I can sum up the difficulty in trying to transition many aspects of military life to the civilian workforce with this simple example:

Several years back, when interviewing a retiring Marine Corps Sergeant Major for a management position within our company, we asked him how he would handle the problem of late arriving factory employees. He replied without any hesitation, ‘Easy, I would require them to be here 5 minutes earlier every day until they understood who the boss was.’

Although the interview team all agreed we would love to see that tried just once, and maybe twice; it was clear (with other examples) that his preferred and learned methods of creating Esprit de Corps would most likely lead to a full scale mutiny, and we passed.

As much as I loved that man for his straight-forward, straight-shooting leadership style, it was clear that the same qualities that were identified with strength and decisiveness in the Marine Corps were not going to serve him well in the civilian world. The term ‘deprogramming’ was discussed more than once.

So, Semper Fi, and maintain a sense of awareness that lets you identify and implement what works while understanding what doesn’t and why.

and I beleive that was his point from the onset. The ‘Esprit De Corps’ is something learned and earned, never given. If corporate culture would look at its merits and apply some of its prinicpals…well, now that would really change the dynamics of business culture FOREVER.

Anthony Pivirotto, MSgt USAF (Retired), your comment said it best: ‘if you have to explain it, then they’ll never understand it.’ It’s really unfortunate, because understanding ‘it’ really does change the learning curve at which you adapt to the markets everchagning tradewinds.

Good thread and even better article.

Semper Fi

Anthony P. Pivirotto, MSgt USAF (Retired)
Vice President,
MSI

Seriously folks, we didn’t get those great certificates of loyalty and gratitude from the military because we didn’t earn them..

Now, this isn’t a gender issue, there are almost as many male military spouses as there are female.

Geez, I remember ‘my’ 10 plus years served on Foreign Soil; the Angst during the first Iraq War. The hurry up and wait; dealing with the Same ole same ole; Taking of the Family as a single mom, as my husband ‘played’ Army (said tongue in Cheek, it was what the wives called it)

Yes, we had to adapt to the stresses our spouses felt; the moves from one city, state or country to another; We had to quit our jobs and compromise for our country. Was it an adventure.. Guess it all depended on the day

Here was the recipe for a Militar Wife quoted ’1 1/2 cups patience
1 lb. adaptability
3/4 cup tolerance
1 tsp. courage
Dash of adventure

Combine the above ingredients. Add 2 tablespoons of elbow grease. Marinate frequently with salty tears. Pour off excess fat. Sprinkle lightly with money. Season the mixture with international spices’

I wonder, do they also fall into the play of what makes a Solid, Good employee as well. Never quitting, no matter how hard it got..

There are some great arguments out there for the valid reason for hiring former military.. but does the same argument ring true as well for the spouse?

Perhaps I did misinterpret the purpose of out military. What with all the guns, ammo, missiles, bombers, tanks, battleships and nuclear submarines, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we spend billions of dollars on these items so that at a moments notice, we can send our finest men and women to any place in the world to build a bridge, hospital or school.

My disagreement with the author is based on the simple fact that the discipline, dedication, commitment and attitude that is instilled into people in the military is not somthing that can be authentically recreated outside of that environment.

So to all of you who served our country with honor, you have my profound grattitude and respect. My belief is that success is who you become and how you live your life and there is probably no finer place to learn that than in the military.

You also have more to say on it than any military man I’ve ever encountered.

So in deference to your high state of dudgeon, I’ll drop the subject, but that raises another:

So what did you mean about that bag of doughnuts?
Are you aware of the sufferings of fat people?
The pain and discrimination we suffer?

The humiliation? The bad knees? HOW DARE YOU, YOU INSENSITIVE BRUTE!!!

PS A box of Krispy Kremes will serve as an apology and prevent my call to the ACLU.

We have found in our research that the criteria for this ‘fit’ differ from one organization to another. Thus it is important that there be a ‘precision’ to this fit, and to the characteristics of the candidate being ‘fitted.’

We have found one organization, for example, in which both high and low performers were low on sensitivity to others. The high performers had better scores, however, on using this insensitivity in a balanced way and used this objectivity to listen to customers and solve their problems without getting involved. The low performers were more insistent that the customer follow certain requirements, thereby turning their insensitivity into critical impatience and hence poor decisions when it came to managing the customer. Thus assessing for sensitivity or empathy won’t be very useful in this organization. More precision is required.

