REDUCING HQDA ground swell of support , the project moved forward more by established deadlines and through force of will than by an open dialogue — which could propose , develop , or explore nonstandard organizational designs . This lack of information transparency also resulted in many HQDA agencies and FOAs greeting the supporting teams with a range of emotion from indifference to open hostility . BCG and small “ subject-matter expert ” teams had to overcome this agency bias before they could effectively communicate how organizations could make effective changes within the agreed upon de-layering principles in figure 3 ( on page 19 ).
The review was not successful in Kotter ’ s step 5 , “ enable action by removing barriers and obstacles ,” allowing employees to remove inefficient processes or hierarchies from across boundaries . As mentioned earlier , HQDA had to maintain its daily workload while reducing authorizations and attempting reorganization through de-layering . HQDA core functions and daily processes had their own distinct management hierarchies and timelines embedded in them that still had to be met . The USA and VCSA tasked the organizations ’ principals with de-layering , but OBT with small teams of the agencies ’ process subject-matter experts handled the day-to-day work , reviewing the core processes and potential staff mergers as a second line of effort . These teams encountered the same support and information obstacles as discussed above because they were outside the organizations and were not process owners . Despite these barriers , and to the credit of the process owners and involved participants , these small teams gathered and reviewed a vast amount of information that led to recommendations for further analysis and concept exploration . However , there were no significant changes to the HQDA core functions or processes . To improve processes in the future , process owners and stakeholders would have to prepare , plan , and execute their own process-improvement efforts , vice an outside organization , in order to ultimately achieve their defined goals and implement change effectively .
In support of Kotter ’ s sixth step , the USA and VCSA did “ generate short-term wins ,” tracking and communicating success and progress , by quickly approving many smaller agency redesigns . Picking this “ low-hanging fruit ” was achieved through a stepped review process , focusing first on echelons two through five , as depicted in the final phase of figure 1 ( on page 16 ). Throughout the overall echelon reorganization review and approval briefings , the principals informed the USA and VCSA simultaneously on their projected reorganization design and , if necessary , sought exceptions for specific “ violations ” of the de-layering principles . Requests for exception usually dealt with span-of-control limitations due to the nature of work required by U . S . Code , General Order 2012-01 , or public law . 12 At each of these briefings , the USA and VCSA attempted to further energize the principals to drive change . Due in part to the principals ’ thoroughness , and with support from the BCG , in terms of documentation and alternative design development , the USA and VCSA quickly reviewed and approved the organizations ’ concepts . As the approval process matured , the USA and VCSA showed flexibility as decision makers , acknowledging that not every organization could achieve 25 percent reductions within the constraints of the entire rule set . They understood that , in the long term , work flow mattered more than the de-layering principles ( rules ) as long as leaders preformed due diligence and did not recommend growth . The one rule that remained firm was the 25 percent reduction , which had to be achieved by each organization .
During the effort to reorganize , the HQDA Comprehensive Review was successful in achieving Kotter ’ s seventh step , “ sustain acceleration .” By completing the echelons in descending order , starting with echelon two and proceeding downward into the more populous echelons , the principals and organizational designers could build on the previous work as well as gain more experience with the application of the concepts and design principles .
The HQDA Comprehensive Review “ instituted change ” as defined in the eighth step of Kotter ’ s process through the codification of the de-layered organizations ’ concepts in revised TDAs , which clearly identified the removal year for each authorization . The review , however , largely did not create new behaviors across the ARSTAF and the Army secretariat , as most organizations continued to function as before with only changes to the number of echelons , providing supervisors greater span of control and ensuring no deputies existed below echelon three . Ultimately , change decisions remained internal to each agency instead of across agency functions . The USA and VCSA also sped the TDA documentation process by temporarily suspending the requirement for
MILITARY REVIEW January-February 2017 21