A Change and military Organization

John P. Kotter: ”People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking, than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.”

Some experiences on leading the change in military environment

“This is not a way to fight – let´s go over this little marsh!”¹

For a human being, a change is always grossing the boundaries of one´s comfort zone. Going over the edge is an individual experience. There are persons, who feel the edge is a challenge and others to whom it is a blockade. The leader of change must acknowledge this difference. The leader should give right direction to those willing to start the journey and offer the others a firm hand of support over the abyss of fear and uncertainty.

Since feeling is always individual and right, leader of change must walk the talk. All leaders should walk amongst their troops, tell narratives of better future, listen to fears of their subordinates and help them to manage their threats. Leaders are to tell about change with stories from troops reality, create feelings with facts and urge to change their behaviour.

“I dare not – I haven´t had any training for that!”²

The end state may be either improving the current tactics or introducing new weapon systems, but individual and organizational skill and competence are always cornerstones in capturing new capability. Human competence does not develop linearly but in a spiral. The new concept needs experience gained by practice and understanding with feelings to get to the level of competence. After individual and collective acceptance, the new way of doing things will change professional behaviour. Sometimes existing proficiency may be sufficient, but individual feels, that there is a need for training, certification, and authorization, before talks turn to deeds.

Organisational competence includes culture, guides, and operational procedures. A change of those requires, that members of the organisation understand the deeper structures of their unit, create an aligned interpretation of new rules and change their behaviour, interaction, and values in synchrony. The change of organisational competence requires most members to adopt new behaviour and pull others with them. This calls leader to award any positive change visibly, and without hesitation rotate all those sub-leaders that are not capable of changing their unit.

“Company – Attention! Right – turn! Forward – March!”

Change is continuous within every organisation – either planned and executed or unnoticed but gradually accepted. When an organisation is producing its value in monopoly without competition or increased demands, it tends to get fat. Everyone wants to do meaningful work, functions and roles do get narrower by time, nobody wants to give up legacy tasks, and new jobs require additional personnel. Typical public-sector organisation builds up extra controls and excessive bureaucracy. A lot more administration is needed to avoid mistakes, to utilise public funding according to paragraphs and to do things right but not necessarily right things.

Public sector organisations should improve their cost-efficiency about 5-7% annually to be able to compensate increasing expenses and fixed budgets. Organisations in open markets, or otherwise in a competitive environment, should continuously improve their cost-efficiency and be ready to make disruptive changes as needed to have annual 10% return on investment.

“Go on – I am supporting! (And having a smoke behind this boulder).”³

When an organisation is utilising relations with other organisations for adding value, a change in one part of the value chain will project need of a move to other parts. Even other entities within the same space of operation may have to change because one intertwined stakeholder amongst them is changing. The fluent interaction between organisations requires trust in all relations. A change must take care the confidence of relations, the value of one´s brand and be aware, that adversaries are not able to utilise capability caps opening during disruptive changes. 

Armed Forces usually operates in the following field of interrelations:

1. Defence is a projection of the state´s values and culture
2. Defence is always in relation to adversaries’ military force and willingness to utilise it
3. Defence is always in conjunction with states politics, structure, economy and operation network.

A need for change may appear from all these directions, and a change coming from one direction may affect the other relations as well. A Change of Military Organisation must maintain a balance between these directions of interaction. Otherwise, Military may be regarded as alien, not fulfilling its duty or as unnecessary cost.

“Let´s change organization to gain savings!”⁴

The organisational structure is a tool to arrange tasks and assets so that results may be produced with optimal cost-efficiency. A change should start from assets, tasks or results and then the new production is organised with optimised way taking into consideration the space of operation, interfaces with other stakeholders and intentions of the adversary. A form of organisation and basis of procedures do affect how people feel the change.

Matrix organisation, driven either by process or project, is easy to rearrange when assets, tasks, results or environment are changing. When specialised teams in a matrix remain almost untouched, goals and interrelations may be altered quickly. Higher the matrix maturity, faster the change of organisation.