In this same, very successful and well known company, both high and low performers were individualists and tended to resist conformity. The high performers had the ability to use this trait to remove obstacles, an ability the poor performers lacked. The poor performers instead used this tendency to break the wrong rules, thereby creating problems.

We also found that most of our low performers were as high on talent as the high performers. The difference is in their ability to access the talent and translate it into skill. That accounts for the ‘recruiter’s nightmare’ wherein a highly talented hire fails miserably and the client wants to know why. Once again precision makes the difference. It’s critical that, if we benchmark for ‘fit,’ we be precise in making sure the fit leads to performance–that talent is paired with ability to access that talent.

Such precision is the key to identifying sturdy hires. One well-known company doing this kind of ‘fit’ benchmarking was able to reduce turnover from 15 new hires every 2 weeks to 8 every 3 months. That’s the power of precision.

Of course 360 feedback and self-report instruments are less effective in giving this precision because of the vulnerability to bias and to inaccuracy in judging self or other. A more objective kind of assessment yields much more precise results.

Let’s look at the positive side. I see a great level of ‘esprit de corps’ and ‘natural point of aim’ reflected by military, left wing, right wing, religious and sports groups everywhere; it’s not exclusive to the military. You want a great example of commitment and esprit de corps? Look at PETA.

For me, ‘Esprit de Corps’ and the ‘Natural Point of Aim’ are synonymous with purpose. Anecdotally, many of the reasons the people I recruit give for leaving their job rarely center on money or even values differences with the company they work for. Quite often it is the feeling that they’re not working with or doing something of importance (what we daydream about). The idea of belonging to something bigger than you is not exclusive to the military. Do you go to church? Play sports? Support a cause? We congregate, we search for a common purpose and we work to that end (simple but true).

In business, we as an organization want an edge, an advantage over our competition… how do you get that? Better pay? Better perks? Foosball table and beer fridge in the lunchroom?
Nope. ‘Esprit de Corps’… Purpose.

Great article.

What’s the advantage? People working together for a common goal tend to communicate more, brainstorm, breakdown the successes for duplication, discuss the failures (and aren’t afraid of taking calculated risks in the future), and overall – tend to WANT to make it happen because they believe in what the leaders of the organization are trying to do.

Does everyone sign on – no, and neither does everyone make it in the military. One thought presented appeared to be saying that people would appreciate individualistic thought and be resistant to indoctrination. I don’t think folks in the military ‘lose’ their ability to think as an individual but must incorporate their thinking into the greater goal of the group. But I’ve never been in the military so excuse me if I’m misinterpretting. Yet, I’d challenge that you can have individual thinkers within a common goal enviroment and move an organization forward – when everyone is working from the same page. Like the military, everybody can’t be off doing ‘their own thing.’ In either case, I don’t think that anyone is demanding that people act as robots.

The simplistic response that the military ‘kills and breaks things’ is incomplete in its assessment at best, and I’m guessing here – reflects the individual’s disdain for military operations.

That is exactly it’s purpose, ‘to kill people and break things’ and to do that as an extension of policy. That’s why a significant portion of the issued equipment consists of guns and bombs. I think you can find it phrased more elegantly in Clauswitz.
Nor would I fight that definition, or apologize for it. Sometimes people need killing and things need breaking and wisely, we do not send sensitivity trainers to do this when needed.
Don’t fall into the intellectual trap of validating your opponents definition.
Further, on this subject, I would say that inculcating military values would be difficult in a corporate environment.The framework of reciprocal loyalty doesn’t exist. Can you imagine Citicorp ‘leaving no one behind’?, or the guy in the next cubicle falling on a pink slip for his buddies? Ha!

Re the Marines, tell us how you REALLY feel! I can’t imagine your response to those morons burning GI’s in effigy on the news last evening. That’s akin to shooting up MacDonalds because you’re PO’d at some congressional bureaucrat. Of course, reactionary idiots do not understand cause and effect.

Now, the first thing you learn in the Engineering business is that EVERYTHING is a TRADEOFF! You can’t have the largest, fastest car and still have great gas mileage. You can’t have a PCS phone with a lot of bells and whistles (most of which have no application to the basic function of the damn thing) and still have reliability. These are FACTS you live with, period.

