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. The guiding assumption within thesis was that military values and virtues can be used to describe and define the specific military culture (Kernic & Annen, 2016; Pathak, Rani, & Goswami, 2016).
It is not surprising that the military organization is a “value community,” which identifies itself as a commitment to share common values (Moskos, 1973). This makes the military leaders accountable to explain, convey, and live the fundamental values of the organization. Such a commitment and leadership task is closely connected with the inherent concern of building an identity and a social cohesion (Kernic & Annen, 2016). In view of potential conflicts, a widely held postulate declares that the social competencies and psychological strength of the military members are a decisive factor in a mission’s success or failure (Scales, 2009). In this respect, Matthews (2014) talked about “cognitive dominance,” stating that considering psychological concepts such as character, values, and virtues will be of substantial importance for armed forces to be successful. For these reasons, it was recommended for a military organization to avoid the temptation to position leadership on principles, which are purely economic-purpose-rationally driven. Military organizations, specifically those rich in operational experience, care about character education, moral decision-making, and personal reflection on one’s own values and virtues (Kernic & Annen, 2016).
Accordingly, values and virtues have always been a top priority within the military domain of leadership, training, ethical commitment, and psychological research. Military organizations have long recognized that morally good, positive characteristics of personality are highly influential on work satisfaction, individual performance, adaptation, and effective leadership (Matthews et al., 2006b). Specifically, the overall importance of character strengths, virtues, ←30 | 31→and values within the military is widely documented (Matthews, 2009). Equally important, there is growing evidence that positive characteristics such as values, virtues, and character strengths predict success in challenging military situations. In spite of the emphasis in priority, there is still a dearth of empirical evidence, to demonstrate the importance of values and virtues within the military context (Matthews, 2012).
The Swiss Armed Forces is equally committed to foster military values and virtues such as discipline, comradeship, personal responsibility, as well as honesty (Swiss Armed Forces, 2004). Overall, the very specific environment of the Swiss Army represents a military institution with a long-lasting tradition, initiated by General Wille, to foster values and virtues, and expecting their members to respect them and live accordingly. The Swiss Armed Forces qualifies for representing a value-oriented organization (Proyer, Annen, Eggimann, Schneider, & Ruch, 2012). Like in other military organizations, the doctrine of the Swiss Armed Forces (Dienstreglement der Schweizer Armee, DR 04 [Swiss military Service Regulations 2004]) has emphasized the importance of personal values and virtues in successful leadership and military training (Annen et al., 2004).
1.1 Characteristics of the Swiss military system
The Swiss Armed Forces is an ideal environment to examine values and virtues given the distinct nature of the Swiss military system and the legal settings that govern the conscription of male citizens. The characteristics of the Swiss military system should be outlined for a general understanding of the samples of soldiers that are to be studied.
The main tasks of the Swiss Army are of defensive and protective nature. It also serves in case of natural catastrophes and other national hazards. The Swiss Armed Forces is a conscript army, in which all Swiss men aged between 19 and 31 years must fulfill their military service requirement. Active reserve officers serve even longer, until the age of 42 to 50 depending on their rank. The basic training lasts between 18 and 21 weeks followed by three weeks of training per year until the age of 26. Females may join the Forces voluntarily and are assigned to all groups including combat troops. Besides militia members, the Swiss Armed Forces employs a great variety of fulltime staff. However, a typical feature of the Swiss Armed Forces is that the greater portion of officers constitutes of members of the militia. Correspondingly, career officers, career NCOs as well as contracted military personnel account for only about 3% of the total Swiss Armed Forces (Annen, 2004).
←31 | 32→
Unlike the majority of the Swiss
