Organizational Theory and National Security Strategy

Introduction: Organizational Theory and Defense Strategy

Articulating a defense strategy for homeland security involves implementation through a complex chain of international and national security institutions. The Department of Homeland Security is not a business entity but an organization that institutes policies for the betterment of national security. Unfortunately, theorists have closely equated organizational theory with business theory in some instances. Organizational theory focuses on the way people congregate to work toward a mutual goal in order to create a public or private good (Dunphy, 2010).

While there are many schools of thought used to explain economic systems, this diversity also applies to organizations. Military officers tend to adopt a single viewpoint toward the definition of organizations, largely because military training fosters uniform thinking. On the contrary, organizations are conceived in various ways, and such diversity in viewpoints creates difficulties in managing national security institutions. Various perspectives of organizational theory are necessary for defense leaders confronting national and global defense challenges (Florent-Treacy, 2009). If organizational leadership were based purely on science and mechanics, we would not see procurement weapons consuming entire budgets or companies going out of business. There is no single universal formula, model, or theory for running effective organizations (Whelan, 2012).

Organizations as Machines

For decades, human beings have earned a living within the external context of formal institutions. Agrarian and pre-agrarian societies were founded on independence and self-sufficiency. With the advance of civilization, formal organizations enhanced livelihoods and became instruments used to reach collective goals. Organizations were viewed in terms of how tasks and roles fit together like the parts of a machine, and people were assigned specific tasks and roles to fulfill (Dunphy, 2010).

Unlike machines, which depend on physical parts for their functionality, organizations require tasks and roles to be carried out in a coordinated manner. Management's function is to establish these roles and ensure that people deliver their assigned duties. This leadership orientation is closely related to the notion of command and control. In its most extreme form, supervisors direct and control employees to act in prescribed ways (Dunphy, 2010).

Frederick Taylor made influential contributions to what is popularly known as scientific management. He believed that work must be studied systematically so that employees follow scientifically determined methods in order to achieve the highest efficiency. When organizational goals and strategies remain unchanged over time, work routinization can increase efficiency. Nevertheless, the emergence of new demands exposes notable disadvantages of this approach. If organizations are viewed purely as machines, the focus is directed at the effective functionality of their parts, emphasizing clear lines of communication and responsibility.

Organizations as Organisms

In this perspective, organizations are viewed as operational organic systems analogous to the human body. The focal point shifts from mission and goals to metabolism and needs. Just as the body requires inputs such as food, water, and affection to function, organizations must also adapt to their changing environment. Organisms can be defined as systems comprising numerous parts, each belonging to a subsystem. For instance, the spleen and the heart are both parts of the circulatory system. Subsystems are characterized by interdependence: if one system fails, it can trigger failure in another. Effectiveness is achieved through 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, along with their interrelationships and the processes that make the overall system function. For instance, combat commanders and military services are interdependent. Reforming or transforming the national security apparatus may indicate a change in the composition and relationships of these subsystems (Whelan, 2012).

Conclusion: Implications for National Security Reform

If the national security system is viewed as a constellation of different cultures reflected by the differences within and between civilian agencies and military services, culture could function more as a fragmentation force than as an integration force. However, if civilians, military personnel, and national security professionals share common cultural elements, reforms can be initiated on the basis of those shared values. This requires a thorough understanding of the chemistry of values — identifying which values facilitate common interests among stakeholders and which promote divergent ones (Whelan, 2012).

Ultimately, no single organizational theory provides a complete framework for managing national security institutions. Defense leaders benefit most from drawing on multiple perspectives — the machine, organism, political system, and cultural lenses — in order to address the full complexity of the challenges they face.

References

Dunphy, D. C. (2010). Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century. Allen & Unwin.

Florent-Treacy, E. (2009). Global leadership from A to Z. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.

Whelan, C. (2012). Networks and national security: Dynamics, effectiveness and organization. Ashgate.