Functional line-staff -organisation faces challenges in changing its rigid power structure, siloed functions, and non-existent inter-relations. In the worst case, one may only enlarge existing functional organisation or cut off its main parts. Iterative improvement is often blocked by almost autonomous administrative functions, which have seceded from core operations a long time ago. Rigid administrative processes may eat over half of productive time and create a mass of culture in which change is the most challenging.

Different units within same force may not be equally prepared for change. Some of the units may be in a state of “paralysis,” where all energy is spent in defending achieved status. Some may be in a state of “boiling” when the unit has lots of energy to change, but there is no unanimity of direction or method of change. Some units are in a state of “friction,” where vision and mission are clear, but natural energy or courage is lacking because of previous bad experiences. Best among the units are in a state of “mission command,” where the unit is prepared to change, and personnel is willing to accomplish as soon as the new mission is communicated.

“Could you find this document? Yes, Where it may be? Most probably in Archives of War Museum!”⁵

The organisation consists, besides people, material, and facilities, also immaterial assets of production. These assets include documents, contracts, royalties, brands, traditions, and trust. If the organisation is focusing mainly on changing of structure, it will lose the organisational memory, when documents are sent to Archives and trusted relations between people, when people are being rotated to new tasks. Also, information and understanding are valued assets, in some cases even multipliers to other assets. Thus they must be managed throughout the change.

“Everything will be better after the change!”⁶

When the change is almost over, quick-wins have been achieved; the new organisation is manned, new tools are available, leaders of change are being rotated, then people began drifting back to old habits, to old interactions, to old familiar culture. The change has not been cemented into competency and roles of people, procedures of organisation or culture of cooperation. End state must be bind to every level of structure and interfaces between units. The best method to stick change is to introduce new metrics, that will reward continuously new behaviour and makes it meaningful even to improve it. Control of change must extend beyond first sight of chance. Existing personnel should continue to be trained and certified to a new way of working; recruitment should support new procedures and skills, bases of old culture (key advocates, triggers of old habits) are recognised and removed. Leaders must walk persistently amongst subordinates to promote new methods and listen to people’s fears and other feelings. Social pressure must keep last opponents at bay and on track of change. Achieved peers should be brought amongst troops to tell stories of success with a new concept.

Narratives of change

Because our post-modern society still learns from stories, there is the following story of three little Organisations and their big Change.

Once upon a time in the far far land, three little Organisations were living in their big house in peace and complacency. Surely there were times of tightness, but on average, everything was going smoothly. Then one day the Patron of three little Organisations said that from now on, there is not going to be an annual increase in their allowance, but the same amount must suffice for next five years. Life went on with three little Organisations although their big house got more crowded every year because every member sub-optimised their work and many good members were recruited. The something happened in surrounding environment. Everybody wanted more, prices increased, the weather was colder, firewood was scarce, and aliens invaded parts of their house. After tedious complaints and pleads, the Patron of three little Organisations consented a temporary rise to their allowance but required all three to change each to the smaller house within next three years. Each little Organisation made grand plans for change utilising their sharpest members and most expensive consultants. However, no implementation was accomplished, when their Patron came to them one day and declared change to commence. However, there were all preparations to be done, members to be gathered, change the route to be reconnoitre and transportation to be ordered. The Patron was adamant and on top of all said that their allowance is to decrease within next four years of total 10% and after changing their compensation would be 10% smaller annually than today. The three little Organisations were paralysed with fear. The patron gave them three routes to be used for their change to a new house: 

1. short route through plains, but very very windy. 
2. direct route, but many floating rivers on the way. 
3. long, dark and winding but without wind or rain.

The Change of Organisation

The First of the three little Organisations established a bright project crew to plan very precisely how all members of little Organisation should walk along short but windy road to the new house. Every member had time to start the journey and timetable to proceed by milestone and to reach the goal. Along the route, The First Little Organisation arranged guards to control change and keep everybody strictly on planned time. It happened that just in time members of the First Little Organisation marched in line over the starting point, run over the windy road to first control and the second, until they reached the new house. The wind was strong and some members weak, so they were blown off and lost. However, the change was executed precisely according to plan as it was measured with precision. The First Little Organisation settled in their new tiny house, which felt already quite tight. Members returned to their old routines and tried to substitute those who were lost on the way. Then came the day than Patron cut the allowance by 10%. There was not money enough for firewood, so the First Little Organisation ripped his new house of all burning ingredients gradually. One day it happened that big bad Adversary walked by the house, noticed ripped building and the Little Organisation within. Big bad Adversary blew the house down, and the First Little Organisation runs away.

The Change Organisation

The Second Little Organisation took the mission with diligence. A coalition of change was created along the advice by Kotter. Managers and leaders walked amongst members to explain the mission ahead. Nevertheless, members were not willing to change. They were better as is, the new place was told to be in dangerous condition, and furthermore, there is the rainy season, so they should wait for more information and better time to change. The Second Little Organisation was desperate. The patron did not yield up but threatened to lower the allowance even more. This made the Second Little Organisation angry. The change will be executed even it kills him. The Second Little Organisation organised change programs, change portfolios, change projects and change sub-projects in best practice way. Planning and plans filled the house, but members were informed only of decisions. Even the old Neighbours were invited to help in planning, but members were told to keep on living old way. There was nothing to worry because management will take care of things and tell members at the due time what is expected from them during the change. 

Because almost all time was spent in planning, there was not much time left for an actual change. With help from old Neighbours, the Second Little Organisation rotated leaders, left behind fattest or most reluctant members and started to march. Many were the obstacles on the way, a number of members were swept from the road by floats and even more turned back because of frustration and fear. Finally, the Second Little Organisation reached the new house, and a celebration was arranged. The New house was tiny, but since Organisation was smaller, everyone had room inside. It just happened that old “Doorkeepers” were not able to survive the change so nobody did know, how to close the new door and new neighbours were too busy to help. One day the Big bad Adversary happened to arrive in the area, noticed a tiny house with an open door and the Second Little Organisation inside. The Big bad Adversary blew the house down, and the Second Little Organisation runs away.

The Change

The Third Little Organisation did analyse the route, hardships on the way, size and position of the new house. The route was long and dark. The new house was tiny and allowance 10% smaller. The mission seemed unachievable. Reconnoitre patrol was sent to collect the experience of the route and new premises, members were categorised to those needed, those strong, those weak and those not needed. Patrol returned with some new neighbours. After analysing information, talking with new neighbours and planning with all members, The Third Little Organisation decided how to accomplish the change. The strong and fit members could start march as soon as possible. Those not needed but strong should also begin their journey, but with new neighbours, who promised to take them in their houses. Those needed but unfit started training to gain strength and lose weight. Both first units made the journey to a new village and began to create relations, learn new ways and settled into the new house. This was celebrated in both ends, and those remained in training got new motivation. Gradually, the Third Little Organisation sends units on the way as they become fit for the journey and the new tiny house. Finally, only those not needed and those unable to get fit remained in the old house. These members little Organisation left with his old neighbours supplied with gold coins. 

Finally, the Third Little Organisation was in a tiny new house surrounded by good new neighbours.  All members were busy doing new tasks, and they appear trained and united with their new neighbours. Even when Patron did cut down allowance, third little Organisation was able to loan some money to new neighbours for their house repairs. One day, the big bad Adversary happened to arrive in the area. Third Little Organisation noticed it, called neighbours to join and chased the big bad Adversary away. 

Main sources for this paper were:

John P. Kotter & Dan S. Cohen: The Heart of Change. Harvard Business School Press 2002

Pauli Juuti & Petri Virtanen: Organisaatiomuutos. Otava 2009 (only in Finnish)

Peter F. Drucker: Management Challenges for 21^st Century. 1999

This is a translation (19.06.2013) of the paper Juha Mattila prepared late 2011.

Remarks:

1 Detached from the movie: Unknown Soldier – Tuntematon sotilas by Edwin Laine

2 Heard from many functional experts that are shy to start behaving differently.

3 Heard and seen in infantry assault exercise

4 Primary goal and object of change in last three major changes of Finnish Defence Forces

5 Heard in aisles of one new organization after a change with non-existent immaterial management

6 Often heard in the talks of change managers, who have not succeed to create real change narratives