Another trade off is eliminating the U.S. Military. However, as I once told a young lady who was complaining that the ‘Top Gun’ pilots at Miramar NAS in San Diego were disturbing her baby’s naps, ‘We have a trade off situation here…we can stop the ‘Top Gun’ boys from disturbing your babies by dumping our Military. BUT, the trade off is that the bad guys over there might dump your babies in a sewer by the side of the road…your choice!’

Now, I know that’s overly simplistic, but it illustrates the point.

The Military has some damn good ideas, and they have some damn bad ideas. They have CS, some of which is necessary for training, and they have CS which is just plain CS.

One thing the Military has which is a good idea is BOOT CAMP. This is where you learn that Mommys are OUT and Daddys are IN (Bet you’re afraid to publish this!). More importantly, you learn something that ‘civilians’ just don’t understand and couldn’t comprehend. And that something is, ‘ACCOMPLISH YOUR MISSION! MOVE! SHUT UP!’ Freely translated, ‘Yes, Virginia, you can SSS in 5 minutes and then fall out for PE!’

That’s what this industry, and every other industry in this country needs! One of our Directors, a retired Army Officer, once remarked about the Personnel Department types at the old ‘DEC’ (now defunct), ‘These people not only don’t know what THEIR mission is, they don’t know what A mission is!’

In reading these pages with morning coffee (better than the news which I avoid), I see more talk talk talk which has nothing to do with the fundamental mission of employment which, as I see it, is to FIND good employees plus KEEP them safe, happy, and trained.

This mission must not be happening because stats indicate that HR’s acquisition costs are ridiculous, safety records a joke, and attrition rates ridiculous.

In the Marines, this would earn them a few thousand push ups and a few dozen GI parties.

So, how about a suggestion from an old tymer? Shut up about all this extraneous, bureaucratic nonsense, get back to basics, and accomplish your mission.

Then you won’t hear this from candidates:

‘The Recruiters do not understand the disciplines’
‘The employment process is painful’
‘I never receive a response to my resume’
‘I get NO respect from these people’

Please take another moment…I hit the www/net recently, and typed into dogpile and google (NOT a verb), ‘I want a Management job in hard product Manufacturing’. The result was my fooling around with over 200 ‘Recruiter’ sites without once seeing a job even remotely connected with what I wanted.

I did, however, do one hell of a lot of reading of irrelevant nonsense(how GREAT they all are!), clicking, typing, and pointing, but no results EXCEPT, ‘Send your resume’, ‘Send money’, ‘Join us know’, and other just plain scam type crud.

Enough said…

The Marines went into Liberia 2 years ago, stopped the genocide (not soon enough, but after 250k had been slaughtered), and stopped a war where rebels recruited children, and took a once relatively prosperous African country founded by American slaves in 1820 and turned it into a basket case. And we didn’t lose one man (or woman). Now we need them in Darfur!

Biased? You bet -son Jeff was Med-Vac-ed out of Iraq 3 times.

The main thrust and idea of using Marine Esprit de Corps is a valuable one. I have seen and known Marines and their organizational ways for over 30 years and I agree that civilan organizations can learn a lot from studying and
can also benefit tremendously from applying USMC principles and practices to their own business operations and people practices.

And by the way, if and when it is necessary to go into combat, there is no finer, motivated fighting force in the world than our US Marines.
‘Semper Fi’ to all our ERE members who have served our nation and now continue to do so in their civilian capacity, making our civlian community a better place to live in through their ‘Esprit de Corps’. I salute you with pride and gratitude.

The military man indeed does have much to bring to the table, and indeed the courage, stamina, and don’t give up attitude, no matter how hard it get’s indeed is to be admired.. It is indeed no wonder that many of the Fortune 500 companies were run by former Military..

As a former Military wife who had to ‘suffer’ the multiple relocations, and the raising the kids alone whilst the husband was away on maneuvers, or at war.. Indeed it was a challenge.. So, let’s hear it for the wives of the Military as well..
:-)

Something occured to me as I was scrolling through this exchange. I suspect that for each person who contributed there are likely numerous who wanted to respond but for any number of reasons actually did not. However, my point here is this: notice how many veterans opined with positive notes of experience or came to the military’s defense against dissent. Would this not likely be proof-positive that there is some kind of loyalty that might benefit corporations were they able to tap in to that level of an employee’s cognitive fiber? Those of us who were in will tell you first hand, by and large, a significant portion of military life simply sucks and sucks in a way that non-veterans will never know.

