Military Stereotyping the Negative Effects

Military Stereotyping

The Negative Effects of Military Stereotyping

Stereotypes exist, unfortunately, in all walks of life, in all occupations, organizations, and institutions; for whatever reason, they appear to be a natural and even fundamental part of almost every human society. Though such stereotypes might have been useful many millennia ago in the prehistoric days of humanity's more desperate hunter-gatherer days, they have ceased to serve any useful function in post-agricultural society, where collective effort and esteem and opinion based on an individual's contribution to the community are the most practical, as well as the most ethical (Boyce & Herd 2004). Despite the more practical method of judgment, however, stereotypes not only persist in the larger societal view but are also put to practical and effective, if detrimentally so, use in many different organizations, leading to a degradation in the quality of these organizations.

The United States military, though one of the largest and in many ways most successful organizations (in terms of spread and scope of organizational control) ever to exist, suffers greatly from the stereotypes that persist within the collective and individuals minds of those within the organization (USAI 2009). These stereotypes are based on a multitude of factors, and can affect not only promotions, recognition, and other official achievements within the United States military, but can actually have a strong effect on job performance and individual perspectives regarding capabilities and expectations, as well (Boyce & Herd 2004; Frey 2007). Addressing these stereotypes requires first the identification of the most persistent stereotypes that exist, especially insofar as their practical effects.

Without a doubt, one of the most common and extreme stereotypes that exists in many organizations today, and perhaps especially the United States military, are those based on gender (DeGroot 2001; Boyce & Herd 2004). Women are a distinct minority n the military, especially in certain positions, from which many are explicitly held back due to their gender (Smith 2010). This leads to another common stereotype -- those based on military occupational specialties, or MOS (Smith 2010; USAI 2009). These, as well as the stereotypes of both perceived military acumen and limitations based on awards or the lack thereof, are some of the more common and detrimental stereotypes that exist in the United States military (Frey 2007). The military would be a more efficient and functional organization, both as a whole and in its development of the individuals that comprise the whole, if these stereotypes were diminished or eradicated, as this paper will show.

Awards and Stereotypes

Awards have long been used by many organizations, from businesses to governments, as a form of compensation. Viewing them in this light, however -- specifically and consciously as a form of compensation -- is a relatively new scholarly insight. They have always knowingly been used as a form of positive reinforcement, but seeing them as a replacement for something of substantive value changes the impact that award-giving might have dramatically (Frey 2007). The element that makes awards desirable is their scarcity, and not their utility, which they are specifically and explicitly lacking (Frey 2007).

What this scarcity leads to is a level of prominence that the award signifies, and though this can serve as a very useful means of positive reinforcement for some its perception by others often leads to more detrimental stereotypes (Frey 2007). The variety of military awards complicates this problem; an award in one area can be taken as a sign of overall achievement and capability beyond an individual's expertise, leading to poor job performance. When the scarcity issue becomes muddled, further problems can be created. The number of awards in the military might make someone who has achieved none appear to be deficient when it was more a matter of circumstance than performance. Though awards can correctly recognize outstanding achievements and individuals, they should not be seen as fully identifying, describing, and defining -- i.e. stereotyping -- individuals (Frey 2007).

MOS

The specific duties and designation of an individual in the United States military, often officially or unofficially referred to as their "MOS" or military occupational specialty, can also lead to distinct stereotypes. This situation can be somewhat complex, as an individual is likely to be placed in a position where their own skill set will be put to efficient use, meaning that their capabilities often (and ideally always) match the position and designation they have (USAI 2009). This means that perceptions of an individual's capabilities based on his or her MOS is likely at least partially rooted in truth, but that does not mean that these perceptions should reach the level of stereotyping individuals based on their specialty.

The military has almost every conceivable employment position tat exists in the civilian world, from plumbers to cooks to pilots, and each classification can carry its own burden of presumptions and stereotypes around with it. Non-combat positions especially can be viewed with derision due to the reasons many individuals are placed there -- lack of fitness or disability -- meaning that otherwise eligible individuals placed in non-combat positions might have certain negative stereotypes of lack of fortitude or cowardice to contend with (Smith 2010). These stereotypes work the other way around, as well, and individuals who are given elite combat classifications might be seen as unfit for certain other less combative positions further on in their careers. These stereotypes quite clearly cut both ways, harming both in a directly negative manner in and ways that take longer to observe.

The Gender Problem

Gender has always been an issue in the military; stories of women dressing as men in order to fight and serves as soldiers go back for millennia. Even today, women are specifically barred from serving in combat positions in the United States military (USAI 2009; Smith 2010). This is not the full extent of the stereotypes that women in the armed forces face, however. Though this non-combative status is one part in the overall stereotype that is attached to women in the military, it is far from the most meaningful or the most complex. Women are held both to be inferior to men in many ways, and at the same time they are seen as too masculine (or too unfeminine, perhaps) for joining the military in the first place (DeGroot 2001).