Essay Sample on Innovation in the Military

Introduction

Military organizations operate under a bureaucratic culture that strictly defines the organizational structure and flow of operations. From recruitment to retention, the military follows a strict formation of authority. Junior employees must strictly adhere to their seniors' instructions and abide by the existing rules and regulations. The bureaucratic military profile affects the level of innovativeness and creativity among the employees. Significant limitations revolve around the recruitment process, hierarchical structure, self-restraint culture, and restriction of personnel engagement. Autocratic management also inhibits creativity and innovativeness as it creates fear, tension, and hesitancy in the personnel. Military leadership also suffers from the resistance to change and negative attitudes towards innovation and creativity. This chapter evaluates the role of the army culture in inhibiting innovativeness and creativity in military organizations. It also explores creativity and innovation as a philosophy and the importance of managing and maintaining its performance. Besides, it addresses the measuring instruments for creativity and innovation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Theoretical Review

The issue of innovation in military organizations is a management challenge resulting from the organizational culture and resistance to change. An evaluation of the impact of these factors on innovation in military organizations must align with theories of change and corporate culture. This study relies on Kurt Lewin's theory of evolution, Gerard Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory, and Edgar Schein's organization culture model.

Kurt Lewin's Theory of Change

Lewin's theory of change postulates three stages of evolution. The unfreezing state is the first stage of the change process. It is the point where the organization elaborates the need for a new system. The unfreezing stage involves developing an understanding of the problems of the existing scheme (Cummings, Bridgman, & Brown, 2016). It is the most challenging phase of the change process as it involves questioning the way people do things. When a system is in use, people develop a given form of tackling issues. Unfreezing entails changing people's perspectives and undoing current practices (Liu, Yan, Zhai, & Zheng, 2016). It is the step that exhibits resistance to transformations. Individuals develop resistance to change because they are not willing to give up their current practices. Unfreezing involves getting people to understand the need for revolutionizing. The next stage in the change process is "change" itself (Cummings et al., 2016). It involves incorporating the new way of doing things into the organization. It is the stage where the organization develops and integrates the new method. This phase is only possible if the members of the company have accepted the need for change and embrace the move to establish a new system. The last stage is the freezing phase. It involves turning the new system into an organizational culture or structure (Liu et al., 2016). It entails creating new norms and habits.

Military organizations have a high resistance to change due to the bureaucratic nature of management. They have a hierarchical and autocratic structure where the top management bears full authority and power to make decisions. However, the concentration of power in a small group of individuals limits creativity and development. It lessens the optimization of resources. Based on Simon's notion of bounded rationality, a solution can never qualify to be the only possible best way of solving the problem (Schiliro, 2018). Individuals act on the basis of what is most satisfactory among rational solutions. Military organization leaders may not necessarily develop optimal strategic decisions. Its culture ensures that there is a limited confrontation between juniors and seniors. Leaders get to make decisions without any possibility of review other than from high ranks. According to Tommann (2016), the military culture confines decision-making around the leaders. Confinement of decision-making also limits creativity and innovativeness around the same group. These factors hinder the need for change and increase resistance to change.

Gerard Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory

Hofstede identified several aspects of culture that influence organizational behavior. He argued that cultural differences determine the differences in behavior and thinking. Corporate customs affect the decision-making process based on Hofstede dimensions. National and regional groupings impact organizational behavior through these measurements. The dimensions also determine organizational effectiveness. Masculinity vs. femininity dimension refers to the gender orientation of a given culture or society (Agodzo, 2015). Community in this regard may apply to the organization composition, region, or nation. Individualism vs. collectivism element reflects the disharmony between personal and collective goals. A society's expectation of collective or individual goals reflects in the organization. A capitalistic society will foster individualist goals, and the same will reflect in organizational behavior. Another dimension is that of uncertainty avoidance, which determines the ways of coping with future risks (Agodzo, 2015). Societies cope with uncertainty in about the future in different ways, which can either be rational or non-rational. The power distance dimension reflects society's different solutions for dealing with inequalities. In regards to power, leaders strive to maintain high power or authority while employees attempt to gain influence.

In military organizations, military culture defines this particular society. Organizations have established rules and regulations that identify the norms within the military. The power dimension reflects the inequalities within the companies. Consequentially, the disparity in authority reflects decision-making levels and abilities within military organizations. The leaders have the authority to make decisions and control their juniors. However, the employees have to abide by the body of the leaders without question. Their power is limited to taking instructions and adhering to the guidelines thoroughly. In these societies, a small group of individuals wields more power than the rest. The structure of military management is vertically hierarchical in that the topmost leaders use the highest amount of power. The rest of the organization has to follow the leaders' authority and has no ability to contribute or change the decision.

Edgar Schein's Organization Culture Model

Edgar Schein opined that organization culture is a product of various changes and adaptations to the environment. In other words, organizational culture results from the evolution of the institution's norms, values, and beliefs over time (Cotter-Lockard, 2016). When employees join an organization, they adjust and evolve to the new company's standards and values to fit into their culture (Schein, 2015). Organizational culture is a collection of factors that define the institution. Artifacts are the characteristics of an organization that is easily visible or audible. They include things such as uniforms, mission, vision, facilities, and behavior (Weatherington, 2009). Artifacts forms the necessary level of the organizational culture. Values form another level of culture. Individual values of the members of the organization define the corporate culture (Cotter-Lockard, 2016). They include the attitudes of the employees and their thought processes. Employees' understanding of what is important or not determine the elements they value in the organization. In other words, the workers' worldview and mindset determine the organizational customs. Another level of culture involves assumed values. This aspect includes the inner elements of human nature. These are the unspoken and immeasurable values of the employees that are innate but have a definite influence on culture. This level of culture refers to the unspoken rules that determine the way employees behave.

Schein's theory of organization culture explains a handful of military culture. Police forces organizations operate under a set of rules that define the interaction between individuals. Starting from the military dress code to the set rules that determine employee behavior, organizations are structured. The institutions also have specific infrastructural facilities that are unique to the industry. Vehicles and other forms of movement reflect the military culture. The bureaucratic authority also determines the interaction between members of the institutions (Schein, 2015). Military employees have a set of values that identify them and influence their actions. For example, military personnel value orders and ideas from their superiors. As a result, it is unlikely for them to disrespect their leaders regardless of the situation. Assumed values in the military may also define their actions in the line of duty and while interacting with others. For example, military personnel tend to respect and protect children more than other parties.

Empirical Review

Inhibitors of Innovation in Military Organizations

Most military organizations have invested heavily in research and development. However, military organizations are often ineffective compared to civilian research and development (Bellais, 2013). Continued investment in research and development among military institutions points to an ever-increasing demand for creativity and innovativeness in the industry. Security threats are the main drivers of the need for innovativeness and creativity. For example, a single security threat, like the USSR's 1957 Sputnik I launch triggered the development of military technology in the early 1960s in the United States. It also led to a surge in military funding, especially for research and development. Fear of attack stimulates innovation as the country prepares for future wars. According to Bisson (2014), the advancement of cybercrime calls for investment in military innovation to curb the potential of such crimes. These facts point to the development of military transformations by either anticipation or adaptation. According to Adamsky and Bjerga (2012), contemporary military innovation occurs in anticipation of future victories or reaction to threat and attacks. The expectation is a peacetime reaction while adaptation is a wartime response. Thus, change in the military industry is inevitable.

However, most of the organizations search for innovative technologies from civilian companies. According to Bellais (2013), military systems are dependent on private commercial technologies. Dependence on civilian techniques reduces the urge to develop human capital for innovation purposes. The continued relationship between the military and civilian commercial organizations is one of the limitations of development of innovativeness in military companies. The defense industry shifts the responsibility for innovativeness to the private market, thus reducing the need to foster creativity (Adamsky & Bjerga, 2012). The availability of such an option to military source technology from commercial institutions minimizes the need to innovate. Though military institutions invest heavily in research and development, the investment benefits the financial institutions, leaving military personnel with little to experiment with. Investment in civilian organizations also gives them an edge over military institutions in developing newer technologies. This engagement creates symbiotic association between the two sets of organizations. The military is always in need of new and improved technology but cannot produce it effectively. Civilian commercial firms are in business and benefit from investment from military org...