Organizational Structure

There are a lot of reasons for the rank structure and the chain of command. Every reason that I am going to explain in this essay is very important. I am going to separate them into two paragraphs. The first paragraph will be about the importance of the rank structure and why the rank structure is in place. The second paragraph will be about the importance of the chain of command and why the chain of command is set into place.

According to the article, the Active Army will decrease its personal strength to 490,000. Likewise, the Army National Guard will reduce its personal strength to 353,500 and the Army Reserve to 205,000. The decreased in Army personal will cause the decline in Active Component Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) reducing from 45 to 37. Currently, analysis is being conducted

The command structure in United States Military is vital to the success of missions carried out in or outside the country. The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the establishment of command hierarchies that work for specific units. The commands, guidelines, and orders are passed from the highest-ranking personnel to lowest ranking officers who must perform the directive or pass it to subordinates with the same instructions. The principles that establish the command structure in the military evaluates the performance of each command and the officers involved in the various missions. The key principles that affected the execution of Operation Anaconda resulting in mission deficiencies are organizational structure, decision-making, and collaboration.

Moving forward, our Army's primary purpose is steadfast and resolute: to fight and win our Nation's wars. But we all know that the Army must be able to do much more than that. Today, we require an Army that is adaptive and innovative, flexible and agile, integrated and synchronized, lethal and discriminate. Even more critical in today's complex and uncertain environment, the Army is the decisive arm of the Joint Force in a broad range of missions. Historically the Army has been focused on a specific set of needs, but these needs and the means in which they are resourced have changed. So we must fundamentally change how we do business. As we keep adding rocks to our Soldiers' rucksacks, all leaders must remain cognizant over time. Everyone's load can get too heavy and cause permanent wear and tear. So it is a good idea to

The process the U.S. Army utilizes to fill the units they design with personnel to fight and win the nation's wars, equipment to own the air and the night, money to put fuel into the vehicles and bullets in the weapons, and facilities to house the soldiers and their families in is the Acquisition process. The army cannot continue without new soldiers to fill its ranks or weapons and bullets to destroy the enemy, this phase is the building block for the Army Organizational Life Cycle Model and helps dictate training and the rest of the model forward.

The most critical issue that we face when it comes to downsizing the army is the readiness and security of our nation. Politicians say that downsizing the military brings back the nation’s financial stability. Army leaders do not see it that way, but weakens our nation 's defense capability and our commitment to the rest of the world. General Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff (2013), states that “In his professional military judgment, that the projected end strength and force structure levels would not enable the Army to fully execute 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance requirements to defeat an adversary in one major combat operation while simultaneously denying the objectives of an adversary in a second theater. Additionally, it is unlikely that the Army would be able to defeat an adversary quickly and decisively should they be called upon to engage in a single, sustained major combat operation” (Chief, Congress and DoD hammer out Army 's future manning levels, par.18). The military is not just weakened by the numbers, but by experience and

Force management, or what is really otherwise known as planned comprehensive change, is in reality a complex and interwoven process. Though it was designed within the confines of a systemic approach referred to as the DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership & Education, Personnel and Facilities), in reality it is meant to enable both dutiful and well-thought out change as well as faster, more urgent adjustments in accordance with the evolving nature of war and information gathering tactics. The Army, as one branch involved in this initiative, focuses most of its attention in this regard on the organizational sector because of the way it facilitates an adequate and democratic step-by-step system of review (Student Reader, F102:2). But the fact is that even this initiative remains multi-faceted and appears to be rather bureaucratic in nature (it has five phases, which seems antithetical to an urgent change process), which might not be surprising since implementing the type of changes that are demanded can have major implications of all sorts. Still, it does appear that this concentration is being well received and that it will eventually serve its goal even if it does not appear that way when detailed on a point by point basis.

Direct level leadership is the most common level of leadership in the army. This level of leadership happens on a “face-to-face” (ADRP 6-22) basis. First line supervisors are typically the ones providing this level of leadership. A leader’s influence may differ depending on the position they are in, or the type of organization their unit is. Most units across the Army have teams, squads, platoons, etc. This is this where direct leadership takes place. The leader is

The organizing function of management is impacted in the globalization efforts of the Army. The process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones takes the utmost managerial ability from all ranks and corporations sustaining the Army. For instance, institutional organizations provide the infrastructure necessary to raise, train, equip, deploy, and ensure the readiness of all Army forces in strategic global locations. Organizing and strategic planning functions help the training base provide military skills and professional education to every soldier -as well as members of sister services and allied forces. It also allows the Army to expand rapidly in time of war.

The Army National Guard (ARNG) will inactivate one Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) and one Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) and will convert one ABCT to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). As a part of the Brigade restructure, all ABCTs will be reduced by two mechanized infantry companies as a part of the "Triangle Design". Every ABCT will consist of three Combined Arms Battalions (CAB). Two will be tank heavy, consisting of two armor companies and one mechanized infantry company. The third CAB will consist of two mechanized infantry companies and one tank company. The Armored Cavalry Squadron will consist of three cavalry troops and one tank company.”1

As stewards of our profession, commanders ensure that military expertise continues to develop and be passed on to aspiring professionals through operational development. It is during this developmental phase that Professional Soldiers put their knowledge and skills to the test. Operational Army units certify and recertify their Professional Soldiers through repetitive and realistic training events including the Combat Life Saver Course, platoon live fires, and exercises at the National Training Center. In the course of these challenging and realistic experiences, the Army’s operational units develop Soldiers and leaders prepared to maintain high standards, discipline, and operational readiness. Operational development and adaptability will continue to drive changes in Army doctrine, organization, leadership, and education as we enter the post-war era. Without this kind of development, the Army could not maintain a well-disciplined professional fighting force.

The Army is an organization that imprints pride and discipline in its soldiers, both enlisted and commissioned officers, because of its

The American Army 's history, composition, and structure predisposed the leadership to a rigid fixation on conventional warfare. In contrast to the British army-as-force-projection model, the American Army found its first task a matter of national survival. This historical trend - the continued perception of the Army fighting a war of annihilation - helped in many ways to keep the Army purely focused on its military objectives. Unconditional surrender was the name of the game, and smaller political goals were seen at best as derivative to, and at worst, preventative of the fabled 'total victory '. The varied composition of personnel which make up the US army also ensured a degree of formality, and a deference to rank. The structure, born of open-combat wars at large scale, was constituted around large divisions, which often rotated officers and manpower in and out. In short, everything within the Army was organized -rigidly- around the principle of a large scale conventional war. What worked against the Germans would work against the Russians.

During arduous combat operations coinciding with a high OPTEMPO unit cohesion may flux toward a detriment of mission success. This report will focus on the 56TH Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) in order to address the critical leadership problem. In addition, focus will center on relevant facts and assumptions that led to the critical leadership problem and rectify the issues. Furthermore, a new ABCT vision will be published in order to restructure the organizational culture toward a unified purpose and an increase in esprit de corps. (Verify with lesson for correct purpose)

“Divisional structure is known by the approach of having similar skills and resources grouped together into divisions” (Draft, 2013, p.318). This occurs when a company has common goals that the company wants to achieve. This allows all skills and departments to come together and produce the goal there are looking to achieve. In this type of structure not one person is viewed as important than the next one, because it takes everyone to work together to produce the outcome the company wants to achieve. “The matrix structure uses both functional and divisional structures to run an organization” (Draft, 2013, p.321). This allows the company to