Encounter and Metamorphosis: The Impact of Military Socialisation on Professional Values

Abstract

L'hypothèse selon laquelle les organisations ont le pouvoir de changer les attitudes et les valeurs des nouveaux arrivants est examinée dans trois études évaluant l'impact de la socialisation dans le rôle d'officier militaire. Les études 1 et 2 comparent l'engagement envers la carrière et les valeurs militaires de candidats issus de deux programmes de formation dont un seul implique l'intégration des candidats dans un environnement totalement militaire. Des données transversales (étude 1) et longitudinales (étude 2) montrent l'existence d'un changement de valeurs plus important auprè des candidats soumis à des efforts de socialisation plus intenses. Plus précisément, deux stades de socialisation sont identifiés: un stade de ‘rencontre’, c'est‐à‐dire une période difficile d'initiation caractérisée par un changement ‘négatif dans les attitudes, suivi d'un stade de’‘métamorphose’ au cours duquel, dans un renversement des tendances observées antérieurement, les valeurs changent dans une direction conformeà celles de l'organisation. L'étude 3 révèle que le fait d'être assignéà un rôle de leadership durant la dernière année du programme peut expliquer les changements survenant lors du stade de métamorphose. Enfin, les résultats des trois études suggèrent que les organisations peuvent influencer les adultes plus âgés autant que les plus jeunes confirmant le modèle d'ouverture au changement d'attitude tout au long de la vie. Une discussion est engagéd sur les implications de ces résultats pour la thèse de la stabilité des attitudes et des effets de sélection ainsi que pour les théories de la socialisation organisationnelle. The assumption that organisations have considerable power in changing the attitudes and values of newcomers is examined in three studies assessing the impact of socialisation into the role of military officer. Studies 1 and 2 compare the career commitment and the military values of candidates from two different officer training programs, only one of which involves placing candidates into a total military environment. Cross‐sectional (Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2) evidence shows that greater change is observed among candidates subjected to more intense socialisation efforts. More precisely, two stages in the socialisation process are identified: an ‘encounter’ stage or a harsh period of initiation characterised by ‘negative’ attitude changes, followed by a ‘metamorphosis’ stage, where, in a sharp reversal of the previous trend, values change in a direction congruent with those of the organisation. Study 3 findings reveal that being assigned to a position of leadership during the last year of the program is one factor that can explain the change occurring during the metamorphosis stage. Finally, evidence from all three studies suggests that older adults may change as much as younger candidates, supporting the lifelong openness model of attitude change. The implications of these results for the attitude stability/self‐selection thesis and for theories of organisational socialisation are discussed.

Measuring Military Identity: Scale Development and Psychometric Evaluations

“…This could be due to fluctuations in scores from T1 to T2, and the relatively long time interval between the two test administrations. During this 1-year period, one might expect that military training influenced the students' military identity to some extent, resulting in different scores from T1 to T2, confirming findings from previous similar studies (Franke, 1997;Guimond, 1995).…”

Social identity, relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

“…Those who are personally successful are perhaps the most likely to accept the point of view of the high-status group. In fact, studies of group socialization specifically suggest that being promoted to a position of responsibility is an effective way to socialize newcomers to a given culture or ideology (Guimond, 1995;Levine & Moreland, 1994). Thus, further research could also seek to provide more direct evidence for the ideological domination viewpoint, something that would help to fill an important gap in our knowledge.…”

Power and Legitimizing Ideologies in Hierarchy‐Enhancing vs. Hierarchy‐Attenuating Environments

“…As a result, the idea that group norms may have an effect on leaders more than on followers has not been directly considered. Schein (1984) has more directly suggested that one of the main methods used by organizations to socialize their members consists in asking these individuals to “take charge.” The rationale behind this strategy lies in the fact that when an individual is responsible for the functioning of a system, he or she perceives differently the values and beliefs that he or she would have criticized in the past, and, in a certain way, this individual becomes his or her own agent of socialization (see Guimond, 1995).…”