Living in the mud, eating cold MREs, having severly chaffed inner-thighs, carrying a heavy pack with shoulder-straps so thin they feel like piano wire, getting very little sleep for days on end while in the field, playing the hurry-up-and-wait game, suspended liberty, extensions while on deployment, incoming artillery, taking hostile fire, water-helo-egress training, etc… are just a few of the characteristics of membership in our club. And for some reason when challeneged, we come to the defense of our branch as though our own child’s very safety was in jeopardy.

PS – I left out mention of the Air Force in my article because they don’t have hundreds of years of tradition; nothing personal USAF Vets!

I spent 12 years in the Navy and my dad was a former Marine. We’ve often talked about the Marine Corps ‘esprit-de-corps’ and what makes this organization so special. My guess is that if companies could tap into a tiny portion of this, they’d experience less employee turnover, heightened morale, and huge returns in increased productivity.

Thanks for the great article Todd! I’ll look forward to many more salient articles/discussions in future!

If you think that ‘espirit de corps’ doesn’t exist . . . isn’t capable in Corporate America . . . or doesn’t matter because work is nothing more than a business relationship . . .

Then you’re not a good leader. Moreover, you might never be. Leaders inherently realize that pride and espirit de corps matter, whether we’re talking employee retention, loyalty, performance, etc. Show me a boxer with no pride and will to fight, and I’ll show you someone who will most likely be knocked out by the end of the third round. Age and wisdom helps overcome these things, but not everyone is born with leadership ability. Yes, leadership tenets can be taught, but it takes a little something special inside. That being said, leadership isn’t for everyone. As an owner, you don’t need ‘too many chiefs and not enough indians’ – you need a blend of strong individual performers and competent leadership above to help guide their efforts.

Many individuals think leadership is all about who has the loudest voice . . . but that’s only true if you’ve only been in corporate america. Many Americans play competitive sports growing up – in doing so, you learn that leadership is more about what you do than what you say. Anybody can be a trash talker, but not everyone can break a tackle or hit a clutch jumpshot with the game on the line, and at the same time, make others around them better.

I’m currently in the last semester of business school, and I’ve also learned something about ‘leadership’ from a corporate perspective. When going through your mba with groups and team-based projects, you immediately learn that your true leaders are those individuals that are able to gleam insights from data and situations where others cannot. It’s not magic – but there is individual skill involved. I like to call it ‘business acumen.’ At the end of the day, humans have a production vs. production capacity issue. If your production capacity (i.e. ability to generate great ideas, locate opportunities, refine performance, etc.) is limited, your production level doesn’t matter.

If you don’t have the ability to make a 20-mile hike with a 75-lb pack on your back in the Corps, then I’m not going to be able to help you run the same distance instead. However, show a Marine leader that you have a strong level of production capacity, along with drive, willpower, and pride (espirit de corps) . . . and he’ll truly take you to the next level.

With respect; I did not mean to imply that I thought the original idea was necessarily a bad idea because it comes from the military. I have a lot of respect for what our military does and strong interest in military history, tactics and strategy.

That said, my issue is with what I took to be the core idea of the article: Employee Loyalty is analogous to ‘Esprit de corps’(as found in the military) and more specifically, the means to this end is ‘indoctrination’.

I think they have only a superficial similarity and that they are created through different methods and they exist for different reasons.

The author asserts:

——[summarized below second line]——-
‘The civilian workforce has inappropriately called this initial phase of employment the ‘probationary period.’ That really sounds pleasing. ‘We’ll hire you, but if you even so much as tie your shoes in a way we don’t like, you’re out of here, and don’t bother asking why, because we have no official comment other than it just wasn’t a good fit,’ so the line goes.

If the civilian workforce wants to make a difference, it will need to adjust its indoctrination to more than just going over benefits, I-9, and W-4 information. It had better change the name from something a judge hands down as punishment to something that sounds a little more appealing.

This period should instill a sense of accomplishment upon completion. This costs money, I know, and it seems that the Defense Department has a limitless supply. But a smart company will incorporate a comprehensive indoctrination period. And it does not need to last three months.
——————————————-

Opinion 1 summary: The phrase ‘propationary period is inappropriate’ and the idea of being dismissed in that period is presented as negative.

