See description

daysjngn508

wk6assgnkancela-1.doc

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >See description

PAGE

MGMT 8035 Final Project

Student: Althea Kancel, [email protected]

Student ID # A00588323

Program: Ph.D in Management

Specialization: Leadership and Organizational Change

Faculty: Dr. David Gould, [email protected]

Walden University

October 10, 2015

Abstract

[Text begins here. This abstract should not exceed 120 words. Note that abstracts in APA format are not indented. Write the abstract at the END of the project. See the section on abstracts in Chapter 2 of the APA Manual for guidelines and details. Note: An abstract is not an introduction to the paper.]

Table of Contents

1MGMT 8035 Final Project

Organizational Description (Week 2) 1

Organizational Diagram 2

Organizational Description 2

Systems Theory 2

Supporting Research 2

Systems Dynamics (Week 3) 3

Stocks and Flows 3

Feedback Loops 3

Recommendations 3

Supporting Research 3

Systems Disciplines (Week 4) 4

Disciplines 4

Inform Leadership 4

Recommendations 4

Supporting Research 4

Systems Archetypes (Week 5) 4

Archetypes 4

Recommendations 5

Supporting Research 5

Networks (Week 6) 5

Networks 5

Recommendations 6

Supporting Research 6

Adding Complexity (Week 8) 6

Organizational Diagram 6

Organizational Description 6

Recommendations 7

Supporting Research 7

Resilience (Week 9) 7

Resilience Matrix 7

Supporting Research 8

Summary and Conclusions 8

References 9

Organizational Diagram

Operations Group Organizational Diagram

Figure 1

Organizational Description

The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by offering prompt, sustained land dominance across the entire range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. OPS GRP accomplishes this task by conducting tough, realistic, Unified Land Operations to prepare Brigade Combat Teams for current and future combat (National Training Center, homepage, 2015). The Operations Group, one of the five NTC tenant organizations, is comprised of 14 training teams each task with various training specialties and one training academy team who is a task with “providing institutional knowledge training on techniques and procedures designed for combat trainers at the National Training Center (National Training Center homepage, 2015).”

OPS GRP trains a combination of 10 Infantry Division Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT), Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT), or Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) rotational training units (RTU) per year with an approximated $25 million cost per RTU trained (Ruths, 2014). An IBCT consists of seven battalions with approximately 4,400 Soldiers. The SBCT comprises of six battalions, a reconnaissance Squadron, and one brigade headquarters and headquarters company made up of approximately 300 Stryker vehicles and 4,500 Soldiers. Likewise, an ABCT encompasses seven battalions comprising of 4,743 Soldiers (FM 3-21.20, 2006, FM 3-90.6, 2010, & FM 3-90.61, 2007).

In addition to training, NTC is responsible for living accommodations, feeding, and supplement all other training platforms, equipment, and commodities such as fuel, water, ammunition and explosives, transportation, and railhead operations (for the transport of heavy wheel equipment). Moreover, contractors engage in the movement of line haul and commercial equipment and maintenance operations on NTC owned equipment (Global Security.org, 2015).

Training rotations are 14 days in length and run 24/7 operations. All training conducted by trainers is collaborating through established doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures for training, publications and carried out to standard (National Training Center homepage, 2015). After Action Reviews (AAR) are required at every layer of training and codified for future lessons learned. To boot, each RTU commander is provided with a written and digital take-home package covering all battle periods to establish the correlation between successful reconnaissance of enemy defensive positions and favorable outcome of offensive missions (Global Security.org, 2015).

Systems Theory

System theories advise management on how best to select and use best practices for their organization’s success. The successful consolidation of all its parts is vital to the success of the United States Army’s goals which requires the synchronization of all its systems components and operations. Hence, leadership and management must understand and be able to answer the myriad of functions necessary to assist the OPS GRP in executing its current responsibilities while simultaneously preparing for future challenges.

Furthermore, leaders and directors must understand the totality of its components successfully carry out its mission by seamlessly anticipating, allocating, and providing RTUs the right resources and competencies to ensure their breeding aims. Leaders must move “beyond their narrow perspective to interpret “the big picture” and their part in it (Oshry, 2013, p.).” Seeing and interpreting the large painting is necessary to the attainment of sustainable organizational success.

Considering the myriad of interconnected systems and processes is a critical component to the management team of OPS GRP. Organizational structure and organizations set the leadership style employed to reach desired synergy and operational goals.

Supporting Research

The value and importance of Bouldig (1956) work to my organization lies in the premise that cognition does not subsist in the abstract, but instead thrive in our human interaction with one another and within our societal system. Furthermore, Bouldig (1956) moves on to pronounce that if no one knows the information, then knowledge is no longer knowledge. That knowledge must be apportioned among all specialization instead of being contained in specialized areas so the whole can gain insight from one another. Thus, the main objective behind the general systems theory is to proliferate knowledge among specialists in harness relevant communication from one another. Therefore, general systems theory provides management and executives a framework to encourage the growth of their system by utilizing the abundant of contribution and knowledge available to them in widely different empirical studies.

Next, Oshry (2007), teaches and empowers management and executives in seeing systems so they may avert catastrophic decisions and not echo the same conclusions that contributed to that tragedy. Seeing systems and or patterns within the organization enables leadership to behave and manage what needs done for the benefit of the organization and the team. The courage to accept change and implementing said changes for the success of the system.

