The vital strategy of the U. S. Army is to deploy the organization’s resources effectively and accordingly to internal and external changes, capabilities, and opportunities. Spangenberg and Theron (2013) claim that strategy creation may be supported by continuous monitoring of the external environment and defining opportunities and threats. The most appropriate Morgan metaphor that describes the functionality of the U. S. Army is Organization as a Machine (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019).
The organization aims to search and utilize recruits efficiently. In this context, U. S. Army operates like a machine. Additionally, the organization implies strict and detailed regulations, an uncompromising approach, and an unbending hierarchical structure. Responsibilities are divided among organization members with specific roles, and each individual submits to a common goal of the U. S. Army, namely national and global security.
Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model includes structural, human resource, political and symbolic. The structural frame depicts the U.S. Army because it concentrates on military operations with a description of the exact tasks, measurable goals, well-defined roles, and training (Holmes & Skull, 2019). The structural frame illustrates the organization as a machine, which is managed methodically and objectively. Additionally, the U.S. Army strives for the efficiency and reliability of the total organizational system.
The structural reframing reflects the effectiveness of the context/perspective of the interactivity within the U. S. Army’s business model through directing strategy development and an effective management system. Thus, the structural reframing assists with better human resource management, key partners’ and new recruiters’ search, and revenue sources’ maintenance. Furthermore, the secondary frame that may represent the U. S. Army business model is the human resource frame. Human resources are of high importance to the U. S. Army as the value proposition suggests that the organization provides recruits with the opportunity to develop professional and personal skills.
Consequently, the human resource frame values guidance, support, and motivation (Holmes & Skull, 2019). Accordingly, the U. S. Army enables organization members with different benefits, training, remuneration, and professional growth. Hence, this frame strengthens the recruits, specialists, officers, and their needs. The human resources frame empowers diversification of the organization by attracting new specialists and developing international cooperation, and consequently, obtaining new sources of income.
Before providing examples of the patterns depicted by the canvas, it is necessary to introduce the definition. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2013) state that the patterns relate to the business model blocks with homogeneous characteristics. In fact, the significant patterns in the U. S. Army’s business model are quality, compliance, and risk patterns. According to Fellman et al. (2019), these patterns address the issue of providing a high quality of operations and compliance with legal regulations and guidelines. For instance, during the U. S. military operations, risk patterns enable the safety and security of the representatives and the system itself.
Essentially, resource patterns related to the U. S. Army are the roles and responsibilities as well as the distribution of the human resources among the organization. Fellman et al. (2019) suggest that resource patterns deal with the transference of tasks, roles, supervision, and authorization between organization members. Thus, resource patterns are visible in the U. S. Army’s decisions regarding crucial operations, partnerships, and even cost structure management.
To summarize, the U. S. Army’s strategy is to conduct effective military operations, attract new resources, find mutually beneficial partnerships, and maintain the combat capability, mobilization readiness of troops, and development of organizational activities.
Fellmann, M., Koschmider, A., Laue, R., Schoknecht, A., & Vetter, A. (2019). Business process model patterns: State-of-the-art research classification and taxonomy. Business Process Management Journal, 25(5), 972-994. Web.
Holmes, W. T., & Skull, W. R. (2019). Reframing organizations through leadership communications: The four frames of leadership viewed through motivating language. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(5), 16-19. Web.
Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.
Spangenberg, H., & Theron, C. (2013). A critical review of the burke-litwin model of leadership, change and performance. Management Dynamics, 22(2), 29-48. Web.
Tohidian, I., & Rahimian, H. (2019). Bringing Morgan’s metaphors in organization contexts: An essay review. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1). Web.