11
FROM PROFESSION, TO OCCUPATION, TO CONTRACT WORKER: WHO ARE THE MILITARY PROFESSIONALS NOW?
LINDY HEINECKEN*
This study focuses on the changes taking place in the nature and structure of military employment in the post Cold War era. These have been driven by changes in the strategic environment and the implementation of New Public Management principles, where the armed forces have become obligated to operate more like corporations to ensure greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency. This, together with the need to have a more flexible force to meet shifting mission demands, has resulted in military employment being restructured along classic post-fordist lines to ensure greater flexibility for predictability and adaptability. The argument is made that this has fundamentally changed the status and values traditionally associated with the military profession. While the military as organisation has been quick to adopt business practices, the consequences this hold for the military profession has received scant attention. This article attempts to spell out some of the implications the shift from profession, to occupation to contract work holds for the armed forces and for the military profession.
1. INTRODUCTION
The nineties have been a period of radical and dramatic change for the armed forces. Just as business needed to align itself with the changing global business environment, so has the military in terms of how it functions, the ‘product’ if offers to society and the ‘market’ in which it operates. While war-fighting has remained the core business of armed forces, increasingly they are now expected to apply these skills in other ways, often in remote parts of the world. This in itself requires a different mindset, as they are not only expected to perform functions for which they are not specifically trained, equipped or structured, but with members of other forces and contractors from vastly different backgrounds.
At the same time, with the implementation of New Public Management principles armed forces have become obligated to implement business practices to ensure greater cost-effectiveness, efficiency and flexibility. A series of bewildering reforms followed as armed forces were reorganised and downsized to become more ‘lean and mean’. To ensure greater flexibility to meet shifting mission demands, military work was restructured along classic post-fordist lines. Only a small cadre of professional military personnel were retained on long term contracts, with the remainder on short to medium terms. Other tasks peripheral to the organisation were either civilianised or outsourced – a practice which was to have long-term repercussions for the armed forces. Finding the correct balance between full-time military professionals and civilian specialists, reservists and contractors has been an arduous and tenuous process.
What many failed to recognise was the effect this division of military work was to have on the military profession. As Frost[1] indicates, where ‘the task of an organisation is redefined, so the culture of the organisation changes and this in turn impacts on the functioning of an organisation’. In terms of traditional values, where previously the military profession was associated with ‘selfless service’ and reciprocal commitment by the institution to take care of its own, the reorganisation of military employment (prompted by changes in the strategic and domestic environment) altered these traditional patterns of loyalty, trust and commitment. Even those in the core were now no longer guaranteed a long-term career and those who remained, became apprehensive about their future career prospects as competition for remaining posts increased. Many of the changes implemented were done without any collective consultation and as discontent within the ranks increased, so this compelled armed forces to examine their approach to employee relations. In some cases, this sparked renewed interest in some form of military unionism.
This article attempts to demonstrate how the division of military work is affecting the military profession, attitudes towards military employment and the management of employee relations. As background, the first section outlines how the tasks (products) of military work have changed since the end of the Cold War and how this together with other domestic forces have led to the restructuring of military work and employment practices. The consequences these hold for the military profession are then delineated, in terms of the effect they are having on the nature of military work and the future management of employee relations.
2. CHANGES IN THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, no one could have anticipated the challenges and demands the new global security environment would pose for the armed forces, or for the military profession as a whole. With the threat of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact removed, the ‘visual’ enemy against which most Western armed forces were geared to fight was gone - but immediately replaced by far more diffuse threats as violence flared up in various parts of the world. Now most of the threats facing nations were non-military in nature - organized crime, terrorism, arms trafficking, illegal international immigration, global environmental degradation and disease. Even though these conflicts were localised, they often involved a myriad of trans-national connections so that the distinction between internal and external, between aggression (attack from abroad) and even repression (attacks from inside the country), or even between local and global was difficult to ascertain. Hence, the means to deal with these new threats become more complicated.[2] For the armed forces, traditionally structured, trained and equipped for conventional warfare, this posed a major challenge.
Unlike before, there was (and still is) no clear-cut adversary against which to prepare and in most cases the military is not the most suitable means through which to deal with these ill-defined threats. Yet, they were called upon to respond to a widening spectrum of tasks and for this, they needed to become more flexible and deployable. In essence, one saw a move away from an organisation structured along fordist lines (mass army, single product) to an organisation having to deal with niche wars, requiring a more flexible post-fordist structure (flexible force, diverse missions). The change in the nature of military tasks, of course, was not the only factor affecting the armed forces in the immediate post Cold War era. They now also had to compete with other interest groups for state funding, as resources were channelled to more pressing social and development needs. At the same time most governments were trying to reduce public expenditure and to improve their efficiency in terms of service delivery.
A wave of public sector reforms were implemented commonly referred to as the New Public Management approach to public service. Associated with this was greater emphasis on value for money, privatisation and outsourcing and the need to reduce labour market regulation in an attempt to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency.[3] The military did not escape these pressures and were forced to adopt a more corporate approach to the delivery of public security.[4] What followed was massive downsizing of the armed forces, both in terms of numbers of personnel and size of the armed forces in the early nineties. Most armed forces were reduced by almost a third of their former size and strength. Globally, an estimated 7 million servicemen were thrust into the employment market with little more to peddle than their military skills.[5] However, just as armed forces where adjusting their force and organisational structures to the new security environment, a new wave of violence flared up in various parts of the world, posing new threats to global peace and security – and requiring someone to do the ‘work’.
3. CHANGES MILITARY ORGANISATION AND WORK
This marked the beginning of a series of bewildering and traumatic changes to the organisational and force structure of armed forces, the value system and approach to employee relations (see Table 1). For some this meant the end of conscription and for those armed forces that were already organised on an all-volunteer basis, the challenge was to downsize and restructure the forces to become more cost effective, efficient and flexible.[6] According to Burk[7], if there is ‘one general trend in the direction of change in military organisations, it is the transition from mass armed forces, mobilised to fight particular wars, to smaller professional armed forces, which are continuously mobilised and possess multifaceted capabilities to respond quickly to a wide variety of threats’. In this regard, Dandeker & Weibull[8] outline the key components of these changes and influences on the organisational and force restructuring of most Western armed forces.
One of the first steps in this process, as in the private sector in the 1980s was to streamline the organisation in terms of its shape and size. For the armed forces, this entailed reducing the structural differentiation that emerged over years, by the merging of inter-service facilities to eliminate duplication. Typically, this involved restructuring the various personnel and support branches, as well as the merging of various inter service functions and support bases of the different arms of service. Whereas in the Cold War era, the different arms of service still maintained their own unique organisational culture and structure, what emerged in the post-Cold War period were a greater degree of inter-service integration and the development of a joint organisational culture to encourage greater cooperation among the different services.
Table 1: Change in military work and organisation
Cold War / Post-Cold warProduct of labour / Deterrence / Range of military and non-military missions
Market / National/international / Global
Organisational structure / Hierarchical / Flattened
Force structure / Mass army (fordist) / Flexible (post-fordist)
Job training / Specific/specialised / Diverse/multi-skilled
Employment contract / Long-term / Variable contracts/externalised
Service benefits / Job Security
Institutional benefits / Job security declines
Market related, linked to type of contract
Value system / Selfless service / Conditional/selfish service
Management of employee relations / Unitarist / Neo-Unitarist/ Pluralist/Corporatist?
Another change associated with this organisational restructuring was the shift towards modular, flexible structures that enabled the military to put together elements of the force at relative short notice for specific purposes, be this for war-fighting or military operations other than war (MOOTW). Dandeker[9] refers to this as force packaging, a kind of mix and match system involving various specialised segments of all the different armed forces assembled together for a specific mission. Similar to business, the military also initiated moves to de-layer the organisation to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. With the introduction of information technology to speed up communication and with the narrowing of the distinctions between combat and non-combat roles, between officers and other ranks and between the services, the number of ranks and levels of authority were no longer necessary.[10] Consequently, the armed forces have become less reliant on actual numbers, but more reliant on a core of highly trained specialised personnel. What followed was not only the extensive reduction in the number of people employed by the military, similar to that found in mass production firms, but in the contracts and conditions under which military personnel serve.
The military now required a workforce which was more responsive to shifting mission requirements. Once again similar to business enterprises, they needed greater ‘flexibility for predictability’ and ‘flexibility for adaptability’ (see Table 2). For predictability, organisations need to ensure that they have numerical flexibility in terms of their personnel numbers. This requires structures and staffing policies that enable organisations to dispense with, take on new employees or move them about to suit changing circumstances. To improve adaptability, organisations require functional flexibility to respond to different product requirements. This requires employees in the core to be more multi-skilled and to use initiative ‘without taking orders’ to deal with different demands.[11] One way organisations have done this is to divide the workforce into core and peripheral elements. Military employment became restructured along similar lines. Here four different modes of employment emerged to reduce costs and increase the flexibility to cope with different mission requirements.
Table 2: Two types of flexibility[12]
Type of flexibility / Flexibility for predictability and tight control / Flexibility for adaptability and innovationAssociated flexible practices / Centralised and top-down control with a mix of
(a)low-skilled labour force which is readily obtainable or dispensable
(b) buying in of services otherwise provided by employees / Relatively autonomous operating units with a mix of
(a) high-skilled individuals given security and regular learning opportunities
(b) buying in of services otherwise provided by employees
Central to military functioning is the cadre of military professionals whose tasks are typically geared towards combat, combat support and command. This segment has received extensive military education and training and traditionally enjoys good service benefits and security of tenure. They are highly skilled ‘military professionals’ without which the armed forces cannot function. To provide greater numerical flexibility is the officers and non-commissioned officers employed on short to medium term contracts to allow for greater flexibility and renewal of personnel. Their fate depends on the number of posts available in the military hierarchy and many are forced to leave the armed forces when their short-term contacts end, or in mid-career should their services no longer be required.
Supporting the core is the second group, those specialists employed in administrative, logistical and support functions that perform more routine activities and are employed on a permanent full-time basis. Their job security and career potential is less than those in the professional military core, as their skill sets are more readily available in the civilian labour market. This category is often referred to as the ‘professionals in uniform’. Their expertise is merely practiced within the military, but is not unique to the military. One of the distinctive features of post-Cold War armed forces, is that both uniformed military personnel and civilians who have performed these more technical, administrative and support tasks posts have been either civilianised (because they are cheaper to employ than highly and expensively trained military personnel), or outsourced. This has involved either privatising a specific function, or awarding a fixed term contract to a company to buy in a specific service, or subjecting in-house organisations to bid for services in the open market as service providers.[13]
The third segment is the more indirect or part-time component or reserves. This has typically been civilian volunteers or ex-regulars who are called up in times of need. In terms of their employment, they resemble the temporary workforce used only in times of operational necessity or when there is a need for specialist tasks. However, with the decline in the size of the core component, these numbers have decreased. Their utility has also been influenced by the ‘short warning times, limited peacetime training and ever more sophisticated equipment’[14]. Also as these missions become more dangerous and demanding, armed forces have battled to call up sufficient reserve personnel. This has given rise to the growth and dependence of the fourth category of employees, the independent peripheral outsourced component.