he Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a humanHuman resource strategy differs a lot when it comes to the army forces. In this article I will discuss the specifics of the candidates’ selection. The US Army’s mission is to defend the rights of US citizens. Not everyone can protect the country; therefore the search for right candidates must be very careful and precise.

The Army expresses its culture through its shared and endorsed values and mission statement. According to Army brochures, websites and training material cited in this paper “The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. The Army accomplishes its mission by organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land. The key component for the Army’s success is its human resources. However, as one of the largest employers in the world the Army faces a number of human resources challenges. These include recruiting, retention, employee relations, employee advancement, and discrimination issues. To better understand the Army’s significant HR challenges it is important to conduct a brief overview of the Army’s culture and its impact on the Army’s human resources management process. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the U.S. Army’s unique culture and its impact on its human resources management.

The Impact of Army Culture on HR Culture includes the customs, heritage and achievements of a particular segment of society. Though this group is very diverse in physical workspace and work environment, this group ultimately works in accordance with and in response to a single “will”. From the highest position as the Commander-in-Chief to the individual soldiers still in basic training, reinforcement of Army culture has been a key factor in development and strength of one of the world’s most powerful branches of military. The essential solidarity and cohesiveness of the Army and its personnel presents a functional model of team building, leadership and organizational structure that is often emulated in the corporate sector. Unfortunately, the same culture promotes a system of

Employee Relations and Discrimination The aspect of following directives or following orders is an important aspect of the Army’s culture. Consequently, soldiers are trained and conditioned to follow orders but think critically and independently, and practice autonomy in the context of the larger organization. The slogans and mottos have a balance between ideas of autonomy and teamwork. Unfortunately this same culture could be a catalyst for human resources problems such as work place harassment, discrimination, or employee conflict as evidenced by the treatment and discrimination of homosexuals, disabled, Muslims, and soldiers of

Middle Eastern origin. Employees are generally conditioned to take orders from ranking superiors without hesitation or resistance. The assumption in Army culture is that a higher ranking person, despite their competence, personality or leadership ability is able to legally give an order or directive to a lower ranking person within their chain of command. Consequently this is the source of numerous conflicts between Army personnel and their leadership. Unfortunately the Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human

tions on land. The key component for the Army’s success is its human resources. However, as one of the largest employers in the world the Army faces a number of human resources challenges. These include recruiting, retention, employee relations, employee advancement, and discrimination issues. To better understand the Army’s significant HR challenges it is important to conduct a brief overview of the Army’s culture and its impact on the Army’s human resources management process. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the U.S. Army’s unique culture and its impact on its human resources management.

The Impact of Army Culture on HR Culture includes the customs, heritage and achievements of a particular segment of society. Though this group is very diverse in physical workspace and work environment, this group ultimately works in accordance with and in response to a single “will”. From the highest position as the Commander-in-Chief to the individual soldiers still in basic training, reinforcement of Army culture has been a key factor in development and strength of one of the world’s most powerful branches of military. The essential solidarity and cohesiveness of the Army and its personnel presents a functional model of team building, leadership and organizational structure that is often emulated in the corporate sector. Unfortunately, the same culture promotes a system of

Employee Relations and Discrimination The aspect of following directives or following orders is an important aspect of the Army’s culture. Consequently, soldiers are trained and conditioned to follow orders but think critically and independently, and practice autonomy in the context of the larger organization. The slogans and mottos have a balance between ideas of autonomy and teamwork. Unfortunately this same culture could be a catalyst for human resources problems such as work place harassment, discrimination, or employee conflict as evidenced by the treatment and discrimination of homosexuals, disabled, Muslims, and soldiers of

Middle Eastern origin. Employees are generally conditioned to take orders from ranking superiors without hesitation or resistance. The assumption in Army culture is that a higher ranking person, despite their competence, personality or leadership ability is able to legally give an order or directive to a lower ranking person within their chain of command. Consequently this is the source of numerous conflicts between Army personnel and their leadership. Unfortunately the Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human

ks in accordance with and in response to a single “will”. From the highest position as the Commander-in-Chief to the individual soldiers still in basic training, reinforcement of Army culture has been a key factor in development and strength of one of the world’s most powerful branches of military. The essential solidarity and cohesiveness of the Army and its personnel presents a functional model of team building, leadership and organizational structure that is often emulated in the corporate sector. Unfortunately, the same culture promotes a system of

Employee Relations and Discrimination The aspect of following directives or following orders is an important aspect of the Army’s culture. Consequently, soldiers are trained and conditioned to follow orders but think critically and independently, and practice autonomy in the context of the larger organization. The slogans and mottos have a balance between ideas of autonomy and teamwork. Unfortunately this same culture could be a catalyst for human resources problems such as work place harassment, discrimination, or employee conflict as evidenced by the treatment and discrimination of homosexuals, disabled, Muslims, and soldiers of

Middle Eastern origin. Employees are generally conditioned to take orders from ranking superiors without hesitation or resistance. The assumption in Army culture is that a higher ranking person, despite their competence, personality or leadership ability is able to legally give an order or directive to a lower ranking person within their chain of command. Consequently this is the source of numerous conflicts between Army personnel and their leadership. Unfortunately the Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human

ontext of the larger organization. The slogans and mottos have a balance between ideas of autonomy and teamwork. Unfortunately this same culture could be a catalyst for human resources problems such as work place harassment, discrimination, or employee conflict as evidenced by the treatment and discrimination of homosexuals, disabled, Muslims, and soldiers of

Middle Eastern origin. Employees are generally conditioned to take orders from ranking superiors without hesitation or resistance. The assumption in Army culture is that a higher ranking person, despite their competence, personality or leadership ability is able to legally give an order or directive to a lower ranking person within their chain of command. Consequently this is the source of numerous conflicts between Army personnel and their leadership. Unfortunately the Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human

he Army culture and its engrained chain of command practices do not often help employees resolve their issues with their leadership anonymously or without severe repercussions. If an individual has issues or problems with their platoon leader they are often unable to resolve the issue by going around the platoon leader or chain of command without causing problems. Likewise, as with any team, there is going to be conflict between team members. Typically a HR department would assist in resolving ongoing conflicts, however the Army’s culture promotes team members resolving their own issues and people that go outside the team often reap severe repercussion, ostracization, or alienation. Despite its size and its functional HR departments the Army fails to provide a safe and comfortable environment for an employee to register a human resources related complaint.

In addition to being the largest employer in the world the U.S. Army is also the largest employer of minorities in the United States. This fact is significant when you examine the impact of managing diversity in other organizations in unrelated industries. In brief, the Army like many older institutions once had a very prominent existence of institutionalized racism however in the recent decades the Army has evolved to be a leader in diversity management.