Military mores – an institutional ethnography

ABSTRACT

Military education is for most people an unknown process that takes place behind closed doors. Based on text analysis, eighteen months of ethnographic fieldwork, and interviews at the Netherlands Defence Academy, this article seeks to understand military education as a dynamic process between the cadets’ experience and the institute. As such, this study can be understood as an institutional ethnography, intending to open the black-box of military education. This study shows that military education affects cadets in a powerful way. They quickly learn to navigate the ‘underlife’ of the institute by carefully avoiding confrontation with the official structures. In a final discussion, we identify two remarkable paradoxes – perfect imperfection and individual in the system – that we consider exemplary for the learning environment at the NLDA. We argue that the Defence Academy constitutes, in essence, a paradoxical learning environment that influences the character development of the cadets – sometimes in unintended ways.

KEYWORDS:

• Military education
• institutional ethnography
• character development
• leadership
• paradox of education
• Netherlands defence academy

Military education

This is the military reality. A reality about life and death. In this reality it is not about doing things right, but about doing the right things. Ladies and gentlemen, that requires leadership. Leadership implies that you have to inspire, stimulate, and put people at the centre of your attention. Even if you are really down yourself. A military leader leads, and should dare to take the lead. You have to know what is possible and be willing to take risks. To be able to do that, and to actually take the lead, does not come easy. It requires character. Character and formation. Physical formation; to operate under extreme circumstances. Academic formation; to be able to also take the lead in complex situations, within an innovative organisation. But above all, it requires personal formation; to not give up, when things get hard. To push boundaries, and to deal with complex, often ethical dilemmas. This formation takes place at the Royal Netherlands Military Academy. Midshipmen and cadets, do not underestimate this formation. It is the key to your success. (Generaal Middendorp 2016, translation by the author)

General Middendorp, Chief of Defence for the Netherlands, spoke these words to staff and aspirant officers of the Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA) at the opening of the 2016 academic year. In this speech, he explains the importance of character formation and leadership. According to General Middendorp, a solid training at the NLDA is required in order to do this work.

As servicemen are continuously confronted with ethical challenges and operational complexities during operations, the objective of most modern military academies is to train their cadets and midshipmen to become excellent military leaders. For example, the UK Defence Academy calls ‘leadership the life blood of the army’ (Sandhurst 2014, 1), whilst West Point in the USA aims ‘to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character’ (United States Military Academy West Point 2017, 1). As a final example, the Canadian Defence Academy states that ‘it generates the leaders of today and tomorrow who are prepared to deliver institutional and operational excellence’ (Canadian Defence Academy 2016, 1). However, despite the fact that the education of future military leaders is the core ambition of military academies, the exact process of military education remains rather mysterious. Even staff members of military academies themselves admit that there is ‘no clearly articulated “learning model” or theory for how to develop leaders of character’ (Ruggero 2001, 3). Thus, although considered pivotal for future military leaders, the practice of military education remains a ‘black-box’ (Fosher 2013, 85, 98; Latour 2005).

However, military education is not a practice or something that only military academies engage with. There is vast body of academic studies that seek to understand military education from a variety of perspectives. In the objectivist or ‘traditional problem-solving approach’ (Sookermany 2017, 310), military education is understood as a process in which skills are accumulated in order to achieve a certain end product – i.e. a military leader. Such studies focus on questions such as what kinds of skills, traits, or competencies a military leader should possess, especially in the light of the increased complexity of modern military missions (Atwater and Yammarinol 1993; Caforio 2000, 2006; Franke and Heinecken 2001; Grossman 2009; Segal 1986). Whilst these studies can be helpful resources for the design of concrete interventions, they rarely openly address the practices that underpin existing educational processes. Opposed to this objectivist approach, a more qualitative approach draws upon the work of Erving Goffman (1961) and Pierre Bourdieu (1986, 2000). Bourdieu attempts to understand ‘the social setting as a specific habitus [that] is acquired through education, training, and discipline within particular organisations’ (2000, 164). Goffman (1961) describes military academies as an ideal example of his concept of a ‘total institution’ – a social entity embracing the individual's life and identity in its entirety. Studies following this tradition intend to develop a more comprehensive perspective on the internal social organisation of the military establishment, questioning social or political practices (Janowitz 1961; Lang 1972).

