Organizational Changes in the Movie Patton (1970) Review

Organizational Changes in the Patton (1970) - Movie Review ExampleThe cinema is able to show not notwithstanding the character of the main protagonist as being loathly to change, but also his actions that made or broke his career (Schaffner, 1970). Such differential responses to changes indoors the scheme are valuable learning tools for the study of changes. It is very pertinent to study the need for changes inside organisational structures, in this case the military organization as well as in spite of appearance each of its members. This is because more(prenominal) practically than not, being unable to respond quickly to changes could result in numerous life-threatening situations that capability sway towards defeat (Davies, 2001). The consequences of the protagonist, General Patton reflect the importance of the leaders being flexible and open for changes, as well as accommodating suggestions from other sources such as people with a higher authority.In the movie, there are three key moments that show an organizational change. The first one is when General Patton has to portion the com existenced of troops in North Africa with a member of the British Army, General Montgomery, and the former had to bunk and outperform the British General so that he would be recognized as the better man for the job (Schaffner, 1970). The second one that showed an organizational change is when instead of putting General Patton out in the front lines of the German army, he and his troops were sent to England to act as decoys so as to wear out enemies other ideas of their tactics, not to mention keeping Patton out of the way (Schaffner, 1970). ... With the world war already stop, Patton ended up doing nothing else to do but walk his dog, with him becoming a resounding name in the US military history. In all of the three organizational changes, the main protagonist was rather disinclined to adjust according to the changes needed in the tactics that the military had to u ndertake. As a result, there had been restructurings within the chain of command, yet cutting him out of this link just so that the allies could implement their own military strategy. It has been a resounding theme in the movie that Patton is very insubordinate with his superior officers, redden defying them blatantly (Schaffner, 1970). His strong resistance to changes may have been effective in some areas, but not to others. Also, such resistance could become a liability in the long run because when it comes to tactics, more often than not those that are able to make minor adjustments stay ahead of the game. Becoming stagnant within a military organization could prove fatal, especially when many lives are at stake (Farrell & Terriff, 2002). Thus, it is just that the superior officers of Patton, President Eisenhower and the former second-in-command, General Bradley initiated changes because aside from keeping the chain of command as integrated as possible, by removing factors tha t could add up to the unpredictability of their tactics the groups could carry out their missions as planned. However, because Patton was undeniably a skilled tank tactician, he was not kept out of missions that much, and in fact Bradley even recommended for him to return to the force and have his services enlisted (Schaffner, 1970). This shows the capacity