Introduction
Companies’ administrators and managers searching for business models’ progress and improvement of personal management skills apply assessment approaches. Such structures are essential as they impart necessary knowledge in handling entrepreneurship. As pointed out in previous weeks, the author purposes at defining patterns and business model canvas designs using various theoretical approaches such as Gareth Morgan’s metaphors. The success of an organization depends on coordinated efforts between the top management and their juniors. Therefore, the staff at different levels need to be aware of the goals and use the resources provided to achieve the stated objectives despite the challenges involved. Such shortcomings are evaluated and opportunities emerging from them are taken into account. Based on the feedback obtained, plans are developed to achieve firms’ effectiveness and administration performance. Rather than managers directing their attention to positive outcomes through projections, they should instead emphasize an exploration of diagnostic methods and strategies which help in the determination of the actual business authenticity.
Behavioral and Theoretical Trends
As an organization, the US military applies expansion and success concepts used in business structures. From the business model canvas proposed previously, it is clear that the firm purposed to work alongside the US government. The leadership and training aspects can be equated to the military’s critical thinking techniques. The military proposed-business-model canvas is a hierarchical structure that separates departments and functions in each division. The forces maintain different divisions, including the marine guard, air force, army, and navy.
The structure is the main focus in the military; it defines a business plan and the direction towards which it is headed. For effective communication in an organization, information must reach both the staff and senior management (Massa, Tucci & Afuah 2017). Similar to a business plan, a procedure outline, shows how all the processes work and each employees’ performance expectation. Companies are striving to remain at the top of the increasingly competitive business world in the present day. Advancements in technology and changes in peoples’ lifestyles call for constant adaptation to the business environment (Di Toma & Ghinoi, 2020). Business models rank the organization in better places for achieving competitive advantage; therefore, the urge to generate these models increases. Subsequently, during the invention of more models, alterations in business processes occur.
General systems theory (GST), a theoretical concept, compares organizations to open systems. The school of thought was introduced by a traditional scientist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who held that firms are defined by the immediate surroundings in which they operate (Hofkirchner, 2019).
According to this theory, positive work environments result in ineffective business model trends. GST was distinguished by the three milestones it set; the integration tenet, which rules that the behavior of the comprising parts is unpredictable and relies on their relationship in a system. Secondly, the emergence principle holds that systems are layered, and there is the development of new knowledge at each level (Hofkirchner, 2019). Lastly, Synergy emphasizes developing awareness of the existing dependence between systems’ elements and architecture hierarchical connections. Emerging development processes and world evolution are included in this tenet.
In the United States military, the system concept concentrates on the team and its ability to take responsibility. All members are expected to hold active roles to ensure higher performance and work towards attained of a common organizational goal. A chain of command is advocated by the GST and is represented in the military where the navy, marine guard, air force, and army have a unifying mission-completion goal. Generally, how leaders equip their staff or, in this case, train their soldiers will determine their performance.
Change management is also a significant behavioral trend that emerges in the business model invention. Shifting from one business structure to another means an alteration of organizational designs. Periodically, in the business world, change is bound to happen even if it does not involve the firm’s structuring. In such cases, managers representing this aspect should act competently to identify its cause and secure the subsequent impacts (Hayes, 2018).
The process of change is multifaceted, introducing different theories towards explaining it and curbing its effects. Even though these approaches present the topic differently, they exhibit a common trait: Change incorporates events and action plans connected in a certain sequence (Hayes, 2018). The concepts differ in the degree to which they present themselves and the extent to which change direction is predicted.
Teleological theories explain change as a recurring series of formulation of goals, implementation, and evaluation. It states that organizations are adaptive and, as such, can use learning models to manage them (Hayes, 2018). Dialectical theories emphasize the contradicting goals of individuals in the workplace. This concept explains change by addressing the conflict and power balance among the staff. Life cycle theories assume that change is cumulative and proceeds to contribute to the next stage’s outcome. Evolutionary theories describe change as an unceasing cycle of variation, selection, and retention in order (Hayes, 2018). Variation is considered non-purposeful and happens with no warning; however, selection helps it fit suitable resources. Retention is the application of consistency in managing issues that arise from the alterations.
Change can solely be distinguished by its unique unpredictability character. In the case study of Sweden’s Vattenfall AB, if managers had predicted the occurrence of a Tsunami and its effects on nuclear power, they would have incorporated better management methods (Smither, Houston & McIntire, 2016). Firms’ responses to change differ as some adapt much quicker than others. Organization development is a field in humanistic psychology based on the belief that change is unavoidable and that a business’s effectiveness depends on the change management plans used.
As discussed in the earlier weeks model, organization development has been considered the best implementation method in the US military in case of changes. It is expected that processes may vary since the association purposed to work with the US government agencies. The state’s foreign policy fluctuates based on the presidential election outcomes impacting the institution’s economic status. Hierarchical setups require management to consent to extend the company’s boundaries to support collaborative thinking other than vertical decision-making (Di Toma & Ghinoi, 2020). Interactions of employees at different levels accelerate strong coordination approaches that help overcome internal business weaknesses.
