NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Chain of Command is Broken In a certain Army unit there is a complete lack of communication between upper and lower echelons. To further hinder this communication problem each of the upper and lower echelons are further subdivided into segments that each require their own path of communication. Additionally, as if this wasn't enough of a problem, the segments of each echelon are required to communicate to subordinates, peers and superiors on a frequent, if not daily basis. The basis of this problem is that in order for this unit to function properly communications are essential.
But, due to the lack of communications between all echelon levels and their segments there is an obvious decrease in morale and performance. The dynamics of this problem seem to rest with the upper echelon. They are the ones who are responsible for developing the objectives they wish their subordinates to achieve. Additionally, they are not setting forth realistic objectives.
These objectives are not feasible and may be responsible for part of the lack of communication and morale. This theory is supported by Max Weber in his discussions of bureaucracy. In order to confirm my theory I would initially use a purely observational approach strategy. This would consist of observing how each of the echelons broken down to the lowest possible level communicates with one another on a daily basis.
After discovering where the communication breakdown is occurring I would then develop a plan in order to prevent this from happening. After devising this plan I would implement it ensuring to take notes of the progress for my evaluation. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And most certainly, when that link is the one closest to the top, the ship may leave the dock with the rest of the chain drowning in the water. (Grandlund, 2005) A radical shift is occurring in the world outside the cognizance of most people. This shift involves information, communication, and power.
Transition of power from a "traditional bureaucracy" into an advanced organizational structure is also involved. To better comprehend these ideas, it is necessary to understand the form of typical bureaucracy. By learning and review from the past and present, it becomes possible to comprehend the future. Clark Staten accurately notes that the world has undergone a gradual transformation from an agrarian society, into a pre-industrial or small business civilization, to a "Smoke-Stack" (factory assembly line) mentality, and finally is becoming a primarily service based economy (Staten, 1994). Toffler in his turn says that during this transition the power of information has increased proportionally with the advances of technology (Toffler, 1991). Toffler's main assumption is that there are three main sources of "power": violence, wealth and knowledge.
It has a solid base of strong theoretical perspectives that are integrated within a rich intellectual heritage of theory and research in organizations, technology and social psychology (Jamblin and Putnam, 2001, p. 219). Many modern organization structures use a combination of these three "power tools" to realize management of their personnel and resources. Most government and private bureaucracies have occurred from "smoke stack" management style guaranteeing that all tasks underwent compartmentalization and that workers did not possess the "mentality" to learn, plan, discuss or organize their work. Such "traditional" organizations placed numerous layers of management personnel to supervise the operations of the small compartments and to insure cooperation between them.
Information, ideas, benefits, motivation, organizational direction and higher pay flowed only from the higher management layers to the "lower-level worker drones" at the lowest level of the organizational chart. I have to agree with Christian Michel (2005) that limiting the amount of information handled by the hierarchy means the chain of command can be quite effective. Therefore resistance to the chain of command would develop dissipation of information and ineffectiveness would ensue. This is the core failing of all bureaucracies be they public or private. Toffler describes the two major features of bureaucracies power as "cubbyholes" and "channels." According to Alvin Toffler, specialized executives control "cubbyholes", places where people, information, records, resources, and functions are grouped. "Cubbyholes" are hypothetically easily managed. Senior managers and executives can be informed that "this way" problem should be solved by "this or that bureau / section /division", as that is their area of responsibility.
Some "cubbyholes" may report to one manager, although some more important "cubbyholes" usually have their own manager. "Channels" are the way that information, direction and motivation get from one place in the organization others. Managers receive power by monitoring and filtering the information flow, down or up the tightly structured chain of command. By influence on this information or knowledge flow, managers are regarded powerful or lacking power. Without an effective flow from one place to another in an organization, inefficiency, duplicity and disorganization are likely to occur. Some managers firmly believe in a strict interpretation of a formal "Chain of Command" structure and procedure for this reason. In the business world when a problem arises, it goes directly to the boss for resolution.
