Here's a story in Thursday's Chicago Tribune on former CIA director Robert Gates' appointment to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld that touches on what we've been studying in class about organizational culture.
And here's one from The Washington Post on the same appointment, and what it might mean for the organizational culture in the Pentagon, the White House and high levels of government in general.
Read both stories, review the discussion of organizational culture in our textbook and post your answers to the following questions as comments to this blog. Here are the questions:
1. What kind of management style did Rumsfeld typify? Why was he sometimes resented by others at the Pentagon and in government? What specific evidence do you find in the two newspaper stories to support your answer? Cite the evidence. Be specific.Here are the first few paragraphs of the Trib's story (and below I'll past in the first grafs of the Post story). Read them here get you started and follow the links below to find more evidence:
2. What kind of management style did Gates have at the CIA? Cite specific evidence in support of your answer. What changes in organizational culture do you think he might make when he takes over Rumsfeld's job?
3. Which kind of organizational culture would be better for public relations purposes? Balance the pros and cons. Consider the two definitions of organizational culture cited in our text. Be specific.
Link herefor the rest of the Trib's story.Gates seen as low-key loyalist
By Greg Miller, Tribune Newspapers
Los Angeles Times
Published November 9, 2006
WASHINGTON -- In turning to former CIA Director Robert Gates to take the reins at the Pentagon, President Bush has selected a low-key loyalist who is in many ways the opposite of outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
While Rumsfeld often seemed bent on running roughshod over the Pentagon brass, Gates is described by longtime associates as collegial and as a consensus-builder.
If Rumsfeld had little regard for the president's father and for many of the elder Bush's pragmatic security advisers, including Brent Scowcroft, Gates was part of that Bush inner circle. He remains close not only to Scowcroft but to other Rumsfeld rivals, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Rumsfeld placed little trust in intelligence agencies and pushed the military to encroach on their turf. Now, in a turning of the tables, a 27-year veteran of the CIA and the National Security Council is poised to take charge of the military.
Democrats praised Gates' nomination, hoping for a less combative Pentagon chief. But Gates has proven controversial in the past and was forced to withdraw from his first nomination as CIA director before winning a split-vote confirmation four years later.
Across the national security community on Wednesday, the deep contrasts between Rumsfeld and Gates were a subject of conversations.
Rumsfeld "is a guy who is kind of burdened with his own certitude at times," said John Gannon, a former high-ranking CIA official who worked with Rumsfeld and Gates. "That is not Bob Gates. He came out of an analytic culture where listening to the ideas of others and questioning your own assumptions is part of the tradecraft."
And here's the top of The Washington Post's story:
Link here for the full WaPo story.Robert Gates Lauded As Breaker of Barriers
Military Leaders Describe Bipartisan Appeal
By Ann Scott Tyson and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 9, 2006; Page A24
Robert M. Gates, a veteran intelligence official whom President Bush nominated to become his new secretary of defense, is widely viewed as a consensus-builder who may break down barriers between civilian and military leaders -- as well as between the Pentagon and other agencies -- that grew legendary under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Gates, 63, is a close associate of former president George H.W. Bush and was deputy national security adviser during the Persian Gulf War. He rose rapidly through CIA ranks as a Soviet expert with extensive White House experience to become director of central intelligence from 1991 to 1993. The only setback in his career came in 1987 when he withdrew as President Ronald Reagan's nominee to be CIA director because of his involvement in the Iran-contra affair. In all, Gates has served six presidents in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
A native Kansan with shrewd bureaucratic instincts, Gates lacks the top-down, take-no-prisoners managerial style that won Rumsfeld enemies and instead is more likely to set up task forces and forge agreements behind the scenes, associates said. While Rumsfeld issues flurries of directives and memos, nicknamed "snowflakes," in keeping with his business-executive past, Gates is a listener and leads with the inherent circumspection of an intelligence analyst, they said.
"Rumsfeld's a wrestler. Bob Gates likes to hike," said Richard Haver, a former senior official who has worked closely with both men. "Gates is not about to get on a mat with someone and pin him. With Rumsfeld, pinning is the name of the game."