This courage can lend management and executives the courage to transform a top down hierarchy to a robust system, giving Top, Middle, and Bottom systems within the organization a unique role to determine the whole rather than it sitting exclusively at the top (Oshry, 2007). With each system looking to and working with one another, brainstorming, and capitalizing on its shared wisdom, the organization can exploit the collective shared vision, contributions and wisdoms to bring some positive change.

Systems Dynamics (Week 3)

Systems Dynamics is an aspect of systems theory as a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. System dynamics is a methodology technology used for understanding and framing complex issues and problems. System dynamics helps management understand and improve their organization’s internal processes.

Stocks and Flows

The three stocks associated with National Training Center (NTC) include buildings, land holdings, and cash on hand.

Buildings. NTC is a modern facility that consists of three story buildings interconnected with plazas and desks. There is a distinctive architectural feature of the headquarters building that is in the form of a circular stairway at the center of the three buildings providing access to the floors.

Land Holdings. Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC) is located 37 miles northeast of Barstow in Calico Mountains. It has a total land area of 2,579.77 km² that is equivalent to 996.055 square miles. Part of this land, approximately 0.3277 km² is covered with water. The remaining area, 18.3 km² or 7.1 square miles of the CDP, covers all of the lands of Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC). Within the western side of Fort Irwin NTC territory lies the Golden Deep Space Communication Complex. With 2,579.77 km² land holdings, Fort Irwin has an ideal site for ranges and maneuver, air space restricted to the use of the military, an uncluttered electromagnetic spectrum as well as excellent isolation from the densely populated areas.

Cash in Hands. NTC has cash in hands that are an asset in the form of money that is immediately available for businesses and spent when needed in paying small amounts of expenses/finances.

The associated flows include inflows, outflows, and feedback loops.

Inflows: This includes money received from sales of services or products. Land holding inflows can be money received from selling land while building inflows can be money received from selling part of the building or all of the building. On the other hand, cash on hand inflows might be deposits made from a customer or money received from a loan in cash such as Notes Receivable.

Outflows: This is the amount made to purchase an asset such as adding more land, purchasing a building or withdrawing money, and paying cash to creditors.

Feedback Loops

Feedback Loops buffers or enhances changes that occur in a system.

Positive feedback loops usually enhance or even amplify changes that tend to make the system unstable or to move the system away from its equilibrium state (Clemens, 2013). In a positive feedback loop, a decrease or increase in the number of people seeking training at NTC results in the same type of change, which is either decrease or increase in the number of professionally trained individuals. For example, when the number of persons seeking training at NTC increases exponentially, positive feedback will result in a virtuous cycle. Positive feedback approach emphasizes the singling out of positive behavior among the trainees/individuals at NTC and hence provides key advantages to NTC and managers in addressing trainee’s performance. It, therefore, encourages wanted behaviors as it directly encourages behaviors that NTC wants their trainees to repeat.

Recommendations

Understanding stocks flow, and feedback loops is essential in improving decision making within the organization. Firstly, it is important to have knowledge about the stock for a decision maker to make an efficient and significant decision concerning stocks (Sterman, 2000). For instance, to know when people in the organization are well trained and need assimilation into the job market. Secondly, inflows and outflows help decision makers to understand the company’s current position and plan for it (Sterman, 2000). Understanding concepts of inflows and outflows assists in improving planning for the unforeseen eventualities that the National Training Center might face hence correct planning for the decision maker (Sterman, 2000).

Thirdly, feedback loops are paramount as they cause the output from one node to influence eventually input in the same node (Morecroft, 2007). It is, therefore, important especially in decision making as understanding the behavior of difficult, complex social systems problems will help decision makers to hypothesize realistic solutions that will have a high possibility of working for the first time. Feedback loops will, therefore, help decision makers know how to act when a change in something ultimately changes or results in further changes in the same thing. In general, the organization should employ the concept of stocks, flows, and feedback loops to boost their overall productivity hence translating into a comparatively huge financial gain through proper budgeting hence financial control and hence better decision making.

Supporting Research

Morecroft (2007), informs leaders in my organization on how to identify the patterns of behavior that are problematic and locate the system structure that is causing the problem. Locating these issues within their system structure provides leadership within my organization an opportunity to eliminate the problem.

Likewise, Sterman (2000), teaches leaders and management in my organization learn the value of feedback loops. Feedback loops influence management to act and in doing so changes the environment in which they operate. Their actions may have unforeseen consequences and, therefore, changes their future decision-making process. Additionally, Sterman (2000), teaches leadership that their actions affect and shape their operating environment, either positive negatively. Moreover, so the challenge lies in understanding how to use feedback loops in a manner that empowers rather than…by building systems capable of achieving great success.

Systems Disciplines (Week 4)

Von Bertalanffy (1972) outline systems model as a conceptual framework in which otherwise unrelated events merge and the various pieces fall into place. Understanding the systemic organizational structure and its role in how the employee behaves enlightens management on how they can alter their incumbent structure for the better. There are five core disciplines within learning organizations that help shape individual actions and create the conditions in which they operate. They are: personal mastery, mental models, shared visions, team learning, and systems thinking.

