Family Connection
Scholars have demonstrated an evidenced link between an individual’s propensity to serve (in the military) and environmental factors such as family influence (Maley & Hawkins, 2017). Family influence is said to contribute to the propensity to serve in an individual as part of the injunctive norms that pressure an individual to respond to the approval or disapproval of others (Maley & Hawkins, 2017). One of the questions the research explored was whether a strong family connection to and/or influence from the service organisation could affect job satisfaction in post-service employment by creating a lasting connection to the service through personal ties, past and present. The questions were ‘do you have any family that served in the police, military or emergency services?’ and ‘did that influence you to join or enlist in the service?’ This line of questioning explored whether the participants joined or enlisted in their service role because of the perception that this would gain approval or disapproval from their family. The theory on propensity to serve is strongest in reference to the military (Brown & Rana, 2005; Ford et al., 2014; Maley & Hawkins, 2017). It was found in this study that there were more military participants who had an existing and influential family connection to the same military arm of service than police and emergency services.
Parents’ aspirations for their children’s future occupations are directly affected by their own occupational status, their personal perceptions of a good occupation, and their measure of actual possibilities for their children (Irwin & Elley, 2013). This includes police and military as job aspirations for children amongst parents who were in intermediate or working-class occupations (Irwin & Elley, 2013). Many parents identified a desire for their children to have better opportunities in employment than they had, and in particular, not to have to undertake manual labour (Irwin & Elley, 2013).
There were very few participants who had any family connection to the service they joined (n= 4).
Figure 1: Family Connection as Per Service
When asked about the connections, Gary answered ‘…my dad was in the Army at the time…my stepmother was in the Army…’ and Donald confirmed ‘my father was a fireman’. There were more who had a family connection to another service (n= 8) yet confirmed that the connection was not the primary influence on their decision to join. Henry (former police) explained
…my dad was in the Navy for a very, very short time. He basically took the optional discharge. But that didn’t take any considerations at all because he never really spoke about it. I did have, I did have an uncle that worked at the air arms before they dismantled it. But again, not really an influence, I didn’t have anyone to speak to about it, it was just one of things that I probably had a look at it . . . went down and talked to recruitment and joined so no real influences apart from advertising to be honest.
Some participants believed, like Alastair, that although they had no direct influence from ancestors who served in the military, it still ‘runs in the blood if you believe in such things’; but others indicated a more direct influence from indirect connections such as Sebastian who was a former firefighter, but reported ‘…my father was the assistant commissioner of police in Western Australia’ and Raymond who described his experience as:
Yeah, I basically just decided that, I went to the fire brigade actually because my uncle was a fire officer in the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in Melbourne. And I sort of wanted to be him my entire life sort of thing and I went to, I went to the fire brigade and at 17 I went oh just about to finish school, they just said to me mate yeah you’ve got to go and get some experience. So my uncle said to me go and join the Navy, because he was a clearance diver in the Navy. But I don’t swim too good so I went and joined the Army instead.
The majority of participants responded like Vanessa with ‘Oh no, no. My mum was a teacher and my dad was a farmer’ and William who explained ‘No, there was absolutely no influence. Both my parents are in the financial sector. Grandparents, one was a cheesemaker, one was a nurse and the other two were farmers’. Amongst those who did have a family connection, some, like Skye, openly confirmed that the influence was strong and was the reason she considered service, stating ‘My dad was military, he was a Navy chef but I didn’t grow up with him so I always knew that I wanted to do what he did’. In contrast, Harry considered family to be a big influence but not the sole contributor to his service choice, explaining ‘Look, he was definitely a big, a big influence. But yeah, I don’t know if he was the sole cause. I think it was something in me that I didn’t, I don’t really, I can’t really explain either’.
For those participants who confirmed family connections to police, military or emergency services, the desire to follow in their footsteps was strong. However, this was framed as a desire to follow the career pathway of someone they admired and saw as a role model rather than a means to gain approval or avoid disapproval as is suggested in the literature (Maley & Hawkins, 2017). The participants described it more as a desire to follow the lead of the family member or friend, because it seemed like a good job choice. This did not link them to the service role through loyalty or family tradition but instead through job security and good employment choices. This, then, did not perpetuate a need to stay in the role, or to mourn the loss of the role as a result of family expectations.
Additional lines of thought were pursued during the interview process such as family responses to the end of service, but there was no indication that the former service individuals who had family connections to service suffered shame or disappointment as a result of family influence when exiting, instead describing family support. Those without family connections also described family support for their decision to leave the service organisation. Overall, the familial connection was small (n=4), with more participants having no family connection to or influence from their former service organisation or any of the three service organisations at all (n=15). Therefore, other factors were stronger at play for the participants in their decision to join these service organisations.
For instance, rather than responding to family influence, individuals who join service organisations are framed within a theoretical paradigm that suggests the propensity to serve creates different parameters for recruitment into police, military or emergency services when compared to other non-service positions. Why any individual chooses to enter a service organisation such as the police, military or emergency services can be framed inside the literature out of the US and UK on the propensity to serve in the military (Brown & Rana, 2005; Ford et al., 2014; Maley & Hawkins, 2017). The relevance of this literature was tested in this study by exploring the participants’ propensities to serve and the influence of this on reasons for service and development of a connection between the participant and service organisation.