At the Pentagon, senior military officers said that while Rumsfeld is perceived as arrogant and a fierce turf-battler, Gates is viewed as a far less combative and more conciliatory figure. "Gates has a track record of bipartisan support and being respected and accepted by . . . different parties," said a senior Army general, adding, "I think he'll be fine."
Gates could help ease the tensions that arose as Rumsfeld moved to impose greater civilian control on military services and operations, active and retired military officers said.
Military leaders "will find their voice in a way that they were never going to find it with Rumsfeld. My guess is that he'll listen," a retired four-star general said of Gates, whom he knows. Still, while Gates is expected to handle dissent with more finesse, "he won't be snowed or bamboozled" by senior military officers, said a former official who knows Gates well. "Gates will listen, but he will not always take their advice," he said.
Of course you'll want to read both stories completely and review what the textbook says about organizational culture before posting your answer, because your grade for this exercise will be based in part on the detail with which you support your claims. You may even decide you want to do a Google search and find out more about Rumsfeld, Gates and their respective management styles.
4 comments:
1. What kind of management style did Rumsfeld typify? Why was he sometimes resented by others at the Pentagon and in government? What specific evidence do you find in the two newspaper stories to support your answer? Cite the evidence. Be specific.
Rumsfeld is someone who says what he wants when he wants. He is very firm to his beliefs. Sometimes people who don't agree with what Rumsfeld believes don't appreciate his attitude.
2. What kind of management style did Gates have at the CIA? Cite specific evidence in support of your answer. What changes in organizational culture do you think he might make when he takes over Rumsfeld's job?
Gates is a "listener". He is much more passive than Rumsfeld. His way of management might be more smooth and effective than Rumsfeld's.
3. Which kind of organizational culture would be better for public relations purposes? Balance the pros and cons. Consider the two definitions of organizational culture cited in our text. Be specific.
To get things done we can't stand around and nod our heads and agree with everybody. But, we also can't be too agressive or too passive. For "public relations", I think Gates will be a better candidate.
1.Rumsfeld management style was an Authoritarian culture, where the decision-making is centralized with the CEO and high-level managers. As said in the article senior by the Chicago Tribune military officials said “Rumsfeld is perceived as arrogant and fierce turf-battler” He had the attitude that it is my way or no way at all. Sometimes he was resented at the Pentagon and in the government for not listening to senior officials. As the Chicago Tribune stated “Rumsfeld had little trust in intelligence agencies and pushed the military to encroach on their turf.”
Rumsfield was a wrestler where pinning is the name of the game. He was resented because he didn’t do what others wanted him to do and he would do what he wanted to do. At the Pentagon, senior military officers said that while Rumsfeld is perceived as arrogant and a fierce turf-battler. That is why they did not like him much and resented him. Gates is viewed as a far less combative and more conciliatory figure and he will listen but he will not always take their advice. I think gates will be perfect for the job and he will take the job type and change it to make it better. Senior intelligence officer who has known Gates for 30 years described him as tough, brilliant and hard-working, but said Gates has sharp elbows for those who get in his way. This will be a very good quality to have. With his new job he will have to use a participated culture because if her were not to he would get no where because in his position team work is the only way things will get done. He is also going to have to have good communication policies because in that position he will need to keep his employees very well informed. Gates will be a better person for the job than rumsfield will because he is not all about himself which is a very positive pro on his point. The con of this is rumsfield had a lot of experience not saying that gates don’t but it will show in the near future i am sure
2. Gates had more bureaucratic instincts with very good leadership qualities. Gates likes to listen and people and take advice, instead of attacking and letting no one stand in his way, as Rumsfeld did, Gates is more pruned to develop teams to address and compromise the issues. The Washington Post noted that Gates is a “consensus-builder who may break down barriers between civilian and military leaders -- as well as between the Pentagon and other agencies”. Doing this he would change the culture to a participative culture.
3. The best Management style for public relations would be the participative culture. Where rather than doing everything your way you listen to ideas of others to develop the best possible solution. One con of this style is that you could be perceived as being to soft and letting people kind of rollover you. While if you had an authoritative culture people would move out of the way for you, but doing that makes you lose a lot of support from outsiders. So as a participative culture you are open to other, but not everyone and everything, you listen, but still attack issues in your way
Post a Comment