The Five Disciplines

Personal mastery the term used to describe personal growth and to learn (Senge 2006). It is a set of guiding ideologies and practices that facilitate learning, produce personal vision, and view the world objectively. Senge (2006) contends that personal mastery is one of the five subject areas necessary for a learning system and achieving organization's goal of corporate excellence. A learning organization encourages and support personal mastery of its members, for management believe that personnel with higher degrees of mastery are more devoted to the organization (Senge 2006). For example, leaders demonstrate their personal mastery at Operations Group (Ops Grp) by setting their personal vision and strategies based on the training learning outcomes and objectives provided. The learning environment at Ops Group encourages leaders to be creative and employ personal vision in ways that will lead their units to success on the battlefield. Leaders who have achieved personal mastery in Ops Group are dedicated, have overcome their mental models, and are continually expanding their power to reach the outcomes they seek.

Mental models are conceptual frameworks consisting of generalizations and assumptions from which we understand the world and take action on it. Mental models represent some significant obstacles to learning and innovation as they involve the way in which we believe and behave (Senge, 2006). Thus, managers must have a mastery of mental models to make an effective learning system. For instance, one common occurrence observed in Ops Group is how each unit interprets the same training scenarios in multiple ways. Each Rotational Training Unit (RTU) brings a different and unique view to the same scenario provided for training evaluation. Mental models are important because they bear on what we attend, how we interpret our surroundings and the actions we take to resolve matters. Furthermore, shared values in organizations are precisely as necessary to the success of their missionary work.

A shared vision is a crucial part of a learning organization and essential building blocks for an efficient learning organization. A shared vision motivates organizational members to accept risks, experiment and become dedicated to a long-term view of the system and its environment so that the vision is accomplished (Senge, 2006). For example, NTC Ops Grp shared vision is to train today's Army successfully in “how to think, not what to think” (NTC Homepage, 2015). When the shared vision is in alignment, such as all Soldiers working hard to achieve the commission, then team learning can occur (Senge, 2006). Thus, shared vision is an essential building block to the training and team learning environment Of Ops Grp.

Team learning occurs when the alignment and development of a team create results that the members long for (Senge 2006). It is a necessary discipline for an organization and its members to develop and to build an effective learning system. A learning organization is one that encourages and facilitate learning so that the governing body can adapt and easily transform itself to accomplish its goals in today's active and competitive environment (Senge, 2006). Also, effective team learning requires that members of the team understand system thinking, have a commitment to the truth, understand the organization's shared vision, and be able to manage effectively mental models (Senge, 2006). Rotational Units that train with Operations Group OC/Ts are excellent examples of a learning team. Members of the team must train and learn how to think collectivity, be committed, understand their overarching mission and objectives, and manage their mental models to fulfill successfully training objectives.

Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing the whole rather than just the parts; it allows managers to see the corresponding set of elements rather than parts, for seeing patterns of the whole rather than snapshots (Senge, 2006). If managers can read how the organizations' systems work, then they can understand the bigger designs and generate decisions to reinforce those rules that are right for the system. Realizing that the organization’s fundamental structure plays a role in how employees behave will enlighten managers and leaders to the fact that they hold the ability to modify the necessary social organization for the better (Senge, 2006). Systems thinking assist managers in taking in the bigger picture break the cycle of addressing symptoms rather than root causes and make decisions that will change the pattern with an effective result.

Inform Leadership

Each of the five disciplines allows leadership to work through their premises, create shared understanding and make organizational change a participative event. Senge (2006) defines personal mastery as encouraging personal vision in employees. Dhiman (2011) also links personal mastery to effective leadership by maintaining that the best means to encourage others in their quest for personal mastery are to be a good example by devoting to your personal mastery.

Mental models can present some significant obstacles to learning and innovation. Mental models often limit the ways in which we think and act. If mental management models are flawed, then they will invariably make wrong decisions. For instance, a common mental model for a trainer may be that trainees are lazy which is why training objectives do not get fulfilled. This mental model consists of an untested assumption and prompts the trainer to cut other possible causes for the problem such as trainee not fully reading the training instructions or objectives. Leaders can overcome erroneous mental models by first identifying them and then managing them appropriately.

Furthermore, a collective vision gives workers drive and focus. Senge (2006) theorizes that managers and staff learn best when they work together to accomplish things that matter to them. If employees become a stakeholder in the shared vision, then they will work hard to accomplish it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the organization’s leadership to invest in its employees achieving a shared vision.

There is an important interrelationship between team learning and the other four disciplines. For managers to engage in team learning, they must develop a commitment to the truth through personal mastery (Senge, 2006). Likewise, managers must be able to check their mental models through vigilance and the organization’s shared vision. Furthermore, directors and leaders must understand and apply systematic thinking, which is the ability to understand patterns and interrelationships - the big picture.

Finally, System thinking is a method of analyzing the interrelations between several components of an organization. It is the key part of an effective learning system. By looking at the relationships and interactions between various segments of the organization, management and leadership can identify general patterns that help explain events, enabling them to reach decisions that alter their arrangements through an ongoing and careful process.

Recommendations

Personal mastery can change employees and management’s vision for their organization. Leaders in Ops Grp encourage all Soldiers to learn, develop, and partake in their experiences from training. As these leaders learn personal mastery, they can supply valuable feedback to other units (Dhiman, 2011). The best method for leaders of Ops Group to demonstrate their committing to personal mastery is by leading by example.

