A brief introduction to the military workplace culture

Work 50 (2015) 9–20 9

DOI 10.3233/WOR-141987

IOS Press

A brief introduction to the military workplace

culture

S.A. Redmond, S.L. Wilcox

∗

, S. Campbell, A. Kim, K. Finney, K. Barr and A.M. Hassan

Center for Innovation and Research on Veterans & Military Families (CIR), School of Social Work, University of

Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Recei ved 3 July 2013

Accepted 23 September 2014

Abstract.

BACKGROUND: Military culture and workplace are areas of interest for researchers across disciplines. However, few publica-

tions on military culture exist.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to introduce general concepts regarding the structure and culture of the United States

Military and discuss how this creates challenges for reintegrating into the civilian world.

METHOD: Topics that will be covered in this article include an overview of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs (VA), socialization to military culture, the unique features of the military as a workplace, the cultural

experiences of military personnel reintegrating back into the community, and the challenges faced by military members and their

spouses.

RESULTS: The provided information on military culture will expand military cultural competency so that civilian employers can

enhance their ability to create supportive workplaces for veterans and military spouses during times of transition and reintegration.

DISCUSSION: The unique characteristics of the military culture should be understood by those who work with or plan to work

with military populations.

Keywords: Department of Defense, military personnel, military spouses, military roles, reintegration

1. Introduction

The United States (U.S.) military work place is a

unique environment that causes military personnel and

families to have experiences that differ f rom civilians.

Military personnel and families are confronted with

psychosocial challenges created by an intense work en-

vironm ent, but they demon str ate resilience [1]. To fur-

ther promote this resilien ce, researchers and clinicians

should understand military culture so they can better

interact with veterans in a culturally co mpetent man-

∗

Corresponding author: Sherrie Wilcox, Center for Innovation

and Research on Veterans & Military Families (CIR), School of So-

cial Work, University of Southern California, 1150 S. Olive Street,

Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90015, USA. E-mail: SLWilcox@

USC.edu.

ner and provide information that will aid in creating

supportive working environments [2,3]. Thus, knowing

how military service affects military personnel, fami-

lies, and veterans is key.

Since military culture is largely unique an d deﬁne d

by its organizational structure, framework, and rules,

this ar ticle focuses on these aspects of military culture

and their effect on reintegration following military sep-

aration. This ar ticle outlines the U.S. Military Depart-

ments, features of th e U.S. military as a workplace, so-

cialization to the military, and challenges transitioning

and reintegrating back into the community. However,

purely knowing information about military culture is

insufﬁcient for achieving military cultural competency.

Cultural competency is typically not reached by learn-

ing a single factor (i.e., knowledge) about the group of

interest [4]. Therefore, this article aims to expand the

knowledge of military culture in th ose working with

1051-9815/15/$35.00

10 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

military populations and bring them closer to achiev-

ing cultural competency.

2. Department of Defense, Military Departments,

and Department of Veterans Affairs

2.1. Department of Defense (DoD)

The DoD, with its Pentagon headquarters, is the or-

ganizing body in charge of the Military Departments

and headed by the Secretary of Defense, who serves

as the President’s main advisor on defense policy [5,

6]. It is comprised of four major bodies, each with a

different leader: ( a) Chairman and Vice Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (b) Uniﬁed Combatant Com-

mands, (c) Ofﬁce of the Secretary of Defense, and

(d) Militar y Departments. Each Military Departmen t’s

secretary is accountable to the Secretary o f Defense

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is respon-

sible for giving the intended commanders orders from

the Secretary of Defense or President [5]. Thus, the

DoD operates efﬁciently and cohesively by delegating

tasks while still maintaining interconnectivity between

its divisions.

2.2. The Military Departments

The Military Departments, which are part of the

DoD, consist of ﬁve armed forces: Air Force, Army,

Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard (housed within

the Department o f Homeland Security, but assigned

to the DoD during war/deployment). Each branch has

active and reserve components with active duty mili-

tary personnel serving full-time and reserve and guard

members typically ser ving part-time. Due to differ-

ences in organization and purpose, each of the armed

forces has its own subculture. Table 1 presents a de-

scription of the mission and core values of each branch,

which has a different purpose, mission, and methods of

engagement.

2.3. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

The VA, separate from the DoD, is a highly struc-

tured department focusing primarily on veterans. It

consists of three main divisions: the Veterans Beneﬁts

Administration, providing every VA beneﬁt (e.g., edu-

cation, compensation, and guaranty for home loan); the

Veterans Health Administration, responsible for ser-

vices pertaining to health care; and the National Ceme-

tery Administration, in charge of cemeteries, markers,

headstones, as well as “Presidential Memorial Certiﬁ-

cates” [7]. Those potentially eligible for VA beneﬁts

include: veterans, reservists, National Guard members,

and those related to veterans, such as dependents or a

“surviving spouse” [7]. However, to qualify, the mili-

tary member must demonstrate continuous service for

either 24 months or the complete amount of time or-

dered for active duty individuals. Veterans cannot have

a dishonorable separation, and National Guard or re-

serve members must not have been active duty as a re-

sult of training purposes alone [8]. Exceptions allow

those injured during active duty service to obtain ben-

eﬁts. However, not all who served will receive beneﬁts

and veterans must prove an injury is ser vice related to

receive beneﬁts.

3. Characteristics of the military workplace:

Diversity in experiences serving

Both the characteristics of the individual and the

military structure itself contribute to military culture.

Culture is a product of the social environment and in-

cludes a shared sense of values, norms, ideas, sym-

bols, and meanings [9]. It distinguishes groups of peo-

ple from another and people within cultures often share

common ways of seeing the world [9]. However, ev-

ery person’s culture is comprised of a fusion between

his or her different boundaries, such as professional,

organizational, and national, and this cultural mixing

appears in the so cial identity [10]. Furthermo re, cul-

ture is ever evolving with different ways of being an-

alyzed [9]. Differentiation perspective focuses on the

subcultures within the group, fragmentation perspec-

tive stresses the contradictory and ambiguous nature

of culture, and integration perspective focuses on the

larger cultura l themes in collectivistic compared to in-

dividualistic manner [9].