Both objectivist and qualitative approaches take the institute – in this case the military academy – as a starting point for their analyses. Only a small number of studies focus specifically on the experience of those ‘undergoing’ the educational process – in this case, the cadets. In this article we argue that one needs to take both perspectives into account in order to give a rounded representation of military education and to understand what is really ‘going on’ (Goffman 1974, 8) at a military academy. Therefore, based on textual analysis, eighteen months of ethnographic fieldwork, and interviews at the Netherlands Defence Academy, this article seeks to understand military education as a dynamic process occurring between the cadets’ experience and the institute. In this study we have focused on infantry in particular. This study is set-up as an institutional ethnography – one that intends to open the ‘black-box’ of military education.

Research strategy

Access and position

In ethnographic research, a long-term connection to the field of study and an open – although informed – perspective are crucial elements (Agar 1996; Fetterman 2010; Hammersley and Atkinson 2010). Moreover, because entering the military community is considered rather difficult for civilian researchers (Dalenberg 2017; Fosher 2013), our positions as researchers cannot remain undiscussed. As the first author, I was specifically hired for this research project at the NLDA in 2014, and carried out the field research. The second author, E. H. Kramer, has been a professor at the NLDA since 1996 and contributed to the analysis. These posts made it possible for us ‘to study at first hand what people do and say in particular contexts’ (Hammersley 2006, 4, emphasis in original). Further, they explain our access to the military academy and clarify the use of I and we throughout this article.

Clearly, our professional positions explain our long-term connection, and justify our claim to an informed perspective. Yet, precisely because we are part of the institute, they also raise questions of validity. Whilst we are well aware of this possible shortcoming, we are confident that this proximity did not compromise our academic analysis. In fact, the cooperation between a senior staff member and a newcomer ensured a critical and dynamic dialogue throughout the study. For example, whereas I initially considered myself to be an outsider, along the way the experience also affected me. I adjusted my use of language, partly in order to be able to address certain topics, and partly to demonstrate that I could, at least in some ways, be considered as ‘one of them’. We argue that such effects illustrate the powerful mechanisms of military education, and thus merely serve to underline the importance of an ethnographic study of this type. Finally, there are few people ‘that have the kind of access and depth of experience that working within those organisations can bring’, and even fewer that ‘have the opportunity to bring data out of places that are often black holes’ (Fosher 2013, 98) – an opportunity that we had.

Institutional ethnography

As we are particularly interested in the dynamic between the institutional structures and the cadets’ experience, this study was set up as an institutional ethnography (Smith 1987, Smith et al., 2006). Typically, institutional ethnographies ‘begin with people's everyday lives, and then examine how institutional structures and practices, including policies, become texts that help shape and organise everyday experience’ (Levinson, Sutton, and Winstead 2009, 776). However, they are not the same as ethnographies of, or within, an institution. Instead, they ‘focus on the explication of discursively organised social settings and the social relations that are at work within them, rather than on the participants as a population, and their understanding of the setting in which they find themselves’ (Campbell and Gregor 2004 cited in Tummons 2010, 348).

For this study, we investigated how cadets experience military education within the institutional structures of the NLDA. In doing so, this study does more than simply reproduce the cadets’ experience; rather, it seeks to understand how the institutional structures and practices of the NLDA shape the experiences of military education of infantry cadets.

Data collection and analysis

Institutional ethnographies ‘rely on both discursive analysis and ethnographic methods, such as participant observations, and interviews, to relate institutional discourses with people's actions’ (Vaughan 2017, 4). This study is based on an analysis of key documents of the NLDA, a year-long explorative research, eighteen months of periodic participant observation, and over five hundred hours of transcribed interviews.

The first phase of fieldwork was explorative and consisted mainly of talking to cadets, midshipmen, military and academic staff, instructors, operational officers, and civilian defence staff, and reading up on education at the NLDA. The objective of this initial phase was to selectively narrow our focus, and gain an understanding of the key concepts of life at the NLDA, such as character education and leadership development.