Mental models are conceptual frameworks consisting of generalities and traditions that bear on how we interpret our surroundings and move on it (Senge 2006). Directors and leaders of a learning system must manage mental models by identifying them, testing their validity, and continually improve upon them (Senge, 2006). Leaders must serve their team members by highlighting those cases that are touched by mental models as they manifest in their decision-making process and then they may learn from it.

Shared Vision Leaders need to advocate a shared vision across the masses. Having a team with a shared vision is a more productive and innovative team thus creating a superior organization. Leadership at all levels must encourage personal mastery in all members of the team to optimize Ops Grp shared a vision to achieve Ops Grp training objectives continually.

Team learning can increase the capacities of all team members and the team as a whole. Sharing knowledge from top to bottom and vice versa creates a sense of ownership within management and employees (Senge, 2006). It is this sense of ownership that enables the organization to grow and stay competitive in today’s global environment. Therefore, it is imperative that knowledge is accessible to all.

Systems thinking is interrelated with the other four disciplines, especially in a shared vision and team learning (Senge, 2000). A complete comprehension of systems thinking help leaders and managers focus on the whole organizational systems, creating an environment whereby all employees regardless of position learn together as a team. As Senge (1990) argues that organizational learning is a fitting process for establishments in the face of the swift tempo of change. Management must invest in its employees by creating a robust working environment that encourages sharing vision and wisdom.

Supporting Research

Von Bertalanffy (1972) is recognized for his contribution to the interdisciplinary practice that describe systems with interacting components applied to biology and other fields. Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy is generally considered to be the founder of general systems theory. His foundational premise of general system theory is the sums of all parts form the whole. Understanding this concept provide leadership with the tools to see larger patterns emerge. The ability to see patterns, then motivates leadership in Ops Group to arrive at conclusions that are beneficial to the organization while simultaneously reinforcing positive patters.

Peter Senge (2006) contribution to system theory is that there is no such matter as a complete system and as such teaches management and leadership how to look at a problem more comprehensively. Senge (2006) uses system theory to teach management and leadership on development processes to reach safer conclusions. Over time, leaders will develop the skills to simply look at the organizational structure and recognize which systems area(s) that require additional examination. Systems theory teaches executives to handle uncertainties since we work in a dynamic and ever shifting work environment.

Systems Archetypes (Week 5)

Systems archetypes are observed in all types of systems, including organizations. Understanding systems archetypes in organizations are helpful in intervening or taking corrective action. Archetypes are components of structures that explains the different examples of patterns within a system. Archetypes identify recurring problems and work towards steps for a solution (Hubbard, 2012). Patterns in systems can help organizations find solutions to problems by looking systematically at recurring problems.

Systems archetype as a diagnostic tool help managers recognize patterns of behavior that are present in their organizations so they can gain insight into the underlying structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. Archetypes as a prospective tool are useful for organizational planning and may be applied to analyze policies and social systems. Systems archetypes reveal the underlying complexity of management issues, lead to leverage levels in managing difficult management challenges and help in explaining the underlying opportunities (Senge, 2006).

System Archetypes include Balancing Process with Delay, Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden, Eroding Goals, Escalation, Success to the Successful, Tragedy of the Commons, Fixes that Fail, and finally, Growth and Underinvestment (Senge, 2006). Each archetype has its features, thinking processes, and potential responses. Understanding archetypes answer the “why” a behavior exists, and adds a preventive tool for management. For my system, I will analyze and evaluate problems indicated by Limits to Growth, Shifting the burden, and Escalation archetypes and propose potential solutions or interventions for my customer.

Archetypes

Limits to Growth

Description

Archetypes are designed to help with solutions and to problems of dynamic complexities. Limits to growth or limits to success are the first archetype observed in the Operations Group (OPS GRP) Organization. Limits to growth is a collective resource shared between two, but the third party has full mastery of resources. Senge (2006) also proposed that the third governing body has the highest interest in utility from the resources.

Limits to growth can create a spiral of success, but also create unintentional secondary effects that eventually slow down the success (Senge, 2006). The archetype limits to growth involve pushing success, rather than fixing the problems that limit success. For example, the system is striving to grow by satisfying the demand of more personal for the War on Terror. Then again, the organization decides to suspend temporarily promotions while growing the ranks.

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

The challenge to this system archetype has on the organization is management, use of temporary fixes to correct resolutely systemic shortfalls, which causes fundamental long-term solutions to get utilized less and less. With limits to growth, neither party sees the whole and identify it as a complex arrangement. Alternatively, the delays in the system only allow each side to understand their perspective only creating further escalation. The goal of management is to deter the triggered effect caused by alterations in the environment by reinforcing limits; in turn, this will further growth or success.

For example, OPS GRP Corporation experience dramatic growth in the past couple of years in response to the War on Terror campaign, then stabilize or decrease due to the structure strengths being limited. During the height of growth, personnel experienced unprecedented promotion opportunities, bonuses, and paid a morale leave. However, the War on Terror has substantially cooled and now the system can no longer sustain the growth of personnel in its ranks.

