Organizational Changes in the Movie Patton (1970) Review

Organizational Changes in the Patton (1970) - Movie Review Example The movie is able to show not just the character of the main protagonist as being resistant to change, but also his actions that made or broke his career (Schaffner, 1970). Such differential responses to changes within the organization are valuable learning tools for the study of changes. It is very pertinent to study the need for changes inside organizational structures, in this case the military organization as well as within each of its members. This is because more often than not, being unable to respond quickly to changes could result in numerous life-threatening situations that might 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 share the command of troops in North Africa with a member of the British Army, General Montgomery, and the former had to outwit 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 give enemies other ideas of their tactics, not to mention keeping Patton out of the way (Schaffner, 1970). ... With the world war already ended, 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 reluctant to adjust according to the changes needed in the tactics that the military had to undertake. As a result, there had been restructurings within the chain of command, even 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, even 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 p rove 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 structured as possible, by removing factors that 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