By Ms M. Werder
Organisational cultures provide a framework of shared assumptions[1] that operate as social controls within each organisation, influencing how that organisation can adapt to changing environments.[2] Military cultures, fundamentally different from civilian organisational cultures, tend to be conservative, masculine and resistant to change.[3] [4] Despite similarities across international military cultures, the New Zealand Army culture is specific to New Zealand, and also different from the other two services within the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). This culture has developed over time, and has been influenced by both military requirements and the wider New Zealand society. As society and its values and expectations change, so too must army culture adapt to ensure it maintains both relevancy and social acceptance within New Zealand and international communities. Developing learning organisation characteristics would allow the New Zealand Army to better identify and implement positive and effective change, particularly in the areas of gender and diversity. This essay will examine the New Zealand Army culture, how this may align with the characteristics of a learning organisation and how this could advance positive cultural changes in gender-based stereotypes and diversity.
Culture
Culture provides individuals and groups with a shared understanding of the world, offering an interdependent set of values and norms of behaviour common within a community that perpetuate over time.[5] Cultures generally can only be partially understood by outsiders through their verbal and non-verbal artefacts, with words for example having differing meanings for different cultures, even in the same language.[6] Cultures embrace values, beliefs, and behaviours but are rarely mutually exclusive, with members generally influenced by multiple, overlapping cultures that could encompass ethnic, national, religious and occupational cultures, all of which will influence an individual’s world views.[7] Within organisations, culture provides a framework of shared assumptions, values and beliefs to allow members to tailor their behaviour and respond to situations in accordance with organisational goals.[8] This culture provides a social control function to influence member’s decisions and behaviours, bonding members together and providing an understanding of organisational situations and responses.[9] To stay successful, organisations need an adaptive culture that allows members to focus on changes within the organisation’s environment, identifying and supporting initiatives that allow the organisation to keep pace with any environmental changes.[10] Organisational cultures can have both positive and negative influences on organisational success, with strong cultures only increasing organisational success if it is appropriate to the organisation’s environment.[11]
Military Culture
Military cultural imperatives lead to military personnel generally having very strong self-identities,[12] with their military service influencing their worldview as much as gender, ethnicity and social class.[13] Organisationally, militaries have cultures that are fundamentally different from those of civilian organisations,[14] as “their primary mission entails a readiness to take life and destroy property,”[15] and always reflects a political process.[16] These cultures tend to be “conservative, rooted in history and tradition, based on group loyalty and conformity and oriented toward obedience to superiors.”[17] With the primary function of any military being to fight and win wars with a real potential for killing or being killed, military command and leadership paradigms centre on what are often authoritarian hierarchical structures, demanding discipline and sacrifice of personnel to allow the achievement of objectives.[18] The ultimate paradox is that military personnel, “the self-appointed front-line guardians of our cherished … democratic values, do not live in democracy themselves.”[19]
NZDF and specific NZ Army Cultures
Despite having similarities no two militaries are culturally identical, as each military is influenced by the characteristics of its nation’s civil society and institutions that safeguard both the separation of and effective ties between the state and its society.[20] The NZDF therefore, as part of the apparatus of government and an instrument of national power,[21] is not separate from New Zealand society and must be integrated with and reflective of it to be accepted and effective.[22] To achieve its objectives,[23] the NZDF is a voluntary, professional, values-based military organisation with its culture based on its war-fighting ethos underpinned by the tenets of courage, commitment, comradeship and integrity.[24]
While the NZDF must be integrated into wider New Zealand society, it also must be distinct from the broader New Zealand society to allow it to achieve its objectives,[25] but these differences, like culture, can have positive or negative impacts. One of the key differences that directly affects the organisational culture of the NZDF is its proportion of women. Currently slightly over half the New Zealand population is female,[26] while only 16% of regular force NZDF personnel are female,[27] and there has been little progress in extending this over the last ten years.[28] This proportion is even further reduced within the NZ Army where only 12.7% of army personnel are female.[29] Military organisations are traditionally male-gendered cultures[30] with military roles still seen as predominantly masculine occupations, supported by male traditions and practices exaggerating this masculinity.[31] The low numbers of females within NZDF, and lower numbers within NZ Army, do not effectively challenge this male-dominated culture.
