Ltc Denehy Case Study Harvard Business
Kimberly Shelton interviewed LTC Denehy, Deputy of G33, meaning that he falls under the G3, the head of USASOC Operations. He works alongside other Deputies to the G3, but focuses on current operations. LTC Denehy has been on Active Duty in the US Army for 23 years. He is pending battalion command, an honor in all communities, but especially in the Special Forces Community. His background is quite impressive. Originally from New Hampshire, he has taught at the United States Military Academy, West Point, and is a graduate of Columbia University. He has been a part of special operations for the majority of his career. Special Operations tends to allow its personnel to think on their own and outside the box, more like a bottom-up strategy.
…show more content…
They adapt to their environment and are aware of to meet market expectations and are involve in the development of their leaders. Obolensky (2014) stated, “complex systems are highly adaptive to the environment within which they exist.” As we have seemed from the interviews, the four organizations have a high degree of awareness and are evolving towards a complex adaptive system (Obolensky, 2014). Additionally, three of the four companies point to communication as key piece or cornerstones to implementing their strategy. One company identified respect and teamwork as a part of their strategy. Teamwork is defined as being a cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of group of persons acting together as a team or in the interests of a common cause (Dictionary.com, 2016). It could be said that teamwork cannot exist without good communication. The will of the people is another core principle to getting chaos and complexity to work. People’s motivation was referenced by Global Aviation Maintenance and Global Aviation Technologies, Ohio National Financial Services, United States Army Special Operations Command and the United States Navy Recruiting Command (USNRC). On the other hand the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) instills a strong since of enabling its personnel the freedom to act. This was supported in leader’s ability to let go and allow its followers to take initiative. Ohio National and the USNRC both sited setting clear objectives and the USNRC supported this principal with transparency while ONFS sites BHAG’s. Global Aviation Technologies was the only one that really mentioned supporting a true bottoms-up structure, where Ohio National used a slightly more blended approach both top down and bottoms
They adapt to their environment and are aware of to meet market expectations and are involve in the development of their leaders. Obolensky (2014) stated, “complex systems are highly adaptive to the environment within which they exist.” As we have seemed from the interviews, the four organizations have a high degree of awareness and are evolving towards a complex adaptive system (Obolensky, 2014). Additionally, three of the four companies point to communication as key piece or cornerstones to implementing their strategy. One company identified respect and teamwork as a part of their strategy. Teamwork is defined as being a cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of group of persons acting together as a team or in the interests of a common cause (Dictionary.com, 2016). It could be said that teamwork cannot exist without good communication. The will of the people is another core principle to getting chaos and complexity to work. People’s motivation was referenced by Global Aviation Maintenance and Global Aviation Technologies, Ohio National Financial Services, United States Army Special Operations Command and the United States Navy Recruiting Command (USNRC). On the other hand the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) instills a strong since of enabling its personnel the freedom to act. This was supported in leader’s ability to let go and allow its followers to take initiative. Ohio National and the USNRC both sited setting clear objectives and the USNRC supported this principal with transparency while ONFS sites BHAG’s. Global Aviation Technologies was the only one that really mentioned supporting a true bottoms-up structure, where Ohio National used a slightly more blended approach both top down and bottoms