For this discussion forum, please reflect on:
Where in the four quadrants from the video (Denyer, 2017) does your organization fall? What tensions between the quadrants has your organization experienced?
300 words or more.
Example 1 below:
Based on the four quadrants from Denyer’s (2017) video, an Army basic training company likely fits into the “Performance Optimization” quadrant. This quadrant is known for a top-down command structure with strict adherence to rules and procedures, which is typical in the military. In basic training, orders and instructions come from a central command, and there is a strong emphasis on discipline and following established processes.
However, there are tensions between this quadrant and the “Adaptive Innovation” quadrant. While the focus is on maintaining order and discipline, there is also a growing need for more teamwork and collaboration. This is especially important as modern military operations require adaptability and innovation, which often need more flexibility than the traditional military hierarchy allows.
These tensions show up in different ways. For example, drill sergeants and leaders may find it challenging to balance strict discipline with creating an environment that encourages trainees to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. There is also a challenge in integrating new training methods that emphasize teamwork and mental resilience while still meeting the rigorous physical and tactical training standards.
Another issue is resistance to change. Many in the organization are used to the centralized system and may see efforts to increase collaboration as a threat to authority or discipline. This can create friction when trying to implement new strategies or training programs that focus on softer skills along with traditional military training.
In summary, while a basic training company mainly operates within a highly centralized structure, there is a push towards more collaboration and adaptability. Managing these tensions is essential for training well-rounded soldiers who can succeed in various situations.
Example 2 below
My organization has elements of all four quadrants but mostly identifies with performance optimization. Whether it be our medical team constantly enhancing battlefield medicine procedures or different members of the unit testing new equipment from weapons to vehicles, my organization is always finding ways to optimize performance.
Down to each individual soldier having opportunities for better training and recovery in our gyms or being provided the resources to succeed in educational goals, we focus tirelessly on how to get the best version of our staff on a daily basis. A majority of SOF units probably have similar optimization strategies and can relate to that quadrant.
As for tension between the four, I believe there are times for each and they need to be used properly. Some of the examples I listed can also fall into the adaptive innovation quadrant because the two top quadrants can coincide. There are many situations where my organization takes a preventative control stance and there are minimal problems with that in my experience. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense so in that situation preventative control would not serve as beneficial. “If your pre occupied one particular perspective on organizational resilience that probably means there are some blind spots and weaknesses that you’re not identifying” (Denyer, 2017). It is important to have a collective mix of all four quadrants as long as each one is being used at the proper time.
