Motivating Military Families to Thrive

Motivating Military Families to Thrive

Matthew G. Clark1, Jacquelynn D. Jordan1 and Katherine L. Clark2

1United States Military Academy, 2West Point Middle School

Since 1973 excellent programs supporting military families have developed. However, a unified program acrossthe Department of Defense (DoD) that meets family needs and connects to communities is elusive. MilitaryFamily Life Project data show that participation in many programs is limited, but when the programs areused, they often work well. The data suggest the “coercive bureaucracy” that envelopes the military extends tothe family and limits motivation to utilize programs. We propose that the military employ the Self-Determination Theory to motivate families to elevate above basic survival so they can thrive. With 73% offamilies living outside of military installations, their participation in programs will require communityinvolvement because the government cannot meet the needs of most families by itself. Connecting governmentand community programs requires a transparent unified program structure. We propose that product life-cyclemanagement will elucidate and integrate existing programs across the entire service life cycle and enhancecommunity connectivity.

Keywords: community; family; military; motivation; product life-cycle management

General John Wickham, the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, recognizedthe disconnected nature of Army family support in 1983 when he wrote thatprograms had developed through “historical evolution” and that they were“piecemeal” (Wickham, 1983, p. 16). Some excellent programs have developed inthe last 30 years across all military services, but many programs continue todevelop individually, and a unified family program that connects tocommunities is still elusive. While many family initiatives have moved undervarious military command or leadership structures, the programs must stillcontend with the problems created by a government bureaucracy where thefamily is not yet at the core of military service. The result is reduced militaryand family readiness.

In this paper, we discuss existing family programs developed in parts of theU.S. military since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973, especially

Authors’ Note: Matthew G. Clark, PhD, PMP, is Program Director, General Psychology for Leaders,and Assistant Professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Jacquelynn D. Jordan,MA, is an Instructor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the United StatesMilitary Academy. Katherine L. Clark, MA, is an instructional assistant at the West Point MiddleSchool, Department of Defense Educational Activity, West Point, NY, and she is a certified specialand general education secondary school teacher. Please address correspondence to Matthew G. Clark,Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, Building 601, Cullum Road, West Point, NY10996; e-mail: [email protected]. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Military OfficersAssociation of America for supporting this work and Ms. Ren�e Campos, in particular, for herexceptional feedback leading to this research. The views presented in this article are those of theauthors and do not purport to reflect the positions of the funding agencies, the United States MilitaryAcademy, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2, December 2013 110–123DOI: 10.1111/fcsr.12046© 2013 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

110

those in the U.S. Army since 1983. We also report on involvement and limitedparticipation in some of these programs as observed in the Military Family LifeProject (MFLP) data set. The MFLP data further support the unique nature offamilies connected to the military. As noted by Soeters, Winslow, and Weibull(2003) who expanded on the characterization by Adler and Borys (1996), themilitary operates within a “coercive bureaucracy” that generally demotivatespersonnel, limits creativity, and promotes dissatisfaction. Data from MFLPsupport the interpretation that this coercive bureaucracy extends to the militaryfamily as evidenced by limited program utilization. Due to limited familyparticipation, this paper proposes that the military needs to fundamentallychange the way that they engage families. To address this challenge, we proposethe use of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone,1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000) to separate military families from the coercivebureaucracy. Translating and embracing this approach across the military willallow families to elevate above basic survival so they can thrive.

Finally, consistent with the self-determination theory, we propose thatenduring military and veteran family support requires local communityinvolvement (Bowen, Mancini, Martin, Ware, & Nelson, 2003; Huebner,Mancini, Bowen, & Orthner, 2009). We believe that all three self-determinationtheory components of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are necessary tomaximize family involvement and increase family readiness. By extension, webelieve that no one component is sufficient for program success. We believethis level of involvement cannot happen unless the military elevates theimportance of the family and increases transparency around a unified Militaryand Veteran Family Program structure. Such a structure can be based onproduct life-cycle management techniques that is employed by industry andgovernment. A comprehensive family life-cycle management and supportframework will provide the necessary transparency, especially if theDepartment of Defence (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA) generate ashared structure that clearly illustrates existing programs and support servicesacross the entire service life cycle.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Selected Army and DoD Family Programs in Context

In 1983, when General Wickham wrote his groundbreaking white paper on theArmy Family, he was acting in a political environment where the Army waswidely seen as a “hollow force” only 10 years after the military became an all-volunteer organization (Jones, 2012). To tackle issues surrounding the militaryafter Vietnam and the new force management approach, General Wickhamrecognized that he had to take action for the future of the Army. Also, he wasprobably influenced by family support efforts by other services like those in theNavy (Westphal & Woodward, 2010). Accordingly, in 1984, the Year of theArmy Family, General Wickham promoted the development of the program thatbecame the Army Family Action Plan (AFAP), which directly engaged andconnected families to the highest levels of Army leadership (Booth et al., 2007).This can be seen as an unofficial start of an effort to recognize the importance ofthe military family for military readiness, at least in the U.S. Army.