If the boss can not solve the problem, it is taken to the next person up the organizational chart and asked them to solve it. Ultimately, if still unsolved, it reaches the top of the organizational chart and is left in the hands of the ultimate person, usually company board of directors or the business owner. At that point, the solution makes a reverse journey back down the organizational chart to the person who first reported the problem. This is the chain of command, which is present in most social organizations, for example the workplace, family, club, church, and of course politics. Ordinary people understand the chain of command as an acceptance of the way things are, as somebody has to make the rules, produce ideas and put the foot down. In the civilian world, we also accept the fact that the person at the top of the organizational chart may not be the strongest, smartest, or most congenial person, but is just lucky to occupy this position.
Privately own businesses can pretty much run as they see fit, provided that they keep to the laws of the country. The business success depends on the actions and decisions of the people at the top of the organizational chart, not least of all as they impact the lives of the file and rank employees who actually carry out the business work. The chain of command works (or doesnt) depending on the integrity level of those at the top of the organizational chart. A business executive who treats his subordinates poorly is undoubtedly likely to fail. But in fact, most unsound leadership results only in temporary economic disorder for a relatively small few.
There is also a chain of command structure in government, with new politicians falling in behind their more senior legislators. But unlike the private sector, where one person is usually responsible for resolution, in government, when a problem reaches the top of the chain of command without being solved, the final judge is the people themselves, who have the power to alter the leadership with a vote, and consequently, the power to solve the problem. If persons at the top of the political organizational chart fail to keep their faith and promises to those at the bottom of the organizational chart, they lose jobs and should go back to running private companies into the ground. The army has a chain of command as well, but here the top of the organizational chart does not end with the highest-ranking general.
For many reasons, the final authority belongs to the politicians. Whereas a business leader can decide how to invest the resources, a military leader has no such opportunity. Whereas an employee may take the employer to task for wasting his / her time or talent, there is no such option for the military. Decisions concerning everything from deployments to wages to post-service benefits rest in the hands of the elected authorities, and the military just obey those sitting in the government. Sometimes the leaders are quite wise, deliberative, and fair when setting the military policy.
Sometimes they are unrealistic, arrogant, uncaring, or just plain out of touch. In the civilian world, if our bosses or leaders are bad, people look for a new job or join a new club. In the military world, a person has only to grin and bear it, and hope not to get too screwed over in the process. The chain of command concept is as effective as the people at the top of the organizational chart. At some point, those sitting at levels below the top must get the impression that leaders above them are making informed, good decisions or else they will wish to leave that particular organizational chart. For the military, effective leadership is reduced to a few basic things: it should be properly outfitted and prepared; have solid objective, strategy, and exit plan; follow through on certain promises like health benefits, home loan programs and education assistance.
Yet failure of the civilian leadership (political one) to provide these things to the military is seldom met with criticism from those who are directly affected. Instead, the militarys strict devotion to the chain of command prevents members of the military from bringing these issues up with anyone except their immediate superiors and contemporaries. In such tightly controlled chain of command, it takes long time for problems to be acknowledged and it becomes very easy to pull a fast one on the military troops. Modern military is faced with an administration and Congress that is not only inept, but bifacial as well. Different incidents in Iraq prove this. Helena Cobban in 2004 in her article Najaf: US Command Chain Broken asserted that the political stuff that's been happening in Iraq depict a command system for the US forces in Iraq, it looks seriously broken and needs to be corrected immediately.
The concept of "fire control" is a critical one in the conduct of any military operation. At the small-unit level, it is connected with using resources effectively in order to achieve the given objectives. At a larger-unit level it becomes more strategic and political as well. It cannot be changed that many of the elected office leaders have never served in a military unit. They have never observed the reality of war which is the result of their policies and proclamations. They have never been wounded on the battlefield, they have never been to a veterans hospital for post conflict treatment as well.
