Perpetuating the Military Myth – Why the Psychology of the 2014 Australian Defence Pay Deal Is Irrelevant
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11960388 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Balint (0000-0002-9193-3580, UNSW Canberra), Peter J Balint (UNSW Canberra, corresponding author), Ned Dobos (0000-0003-0425-7711, UNSW Canberra) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 74 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 359-363 |
| Publication date | 2015-07-16 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Journal of Public Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0313-6647 • E-ISSN: 1467-8500 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-8500.12161 |
| OpenAlex | W2159586841 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
There is a widespread belief that members of the armed forces have a unique psychological relationship with their institution and their nation, and that it is this relationship that leads to loyalty and self‐sacrifice. Yet this ‘military myth’ does not hold. Many soldiers serve for ‘occupational’ rather than ‘institutional’ reasons, and as the experience of private military contractors demonstrates, this need not reduce operational effectiveness. In this article, we argue that the concern expressed in the recent commentary in this journal by Williamson et. al. (2015) that the dispute over the 2014 Australian Defence Pay Deal may damage the ‘psychological contract’, turn it from ‘relational’ to ‘transactional’, and undermine operational effectiveness is unfounded and seems to buy into this military myth
Criminology · Institution · Law and economics · Loyalty · Mythology · Political science · Psychological contract · Public relations · Sacrifice · Sociology · Transactional analysis · Transactional leadership · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · Law · Military and Defense Studies · Military History and Strategy · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|