The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
LODJ
31,6
Turnaround in the bandits
of Bravo Company
Dominick Edwards
US Army, and
518
Dennis R. Self and Mike Schraeder
Sorrell College of Business, Troy University Montgomery,
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Received April 2009
Revised January 2010
Accepted January 2010
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to retroactively study a positive organizational change by
showing how the elements of readiness creation and the change strategies in a widely accepted change
model applied to a 20-month change in one US Army company.
Design/methodology/approach – The commander was not familiar with many of the contemporary
change management models. Retrospective analysis of the change strategies reveals congruence with
components of a widely accepted change model. The commander’s actions, matched with the model’s
components, highlighting the model’s potential value in the military.
Findings – The most significant finding is that a military commander with limited theoretical
experience in organizational change successfully turned around a military unit while unconsciously
paralleling an existing change model, suggesting that the military should study the model further.
Research limitations/implications – The paper is limited by the number of organizations studied.
Practical implications – One implication is that military leaders and other professionals can benefit
by looking outside traditional sources for tools and inspiration to solve challenging problems in their
unique environments.
Originality/value – This application of the organizational change model outside a business setting
suggests that the model may have greater utility than previously thought. Additionally, the application
of business change management strategy in a military organization impacts on military professionals
who are seeking new ways of conducting operations. Finally, the paper is original because of the
retroactive change model application, suggesting the model is grounded in leadership and
organizational development theory and practice.
Keywords Organizational change, Armed forces, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizations are increasingly operating in an environment that has become global
(Ghoshal, 1987), intensely competitive (David, 2006), and economically volatile
(Hoskisson et al., 2000). Simultaneously, organizations are dealing with significant
technological changes (Wanberg and Banas, 2000) and workforce changes (Lerman and
Schmidt, 2006). Organizations intent on sustained survival and competitiveness do not
have the luxury of being content with status quo. Failure to anticipate and respond to these
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 31 No. 6, 2010
pp. 518-533
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437731011070014
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the United States Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Pseudonyms are used in this paper to protect the identity of the specific organizational units
and/or individuals discussed.
environmental changes can result in loss of competitive position, erosion of shareholder
support, and even the demise of an organization (Collins, 2001; Vollman, 1996).
Consequently, organizations cannot be content with current success or complacent with
dysfunctional units, but must instead look for continual improvements and actively seek
to turn-around dysfunctional units (Grinyer and McKiernan, 1990; Pearce and Robbins,
1994; Robbins and Pearce, 1992, 1993). Contemporary organizational change literature
typically focuses on corporations, with tangential or anecdotal consideration of selected
governmental or non-profit organizations such as hospitals (Nutt, 1986; Rousseau and
Tijoriwala, 1999). However, America’s military must also deal with change, not only at the
organizational level (Hartman, 2007), but also at the unit and individual levels as well
(Agency Group 05, 2006; Thompson et al., 2007).
In the US Army, one significant cause of change is personnel turnover in
all-concomitant organizations. Army soldiers can expect new commanders approximately
every two years at the battalion level and every 12-24 months at the company level.
Despite all the official policies, procedures and stacks of manuals, each change in
leadership brings consequent changes to the organization, with some organizations
becoming more efficient while others do not. One case of a unit increasing its
effectiveness during a leadership change was the change of the bandits of Bravo Company
(a pseudonym for an armor or tank company) over an intense, eight-month period. This
tank company quickly rose from one of the worst of six companies in the brigade to one of
the best companies. The purpose of this paper is to retroactively study a positive change in
an organization showing how the elements of readiness creation and the change strategies
outlined in a widely accepted change model (Armenakis et al., 1999) applied to specific
elements of the change, an approach that ultimately enhanced the overall success of the
commander’s efforts.
The Armenakis et al. model was selected because Armenakis et al. view the
implementation of a change initiative as a process, rather than providing a prescriptive
recipe for the change manager to follow. As Burnes (1996, p. 187) observes, “[. . .] change
should not be [. . .] seen as a series of linear events within a given period of time; instead,
it is viewed as a continuous process”. Pettigrew (1987) likewise argues that change must
be considered through the complex interaction of the content of the change, the process
of the change, and the context (both internal and external) in which the organization and
the intended change exist. As such, such n-step prescriptions for change such as that
recommended by Kotter (1996) should be viewed with caution. Process models, such as
the Armenakis et al. (1999) model are not necessarily as widely discussed as the
prescriptive models largely due to the associated level of their complexity. Nevertheless,
the Armenakis model is one that has proven viable as a lens through which to view
change in organizations (Bernerth, 2004; Holt et al., 2007; Self, 2005; Walker et al., 2007).
Evolution of the bandits study
Much has been written about how to change an organization, with advice coming from
consultants and academics. Further, there are many courses taught on managing change.
However, as is often the case at the unit level within an organization, managers are tasked
with taking their unit or department through a change without the training or advice and
counsel from the experts on what steps to take, what process to follow. In the particular
case addressed in this paper through the form of a narrative, a young captain was charged
with turning around a failing tank company. If his efforts were not successful the unit
Turnaround
in the bandits
519
LODJ
31,6
520
would be dissolved and the soldiers scattered throughout the US Army. To his credit, he
was successful in turning around the company, despite having no formal “change
management” training.
Subsequently, during a graduate course in management he sought to make sense of
what had happened and why he had been successful within a change management
context. Sense-making (Weick, 1995) is a critical role for managers when change is called
for. As organizational members first learn of, and then begin to grapple with a change,
they will attempt to understand (or make sense of) what is happening and why. The role of
the manager is to “give sense” to the organizational members of the change. While
resistance may still occur once organizational members realize how the change will impact
them, they most certainly will be resistant to a change which they do not understand.