To come up with the challenges raised by the archetype, I would recommend a prescriptive measure focusing on removing the boundary rather than continuing to drive the reinforcing process of evolution. Build up a methodology to identify potential balancing processes before they begin to affect future development. Moreover, identify links between the development processes and limiting elements to determine ways to achieve symmetry between the two.

Potential Solutions

Senge (2008) describes shifting the burden archetype, as a problem with a costly or difficult solution; because of this, the burden is shifted to a less difficult solution that does nothing to determine the fundamental problem. Further complication ensues when the underlying issue worsens, and managers lose the chance to repair the trouble. These costly consequences often present in the form of injury or demise for just about.

Shifting the Burden

Description

An actual case of changing the burden I observed from my organization is the act of augmenting the force during times of war/campaigns and to discard them once the crisis is averted. The organization is at this very moment downsizing its military unit from the last surge. Utilizing temporary fixes does not rectify the behavior but simply help to proliferate the situation. It just delays the inevitable reappearance of the trouble. Senge (2006) wrote that quick fixes result in the procrastination of identifying a long-term answer.

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

A major problem with switching the burden is the long-term reliance on relieving the solution through masking the problem (Senge, 2006). During the surge, the War on Terror the organization recruited some sub-par applicants to fill shortfalls. This reliance on temporary symptomatic relief (reliance on less qualified applicants to occupy the ranks) further complicates a situation that is fraught with pitfalls and direst situations (i.e. Potential increased unethical behavior among members).

One other significant issue that stems from ‘shifting the burden’ is the idea of eroding goals, where the pressures of the archetype force the system to choose less qualified candidates as a plausible solution (Senge, 2008). Meadows, (2008) wrote that intervening produces a temporary solution, but with drawbacks. The difficult decision facing managers is whether to continue the intervention while working on a long-term solution or install corrections to the system (cost reduction, change in management) and withdraw intervention (Braun, 2002, Meadows, 2008).

Potential solution / interventions to clients

The institution failure to develop a strategic contingency plan to fill its ranks in time of great need is the root cause of this archetype in this organization. One possible answer to dealing effectively with the shifting the burdens archetype requires “a combination of toning up the fundamental response and weakening the symptomatic response (Senge, 2008, p. 109).” As a consultant, my intervention would not comprise of solely of getting rid of the symptomatic solution as this method only offer short-term benefits. Rather, I will concentrate on identifying the symptom, (i.e. Budget constraint and personnel management), distinguish different types of solution (i.e. Poor inventory management personnel), and strengthening atrophied fundamental solution. Once solution(s) are identified, test assumptions with small actions ensuring that sufficient time is allocated conclusions to come to fruition. The management principle of shifting the burden is not to solve the symptoms, but to solve the trouble.

Escalation

Description

Escalation is recognized as a vicious cycle because each side keeps intensifying its response to the other side’s aggressiveness. Escalation occurs when individuals or firms view their survival or well-being dependent on possessing an advantage over the other party. The cooperation that is required to bring down the escalation could be interpreted as anti-competitive. Despite the danger of breaching antitrust laws, it is to the advantage of both parties to ascertain the event that is causing the competition and explore how strategies can be changed to neutralize the escalating or ways the parties can differentiate them in the market.

More specifically, Braun (2002) tells us that the escalation system archetype is “an appropriate [reaction to] the actions of competitors (a) to sustain one’s competitive advantage, (b) to maintain momentum toward realizing a competitive advantage, and/or (c) because that’s what managers are supposed to do (p. 8).” When one system or institution wellbeing is dependent on possessing an advantage over the other, the escalation has a debilitating effect as each arrangement is caught in a brutal cycle of one-up-man-ship of the other.

For the Army, the War on Terror is an example of Senge (2006) escalation systems archetype. The United States is responding to perceived threats by Al Qaeda with increased military activities and augmentation of forces to support the perceived aggression. This cycle of aggression has both parties locked in a perpetual cycle of Al Qaeda increasing the number of terrorist recruits, which leads to more terrorist activities, thus increasing the threat to the United States, who in turn deploy their military assets and so on. From each factions’ perspective, they are focused on their short-term goals rather than seeing the whole further creating escalation for both countries. They are so focused on the trees in front of them that they do not see the forest burning (Senge, 2006).

In the war on terror, each side perceives itself as gaining advantage from expanding its natural processes because of the inherent delays in the other side’s response. Because of this delay, escalation is permitted to go unchecked due to the side’s perceived advantage over the other.

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

The primary challenge of the escalation archetype is that in the spirit of protecting the well-being of an organization, management resorts to escalate to the stage where they damage their firm and diminish its value to consumers, constituents, and stockholders (Braun, 2002). Through the escalation process, two balancing loops form a single reinforcing loop of heightened action against the other party, thereby proving the conditions worse (Bellinger, 2012). So, as escalation increases the utilization of more resources such as money, time, and people are utilized by each initiative in an exertion to subdue the other competition. Escalation carried to the extreme can result in bankruptcy or the destruction of one or both parties.

