The Context of Military Environments An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Distinct Sources of Power and Status in Diversified Army Units
5 Distinct Sources of Power and Status in Diversified Army Units
Pages 77-100
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 77... ...
Furthermore, the paths of promotion to higher levels of power in the Army are well defined; there are few detours to promotion outside the standard routes and no "external hires." But, as in every organization, there are also important informal and less explicit sources of respect, esteem, and social influence that determine an individual's placement on the status hierarchy, a hierarchy distinct but interrelated to the power hierarchy. In this chapter, the committee proposes research to understand soldiers' access to positions of social influence and authority not only in the formal, rankbased power hierarchy but also through informal, respect-based sources of status in the Army.
|
From page 78... ...
This chapter focuses first on issues that have to do with differential opportunities to move up in informal status hierarchies and second on the leadership implications for soldiers whose positions on power and status hierarchies are misaligned (e.g., soldiers who possess a higher formal rank but who have relatively low status within the small unit context)
|
From page 79... ...
Due to biases that favor individuals who exemplify an ideal soldier prototype, it may be difficult for the platoon leader to identify the smartest, bravest, most adaptive, and most committed 2 The details of this paragraph are drawn from interviews with military service members with relevant personal experiences. The conclusions may be subjective and impressionistic, but they are based upon experiences described to the committee separately by several individuals.
|
From page 80... ...
We elaborate below on the Army's unique opportunity to study sources and consequences of social status. STATUS HIERARCHIES Social science research has a long history of studying social hierarchies in task groups such as Army units (e.g., Bales et al., 1951; French and Raven, 1959; Blau, 1970; Russell, 1938; Goffman, 1967)
|
From page 81... ...
. Power hierarchies may be institutionally established and endorsed, as is the rank hierarchy of the Army; however, status hierarchies emerge organically through social negotiations (Strauss, 1978; Strauss et al., 1963)
|
From page 82... ...
and, hence, status values. Prior research shows that in many workplace contexts, women have lower status than men because of their lower expected performance (Kanter, 1977; Ickes and Knowles, 1982; Biernat et al., 1998; Carli and Eagly, 1999; Lucas, 2003; Heilman and Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004)
|
From page 83... ...
In particular, the extreme standardization of the formal military ranks, the well-defined job descriptions, and the extensive replication of cases of similar career tracks up the orderly military promotion paths provide a setting in which variables of interest can be controlled and suggestive results can be tested through replication. Although causality is difficult to determine for behavioral and social outcomes, military environments provide a context in which we believe it possible to frame and test precise hypotheses about the contributions of personal characteristics (including "social capital" and physical endowments)
|
From page 84... ...
whose soldiers directly engage enemy forces and support units that provide combat soldiers with "beans and bullets." Soldiers assigned to combat arms units have a degree of status that is evident through such behaviors as referring to support soldiers by unflattering nicknames such as "marshmallow soldiers." Tupper explains, "Support troops normally remain on large bases, ‘in the rear,' living comfortable lives with air conditioning and shopping and elaborate chow halls, 5 it worth noting, however, that despite the current combat exclusion policy, females are Is assigned to units that have engaged in direct fire, such as military police and attack aviation, and have received valorous commendations for their performance in direct fire environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 6 Descriptions of the Seven Core Army Values are available at http://www.army.mil/values/ [April 2014]
|
From page 85... ...
Military environments and military careers provide distinctively effective research settings in which to explore comparative hypotheses about differences between the perceptions and treatment of members of minority groups defined by various attributes, as well as differences between combat and noncombat soldiers. For example, a research study can measure precisely in what ways women's military careers are similar to and different from others' military careers.
|
From page 86... ...
Thus, another question arises: As the activities of engaging in combat change so that a wider range of personal attributes and roles become important for mission accomplishment, how will this impact how soldiers achieve status? One example of how social perceptions have evolved in response to changes in combat operations during the wars of the past decade has been the creation of the Combat Action Badge (CAB)
|
From page 87... ...
Similar efforts to expand opportunities for women to enter all fields of operations in the Army, including the full spectrum of direct combat jobs, have not been effective at equalizing status opportunities. Of particular note, the committee finds that different physical fitness requirements for male and female soldiers have undermined the status value of those accomplishments for women (see Department of the Army, 2011, for details of the Army Standards of Medical Fitness)
|
From page 88... ...
EFFECTS ON LEADERSHIP CAPABILITIES OF MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN POWER AND STATUS The discussion so far has focused on status hierarchies that are distinctively important in the modern Army, and especially on opportunities to move up status hierarchies based on status-conferring attributes such as gender. In this section, the committee turns attention to a consequence of status hierarchies that can be a source of problems in the Army: misalignments between power hierarchies (e.g., formal military rank)
|
From page 89... ...
However, to simplify, while the Army's status hierarchy is heavily influenced by status-conferring attributes, such as gender and physical attributes, promotions up the power hierarchy of formal military rank are based on experience, task-relevant skills, and conduct. Because soldiers may advance in power and status hierarchies based on different criteria, a misalignment between power and status may develop, resulting in potentially negative consequences on unit effectiveness and individual careers.
|
From page 90... ...
to develop fundamental knowledge of the factors, especially those that may be prevalent in military environments, that influence these behaviors (for a review of recent research on unethical leadership behaviors, see Barling et al., 2010)
|
From page 91... ...
This could, for instance, begin with surveys of soldiers in Officer Candidate School, with follow-ups throughout their careers, including performance evaluations and surveys of their subordinates' respect and other status-relevant perceptions. Recognizing the different access opportunities and behavioral implications of attaining positions of power versus status may help explain many behaviors of interest across military environments.
|
From page 92... ...
In order to study these dynamics effectively, research should be designed with actual Army personnel as the subjects because the particular status values associated with different characteristics and behaviors are specific to the context of Army units. Furthermore, to understand how these ubiquitous social dynamics play out in the Army, research needs to be conducted on them in situ.
|
From page 93... ...
An experimental study could be designed to establish causality by comparing men and women in support versus combat roles in a military training simulation. Small teams could be composed of research participants who all have the same formal ranks in order to hold power equal.
|
From page 94... ...
American Sociological Review, 16(4)
|
From page 95... ...
American Sociological Review, 35(2)
|
From page 96... ...
American Sociological Review, 27(1)
|
From page 97... ...
American Sociological Review, 38(5)
|
From page 98... ...
American Sociological Review, 52(5)
|
From page 99... ...
American Sociological Review, 74(1)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.