The Post-Service Environment

Post-service identity theory describes how individuals tend to suffer from an ongoing service connection in the absence of an active identity connection. And even then, extensive work is needed to undo the connection, or at the very least, sever the connection enough to start the formation of new connections. The nature of fixed identity is such that the participants demonstrate a lack of willingness and/or inability to form new connections, particularly in employment. Like those recovering from loss, the participants are hesitant to expose themselves to more connections and become guarded and resistant in their approach to new workplaces. 

At the centre of the dynamic is an identity connection to former service roles, that when not addressed, influences job satisfaction in the post-service environment. Post-service identity theory shows that the individuals will suffer from a fixed identity when post-service, even when all ties with the organisation are severed and they can rationally narrate a logic to their departure. Contributing to the fixed identity is the unique nature of social cohesion amongst military personnel (Beauchesne & O’Hair, 2013; Binks & Cambridge, 2018; Demers, 2011; King, 2012). From a sociological perspective, social groups usually cohere based on kinship (King, 2012). However, this is not the case for the participants as members of the police, military and emergency services. For members of these service groups, camaraderie is important but does not have to equate to friendship.  

Normally cultural adaptation includes the ability to straddle two cultures (Adler, 1975). The participants in this study as representative of former service members of the police, military and emergency services did not display the ability to move between the cultures as easily. What this results in is service members experiencing a culture shock after entering the service and facing the likelihood of experiencing another culture shock when they leave. When measured against Adler’s (1975) five-stage model for culture shock, the missing stage of adaptation to a change in culture for service members (reciprocal interdependence) results in an identity connection that permeates all aspects of the life of the individual. As a result, the impact of transition from service with the police, military or emergency services to civilian life impacts the individual’s identity in such a way that it creates a fractured sense of self (Brunger et al., 2013). 

Chapter 4 confirms that the identity connection is established through the recruit or basic training and subsequent undertaking of repetitive activities in a team environment with a collective goal. The training starts the process of creating the identity connection between the individuals and the service organisation as the embodiment of their service role strips away their previous identity. From the individual perspective, undergoing recruit or basic training is part of the ritual of belonging to the organisational team. The individual goal becomes focused on meeting the strict physical and mental demands to ensure that they are perceived as strong and suitable for inclusion in the team environment. The individuals are not aware of the gender ideology that influences their behaviour that results in membership of the team (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Godfrey et al., 2012; King, 2006), instead viewing their participation only through the simplistic script of working to pass the training tests and integrate themselves as belonging to the group. In order to do this, they obey instructions, meet requirements, shape themselves physically and mentally as instructed, and adopt the collective goal of the team and the organisation as their own. 

Creating Soldiers

‘…from basic training…they basically deconstruct you and rebuild a soldier…’ (Harry) 

 The creation of soldiers is a practice of the service environment that is borne from a masculine environment and the failure to ‘un-create’ the soldiers after service leaves the individual intrinsically connected to their service role. As addressed in Chapter 4, the creation of soldiers is a term used to explain the dynamic between the participants and their organisation that creates a strong connection between them, which is particularly apparent when the members separate from service. It is systematic in nature.  

The creation of soldiers in the military is well addressed in the literature, starting with the creation of the military body (Godfrey et al., 2012). This suggests that the individuals undergo training that causes a physical embodiment of the organisation. This occurs during recruit and basic training and is reinforced through ongoing training and socialisation (Godfrey et al., 2012). According to Foucault (1977) this is further reinforced using instruments, hierarchy, and collective judgements. There is a level of docile, group thinking that accompanies the military body which is organisational socialisation to ensure the ‘bodies’ are ‘fit for work’ (Godfrey et al., 2012, p. 553). Consistent with the literature, undergoing strict and repetitive training that involves physical demands under the supervision of a hierarchy and with the use of specific and specialised equipment re-creates individuals into the physical manifestation of their organisation’s ideal individual who is fit for purpose (Barrett, 1996; Foucault, 1977; Godfrey et al., 2012). When training is conducted in this environment, individuals are reshaped into a new form of themselves as their skills and knowledge are developed in accordance with the needs of the organisation. This change is precipitated by repetitive training techniques and practice drills that demand a level of physical strength and persistence that is reflective of a hegemonic masculine environment (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Godfrey et al., 2012). The development of the body for the service environment, as individuals are trained to ‘be what they do’ (Woodward & Jenkings, 2011, p. 264), encompasses hard labour to achieve strength for execution of service requirements. This works towards the development of the individual body as well as the collective body, ensuring that the individual becomes dedicated to the collective goal and commits to the social isolation that is created by membership of the team. The service groups create power relations and a gender regime to contribute to the institutionalisation of individuals, reinforced using repetitive activities that are demonstrative of masculine characteristics, as well as the use of uniforms, specialist equipment, and a hierarchy (Foucault, 1977). This contributes largely to the development of an identity that is masculine in nature and ensures that the individual service member remains focused on their membership in the team. This is done also by the organisational environment in the police, military and emergency services that subordinates non-members of the organisations, creating a divide between members and non-members. The identities are built during training and have an impact on the individual regardless of whether deployment is experienced. The participants from all three service groups experienced being divested of their civilian identities in order to embrace their ‘military body’ (Godfrey et al., 2012, p. 553).  