Limits to Growth

Description

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

Potential Solutions

Shifting the Burden

Description

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

Potential solution / interventions to clients

Escalation

Description

Analyze and evaluate problems indicated by archetype

Potential solution(s)

Senge (2006) postulated that the main approach to solving the escalating archetype is by preparing a solution whereby both parties can gain. For instance, the parties could develop strategies that result in cooperation and collaboration so both can accomplish their goals. In the case of the War on Terror, a cease-fire may be called as it would benefit both parties in immediately halting the senseless death of personnel on both sides. Another mitigating action related to collaboration is finding a goal that incorporates a goal of both parties, such as a time out from the loss of innocent lives on both sides.

As a consultant, I propose that management takes a step back and assess how to achieve their organizational goal(s) without entering into a cutthroat competition as it serves no one in the long term. Braun (2002) proposes three prescriptive actions for escalation systems archetype:

· Identify the relative measure that is pitting one party against another, and explore ways it can be change or other ways the parties can differentiate themselves in the marketplace.

· Quantify significant delays in the system that may be falsifying the nature of the menace

· Place a larger goal that encompasses the individual end of both parties

Management can also avoid future escalating behavior by building up a scheme of collaboration competition.

· Identify the relative measure that is pitting one party against another, and explore ways it can be change or other ways the parties can differentiate themselves in the marketplace.

· Quantify significant delays in the system that may be falsifying the nature of the menace

· Place a larger goal that encompasses the individual end of both parties

Management can also avoid future escalating behavior by building up a scheme of collaboration competition.

Recommendations

[Recommend how your organization could improve by identifying these systems archetypes or patterns to help understand your organization and aid in decision making.]

The underlying theory behind systems archetypes is that systems with unwanted effects or side effect can be mapped out to the common behavior model. Problem solvers can use its rules and arrive at a full diagnosis of a situation plan and recovery. Archetypes provide a linguistic communication to communicate with members of an organization regarding how a particular organization is expected to do. Unintended consequences in systems archetypes are well recognized and translated into potential or realized consequences. Once members of an organization master the inside information of systems archetypes through training, their knowledge can be leveraged to build robust systems immune to their side effects (Senge, 2006).

The Limits to Growth

Braun, (2002) identified the following action steps that directors should take to tackle the limits to growth archetype to improve their system:

· Managers are to identify engines of growth, determine the doubling time of the processes of development and identify what the potential limits are and possible their balancing loops.

· Managers will determine the adjustment required to deal effectively with the limits that were named, the time needed to change and whether there exist discrepancies between the doubling time and the changes required to support development (Braun, 2002).

Moreover, finally, managers will use the above knowledge to balance growth as well as identify strategies needed to attain equilibrium in the arrangement. Additionally, managers will reevaluate the organization's growth strategy and continuously challenges its assumptions (Braun, 2002).

Likewise, Senge (2006) purported that “to change the conduct of the system, you must identify and change the limiting factor (p. 100).” The terminal points to limits to growth archetype is best addressed by mapping out the interactions of the growth loops, resource inventories, and potential limiters to growth in the future before problems arise

Shifting the burden

An organization can improve their organizational culture with Shifting the Burden through the following applications:

Management teams should search for the cause of their shifted Burden, then apply the fundamental solution to the cause. The earlier, the better, as symptoms should be identified and possibilities eliminated before treatment can commence.

Based on the problem(s) identified, carefully select short-term symptomatic solutions that do not fundamental masked solutions until a permanent fix can be applied. Symptomatic solutions can be used while waiting for fundamental results to boot in. In essence, symptomatic solutions are applied to worst case scenario problems while buying time for fundamental results to boot in. Likewise, remove all symptomatic solutions that are no longer needed. This natural process helps clear the clutter reducing effort.

Escalation

One path to escape escalation archetype is for everyone involved to agree to give up. \Companies recognizing that undercutting prices lead to less profit for all will have to play nicely and stop undercutting each other. Because it can be difficult for actors within an escalating system to block completely off something they’ve been engaged in for some time, it may need a third party to enforce an end to escalation. For instance, the government can put bounds on how long conflicts last and when and who can intervene if and when things get out of hand (Escalation of Mob, 2012).

Supporting Research

[Provide at least two citations/references to support your explanations to executive leadership, including a brief discussion of value or importance to your organization.]

Networks (Week 6)

There are several different types of networks in the real world. Instances of some networks are social networks, data networks, technological networks, and biological networks (Newman, 2003). A network is defined as a set of nodes and links that represent relationships between pairs of entities. The concepts of formal and informal organization's network relate to the nature of relationships and processes in the workplace.

A formal network is the literal construction of the constitution as laid out in the organization chart, work operations, hierarchical reporting relationships, and does not want or anticipate a response. The informal network also sometimes called the grapevine, is the informal working relationships that contribute strongly to the work culture and development in organizations (The difference between, n.d.) and is more conversational in nature.

Furthermore, networks vary in structure with interconnections described as a “clique” (a network within the network), “hierarchical”, “hub-and-spoke”, or “multi-hubbed” (Denning, 2004, p15). The intent of this report will concentrate on the hierarchical network structure.

Networks

Training is an integral component of the Army. Army leaders are developed to be versatile and develop subordinate leaders to be competent, confident, agile and adaptive. The Army fosters learning by using innovative techniques improve battlefield success through the decision-making process (ADP 7-0). Fort Irwin’s National Training Center (NTC) is unitary of the Army’s premier training sites, and the NTC’s mission is to provide realistic joint and combined arms training to battalion and brigade level units.

