ISSUE 125 : Jul/Aug - 1997 - Australian Defence Force Journal

36AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 125 JULY/AUGUST 1997• promote a steady flow-through of personnel tokeep the defence forces fit, energetic andenthusiastic;• give some predictability of demands uponrecruitment and training; and• maintain force capabilities.In recent years, separation rates have been low 9 .This has been attributed, at least in part, to Australia’seconomic recession and high unemployment 10 . While,appropriately, the ADF has in the meantime beencontemplating and planning for the impact of thechanges occurring in Australian society, there has notbeen the immediate problem of high turnover tocontend with. However, separation rates are againexpected to rise with the anticipated economicrecovery, and, inevitably, focus will again shift towhat can be done in the short term to retain defenceforce members. It therefore remains important tounderstand the factors that contribute to a member’sdecision to leave the defence force, and to continue toaddress these factors.What follows looks firstly at the nature of defenceforce service, how the service may be changing, andhow these changes may influence recruitment andretention. We then take a closer look at one group offactors, the so-called “family factors”, their essentialconflict with defence force interests, and the effect ofthis conflict on the member’s commitment to his 11military career.The Special Nature of Defence ForceServiceMuch has been said about the unique or specialnature of military service. As the Glenn Reviewnoted 12 , those who join the Services make aprofessional commitment quite unlike any other, to:• accept the risk of serious injury or death indefence of the country;• train for the application of extreme violence;• accept lawful direction without equivocation; and• forgo any right to withdraw labour or refuse a task.This “profession of arms” must also endurearduous physical conditions and disruption of familylife. There are, as the Glenn Review suggests, “manymore congenial and less hazardous occupations.” 13Service in the armed forces involves more thanjust an occupational choice. What differentiates themilitary from civilian occupations is the requirementto commit to a lifestyle that permeates almost everyaspect of the life of the member 14 , including hisfamily life. But it is not a commitment which isnecessarily understood or appreciated by thecommunity it serves, particularly in peacetime when anation not under immediate or foreseeable threat mayquestion the need for, and cost of, maintaining the“custodians of military capability.” 15 While “In war,the special nature of military service is ostensible toall” 16 , “In peacetime the rigours and demands ofmilitary service are much less obvious to thecommunity at large.” 17If the prolonged period of peace and freedomfrom threats has brought changes in the community’sattitude toward the military, it has also broughtchange within the military. The essence of thischange has been what Moskos describes as amovement away from the view of the military as an“institution” whose members have surrendered selfinterestto a higher good and who regard themselvesas different and separate from broader society, to an“occupational” view which sees the military as justanother job in the market place and in which selfinterestis the priority. 18 Under the traditional militaryinstitution, the member’s primary affiliation was withthe military, and he felt bound to others by thecommon cause and conditions under which they allserved. In an occupational military, membersidentified with others who did the same sort of work 19and had no particular commitment or loyalty to anyemployer.If, indeed, the military has been moving towardan occupational format in the 20 or so years sinceMoskos suggested such a trend, one would expectthat by now, it ought to be reflected in surveys ofmembers’ motivation for joining the defence forceand in retention/attrition research. Certainly no suchtrend is reflected in “factors influencing the decisionto join” during the five year period covered in thelongitudinal survey research of Australian DefenceForce Academy cadets reported by Moss 20 , who notedthat institutional model indicators, such ascomradeship and patriotism, were scoring equallyhighly with the occupational model indicators ofsteady job and pay.A similar mix of institutional and occupationalfactors has commonly been reflected in exit andattitude/opinion surveys of ADF personnel. Family,mobility, and jobs have been identified as importantfactors influencing Army officers’ decision to leave. 21At the same time, pay and conditions of service havebeen found to be a strong influence on Army OtherRanks’ decision to stay or leave. 22 Bergin suggeststhat those who join the ADF for institutional reasonsare more likely to serve longer in the military thanthose who join for other reasons but, significantly,only “other things being equal”. 23