Defence Studies, 19:2, 130-148. doi:10.1080/14702436.2019.1575698
Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M. (2018). Organizational behavior: A practical, problem-solving
approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY, United States of America: McGraw-Hill Education
Page, L., & Schoder, J. (2019). Making change last: Leadership is the key. Journal of Business
Strategy, 40(2), 32-41. doi:10.1108/JBS-01-2018-0003
Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other
inmates. AldineTransaction. Retrieved August 11, 2020.
Soeters, J.L., Winslow, D.J., and Weibull, A., (2006). Military culture. In: G. Caforio, education.
Handbook of the sociology of the military. New York: Springer US, 237–254. Retrieved
August 12, 2020.
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676. Retrieved August 12, 2020.
du Gay, P., & Vikkelsø, S. (2012). Reflections: On the lost specification of ‘change’. Journal of
Change Management, 12(2), 121-143. Retrieved August 13, 2020.
Coser, L. A. (1974). Greedy institutions; patterns of undivided commitment. Free Press.
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE IN THE MILITARY 15
Retrieved August 13, 2020.
New International Version (NIV) Bible. (2007). London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.