*My response: This opinion does not offer supporting logic, evidence, research or theory. Additionally, the description of the probationary period seems very close to a ‘straw man’ argument.

Opinion 2 summary: If the civilian workforce wants to make a difference then the solution is more indoctrination and not using the word ‘probationary’

*My response: Again – there is nothing to support this opinion. Why is indoctrine useful in the private sector, how should it be used, what are the expected results and what behavioral theory is this idea based on?

Opinion 3 summary: Surviving the probation period should instill a sense of accomplishment or completion. It will probably be costly but if a company is smart, they will indoctrinate people.

*My response: How and when does a company see a ROI for implementing this idea?

My criticism of this article is based on the lack of at least a hypothesis on why the proposed idea would benefit a business – ie: how would this make a company more profitable?

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. There are very valid reasons for ‘indoctrinating’ people into a military organization, but I am unconvinced that this concept is appropriate for private industry where people want to believe they are free thinking individualists with their own unique style (just like everyone else) and the primary motivation is personal enrichment, not public service.

In my opinion, anything that comes off trying to homogenize people will usually turn people off. I believe this view is supported by the dominant themes seen in advertising (even the Army tells you that you get to be an ‘Army of One’ – the underlying message as I see it is: you are still an individual to us)

I think that to be convincing, the article needs at least a few of the following:

1. What form the indoctrination would possibly take. (sloganeering, values clarification, company history, lessons on stake holders, etc)
2. How much indoctrination would cost
3. How a company would see an ROI on the indoctrination
4. What kind of people would be drawn by this concept and what kind of people would be repelled by it
5. How indictrination will improve employee loyalty
6. Compare and contrast the indoctrination concept with other employee retention strategies

There is not one veteran who will tell you that everything that works for the military will work in the civilian community. There are, however, many inherit and fully developed concepts and practices that will. For example, the military is the leader in Adult Learning Theory. It is one of the reason our military is so strong and why is has been a successful VOLUNTEER ‘experiment’ for over 30 years.

The way I was trained and the subject matter for which I was responsible is what I call ‘transferrable knowledge’. By this I mean that I can apply the very training I received to 95% of business processes and data requirements. This is only one reason to emulate the military. Succession/Progression planning are others.

This is also why your servicewomen and servicemen should be some of your most sought after candidates.

Sincerely,
Denise
Fair Winds and Following Seas.

You and I have disagreed before, and I must disagree again. I think it would be rash, on anyone’s part, to simply dismiss the idea he presented as being out of place because it is a military philosophy. It is my understanding that the purpose of ERE articles, and the forums, are for the exchange of information and ideas – like our disagreement – not for ‘instructing’ others, from a position of authority, as to how to do things. In this instance, I do not believe the author presented his idea as being ‘superior’ in any way.

Imagine me, an internal recruiter for a large, privately-held company, (which has a culture very similar to a corporation) and what I might get out of the article. The general attitude in my company is NOT one of ‘esprit de corps’ in any way, I can assure you. But, conversely, I think that my company would greatly benefit from instilling a little of it.

In other words, the article was a thought provoking idea for me, and also pointed out something that is missing in my company, and in its recruiting process. I believe that this, the attitude of ‘esprit de corps’ as the author experienced it in the Marine Corps, was the purpose of the article – not that every company should be run like the Marines. Can you imagine investment bankers, in three piece suits, coming out of the front door of their building in Manhattan, marching in echelon formation, briefcases all on the same side and eyes straight ahead, to a morning meeting? (It would be hilarious to see, though. . .)

I do not think the author is saying that the ideas and organization of the miliary as a whole should be instituted in corporate America. In fact, because of the relationship of mutual benefit you described, it never could. But I believe that the author picked out one part of military culture, and presented it to us, the readers, as a suggestion to take under consideration to better our business and the productivity of the workforce therein. In fact, as a Marine, he was under no compulsion to share the idea to begin with – it has been my experience that many Marines are reluctant to share the ideas of the Marine Corps with civilians, as they simply could not understand without having earned the right to be called a Marine. So I appreciate the author’s sharing an aspect of Marine life for the pearl of wisdom that it is, and I think it should be taken in the light that the author presented it. ‘Here’s an idea for you. . .’