A633.3.3.RB_SchreterPaul

Making that transitional change from a Type 1 Functional Silo to a Type 3 CAS organization is quite the large leap. The United States Air Force is already one of the biggest organizations in the world and inner workings of it are vast and varied. Within my realm of expertise, I can only speak for the workings of Aircraft Maintenance, which closely resembles a Type 2 Matrix structure. The current structure from the point of view of a maintainer is as follows:

Section Chief -> Supervisor -> You
Production Super -> Expediter -> You

While we fall under the chain of command of our Section Chief, we get loaned out as a resource to the Production Super. While I believe the current system works and there isn’t a drastic need to make that change into a Type 3 CAS organization, it most certainly can be done and improvements may be expected. I will talk about what sort of benefits we could expect, how performance reviews will be changed, and finally how the pay system would have to be changed as well.

Currently anyone that joins the Air Force is locked into a particular specialty. We go to technical training to only learn our specialty and when we go to our first duty station, we work only within the realms of our specialty. Currently, there are five different specialties that work on the flight line and many of the skills of these specialties overlap. Within a CAS system, “teams are formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises.” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 26) When an aircraft breaks, a team then self-assembles to take care of the problem. Without managers, this would also more freely allow people to try their hand at different specialties. Not only will skill sets expand, but this may prevent idle bodies from just sitting around when nothing breaks within their particular specialty. People are more likely to go outside to learn something new.

The second element of moving to a CAS like system is the element of peer review similar to how Morning Star handles it when “at the end of the year, every employee in the company receives feedback from his or her CLOU colleagues.” (Hamel, 2011) Rather than a boss-to-subordinate type of feedback, feedback is received from everyone you work with. That way you get a much better idea on how well you’re performing and you can be more fairly ranked with your peers. The current system within the Air Force is by the boss-to-subordinate only, which poses difficulties when the boss is on a different shift or in another country altogether.

The third element would have to be a change within the pay system. Currently within the Air Force pay is based on rank, which is loosely correlated with value added. With the new system, the entire rank structure would almost have to be removed along with the pay scale. Reason being is that rank is equivalent to a title, which makes people feel privileged. Everything being equal, people are then graded based on merit and not rank. Morning Star handles the situation with “a local compensation committee; about eight such bodies are created across the company each year. The committees work to validate self-assessments and uncover contributions that went unreported. After weighing inputs, the committees set individual compensation levels, ensuring that pay aligns with value added.” (Hamel, 2011) Removing rank with rank pay and moving to a peer based compensation system, people become more focused on value as opposed to shooting for the next promotion.

The three things I mentioned are what sort of benefits could be expected from a Type 3 CAS organization, how performance reviews would be changed, and finally how the pay system would also have to be changed. While not completely out of feasibility, getting the military to make a huge organizational change is something that will be incredibly difficult. Decades-old worth of structure and culture will have to be dismantled in order to build up something new and worthwhile. If already engaged in foreign military operations, is it worth trying to make organizational changes now or would it be better to wait for times of peace?

References

Hamel, G. (2011). FIRST, LET'S FIRE ALL THE MANAGERS. Harvard Business Review , 48-60.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.