As a service within the NZDF, the New Zealand Army (NZ Army) is similar in many ways to the wider NZDF culture, ethos and value-base, such as a warrior ethos supported by the values of courage, commitment, comradeship and integrity,[32] but does have its own culture independent from those of its sister services within the NZDF.[33] Despite this, there are differences. The NZ Army soldier melds two cultures that have dominated New Zealand warfare, Maori and British; the rigidly disciplined British military culture amalgamating with the aggressive and adaptable Maori warrior culture.[34] This influence has flowed through into the current day NZ Army with 22% of service members affiliating as Maori,[35] compared with 16.5% across the wider NZDF[36] and 15.6% within the whole of New Zealand society.[37] With a significantly higher proportion of Maori members than both the NZDF and wider society, the NZ Army has a strong cultural identity that embraces both Tikanga Maori and European custom. The dedicating of NZ Army’s multi-cultural marae in 1995 as the home of Ngati Tumatuaenga, the tribe of the God of War,[38] reflects its dual heritage and distinct cultural identity. The marae also clearly illustrates the culture of protection for New Zealand the NZ Army holds with the westward facing placement of the marae and the lack of tribal landholdings representing its position as guardian, protecting from attack by night and day, its sole purpose being to serve the interests of the people of New Zealand.[39]
The differing proportions of female personnel within the NZ Army and the wider NZDF results in differing organisational cultural and gender-based assumptions. This is reinforced by the significantly smaller percentage of women deployed as part of the total NZ Army deployed forces when compared to the other two services,[40] representing an even smaller proportion of NZ Army women within deployed forces. While few women join any military force to advocate for gender equality,[41] the military masculine ideology[42] and the male-oriented leadership model[43] are more concentrated within the NZ Army, likely posing increased gender-based challenges for women within this service of the NZDF. Both the larger gender imbalance and the related challenges for women impact on the overall culture within the NZ Army.
Changing Cultures
Within the continually changing contemporary operating environment[44] and evolving societal expectations, military organisations must adapt to keep pace with both environmental and changing societal norms.[45] Military cultures, which are generally conservative, traditional and obedience-oriented,[46] can be very resistant to change, with change often hindered or blocked outright through resistance resulting from its cultural preferences and biases.[47] Any change that is incorporated will be accepted only in a manner that conforms to its sense of self, that is, its culture.[48] Cultural change can only be achieved once people’s actions have changed, group benefits from the change have been seen, and individuals have connected the cultural changes to the improved performance.[49] However, overcoming deep-seated and persistent cultural characteristics within militaries which traditionally favour continuity rather than change[50] is difficult, with the level of difficulty increasing in line with the size of change required within an organisation’s cultural identity.[51] This reluctance to change is highlighted by Schein’s theory of organisational culture which reinforces that the deepest layer of organisational culture, underlying assumptions, being the often unconscious and taken-for-granted beliefs and perceptions within organisations such as within militaries, are difficult and time-consuming to change.[52] Complicating any sought after change is that these same underlying assumptions can operate as an organisational defence mechanism to distort and rationalise away any potential change, reducing the anxiety and challenges faced by individual members and the organisation as a whole when these fundamental assumptions are challenged.[53]
Developing NZ Army into a Learning Organisation
To remain successful, organisations, including militaries, require an adaptive culture that embraces initiative,[54] rather than a focus on sustaining the status quo through increased efficiencies.[55] The development of a learning culture within any military would allow it to encourage adaptation and effectively respond to fast changing and unpredictable situations. Learning organisations are organisations that are highly responsive and adaptable to external environments, that support continuous learning and challenge current assumptions and practices,[56] while military culture can impede adaptation.[57] Military organisational learning requires a culture that embraces independent thinking, open communication and space for individuals to question underlying tenets,[58] characteristics that do not tend to be prevalent. This learning framework requires leaders throughout the organisation who are able to understand the changing environment[59] and can create environments where individuals can make errors and question or challenge the status quo.[60] With organisational culture influencing the acceptance of change,[61] a learning organisation culture within the NZ Army and wider NZDF would support the implementation of gender-based changes to align better with both strategic and societal expectations.
While militaries often have cultures that may be resistant to cultural change or the acceptance of a learning organisation framework, they do have processes that are supportive of developing this framework,[62] and the NZ Army is no different. The rapid changes in the contemporary operating environment in recent years have led to senior leaders recognising a need to “harness the intellectual capital of its young officers,”[63] which has in turn enhanced the organisation’s abilities to master the basics of the current conflict while preparing for the next, which will always differ from what was expected.[64] This includes the protection of cultural elements that support institutional change under duress.[65] A critical factor in supporting and advocating for learning, and the learning errors that come with this, are military leaders at all levels who allow for questioning and who empower autonomy.[66] With culture directing and regulating actions as well as influencing thoughts and feelings,[67] the process of recent tactical and operational learning will have reinforced learning organisation actions through encouraging independent thinking by junior leaders, promoting open discussions and pushing for procedural advancements.[68] The reality that underpins any positive move towards a more learning-based organisational framework is the requirement for intelligent and open-minded leaders who understand the fundamental logic and evidence, and are able to recognise when change is required and then see it through.[69]
Commanders at all levels within NZDF and the NZ Army are facing increasing levels of fiscal and operational accountability, influencing the development of an environment that makes the organisational tolerance of errors increasingly difficult, hampering efforts to develop a military learning organisation environment. One such influence outside the control of the NZDF but that directly impacts the tolerance of errors and the manner in which the organisation conducts its business has been the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.[70] The requirement for the NZ Army to train realistically to fight and win wars, with the potential for real harm[71] underpins the often conservative nature of military activities and the culture of obedience to superiors.[72] These two factors tend to contradict the requirements within learning organisations to allow errors and the questioning of extant assumptions and practices. Within traditionally conservative military organisations, the lack of defined tolerances for errors, or the clearly stated and practised willingness to allow rather than punish mistakes, there may be a tendency for personnel to avoid risk and challenges to current methodologies altogether, deviating even further from a learning organisation paradigm. Developing and promulgating a clearly defined risk framework, where commanders at all levels can identify where risks can be taken and exercised and where there is no tolerance for risk, such as for safety, could provide commanders with safe parameters within which they know they are able to take assessed risk and make errors without the threat of punitive action. Additionally, commanders should be actively encouraged to take risk within training activities, again without the unstated threat of negative outcomes, so they can practise that skill just as other military skills are trained, practised and assessed. The practice and positive reinforcement of risk taking behaviour within defined boundaries would enhance development of a more learning organisation focused framework within NZ Army both within operational practices and in wider cultural issues such as gender stereotypes and diversity.
Gender Diversity and NZ Army Culture
Within traditionally male-dominated organisations such as the NZ Army, women often feel an unstated requirement to adhere to stereotypically masculine leadership traits to fit into masculine organisational cultures[73] and achieve professional success.[74] This has had the effect of reinforcing institutionalised gender differences within military culture, stereotyping status and gender-based beliefs attributing men higher levels of worthiness and competence than women.[75] The male-gendered military culture,[76] with supporting patriarchal structures and masculine ideologies, has traditionally supported the achievement of directed political and defence-related aims.[77] [78]
Changing political and conflict environments within the twenty-first century however required militaries including the NZ Army to extend involvement in military operations into humanitarian activities, non-combatant protection and prevention of sexual and gender violence.[79] These evolutions, combined with changing social norms and expectations, indicate that traditional military organisational cultures and the gender imbalances within them may now be less effective at achieving mission success.[80] To maintain relevance and acceptance within wider New Zealand society and on the international stage, the NZ Army must demonstrate a level of cultural adaptability to accept a more gendered perspective that would allow it to meet the demands for gender understanding and organisational diversity.[81] Without this paradigm shift within the NZ Army, it is likely that the changing gender expectations within the rest of New Zealand society will leave the Army behind as an “isolated counter culture.”[82]
UN 1325 and NZ Army
In line with international changes in gender awareness and a greater understanding of the particular threats faced by women and girls within armed conflicts and humanitarian crises, United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 (UN 1325) was passed in 2000.[83] While promoting gender equality and addressing women’s security within conflict, UN 1325 accepts that men, women, boys and girls experience security threats differently.[84] It calls for the application of a gendered-perspective to all present and future international security challenges, recognising that gender inequality contributes to instability, and is relevant to every crisis.[85] UN 1325 urged member states to increase representation of women throughout the prevention, management and resolution of conflict, including an increased proportion of female UN peacekeepers and police.[86] Despite the achievements in some areas of UN 1325,[87] by 2013 fewer than four percent of UN peacekeepers globally were women, with that figure further broken down to some two percent of UN military personnel and fewer than ten percent of UN police.[88] With the NZ Army’s smaller proportion of women than the wider NZDF[89] combined with the lower proportion of women deployed,[90] the NZ Army finds itself further away from the ideals espoused within UN 1325 than either of the remaining services within NZDF. One key challenge to achieving greater success in line with UN 1325 is that the vast majority of UN peacekeeping missions require a heavy dependence on combat trades, and while New Zealand opened all combat roles to women in 2000[91] [92] little progress has been made in attracting women to these trades.[93] Until these trades are seen as viable options for women entering the NZDF it is unlikely that these figures will increase significantly.
It has been assumed that gender-balancing, increasing the numbers of women within an organisation is easier to implement than gender-perspective strategies, and that gender-balancing will ultimately achieve the latter.[94] This strategy would argue that simply increasing the numbers of women within the NZ Army, in deployed, garrison and senior roles, could bring about a change in organisational culture that would adapt to a more gendered perspective, automatically reducing organisational gender-bias. Sadly, many western militaries that have been successful in increasing the proportion of women serving have still struggled to implement a gender perspective.[95] To achieve a military organisation that embraces the strength that gender and wider diversity can provide, not only must minority group numbers be increased, but organisational and cultural biases must be reduced, limiting gender discrimination and prejudice, and increasing the value diversity has in achieving organisational goals.[96] The flexibility and adaptability inherent within learning organisations would allow the NZ Army to develop its culture from that of a traditional masculine military to an armed force that was more representative of its civil society, better able to meet the changing conflict environment as well as delivering a force that better evidenced the spirit and expectations of UN 1325.
Conclusion
The culture within any organisation shapes not only the way individuals within that organisation perform and operate with each other and within their professional roles, but how the organisation itself sits within the wider civil society. The adaptability of any organisational culture directly impacts on its ability to keep pace with changing environments, and therefore affects the overall success of any organisation. The NZ Army as part of the NZDF is not immune to these influences, and has a culture heavily influenced by traditional military norms, leading to a conservative, male-dominated culture that can be very resistant to change. Within the changing operating environment of the twenty-first century and evolving social norms and expectations in the wider New Zealand and international communities, this can result in the NZ Army becoming less operationally effective as its rigid culture finds itself out of alignment with the changing societies around it. Actively adopting the characteristics of a learning organisation that both allows and supports errors within clearly defined boundaries, and the challenging of extant organisational norms and behaviour within NZ Army’s culture would enable a better adaptation to changing gender-based and wider diversity expectations across civil society, including within the UN community. A military culture that was more flexible and able to adapt to societal changes faster would directly and positively affect the NZ Army’s ability, as part of the NZDF, to be operationally successful in the ever changing and increasingly diverse operational environments that it has and will continue to find itself in.
Bibliography
Boyce, Lisa A., and Ann M. Herd. “The Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military Leadership Characteristics.” Sex Roles 49, no. 7-8 (2003): 365-78. doi: 10.1023/A:1025164221364.
Burnes, Bernard. Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics Fifth Edition. England: Pearson Education, 2009.
Carrola, Paul and Marilyn F. Corbin-Burdick. (2015). “Counselling military veterans: Advocating for culturally competent and holistic interventions.” Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 37 no. 1 (2015): 1-14. http://exproxy.aut.ac.nz/login?url=http ://search.proquest.com/docview/1644469775?accountid=8440.
Cassidy, Robert M. “The British Army and Counterinsurgency: The Salience of Military Culture.” Military Review 85, no. 3 (2005): 53-59. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezp roxy.massey.ac.nz/ehost/resultsadvanced?sid=718cbed9-19f2-4214-a1db-bafe76 b87bf1%40sessionmgr102&vid=9&hid=118&bquery=(JN+%22Military+Review%22+AND+DT+20050501)+AND+(cassidy)&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNvb2tpZSx1cmwsdWlkJmRiPWFwaCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d.
Corey, Marianne S., Gerald Corey and Cindy Corey. Groups: Process and practices (9th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2014.
Derks, Belle, Naomi Ellemers, Colette van Laar, and Kim de Groot. “Do Sexist Organizational Cultures Create the Queen Bee?”. British Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 3 (09// 2011): 519-35. doi: 10.1348/014466610X525280.
Derks, Belle, Colette Van Laar and Naomi Ellemers. “The Queen Bee Phenomenon: Why Women Leaders Distance Themselves from Junior Women.” The Leadership Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2016): 456-69. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.
Dharmapuri, Sahana. “Core Issues Stall Women’s Participation in UN Peacekeeping.” The Global Observatory, March 13, 2013. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2013/ 03/core-issues-stall-womens-participation-in-un-peacekeeping/.
Dharmapuri, Sahana. “Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325: Putting the Responsibility to Protect into Practice.” Global Responsibility to Protect 4, no. 2 (2012): 241-72. doi: 10.1163/187598412×639728.
Dunivin, Karen O. “Military Culture: Change and Continuity.” Armed Forces & Society 20, no. 4 (1994): 531-547. http://afs.sagepub.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/content/20/ 4/531.full.pdf.
Egnell, Robert. “Gender Perspectives and Military Effectiveness: Implementing UNSCR 1325 and the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security.” Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations 6, no. 1 (2016): 72-89. https://www .inclusivesecurity. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gender-Perspectives-and-Military-Effectiveness.pdf.
Ellemers, Naomi, Floor Rink, Belle Derks, and Michelle K. Ryan. “Women in High Places: When and Why Promoting Women into Top Positions Can Harm Them Individually or as a Group (and How to Prevent This).” Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012): 163-187. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.003.
Evans, Michael. “The Twenty-First Century security environment: Challenges for joint forces.” The RUSI Journal 154, no. 2 (2009): 64-72. doi: 10.1080/03071840902965752.
Fox, John and Bob Pease. “Military deployment, masculinity and trauma: Reviewing the connections.” Journal of Men’s Studies 20, no. 1 (2012): 16-31. doi: 10.3149/jms.2001.16.
Hall, Lynn K. “The importance of understanding military culture.” Social Work in Health Care, 50, no. 1 (2011): 4-18. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2010.513914.
Hill, Andrew, and Stephen Gerras. “Systems of Denial.” Naval War College Review 69, no. 1 (2016): 109-132. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz /eds /pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=29fc9781-a3ee-4547-93f1-5317d62 922e4%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4211.
Hipkiss, Ingrid. “Women’s vital role in the NZDF.” Newshub, Aug 20, 2012.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/womens-vital-role-in-the-nzdf-2012082016.
Kuehn, Frederick E. “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence.” Master’s thesis, Marine Corps University, 2013. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA603704.
Le Roy, Alain. Ten-year Impact Study on Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security in Peacekeeping. New York, NY: Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2010. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/ documents/10year_impact_study_1325.pdf.
McShane, Steven, and Anthony Travaglione. Organisational behaviour on the Pacific Rim. Australia: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2007.
Ministry of Defence. Maximising Opportunities for Military Women in the New Zealand Defence Force. Wellington, NZ: Evaluation Division, Ministry of Defence, 2014. http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2014/maximising-opportunities-military-women-nzdf.pdf.
New Zealand Army. The way of the New Zealand Warrior. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Army, 2010. http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/way-of-the-nz-warrior.pdf.
New Zealand Defence Force. Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Defence Force, 2013. http://www.nzdf. mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/executive-overview-of-the-defence-force.pdf.
New Zealand Defence Force. New Zealand Defence Force 2015-2018 Statement of Intent. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Defence Force, 2015. http://www.nzdf. mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/nzdf_soi_2015.pdf.
“New Zealand Demographics Profile 2014,” Indexmundi.com. Accessed September 21. 2016. http://www.indexmundi.com/new_zealand/demographics_profile.html.
New Zealand Government, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, Public Act 2015 no. 70. Wellington, 2015. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/ DLM5976660.html.
New Zealand Government. Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Act 2007. http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/2007/0016/latest/whole.html.
Perito, Robert M. Guide for participants in peace, stability, and relief operations. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 2007. http://pksoi.army.mil/default /assets/File/Guide-text.pdf.
Reger, Mark A., Joseph R. Etherage, Greg M. Reger, and Gregory A. Gahm. “Civilian psychologists in an Army culture: The ethical challenge of cultural competence.” Military Psychology, 20 (2008): 21–35, doi: 10.1080/08995600701753144.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 637-655. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00233.
Rosen, Stephen Peter. “Military effectiveness: Why society matters.” International Security 19, no. 4 (1995): 5-31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539118.
Rotmann, Philipp, David Tohn, and Jaron Wharton. “Learning under Fire: Progress and Dissent in the US Military.” Survival 51, no. 4 (2009): 31-48. doi: 10.1080/00396330903168824.
Schein, Edgar H, Organizational culture and leadership (Third Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. https://books-google-co-nz.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/books?hl= en&lr=&id=xhmezDokfnYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=schein+culture&ots=m6LV7OlbpL&sig=LRlv6gaoe6GxHEl_H_JgELzRTOs#v=onepage&q=schein%20culture&f=false
Seiple, Chris. “The U.S. Military/Ngo Relationship in Humanitarian Interventions.” Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1997. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA308675).
Shils, Edward. “The virtue of civil society.” Government and Opposition 26, no. 01 (1991): 3-20. https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3AE64DADC8CEBB16A56F9BAE6CA76BF8/S001725 7X00009660a.pdf/the-virtue-of-civil-society.pdf.
Silva, Jennifer M. “A New Generation of Women? How Female ROTC Cadets Negotiate the Tension between Masculine Military Culture and Traditional Femininity.” Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press) 87, no. 2 (12/ 2008): 937-60. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0138.
Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand in profile 2015: An overview of New Zealand’s people, economy and environment (New Zealand Government, 2015). http://www .stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2015.aspx.
Stothard, Christina, Steven Talbot, Maya Drobnjak, and Tiffany Fischer. “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15, no. 2 (2013): 193-206. doi: 10.1177/1523422313477592.
Taylor, Richard. Tribe of the God of War: Ngati Tumatauenga. Napier, NZ: Heritage – New Zealand, 1996.
Terriff, Terry. “Warriors and innovators: Military change and organizational culture in the US Marine Corps.” Defence Studies 6, no. 2 (2006): 215-247. doi: 10.1080/14702430601056139.
United Nations Security Council, Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) [On women and peace and security]. 31 October 2000, S/RES/1325 (2000). http://www.un.org /en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1325(2000).
Wolfe, Jim. “Armed forces – Historical overview.” Te Ara -The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, www.teara.govt.nz. Dated February 2, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2015. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/35716/defence-force-personnel-by-gender-and-ethnicity-2012.
Wilson, Peter H. “Defining military culture.” The Journal of Military History, 72, no. 1 (2008): 11-41. doi: 10.1353/jmh.2008.0041.[1]
[1] Steven McShane and Anthony Travaglione, Organisational behaviour on the Pacific Rim (Australia: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2007), 534.
[2] Ibid, 543.
[3] Lynn K. Hall, “The importance of understanding military culture,” Social Work in Health Care 50, no. 1 (2011): 4-5, doi: 10.1080/00981389.2010.513914
[4] G. Zellman, Heilbrun, J.Z., Schmidt, C., and Builder, C. (1993). “Implementing policy change in large organizations,” in Sexual orientation and US military personnel policy: Options and assessments. National Defence Research Institute MR-323-OSD (Washington, DC: Rand), Cited in Frederick E. Kuehn, “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence,” (Master’s thesis, Marine Corps University, 2013), 10, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA603704
[5] Bernard Burnes, Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics Fifth Edition (England: Pearson Education, 2009), 199.
[6] Kuehn, “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence,” i.
[7] Marianne S. Corey, Gerald Corey and Cindy Corey, Groups: Process and practices (9th Ed.). (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2014), 13.
[8] McShane and Travaglione, Organisational behaviour on the Pacific Rim, 534.
[9] Ibid, 540.
[10] Ibid, 543.
[11] Ibid, 542.
[12] Robert M. Perito, Guide for participants in peace, stability, and relief operations, (Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 2007), 270, http://pksoi.army.mil/default/assets/File/Guide-text.pdf
[13] Paul Carrola and Marilyn F. Corbin-Burdick, “Counselling military veterans: Advocating for culturally competent and holistic interventions,” Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 37 no. 1 (2015): 6, http://exproxy.aut.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1644469775?accountid=8440
[14] Hall, “The importance of understanding military culture,” 4-5.
[15] Peter H. Wilson, “Defining military culture,” The Journal of Military History 72, no. 1 (2008): 22, doi: 10.1353/jmh.2008.0041.
[16] Chris Seiple, “The U.S. Military/Ngo Relationship in Humanitarian Interventions,” (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1997), 6, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord &metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA308675).
[17] Zellman et al., “Implementing policy change in large organizations,” in Sexual orientation and US military personnel policy: Options and assessments. Cited in Kuehn, “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence,” 10.
[18] New Zealand Defence Force. Executive Overview of the New Zealand Defence Force (Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Defence Force, 2013): 9. http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/executive-overview-of-the-defence-force.pdf.
[19] Mary Edwards Wertsch, Military brats: Legacies of childhood inside the fortress, (Brightwell Publishing, 2006), 15, cited in Hall, “The importance of understanding military culture,” 8.
[20] Edward Shils, “The virtue of civil society,” Government and opposition 26, no. 01 (1991): 4, https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3AE64DADC8 CEBB16A56F9BAE6CA76BF8/S0017257X00009660a.pdf/the-virtue-of-civil-society.pdf.
[21] New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Defence Force 2015-2018 Statement of Intent, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Defence Force, (2015), 6, http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/nzdf_soi_2015.pdf.
[22] Stephen Peter Rosen, “Military effectiveness: Why society matters,” International Security 19, no. 4 (1995): 6, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539118.
[23] New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Defence Force 2015-2018 Statement of Intent, 10.
[24] New Zealand Defence Force. Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force, 10.
[25] Terry Terriff, “Warriors and innovators: Military change and organizational culture in the US Marine Corps,” Defence Studies 6, no. 2 (2006): 216, doi: 10.1080/14702430601056139.
[26] “New Zealand Demographics Profile 2014,” Indexmundi.com, accessed September 21, 2016. http://www.indexmundi.com/new_zealand/demographics_profile.html.
[27] New Zealand Defence Force. Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force, 10.
[28] Ministry of Defence. Maximising Opportunities for Military Women in the New Zealand Defence Force. (Wellington, NZ: Evaluation Division, Ministry of Defence, 2014), 3. http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/ pdf/public-docs/2014/maximising-opportunities-military-women-nzdf.pdf.
[29] Ibid, 17.
[30] John Fox and Bob Pease, “Military deployment, masculinity and trauma: Reviewing the connections,” Journal of Men’s Studies 20, no 1 (2012): 17, 21, doi: 10.3149/jms.2001.16.
[31] Lisa A. Boyce and Ann M. Herd, “The Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military Leadership Characteristics,” Sex Roles 49, no. 7-8 (2003): 367, doi: 10.1023/A:1025164221364.
[32] New Zealand Army, The Way of the New Zealand Warrior (Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Army, 2010), 14-27. http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/way-of-the-nz-warrior.pdf
[33] Terriff, “Warriors and innovators,” 216.
[34] New Zealand Army, The Way of the New Zealand Warrior, 9.
[35] Jim Wolfe, “Armed forces – Historical overview,” Te Ara -The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, www.teara. govt.nz. Dated February 2, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2015. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/35716/ defence-force-personnel-by-gender-and-ethnicity-2012.
[36] New Zealand Defence Force, Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force, 10.
[37] Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand in profile 2015: An overview of New Zealand’s people, economy and environment (New Zealand Government, 2015), http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2015.aspx
[38] Richard Taylor, Tribe of the God of War: Ngati Tumatauenga, (Napier, NZ: Heritage – New Zealand, 1996), 110.
[39] Ibid, 110-111.
[40] Ministry of Defence. Maximising Opportunities for Military Women in the New Zealand Defence Force, 32.
[41] Robert Egnell, “Gender Perspectives and Military Effectiveness: Implementing UNSCR 1325 and the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security,” Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations 6, no. 1 (2016): 84, https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gender-Perspectives-and-Military-Effectiveness.pdf.
[42] Jennifer M. Silva, “A New Generation of Women? How Female ROTC Cadets Negotiate the Tension between Masculine Military Culture and Traditional Femininity.” Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press) 87, no. 2 (12/ 2008): 940, doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0138.
[43] Boyce and Herd, “The Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes,” 365.
[44] Michael Evans, “The Twenty-First Century security environment: Challenges for joint forces,” The RUSI Journal 154, no. 2 (2009): 64, doi: 10.1080/03071840902965752.
[45] McShane and Travaglione, Organisational behaviour on the Pacific Rim, 543.
[46] Kuehn, “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence,” 10.
[47] Terriff, “Warriors and innovators,” 216.
[48] Ibid, 215.
[49] Ibid, 219.
[50] Christina Stothard, Steven Talbot, Maya Drobnjak, and Tiffany Fischer, “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy,” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15, no. 2 (2013): 196, doi: 10.1177/1523422313477592.
[51] Terriff, “Warriors and innovators,” 239.
[52] Edgar H. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership (Third Edition), (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004): 26, https://books-google-co-nz.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xhmezDokfnYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=schein+culture&ots=m6LV7OlbpL&sig=LRlv6gaoe6GxHEl_H_JgELzRTOs#v=onepage&q=schein%20culture&f=false
[53] Schein, Organizational culture and leadership, 36.
[54] McShane and Travaglione, Organisational behaviour on the Pacific Rim, 543.
[55] Andrew Hill, and Stephen Gerras, “Systems of Denial,” Naval War College Review 69, no. 1 (2016), 110, http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid= 29fc9781-a3ee-4547-93f1-5317d62922e4%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4211.
[56] Stothard et al., “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy,” 195.
[57] Robert M. Cassidy, “The British Army and Counterinsurgency: The Salience of Military Culture,” Military Review 85, no. 3 (2005): 53, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/ehost/resultsadvanced? sid=718cbed9-19f2-4214-a1db-bafe76b87bf1%40sessionmgr102&vid=9&hid=118&bquery=(JN+%22Milit ary+Review%22+AND+DT+20050501)+AND+(cassidy)&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNvb2tpZSx1cmwsdWlkJmRiPWFwaCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d
[58] Philipp Rotmann, David Tohn, and Jaron Wharton, “Learning under Fire: Progress and Dissent in the US Military,” Survival 51, no. 4 (2009): 35, doi: 10.1080/00396330903168824.
[59] Hill and Gerras, “Systems of Denial,” 130.
[60] Stothard et al., “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy,” 195.
[61] Ibid, 194.
[62] Ibid, 202.
[63] Rotmann et al., “Learning under Fire: Progress and Dissent in the US Military,” 45.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid, 34.
[66] Stothard et al., “Using the DLOQ in a Military Context: Culture Trumps Strategy,” 204.
[67] Ibid, 195.
[68] Rotmann et al., “Learning under Fire: Progress and Dissent in the US Military,” 44.
[69] Hill and Gerras, “Systems of Denial,” 130.
[70] New Zealand Government, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, Public Act 2015 no. 70, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html
[71] New Zealand Defence Force, Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force, 9.
[72] Zellman et al., “Implementing policy change in large organizations,” in Sexual orientation and US military personnel policy: Options and assessments. Cited in Kuehn, “Military – NGO Interaction: The Value of Cultural Competence,” 10.
[73] Belle Derks, Colette Van Laar, and Naomi Ellemers, “The Queen Bee Phenomenon: Why Women Leaders Distance Themselves from Junior Women,” The Leadership Quarterly 27, no 3 (2016): 457, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.
[74] Naomi Ellemers, Floor Rink, Belle Derks, and Michelle K. Ryan, “Women in High Places: When and Why Promoting Women into Top Positions Can Harm Them Individually or as a Group (and How to Prevent This),” Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012): 176, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.003.
[75] Cecilia L. Ridgeway, “Gender, Status, and Leadership,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 637, doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00233.
[76] Fox and Pease, “Military deployment, masculinity and trauma: Reviewing the connections,” 17, 21.
[77] Silva, “A New Generation of Women?” 940.
[78] Egnell, “Gender Perspectives and Military Effectiveness,” 86.
[79] Ibid, 76.
[80] Ibid, 75-76.
[81] Egnell, “Gender Perspectives and Military Effectiveness,” 82, 87.
[82] Karen O. Dunivin, “Military culture: Change and continuity,” Armed Forces & Society 20, no. 4 (1994): 543, http://afs.sagepub.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/content/20/4/531.full.pdf
[83] Sahana Dharmapuri, “Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325: Putting the Responsibility to Protect into Practice,” Global Responsibility to Protect 4, no. 2 (2012): 245, 250, doi: 10.1163/187598412×639728.
[84] Dharmapuri, “Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325,” 244.
[85] Ibid, 257.
[86] United Nations Security Council, Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) [On women and peace and security], 31 October 2000, S/RES/1325 (2000), 1, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_ doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1325(2000)
[87] Alain Le Roy, Ten-year Impact Study on Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security in Peacekeeping, (New York, NY: Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2010), http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping /documents/10year_impact_study_1325.pdf.
[88] Sahana Dharmapuri, “Core Issues Stall Women’s Participation in UN Peacekeeping,” The Global Observatory, March 13, 2013, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2013/03/core-issues-stall-womens-participation-in-un-peacekeeping/
[89] New Zealand Defence Force, Executive overview of the New Zealand Defence Force, 10.
[90] Ibid, 17.
[91] New Zealand Government. Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Act 2007. http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/2007/0016/latest/whole.html
[92] Ingrid Hipkiss, “Women’s vital role in the NZDF,” Newshub, Aug 20, 2012,
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/womens-vital-role -in-the-nzdf-2012082016.
[93] Ministry of Defence. Maximising opportunities for Military Women in the New Zealand Defence Force, 3.
[94] Egnell, “Gender Perspectives and Military Effectiveness,” 83.
[95] Ibid, 84.
[96] Belle Derks, Naomi Ellemers, Colette van Laar, and Kim de Groot, “Do Sexist Organizational Cultures Create the Queen Bee?”, British Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 3 (09/2011): 532, doi: 10.1348/014466610X525280.