Military culture literature of ten focuses on inte-

gration perspective [11]. This perspective provides a

framework for understanding how the military uses or-

ganization and training to minimize individual differ-

ences. However, personal differences remain between

enlistees, as jobs and experiences are impacted by gen-

der, sexual orientation, social class, race and ethnic-

ity, and age [12]. This article discusses major themes

in military culture, but also in line with differenti-

ation perspective, examines speciﬁc military cultural

subgroups, including guardsmen, reservists, military

spouses, and wounded warriors.

S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture 11

Table 1

Overvie w of military departments

Branch Founded Service members Mission Core values

Army June 14, 1775 Soldiers Fight and win our Nation’s war by pro-

viding prompt, sustained land domi-

nance across the full range of military

operations and spectrum of conﬂict in

support of combatant commanders

Loyalty, duty, respect, selﬂess ser-

vice, honor, integrity, and personal

courage

Air Force September 18, 1947 Airmen Fly, ﬁght, and win...inair, space, and

cyberspace

Integrity ﬁrst, service before self,

and excellence in all we do

Navy October 13, 1775 Sailors Maintain, train and equip combat-

ready Nav al forces capable of winning

wars, deterring aggression and main-

taining freedom of the seas

Honor, courage, and commitment

Marine Corps November 10, 1775 Marines Train, organize, and equip Marines

for offensiv e amphibious employment

and as a force in readiness

Honor, courage, and commitment

Coast Guard August 4, 1790 Coast Guardsmen Safeguard the Nation’s maritime inter-

ests

Honor, respect, and devotion to

duty

3.1. Military roles and occupations

Service members’ experiences in the military will

differ as a result of their career, assigned to them based

upon their aptitude/skills and interests. The military is

essentially a fully functioning community with doc-

tors, bus drivers, police ofﬁcers, and cooks, among oth-

ers, so individuals have a variety of occupational op-

portunities available to them, many of which have an

equivalent in the civilian workplace. However, unlike

civilian p ersonnel, the military’s principal occupation

is war ﬁghting, bu t individuals differ on the level to

which they are involved in direct combat. The large

majority of personnel have careers focused on support-

ing the greater mission and thus, support those prepar-

ing, serving, and returning from combat. Determining

an individual’s job in the military is fairly straightfor-

ward, as each military br anch has its own system for

identifying speciﬁc careers.

3.2. Status of service: Active duty and reserve

Individuals’ military service is affected by whether

they serve as active duty or reserve. Active duty service

members focus on their military occupa tional duties

full-time, receive many beneﬁts (e.g., health, childcare,

and housing) from the military and have the option of

living on military instillations. Reserve members have

fewer beneﬁts and cannot live on their military instal-

lation, even though they may be called to active duty.

Reserve membe rs face unique occupa tional difﬁculties

as reserve members juggle both military and civilian

occupations, where active duty service members focus

solely on military occupational duties.

The reserve component is comprised of (a) Ready

Reserve, (b) Standby Reserve, and (c) Retired Reserve.

Those serving in the reserve may be typical part-time

paid reservists, active guard and reserve members, or

trained individuals participating in the active compo-

nent part-time. Also part of the reserve are Individual

Ready Reserve (IRR) personnel and inactive National

Guard (ING) personnel who have completed their mil-

itary contract, but have inactive time left during which

they are not actively serving but can be called back to

duty. In addition, individuals not qualiﬁed for IRR due

to hardship (e.g., physical disability, substance depen-

dence) or tho se holding a civilian job more important

to n ational security than their former military job also

are part o f the reserve. Finally, the Retired Reserve, the

largest of the Reserve Components, has over 2 million

members who are former military personnel under age

60 and have retired from the military and receive re-

tired pay.

3.3. Demographics

In terms of individual characteristics, the military

is primarily a young, Caucasian, male force, reﬂected

in the following statistics [13,14]. Active duty and re-

serve members are on average 28.6 and 32.1 years of

age, respectively. Identifying as a racial minority is

observed for less than one third of active duty mem-

bers and nearly 25% of reserve members called to de-

ploy. The active duty and reserve forces are 85.5%

and 82% men, respectively, and approximately 50% of

12 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

Table 2

Ranks and pay grades across military branches

Pay grade Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Commissioned Ofﬁcer

O10 General Admiral General General Admiral

O9 Lieutenant General Vice Admiral Lieutenant General Lieutenant General Vice Admiral

O8 Major General Rear Admiral

(Upper)

Major General Major General Rear Admiral

(Upper)

O7 Brigadier General Read Admiral

(Lower)

Brigadier General Brigadier General Read Admiral

(Lower)

O6 Colonel Captain Colonel Colonel Captain

O5 Lieutenant Colonel Commander Lieutenant Colonel Lieutenant Colonel Commander

O4 Major Lieutenant

Commander

Major Major Lieutenant

Commander

O3 Captain Lieutenant Captain Captain Lieutenant

O2 First Lieutenant Lieutenant Junior

Grade

First Lieutenant First Lieutenant Lieutenant Junior

Grade

O1 Second Lieutenant Ensign Second Lieutenant Second Lieutenant Ensign

Warrant Ofﬁcer

W5 Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

−−

W4 Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

− Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

W3 Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

− Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

W2 Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

− Chief Warrant Ofﬁcer

W1 Warrant Ofﬁcer − Warrant Ofﬁcer −

Enlisted

E9 Sergeant Major OR

Command Sergeant

Major

Master Chief Petty

Ofﬁcer

Chief Petty Ofﬁcer

Sergeant Major OR

Master Gunnery

Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

First Sergeant

Master Chief Petty

Ofﬁcer OR Fleet/

Command Master

Chief Petty Ofﬁcer

E8 First Sergeant OR

Master Sergeant

Senior Chief Petty

Ofﬁcer

First Sergeant OR

Master Sergeant

Senior Master

Sergeant OR First

Sergeant

Senior Chief Petty

Ofﬁcer

E7 Sergeant First Class Chief Petty Ofﬁcer Gunnery Sergeant Master Sergeant OR

First Sergeant

Chief Petty Ofﬁcer

E6 Staff Sergeant Petty Ofﬁcer First

Class

Staff Sergeant Technical Sergeant Petty Ofﬁcer First

Class

E5 Sergeant Petty Ofﬁcer Second

Class

Sergeant Staf f Sergeant Petty Ofﬁcer Second

Class

E4 Corporal OR Special-

ist

Petty Ofﬁcer Third

Class

Corporal Senior Airman Petty Ofﬁcer Third

Class

E3 Private First Class Seaman Lance Corporal Airman First Class Seaman

E2 Priv ate Second Class Seaman Apprentice Private First Class Airman Seaman Apprentice