Clark et al. / MOTIVATING MILITARY FAMILIES TO THRIVE 111

However, military family support is not only an issue for the Army, so wewill consider the issue across all uniformed services. According to the mostrecent demographics report by the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary ofDefense (Military Community and Family Policy), the military of today includesapproximately 1,411,000 active duty and 856,000 reserves (2012). Supportingthese service members are over 3.1 million family members. Thus, the totalnumber of DoD personnel and family impacted by military family policy isnearly 5.4 million. And yet, this does not include all related veterans, retirees,and DoD civilians that might also be impacted by family policies from the DoDor VA (Veterans Affairs).

In 1983, General Wickham proposed two major thrusts to move the Armyforward that applies to all services: “Wellness… and a nurturing of a Sense ofCommunity.” Interestingly, he also understood the military culture andemphasized that the senior leadership of the Army should create policies andprograms for Army families “without being dictatorial.” From the beginning, itappears that he knew it would be a challenge to build linkages withoutcompromising each element. Moreover, he juxtaposed these critical elementsnext to the equally critical national element of military readiness when he statedthat “taking care of our families enhances both retention and readiness.” Webelieve that the Armed Services are still not meeting either of the objectives ofWellness and a Sense of Community, suggesting that military readiness couldalso be suffering.

Many of the key issues for the military (as a whole) have not changed sinceGeneral Wickham led the Army (Shinseki, 2003). The vast majority of today’smilitary are under the age of 30, and they have young families with multipledependents including dependent children and adults. The important topics thatfamilies still deal with today include spouse employment, childcare, uniquedemands on nontraditional families, home ownership, and living off post.

Meeting the immediate needs of families, the DoD and Army have developedimportant programs for military and civilian personnel alike. These programsinclude Child Development Centers, Family Readiness Groups, MilitaryOneSource, the AFAP, and the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitnessprogram, to name a few. Even while fighting two wars, the DoD and themilitary services have tried to remain vigilant in attending to the needs offamilies and providing support when possible.

The DoD created Military One Source in 2004 which consolidated access tofamily services across the branches of the military and capitalized on availabletechnology to better support service members and their families (Williams,2004). The intent of Military OneSource is to complement service-providedassistance. It allows for unprecedented 24-hr access and increased levels ofprivacy (Williams, 2004).

Seeking to build a larger online footprint, the Army’s Family ReadinessGroup (FRG) went virtual, again allowing for greater access, even if families didnot live near a military installation. The FRG, the flagship of military familysupport, exists in order to provide information and support to families as wellas to help solve problems and use resources efficiently. In theory, the new onlineapproach allows this to occur even more effectively (The Family Readiness Group,2009). The FRG also benefited in 2007 when it became an official commandprogram, allowing it to use appropriated funds to conduct business (The FamilyReadiness Group, 2009). In this way, the Army publicly endorsed the value of

112 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

these organizations by funding them and enveloping them in the command,thus giving them legitimacy.

Increasing access to programs and resources was key to building the DoDteam through the last decade of prolonged conflict. These programs intended toprovide family members the confidence and competence they needed to receivesupport even in the absence of their service member. For example, Army FamilyTeam Building (AFTB) through Army OneSource seeks to promote personalgrowth through online education resources.

Despite exceptional progress since 1983 and a formal recognition of militaryfamilies at the highest levels of government (The White House, 2011), there isstill concern about military families across the DoD. In essence, Congressionallydirected declining resources, perpetual “crises” in national leadership, plannedand unplanned reductions in the military end-strength, and the declining senseof purpose created by the redeployment from Iraq and Afghanistan creates aperfect storm that could impact military families who have endured 10 years ofactive armed conflict.

Currently, families are facing a very uncertain future, and with history as aguide, the boom-bust cycle of military service around times of war will likelycontinue for military families. This predictable cycle is one of the importantreasons we need to increase our attention on military families and how theyreceive support. This issue is particularly acute today where there is a bleakemployment future for the military family. Between 2012 and 2017, the numberof military will be reduced by 100,000 (Congressional Budget Office, 2012), whichwill affect an additional 130,000 beneficiaries. The loss of 230,000 friends andcolleagues will affect the entire military. Further, if the process of sequestrationcontinues, the Army alone may further cut the force by as much as another150,000 personnel to a total as small as 380,000 (McLeary, 2013). Adding familyto that number would more than double the number affected, and it would havean even more dramatic affect on all military families. The unique nature ofmilitary families is evident in the data presented below; the data informs theapproach that we need to employ when planning for military family support.