Subsequently, we collected texts that constitute the institutional discourse (Tummons 2010). From these we selected key documents – such as course documents, military handbooks, course manuals, and internal auditing reports on education at the NLDA – that could be considered representative of the discourse of the military organisation in general, and the NLDA in particular. Simultaneously, the second phase of fieldwork commenced. In August 2015, when a new cohort of aspirant officers entered the academy, two randomly assigned platoons became the focus of this study: one platoon with high school graduates (long track); and one platoon consisting of university graduates (short track).¹ Over the following eighteen months I was involved in most of the activities of these cadets. The majority of my time was spent observing, participating, and informally talking with cadets, instructors, and staff. I accompanied them on three overnight bivouacs, was present during their hazing period, attended classes, and relaxed in quieter times between activities.

Additionally, semi-structured interviews with the cadets were conducted in groups of three or four every three months. During these sessions, we talked about their backgrounds, dreams, frustrations, and ambitions concerning their military education at the NLDA. Subsequently, the interviews were analysed, first via open coding, and thereafter via axial coding (Corbin and Strauss 2015; Friese 2014).

The Netherlands defence academy: an ethnography

Subsequent to a general description of the Netherlands Defence Academy and its education, we present a reconstruction of its institutional discourse based not only on key publications by the institute itself, but also on official speeches from the staff.

Military education

In an old castle in the south of the Netherlands, the NLDA educates aspirant officers. For almost two centuries the objective of the institute has hardly changed: ‘To train the future military leaders’ (Commander NLDA 2016). Although offering a variety of programmes for officers at different stages in their careers, the institute's main task is to train cadets and midshipmen for their first positions within the military. Before admittance applicants need to pass a medical, psychological, and physical examination, and are interviewed by a commission of high-ranking officers.

The espoused pedagogical model of the NLDA combines military training, academic education, and character education. Military training is performed by senior military instructors, whilst academic education is housed within the military faculty, albeit taught by staff consisting of both military and non-military academics (The Netherlands Defence Academy 2016a). Although character education is understood by the wider Dutch military, the NLDA, and most cadets as an essential – if not the most essential element of military education – it is based on tradition rather than method. Sometimes it is addressed formally during military training via case studies or in theory classes. More often, it is what happens ‘in between classes’, and during the social activities organised by the cadet corps. The corps is considered key to the character education system, organising numerous activities aimed at developing skills and an ‘officer's attitude’ (Dalenberg 2017; Groen and Klinkert 2003). This includes both obligatory and voluntary extracurricular activities, such as the hazing period, sporting activities, and social events. Despite the fact that it is not an official requirement to become a member of the cadet corps, in practice, all cadets are members and active in one or more committees.

The institutional discourse on military leadership and education

The aim of the NLDA is to train future military leaders, and this ambition is promoted via all of its official outlets. The 2016 annual report states: ‘By offering an integrated programme consisting of military training, personal development and academic education, the NLDA makes an important contribution to professional leadership’ (The Netherlands Defence Academy 2016b, 7). In official documentation and course descriptions this heroic rhetoric never disappears: ‘Central in our education is to become military competent; i.e. professional, flexible, mentally and physically resilient. Officers need an adequate professional attitude’ (The Netherlands Defence Academy 2016b, 2). The cadet corps makes use of the same type of language in their written outlets, valuing are ‘honesty, responsibility, decency, obedience, effort, creativity, loyalty, collegiality comradeship and respect’ (Dalenberg 2017, 54). Behaving according to their guidelines for etiquette and customs should ‘result in collegiality, comradeship and a sense of unity’ (Stolp 1994; quoted in Dalenberg 2017, 22). This leadership discourse, promoting military values and character, is also frequently emphasised in the form of the spoken word. During the course of this research, the NLDA commander frequently employed motivational speaking, stating that cadets possess high personal potential, and need to be ‘24/7 aware of their function, to be an ambassador of the system, and to be personally responsible for all opportunities presented to them to improve themselves’ (Commander NLDA 2016).

