Goblin Squad Member
|
Not quite as good as having the Alpha stress test, but this may be of some small interest to our military members, and those who have close relationships with members. Older posters here may remember that my research involves military behavioral health, and that I have a particular concern with military resilience.
This article in Armed Forces & Society springs from extensive empirical research among US Marines, mostly the drill instructors and officers who train and screen new Marines. If you skip to page 7, you can get to the interesting parts: the interviews with Marines where they explain how they cope (and fail to cope) with stress and distress in combat, but also after combat and at home.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As a self-aware former member of military culture, I must ask:
Did the implicit internalized message that anything that can possibly compro-mise performance is in reality subject to the intent of the properly motivated and properly trained Marine cause that artillery officer to respond better than he would have if he didn't believe that it was immoral to be incapacitated?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An interesting read, and quite unexpected. I was expecting that the Marine Lt. would have felt guilty for having changed his routine, and therefore avoiding the IED's direct attack.
I don't know if the article specifically speaks to Survivor's Guilt, I only read the page that you referred us to.
In all industries where there is a "high performance" requirement, but especially in those where live is on the line, the self evaluation of a leader's performance is a catalyst for stress. That I believe is a healthy form of stress provided the leader views the outcome of their actions and not the perceptions of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius: culture can't be causal, but it can be a good reason. There's no doubt that the culture of commitment Marines (and others) inculcate is the reason that that they perform at the level they do.In that sense it's a good thing--it's the secret sauce for Marines, PJs, Rangers, SF, etc. But without a way to make sense of not having lived up to that commitment, you're in a really rough position.
Bluddwolf: You're right--combat leaders must put themselves under stress, because the stakes are so high. The trick is realistic views of the outcome. All the outside observers to that incident felt the Lt. did the right thing, and minimized negative outcomes. But he (to this day) still judges himself unrealistically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing that really strikes me about those events is that there seems to be a correlation between being a good leader and feeling that stress. That is, a leader who was more likely to not feel ashamed and harshly self-judgmental would probably, in my opinion, be less of a leader. There are all kinds of corollaries to that in other areas, but the general pattern of the folks most concerned with doing the right thing being the most bothered by any self-perceived failure on their part to do so is something that occupies a fair bit of my mindspace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon: Absolutely, these Marines should feel stress, and in fact as we point out later in the article, Marines purposefully cultivate stress on themselves and others, to keep themselves sharp. All members (not just leaders) need to cultivate this incredible level of commitment--you can't be chill about failure in combat.
But what about when stress slips into distress? When members can't make fair self-evaluations, and condemn themselves as unworthy of membership? Resilient members manage to apply great stress to themselves and others to perform at peak capacity, and yet are also able to manage distress and the imperfection inherent in being human.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree with you, Mbando. I may not have been clear enough in my prior post, but I consider it one of the Great Human Tragedies that it is the way it is, even though it seems to be almost necessary, and is probably universally applicable to everyone who has ever contemplated "What is Right?" Learning to forgive oneself is hard, especially for those who are the most sincere in their desire to do what is right.
But what about when stress slips into distress? When members can't make fair self-evaluations, and condemn themselves as unworthy of membership? Resilient members manage to apply great stress to themselves and others to perform at peak capacity, and yet are also able to manage distress and the imperfection inherent in being human.
I'm in no way in the military nor have I worked in any life-or-death environments, but in my own observations and learning in my short life, I think this holds true for all people. Although, personally, I tend to try to avoid actively "applying great stress to myself," since I tend to do that passively anyways.
Thank you for sharing this!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
sspitfire, I don't think any of this is exclusive to military members--the kinds of existential crises members face ("How can I be a good <blank> if <blank>?") appears to be part of being human. The urgency for this study was that military life during the last 13 years or so has been rife with opportunities for these kinds of crises, and they can have very serious negative outcomes.
In turn, our impetus as researchers was to point out the dissconect between the empirical data (resilience is sociocultural and skills-based) and the current USN/USMC resilience programs (resilience failure is biomedical and mechanical).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being, there's a concept in cultural anthropology called "Shame-based cultures" or "Honor-Shame Cultures," where the primary means of social conformity is not the threat of force from the collective, but rather the fear of shame and being ostracized. There's a lot of criticism from other anthropologists of that model (what culture doesn't use shame and prestige?), but I think it's useful when thinking about military culture. Basically, what moves members isn't the rules and laws, but their commitment to being "a certain kind of person" among their peers.