Relationship Between Strategy and Structure - Essay Example

? ‘Relationship between Strategy and Structure’ Army Training and Doctrine command ‘Relationship between Strategy and Structure’ ArmyTraining and Doctrine command Strong leader ship is an essential part of any organizations success. A structural framework point of view allows managers to set a strategy which can be utilized in environments of low uncertainty and be of the greatest fit with the structure or the external factors in which the organization has to work. The leader clearly defines roles, authority and responsibility along the lines of organizational goals and the focus is on facts, task and logic not on emotional aspects. The approach works best when cause and effect analysis are clearly understood with regards to the impact of the external environment and the organizations internal structure. Traditionally it has been defined that a ‘company’s strategic options are bounded by the environment’ (Kim & Mauborgne, 2010). The Bolman and Deal Model of frameworks of leadership introduce four frameworks beside the structural framework. These are the Human resource, Political and symbolic framework all which focus on different external and internal factors and direct towards different management styles which best enhance the competitive edge of the company in light of these factors. The U.S Army and Training Doctrine Command is a command of the United States Army whose main goals are the education and training of soldiers and Army forces, supporting the maturity of operational policy and procurement and development of new weapons systems. The official website and regulations document define the strategy of the organization as enhancing integration between “land force capabilities in the development of joint operating, functional, and integrating concepts in coordination with other sectors of the Army. It also manages, directs and synchronizes the concept development by integrated concept and capabilities team” (TRADOC Reg 10-5-2, 2006). The strategy, organizational goals and purpose of the organization is fulfilled through 32 schools in 20 different locations in the US, which train about 500,000 soldiers annually. Currently TARDOC is transitioning into war fighting-functions centers known as ‘Centers of Excellence’ to better serve their mission of “Strengthen America’s Force of Decisive Action and provides the Nation an adaptable Army for an uncertain future”. These centers provide specialized training in certain areas of expertise that convey current war fighting requirements. TADOC is organized in a hierarchical fashion, with different factions dealing with their specified functions and goals and reporting directly to one higher up and the whole organization is headed by a Commanding General. The organization structure distributes resources and roles along strictly defined lines and the higher authority have the final say in formal policy determination, conflict resolution and reward and recognition. This is reflective of a structural framework approach to management with clear goals and information available for the organization strategy. The approach is a successful fit for an organization which has to train future soldiers for stressful and turbulent conditions; though adaptability and quick thinking are traits which are to be induced in their students the organization is best served through rigid rules, policy and training regimes. With the most advance technology and data available to them for analysis and decision making, the structural framework lets the managers or leaders of the organization form future strategies which are to be followed by the whole work force. The strict management leads to an environment where commands are quickly followed and security and precautions related to their activity are highly emphasized. The centralized control is possible through the hierarchical structure which helps in implementing the development plans in the different sectors (human resource and technological) of TARDOC. While it culture and practices of the organization may be too traditionally ‘closed’ for application to other public organizations it is proven to the best solution for an army unit. The successful fit of the strategy and structure of the organization have allowed it to move forward and modify their goals for the 21st century in an efficient and effective manner. The smooth integration of their different sectors and mission, along with transformation of TARDOC’s schools into Centers of Excellence has been possible because of a strong higher command which has made insightful decisions taking into consideration the changing external factors and implemented its results onto the organization strategy and goals. The needs for security, precautions and order for an Army unit are immense and a structural framework provides authorities decisions where necessary and keep the organization on the right track. Best practices and a strong leader ship naturally produces capable and adaptive leaders who can later on handle their own responsibilities with as much clout and discipline. For TARDOC decisions on organization design and structure are based on traditional authority roles and the hierarchy which exists in most military units. Any changes are under taken with the utmost research and study; they have positions and divisions like Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) and Information Integration Directorate, which develop and “facilitate situational understanding and decision making through the art of creating, organizing, applying, and transferring knowledge” (2012), specially with regards to policies and regulation in the rapidly changing environments of IM and IT. While it can be argued that the organization might benefit from approaching their management style through an integrated approach utilizing all the four frameworks, so far the structural framework seems to be working fine for TARDOC. Though if the situation changes so much so that independent opinion and an open culture is required by the organization to function properly, a human resource approach along with a symbolic framework approach will also fit in organizational goals for developing armed forces which are loyal and skilled to the state. To some degree it might be in the interest of the organization to apply the human resource framework even now to give a greater importance to their soldiers and other staff – as it could lead to increased level of motivation. The paper written by Thompson, 1991, discusses the organization ‘Department of defense’ at pentagon with the same research analysis as was attempted in this paper. Thompson identified a structure-strategy mismatch in the organization which lead to inefficient productivity and a management crisis for the department. Thompson suggested a complete realignment of administrative and management roles along lines of responsibility and with sound accounting practices to solve issues with budgeting. The DoD was suffering from unintentional centralization of its operations which made it difficult to operate on their strategy for a changing world and made the complex organization over all inflexible. A proper restructuring of the department as consistent with their strategy could eradicate these problems. References Chan, K. & Mauborgne (2010). How strategy shapes structure. Harvard Business Review.Retrieved August, 2011, from http://hbr.org/2009/09/how-strategy-shapes-structure/ar/1 Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2002). Bolman and Deal’s Four Framework Approach. Retrieved August, 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/40758273/Bolman-and-Deal%E2%80%99s- Four-Framework-Approach Nwlink.com (2011). Bolman and Deal's four framework approach to leadership. Retrieved August, 2011 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/framwork.html ; http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadmodels.html#framework ; http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WINGN8i2CTgJ:curriculum.bsd405.org/personal/suttonp/leadership/Advanced%2520Leadership/Four%2520Frameworks%2520for%2520Leadership.doc+bolman+and+deal+four+framework+approach&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiFv1xfzwL4-gtxYjz_qLHOFsVCH6BbVsPrQ28Kqwg6WVn-kgVE-HTWuCrUgG2BLIjOp1u-3x4hzgOTKGnOn8CHMJwulzzDw07he6Euda-DLF8GpDgINuiSSgyuMwTVUo9Td9gG&sig=AHIEtbTT5823ndxGPzytsV6-n3Dr3-62kQ  McLeod, S. (2007). Bolman and Deal Frameworks. Retrieved August, 2011 from http://bigthink.com/ideas/29710   About TARDOC, (2012). US Army Training and Doctrine command, Retrieved from: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/About.asp TARDOC regulation 10-5-2, 2006. Organization and Function, futures Center. Department of the Army, retrieved from : http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r10-5-2.pdf Read More