In fact, many politicians come from a privileged background. Often they make statements about standing behind the mission of the troops without having any idea what this or that mission is. Those authorities send soldiers into battle, but they neglect to provide them with proper arm. Instead of solving problems, many politicians create them for the military troops, and as ordinary soldiers see that, the chain of command loses any meaning, and the troops lose the sense of purpose. Moreover, even when the policy is correct, it is often comes to the troops delayed. Seymour Hersch cites Marine General Peter Pace, If the Army had been slow, it was because of built-in safeguards.
Its important to know that as investigations are completed they come up the chain of command in a very systematic way. So that the individual who reports in writing up to the next level commander. But he or she takes time, a week or two weeks, three weeks, whatever it takes, to read all of the documentation, get legal advice and make the decisions that are appropriate at his or her level. That way everyones rights are protected and we have the opportunity systematically to take a look at the entire process (cited in Hersch, 2004). Though American army is considered to be the most technologically advanced military in the modern world, the effects of the politicians and the policies often take a toll on the militarys ability to attract and retain good officers and soldiers. Quite often everything promised to soldiers, i.
e. medical care, educational assistance, loans to buy homes or start businesses, and assistance in transitioning from the military world to the civilian one with job placement programs, very often are afterwards unrealized for those who spent their youth in a foreign land fighting some political war without any real purpose or plan. It means that the entire command situation needs to be brought under some form of rational control. In the chain of command structure, simple people may not have that much power, but, for instance, when it comes to the government, people become the chain of command. In the command structure, the basis for everything is the rule of engagement, where an assignment or engagement is based on the contract. I can say that even, citizenship is a contract between a citizen and the state.
And if the state fails to meet expectations of the citizens, the command structure collapses, i. e. citizens lose confidence in the government, and are likely to disobey the statutes of the command structure. Sometimes this happens in military. It is known that today the abilities of companies, government agencies and the consumer to interact and communicate continue to improve; the process of change continues to accelerate. The public's vision of any organization today is formed by the information about it that is spread by the mass media and a rapidly expanding ability of common citizens to gather data.
Often, a relatively benign act or remark may have huge impact on a company or entire country when it is amplified by radio, television, computer or satellite. The magnitude of the ability to alter the public perception so rapidly is to change the way that organizations, government or military are managed. In a great number of companies, in almost all government agencies, in the military, and in many other organizations, the strict "Chain of Command" and "compartmentalization" theories are ingrained and stuck to. An attempt to change the bureaucracy is to reduce or alter the essence of the power structure within such organizations. This will and is resisted at almost every level of the bureaucracy, because it will cause a shift of power and it's inherent privileges.
One is obvious, what would be the management and chain of command of the future. Greatly increased computer storage and retrieval technologies will allow the executives to immediately access huge amounts of information and usable facts from desktop workstation. Such access can be made available to the required number of people; new input can be added as it is obtained or compiled from other databases. Some information types will be accessed in "real time" and expected to measurably amend a company's or organizations response to some dynamic events. Hopefully, this will be applicable to military, as well.
References Grandlund, K. (2005, October 26) The Chain of Command. Common Sense (Returning Reason to the Political and Social Conversation. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from web Jamblin, F. M. & Putnam, L. L. (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cobban, H. (2004, August 18). Najaf: US Command Chain Broken. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from web Staten, C. (1994) Information, Communication, and Power within a Bureaucracy. Retrieved December 20, 1995, from Emergency Response & Research Institute database web Toffler, A. (1991). Power shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Power at the Edge of the 21 st Century, NY: Bantam.
Michel, Ch. (2005, April 2). Why do we have rights? A speech before the Libertarian International European Conference. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from web Hersh S. M. (2004). Chain of Command How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib.
The New Yorker, May 17, 2004. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from web
Free research essays on topics related to: lack of communication, chain of command, upper and lower, organizational chart, solve the problem
Research essay sample on The Chain Of Command Is Broken
