Australian Army Journal

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
From Institution to Occupation:
Australian Army Culture in Transition
the military. Janowitz advocated that the military should be part of society and reflect
its values. The Janowitz model describes the ‘occupational’ military, defined in terms
of market principles and characterised by the members’ priority of self-interest over
the interests of the employing organisation. The self-perception of the employees
(as they would label themselves) is based on appropriate expectations and demands.
The occupational military is cash driven and compares itself with external
organisations for benchmarking purposes. As a consequence, the distinctions
between the military and other large organisations are increasingly blurred.
Academic Dr Cathy Downes, who has analysed the personnel operations of the
Australian Army, comments that Western armed forces (including Australia’s) have
‘to greater and lesser degrees, undergone a process of civilianisation in which
there has been a convergence of technical and managerial skills and organisational
formats between the military and civilian sectors.’ Her overarching hypothesis is
that the military is ‘moving away from an institutional format to one more and more
resembling an occupational one.’ 6
Although Huntington and Janowitz were commenting on the US military
experience specifically, Professor Charles Moskos noted that the theory, concepts
and hypotheses are more universal and that ‘much research has been conducted
in Western military systems outside the United States.’ 7 According to Hugh Smith,
although the research has primarily focused on the US, ‘the Australian experience fits
the model rather well.’ 8 In fact, this appears to be something of an understatement.
Correspondent Ian McPhedran noted that the number of star ranks (brigadiers and
above) in the Australian Army has doubled in the last five years and numbered 77
in 2010. This represents a ratio of one general per 1560 soldiers, double that of
the US Army. 9 This is not to suggest that an increase in star rank officers equals an
increase in occupationalism. In fact, the tendency in the corporate world is towards
‘flattening’ the organisational hierarchy. It does, however, show that Huntington’s
original thesis has some validity in the Australian construct.
Recruitment
Recruitment is vital to any large organisation and its long-term viability. This is
especially true in a ‘closed’ system such as the Army. The question of who serves
and who does not is also fundamental. It is accepted as a truism in a Western
democracy that the Army reflects the society from which it is drawn. Indeed,
British military historian General Sir John Hackett argues that the Army must
(emphasis added) reflect its host society. 10 In doing so, it should share the same
core values and be committed to the goals and aspirations of the culture it protects
and the society it is ultimately established to defend.
Australian Army Journal
Culture edition 2013, Volume X, Number 3 Page 190