Organizations in the perspective of political systems: in organizations, influence and power are derived from various sources and could be vested in teams of people more than in individuals. Sometimes, teams with a common interest form an alliance and become a coalition to exert a further influence. For example, individuals asserting civic rights by the power of majority used labor unions as traditional approaches. Nevertheless, influential teams are a source of intergroup conflicts that promote a destructive adverse relationship or a helpful competition (Dunphy, 2010).

Power could be applied to gunner control of crucial resources, initiate policies, control technology and establish organizational mission. The ethical values of individuals in power will determine the direction of control or influence. It could be for personal or institutional purposes. This also depends on the presence of balances and checks ingrained in formalized regulations and rules. In the presence of a very diffuse power, an organization is likely to face the risk that it lacks an influential person who can motivate people to do great things or influence the creation of major decisions (Florent-Treacy, 2009).

In case the national security as a system of power is transformed or reformed, the relative importance of the various constituencies will be altered. This would change the processes of decision-making. The current debates about the civil-military relationship are based on the issue of politics and power. If the national security system is transformed, it means that changes must be instituted in this relationship. However, constitutional issues have become a major constraint on this possibility. If the current power distribution within the system of the national security is the consequence and cause of the failure to evolve or reform the system, the key stakeholders must seek for alternative strategies to produce the necessary reforms (Florent-Treacy, 2009).

Organization in the perspective of cultures: In previous generations, culture was a tool used in explaining the differences among societies. Currently, it has become an...

As organizations are a source of experience, they learn how to solve problems hence develop new ways of doing things. Just as cultures, organizations provide their people with a ground for common meaning and the creation of a shared action. Culture is a source of comfort and stability; it also acts as a barrier or pathway to changes. Rigid or strong cultures are not likely to respond positively to external or internal challenges. On the contrary, changes that conform to organizational values or dominant assumptions are readily accepted (Whelan, 2012).
Culture forms boundaries between people sharing in the culture and people who do not share in the culture. Therefore, culture is a source of integration or differentiation between those who are within, outside, or inside the organization. Organizations require mechanisms to sustain themselves and acculturate new members when old members leave. For instance, military personnel have a defining experience from boot camp because it transforms raw recruits into a career of a core culture of a Service (Dunphy, 2010).

In case the national security is viewed as a constellation of different cultures reflected by the differences within and between the civilian agencies and military services, culture could be more of a fragmentation force that an integration force. However, if civilians, military and national security professionals share common aspects of culture, reforms can be initiated based on those shared values. This requires that we understand the chemistry of values that facilitate common interests within stakeholders against those that promote different interests (Whelan, 2012).