DEFENCE ABUSE AS A SYSTEMIC IMMUNE SYSTEM RESPONSE
TO LOW DOMINANCE TEAM MEMBER CHARACTERISTICS
At the highest levels, and for the best of reasons, the Australian Defence forces are now committed to ending a long history of abusive interpersonal practices, but it may be useful to pause to consider that all human behaviours, including bullying and intimidation, have a cause and are in some sense purposeful. Could it be that bullying and intimidation support system maintenance and generate some constructive outcomes?
Abusive behaviours generally take the form of an exercise in dominance on the one part and submissiveness on the other. The role of Victim implies a choice not to strenuously defend oneself from the repeated attacks by a more dominant aggressor/predator. In serious cases, in a process of social Darwinianism, the dominant Perpetrator remains in the system, whereas the submissive Victim generally withdraws following resignation, or release arising out of poor performance.
In terms of the personal characteristics of dominance versus submissiveness, it is to be expected that team members in effective combat units will tend more towards dominant and aggressive character traits on the dominance/submissiveness scale. Whether similar levels of dominance and aggression are also required in leadership and support roles is questionable.
Just as the human body mobilizes the immune system to attack rogue cells that could, if left unchecked, threaten the health of the organism, so it can be argued that the practices of bullying and intimidation in the defence forces support the system to rid itself of those whose personal position on the dominance/submissiveness scale render them less likely to be effective in combat positions.
It is well documented that bullying and intimidation lead directly to loss of military personnel. The costs are personal, inter-personal, and financial. Does the system need to lose people at all, and, if so, to what extent are these abusive practices leading to the loss of the right people?
Even if we are able to identify some constructive outcomes resulting from bullying and intimidation, the question still arises as to whether similar results can be achieved with far less collateral damage. In this short paper, I argue that they can.
The ultimate test for heroism is to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice – to be willing to put yourself ‘in harm’s way’ and, if necessary, to give your life to save other team members, the combat unit, and ultimately, the Commonwealth of Australia.
A key requirement in the armed forces is the capacity to have absolute trust in the performance of work team colleagues in highly charged, stressful and dangerous situations. This requirement is by no way limited to combat roles. In extreme conditions, every team member is required to be both ‘trusting’ and ‘trust-worthy’, given that any sub-optimal performance by a ‘weak link’ in a work team has the potential to have lethal and/or far-reaching consequences. It is therefore essential for all team-members, regardless of whether they act in combat or non-combat roles, to maintain an ability to trust other team members, as well as to be seen to be trust-worthy. For example, to what extent can a trans-gender service person may be considered trustworthy or reliable in a combat role if they have been unable to maintain a stable gender status?’ There may be no connection whatsoever between gender stability and performance in battle conditions, but the perception becomes the reality ─ any degree of doubt becomes a huge problem for team members.
What does a person do when they find that they can no longer trust or respect a particular team-member? The first line of psychological defence is likely to be fear, and the response to that fear either ‘flight’ or ‘fight’. Either defensive or aggressive behaviours are likely to result, with bullying and intimidation being examples of an aggressive response. Furthermore, in combat units where aggressive, dominant personality characteristics are more likely to be required, aggressive responses to fear can be considered more likely than ‘flight’ responses. In other words, within groups of people displaying high dominance and high aggression, bullying and intimidation can be seen as both natural and likely responses to fears arising directly from any inability to trust other team members.
Consider for a moment the role of the perpetrator as victim. In being unable to trust the victim, the perpetrator is now failing the requirement to ‘trust and be trustworthy’. If the perpetrator cannot willingly trust the victim, then only the victim’s departure can resolve the issue. It a case of ‘it’s either him/her or me’.
In this way, and whether the motivation is conscious or sub-conscious, the goal of bullying a