Appendix 2: Military culture and harmful behaviour in militaries
Military culture
Militaries engage in a wide range of work, from humanitarian and disaster relief activities to stabilisation operations and combat. They have a high level of role commitment and focus on communal life; personnel train and often live together, at times in difficult and dangerous conditions.57 Over time, military values, traditions, structures, processes, and activities emerged to shape a combat-ready force.
Military culture is often described as high-stress and "hyper-masculine". Its core values are self-sacrifice, obedience, teamwork, and cohesion. These values have influenced military structures and processes and continue to influence leadership styles, available roles, treatment of personnel, and who is seen as ideal for military service.
As the nature of combat has changed, so have ideas about the skills and characteristics needed for a combat-ready force. Militaries now engage in a wider range of tasks, requiring new capabilities and types of people, for example in specialised information technology and communications roles. They have also recognised the need for "soft skills" such as cultural competency for humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. Changing requirements have led to different ways of training, leading, and disciplining people, and altered military demographics. Long-held values and behaviours can, however, take time to adapt to this change.58
Not all values and beliefs are shared and acted on in the same way in different parts of an organisation. In militaries, navy, air force, army, and civilian components have their own cultures specific to their unique contexts. Different camps and bases – and units within each camp and base – likewise have distinct cultures with their own traditions, norms, and ways of working. Combat units, for example, will have different norms and values to logistics and medical units.59
Harmful behaviour within militaries
Not all parts of militaries are equally affected by harmful behaviour and experiences will differ in each part of the organisation. Research indicates that power dynamics play out in different ways; in recruit training, for example, there can be a greater risk of power being abused. Gender norms in units differ, increasing the risk of sexual harm in some parts of the organisation.60 Research from the United States of America, for example, has shown that women are at higher risk of sexual assault in specific services (navy and marines).61 Different service branches and trades can experience higher rates of sexual assault (such as artillery).62
There is no one cause of inappropriate behaviour in a military. Some people will have individual risk factors – such as certain pre-existing attitudes, behaviour traits, or substance misuse issues – which make engaging in harmful behaviour more likely. These risks can be heightened when they are exposed to high levels of stress or traumatic experiences.
However, harmful behaviour occurs in a wider context. A range of organisational conditions can create a more "welcoming environment" for harmful behaviour. Even though modern militaries engage in a range of tasks, combat remains a core part of the military role. Research has shown that combat-oriented organisational and cultural features can create risk factors for harmful behaviour.63 These features include hierarchical structures, unit cohesion norms, and masculine cultures. We briefly discuss each of these conditions further below.
Military working environment
Being deployed on a ship, being on training or operations, or living on a camp or base creates more fluid boundaries between people's work and personal lives. This lack of clear boundaries creates greater risk of harmful behaviour occurring and can affect how effectively response and support systems work. High levels of alcohol consumption, frequent relocations that remove people from social support, and the level of stress or trauma people may be exposed to are further risk factors.64
In an environment where training tests people physically and mentally to build their resilience in harsh and stressful conditions, the line between discipline and bullying can be blurred. Cultural norms about toughness can create an environment more conducive to harmful behaviour. They also make it harder for people to ask for help.
Hierarchical structures
Military hierarchies have "top-down" command structures and respect for superiors is a core part of the culture. Although such command structures are necessary for military activities such as combat, they also concentrate power in the hands of a few.65 This concentration creates a greater risk of positions of power being abused. It also makes it more difficult for people affected by harmful behaviour to speak out about it.
Hierarchical structures also have the potential to be protective. Leaders have considerable power in such structures to set and reinforce norms for appropriate behaviour.
Unit cohesion norms
Group cohesion is required for military units to operate effectively, particularly in combat. Traditionally, units have developed strong team bonds and allegiances fostered by training regimes and socialisation processes. Values like duty and sacrifice bind people towards their goal of putting the mission before the self.66
Group rituals to enhance bonding have been common in militaries.67 There is a risk that specific unit subcultures can override fulfilling wider organisational goals. In these settings, harmful behaviour can go unreported.68
Unit cohesion can also be a protective factor. It encourages people to support each other and to feel responsible for each other's safety and well-being.