E1 Private Seaman Recruit Private Airman Basic Seaman Recruit

Note: The Navy does not use grade W1, the Coast Guard does not use grades W1 or W5, and the Air Force does not have Warrant Ofﬁcers [13,

14].

both active duty and reserve members are married [13].

These numbers highlig ht ethnic minorities’ and fe-

males’ unique experiences in the military as underrep-

resented personnel.

3.4. Appeal of joining the military and service

obligation

Service members show diversity in their reasons

for enlisting, wh ich imp acts how they view service.

DoD Youth Polls’ data revealed seven themes re-

lated to enlisting: ﬁdelity, risk, family, beneﬁts, dig-

nity, challenge, and adventure [15]. Fidelity and dig-

nity emerged as two leading themes [15] and not sur-

prisingly the number of individuals enlisting increased

after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks [16].

Furthermore, another study [17] identiﬁed the follow-

ing four themes for enlisting: institutional (desire to

serve your country, patriotism, and desire for adven-

ture/challenge); future-oriented (desire for a military

S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture 13

career and money for college); occupational ( desire to

support one’s family, best available option); and pecu-

niary (ability to repay college lo ans and receive an en-

listment bonus). Those serving for institutional values

are more likely to choose the military as a career and

believe in service to their country, whereas material in-

centives are a stronger motivator for others [15,17,18].

Regardless of their reason for joining, individuals

sign a lengthy contract specifying their terms of ser-

vice. The Military Service Ob ligation requires enlis-

tees to serve a total of at least eight years, unless dis-

charged sooner, for an initial enlistment [19], typically

translating into four years active duty and four years in

the reserve component for active duty members. How-

ever, active duty service is often extended, particularly

for those choosing the military as a career.

3.5. Military ranks: Ofﬁcer and enlisted

Service members differ on whether they choose to

enlist or accept commission as an ofﬁcer. Typically,

commissioning requires minimally a bachelor’s de-

gree, whereas enlistees normally have only a high

school diploma o r equivalent. On average there is one

ofﬁcer per ﬁve enlistees [13]. One’s speciﬁc duties vary

due to their military designation with different expecta-

tions for commissioned o fﬁcers, enlisted and senior en-

listed personnel (E-5 and higher; see Table 2) known as

non-commissioned ofﬁcers, and warrant ofﬁcers (for-

mer en listed membe rs).

3.6. Military laws, regulations, and chain of

command

One of the more unique features of the military is

that military personnel and their family members are

bound by military laws, regulations, traditions, norms,

and values that differ from civilians. The Uniform

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) outlines military spe-

ciﬁc laws intended to maintain the requisite level of

good order and discipline, conceptualized as the chain

of command, which categorizes military service. Go od

order refers to the rules and laws required to maintain

a society that most people are familiar with, while the

discipline aspect gives one service member authority

over another. Simply put, the chain of command is the

hierarchical structure of seniors and subordinates. Se-

nior military personnel must issue lawful orders that

junior military personnel m ust execute. While the con-

cept of senior and subordinate is not unique to the mil-

itary, authorities granted by law are. For this reason,

military personnel must follow lawful orders and di-

rectives or violate the law and in doing so commit a

criminal act.

However, an important consideration in such orders

is the human element, which reﬂects elements of trust

and conﬁdence. The trust and conﬁdence subordinates

have for a leader is key for leader legitimacy [20–22].

A subordinate must trust the lawfulness of orders re-

ceived, support the mission, and be conﬁdent that the

risk and sacriﬁce to accomplish the mission is neces-

sary. Likewise a senior must trust their orders will be

performed and be conﬁdent that all actions will be con-

ducted in a way that keeps good order and discipline.

The structure of seniors and subordinates forms a chain

with each individual linked to one another. When trust

and conﬁdence is weak or broken, the chain is broken

to the detriment of good order and discipline.

Both ceremonial acts of discipline, such as shoe

shinning, salutes, uniforms, as well as functional dis-

cipline where service members follow rules and orders

of commanders are deeply embed ded within the mili-

tary culture [9]. Seniority within the military re quires

obedience and subordinance, with the superior individ-

ual responsible for the performance and personal well-

being o f their subordinates. This concept is unique and

essential for combat operations.

3.7. Military ranks and grades

With great importance placed on the chain of com-

mand, the military has a hierarchal rank/grade system

(consisting of a letter and number) that indicates po-

sition, pay, and authority in the military. Each branch

names the various grades differently, and this name in-

dicates the rank (e.g., Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Cap-

tain). This hierarchal sy stem is key to many military

cultural aspects and determines who is in charge; even

those possessing the same rank/grade have a scaled or-

der. Each ranking encompasses unique expectations,

as the military is a coercive hierarchy with elaborate

rules, power classiﬁcation, regulations, and a vertically

steep grade [9]. Table 2 presents the ranks and grades

across military branches.

3.8. Differences in culture

As differentiation perspective illustra tes, large dif-

ferences exist among service members. Those whose

military and personal lives greatly overlap are likely

to highly prioritize the military mission and values,

remaining very much institutionally oriented [9,23].

