Values and Virtues in the Military. Nadine Eggimann Zanetti

der Datenanalysen innerhalb dieser Dissertation war die Definition einer militärspezifische Klassifikation von Werten und Tugenden in Übereinstimmung mit der Kultur der Schweizer Armee. Als grundlegend dazu erwies sich die erstmalige Anwendung eines psycholexikalischen und faktoranalytischen Ansatzes im militärischen Umfeld zur Identifizierung der zentralen militärischen Werte und Tugenden sowie zur Bestimmung deren faktoriellen Struktur. Damit war ermöglicht, aufgrund eines systematischen Vorgehens die Kernwerte und -tugenden der Schweizer Armee zu definieren. Die Ergebnisse dienen als zusätzliche Grundlage für eine optimale militärische Erziehung, Ausbildung und Führung, und verweisen auf erweiterte zukünftige Forschung in Ergänzung zu dieser Dissertation.

      ←25 | 26→←26 | 27→

Theoretical Background

1 Why study values and virtues in the Swiss Armed Forces?

      “Instead of educating our soldiers, we train them. Instead of developing the male characteristics, as typically given to a good soldier, we let theory fill their heads.”

      — General Ulrich Wille¹ —

      General Ulrich Wille, Commander-in-Chief of the Swiss Armed Forces in the First World War and head of the Swiss Military Academy at ETH Zurich from 1909 to 1913, considered values and virtues to be part of the “male characteristics,” and as such subject to military education. He was the first military leader to introduce the subject of values and virtues into the practical operation and theoretical understanding of the Swiss Armed Forces (Annen, Steiger, & Zwygart, 2004). The wording of his statement may need to be adjusted to today’s military operational reality, but its fundamental message remains valid. It is a historic point that values and virtues are understood as a binding part of military leadership, training, and education in the Swiss Armed Forces. Since the time of General Wille’s command, all subsequent service regulations of the Swiss Armed Forces have included an explicit reference and commitment to military values and virtues.

      This thesis devoted its research to the wide subject of values and virtues within the context of military psychology and the Swiss Armed Forces. The general concepts of values and virtues, and more explicitly, their content and implementation, are of great importance in military daily life. They are decisive in enabling a leader to execute his task thoughtfully, rather than harshly. The success of a training lesson in fostering the independent thinking of soldiers, rather than merely executing tasks, also depends on the values of the respective instructors. In both cases, values and virtues are implicitly noticeable.

      According to Baumann (2007), values and virtues set standards and guidelines as to how to behave in a military environment. Annen et al. (2004) stated that values and virtues provide orientation and consistency to the individual and the entire military community. Furthermore, they are an important prerequisite to aim at the ultimate target regarding both education and conduct, as well ←27 | 28→as to safeguard the ethical behavioral mandates under more severe conditions. Values and virtues as psychological concepts refer to stable characteristics of individuals, which are understood as positive, morally good, and desirable (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008). Accordingly, a value identifies what people find important and guides them in regards to choices and decisions. A virtue is generally understood to be a morally good trait, enabling a person to live in accordance with his or her personal values (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2011). For instance, human dignity is interpreted as a value. Courage or bravery are virtues, which make it possible to live in accordance with human dignity, for instance, via a public engagement to the benefit of social minorities. This thesis strictly treated values and virtues as separate concepts, in line with this theoretical understanding.

      Furthermore, the fundamental assumption within this thesis was that military organizations differ from civilian institutions in reference to their specific culture, its values, virtues, and traditions. Meyer (2015) described the specific difference as follows: “The military is, assuredly, a culture. It has its own history, laws, values, traditions, language, and customs” (p. 416). In line with Soeters, Winslow, and Weibull (2006), culture can be defined as common views on values and priorities in life. Consequently, culture is strongly linked to the concept of values. It represents a common vision of collectivities of people such as nations, regions, organizations, schools, churches, and families. Schein (1985) defined organizational culture as a set of assumptions, values, and beliefs that find shared acceptance by members of an organization. Accordingly, the military as an organization is assumed to have a specific organizational culture (Soeters et al., 2006).

      The following characteristics contribute to calling the military a particular culture: Soldiers² wear uniforms, which makes them different from most other personnel in a highly visible way (Soeters et al., 2006). They receive their training in military schools and academies, where a sense of uniqueness is emphasized, assuming primacy of the group over the individual. Military persons normally work and sleep in separated barracks and bases and during this time military culture permeates nearly every aspect of their lives. As highlighted by Johansen, Laberg, and Martinussen (2013), veterans who served for only a few ←28 | 29→years reported strong identification with the military decades later. Even if the Swiss Armed Forces is not primarily involved in deployment and peace-keeping missions, active military duty can be dangerous and potentially life-threatening. As Druckman et al. (1997) pointed out, military organizations require a lot from their personnel. They are permanently on a 24-hour call and can be directed to remote locations at short notice.

      Of course, different types of military organizations, such as the army, the air force, the navy, and the military police, have different cultures (Ross, Ravindranath, Clay, & Lypson, 2015). Each military branch has a number of values and virtues that military persons have to adhere to. Despite all this variation, there seems to be a general military-specific culture, as Soeters (1997) showed in his study. He compared military academies from 18 countries relating their view on various military values such as discipline and hierarchy. He found that military organizations from different nations were more similar to each other in reference to their value preferences than business organizations within the same nation of the respective military organization. Together with the evidence from other similar studies (e.g., Matthews, Eid, Kelly, Bailey, & Peterson, 2006b), it can be assumed that there is a distinct military culture that is different from civilian organizations.

      Lang (1965) mentioned in his review three specific aspects which characterize the culture in military organizations: First, there is the communal character of military life, which describes the peculiarity that military and personal life often overlap, turning the job into a part of community life. As shown by Soeters (1997) in his study, military cultures proved to be far more institutional than corporate business cultures. In civilian business cultures leisure, personal life, and performance-based material gains are more preferred, while military cultures are more institutional, requiring a high commitment from their personnel, offering a fixed pay structure only. The second aspect observed by Lang (1965) referred to the importance of hierarchy, rules, and regulations in the organization. It may come as no surprise that military cultures are more hierarchical in comparison to the cultures of civilian enterprises (Soeters, 1997). Third, Lang (1965) mentioned the importance of discipline, which is described as the compliance with rules and as the acceptance of commands and authority. It can be further underlined through formal discipline (e.g., salutes, ceremonies, uniform) and functional discipline (e.g., acting in accordance with the rules and intent of the commander).

      Above all, military culture can be characterized by a professional commitment that emphasizes discipline, hierarchy, courage, and self-sacrifice, setting the primacy of the group over the individual (cf. Collins, 1998; Hillen, 1999). ←29 | 30→In other words, military institutions are legitimized in terms of specific values and virtues: a purpose, which transcends individual self-interest in favor of a presumed higher good. “Duty,” “honor,” “country,” “courage,” and “loyalty” are words that illustrate such military values and military virtues³.