The leadership doctrine of the complete defence organisation confirms this point of view: ‘In a complex and dynamic environment it is not easy to navigate … further development of character, competencies and an adaptive learning ability is required’ (Dalenberg, Folkerts, and Bijlsma 2014, 38, translation by the author). Clearly, the central message is that cadets and midshipmen, as aspirant officers, should learn to behave in accordance with military values, and be prepared for the extreme demands they will encounter in their professional roles.

Military education as an experience

After discussing how the institute ‘talks’ about military education, in this section we aim to provide an insight into how cadets experience their military education at the NLDA. Codification of the transcribed interview data led us to identify two themes as exemplary of the experience of military education: self-improvement and membership. Quotes were anonymised, but attributed to short track (ST) or long track (LT) cadets, and given a number (1 = the first interview, to 6 = the last interview) in order to reveal perspective changes over time.

Self-improvement

In line with the three pillars of military education (military, academic, and character education), cadets spoke about improving themselves physically, intellectually, and in terms of character. Regarding physical improvement, both short and long track cadets felt that the NLDA had a lot to offer. For infantry (physically the most demanding specialisation), the body is considered of great importance. The (physical) differences between the infantry and the other cadets were often discussed – most often felt to be related to a difference in mentality. As one of the cadets explained: ‘Most infantry cadets feel the urge to do extra trainings and discuss how to improve their strength and fitness’ (LT3). Some were careful not to label this in a normative manner, but did emphasise that ‘there is a difference; we are often the ones who carry the heavy stuff, the ones that are on time, and have our shit together’ (ST2). Others bluntly stated: ‘We, the infantry, are faster, more proactive and stronger than the others. That's ok, they will do administrative jobs. It is just a pity that we are not being challenged enough’ (LT3). For many, their first disappointment in the NLDA was that the physical training was not as demanding as that for which they had trained prior to joining. In fact, the majority stated that they felt they had actually lost strength since the start of their training.

During the first months, most short track cadets had the feeling their intellectual capacity decreased. Many stated that at university, they had felt intellectually challenged, whilst the lessons and assignments at the NLDA were perceived as boring, tedious, and too easy: ‘I expected to learn more, to have debates appropriate for an officer, but I was wrong, you just have to memorise certain doctrines’ (ST5). However, some long track cadets expressed how they experienced difficulties in keeping up with the academic requirements of the NLDA. Two long track cadets who voluntarily stopped, said that the academic burden was too demanding.

Thirdly, within the subcategory of character education, we found big differences between short track and long track cadets. For instance, when asked what they expected to learn, a group of long track cadets started listing habits they found inappropriate for officers, like being lazy, unorganised, or late: ‘I think the NLDA can help me to become better version of myself’ (LT2). They explained that their family members noticed ‘positive’ changes in their behaviour. Conversely, short track cadets seemed rather unimpressed with the programme of character education. Indeed, they seemed more cynical about the whole NLDA experience. One commented: ‘I just want to finish these eighteen months, and then get on with the real work’ (ST4). Another cadet, albeit one who never intended to stay long, simply stated that the NLDA offered the best hands-on leadership courses: ‘This is the best education for leadership in The Netherlands, I’ll just do this for some time, and then move on to real business’ (ST2). In general, short track cadets seemed more pragmatic and transactional in their expectations.

Membership

Throughout all our conversations membership appeared to be an important concept. In the words of the cadets, becoming a soldier also entails ‘un-becoming’ a civilian. In the following discussion, we understand membership in the context of the struggle to (un)become part of the military institute.

When entering the academy, all cadets expressed insecurity about their military identity. Not only did they feel like ‘newbies’, but the clear visibility of this fact seemed to disturb them even more. As their uniform fittings were, for logistical reasons, postponed until later, they had their classes in civilian clothing, and thus visibly stood out at the academy: ‘You feel really like such a newbie, like your first day in high-school. Only instead of a huge bag pack you are now wearing your newbie-hat’ (LT1). Over time the cadets were rewarded with an increasing number of visible attributes to their military identity (uniforms, emblems, t-shirts, etc.), showing their belonging to several groups: the military, the cadet corps, and the infantry. These symbols were received with enthusiasm by most, and were felt to signify a belonging to something ‘bigger’.

