Organizational Theory and National Security

Organizational Theory and National Security

Articulating a defense strategy towards homeland security involves an implementation through a complex chain of international and national security institutions. The defense department (like DHS) is not a business entity but an organization that institute policies for the betterment of the country's security. Unfortunately, theorists have closely equated organizational theory and business theory in some instances. Organizational theory focuses on the way people congregate every day to work on a mutual goal to create a public or private good (Dunphy, 2010).

While there are more schools of thoughts used to explain economic systems, this also applies to organizations. Military officers tend to have a single viewpoint towards the definition of organizations. This is because military officers think in a uniform manner as fostered by their military training trend. On the contrary, organizations are conceived in various ways and such diversity in viewpoints promotes difficulties in managing national security institutions. Various viewpoints of organizational theory are necessary for defense leaders to confront national and global defense challenges (Florent-Treacy, 2009). In case organizations' leadership was based on science and mechanics, we would not have had procurement weapons going into budgets or companies going out of business. We all have different thoughts about how organizations should run and function. There is no single universal formula, model, or theory of organization for running effective organizations (Whelan, 2012).

Organizations in the perspective of machines: for decades, human beings have earned a living from the external context of formal institutions. Agrarian and pre-agrarian societies were founded on independence and self-sufficiency. With the advent of evolution, civilization enhanced the livelihoods of people making them earn a living through formal organizations. These organizations became some instruments used to reach goals. Organizations were viewed in terms of how tasks and roles fit together like machines and people were given tasks and roles to tackle (Dunphy, 2010).

Unlike machines' dependence on parts for their functionality, organizations require tasks and roles to be done in a coordinated manner. The management function is to establish all these roles and make sure people deliver their assigned duties. This leadership orientation is related to control and command notion. In its extreme context, supervisors tend to control and direct employees to act in the required manner (Dunphy, 2010). Fredrick Taylor has made remarkable contributions in what is popularly referred to as scientific management. He believed that work must be learnt where employees must follow what science stipulates them to do in order to achieve the highest efficiency. When organizational goals and strategies remain unchanged over time, work routinization could increase efficiency. Nevertheless, emergence of new demands dissipates notable disadvantages. If organizations are viewed as machines, it means that focus is directed on the effective functionality of the parts. This involves clear lines of communication and responsibility.

Organizations in the context organisms: organizations are viewed as an operational organic system such as the human body. In this light, the focal point of the organization shifts from the mission and goals to metabolism and needs. For the body to function, inputs such as affection, food, and water are necessary. In addition, people must adapt to the changing environment. Organisms could be defined as systems comprising of numerous parts each belonging to a subsystem. For instance, the spleen and the heart are parts of the circulatory system in the body. Subsystems are based on interdependence. If one system fails, it leads to an automatic failure in another system. Effectiveness is attained by proper balance and coordination among efficient subsystems (Florent-Treacy, 2009).

If national security institutions are viewed as organisms, their subsystems and needs must be acknowledged. In addition, we must acknowledge their interrelationship and the processes making the overall system work. For instance, combat commandants and military Services are interdependent. Reforming or transforming the national security industry could indicate a change in the composition and relationships of the subsystems (Whelan, 2012).

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 influential construct used to explain the differences among organizations. 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).