Gareth Morgan’s Metaphors on Organization Context
Metaphors were believed to be used in literature as figures of speech when the author states an indirect comparison between two completely different items with a hidden similarity. Fascinatingly, a traditional economist presented organizations’ images as metaphors in the business context (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019). In this light, most research studies consider firms as live entities and introduce employees’ relations and communication as factors resulting in a corporation’s success or downfall. Achievement of companies’ long or short-term goals also depends on the above.
However, originally some scholars disputed metaphors in a business context; they later agreed on their importance in the organizational theory (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019). It was observed that metaphors helped provide the people with knowledge of the business cultural perception by experiencing one thing in terms of another. They also helped in giving a theoretical view of issues within a firm. According to Raad (2020), metaphors provide a single standpoint understanding of an unbiased concept and reveal the same or an association’s accurate nature. In the business context, corporations were metaphorically defined as machines, organisms, brains, culture, political systems, psychic prisons, domination instruments, flux, and transformers (Raad, 2020). The hierarchical business model applied imagines the military as discussed below.
The Machine Metaphor
Visualizing an institution as a machine means that emphasis should be placed on efficiency and maximum labor for better output. This metaphor perceives an organization’s functions as similar to those of a machine (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019). Additionally, just as several parts are joined together for a machine to be a complete system, so are people in a corporation. They should perform as a team to achieve the desired results. As a machine, the military has different arms, as explained earlier, all-inclusive despite their different duties. Since machines are also recognized for a few repeated errors and quick adaptation to new environments, the army strives towards reliability and improvement of soldiers’ efficiency.
The Organism Metaphor
From this perspective, organizations are open systems, just like living creatures. They desire to exist, be flexible, and experience adaptation to the environment (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019). This view contrasts with the machine metaphor, which perceives entities as non-living with no ability to develop or survive. This concept holds the idea that administrations illustrate structures comprising interconnected subsystems aligning with each other. Additionally, they have an inner need for adjusting to environmental changes such as customer demands and market fluctuations (Raad, 2020).
According to Tohidian and Rahimian (2019), this metaphor is inspired by the contingency theory, which exemplifies that associations have the responsibility to identify inconveniences and find measures to eradicate them. Since the US military works in conjunction with the federal government, it is bound to go through numerous changes. From this metaphor view, it will adapt and develop resilience, consequently improving proactivity in its operations.
The Brain Metaphor
This metaphor considers an organization as the processing brain for essential information. It emphasizes the significance of learning and intellect. Raad (2020) stated that the model categorizes learning systems into two; single-loop, which entails identifying and correcting mistakes about a certain operation procedure. A double-loop learning system involves having a second glance at a business process by evaluating its relevance. In selected case studies such as the Middle East airport services provider, confidential online questionnaires are prepared for employees to appreciate or enquire about the organization’s processes, which they feel are unclear. After the equitable review, if the suggestions are valid, amendments are made (Raad, 2020).
Generally, since the modern world is characterized by technology and high-speed development, firms need to focus on frequent learning. The military advocates for a continuous learning program, and in that sense, this model could be useful due to the period changes experienced.
In the contemporary world, various organizations are under pressure to fit in the market due to increasing competition. Additionally, advancements in technology and lifestyle changes call for continuous flexibility and adaptation, leading to the need for a change of the business models. Therefore, it can be concluded that these models place corporations in better competitive positions; thus, motivating the companies to innovate appropriate models. However, in the hierarchical model applied in the military, the desire to respond timely and suitably to improve the firm’s resources has remained a major problem (Di Toma & Ghinoi, 2020). This issue is mainly due to communication barriers as they use a downwards model where decisions are made and passed from the top management to the juniors.
Evaluation and Diagnosis of the Hierarchical Structural Business Model
As discussed, business models are considered pillars of an organization, with their implications reflected in business operations. The models are important in all the firm’s operations, such as market connection, resource allocation, and transparency in business dealings. They act as a backbone of association, outlining technological aspects as inputs and converting them to final outputs and profits using customers (Batocchio, Ghezzi & Rangone, 2016). Business models can, therefore, be equated to guidance plans on firms’ goals and policies.
In the military, all operative aspects are recorded in organizational charts. Functions of all units are listed as well as the allocated resources during missions. Additionally, the budget set for tasks, such as time, food, and equipment, is also analyzed in the chart (Mislick & Nussbaum, 2015). A fixed military rank structure is defined by the US federal law, setting the number of soldiers in each rank. According to this model, the association cannot alter its management strategy to accommodate mission needs; instead, it can only request a change and wait for legislative consent.
The major advantage of the hierarchical business structure is that it automatically points out career and promotion paths. Employees working in organizations applying this model easily learn the command chains’ processes (Massa et al., 2017). This knowledge gives them a better opportunity to get promotions easily, which is enticing and leads to higher performance due to motivation. Moreover, authorities in the company are well-defined, meaning that staff report directly to already identified supervisors.
