Structure is essential for maintaining order and discipline within an organization, particularly when it comes to groups whose members have access to significant resources and power. The military is one such group where structure is crucial because its members are required to act according to rules that limit their individual freedom and independence.
This can sometimes lead to abuse of power, which undermines the effectiveness and reputation of the organization. This essay will explore how structures limiting power abuse influence soldiers' willingness to speak openly about issues related to their work.
Strict hierarchy and chain of command make soldiers hesitant to speak out because they know that any criticism could jeopardize their careers or even their lives if reported back up the chain of command. In many cases, whistleblowers who report abuses face retaliation from superiors and co-workers alike.
Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley was punished for expressing opinions that were considered controversial or insensitive by his superiors in the US Army. He was later relieved of his post and demoted after criticizing Islamic radicalism during a presentation at the National Defense University in Washington DC. In this case, the fear of reprisal led him to keep quiet despite knowing about the wrongdoings taking place within the army.
Secrecy is another factor that limits soldiers' ability to speak freely. Military operations often involve classified information that cannot be shared with civilians or even other servicemen without proper clearance levels. As a result, there is an implicit understanding among soldiers that some things should not be talked about outside the confines of the unit. This creates an environment where issues such as sexual misconduct are swept under the rug rather than being addressed directly.
Reports of sexual assaults in the military have been ongoing for decades but only recently have they gained traction due to public pressure and media attention. The culture of silence around these issues has allowed them to fester unchecked for years, damaging both individual victims and the institution itself.
Peer pressure also plays a role in limiting soldiers' willingness to speak out against power abuse. Many soldiers feel loyalty towards their comrades and don't want to betray them by reporting incidents of misconduct.
Those who do report may face stigma from colleagues who see them as 'snitches'. This can make it difficult for individuals to seek help when needed or to come forward when witnessing abuses of authority within their units.
Many soldiers worry about jeopardizing their careers if they report abuses of power. This concern stems from the fact that promotions are often based on performance evaluations which take into account factors such as loyalty and trustworthiness rather than just job performance alone. Those seen as disloyal or lacking trustworthiness are less likely to receive favorable reviews and thus less likely to advance professionally. In addition, speaking up could potentially lead to retaliation from superiors who wish to protect their own interests at all costs, even if it means punishing subordinates who challenge them. Therefore, some servicemen choose not to risk their careers by speaking out against wrongdoings even when they know it is necessary for preserving good order within the organization.
Structures that limit power abuse influence soldiers' willingness to speak openly because they fear reprisals from superiors or co-workers, breaching confidentiality agreements, facing stigma from peers, or damaging career prospects by speaking out against wrongdoing. It takes courage and determination for military personnel to speak up about these issues, but without doing so, abuses will continue unchecked, harming both individuals and the institution itself.
How do structures limiting power abuse influence soldiers' willingness to speak openly?
The structure of the military chain of command, which is often characterized by strict adherence to rules and regulations, can create a climate that discourages open communication about experiences of power abuse among its members. This can lead to a culture where speaking out against such abuses is seen as disloyal or even dangerous, making it difficult for soldiers to feel comfortable reporting incidents of mistreatment.