The Observers Coach/Trainers assigned to Operations Group (Ops Grp) comprises 12 internal teams that help identify training deficiencies and offer feedback to improve operation and assure success in future deployments (NTC Homepage). There are three main networks found in the NTC’s training program, a knowledge network, an affiliate network, and a communication network.

Denning, (2004) posit that the hierarchical model is the model used for formal company directives. The Operations Group hierarchical organizational chart effectively outlines the structure of the formal system. It displays the hierarchy for the Commander Operations Group (COG), top management, to mid-level leaders to front-line Soldiers/employees. The organizational chart also illustrates the horizontal interrelationships of the various operational divisions, brigades, and squads. The COG has the overall decision-making power concerning anything from budget to training of the Rotational Training Units (RTU) and time off.

Knowledge networks are collections of individual and teams of an establishment that shares a body of knowledge. The focal point of the network is to produce, disseminate and use knowledge. The goals of the knowledge network are coordination, learning/innovation, adaptive, and support (Pugh & Prusak, 2013). At NTC, the COG is the individual who establishes the commercial enterprises and generates most business incentives (single charge) and is placed on the upper side of the strategic hierarchy. Knowledge flows downward to all tenant organizations and personnel. The formal network is a way of delivering directives but is not the primary influence on leaders. The organizational chart represents the formal network in the system under normal circumstances, and every member of the system is required to stand by it. For instance, if a team has a concern, the team must route their concern to the Executive Officer (XO) through the team leader and immediate supervisors on that team and vice versa. Still, in times of crisis management, such as a death, executive leaders shun this network and refer directly to the teams.

Affiliation networks join people together by a common bond or membership of a team (Senge, 2006) and learn by collaborative learning techniques. Collaborative learning techniques develop the teams’ attitude and competence to interact and collaborate to reach a common goal (Jo, Kang, & Yoon, 2014).

The affiliations of OPS Grp are multi-Hubbard with three packs. The collaborative teams, listed as the CG and his staff, the OC/Ts and the RTUs channels, all have informal links as they share knowledge back and forth to achieve mission success. On that point, it is also an open or casual link within each team with the COG (over the RTU bosses), OC/T Teams and their bosses, and OC/T teams with RTU Soldiers. These are social relationships which are driven by verbal and non-verbal communications. In this instance, NTC is the merchant, and the RTUs are the clients.

Furthermore, Jo, Kang, and Yoon, 2014 asserts that leaders with outstanding communication competence get stronger support from members, which enables the leaders to exert leadership effectually and, in the end, contribute to organizational performance results. Communication networks can be defined as patterns of human-to-human contact through which data flows. One of the communication devices used at NTC is the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) Increment 2 (WIN-T2). The WIN-T2 is a mobile base that enables Soldiers to communicate through voice, pictures and video in real-time while on the movement.

Real-time communication empowers commanders with accurate data that allows them to get immediate decisions (Schwerin, 2012). Additionally, OC/Ts, communicate with RTUs through diverse platforms such as Frequency Modulation (FM) Radios, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) and Joint Command Release (JCR). Communicating on these platforms enables the commander to adapt to their environment faster than the enemy and provide superior command and control of their troops. Additionally, a Soldier can immediately relay information through voice, text and photos, providing commander’s immediate situational awareness (Schwerin, 2012).”

Recommend Goldsmith and Katzenbach (2007), point out that as leaders advance through the ranks they want to learn to a greater extent on the formal structure. However, leaders can gain tremendous insight on their Soldiers through informal networks. While formal relationships are central to achieving organizational goals and missions, they are sometimes restrictive to open interaction. Moreover, the formal network is deemed as accepting more of an influence on leadership and management within an establishment that holds a tall hierarchical structure, often it is the informal network that employees and leadership will lean towards to get the mission accomplish.

Divisions can improve the network structure within their brigades and battalions by adapting pre-prepare protocols for special situations that call for quick navigation through the formal network as opposed to trying to stick to the stringent step by step protocol. This would add versatility to the establishment, and primarily leave the most important or pressing issues for those in the upper echelon of the hierarchical structure to reach informed conclusions.

As managers become more experience in analyzing their communication networks, it is a useful tool for them to spot common configurations. Furthermore, I would advise management to help Soldiers/employees develop relationships inside the loose social system that will enable them to make valuable contributions to the company (The conflict between.n.d.). Soldiers and leaders alike can leverage the capabilities of informal relationships by building both weak ties, those with lower frequency, and strong tie relationships with a high frequency of interaction. The former is a crucial juncture to solving organizational concerns and generate innovative ideas.

In conclusion, a network is a group with connections between them called relationships. The OPS Group at NTC utilizes both formal and informal networks to carry through its mission and strategic plan. Formal network guides the organization or enables it to accomplish its mission and consists of vertical and hierarchal relations. Informal networks are an integral function of transmitting data and aiding work responsibilities and build up through casual relationships to fill a demand. The network that is most influential on leaders is needed dependent. The formal network is influential when management is preparing policies, strategies, logistics, and doctrinal training. The informal network is influential when leaders and Soldiers are seeking input and innovative thoughts on topics that need approval by the formal network.

