Reference no: EM132136629

Reply to the following statement;

"I am currently active duty military and have been for the past twelve years. This has helped me develop a greater understanding of the five major models with first-hand experience. The basis of human behavior in the organization is the interface between human behavior and organization, which varies substantially within different cultures. If it did not, the formation of the models would not have occurred.

In the military organization there is a rank (pay grade) structure guiding the organization and the interaction of the people within it. Each branch has different requirements for each rank however, no matter what branch you belong to your pay grade will define the amount of money you are paid each month. For example, an E-1 in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) base pay is the same as the United States Navy (USN) no matter the job that is held. This means that if you were to work harder than the E-1 to your left you technically would not be getting paid more. For this reason, there is a fine line that the leadership within the military has to walk in order for their members to produce quality work. Although military members do have job security this can hinder the productivity due to its security. Much like salary pay can hinder civilian's productivity and job performance. It creates complacency.

With that said, the first four years of my enlistment I worked with an E-6 (SSgt) that demonstrated every single type model of organizational behavior. When he first arrived at the unit we were six brand new members added at once. We had no prior training nor did we understand the structure or culture of the organization. During this period there was no time available to be supportive, compassionate or recognize job performance. Work days were 14-16 hours long for our work center while others were leaving on time. We were upset because we were making no more money than those leaving on time. However, there was a mission at hand and time was not slowing down. He was trying to prepare us as fast as he could for the deployment to Iraq within the next nine months.

During this period, he needed to have authority and direct obedience from everyone underneath him. The priority was training, teaching, guiding, and the needs of the enlisted members underneath him were subsistence. He was at this time working within the autocratic style. Of course, this style of leadership did not last long once we were trained. He then focused on teaching us teamwork and the importance a good relationship needed to complete the mission. If he saw one member that was far performing than the other he recognized us through an award or submitting us for advancement into the next pay grade. At this time, he was utilizing a mixture of custodial model through the managerial orientation of money by paygrade advancement, supportive model by meeting our needs through recognition and the collegial model by teaching us the importance of a good dynamic within a team. Leadership above him (top management) in this case being the institution simply had one style, autocratic. It was his job as the 'one in the fight' to ensure he was able to accomplish the mission by all means possible.

The important detail I learned through his leadership was to not remain static. Leading and managing personnel are two different things, however being able to rhythmically manage both was an art. I have followed his approach and have definitely bounced between models plenty of times depending on the culture of my environment".