This discomfort with uncertainty (Palmer et al., 2009) requires sense-making.
That sense-making must come from the manager; however, before he or she can “give
sense” he or she must make sense of it themselves. Barge and Oliver (2003, pp. 138-9) note
that managers need, “[. . .] to be able to provide legitimate arguments and reasons for why
their actions fit within the situation and should be viewed as legitimate”.
The approach taken for this study is that of a narrative approach (Cresswell, 2007),
in which one of the authors tells his “story” of a change which he not only experienced,
but, as commander of the tank company, was required to lead. The story is viewed
through the process lens of the Armenakis et al. (1999) model and as the lead author
and his co-authors worked through the story, that process enabled the sense-making
outcome found herein.
Changing a dysfunctional military unit
Defining the problem in the company
The bandits were one of the three tank companies of a battalion in a US Army brigade
located at a military post in the USA. During a recent decade, the company earned a solid
reputation as a very good tank company often receiving the most difficult and challenging
missions. However, just prior to the new commander’s appointment as leader of the
company, the company began to slide toward mediocrity in all key operational aspects.
The situation became so dire that the battalion commander elected to break the company
apart prior to an operational deployment. Rather than deploy and train as a company,
the soldiers in the company filled personnel shortages in the rest of the battalion and the
company leadership formed an emergency operations cell that handled administrative
tasks from a rear area. Upon returning from deployment the company reformed, and
gained a new commander.
In general, tank companies are rated based upon a few quantifiable tasks as well as
some that are more difficult to quantify. First, the company must maintain its tanks and
equipment so they are always fully mission capable or prepared for a mission at any
time. The measure of this is called the operational readiness rate (OR) and is expressed as
a percentage, with a goal of at least 90 percent. Second, tank companies are expected to
meet certain standards in shooting competition, and the qualification scores of each crew
and platoon are carefully measured and compared. Crews also strive to qualify their
tanks on the first attempt. Every company’s goal is to earn the title of top tank company
during the semi-annual qualification exercises.
Physical fitness is a third measure of effectiveness for a tank company. This is
measured in several ways. First, the army mandates that all soldiers must take and pass
the army physical fitness test (APFT) two times per year. Companies are evaluated on
their overall average, having the highest number of soldiers score above 290 out of
300 points, and on having the fewest failures. Closely related to this is how many soldiers
are overweight and do not meet minimum body fat standards.
In addition to quantitative measures of effectiveness, the army values the qualitative
attributes of morale and pride. While admittedly difficult to measure, it is readily apparent
when collective morale and pride are absent.
Prior to the deployment, the bandits consistently had the worst OR in the battalion.
During one training exercise, some of those present joked that the battalion maintenance
officer should be the commander since there were more broken tanks than operational
ones in the company. On any given day there were from two to six non-mission capable
tanks of the 14 assigned to the company. In the past, it had been suggested that the
problem was based upon the age of the tanks, but other companies did not post similar
results. Other problems were found. Upon inspection of the unit’s arms room, the
incoming commander discovered broken night vision equipment. This equipment had
been broken for a considerable time and there was no apparent plan to repair or replace
the equipment.
The company’s gunnery scores were deplorable as well. The company had not been
the top tank company in nearly three years and had never come close to achieving the
goal. Crew scores were low overall and the platoon scores reflected this trend as well.
The company had the highest number of Q2 s, a term used when a crew fails to qualify
their tank on the first attempt, in the battalion.
On the final quantitative measure of effectiveness, physical fitness, the company
posted the worst physical fitness statistics in the battalion. The company average was
217 points out of a possible 300, far behind the other companies averaging between
235 and 260. When the incoming commander administered his first APFT, 11 soldiers
failed the event. Upon further investigation, there were five soldiers who had not passed an
APFT in nearly two years. All of the commanders who received bounty hunter soldiers
during the recent deployment noted that these soldiers were poor runners. Additionally,
there were eight soldiers who were overweight, as well as over the acceptable body fat
percentage. It is worth noting that four leaders were among this group.
The soldiers’ morale in the company was very low. Lacking pride in the company,
soldiers would not respond with the company motto at appropriate times.
The company’s breakup for the deployment created part of the morale problem.
Many of the soldiers confided that they did not want to return to the bandits after the
deployment because they were tired of being in a bad organization. Upon release of the
name of the incoming commander, several senior leaders approached him and discussed
their concerns about the company and stated there needed to be some major changes.
The incoming commander recognized many of the problems in the company. During the
deployment, the new commander got to know many of the soldiers in the company and
had been pleasantly surprised at their overall quality. The soldiers appeared intelligent
and hardworking. Many of them made great contributions to the battalion in other roles.
Clearly they had potential.
Creating readiness for change in the company
Prior to assuming command, the incoming commander took stock of the problems in
the company and began devising a strategy to change the company. He read leadership
Turnaround
in the bandits
521
LODJ
31,6
522
books in the preceding months and focused on leaders who had either made significant
changes to their organizations or had maintained a quality organization over time.
The two most critical books from this were both written by sports coaches (Billick and
Peterson, 2001; Krzyzewski and Phillips, 2001). The Krzyzewski and Phillips book was
instrumental in enabling the new company commander to develop the company vision
and the Billick and Peterson book provided an outstanding refresher in leadership and
organizational change. Armed with this knowledge, personal experience, and years of
leadership study, the incoming commander developed a company vision of how he
wanted the company to perform with regard to tank gunnery, physical fitness,
maintenance, and the family readiness group (FRG). This vision for the company
allowed him to write his command philosophy explaining how he would lead the
company toward this goal. This philosophy became an implicit contract between him
and the soldiers in the company. After completing these tasks, he developed a change
plan that would allow him to lead the company to achieve the results they deserved.
What remained unknown at the time was the company’s reaction to the plan and how
to convince them to change without letting them think that the new commander
wanted to change everything just for the sake of change.
Of particular interest in this paper is the realization that, after a retrospective analysis
of the commander’s actions, many of the actions undertaken parallel a widely accepted
change model developed by Armenakis et al. (1999). What follows is an illustrated
summary of the major change strategies undertaken by the commander, matched with
the accompanying elements of the Armenakis et al. (1999) change model. The first
section summarizes actions taken by the commander to create readiness for change, with
parallels drawn to the readiness elements of the Armenakis et al. (1999) model (Table I).
According to the Armenakis et al. (1999) model, the first element (and essential first
step) for creating readiness for change is discrepancy. Discrepancy is defined as the
organization’s recognition that a change is necessary. This is generally portrayed as a
performance gap, which demonstrates the difference in the way things are and the way
they should be (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). Once organizational members understand
that a gap exists, they are taking the first step toward making change. As a new
company leader, the commander recognized that he did not fully understand the internal
culture of the organization. Additionally, as a new commander, he was concerned about
his credibility (Kouzes and Posner, 1993) in the minds of the company’s soldiers.
However, it was essential to determine if the soldiers recognized the need for change.
Change message
component
Discrepancy
Appropriateness
Self-efficacy
Table I.
Creating readiness:
the change message
Principal support
Personal valence
Description
An organization’s recognition that the change is necessary given the
difference in the way things are and the way they should be (Armenakis
and Harris, 2002)
An indication that the change is the correct, proper or right change
An individual’s belief that they are capable of successfully making
the change
Recognizable support of the change by formal and informal leaders
An indication that the change has value or is meaningful to the
individuals effected
In order to gauge the level of perceived discrepancy in the company, he met with all the
company’s key leaders 2 hours after he assumed command. As they gathered in his
office, he introduced himself and summarized his leadership philosophy. Such practice
is standard for most incoming commanders, but what happened next surprised many
of them. He went to the white board and told the most vocal platoon sergeant in the
group to identify two things the company did well and two things the company
could improve upon. The platoon sergeant listed his items and discussed them. This
engendered further discussion on his choices. The commander continued to go around
the room with this method until the board was full of information and it was time to
leave for the day. He had planned for this exercise to take 1 hour, but it took 3 hours
and he did not get to everyone in the room. At the end of the discussion, the commander
had a list of strengths and weaknesses with the unit, clearly indicating perceived
discrepancy reflected in the fact that individuals did not like the way things were
running in the company and wanted to change.
After the leader’s meeting, the commander met with key leaders individually to
gather their thoughts in a private setting. Most agreed that things could not continue
operating as status quo. He also had many informal discussions with the soldiers in the
company to gauge their level of perceived discrepancy. Most individuals wanted to do
well and were willing to change, but did not know how. Some did not see the need to
change and the commander knew that his efforts would have to address the
perceptions of these individuals (principal support).
During this process, the commander was always prepared to produce empirical data
that would support past performance and could ask if this was acceptable. Every
individual in the company agreed that they could do better (self-efficacy). Since the
individuals in the company had been deployed recently, the current global war on terror
provided reinforcement that change was necessary (discrepancy). In their minds, many
of the men knew they could be called upon at any time and they were not combat ready.
The degree of perceived discrepancy was not entirely unanticipated since the soldiers
knew that organizational changes occur with every new commander. In their minds,
change was inevitable but the question was whether the changes brought about by the
new commander would be the right ones. This best describes the element of
appropriateness, which answers the question, “why is this change the right change?”
(Bernerth, 2004). A first step to create appropriateness was the setting of the goal of
making the company dependable in everything they did. To do this, the commander
focused on two main points. First, he told the soldiers that they were good soldiers (thus,
he also began to build efficacy in the unit) and deserved recognition for their hard work
and for their accomplishments (providing for valence to answer the question “what’s in it
for me?”). Most soldiers agreed that they wanted recognition for doing their jobs and
wanted to be trusted. Since everything about the change would relate to these two goals,
the soldiers saw that this new change would solve some of their problems (again,
demonstrating the element of valence).
The next thing the commander had to do was create efficacy in the company. Efficacy
is the individual’s belief that they can make the change (Armenakis et al., 1999).
Everyone in the organization had to believe they were physically and mentally capable
of making the company better. The commander stated that he knew many of the soldiers
and leaders in the company and that they were all good soldiers, but there was
something preventing them from working well as a team. In order to demonstrate their
Turnaround
in the bandits
523
LODJ
31,6
524
ability to make the change, he developed a training plan that began with the
fundamental principles and skills, culminating in collective task completion.
As an example, the commander set the goal of earning top tank company at the next
gunnery. To prepare for this, he mandated training for individual and crew-level gunnery
tasks. He coordinated for tank simulators and monitored the training that took place in
them. In his first field problem, he set up a training scenario that trained tank drivers
how to maneuver cross country. Then he had them move against an opposing force while
trying to avoid detection. The culmination exercise for this training was a tank section
maneuver exercise. This allowed the drivers to use their skills while platoon leaders and
platoon sergeants trained on how to maneuver two tanks prior to maneuvering their
platoons of four tanks. As these exercises and this training continued, the company began
to gain confidence in their ability to succeed as a team. Thus, efficacy was being created.
Additionally, because the training procedures were standard practices in armored units,
appropriateness was also demonstrated.
The next element to create readiness is principal support. Principal support means that
both formal and informal leaders in an organization support the change and demonstrate it
through their actions. The challenge that the commander faced in this case was that he was
new to the organization, needing to gain both support for the change and trust as a leader.
The first step to gain trust was to demonstrate fairness and absolute honesty in matters
pertaining to all organizational changes (Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Collins, 2001).
The second step was to gain the support of all key leaders in the company. The
commander had to leverage the trust relationship that already existed in the company
between the soldiers and their leaders. The initial meeting was one way to gain support for
the change from the company’s leaders. Since they felt like they participated in the change,
they were more likely to support it and to effectively communicate the change to their
subordinates (principal support). In order to gain personal trust, the commander led by
personal example in all tasks.
Since physical fitness was a problem, the commander began to conduct physical
training (PT) with the platoons to observe the quality of their workouts. He also led
company-level PT once a week to demonstrate the importance of fitness. The company
had a poor maintenance program so he spent additional time in the unit motor pool
supervising work on the tanks and other equipment. By remaining in the motor pool and
checking on the vehicle maintenance procedures and processes, the commander
communicated that he considered maintenance very important. Through his presence,
he also influenced the other leaders in the company to remain in the motor pool, ensuring
that maintenance was properly performed. The soldiers in the company clearly
understood this message (McClenahen, 2002). Additionally, by his focus on maintenance
(as well as PT), the commander also employed the elements of appropriateness (the right
changes to make) and efficacy (by helping the soldiers to begin to achieve some successes),
in addition to principal support.
The final step taken by the commander was require his leaders to be present with their
soldiers at all times. He counseled all platoon leaders to be with their soldiers as much as
possible, but always during unpleasant conditions or during difficult tasks. He then did
the same and got involved in the task. For example, during a rail loading operation two
days after assuming command, he worked with the a team engaged in loading tanks onto
railroad cars during their task because it was the most physically demanding task and was
one of the most important ones. Overall, the commander communicated the change
message and gained trust through the principle of shared suffering, an indication of
principal support reflected in Table I. Because he was with the soldiers constantly, he was
able to gain their trust and speak to them about the coming change. By the end of his first
month of command, everyone in the company had a clear understanding of his
expectations and knew what the organizational goals were.
Keeping in mind that a key goal was for the company to become the top tank company
at the next scheduled gunnery, the commander challenged the company to succeed by
telling them that he was going to shoot superior which meant he would earn at least 800
of 1,000 possible points. Then he told the crews that he needed three other crews to join
him and asked who they would be. All of the soldiers responded that they would do it and
would actually shoot distinguished which is at least 900 out of 1,000 points. His
challenge was a demonstration of principal support and efficacy.
The final element of readiness is valence, which answers the question, “what’s in it for
me?” (Bernerth, 2004). This element considers that all members of an organization will
assess the change and determine its effects on them. If the change does not adversely
affect them, then they are more likely to support the change. Members of the
organization who will lose something as a result of the change are more likely to resist
the change. This is a very important element of readiness because it most often follows
the other elements evolving throughout the change process. In many ways, valence is a
result of how well the organization’s leaders have communicated and demonstrated the
other four elements. As such, valence can be shaped, but must be fully considered when
creating readiness. In this case, the commander knew there would be some resistance to
the change because of the way the previous commander had conducted business. In the
past, it had been easy to do very little in the company and to not face any consequences.
For example, there were soldiers who had failed four or more APFTs in the past, but
there had been no consequence for their failure. After the first APFT the commander
administered, he counseled all of the soldiers who failed the APFT and told them they
would be separated from the army if they did not pass within 90 days. To these
individuals, there was little valence to support the change (Spence, 2005). However,
the commander knew that the majority of the soldiers were doing their best and wanted
to succeed. By demonstrating resolve to evoke consequences on those who were not
meeting standards, he affirmed that everyone had something to gain by doing the right
things. There were incentives for doing well on the APFT as well, so soldiers had an
additional reason to improve their fitness. He also made a point of telling the soldiers that
they would be the best in the battalion if they worked together and achieved results. In
the army, one of the few things that leaders can give their soldiers is pride in the
organization. Soldiers typically want to be proud of their unit, but this pride only comes
through accomplishing meaningful and difficult tasks. This desire to be the best
provided the valence for most of the soldiers in the company. For those who were not
meeting standards, the negative aspect of their punishment or pending administrative
actions provided valence because they did not want to lose their jobs.
Application of the implementation strategies
The elements of readiness are shaped by the strategies employed in implementing the
change. Armenakis et al. (1999) posited there were seven strategies to be
employed (Table II).
The use of active participation by the new commander occurred with the initial
meeting that he had on his first day as company commander. By getting the company
Turnaround
in the bandits
525
LODJ
31,6
Change strategies
Description
Active participation
The involvement of those impacted by the changes in planning
and implementing the changes
Ongoing efforts of leaders to provide information about
the changes
Intentional efforts of leaders to provide information about internal
attributes of the change and also pertinent information about
attributes of the external environment related to the changes
Includes organizational structure, policies, procedures,
job descriptions, etc. Changes in the formal activities of an
organization may be necessary to complement the
requisite changes
Efforts by leaders to extend the changes throughout
the organization
Official events intended to reinforce or promote selected issues of
value to the organization
Formal activities of selection, compensation, training and
personnel development, and appraisal of performance
within organizations
Persuasive communication
526
Management of internal and
external information
Formalization activities
Diffusion practices
Rites and ceremonies
Table II.
Implementing change:
change strategies
HRM practices
leaders engaged in discussing what they thought was right and wrong about the
company, not only was the need for change made clear (discrepancy), but ideas of how
to change were brought to light (appropriateness). Additionally, through these sessions
and a concerted effort by the commander to consult with the first sergeant on all
significant decisions regarding the company the commander provided principal
support for the forthcoming changes.
One of the change initiatives was to change the PT program so it would create the
conditions for APFT improvement and increased fitness. Even though the commander
knew what needed to be done, he still gathered the three platoon leaders together and
had a meeting to discuss improving fitness in the company. In this meeting, he
identified running performance as the most serious weakness in the company, and said
that the plan must focus on cardiovascular improvement. He outlined a general weekly
plan that increased running mileage and offered variety while still focusing on
muscular strength and endurance. After listing the types of workouts, the platoon
leaders had an opportunity to voice their opinions and objections to the general plan.
During this part of the operation, the commander made adjustments to the general plan
to reflect the group’s thoughts. Once this general plan was approved by all of the
platoon leaders, the commander tasked the platoon leaders to consult with their
platoon sergeants and to create specific workouts that would fit into the general plan.
Using past performance reflected the management of internal information on the part
of the commander. Additionally, by seeking input from the platoon leaders and letting
them design-specific workouts showed a use of the active participation strategy to gain
ownership for the change. Finally, having the platoon leaders work with the platoon
sergeants to implement the workout program in the individual platoons represented
the use of diffusion practices. Diffusion practices involve how change-related projects
and practices are spread through the organization. This occurs as organizational
members learn about successes that have already occurred in implementing the
change. Diffusion practices lead to feelings of positive efficacy, an understanding that
the change initiative is appropriate, demonstrates principal support through the
message bearers of the change initiative, and valence, as well.
Because the platoon leaders and sergeants developed the workout plans, they accepted
the change with minimal resistance and conducted better training (Roth, 2002). As a result,
the company PT became predictable and challenging and the APFT scores began to
improve.
The company commander also effectively used persuasive communication as a change
implementation strategy. Communication is the most important thing that a leader can do
when dealing with his subordinates (Luthans, 1998). They must remain informed and must
understand what is happening as it relates to their interests. In this case, the commander
effectively employed persuasive communication in several ways. First, he was completely
honest with the soldiers at all times. He did this both to keep them informed and to prevent
the rumor mill from spinning out of control and damaging morale, thus effectively
managing internal information as reflected in Table II.
Similarly, he ensured the soldiers’ family members had access to accurate information.
Additionally, reflecting the unique relationship that the military has with military
families, he gave his wife all of the notes from the weekly training meetings so she could
publish and distribute a monthly newsletter to all of the families in the company. This
newsletter also told the family members when there would be FRG meetings.
The commander attended every FRG meeting and answered the wives’ questions honestly
and openly. Many of the questions related to the change that the company was
undergoing. Some wives were concerned that their husbands were working later than they
had in the past and were complaining about how much the company was running during
PT. The commander answered all of these questions honestly by explaining the necessity
of the change and how much better their husbands were doing since the change began.
Next, the commander effectively communicated the change message through the use of
positive and inclusive language. He always described the change as something that would
make the company better and would allow the soldiers to gain the recognition and pride
they deserved. Never framing the discussion around himself, he described all goals as the
team’s goals, not his goals. All achievements were the team’s achievements. When
describing good things, the commander always pointed out the soldiers who had done the
best and deserved recognition. Such practices differ from corporate or non-military
organizations; engaging spouses in the process of change is not a typical practice in such
organizations.
The commander also managed internal information to see if the change was effectively
occurring. First, he examined the scores on every APFT that the company completed. He
learned that since the new PT plan had been implemented the company showed steady
improvement in the scores and most importantly, the 2 mile run times were improving.
This provided him with the necessary feedback to continue the plan and allowed him to
demonstrate to the soldiers that their efforts were paying off. The commander studied
reenlistment numbers and found that he was consistently reenlisting 200 percent of his
assigned reenlistment mission. The interesting fact was that he had not specifically
addressed reenlistment and had not deliberately followed the procedures in the
reenlistment plan. However, through his communication with and knowledge of the
soldiers, he created the conditions for soldiers to want to remain in the army.
A powerful signal that the commander had effectively changed the organization
occurred was when a soldier from another battalion reenlisted on the conditions that he
Turnaround
in the bandits
527
LODJ
31,6
528
would be transferred into the bandits. The commander also managed the gunnery data
and concluded that the company was positively changing when they earned the top tank
company honors and several other achievements during a five-month period of
gunneries. These improvements and several others had earned the company a good
reputation. The commander knew this based upon feedback from his superiors, and
from comments made by other soldiers about the company. The company received the
tough missions and soldiers were consistently asking to join the company.
Another change strategy that the commander effectively employed was that of rites
and ceremonies. Rites and ceremonies influence and reinforce a change in an organization
(Armenakis et al., 1999) and demonstrate what is important to the organization. In the
bandits, the commander publicly recognized soldiers who did well. Soldiers who met
certain standards in the PT program earned time off and were publicly recognized for their
improvement in front of the entire company. Soldiers reenlisted and were promoted in
public settings. All of these actions created positive valence. These ceremonies were well
planned and family members were encouraged to attend.
The commander also recognized the family’s contributions to the soldier’s success at
these ceremonies. For gunnery, the battalion had public ceremonies to recognize the
significant accomplishments and the company commander sought more ways to
recognize his soldiers. He discovered an overlooked policy in the gunnery standing
operating procedure that set conditions for soldiers to earn recognition from the
commanding general. He told the soldiers what they had to do to accomplish these tasks
and when they did it, he coordinated for the general to come to the company to award the
soldiers. This ceremony was quite meaningful to the company because no one had ever
met this standard and been recognized for it in the past.
One other ceremony that the company began was that of the “hail and farewell.” In this
ceremony, the company and families would gather and formally welcome new members of
the company and would formally say good-bye to members who were leaving. These
ceremonies ensured that everyone would feel welcome and feel like part of the team.
The final ceremony that the commander employed was the annual company luau.
While there were many parties throughout the year, the luau was unique because it
was a very high-quality event and it was cost-free to all of the soldiers. Through
fund-raising and donations the luau had over a $2,000 budget and was a way to show
the leadership’s appreciation for the company’s hard work.
Armenakis et al. (1999) define formalization activities in terms of organizational
structure, policies, procedures, job descriptions, etc. Typically, such changes occur at the
organizational level and impact all within the organization. For this change, while the
commander could not change army policies and organizational structure, he was able to
implement new local policies and procedures that had a positive effect on the tank company.
For example, improvement was gained in PT scores by the implementation of a new
workout program. New policies reflected in the use of various rites and ceremonies to reward
high-performing soldiers also were an application of this strategy. Finally, creating a
process to engage family members in supporting the soldiers in becoming high-performing
soldiers reflected a particularly creative use of the formalization activities strategy.
The final change strategy that the commander used to implement the change
was through the use of the human resource management (HRM) practices. There are four
HRM practices and the commander applied all four of them in changing the company.
The practices are selection, training and development, performance appraisal, and
compensation.
Selection focuses on getting the right people in the right positions and on removing
people who are not positively contributing to the organization’s success. Upon taking
command, the commander knew there were some personnel problems in the company.
He knew some soldiers from their reputations and others from their inability to perform.
For example, one soldier had failed to qualify his tank in the last four gunneries.
He clearly was not going to improve and needed to find another job. With the battalion
commander’s approval, the company commander removed that non-commissioned
officer (NCO) and gave the tank commander’s position to a more qualified soldier. When
removing that NCO, the commander was compassionate and helped him find another
job in the battalion for which he was more suited, which allowed him to retain some of
his dignity.
The commander also used the HRM practice of training and development. Through
this practice, the commander ensured both the immediate success of the change and
ensured he had sufficient depth to maintain the change over time as personnel moved out
of the company through natural military attrition. In the army tasks are broken into three
echelons. The first echelon involves individual tasks, the second echelon is leader tasks,
and the last echelon is concerned with collective tasks. Leaders have to be proficient in all
of these tasks, but need to have a firm foundation before attempting to learn and master
collective tasks. In the bandits, the commander implemented a training program that
initially focused on individual tasks. Simultaneously, he trained leaders in their tasks
through a professional development system and additional training conducted after
traditional duty hours. This training ensured that collective training would be most
effective and the training value would be maximized in every training event.
Performance appraisals are another aspect of HRM practices that the commander
employed in the bandits. The army has a built in process for performance appraisals,
but it is not often used as effectively as possible. The commander insisted that leaders
at all levels in the company give their subordinates regular formal counseling on their
performance. This counseling was required in all cases of misconduct or when a soldier
failed to meet established performance standards. The commander also reviewed all of
the non-commissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) for every NCO in the
company before it left the company. He insisted that the NCOER be accurate based
upon the NCO’s performance during the rating period. He kept a log of good things that
the NCOs had done and expected those things to be reflected in the NCOER.
The final HRM practice is that of compensation. Compensation has a direct relationship
with acceptance and implementation of any change (Bandura, 1986) and it was critical to
the transformation of the bandits. The commander used compensation very liberally
within his capacity. In the army, there is little opportunity to pay a soldier additional
money, but there are many other rewards, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Primarily, a leader
in the army can offer his soldiers time off, official awards, pride, and negative
reinforcement. In this example, the commander established incentives and compensation
that supported the change. Because he was trying to improve the company’s fitness and
APFT scores, he instituted a series of rewards based upon APFT performance.
For example, in order to ensure the maximum effect of this compensation,
the commander held a ceremony following the APFT and individually recognized the
soldiers who earned these distinctions. The most popular of the incentives was the last one
Turnaround
in the bandits
529
LODJ
31,6
530
because soldiers wanted to earn time off from work and could do so relatively easily. He
also worked to get compensatory time for soldiers who worked over weekends away from
their families. Additionally, the compensation for gunnery from the division commander
was a very effective form of compensation that directly supported the change.
Results of the change
Through this process, the commander implemented many techniques that were directed at
improving the company’s performance. Since this case study occurred in the past, it will be
useful to see how the intervention worked.
First, the commander identified a problem with the unit’s physical fitness. When he
assumed command, the company average was 217 out of a possible 300 points. Eleven
soldiers failed the first APFT that he administered. Only two soldiers earned the army
physical fitness badge (APFB). Once the commander implemented the new PT program,
the company began to improve. Ten months after beginning the program, the company
APFT average was 252, with only one failure and seven soldiers earning the APFB.
The company also experienced fewer fallouts during long runs and there were fewer
soldiers on the overweight program.
Regarding the company’s gunnery scores, the company made significant
improvements. After the commander assumed command, the company went to gunnery
several times. The company earned the top tank company award three months after the
commander assumed leadership of the company and repeated the performance six
months later.
The company’s next major problem was that of maintenance. Through hard work and
diligent focus, the company maintained an OR above 90 percent for 12 consecutive
months and had the highest monthly OR of the 12 tank companies on the assigned depot
three times. Most significant, the company always had tanks to train on. Part of the
commanding general’s gunnery award program focused on organizations that qualified
gunnery on their own tanks without having to borrow tanks from other crews.
The company had platoons earn this distinction seven times in three gunneries.
Additionally, when the company was alerted to deploy to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was
the only company in the battalion that had 100 percent of its night vision equipment and
weapons fully mission capable.
Finally, the company initially suffered from low morale and a general lack of pride in
the unit. Once the company began accomplishing significant tasks, the soldiers became
more proud of the organization. They would openly state that they were bandits. When
greeting officers from other organizations, the soldiers would always respond with an
enthusiastic “Bandits, Sir!” Through the course of the change, the soldiers came to realize
they were part of a special team and became proud of their accomplishments. New soldiers
were immediately told that they were now bandits and they had to meet high standards
and expectations as such.
The overall reason for the change was to make the company more combat ready.
During the period of the study, the global war on terror was beginning and the invasion of
Iraq was looming. The commander knew that his company and soldiers could be called
into action at any time. That call came, and the battalion was given a warning order to
deploy in the near future. Handling the stress of a short notice deployment demonstrated
that the company’s change was in fact complete and working as soldiers and family
members prepared for the next 12 months. The company had to adjust to a number of
changes, most notably deploying without its tanks. That meant the commander had to
develop a training plan to train his soldiers and leaders to fight as infantrymen in urban
combat. The characteristics of this changed organization allowed this training to occur
and allowed the soldiers to be trained in additional tasks. As a result of this training and
because of the change that had occurred in the company, they were assigned to the most
dangerous part of the Iraqi city of Ramadi. In two short months, the company made
considerable progress in their area of operations (AO) by reducing violence, capturing
insurgents, installing a working police department, and improving security for all
residents of the AO. In those two months, the company did not suffer a single casualty.
Conclusion
While the bandits’ change is significant and reflects a successful transformation in an
organization, the company commander was unfamiliar with many popular change
models. Nevertheless, in an effort to effectively lead the tank company through the
necessary changes, the underlying logic of the Armenakis et al. (1999) change model was
demonstrated as the commander unknowingly applied the model in implementing the
necessary changes for the company to become successful. Although the commander was
unaware of the model, he used all of the elements to create readiness: discrepancy,
appropriateness, principle support, valence, and efficacy. In effecting the change, the
commander demonstrated elements of all of the seven change strategies: active
participation, persuasive communication, diffusion practices, management of internal and
external information, rites and ceremonies, formalization activities, and HRM practices.
By doing this, he was able to positively affect a change in the company that allowed it to
succeed in peacetime training and in combat.
References
Agency Group 05 (2006), “Warrior competition reflects changes in training, Army mission”,
FDCH Regulatory Database, 32 W2138291251, October 6.
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), “Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-83.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Feild, H.S. (1999), “Making change permanent: a model for
institutionalizing change interventions”, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 289-319.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive View,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barge, J.K. and Oliver, C. (2003), “Working with appreciation in managerial practice”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 28, pp. 124-42.
Bernerth, J. (2004), “Expanding our understanding of the change message”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Billick, B. and Peterson, J.A. (2001), Competitive Leadership: Twelve Principles for Success,
Triumph, Chicago, IL.
Burnes, B. (1996), Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics, Pittman,
London.
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t,
HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Turnaround
in the bandits
531
LODJ
31,6
532
Cresswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,
2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
David, F.R. (2006), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Global strategy: an organizing framework”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 8, pp. 425-40.
Grinyer, P. and McKiernan, P. (1990), “Generating major change in stagnating companies”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 131-46 (special issue).
Hartman, P. (2007), “ECSS change management”, Air Force Journal of Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 24-7.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007), “Readiness for organizational
change: the systematic development of a scale”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 232-55.
Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000), “Strategies in emerging economies”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 249-67.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1993), Credibility: How Leaders Gain It and Lose It, Why People
Demand It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Krzyzewski, M. and Phillips, D.T. (2001), Leading with the Heart: Coach K’s Successful Strategies
for Basketball, Business, and Life, Warner Business Books, New York, NY.
Lerman, R.I. and Schmidt, S.R. (2006), “An overview of economic, social, and demographic trends
affecting the labor market”, Report to the Urban Institute for US Department of Labor,
available at: www.dol.gov (accessed December 27, 2002).
Luthans, F. (1998), “Successful vs effective real managers”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 2, pp. 127-32.
McClenahen, J.S. (2002), “Execution starts at the top”, Industry Week, Vol. 251, p. 16.
Nutt, P.C. (1986), “Tactics of implementation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29,
pp. 230-61.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G. (2009), Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Pearce, J.A. II and Robbins, D.K. (1994), “Retrenchment remains the foundation of business
turnaround”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 407-17.
Pettigrew, A. (1987), “Context and action in the transformation of the firm”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 649-70.
Robbins, D.K. and Pearce, J.A. II (1992), “Turnaround: recovery and retrenchment”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 287-309.
Robbins, D.K. and Pearce, J.A. II (1993), “Entrepreneurial retrenchment among small
manufacturing firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 301-18.
Roth, W. (2002), “Three reasons why your teambuilding efforts aren’t producing”, The Journal
for Quality & Participation, Vol. 25, pp. 36-40.
Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), “What’s a good reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 514-28.
Self, D.R. (2005), “Assessing the management of readiness: an empirical examination using
a mixed-methods approach”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 66 No. 12, p. 4449
(doctoral dissertation, Auburn University).
Spence, S. (2005), “When tribes go to war”, In the Black, Vol. 75, pp. 44-5.
Thompson, M., Crain, C. and Kukis, M. (2007), “Broken down”, Time, Vol. 169 No. 16, pp. 28-35.
Vollman, T.E. (1996), The Transformation Imperative: Achieving Market Dominance Through
Radical Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Walker, H.J., Armenakis, A.A. and Bernerth, J.B. (2007), “Factors influencing organizational
change efforts: an integrative investigation of change content, context, process and
individual differences”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20, pp. 761-73.
Wanberg, C.R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in
a reorganizing workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 132-42.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Further reading
Barker, V.L. III, Patterson, P.W. Jr and Mueller, G.C. (2001), “Organizational causes and strategic
consequences of the extent of top management team replacement during turnaround
attempts”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 235-70.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M. and Lind, E.A. (1998), “When do we need procedural fairness?
The role of trust in authority”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75,
pp. 1449-58.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Turnaround
in the bandits
533
Managing Readiness For
Change
Introduction
to
the Armenakis, Harris, & Feild
Model
MSM6635/MGT6681
Dr. Dennis Self
Five Elements of the Readiness for
Change Message
•
•
•
•
Discrepancy: Why change?
Appropriateness: What Change?
Efficacy: Able to change?
Principal Support: Who supports
Change?
• Valence: WIIFM/Us?
– Desired P→O outcomes.
Change Message Strategies
• Active Participation
• Persuasive Communication
• Mgt. of Internal/External
Communications
• Formalization Activities
• Diffusion Practices
• Rites and Ceremonies
• Human Resource Practices
Implementation Strategies for
Creating and Maintaining Readiness
The Change Message
Discrepancy Appropriateness Efficacy
Principal Support Valence
Change Leader
Attributes
Organizational
Member Attributes
Change Strategies
Active
Participation
Formalization
Activities
Persuasive
Communication
Diffusion
Practices
Mngt. of Internal &
External Information.
Symbols, Rites
and Ceremonies
HRM
Practices
Change Agent
(or Change Leader)
__________________________
•Credibility of leader
•Honesty
•Competence
•Forward-looking
•Inspirational
•Proximity of leader
•Immediate
•Global
•Inside/outside
Change Target
(Or followers, or employees)
______________________________
•Age/Tenure/Experience
•Gender
•Trust in Leaders
•Location
Also: Organizational
Culture or Climate
_______________________
•Organizational Culture
•Norms
•Values
•Philosophy
•Rules (formal and informal)
•Organizational Climate
•recurring patterns of behavior,
attitudes and feelings that
characterize life in the organization.
Active Participation
• 3 dimensions:
– Doing (Enactive Mastery)
– Observing (Vicarious Learning)
– Participative Decision-making
• Learning is two-way (for change
leader as well as change target)
• Shapes “why, what, who, how,
and ‘what’s in it for me.’”
Persuasive Communication
(Controlling the Narrative)
• Oral and written (Face-to-face speeches
audio/video, memos, email, newsletters,
annual reports)
• Framing:
–
–
–
–
Causal
Ideological
Referential
Penitential
• Shapes “why, what, how, and ‘what’s in it for
me.’”
Management of
Internal/External Information
(Controlling the Narrative)
• Internal sources of information:
– Employee attitudes, productivity, costs, other
performance indicators.
• External sources of information:
– Direct contact with customers, articles in the
business (or other) press, information
obtained on suppliers, competitors,
consultants, high-visibility speakers, trade
associations, government.
• Shapes “why, what, who, how, and
what’s in it for me.’”
Formalization Activities
• Changes in strategy
• Organizational structure
• Policies, procedures, other
formal job requirements (job
descriptions, etc.)
• TQM, Re-engineering, Six Sigma
• Shape “what, how, and ‘what’s in
it for me.’”
Diffusion Practices
• How the change is spread
through the organization:
–
–
–
–
–
Pilot programs
Site visits
Presentations made by respected peers
Internal publicizing
Transition teams
• Shape “why, what, who, how,
and ‘what’s in it for me.’”
Symbols, Rites and
Ceremonies
(Schein’s Artifacts)
• Symbolic practices found in the
organization. Symbols are words, objects and
gestures which derive their meaning from convention. Symbols
may include abbreviations, slang, modes of address, dress
codes and status symbols, all recognized by insiders only.
• Rites: Public performances that signify the consequences
of actions and the extent to which these actions are consistent
with an organization’s values.
• Ceremonies: Connect two or more rites into a single
occasion.
• Examples: Acronyms, the Executive Dining Room,
Retirement Ceremonies, rewards and recognition (e.g.,
employee of the month).
• Shape “What, who, how, and ‘what’s in it for
me.’”
Human Resource Practices
• Selection
• Training and Development (or
HR Development)
• Performance Management (or
Performance Appraisal)
• Compensation
• Shape “who, how, why, and
‘what’s in it for me.’”
HR Practice: Selection
• Who stays
• Who goes (and how they are treated
when they go; for example,
downsizing victims)
• Who gets promoted
• Who doesn’t get promoted
• Knowledge, skills and abilities
HR Practice: Training &
Development
• Necessary knowledge, skills
and abilities for the new way.
• Team building or development
• Train the trainer (peer
influence)
• Conflict Resolution
• Career “Pathing”
HR Practice: Performance
Management
• Feedback:
– Behaviors and performance of the
new way
– Adoption of the change-
• Multi-source appraisal system:
– 360-degree system
HR Practice: Compensation
• Extrinsic incentives:
– Financial compensation
– Special privileges
– Recognition (“attaboys/girls”, other
– Promotions
• Intrinsic incentives:
– Sense of achievement, accomplishment
– Confidence in ability to achieve, etc.
Implementation Strategies for The
Change Leader
The Change Plan
To Be Implemented
Change Strategies
Active
Participation
Formalization
Activities
(policies/practices)
Persuasive
Communication
Diffusion
Practices
Mngt. of Internal &
External Information.
Symbols, Rites
and Ceremonies
HRM
Practices
Conclusion
➢ Managing change from readiness to
successful implementation is
complex.
➢ Each of the strategies can interact
with others (e.g., using a ceremony to
reward those successful in the
change). Thus, change is dynamic.
➢ Readiness must be managed for the
duration of the change. There are NO
miracles.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment