Kris Osborn posted an article on Fox News examining the possible decision by the United States Military to use German-built armored combat vehicles in the future. Decision making is quite complicated from a military perspective as it is a sensitive area. However, it is similar to the decision making the process of a business organization. According to Osborn (2019), the decision is yet to be made as the contract to develop such equipment is competed for by many teams in the industry. For example, in a business setting the decision is selected after reviewing various options that are related to the case at hand. Similarly, in a military setting, the decision will not randomly settle on German-built equipment. Osborn (2019) reports the contract is open to three major teams, which include BAE Systems, U.S. German team, and the General Dynamics Land Systems. These will compete to develop the equipment that will meet the expectations of the U.S. military.

In comparison to a business setting, the military also gets to select the most reliable alternative. In this case, it will be the team that develops an upgraded combat vehicle with the most efficient technology to meet future military needs. Moreover, like in a business decision making process, every project in the military is presented by a project leader. In managing the current project, Osborn (2019) examines, Major General Cummings as the project leader. This general is also the Program Executive Officer and he is in charge of the Ground Combat Systems. It is evident that he is an individual with reliable expertise to lead on a sensitive project such as the development of warfare equipment.

Regardless of being the project leader, it is not in Major General Cummings capacity to make the final decision. He will only serve as the project leader until when the project is completed and the final decision will rest on his superiors. The same is the case in businesses where a project leader presents the proposed project developed by their team to the superior. They will make an effort to convince the management of the capacity of each project sample in an effort to guide them towards the final decision making. Once this is done, the management will examine the financial requirements of the project and affirm the proposed budget. Furthermore, Osborn (2019) claims that the military will not endorse any industry offering or a particular platform. It will only present its requirements and vision for the equipment and let the competing companies present their solutions.

Once the major general, project leader, confirms the prototypes it is expected that the proposed prototype and the budget be presented to his seniors. These will select the most preferred prototype and fit the budget in the budget presented under the National Defense Authorization Act. At this point, it is essential to understand that a project developed for the military needs to be within the budget provided by the government. This means that a project may be approved by the necessary authority within the military, but it may not get to be implemented due to financial incapacity. It is definite that the superior authority within the military may also fail to approve a project that may be assumed to be too expensive.

In conclusion, it has been observed that critical decision making within the military is similar to that of a business setting. The decision will not be made based on the ideas of a single individual, similar to a business, the decision making process will involve a team. The team will work under the supervision of a project leader and the final decision will rest on the top management. In a business setting where subordinates may be allowed to have total control of a project, under a military setting a subordinate will only be involved in the review and supervision of a project. The overall decision will be made by the superiors; implying the authoritarian leadership approach observed within the military.