Government
The New Zealand army set up closely follows that of the British. It is made up of three organs The army, the navy and the air force. Each of the organs has the unique task within the general mission of defending the country (Rolfe, 1999). The army is the land power that is supposed to instill order and values in the land as it guards the installations and the property of the government in the land. The air force is the aerial wing of the armed forces and its task within the general mission of the armed forces is the provision of flexible aerial power when needed. The navy is based in the ocean and protects the country from the marines.
During recruitment, each unit conducts its own recruitment and training at their own different bases. They also conduct it during different times of the year and three different budgets are made for the three different units of the armed forces. There are also different administrative units that spearhead the recruitment, each with its own hierarchy of administrator recruiters and trainers who have to be paid. Different bases are also expensively set up for the activity with each of the three units building its own recruitment base (Rolfe, 1999).
This should not be the case, because the value system of the three units of the armed forces is the same and most of the activities done during the process of training and recruitment is the same. This duplicated method of recruitment and training is sheer waste of money, physical and human resources bearing in mind that a lot of benefits can be accrued by having a joint recruitment of the officers of the three units of the armed forces, though there are also some limitations that would impede this kind of operation. There are very many grounds that can be covered by a single recruitment exercise. Apart from the coverage, there are also many other benefits that can be accrued from the single recruitment exercise though there will still be some limitations that would impede this kind of operation.
Discussion
Commonalities and Benefits
There are various commonalities between the army, the navy and the armed forces that cam be covered if the New Zealand armed forces conducted a joint training program (Rolfe, 1999). One of the commonalities is the recruitment procedure and the qualities that the three forces look for when they are recruiting. The minimum age for the three forces is 18 and the maximum is 32. The normal terms of engagement for the three is 22 years and one is not allowed to resign before serving for 3 years. The three armies recruit from within the country and they do not accept foreigners. The organs of the armed forces also accept women though the women are not allowed in the combat units of the forces (Rolfe, 1999).
When it comes to the training, the training system for the three organs is the same though each branch conducts its own training independently. The training of the armed forces is value oriented and there are various values like integrity, strength, leadership, commitment and service that are instilled during the training period. All these values are central to the three units and can be covered in a common way during the recruitment. In the three organs, discipline is very important and this is why the armed forces are referred to as the disciplined forces because of the value that is instilled is discipline. This discipline, self management and leadership skills are necessary in day to day operations of the armed forces (Rolfe, 1999).
There are very many benefits that can be accrued by conducting a single recruitment exercise for the navy, the army and the armed forces of New Zealand (Rolfe, 1999). One of the benefits is based on economics where a lot of money will be saved. Independent recruitments consume a lot of taxpayers money. To start with, independent recruitments will require three different advertisements calling interested and qualified individuals to apply for the armed forces posts which are very costly as compared to a single advertisement for a joint recruitment activity. Secondly, independent recruitment will mean that the procedures of recruitment will be carried out on different days or even different months which lead to waste of time. A lot of time can be saved if the recruitment was to be conducted on a single day at a central place. The other reason why independent recruitments are costly is that each organ has to set its own recruitment and training base meaning that there will be three facilities that are serving the same role and they are not even used throughout the year. If the armed forces were to conduct a joint recruitment, one centre would be set up for the process where the individual supposed to join any of the three wings of the armed forces will be selected. Setting up a training base costs the taxpayers a lot of money and a lot of money would be saved if one very big training base was set up to accommodate recruits from the whole force. It will also be cost effective because in the independent recruitment procedures, the cost of hiring the personnel for the three training bases is very prohibitively high. Administrative costs will also be kept down if the recruitment is done jointly.
The other reason why joint recruitment is beneficial is because a single human resource department for the armed forces would be set up and not three human resource departments for each of the organs of the armed forces. This, apart from saving costs also ensures that there is uniformity and cohesion in the process of recruitment. It ensures that all the qualities that are considered before recruitment are uniform for the three. Independent recruitment with three departments of human resources can compromise the quality of the recruitments process especially if one department is more lenient that the other or one department uses underhand method in the process of recruitment (Rolfe, 1999). The use of a common human resource department will also ensure that the working standards will be controlled form a certain central point and the welfare of the workers of the armed forces will be addressed by the same human resource management. Furthermore, a joint recruitment will enhance unity of the forces.
The armed force is a single body that performs the same role although on different platforms. Independent recruitment of the officers of the armed forces by each of the organ makes the force to look as a body of three independent and unrelated forces. Joint recruitment and training would help in addressing this anomaly. From the onset, a joint recruitment will create a homogenous team of officers who will be trained together as they interact and know each other. They will be taught the values of the force, the missions, the discipline and the approaches of the force meaning that there will acquire standard procedures used for the entire force. Independent training can disadvantage one group of the force especially if the processes in the camp are wanting or one training camp has better personnel than the other (Rolfe, 1999). Joint training will expose the recruits to similar conditions meaning that no group will have a competitive disadvantage.
There comes a time when the members of the forces are supposed to work together in a joint operation. The operation will be a success if the members of the three forces had been exposed to the same type of training under the same base. However, the officers trained under different conditions in different camps may find it hard to coordinate is such an exercise because of the differences in approach. Officers who have been trained jointly already know each other and have worked together on a number of projects during training meaning that this will be transferred to the joint operation at hand.
Limitations
On the other hand there are some limitations that would make it hard for the combination of the three military services in the recruitment unit. Though they have one general mission, there are sub missions of each unit that are specific to it. For example for the air force, there must be a mission statement that is specific to the force and values that may be specific to that force also. This means that they would require specialized recruitment procedures that are in line with the mission and vision that is specific to the air force. The same applies to the navy. There are some ethics and values that are specific to the navy. There is code of behavior that is expected of them when working in the water that may not be relevant to the army or the armed forces. This has to be disseminated to the navy officers alone meaning that conducting a joint recruitment process may hamper delivery of some elements that are specific to each of the three forces. There are also ways in which the army is supposed to carry out its operations that may not be of benefit to the rest of the units (Rolfe, 1999). This must be delivered in a way that is specific to the army and this means that they need a specialized training that encompasses the jurisdictions of the armed forces.
The other limitation is the fitness training of the three units that may differ in style. For example the training of the air force officers has to encompass aerial fitness and safety measures. These include things like jumping from planes using parachutes into the battle field and techniques of aerial combat. The navies have to be trained on marine fitness and safety techniques while serving in the water. The army also have specialized land fitness training schedules that may not be of much relevance to the other two units (Wagner, 2000). This diversity in the fitness training of the three different arms of the armed forces will create a lot of limitations that will not allow joint training to take place unless they are trained on all the aspects of three forces in a generalized way. Furthermore, this form of integrated training could have erosive effects. Each of the forces has a formal and informal culture that is specific to the unit. For example, there is a special way in which the armies live and operate and is different from that of the air force and the navy. The army officers are used to bush expeditions and remote operations and they are sometimes involved in land based community projects where they act as supervisors or workers while the navy officers are usually given extra work in the sea like saving lives in case of marine accidents (Rolfe, 1999). These extra jobs that the officers perform on the side of their jobs form part of their culture. Other parts of culture of the armed forces include their uniforms, their interpersonal relationships and their working environments. This means that if the recruitment is conducted in an integrated way, there will be gradual erosion of the cultures in each of the wing of the armed forces something that has been there for decades.
In addition, this move will create cracks within the force because not every one will support such a move. For instance, the officers in the three forces feel that their force is unique. They may resent any move that will create interference in their specific code of operations. This means that they may even boycott the process of recruitment meaning that there would be no enough manpower to carry out the process. The biggest demerit of this kind of recruitment is that it is a big security threat especially to the government. A joint recruitment and training will create unity in the armed forces which may not be healthy from a political Machiavellian point of view. This is because, they can easily hatch a plot to take over the government and establish a pure military rule (Rolfe, 1999). However, if the forces remain distant as they are now, it may take time before the units reach each other for such a plan and if one wing of the armed forces decides to go alone to overthrow the government it can be easily countered by the others.
The last demerit concerns weapons and the equipment used in the activities of each of the three forces. There are some weapons like guns that are central to the three forces meaning that the weapon training can be done in a common way but there are other weapons and war equipment that are specific to each force. The army may have its tanks the air force has the fighter jets and other aerial weapons while the navy has their navy ships and aquatic weapons meaning that this form of joint recruitment and training may not suffice. Each force needs special training on how to use and handle its special weapons.
Proposed Model
The model that I would propose is an amalgam of the two methods of integrated and independent training and recruitment. This means that the process is tackled in two phase. The first phase is the integrated recruitment and training that will ensure that all the commonalities are tackled in a common way and the second phase is where the units are separated and are trained the specifics of each force separately. This does not call for the setting of independent recruitment and training bases (Rolfe, 1999). It can still be carried in one base, under the same administration the only thing that can be done is the setting of different faculties to deal with the training of the values and the processes that are specific to each unit. This will enhance mutual relationship between the three forces while taking care of the differences between the diverse units.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the process of recruitment of the armed forces can be made cost effective if it is carried out in an integrated way. However, the limitations of the integrated process seem to outweigh the benefits meaning that though the method is cost effective and convenient, it may not be very feasible given the many demerits it has. The few benefits seem too attractive to be thrown away and revert to the old method and the best ways of creating a solution in this case is taking the best of each model and use them to create an amalgamated model that will ensure that the benefits of the integrated model are incorporated and its limitations taken into consideration (Wagner, 2000). For example, a joint recruitment will create a homogenous team of officers who will be trained together as they interact and know each other. They will be taught the values of the force, the missions, the discipline and the approaches of the force meaning that there will be standard procedures used for the entire force. Independent training can disadvantage one group of the force especially if the processes in the camp are wanting or one training camp has better personnel than the other. Joint training will expose the recruits to similar conditions meaning that no group will have a competitive disadvantage.
Recommendations
If there is no way the two methods can be married to create an alternative hybrid model, then I would propose that the old method of recruitment be maintained because the integrated method if adopted, would actually bring more problems than it would solve. Though it is cost effective and convenient, it has stark limitations that would make it highly unfeasible in a highly sensitive area of operation like the military. However, some of the cost effective benefits of the integrated model should be evaluated and be incorporated in the old model.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment