Doing More With Less in The Air Force

Running head: MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: STRUCTURAL CHANGE
Structural Change: Doing More With Less in The Air Force
Name
Institution
Instructor’s Name
Course
Contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901489"
Executive Summary  PAGEREF _Toc319901489 \h
2
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901490"
Air Force: Doing More with Less Strategy  PAGEREF _Toc319901490 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901491"
Structural Change Identification  PAGEREF _Toc319901491 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901492"
Air Force Structural Strategy  PAGEREF _Toc319901492 \h
5
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901493"
Literature Review  PAGEREF _Toc319901493 \h
12
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc319901494"
References  PAGEREF _Toc319901494 \h
20

Executive Summary
Management of change in organizations is an important concern for managers and leaders in recent years. It is realized that managers, administrators, leaders, and consultants wishing to understand the concepts of change are frequently faced by questions like: what is the basis of change? How to decide what change to effect, and how to change it? Will the implementation of change be painful? among other questions. The major question that all managers are facing is how to effectively run an organization on a lean visual budget? Proponents of the management sector propose that “doing more with less” is the only way to go.
This aspect therefore requires a change in management of resources, as firms begin to focus on “doing more with less”. This research analyzes the process of structural change management within the U.S. air force. This organization is selected to offer a case study point of view on the ability of managers to effectively manage structural change, especially in the use of technology and at all levels of the business. The air force like other organizations have has to undergo tremendous changes since, advances in technology, globalization, international competition, government regulations, and economic downturn have necessitated transformational change within the structure, strategy, and processes for both private and public organizations (Cheng and Sonja, 2005). The structural changes that this research finds organizations are going through are restructuring, downsizing, re-engineering of the business process in the private and public sectors especially in the last five years.
The research finds that structural changes are very critical, since across the board all organizations have had to go through some cutback, outsourcing, voluntary terminations, organizational delayering, shutting down entire divisions and departments, and massive layoffs. Of interest is the fact that though the economic downturn has technically ended, these structural/transformational changes have not. This trend is not only seen in America, but is a trend common in the developed worlds, as falling wages, rising job insecurity and reduced benefits become a permanent feature in news reports. The research looks at how the air force attempted to use “doing more with less” style of organizational change and it embedded this strategy into organizational success. The air force strategy aimed at: (1) protect readiness, (2) reduce overhead costs, and (3) apply savings to force structure and modernization.
In order to meet these goals, the air force budget is to reduce the number of civilian workers, realign compensation and benefits by reducing pay rises while establishing a common healthcare cover, reducing procurements, cutting back on construction costs, cutting back on missions and air space costs, enhancing its research, development, testing and evaluation sector, increasing investments, and cutting back on flights to reduce cost of fuel. These are achieved by having radical changes within its four core functions: (1) global intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance; (2) air and space control; (3) global strike; and (4) rapid global mobility. The target of the “doing more with less” strategy was to reduce operational costs and deficits by reducing: (1) no military constructions projects; (2) no new starts, which cause program delays and increase costs; (3) shortage in the military pay account; (4) inefficient management. The strategy also entailed a structural change where efficiencies increased by (1) the reduction in overhead/support functions, (2) streamlining of logistics, (3) buying more efficiently. Moreover, the structural changes were realized through enhancements, which entailed: (1) force structure, modernization and readiness, and (2) enhancements through increased cost of operations.
The research finds that effective “doing more with less” can overcome resistance from employees who may want to stop, prevent, and delay change, and licit desired behavior in members. The analysis is confined to structural change, which the air force applied, and relating this to literature on changes in organization strategy, structure, process, often elicited by downsizing, restructuring, re-engineering and management revamp. This paper highlights important aspects of strategic change management, in relation to available literature.
Air Force: Doing More with Less Strategy
Structural Change Identification
By the end of 2008, there was mounting pressure to have the congress cut defense spending. This was later seen in the White house and Senate appropriations FY 2011 defense request, which hoped to cut back on defense spending by pulling out of troops from Afghanistan, ending war on Iraq (Friedman and Preble, 2010). Defense spending was a major problem to the running of the public administration as it had grown tremendously over the decades. The core budget for the Pentagon had grown to $228 billion over the last decade beginning with FY 2001 at $300 billion, which represented 3% of the nation’s GDP (Friedman and Preble, 2010). The additional $228 billion presents a 4% growth rate adjusted to inflation, with the current base line defense budget at 3.6% (Friedman and Preble, 2010). Administration realized that the high budgets occurred from the wars, support for occupied nations and defense support. To realize the budget cuts, it was proposed that the department of defense avoided occupation of failing nations, limited commitments to defend healthy nations, and planned for fewer wars. The reduction in spending, required the shedding of extraneous missions, the cutting back in the force structure, which implied the reduction of the number of American military forces, and related vehicles, weapons, and operations. The early structural changes made the department of defense realize a American military force that was more elite, less expensive and less strained (Friedman and Preble, 2010).
Looking at the American air force there are four distinct and enduring contributions to the American military portfolio, each being critical to the national strategy: (1) global intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance; (2) air and space control; (3) global strike; and (4) rapid global mobility. These four core functions, along with the control and command of space, air, and cyberspace systems, forms the nation’s defense against threats and increasing contested environments. By 2010 the air force had more than 37,000 airmen deployed to various contingencies around the world, approximately 57,000 airmen were forward stationed overseas, and more than 132,000 airmen were directly involved in combatant commander requirements from home stations on a daily basis (U.S. Air force, 2010).
The operations of the air force (AF) after September 11, 2001 had seen it fly more than 419,000 sorties o support operations in Iraqi freedom and New Dawn, more than 244,000 sorties to support operation Enduring freedom (U.S. Air force, 2010). The air force had delivered over 6.3 Million passengers and 3.3 million tons of cargo in the last decade and AF also has employed 23,800 tons of munitions (U.S. Air force, 2010). The AF FY 2011 target was to reduce operation costs and deficits by cutting back on: (1) no military constructions projects; (2) no new starts, which cause program delays and increase costs; (3) shortage in the military pay account; (4) inefficient management (U.S. Air force, 2010).
Air Force Structural Strategy
The goal of AF according to the secretary of the air force, is “our approach has been, and remains, to ensure we balance investments across our core functions, and focus on the combat and enabling capabilities necessary for joint and coalition war fighting at any point across the potential spectrum of conflict” (U.S. Air force, 2010). This statement depicts the core vision of the air force in relation to its management approach. The key factor that any organization can learn from this statement is the alignment of business processes with the organization’s functions to increase efficiency. This is in line with the goal of “doing more with less”, whose keys are focus and capacity building (Groshen and Potter, 2003), aspects seen with the AF. However for the AF these two important keys to doing more with less, are in terms of “Efficiency” and “enhancements”.
For the air force, structural change was to occur with radical changes within its core functions to realize efficiency and enhancements. Efficiencies were realized through:
the reduction in overhead/support functions; where it reduced
the number of air force/air operations center consolidations,
weapon system sustainment,
reduce energy consumption,
information technology, and
reduce personnel overhead (U.S. Air force, 2010).
streamline logistics, through;
CAF flying training review,
Program management administration/knowledge-based contracts,
Facility sustainment restoration and modernization (U.S. Air force, 2010).
Buy more efficiently, through:
Evolutionary acquisition for space efficiency,
Evolved expendable launch vehicle.
The second key was enhancements, which were achieved through:
Force structure, readiness, and modernization, through;
Long range strike family of systems,
Normalize MC-12W,
Sustained procurement of reapers,
Economical production of EELV, (U.S. Air force, 2010)
F-15 radar modernization,
F-35 simulators,
Recapitalizing MC-130H/W, and
Improving B-52 computer infrastructure (U.S. Air force, 2010).
Enhancements occurred through increased cost of operations, through
Pay and allowances,
Weapon system sustainment requirements growth,
Fuels (U.S. Air force, 2010).
Overall, the strategy required that air force management reduced excess overhead costs and applied savings to modernization, readiness, and force structure. The “doing more with less” strategy also required that the AF reinvested efficiencies to enhance war fighting capabilities. This strategy can is advocated to managers who are seeking to have structural changes within the organization (U.S. Air force, 2010). This is because, the change management sought after by the Air Force moved away from the traditional model, which involves preparation for change, implementation of change, and the regaining of stability, for a specific period. The “doing much for less” strategy use by AF does not only seek cut backs to reduce operational costs and overheads, but finds ways of efficiently enhancing capabilities within its core functions.
Looking at the structural change management plan by the Air force, cutbacks in personnel implied the filling in of empty posts, reallocation of positions, and the use of civilian hiring controls. The goal of the AF was to reduce 4500 civilian positions, and restructure the civilian workforce, by making use of the Voluntary measures and as it avoided the non-voluntary measures (U.S. Air force, 2010). This action is part of the department of defense workforce and compensation cut estimated to reduce civilian workforce by $105 billion by 2020. The goal of the AF was to place involuntary separations, Department of Defense Priority Placement Program to assist in the placement of employees in other DoD positions. Meanwhile, the AF made use of the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Program (ICTAP) to offer selection priority for all displaced federal employees from other federal agencies (U.S. Air force, 2010). In addition, the placement of displaced employees was through local and state employment agencies to help civilian employees to transit from the air force. This strategy implies that employees who were to be laid off, where amply prepared for the change process, offered opportunities of getting employment elsewhere.
This strategy can be recommended to management that is seeking to reduce the workforce. The strategy not only improves the relationship between the organization and its employees but also creates a good name and image for the organization to the general public. The structural change for the air force required the cutting back on the workforce and the restructuring of the workforce. However, the goal of the AF did not change due to the laying off of employees, since the air force continued to emphasize the need to streamline organizational processes towards meeting the capabilities of the force. The requirement was to have the air force personnel continually assist in the functions of intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (U.S. Air force, 2010). To carry out these functions without a hitch, management directed the workforce towards streamlining organizational structure and reducing f the overhead (Friedman and Preble, 2010). This research identifies this strategy as a lesson to be learnt since any successful change process must align the goals of the change with the mission and vision of the organization. It is evident from this goal, that from the begging of the change process, the air force successfully carried out its missions, without recruiting new air-fighters. Therefore, an organizational can successful “do more with less employees” by meeting its goals, mission, and vision and creating an organizational culture based on this.
Moreover, the change process made plans to cut back on military compensations, since components of military compensation lie housing allowances, tax advantages were not being included in the pay rise calculations which were are often pegged to changes in the civilian pay (Friedman and Preble, 2010). The change process required that these benefits were to be included in the pay rises calculations, “phasing the reform in as forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, saving the government $55 billion in the course of the 10 year change period” (Friedman and Preble, 2010). Moreover, the changes would also affect the premiums paid on Department of Defense health care system, or TRICARE. The practice has been that those military retirees who had lower premiums with full-time civilian salaries, would turn to TRICARE though their health coverage which was readily available via their employer. However, by June 2009, the change process made reforms to the TRICARE system to save more that $60 billion in the 10 year change period (Friedman and Preble, 2010). The desire by management was to offer all employees of the Department of Defense changes that were reasonable within the strain strategy and reduce the burden on military personnel (Friedman and Preble, 2010). This implies that the air force management was seeking a change process where there was no pay rise in the FY 2011 and FY 2012 for civilian employee pay and benefits. This is an effective structural change, which made it possible for the airmen to accept the structural changes, since though the pay rise was cut, the Department of Defense made sure that healthcare was streamlined showing concern for employees.
The second structural change that the air force sees to carry out in its overall change process is the reduction of the number of air force fighters built and operated. This goal seeks to eliminate six strike wings equivalent to a total of $89 billion in savings in the 10 year change period (from 2010 to 2020) (Friedman and Preble, 2010). This cut back is being accomplished through the acceleration of retirement of aging airframes, especially the F-15s and the F-16s, the purchasing of fewer 301 F-35s than the currently programmed air fighters (Friedman and Preble, 2010). The estimated cost per new aircraft is $20...