The Centralized Organizational Structure Of The US Military
The Need for Centralization Centralization is the measure of the distribution of authority over decision- making among the top-tier Army leadership and second-level commanders within the organization. Decision-making deals with the formulation of strategy, scheduling appointments, distribution of resources, communication dissemination, and the enforcement of discipline. Second-level commanders can only make such decisions for their part of the organization, while the top leadership can be influential on all of the organizational levels (Sino, 201 1).According to Sino (2011), only centralized organizations can implement pesticides strategies such as ‘divide and conquer’, ‘co-option’, and ‘hearts and minds’, and they are the most effective at enforcing standards and discipline. However, the US military is very inefficient and slow to adapt to change. Centralization Has Its Flaws Fort Riley, Kansas did not have a combat aviation brigade until 2006.
As a result, the Army post has always been infantry-centric. The demands placed on the aviation brigade far outpace the other units stationed at Fort Riley.The 1st Infantry Division’s leadership does not fully understand the diversity of he units in its command, and therefore does not fully realize all of the internal and external requirements placed on the various units. As the RAND study pointed out, “The challenge for the U. S. Military is to develop new organizational structures that achieve the efficiencies and creativity businesses have gained in the virtual and reengineering environments, while at the same time retaining the elements of the traditional, hierarchical, command and control system (for example, discipline, morale, tradition) essential for operations in the combat arena. (Price, 2013).
While effective in he distribution of information and resources from top-down, the current military structure has many negative impacts on the members of our Armed Forces. At the individual level, the military’s hierarchical bureaucratic structure shuns creativity, impedes empowerment and a sense of ownership, and promotes cynicism and doubt of the organization’s decision-making ability (Price, 2013). My flight commander from flight school said it perfectly, “the Army measures something with a micrometer, marks it with chalk, and cuts it with an axe. What Can be Done? Although am not an expert in organizational structuring, believe that there deeds to be some form of decentralization throughout the Department of Defense. Decentralization would put more decision-making power in the hands of second-tier commanders, which would make them more flexible on the unit level. This unit flexibility, however may come at the expense of the overall flexibility of the organization (Sino, 201 1).For example, if the battalion commander of the attack helicopter battalion decided to change his mission in order to kill the enemy more effectively, it may have an adverse impact on other units on the battlefield.
The top-tier leadership’s strategy is eased on the orders given to the subordinate units and their confidence that they will be carried out. Conclusion After spending over twenty years serving the SIS Army, I have always worked in a centralized organization.The nature of our military’s missions require a centralized structure with a definite chain-of-command for decision-making processes, distribution, and enforcing standards and discipline. The Army’s strict centralization, however comes at a cost. It shuns creativity, impedes empowerment and a sense of ownership, is inefficient and promotes cynicism. Believe that there needs to be some form of decentralization wrought the SIS Armed Forces, providing more decision-making power in the hands of second-tier commanders without comprising the overall strategic mission of the organization.