14 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

However, those seeing the military as a means-to-an-

end likely remain oriented to their occupation and fo-

cus attention outside the military. While military cul-

ture itself is mo re institutionally oriented, certain mil-

itary subgroups, including guardsmen, reservists and

ofﬁcers, may tend to be occupationally oriented with

members oriented toward civilian careers. Further-

more, cultural dynamics can alter during times of war

and peace. During peacetime the military focuses on

training and maintenance and boredom is rife, but dur-

ing wartime the focus is on courage, fear, control, and

us vs. them mentality with collective, strong, and co-

hesive culture being important [9,23].

4. The military workplace and uniformity between

service members’ experiences

4.1. Basic training

While all cultures integrate individuals, the mili-

tary in particular needs a collective, strong and cohe-

sive culture, allowing it to operate functionally during

crises. Some service me mbers join th e military already

identifying with the culture, whereas others develop

such an identity following military socialization [9,23].

Therefore, the military socializes new recruits through

exhaustive military training known as basic training

or boot camp, which is known as a degrading pro-

cess, where leaders deconstruct th e recruits’ civilian

status and give them a new identity. The recruits go

through a harsh, humiliating, and physically and emo-

tionally exhausting process [9,22,23]. They are ex-

posed to their new norms, language, codes, and iden-

tity. Also, group formation is accomplished by cut-

ting hair, common d ress, suffering, eating, exercising

and bunking together, as well as isolation from friends

and family since compliance is n eeded in the military.

Leaders emphasize that only the elite make it and en-

courage recruits to learn to control their emotions. Af-

ter this train ing, recruits show greater commitment to

the militar y [9].

4.2. Warrior ethos

Another unifying aspect of military culture is the

warrior ethos, a mindset and group of values that all

U.S. armed forces aim to instill in their m embers. The

warrior ethos emphasizes placing the mission above

all else, n ot accepting defeat, not ever quitting, and

not ever leaving b ehind another American [24]. Un-

til 2003, the warrior ethos was an unspoken norm,

but in 2003 the Army turned this norm into a codi-

ﬁed statement [24]. Although each branch has a unique

creed and set of values (e.g., loyalty, commitment, and

honor), all branches in the military subscribe to the

warrior ethos, even if it is not speciﬁcally codiﬁed

within their branch. Subscribing to the warrior ethos

helps set expectations of what it means to be a war-

rior [25]. Further more, instilling this mindset in all ser-

vice members is crucial for maintaining a highly effec-

tive and committed force by encouraging individuals

to think and behave in ways that show perseverance;

responsibility for others; motivation by a higher call-

ing; and ability to set priorities, make tradeoffs, adapt,

and accept dependence on others [25].

4.3. Military organization, structure, and culture

Military culture and values extend well beyond the

warrior ethos and service members are somewhat iso-

lated from the larger U.S. society [9,23]. The mili-

tary tries to cr eate uniformity by emphasizing core val-

ues that become an integral part of military cu lture

and experience, and service members possess shared

experiences, values, languages, and symbols [9, 23].

The codes of conduct in the military are the same

for every member and expected to be upheld and per-

sonal growth happens in an environment that is ex-

tremely structured [12]. Nonstop training and self-

improvement, engagement civically and in the com-

munity, health, and personal responsibility are all

stressed by the military [12 ]. Obedience, discipline,

self-sacriﬁce, trust, and courage are also identiﬁed as

key military values [26–29], which demonstrates the

importance of looking out for the team’s wellbeing

above that of the individual [26].

The normative ways of thinking and acting accord-

ing to military culture become ingrained for active duty

members who work and reside on post since those

around them are also part of the military [18, 26]. Also,

due to the military’s mission and contracts, service

members are subject to different workplace regulations

than their civilian counterparts; for example, 24-hour a

day and 7-day a week call, vacation time can be issued

and/or canceled by their commander based on mission

needs, and they can be asked to deploy abroad with

short notice [9].

However, Howard (2006) argues that reserve forces

make up a subculture somewhat different from active

duty military culture because they usually work and re-

side away from bases [26]. Low proportions of U.S.

S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture 15

citizens have served in the latest conﬂicts [26,30] and

in the same conﬂicts, more reservists have served and

are relaying on civilian communities for support. This

exempliﬁes the challenges individuals face while par-

ticipating in both civilian and military culture that em-

phasize different values.

5. Military culture and the spouse

The inﬂuence of military culture also profoundly

impacts military spouses as they become uniﬁed within

the military context. A military spouse hierarchy of-

ten forms based upon the rank of the serving spouse,

but some spouses have expressed a desire to be as-

sessed by their personal attributes r ather than by their

service member’s rank, which they perceived as stig-

matizing, and other studies have found disapproval of

the non-military spouse acting as if the service mem-

ber’s rank is their own rank [31,32]. However, in real-

ity, privileges are given to higher ranking military fam-

ilies, such as enhanced housing facilities [ 32].

Spousal categorization can either create a sense of

community and support for military spouses or it can

act as a barrier [32]. Even though ﬁrst-term military

wives beneﬁt emotionally from mentor type relation-

ships with older or more experienced military wives

only a minority of ﬁrst-term wives report such relation-

ships [33]. Military wives are inclined to befriend other

military wives whose hu sbands are similar in ranking

to their husband’s rank and as differences in rank be-

tween military husb ands become greater, friendships

become less likely to form [33]. It is possible that

higher-ranking military wives often think it is too time-

consuming o r burdensome to teach a newer military

wife about military culture, so they choose to inter-

act with similarly ranked wives. This is consistent with

Kurzban and Leary’s [34] theory that those belonging

to a social species have the critical adaptive issue of

deciding to interact with others who probably produce

beneﬁts, while staying away from individuals that may

prove costly [34].

A husband’s ranking may also come with certain so-

cial responsibilities f or his wife pertaining to military

social functions. For example, a military commander

unable to attend an event or function, may send his

wife on his behalf to show his support and she will re-

ceive the respect consistent with his rank [32]. Further-

more, certain activities among military wives are ex-

pected based on spousal ranking. For instance, the wife

of a battalion commander did not insist that the wives

of battalion ofﬁcers have regular get-togethers and was

criticized by a higher ran ked brigade commander wife

who learned of the issue from a junior wife [32].