Masculine cultures
Militaries have been, and continue to be, male-dominated organisations. In such organisations, women's contributions are less likely to be valued and there is a greater acceptance of discriminatory attitudes towards women.69 This can create an environment where demeaning sexualised and discriminatory language is normalised. This, in turn, creates an environment where sexual violence is more likely to occur.70 Women are not the only ones affected by this; sexual violence can be used as a tool to control or ostracise men who do not conform to dominant masculine norms.71
A sexualised environment can also create a culture of victim-blaming. In such environments, victims/survivors can experience negative repercussions from reporting, such as being blamed, being ostracised from their unit, and having their careers damaged.72 Even when this behaviour is explicitly discouraged and the acceptance and expansion of women's roles is encouraged, underlying assumptions and beliefs can remain. This becomes a particular problem when those in formal or informal leadership positions do not model appropriate behaviours nor challenge harmful beliefs within their spheres of influence.
Disciplinary and complaints systems
Policies, procedures, and practices for reporting and complaints send messages about how people should behave, and influence day-to-day work life.
In most military justice systems, there is tension between a victim/survivor-centric approach and ensuring that commanding officers can maintain discipline and safety within their units. To maintain unit discipline, military law often includes a duty to report. In many military justice systems this means that a formal investigation must be initiated in any situation where a uniformed staff member reports harmful sexual behaviour that is an offence under military law to another uniformed staff member. However, those receiving disclosure and investigating incidences of inappropriate sexual behaviour are not always trained to do so, and military justice systems are often not designed in a victim/survivor-centric way. These can be barriers to reporting sexual harm.
Hierarchies and team loyalty can make it hard for people to report harmful behaviours perpetrated by their peers. In many militaries, a "code of silence" can prevail, meaning people will not raise concerns because they fear the repercussions and do not trust the systems and processes.73 An absence of consequences and accountability for harmful behaviour can also increase the risk of it occurring.
57: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
58: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
59: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
60: Souder III, W (2017), Risk factors for sexual violence in the military: An analysis of sexual assault and sexual harassment incidents and reporting, Naval Postgraduate School; Matthews, M, Morral, AR, Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Snoke, J, and Briggs, RJ (2021), Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the US Army: Where Cases Are Highest and Why, RAND Corporation.
61: Souder III, W (2017), Risk factors for sexual violence in the military: An analysis of sexual assault and sexual harassment incidents and reporting, Naval Postgraduate School.
62: Matthews, M, Morral, AR, Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Snoke, J, and Briggs, RJ (2021), Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the US Army: Where Cases Are Highest and Why, RAND Corporation.
63: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464; Teale, D and MacDonald, Dr C (2020), Independent Review of the New Zealand Defence Force's progress against its Action Plan for Operation Respect; Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
64: Zamorski, M and Wiens-Kincaid, M (2013), "Cross-sectional prevalence survey of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in Canadian military personnel", BMC Public Health 13, 1019; Stander, VA and Thomsen, CJ (2016), "Sexual harassment and assault in the US military: A review of policy and research trends", Military Medicine 181, 20-27; Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
65: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
66: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
67: Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
68: Zedlacher, E and Koeszegi, ST (2021), "Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying inc?", in P D'Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, 435-464.
69: Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
70: Breslin, RA, Klahr, A, Hylton, K, Petusky, M, and White, A (2020), 2019 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members: Results and Trends, Office of People Analytics Fors Marsh Group, LLC; Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Farris, C, and Morral, A (2021), The relationship between sexual assault and sexual harassment in the US Military: Findings from the RAND military workplace study, RAND Corporation; Suris, A and Lind, L (2008), "Military sexual trauma: A review of prevalence and associated health consequences in veterans", Trauma, violence, & abuse 9(4), 250-269; Tharp, AT, DeGue, S, Valle, L A, Brookmeyer, KA, Massetti, GM, and Matjasko, JL (2013), "A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration", Trauma, violence, & abuse 14(2), 133-167.
71: Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
72: Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.
73: Castro, CA, Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015), "Sexual assault in the military", Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54.