Employees are generally conditioned to take orders from ranking superiors without hesitation or resistance. The assumption in Army culture is that a higher ranking person, despite their competence, personality or leadership ability is able to legally give an order or directive to a lower ranking person within their chain of command. Consequently this is the source of numerous conflicts between Army personnel and their leadership. Unfortunately the Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human resources related complaint.
In addition to being the largest employer in the world the U.S. Army is also the largest employer of minorities in the United States. This fact is significant when you examine the impact of managing diversity in other organizations in unrelated industries. In brief, the Army like many older institutions once had a very prominent existence of institutionalized racism however in the recent decades the Army has evolved to be a leader in diversity management.
Employee Promotions and Advancement
The ultimate Army value is the value of teamwork, while personal growth and development are also valued as represented in past slogans (e.g. An Army of One). Another popular slogan of the United States Army is “Be all that you can be”. Within the last decade the U.S military has implemented a system of earned points that go towards employee promotions and retirement allowing an individual to ultimately reach his highest potential. Prior to this system the prevailing good ol’ boy system and the time-in-rank systems were intact and more influential on a person’s promotion or advancement in the military. Unfortunately the reality is that individuals still find it hard to advance in the military without the consent of their superiors, an available job vacancy, or if they do not pass the regular physical fitness test or physical fitness requirements. This leaves room for discrimination and bias on numerous levels as a result of personal biases or favoritism.
Employee Recruiting, Retention and Training Issues
It is widely known that training in the military is intense. The human resources related implications of the harsh military training are that the military is an exception to employee hazing, harassment, and discrimination laws. In essence the U.S. military does not typically abide by basic human resources standards and practices of other industries. In fact it is just as normal for recruiters to lie to potential recruits as it is for new recruits to be assigned to positions and jobs did not want.
During intense military training the Army reinforces its existence through establishing a dominant culture based on shared experiences, philosophies, traditions, and structure. Army personnel go through exhaustive tests and training such as that found in their first introduction into military culture called basic training or boot camp. The infamous “boot camp” experience is a common bond shared by Army personnel. Each person that attends boot camp (basic training) shares a common experience, boot camp is the considered as the core of the Army team building that is required to build an organization that is as large and as functional as the U.S. Army (Lodi, 1998). However, this experience is kept in perspective and does not typically affect or impact the soldier while they are in the service. The impact comes when Army personnel are asked to recommend the Army as an employer to others. A well functioning business that is a good place to work typically has a strong word of mouth recruiting. Few ex-employees would recommend the Army to another person. Many people will often either recommend another branch of service or offer no positive endorsement on the Army’s behalf at all.
Recruiting Candidate Selection Criteria
The U.S. Army is a very large organization and requires the skill set of every imaginable job that exists today and, in efforts to establish a competitive advantage, creates the jobs of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle for the Army’s recruiting and retention has been the U.S. military’s involvements in seven major world conflicts. The Army is finding it difficultly to meet its recruiting goals and its personnel needs. (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A40469-2005Feb20.html).
Training Measures and Control
Training is an integral component to the success of the Army as a whole. The evolving technological enhancements and new threat tactics creates a perpetual cycle for training. With the multi-faceted approach to training utilizing computer technologies, advanced robotics, mental processing, physical ability and the use of weaponry, leaders must be aware of the effectiveness of the training to ensure the target goal of building a strong force is accomplished. As such, great measures are taken to assess the areas of strengths and weaknesses regarding soldiers training. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences conducts research and produces the reports to aid leaders in their assessment of and decisions regarding training. (). In comparison to other corporate training, military training is phenomenal in its results, however if the military training were held to the same standards as most corporate training the government would probably get sued or find itself on the short-end of a long string of harassments suits. The method in which the Army accomplishes its training tasks is often at the core of controversy; however, the Army and other armed forces have been a key component in the growth and development of the United States as well as an integral part of the global economy. One of the primary human resources issues is recruiting enough employees to counterbalance the number of retirees and people leaving the military for such a large organization within the context of rapidly changing demographics, politics, and global crisis requiring the army’s response. .
Workflow and Organizational Structure
As the world’s largest employer the Army effectively manages its human resources through an intricate system and organizational structure. The Army, as one of the three military departments (e.g.: Army, and ) reporting to the , is composed of two distinct and equally important components: the active component and the reserve components. The reserve components are the and the . Each branch of services has a complex system of human resources personnel that operate from the same standard operating procedure (e.g. human resources manual).
The army is structured through differing categories of defense and differing levels of superiority. The Chain of Command is the military hierarchy for responsibility. It is the chain of commanding officers from a superior to a subordinate through which command is exercised. It is also referred to as the command channel (cited on ). The operational Army consists of numbered armies, corps, divisions, brigades, and battalions that conduct full spectrum operations around the world. The institutional Army supports the operational Army. Institutional organizations provide the infrastructure necessary to raise, train, equip, deploy, and ensure the readiness of all Army forces. The training base provides military skills and professional education to every soldier-as well as members of sister services and allied forces. It also allows the Army to expand rapidly in time of war ().
Conclusion
The United States Army, like many other organizations has a human resources department that is an integral part of its success in accomplishing its mission. Unfortunately, due to the size of the Army and its very nature in war time or times of peace, have lead to a number of human resources problems. Based on the Army’s culture these problems are not often resolved in a traditional manner, in an environment that promotes the individual’s desire to receive fair and impartial treatment or resolution regarding a human resources management issue. The Army’s HR machine is active and intact and the rules and regulations are present however the Army is an old, ever evolving, functioning machine with a dominant culture that often supersedes the typical human resources issues such as harassment, discrimination, or equal employment. This leads to one conclusion; the Army as a whole and the military in general are unique in that they typically operate outside of the traditional practices and principles of normal human resources management.
References
Geertz, C. (1973) Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The
Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973. Retrieved September 11,
2004, from
Gordon, J. & Jerry Sollinger. (Summer 2004). The Army's Dilemma. Parameters: US Army War
College, 34(2), p. 33, p. 13. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from Academic Search Premier database.
Heller, C. & William A. Stoff (2004). America’s First Battles: 1776–1965. Retrieved September
11, 2004, from the Center of Military History website
Hogan, D. (2004). Centuries of Service. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from the Center of
Military History website http://www.army.mil/cmh/reference/CSAList/list1.htm
http://).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A40469-2005Feb20.html
Kazin, M.. (2004, June 28). U.S. News & World Report, 136 (23), p72. Retrieved September 11,
2004, from Academic Search Premier database.
Lodi, S. (1998, November 26). Reflections on Army Culture. Retrieved September 11, 2004,
from
Rumsfeld, D. (2004, September 10). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks about Iraq at
the National Press Club in Washington. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from
Schrader. E. (2003, June 28). US push for global police force. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
September 11, 2004, from