Military service also leaves military spouses dis-

proportionately responsible for family demands, espe-

cially during deployment. Reservist spouses indicated

having to assume their spouse’s role while they are

away and m ake d ecisions related to the family and

maintenance of the household [35]. Spouses wonder

about the reservists’ reaction to their choices, as well

as questioning what the choice of the reservist would

have been and indicate difﬁculty assuming added re-

sponsibilities and roles [35, 36], such as taking care of

pets and children by oneself instead of jointly.

6. Deployment and reintegration

The most unique features of the military include de -

ploying to locations around the world and being ex-

posed to combat. Returning from combat and deploy-

ment often involves transitioning back to the home en-

vironment, and in some cases back to the civilian envi-

ronment, known as reintegration. Reintegration is chal-

lenging for some military personnel [37,38], while oth-

ers return home and experience minimal difﬁculty [39,

40]. The latter group of individuals may experience

some circadian dysrhythmia (e.g., jet lag, which inter-

feres with the sleep cycle) as well as mild environ-

mental disorientation, often due to a change in geo-

graphical location. However, other military personnel

face much more serious issues upon returning home

and some present with debilitating medical and mental

health problems requiring treatment [37,38].

Despite the drastic differences in symptom severity,

there is no checklist to iden tify who will have difﬁculty

with reintegration and who will not. However, mili-

tary personnel with mental health issues prior to de-

ployment will likely return with that same illness and

possibly with more severe symptoms, which may be-

come treatment-resistant [38,41–43]. Three prevailing

mental health issues include depression (14% which

rises to 27% after the third deploymen t), posttraumatic

stress disorder (PTSD;14%), and suicide risk, with vet-

eran males twice as likely to die by suicide compared

to civilian counterparts [12]. Traumatic brain injury

(TBI) was also found to be fairly common (19%) [12].

Furthermore, sexual assault was reported by 6.8% of

women and 1.8% of men (lower than the estimated

actual rate of 20–30% and 2–4%, respectively) [12].

This comes with consider able implications for emo-

16 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

tional wellbeing given that sexual assault carries, at

minimum, an equivalent risk for PTSD as exposure to

combat carries [12].

Service members’ mental health challenges cause

great distress for the service member and his or her

partner. In more than 70% of couples where the vet-

eran had PTSD, signiﬁcant relationship d istress was

reported, while for couples without PTSD just around

30% indicated distress [44,45]. This is not surprising

due to the emotional numbing associated with PTSD

that causes emotional withdrawal, less positive engage-

ment, decreased ability to communicate in a validat-

ing and effective way, and less intimacy [46] . Further-

more, in an attempt to deal with their experience, veter-

ans may develop attachment that is anxious or avoidant

(insecure attachment styles in which one may either

overly seek or push away their partner) in response to

war trauma [47]. During reintegration, these individu-

als focus on their safety instead of resuming the rela-

tionship in a healthy way, so unhealthy couple inter-

actions, such as one partner being demanding and the

other partner withdrawing, might occur [47]. Intimacy

issues in couples may also arise due to mental health

issues and sexual functioning changes [68]. Problems

pertaining to sexual relationships, expression, or the

response system have been noted in 60% of individu-

als with TBI [48,62]. Thus, service members’ mental

health problems develop into couples’ problems.

Research suggests early intervention correlates with

positive outcomes and recovery [39, 49,50], but seek-

ing treatment may be easier for some service mem-

bers than others. Once reserve and National Guard per-

sonnel are no longer on active orders, access to the

same services available to active duty members de-

creases and their families bear the burden of helping

them receive services [36,39,40,50–52]. Thus, changes

in beneﬁts put reserve and National Guard personnel

at higher risk for more signiﬁcant reintegration chal-

lenges [36,50,52].

7. Implications for the workplace

As they exit the military an d r eintegrate to civilian

life, ﬁnding employment is a top priority for many vet-

erans. However, frequent moves decrease veterans’ op-

portunities to form and capitalize upon professional

relationships or social networking to gain employ-

ment [53]. Additionally, veterans often need assistance

creating a civilian friendly resume and verbally trans-

lating their military service into civilian language [53].

However, because many veterans have little, if any, ex-

perience with the civilian workforce, they often under-

utilize the vast array of transition and employment ser-

vices available to them [53].

7.1. Special considerations for reserve & national

guard personnel

Having fewer available services than active duty

members and unique work challenges exacerbates the

employment difﬁculties of reser ve and Natio nal Guard

members. Military service can impede gaining and

maintaining civilian employment as reserve and Na-

tional Guard members may experience conﬂicting mil-

itary an d civilian employment demands. For example,

reservist and guard smen’s civilian employment may be

disrupted by mandatory monthly trainings and possible

6–18 month deployments, with employment separation

and disruption due to deployments linked to economic

hardship and emotional stress [54]. Upon returning

from deployment, reservist and guardsmen experience

employment setbacks, including being laid off; enter-

ing into a different, unfamiliar position; passed over ca-

reer opportunities, outdated expertise; and unemploy-

ment [35,55]. Speciﬁcally, recent research has found

an over 40% increase in unemployment following de-

ployment, while 11.1% lost their job or business and

15.1% reported problems with ﬁnances [56].

7.2. Special considerations for military spouses

Military spouses may also face many employment

barriers and have indicated that their spouses’ mili-

tary service n egatively affected their work opportuni-

ties [ 57]. Compared to their civilian counterparts, mil-

itary spouses are twice as likely to be unemployed,

more likely to be seeking employment, and even whe n

employed, earn less [55]. One primary factor is that

military couples often marry young (e.g., shortly af-

ter high school) and frequent relocations and family

demands often make completing college or pursuing

a steady career difﬁcult. Another barr ier for military

spouses is that they often have time lapses and loca-

tion changes indicated in their resumes from frequent

moves [57].

Additional challenges associated with the military

spouse lifestyle may also make maintaining steady em-

ployment difﬁcult. Military spouses can feel like sin-

gle parents during deployment [57] and one study in-

dicated during deployment, the top stressor for mili-

tary families is child care issues [58,59]. Heightened

S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture 17

distress and anxiety levels may be felt by children and

spouses, who worry about their loved one’s safety and

families feel more distress with longer d eployment pe-

riods [60]. Thus, those whose spouses are absent for

longer may need the most support. For those mili-

tary spouses that are employed, extra support may be

needed during deployment and reintegration, as the

family faces a highly ambiguous time.

7.3. Families: Employment, dep loyment, and

reintegration

Homecoming is stressful for families, as the fam-

ily system works to reintegrate the service member

into the family’s routine [4 7,60]. During deployment,

spouses adapt by relying on their own problem solv-

ing and outside social support, which can make emo-

tionally supporting one another d ifﬁcult for couples

during reintegration [47]. Flexible and understanding

work environments can help alleviate some of mili-

tary spouses’ stress during these adjustment periods, as

spouses may struggle with personal emotional distress

and child behavior problems.

Further complicating reintegration, many veterans

return with physical and mental h ealth challenges.

Marital relationships temporarily or permanently

change as some spouses become caregivers of their

wounded service member [61]. The so-called “signa-

ture wounds” o f the past wars, TBI and PTSD change

relationships and h ave been tied to lower ability to

communicate and intimacy, less positive engagement,

sexual functioning issues, and higher divorce rates [46,

62,63,68]. Support for service member and veteran

partners is vital for the healthy transitioning of many

veterans back into the community. The lack of sup-

portive relationships contribu tes to mental health chal-

lenges [63] with one study ﬁnding 75% of veteran sui-

cides were linked to a failed relationship [61].

Military demands and mental health challeng e s may

also raise the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV)

and child maltreatment among military and veteran

families. IPV in military families is positively co r-

related with PTSD, depression, substance abuse, en-

listed status, and length of deployment [64]. Addi-

tionally, speciﬁc factors cor related with increased rates

of maltreatment in military families include: young

age of child [65], service member leaving for deploy-

ment [66], combat-related deployments [67], and ser-

vice member returning from deployment [66]. Dur-

ing times of deployment and reintegra tion, military

and veteran families would beneﬁt fr om additional

supportive services in the community and workplace,

especially when they have young children and their

service member returns with physical and/or mental

health challenges [67].

8. Discussion

The m ilitary workplace culture possesses a number

of unique features and military personnel experience

circumstances that differ fro m many civilians. While

many of the basic concepts are similar to the civilian

workplace, the military workp lace achieves its goal of

creating a mission ready force through socialization,

structure, discipline, and constant training. When re-

turning from a deployment marked by separating or

discharging from military service, military personnel

have the challenge of reintegrating back in to the civil-

ian world. After always putting the group’s wellbeing

ﬁrst, as well as working and living within the m ilitary

culture, adap ting to civilian culture may be d ifﬁcult for

military personnel. Reserve members might have ad-

ditional challenges as they navigate the reserve sub-

culture, in addition to living and working amongst the

civilian culture, while simultaneously fulﬁlling work,

training, and deploymen t obligations in the military

culture. Employers must also remember that military

wives form their own subculture and may need special

assistance during their service member’s deployment

and reintegration, as well as with ﬁnding and maintain-

ing employm ent.

This article provided basic concepts related to the

military culture and work place that those working with

military populations should consider. Many companies

still appear to be lacking in m ilitary cultural compe-

tency, which may negatively impact veterans an d mil-

itary spouses seeking employment as well as these in-

dividuals’ work experiences. For example, employers

lacking military cultural competency may pass over

job candidates if they fail to appreciate how military

skills translate to the civilian sector or interviewers that

lack military cultural knowledge may ask job candi-

dates questions about their service that are inappropri-

ate or offensive. Furthermore, employers may misin-

terpret employees’ behavior if they are unaware o f mil-

itary cultu re, i.e. an employee’s reluctance to do any-

thing unless given explicit instructions may be mis-

interpreted if employers are unaware of th e military’s

emphasis on d iscipline and following orders passed

down through the chain of command. Due to the com-

plexity of military culture, the concepts discussed in

18 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

this article are just the starting point for increasing mil-

itary cultural competency. However, raising awareness

and starting the dialog about military culture appears

to be the ﬁrst step in inﬂuencing those working with

service members, veterans, and their families to act in

a way th at is cultu rally competent.

9. Conclusions

Understand ing military cultur e can help those work-

ing with service membe rs, veterans, and their families

understand this group’s unique strengths, skills, and

challenges. Having a basic knowledge of military orga-

nization reveals certain ingrained values and highlights

common a lity and diversity between service members’

experiences according to the nature of their service.

This article was intended to show that military service

is not just an occupation, but instills a unique skill set

and set of values that in some ways differs from civil-

ians. This article also draws awareness to the possi-

ble reintegration difﬁculties and challenges in the civil-

ian job sector that service members and their spouses

may face due to th e military experience. As this arti-

cle has outlined, those working with military service

members, spouses, and veterans should acknowledge

diversity and avoid sweeping generalizations. We hope

this article will serve as a starting point for helping em-

ployers working with service members and veterans to

increase awareness and their cultural competency.

References

[1] Saltzman WR, Pynoos RS, Lester P, Layne CM, Beardslee

WR. Enhancing family resilience through family narrative co-

construction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review.

2013: 1-17.

[2] Yamada A-M, Atuel HR, Weiss EL. Military Culture and

Multicultural Diversity among Military Service Members:

Implications for Mental Health Providers. Handbook of Mul-

ticultural Mental Health: Assessment and Treatment of Di-

verse Populations. 2013: 389.

[3] Savitsky L, Illingworth M, DuLaney M. Civilian Social Work:

Serving the Military and Veteran Populations. Social Work.

2009; 54: 327-39.

[4] Deardorff DK. Identiﬁcation and assessment of intercultural

competence as a student outcome of internationalization.

Journal of Studies in International Education. 2006; 10(3):

241-66.

[5] Department of Defense. MIssion Statement 1994 [April

14, 2014]. Available from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/

library/status/mission/mdod.htm.

[6] Department of Defense. About the Department of Defense

(DOD). Available from: http://www.defense.gov/about/.

[7] Department of Veterans Affairs. Ofﬁce of Public and Inter-

gove rnmental Aff airs 2014 [April 14, 2014]. Available from:

http://www.va.gov/opa/newtova.asp.

[8] Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Beneﬁts 2014 [April

14, 2014]. Available from: http://www.va.gov/healthbeneﬁts/

apply/veterans.asp.

[9] Soeters JL, W inslow DJ, Weibull A. Military culture. Hand-

book of the Sociology of the Military: Springer, 2006,

pp. 237-54.

[10] Straub D, Loch K, Evaristo R, Karahanna E, Srite M. Toward

a theory-based measurement of culture. Human Factors in In-

formation Systems. 2002: 61-82.

[11] Winslow D. Army culture. DTIC Document, 2000.

[12] Kelty R, Kleykamp M, Segal DR. The Military and the Transi-

tion to Adulthood. Future of Children. 2010; 20(1): 181-207.

[13] Department of Defense. Demographics 2011: Proﬁle of the

Military Community. Washington, DC: Department of De-

fense; 2012, November.

[14] Department of Defense. Demographics 2010: Proﬁle of the

Military Community. Washington, DC: Department of De-

fense, 2010.

[15] Eighmey J. Why do youth enlist? Armed Forces & Society.

2006; 32(2): 307-28.

[16] Department of Defense. Personnel & Procurement Reports

and Data Files: Military Personnel Statistics 2012 [May 14,

2012]. Available from: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel

/MILITARY/miltop.htm.

[17] Woodruff T, Kelty R, Segal DR. Propensity to Serve and Mo-

tivation to Enlist among American Combat Soldiers. Armed

Forces & Society. 2006; 32(3): 353-66.

[18] Grifﬁth J. Institutional Motives for Serving in the U.S. Army

National Guard. Armed Forces & Society. 2008; 34(2): 230-

58.

[19] Department of Defense. Enlistment/Reenlistment Document

Armed Forces Of The United States. In: Defense Do, editor.

Washington, DC: Department of Defense, October 2007.

[20] Kelman HC. A social-psychological model of political legit-

imacy and its relevance to black and white student protest

movements. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal

Processes, 1970.

[21] Olsen ME. Process of social organization, 1968.

[22] Jones AP, James LR, Bruni JR. Perceived leadership behav-

ior and employee conﬁdence in the leader as moderated by

job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975; 60(1):

146.

[23] Moore BA. Understanding and working within the Military

Culture. In: Moore BA, Penk WE, editors. Treating PTSD in

Military Personnel: A clinical handbook. New York, NY: The

Guilford Press, 2011, pp. 9-22.

[24] Wong L. Leave no man behind: recovering America’ s fallen

warriors. Armed Forces & Society. 2005; 31(4): 599-622.

[25] Riccio G, Sullivan R, Klein G, Salter M, Kinnison H. War-

rior Ethos: Analysis of the concept and initial development of

applications. DTIC Document, 2004.

[26] Howard JL. The role of culture in shaping perceptions of dis-

crimination among active duty and reserve forces in the US

military. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 2006;

18(3): 171-87.

[27] Collins JJ. The complex context of American military culture:

A practitioner’s view. Washington Quarterly. 1998; 21(4):

213-28.

[28] Hillen J. Must US military culture reform? Orbis. 2000; 43(1):

43-57.

S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture 19

[29] Townshend C. Militarism and modern society. The Wilson

Quarterly (1976-). 1993; 17(1): 71-82.

[30] Feav er PD, K ohn RH. Conclusion: The gap and what it means

for American national security. Soldiers and civilians: The

ci vil-military gap and American national security. 2001: 459-

74.

[31] Dandeker C, French C, Birtles C, Wessely S, editors. Deploy-

ment Experiences of British Army Wives Before, During and

After Deployment: Satisfaction with Military Life and Use

of Support Networks. Human Dimensions in Military Opera-

tions – Military Leaders’ Strategies for Addressing Stress and

Psychological Support; 2006; Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.

[32] Harrell MC. Army ofﬁcers’ spouses: Have the white gloves

been mothballed? Armed Forces & Society. 2001; 28(1): 55-

75.

[33] Rosen LN, Moghadam LZ. Impact of military organization on

social support patterns of Army wives. Human Organization.

1989; 48(3): 189-95.

[34] Kurzban R, Leary MR. Evolutionary origins of stigmatiza-

tion: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological bul-

letin. 2001; 127(2): 187.

[35] Faber AJ, Willerton E, Clymer SR, MacDermid SM, W e iss

HM. Ambiguous absence, ambiguous presence: A qualitative

study of military reserve families in wartime. Journal of Fam-

ily Psychology. 2008; 22(2): 222-30.

[36] Renshaw KD. Deployment experiences and postdeployment

PTSD symptoms in National Guard/Reserve service members

serving in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2010; 23(6): 815-8.

[37] Tanielian T, Jaycox LH, Schell TL, Marshall GN, Burnam

MA, Eibner C, et al. Invisible Wounds of War: Summary and

Recommendations for Addressing Psychological and Cogni-

ti ve Injuries. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008,

pp. 64.

[38] Wilcox SL, Finney K, Cederbaum J A. Prevalence of Men-

tal Health Problems among Military Populations. In: Moore

B, Barnett J, editors. Military Psychologists’ Desk Reference.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 187-92.

[39] Wilcox SL, Rank MG. Transitioning Through The Deploy-

ment Cycle. In: Moore B, Barnett J, editors. Military Psychol-

ogists’ Desk Reference. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2013, pp. 306-11.

[40] Institute of Medicine. Returning Home from Iraq and

Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans,

Service Members, and Their Families. Washington, DC: The

National Academies Press, 2013.

[41] MacDonald HZ, Proctor SP, Heeren T, Vasterling JJ. Asso-

ciations of postdeployment PTSD symptoms with predeploy-

ment symptoms in Iraq-deployed Army soldiers. Psycholog-

ical T rauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2013;

5(5): 470-6.

[42] Wright KM, Cabrera OA, Eckford RD, Adler AB, Bliese PD.

The impact of predeployment functional impairment on men-

tal health after combat. Psychological Trauma: Theory , Re-

search, Practice, and Policy. 2012; 4(3): 260-9.

[43] MacDonald HZ, Proctor SP, Heeren T , Vasterling JJ. Associ-

ations of Postdeployment PTSD Symptoms With Predeploy-

ment Symptoms in Iraq-Deployed Army Soldiers. Psycholog-

ical Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2012: No

Pagination Speciﬁed.

[44] Riggs DS, Byrne CA, Weathers FW, Litz BT. The quality of

the intimate relationships of male Vietnam veterans: Problems

associated with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Trau-

matic Stress. 1998; 11(1): 87-101.

[45] Hirsch KA. Sexual dysfunction in male Operation Enduring

Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom patients with severe post-

traumatic stress disorder. Military Medicine. 2009; 174(5):

520-2.

[46] Meis LA, Erbes CR, Polusny MA, Compton JS. Intimate rela-

tionships among returning soldiers: The mediating and mod-

erating roles of negative emotionality, PTSD symptoms, and

alcohol problems. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2010; 23: 564-

72.

[47] Jordan K. Counselors helping service veterans re-enter their

couple relationship after combat and military services: A

comprehensive overview. The Family Journal. 2011; 19(3):

263-73.

[48] Aloni R, Katz S. Sexual difﬁculties after traumatic brain in-

jury and ways to deal with it: Charles C Thomas Publisher,

2003.

[49] Knox KL, Kemp J, McKeon R, Katz IR. Implementation and

Early Utilization of a Suicide Hotline for Veterans. American

Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102(S1): S29-S32.

[50] Interian A, Kline A, Callahan L, Losonczy M. Readjustment

Stressors and Early Mental Health Treatment Seeking by Re-

turning National Guard Soldiers With PTSD. Psychiatric Ser-

vices. 2012; 63(9): 855-61.

[51] Hazle M, Wilcox SL, Hassan AM. Helping Veterans And

Their Families Fight On! Advances in Social Work. 2012;

13(1): 229-42.

[52] Schell TL, Tanielian T. A Needs Assessment of New York

State Veterans: Final Report to the New York State Health

Foundation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2011.

[53] Clemens EV, Milsom AS. Enlisted service members’ tran-

sition into the civilian world of work: A cognitive informa-

tion processing approach. The Career Development Quarterly.

2008; 56(3): 246-56.

[54] Hoshmand LT, Hoshmand AL. Support for military fami-

lies and communities. Journal of Community Psychology.

2007;35(2):171-80.

[55] Werber L, Harrell MC, Varda DM, Hall KC, Becklett MK,

Stern S. Deployment Experiences of Guard and Reserve Fam-

ilies: Implications for Support and Retention. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

[56] Kline A, Ciccone DS, Falca-Dodson M, Black CM, Losonczy

M. Suicidal ideation among national guard troops deployed to

iraq: The association with postdeployment readjustment prob-

lems. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2011; 199(12):

914-20.

[57] Castaneda LW, Harrell MC, Varda DM, Hall KC, Beckett

MK, Stern S. Deployment experiences of guard and reserve

families. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

[58] Drummet AR, Coleman M, Cable S. Military Families Un-

der Stress: Implications for Family Life Education*. Family

Relations. 2003; 52(3): 279-87.

[59] Sahlstein E, Maguire KC, Timmerman L. Contradictions and

praxis contextualized by wartime deployment: Wives’ per-

spectiv es revealed through relational dialectics. Communica-

tion Monographs. 2009; 76(4): 421-42.

[60] Lester P, Bursch B. The long war comes home: mitigating

risk and promoting resiliency in military children and fami-

lies. Psychiatric Times. 2011; 28(7): 26-9.

[61] Satcher D, Tepper MS, Thrasher C, Rachel SA. Breaking the

Silence: Supporting Intimate Relationships for Our Wounded

Troops and Their Partners: A Call to Action. International

Journal of Sexual Health. 2012; 24(1): 6-13.

[62] Cameron RP, Mona LR, Syme ML, Cordes CC, Fraley SS,

Chen SS, et al. Sexuality among wounded veterans of Op-

20 S.A. Redmond et al. / Military culture

eration Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom

(OIF), and Operation New Dawn (OND): Implications for re-

habilitation psychologists. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2011;

56(4): 289.

[63] Kotler M, Cohen H, Aizenberg D, Matar M, Loewenthal U,

Kaplan Z, et al. Sexual dysfunction in male posttraumatic

stress disorder patients. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

2000; 69: 309-15.

[64] Marshall AD, Panuzio J, Taft CT. Intimate partner violence

among military veterans and activ e duty servicemen. Clinical

Psychology Review. 2005; 25(7): 862-76.

[65] McCarroll JE, Fan Z, Newby JH, Ursano RJ. Trends in US

Army child maltreatment reports: 1990–2004. Child Abuse

Review. 2008; 17(2): 108-18.

[66] Rentz ED, Marshall SW, Loomis D, Casteel C, Martin SL,

Gibbs DA. Effect of Deployment on the Occurrence of Child

Maltreatment in Military and Nonmilitary Families. American

Journal of Epidemiology . 2007; 165(10): 1199-206.

[67] Gibbs D A, Martin SL, Kupper LL, Johnson RE. Child Mal-

treatment in Enlisted Soldiers’ Families During Combat-

Related Deployments. JAMA: The Journal Of The American

Medical Association. 2007; 298(5): 528-35.

[68] Wilcox SL, Redmond S, Hassan AM. Sexual Functioning

in Military Personnel: Preliminary Estimates and Predictors.

Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2014; 11(10): 2537-45.