Aside from official symbols, the physical appearance of the cadets was of great importance. Their specialisation – infantry– is supposed to be the fittest group, hence, being physically fit seemed an appropriate way to distinguish oneself: ‘You know, it is partially a physical thing, but it is also about who we are, and about connecting a certain prototype of being a soldier’ (LT1). In the subsequent months, not only did the cadets’ physical appearance change, so did their use of language. Soldiers have a specific, well-developed jargon, hardly understandable to outsiders. The cadets quickly mastered this jargon, making use of the numerous abbreviations, acronyms, and specific phrases and sentences, like the untranslatable expression ‘er van zijn’, to indicate that something is your responsibility; ‘civilians’, a word hardly used in Dutch daily language, except in the military to indicate non-military people; ‘lupa’ for lunch package; ‘bipla’ for courtyard; and ‘groza’ for big hall. These slang words are contractions of regular Dutch words. During the interviews, observations, and data analysis the increased uniformity of language was one of the most ‘audible’ signs of the cadets becoming members of the organisation. Along with these changes came a more self-assured tone of voice, and feeling more at ease in their military and cadet identity.

The main ambition in terms of membership was the distinction between being a civilian and being in the military. As one cadet remarked: ‘I think the first month is about transitioning from civilian to military. There is not one single aspect that does this. It is merely the combination of everything; room inspection, bivouac, commando training, the hazing period’ (LT3). After roughly two months, when this transition was taken for granted, other memberships, like the cadet corps and their specialisations, became more important. Not only did the cadets want to become members of these groups, they also experienced this as a requirement on their way to becoming an officer.

After this initial two- to three-month period, the cadets even started to feel capable of knowing who should be ‘in’, and who should be ‘out’. This became especially apparent when two of the infantry cadets decided to quit. Comments varied from empathic understanding to anxiety towards their own future, and anger towards those who left. A common denominator, however, was that the majority of the cadets had an explicit idea about what should be ‘the right mentality’, that the ones who left ‘did not fit in the first place’, or that they had entered with the ‘wrong ambition’. What was most striking about these comments was the rapid transition – the quest for membership, soon transformed from an ambition to belong, to being an ‘insider’ capable of knowing who does (and who does not) ‘fit in’.

Navigating the ‘Underlife’

The previous sections gave an impression of prevailing institutional discourses and narratives, and (some) of the people active within the institute. In this analysis we add our observations and reveal the connections between dominant institutional discourses and the cadets’ experience of military education.

Observations

Especially during the initial months, cadets understood the NLDA as a place where you can learn to become a ‘better version of yourself’. The NLDA was presented as providing both the training and the environment necessary for one to become a military leader. However, the cadets had not entered the programme seeking a place in which they would be given the freedom and the liberty to grow at their own pace. Indeed, as time passed, the majority of the recruits described the programme as too soft and not strict enough. They had expected to suffer, physically as well as mentally. This factor is particularly well-illustrated by the importance of the so-called ‘moments’. A ‘moment’ typically refers to a point in training when physical and mental endurance is required. The learning objectives of these ‘moments’ are, however, not explicitly defined, nor did cadets feel capable of explaining them precisely. Their content varied from acquiring a new skill paired with frustration, to not giving up when tired or cold. Cadets were unanimous about their benefits, specifically with regard to their future leadership potential. Instructors stated that their objective is to let all of the cadets have ‘their moments’ in order to improve, and grow into their roles as military leaders. All of them – instructors, and short and long track cadets alike – had a focus on ‘experiencing moments’, to be challenged, to suffer, and emerge improved as a result.

Overall, it was remarkable to notice that, whilst expecting self-improvement, most of the cadets felt the institute did not challenge them enough. In this regard, they dealt with a lot of frustrations. On the one hand, they always had a fully booked schedule, thus having the obligation to physically be somewhere. On the other hand, they often felt bored, often had to wait, or sit in unchallenging classes. According to the cadets these frustrations were the result of mismanagement within the institute, or due to uninspired instructors and/or other cadets. They never blamed themselves, or the military organisation per se. It was interesting to notice that, despite these feelings, the overall image of the military organisation continued to be positive. Most of the cadets emphasised the fact that they considered the organisation to be a great place to work for and to be part of.

This apparent contradiction was of great interest to the study, as it prompted the question of how the cadets rationalised this inconsistency. It transpired that membership – this ‘sense of belonging’ – was an extremely strong motivator. The military organisation thrives on teamwork. From the beginning, the recruits learn that the team is more important than the individual. Not only do the recruits learn a profession, simultaneously they make new best friends, colleagues, and are drilled to support each other ‘no matter what’. This ‘membership’ is for many soldiers the strongest motivation for their work (Grossman 2009; McPherson 1997). For the cadets, this sense of belonging was an important motivator, and one that grew stronger over time, as is illustrated by a conversation we had about motivations to enlist.

Many of the cadets were motivated by the promise of adventure, and by a strong desire not to do a ‘regular’ office job. Others had family in the army and wanted to follow in the family tradition. Still others said they felt the country needed them at this time of global insecurity, or had enrolled because they wanted to do something good and purposeful. For one cadet, this theme was specifically related to having a religious background. Despite these initially varied motivations, after roughly six months most of the long track cadets started to talk more and more about the group and the team as a reason to continue. Whilst the motivations of short track students did not change as much over time, all of the interviewees –without exception – talked about the importance of belonging to an organisation, and the people in it. Although most cadets felt especially connected to the infantry, other feelings of belonging shifted from moment to moment. In the early weeks, the cadets mainly connected with their room-mates and platoon. Later this narrow circle expanded to their group-mates from the hazing period, and later on to the people living on the same floor in the cadet residence. For all the cadets being part of the military and not being a civilian was of importance.

Rite of passage

Reflecting on the cadets’ narratives about transitioning to new memberships and striving to become better versions of themselves, we recognised that – without realising it – the cadets tell typical stories of rites of passage (van Gennep [1909] 1960) and specifically liminality (Turner 1987). A rite of passage is typically described as a three-phase process people go through when in transition from one group to another: separation, liminality, and incorporation (van Gennep [1909] 1960). In the liminal phase an individual no longer belongs to the previous status, nor to the next; one is ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner 1987). People in this phase are ‘necessarily ambiguous, … stripped of their old identity, symbolically by getting stripped of clothes, and ground down to a uniform condition, … they must obey their instructors, and tend to develop an intense comradeship among themselves’ (Turner 1966, 359–360). It is not difficult to understand the cadets’ status of liminality, leaving their old personae, welcoming their uniforms, and becoming ‘betwixt and between’. However, contrary to Turner's prediction, the cadets did not report experiencing any sense of ambiguity or uncertainty during this transition. Although common social uncertainties about complying with social standards were discussed, the institute, the final goal (military leadership), and the path towards it were hardly questioned.The cadets accepted the events at the NLDA with a certain equanimity. This struck us as remarkable; indeed, all of the study's observations and interviews confirm a far-reaching transformation (for example, changes in language, physical appearance, and social circle), whereas – considering the resemblances to rites of passage and liminality – one would expect to see more friction.

Secondary adaptation

The culture of the institute dictates that those within its walls ‘play by the rules’, but also learn to know how and when to subvert them. As such, the NLDA is a paradoxical learning environment in which cadets are required to display both controlled and calm behaviour, whilst being simultaneously challenged and exposed to situations where rougher, less disciplined behaviour – and at times even disobedience – is also valued. Goffman explains that ‘these practices together comprise what can be called the underlife of the institution, being to a social establishment what an underworld is to a city’ (1961, 180 emphasis in original). This mechanism is known as ‘secondary adaptation’ –‘any habitual arrangement by which a member of an organisation employs unauthorised means, or obtains unauthorised ends, or both, thus getting around the organisation's assumptions as to what he should do and get and hence what he should be’ (Goffman 1961, 171).

An excellent example of this behaviour can be found in the story of one cadet who explained how a Major expected them to behave:

He told us we could kick in all the doors and get home drunk, as long as they wouldn't notice. In fact he even bragged about things they did when he was a cadet, and scrutinised us for being a bunch of sissies for obeying the rules of the organisation (LT2).

This remarkable quote shows that a representative of the institute actually challenged the cadets to display secondary adaptation.

Paradoxes of the NLDA

The institutional discourse embedded in official documents talk of ‘leadership development’ through ‘academic, military and personal formation’, but tells us little about how cadets are actually moulded by the NLDA. In this final discussion, we identify two remarkable paradoxes: perfect imperfection, and individual in the system, which we consider exemplary of the learning environment at the NLDA.

Perfect imperfection

In their stories, cadets describe the military organisation as approaching perfection. Not only do the cadets subscribe to the values of the organisation, they also believe the organisation to be capable and noble in its ambition to bring peace and security. This idealised picture is translated into having high regard for the capacity of the instructors, their commanders, the academy, and the organisation in general. Simultaneously, however, they experience the faults and flaws of that same organisation on a daily base. Furthermore, cadets are told, from recruitment to graduation, to be exceptional; the crème de la crème of society, gifted with great talent, and endowed with an exceptional sense of morality. They un-learn their bad habits from civilian life and learn to be outstanding cadets by memorising and trying to behave according to the (military) values. Perhaps unsurprisingly, over time, most cadets start to feel a personal sense of perfection.

Despite, (or perhaps also due to) this ‘perfect’ perspective, eventually, most cadets notice ‘cracks’ in their dreams. It starts with small things; the food is lousy, the uniforms arrive late, the schedule keeps changing, information does not come through, people make you wait for a long time, there is not enough material, or there are too many cadets to receive the individual coaching that you would have liked and think you deserve. In other words, a discrepancy seems to grow between the ideal of a benevolent organisation, always doing the right thing, and daily reality. Additionally, the widely appreciated military values are not observed by all, be it instructors, older cadets, or high-ranking officers. Even daily routines, such as being on time, tidy cupboards, and wearing the correct uniform, turn out to be a façade for some. This quickly lowers, not only the perceived esteem for the NLDA, but also for their own roles. ‘We are merely a student organisation in a green suit’ (LT4), commented a long track cadet rather disappointed. Within six months cadets found out that the NLDA is just a regular educational institute. For many, this turned out to be a disappointing reality, difficult to incorporate with the image of an ideal organisation for excellent people, and causing (cognitive) dissonance (Festinger 1962).

Many of the cadets discussed at some point how they needed to cope with feelings of demotivation related to these frustrations. Nevertheless, their ambition to become high-ranking officers persisted, as well as their belief in the ‘goodness’ of the military organisation. Surprisingly, cadets as well as their superiors seem to be able to deal with this ‘perfect imperfection’. The culture of comradeship, and the promise of being a military leader in the near future, make it worth the frustration – or so we are told. Arguably this is a way of denying the paradox, and keeping hopes alive in the future. In this explanation, the uncomfortable situation at the NLDA is only a temporary obstacle to their ultimate leadership position in a ‘perfect’ organisation.

Individual in the system

The second paradox we found rests in the contradiction between individual objectives (i.e. to become a competent military leader) and the requirements of a military education. We noticed that cadets experienced difficulties with appeals to their individual leadership qualities, whilst simultaneously being told obedience, the group, and hierarchy are all considered essential elements in the military organisation.

To become a military leader, individual development is considered extremely important. During the period of admission, prospective cadets are screened on individual leadership capacities. During the first weeks, each cadet is required to formulate his or her personal development goals. Throughout their education, tests and reports are tailored towards individual performance. Cadets are told that military leadership is about knowing your own strengths, that each of them has to develop a personal style, and that they have to be authentic individuals. However, by the very same instructors, they are trained to behave in a rather uniform way. Cadets stated that they were told to show ‘authentic and proactive behaviour’, but, ‘when we do, we are told not to do so’ (ST6). Another cadet summarised these contradicting demands as follows: ‘Be authentic, and do what I say’ (LT5). These paradoxical statements instruct cadets to become authentic, creative individual leaders, and to learn how to do that whilst being obedient and not standing out. Although seemingly contradictory, none of the cadets in this study reported experiencing this double bind as problematic. It was remarkable how easily they learnt to navigate between the space between discipline and disobedience. Some staff members of the NDLA argued that this is precisely the aim of a military education; to learn to ‘navigate’ this paradoxical environment, claiming that the cadets who cannot adjust to this reality cannot become successful military leaders.

(Un)intended intentions

The Netherlands Defence Academy is a particular community with its own (unwritten) rules, norms, and traditions, which come together to create the environment in which the cadets experience their education. Via this institutional ethnography, we aimed to gain an understanding of what is actually occurring during military education at the NLDA. By representing the cadets’ perspectives in relation to the institutional discourse, we intended to open the ‘black-box’ of military education, and give an in-depth representation of its efficacy.

In analysing our findings, we distinguished a tension between a strong belief in the ‘perfect organisation’, whilst simultaneously experiencing the faults and flaws of that same organisation on a daily basis. Secondly, we noticed that cadets experience a tension between being required to function in a strict system, whilst simultaneously being expected to be an outstanding individual. We discussed that a cadet at the NLDA has to learn how to deal with these paradoxes, and that dealing with these paradoxes leads to (unnecessary) confusion, and sometimes quick fixes – such as secondary adaptation – that are neither beneficial to the cadet, nor to the military organisation. In conclusion, we argue that the NLDA is a paradoxical learning environment.

We noticed that military education affects cadets in such a powerful way that they quickly learn to navigate the ‘underlife’ of the institute, carefully avoiding confrontation with the official structures. This form of secondary adaptation can be risky, as it is neither coordinated nor agreed on in terms of the educational policy of the NLDA. We showed that ultimately this leads to unmotivated and hidden behaviour. It makes cadets afraid to fail, to make mistakes, or just be different when learning. In fact, it even makes cadets misbehave when they feel that they are not being watched – i.e. when instructors are not around, or when the learning objectives do not place restrictions on their behaviour.

Based on these findings we argue that the present institutional structures and practices shape the daily experience of cadets in ways that are less controlled than originally intended. However, we also found that sometimes members of staff tried to educate cadets to behave in ways that can be classified as secondary adaptation. Thus, in a way, these unintended consequences are not entirely unintended. Interestingly – and going beyond Goffman's concept of secondary adaptation – we noticed that sometimes the institute tries to teach cadets how to behave in the ‘underlife of the institute’ – e.g. ‘you should kick in doors, as long as it goes unnoticed’. As such, it seems that the institute teaches a double standard. Some consider the ability to deal with such an environment as crucial and the ability to navigate a paradoxical environment as elementary to successful military leadership. Nevertheless, we noticed that this is not only confusing to the cadets, but it might also suggest the efficacy (or presence of) double standards in the professional domain. We are well aware of the fact that any (educational) process comes with its own risks, frictions, and tensions. However, if one comes to understand the process of military education as a paradoxical environment, one notices that the behaviour that is acquired through experiencing these paradoxes is opposite to the espoused intention of the institute, namely training outstanding military leaders who are well aware of the necessary military values. This conclusion left us to question to what extent these paradoxes are conducive to educating prospective military leaders.

Acknowledgements

We thank the NLDA and its staff for their welcoming attitude towards this study. Most gratitude, however, goes to the cadets who agreed to participate in the research, and shared their stories. They may not agree with all of the interpretations presented in this paper, and any errors are our own and should not harm the reputations of these esteemed colleagues.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Marenne Mei Jansen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1925-1670

Notes

1 The NLDA offers both long and short track programmes. Former high school students are admitted to the long track programme (four years), and university graduates can enrol in the short track programme (eighteen months). During the first five months both groups follow an initial military training, in which they are trained to a basic military and academic level. The long track programme requires an additional three years in which the cadet can obtain a bachelor's degree. Both tracks conclude with job- specific training, tailored to the specific requirements of each military specialisation, such as infantry, military administration, medical, or judicial services. In the long track platoon, twelve (out of thirteen) cadets agreed to participate. They will study at the NLDA for at least four years, unless they decide to quit (which two did very early in the training). From the short track platoon eleven (out of twelve) cadets participated.