To support the development of a military body, there is also a need to develop the mind toward organisational thinking. The significance lies in the way in which the individual views themselves within the team, within the organisation and within the wider community. The military literature describes this in a number of different ways – a deeply engrained way of being (Beech et al., 2017), institutionalisation (Bergman et al., 2014), dependence upon the military structure (Brunger et al., 2013), militarism (Higate & Hopton, 2004) and military identity (Demers, 2011). Overall, there was a mindset shift experienced by the participants that arises from the physical training and the transformation from ‘doing to being’ (Woodward & Jenkings, 2011) which supports the us and them mentality and the resulting divide between them as service members and the civilian world. It is crucial to the organisations that they distance the individuals from their civilian identity and promote self-sacrifice and discipline that results in obedience to the organisation as the legitimate authority (Demers, 2011). This contrasts with the usual liberal civil values that are individualistic in nature. Demers (2011) suggests that this is a socialisation process that has the primary goal of recruit training that strips an individual of their civilian identity and replaces it with a military identity.  

The difficulties faced by the participants as former members of the police, military or emergency services in their post-service employment are consistent with individuals who have connected with an organisation that operates within a hegemonic masculine environment (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). A hegemonic masculine environment, in the context of employment with police, military or emergency services, encourages strength perceived as the property of masculinity whilst discouraging weakness which is perceived to be a feminine characteristic (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It is clear from the participant descriptions that this serves two purposes. The first is to train and develop individuals in a service environment that encourages masculine traits for acceptance into the social group, which can be demonstrated by males and females alike. The second is to create an environment of masculinity that not only distinguishes between strength and weakness as respective masculine and feminine characteristics within the organisation, but also distinguishes between the strength of members of the organisational team and the weakness of non-members of the organisation. Essentially, in order to meet operational requirements, the organisations have service parameters that include a hegemonic masculine environment, a distinct separation between serving and non-serving members, and training and activities that create operational members who are ‘fit for purpose’ (Godfrey et al., 2012).  

The transformation process that ‘creates soldiers’ is systematic and results in a change of identity for the individual that connects them to the organisation. The creation of soldiers is a by-product of the identification process. This connection permeates their service period but also their post-service transition. This ‘creation’ process within the police, military or emergency services environment lends itself to a change in the individual that creates a connection to the organisation and the roles performed, which is difficult to breach after separation from service. The individuals experience the connection because they are physically and mentally trained to embrace the organisational goals as a collective and participate actively and effectively in the team environment. This practice, together with a complex job environment that often results in trauma and mental health issues, means the individual service members move from doing their job to being their job (Woodward & Jenkings, 2011). This happens almost undetected by the individual and they adopt the role without hesitation. In doing so, the connection with the organisation strengthens, often to the detriment of their civilian connections and/or relationships. From a sociological perspective, the immersion in the culture of the organisation (Sever, 2008) should result in the development of the individual so they can function effectively both in and out of the culture (Adler, 1975). However, the hegemonic masculine environment of these organisations, together with the specialist approach to work tasks and activities, means that the individuals cannot straddle both cultures and they become solely immersed in just one. Usually, if they stay employed, the culture they are immersed in is the police, military or emergency services environment (Sever, 2008). This identification with the organisation is strong and is shared amongst members of the three service groups without discrimination. It is also seen in male and female service members alike. It is an institutionalisation process that requires focused identity work to disassemble following separation from service (Bergman et al., 2014). 

Following separation from service, the challenges for former service members in the post-service employment environment are real. As individuals, they struggle to understand the ramifications of having an identity connection with their former service role and/or organisation and usually are not cognisant of its presence or effect. The identity becomes fixed and the individuals struggle to escape the impact. This is highlighted through poor job satisfaction when post-service that is indicated by low desire to engage with the new workplace, disappointment in the performance of new colleagues, frustration with the lack of skills recognition by civilian employers, and a sense of loss after leaving service that is not solved through new employment. These satisfaction indicators are seen even though former service members often have better income, better working conditions, and less stress and trauma in their new roles. Despite these improved working conditions, their job satisfaction remains below what they describe when in service. This means many former service members either wish they had never left the service role or consider returning. Frustration is even more apparent in these instances as many have been medically discharged and can never return nor could they have stayed.  

Not understanding the identity connection they have with their former service organisation means that many of these service personnel feel unprepared when they separate from service, and feel abandoned by their service organisation. These feelings stem from being part of the collective process that creates them into soldiers. Unfortunately, there is no reverse process that ‘un-creates’ them as soldiers when they leave. As such, they are left with a fixed identity that has no currency in the civilian world, they have a wealth of specialist skills that cannot be used in the civilian world, and they are ill equipped to sell themselves to civilian employers. This makes separation and transition a confusing time.  

Identity theory (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Ashforth et al., 2016), social identity theory (Tavares et al., 2016), self-categorisation theory, and social resource theory (Otto et al., 2011) all provide different explanations for the way in which individuals self-identify. Identification occurs within themselves as individual persons, within the roles they occupy, and as members of a group. Identities are salient and adaptable depending upon the social environment. Post-service identity theory explains that the effect of service on the participants is such that their identities are less than salient and show signs of their person identities, role identities and social identities all being interconnected with their service role. This identity connection dictates the way in which the individual participants perceive themselves within all social spaces, both during service and post-service. Unfortunately for the participants, they are unaware that they are defined by their service persona and therefore are shocked when they separate from service and struggle to relate in the post-service environment. In the post-service environment they discover that their personal identity is defined by the role they undertook in service (being what they are doing), their role identities remain connected to their service role even after separation, and their social identities are connected to the service role, their former service teams, and to the friends and colleagues that are commonly service personnel.