Recommendations

Goldsmith and Katzenbach (2007), point out that as leaders advance through the ranks they want to learn to a greater extent on the formal structure. However, leaders can gain tremendous insight on their Soldiers through informal networks. While formal relationships are central to achieving organizational goals and missions, they are sometimes restrictive to open interaction. Moreover, the formal network is deemed as accepting more of an influence on leadership and management within an establishment that holds a tall hierarchical structure, often it is the informal network that employees and leadership will lean towards to get the mission accomplish.

Supporting Research

Complexity (Week 8)

[Provide a brief introduction to this section. This week’s section should require about two or three pages.]

Organizational Diagram

[Expand the model created in Week 2 to include several more elements: detectors, effectors, and networks (agents + relationships). Note: There may be several different organizational networks depending on the topic of interest. Space within the model is limited, thus illustrate at high level in one diagram. See the myCoffeeShop for some examples.]

Organizational Description

[Expand on the description of the organization by describing the agents (including detectors and effectors); their relationships with other agents; the flow of information, material, or energy across these networks; tags (labels such as manager, engineer, support staff, and so on); how agents are aggregated (e.g., hierarchy, alphabetical, chronological, size, type, geography, or other); two or three nonlinear (positive or negative) feedback loops; and three or four subordinate or sublevel organizational processes. For example, if the top level or primary process is educating students in the case of a university, then four subprocesses might be recruiting students, teaching students, assessing students, and graduating students. Each of these subprocesses (parts) could be further decomposed.

Recommendations

[Recommend how your organization could improve with a better understanding of the various structures and processes in the organization.]

Supporting Research

[Provide at least two citations/references to support your explanations to executive leadership, including a brief discussion of value or importance to your organization.]

Resilience (Week 9)

[Provide a brief introduction to this section. This week’s section should require about three or four pages.]

Resilience Matrix

[Use the World Economic Forum matrix in the Learning Resources to explore resilience in your selected organization. This matrix contains 25 cells made up of the intersections of the X axis and the Y axis. The X axis elements are: economic, environmental, governance, infrastructure, and social. The Y axis elements are: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, response, and recovery. Describe any eight of these cells in narrative format (please do not use a Word or Excel table to insert this discussion). For example, describe how robust your organizational economics are in the economic/robustness cell. Continue to describe these eight cells in this manner. Now provide an overall assessment or evaluation of how resilient your organization is based on your analysis. Explain how leadership might use this information to improve decision making.]

Supporting Research

[Provide at least two citations/references to support your explanations to executive leadership, including a brief discussion of value or importance to your organization.]

Summary and Conclusions

[Summarize your Final Project in one or two paragraphs and provide any concluding remarks.]

ADP 7-0 Training Units and Developing Leaders. Retrieved from http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adp7_0.pdf

Ahner, D. K., Alt, J. K., Baez, F., Jackson, J., Sanchez, S. M., & Seitz, T. (2008). Incorporating information networks into. Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Winter Simulation 133-144.

Bellinger, G. (2012). Escalation systems archetype [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mql3OylV_Fw

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science (Pre-1986), 2(3), 197–208.

Braun, W. (2002). The system archetypes. System, 2002(27), 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf

Clemens, W. C. (2013). Complexity science and world affairs. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Dhiman, S. (2011). Personal mastery and authentic leadership. Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 69-83. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/899227431?accountid=35812

GlobalSecurity.org. (2015). National training center exercises. Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ctc-ntc.htm

Jo, I.-H., Kang, S., & Yoon, M. (2014). Effects of Communication Competence and Social Network Centralities on Learner Performance. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (3), 108–120. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=288491c8-80fd-4d1c-b34b-911e4e973724%40sessionmgr4005&vid=0&hid=4106

Morecroft, J. (2007). Strategic modeling and business dynamics: A feedback systems perspective. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

National Training Center Homepage. Operations Group “Train the Force”. Retrieved from http://www.irwin.army.mil/Pages/Units/OPSGp/OpsGp.html

No Author (2015). NTC Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.irwin.army.mil/Pages/Units/NTC/NTC.html .

Pugh, K., & Prusak, L. (2013). Designing effective knowledge networks. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(1), 79-88. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1438813256?accountid=458

Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems: unlocking the mysteries of organizational life, 2nd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Schwerin, C. (2012). The new approach will deliver integrated tactical communications network. Army Communicator, 37 (1), 36. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=016e572f-8ccc-4796-9172-9439cf42456%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4106

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning. London: Random House

Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California management review, 43(4): 8-25

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

The Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. (2015a). The source. Salem, MA: Chamber Publishing Group.

The Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. (2015b). Strategic plan: 2015-2018. New Heaven, CT: The Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce.

United States Army Center of Military history. Army Birthdays. May 7, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

U.S. Department of the Army. Army training and leader development. Army Regulation 350-1. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, August 19, 2014.

U.S. Department of the Army. The brigade combat team. Field Manual 3-90.6. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, September 14, 2010.

U.S. Department of the Army. The brigade special troops battalion. Field Manual 3-90.61. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, June 15, 2007.

U.S. Department of the Army. The infantry battalion. Field Manual 3-21.20. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 13, 2006.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The History and Status of General Systems Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426. doi:10.2307/255139

What Is the Difference Between an Informal & Formal ... (n.d.). Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-informal-formal-organization-1

PAGE