This structure makes communication flow easier and improves confidentiality among workers as they know where the working orders and feedback come from. It additionally becomes easier to manage employees using this perspective. The hierarchical structure promotes loyalty and the spirit of teamwork (Massa et al., 2017). Despite employees being located in different departments, they work towards the achievement of a common organizational goal. Their roles are interlinked, and they coordinate while working.
Despite having numerous benefits, there are some drawbacks associated with the hierarchical structure. The main disadvantage is the communication barrier; as in this model, it is one way. Orders are from upward, meaning employees also feel excluded from major decision-making policies that apply to them. Additionally, communication may fail to happen at all among some colleagues.
For instance, when a junior staff answers their section head, it becomes rare to contact a leader from a different department or outside their team. Decision-making becomes a slow process in firms using this structure. Various leadership roles are represented in a hierarchical structure business model (Batocchio et al., 2016). All have to be involved in the step-by-step procedure of determining major management operations. There is no guarantee that these department managers will be accessed simultaneously, and due to this, the process becomes lengthy.
The hierarchical structural model can Further be assessed by using the business model canvas, which comprises the following discussed building blocks, among others (Batocchio et al., 2016). Firstly, customer segments form the basis of a business. They should be understood as they form a larger part of a company’s continuity. Value propositions make a business stand out among its competitors based on the degree of satisfaction they offer to customers. Channels through which they reach their clients and provide customer support. Businesses need to maintain healthy customer relationships to help retain their loyalty and acquire new ones. Services provided shape these relations. Lastly, key partners who assist in business optimization, risk reduction, and acquiring resources.
Using the above evaluation of the hierarchical structure of the military, the command chain structure gives attention to the business canvas as a model that gives priority to the organization’s future directions. Other parameters taken into account include information gathered and corporate obligations.
Recommendation on Areas of Improvement
The assessment of the above approaches has created a gap that needs to be improved for the structures’ effective functioning. While it cannot be disputed that there are benefits accrued from using the models, few weaknesses have been identified from using the military models. However, there are measures recommended to improve the drawbacks recognized.
Refresher training courses should be provided to the soldiers. If provided with better tools and continuous training programs, the US military can fully concentrate on the mission and develop proactivity. At this level, all tasks assigned to them can be classified as a mission, thus upholding the hierarchical structure. Moreover, focused training will provide all divisions with a different responsibility view varying from their department.
The military promotes uniformity in working towards the achievement of a common mission. However, it is important to note that not everyone possesses personal values like responsibility. That being the case, there should be set disciplinary guidelines to ensure individual soldiers are answerable for their actions. Similarly, adapting to change in work processes and different backgrounds should be emphasized while at the same time learning to appreciate others’ differences and embracing team spirit.
Conclusion
The study is meant to explore diagnostic methods and strategies that help in the actual determination of an organization’s authenticity of estimates made. It further addresses success by assessing the structure applied. Business models incorporate goals, plans, processes, and people management.
The performance of managers and their juniors results in successful business performance as well as their relationships. The US military was used as a case study where it was considered an organization that adopted the hierarchical structure with the federal authority being at the topmost and having the responsibility to approve the army’s change decisions. It has three divisions, similar to departments in regular businesses. They include the air force, navy, army, and marine guard. The General system theory (GST) and change management were identified as behavioral theories that shaped business models in the organization. GST described institutions as open systems with the ongoing development of new knowledge.
Change management theory introduced the organizational development concept for the implementation of change. Gareth Morgan’s metaphors presented corporations’ images in the business context as a machine metaphor, which perceived an organization’s functions to be alike to those of a machine. The Organism Metaphor views associations as open systems that can survive and develop just like living creatures. The brain metaphor perceives them as a processing brain and an ongoing learning system. An evaluation of the business models introduced the advantages and disadvantages of using the hierarchical structure and outlined areas that needed to be improved, such as offering refresher training courses to the military soldiers and a recommendation for developing individual accountability.
References
Batocchio, A., Ghezzi, A., & Rangone, A. (2016). A method for evaluating business models implementation process. Business Process Management Journal, 22(4), 712-735. Web.
Di Toma, P., & Ghinoi, S. (2020). Overcoming hierarchy in business model innovation: An actor-oriented approach. European Journal of Innovation Management. Web.
Hayes, J. (2018). The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave. (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.
Hofkirchner, W. (2019). Social relations: Building on Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(3), 263-273. Web.
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73-104. Web.
Mislick, G. K., & Nussbaum, D. A. (2015). Cost estimation: methods and tools. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.
Raad, M. (2020). Gareth Morgan’s metaphors: A case study of an airport services provider. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Smither, R., Houston, J., & McIntire, S. (2016). Organization development: Strategies for changing environments. Routledge. Milton Park.
Tohidian, I., & Rahimian, H. (2019). Bringing Morgan’s metaphors in organization contexts: An essay review. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), Web.