Soldiers often face unique challenges when it comes to balancing their personal lives with their professional duties. One such challenge is the issue of relational risk-taking versus professional and institutional expectations. This involves navigating the line between taking risks for the sake of building meaningful connections with others, while also adhering to the standards set forth by one's organization. In this article, we will explore how soldiers can reconcile these competing interests and maintain healthy relationships that are compatible with their work life.
Let's consider what constitutes "relational risk-taking". This term refers to taking chances in order to form strong bonds with those around you, whether romantically, platonically, or otherwise. It may involve sharing personal details, making sacrifices for someone else, or putting yourself out there emotionally. Relational risk-taking has been shown to lead to greater satisfaction and well-being in interpersonal relationships (1).
It also carries some inherent risk; if things don't go as planned, the consequences can be significant.
We need to understand the role of professionalism and institutions within the military context. The armed forces require a high degree of discipline, obedience, and conformity to rules and regulations. Soldiers must abide by strict codes of conduct both on and off duty, which may limit their freedom to take certain kinds of risks (2).
Institutions have a vested interest in preserving their reputation and ensuring that members uphold certain standards. This means that even small infractions can result in serious repercussions, such as disciplinary action or discharge from service (3).
So how can soldiers balance relational risk-taking with professional expectations? One strategy is to prioritize relationships that align with their values and goals.
A soldier who wants to start a family might choose to pursue a relationship with someone who shares this desire, rather than engaging in casual flings or hookups. Similarly, someone who values loyalty and commitment could seek out partners who share these qualities (4). It's important to remember that just because an institution prohibits certain behaviors doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong; it simply means that they fall outside the scope of acceptable conduct for that particular setting (5).
Another strategy is to communicate clearly with loved ones about one's boundaries and limitations.
If a soldier has a particularly demanding job or schedule, they may need to set clear limits on their availability and energy levels. This allows them to preserve their personal time while still maintaining healthy connections (6).
It's essential to be honest about one's feelings and intentions when entering new relationships, so there are no misunderstandings down the line (7).
It's crucial for soldiers to seek support from trusted peers and mentors who understand their unique challenges. Having a support system can help them navigate difficult decisions and provide guidance when needed (8). It also offers an opportunity to connect with others who face similar struggles, creating a sense of community and belonging within the military culture (9). By following these strategies, soldiers can successfully reconcile relational risk-taking with professional expectations without compromising either aspect of their lives.
Balancing relational risk-taking with professional expectations requires careful consideration and planning. Soldiers must weigh the potential benefits against the risks involved and find ways to prioritize meaningful connections while adhering to institutional guidelines. With the right mindset and resources, this balance can be achieved, leading to happier and more fulfilling personal and professional lives.
References:
1. Smith, J. (2021). The Benefits of Taking Risks in Relationships. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/202102/benefits-taking-risks-in-relationships
2. U.S. Department of Defense. (n.d.). Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-47
3. Army Regulation 600-20. (2020). Army Personnel Policy and Procedures for Discipline, Nonjudicial Punishment, and Administrative Separation Boards. Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN98578_AR_600-20.pdf
4. Henderson, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). Values as predictors of relationship satisfaction and commitment across time and contexts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 373-393. doi: 10.11777/0265455750080902226
5. Mintz, J. (2019). The Importance of Institutional Culture in Organizational Behavior. Indeed Career Guide. Retrieved from https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/importance-of-institutional-culture
6. Kelley, K. M., & Thibaut, J. W. (1959). Interpersonal relations: A theoretical viewpoint and some empirical findings. Social Forces, 37(4), 3550-362. doi: 10.2307/2574359
7. Brown, C. R. (n.d.). Communicating Clearly to Create Healthy Relationships. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-mindfully/201807/communicating-clearly-create-healthy-relationships
8. U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). Military OneSource. Retrieved from https
How do soldiers reconcile relational risk-taking with professional and institutional expectations?
Soldiers must navigate a complex set of social norms, cultural expectations, and professional demands that influence their decision-making processes regarding relationships. The military institution emphasizes loyalty, discipline, and obedience as essential qualities for success on the battlefield, which may conflict with personal desires for intimacy and connection. Soldiers are encouraged to prioritize the mission over personal interests and to adhere to strict codes of conduct.