Military Families Respond Like Employees in a “Coercive Bureaucracy”

At its core, the military culture includes a general focus on hierarchy, discipline,and control. This focus, mechanistic structure, excessive control, and culturepromote the “McDonaldization” (Hajjar and Ender, 2005) or a “coercivebureaucracy” instead of an “enabling” structure. According to Adler and Borys,coercive bureaucracies employ excessive rules and process controls thatultimately demotivate employees to participate in activities related to theorganization, while they also suppress creativity and promote dissatisfaction.Alternatively, enabling bureaucracies use system transparency and formalizedroles to promote systems integration (e.g., between workers, leaders, andtechnology) to promote best practices. Not surprisingly, enabling organizationsare fulfilling for employees. Consequently, employees embrace processes andprocedures because the inherent skills of the employees are also criticallyimportant for the system to run.

We believe data from the recent MFLP support the argument that the effectsof a coercive environment extend to military families as well. Using the logic ofGeneral Wickham, it could appear that the Army is failing to meet one of the


most basic and important missions, that is, supporting military readiness byfailing military families. This conclusion is evident from 2010 and 2011 MFLPresearch published by the Defense Manpower Data Center (2010 Military FamilyLife Project, 2011; 2011 Military Family Life Project, 2012).

The MFLP is longitudinal research on active duty military spouses that startedin 2010. This is important because historically the DoD has focused on cross-sectional research, whereas this new longitudinal research allows for a directassessment of changes in roughly the same group over time. In the first wave ofthe research in 2010, 28,552 military spouses responded from across the Army,Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The survey asked questions about employment,mental health, military life, and wellness including social support and maritalstability (2010 Military Family Life Project, 2011). The second wave of the surveywas conducted in 2011, and 12,355 of the original group of spouses from 2010responded to this follow-on survey. The 2011 survey included questions relatedto many of the same topics as the first wave but also it expanded into questionson the effects of military deployments on children and questions regardingreunion and reintegration (2011 Military Family Life Project, 2012).

The data from the 2010 survey indicated that families utilize several DoDprograms and services that support wellness (2010 Military Family Life Project,2011). However, the research indicated a general lack of widespread programutilization. Figure 1 shows the limited utilization of existing military familyprograms and support services. Of the programs evaluated, only a few were

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Telephonic/ web-based counseling

Services to help manage money while apart

Other support

In-person counseling

Services from mil. chaplian/civilian religious leader

Military spouses support groups

Information via Military OneSourse

Reunion planning information or classes

Temporary reunions with my spouse

Military sponsored rec. and entertainment

Family readiness groups/ombudsperson

Informational briefings

Information support provided by spouses unit

Gym/Fitness center

During your spouse's most recent deployment cycle (prior to, during, or post deployment), did you use...

Figure 1: Question 81 from the 2010 Military Family Life Project survey of Military Familiesshowing that utilization of most military family support services are limited inrecent deployment cycles across all services of the Department of Defense (2010Military Family Life Project, 2011). Notice that few military families utilized supportprograms requiring active engagement (generally 17% or less), those representedwith white fill.


utilized by more than 30% of military families. The most used programs andservices were fitness centers (40%), information provided by the spouse’smilitary unit (37%), and informational briefings (35%). Only 29% used the FRGleader or ombudsmen before, during, or after a recent deployment to thecombat zone. This is troubling because these are supposedly the flagshipprograms for supporting all military families during the difficult stages ofdeployment.

Perhaps more disconcerting is that military families were much less likely touse programs requiring active forms of engagement. Only 17% of spousesreported using reunion planning information and classes, 13% utilized militaryspouse support groups, and even fewer used in-person counseling (8%) ortelephonic/web-based counseling (2%). If we believe that the military is acoercive bureaucracy, then these data might suggest the demotivating aspect ofthe bureaucracy extends to military families.

The 2011 MFLP survey further shed light on the question of utilization ofmental health and family support services. The results indicate that in the6 months prior to completing the survey, 43% of respondents felt the need formental health counseling and support (2011 Military Family Life Project, 2012).However, only 16% actually sought a counselor in that time, a difference onlyslightly higher in spouses living on versus off post. Perhaps most notably, the2011 MFLP data further examined this question and revealed 83% of those whosought counseling found the services useful for themselves or their families.

For the military spouses who sought counseling, the top three issues thatmotivated them to seek counseling were: Family issues (78%), Coping withStress (77%), and Marital issues (70%). When forced to choose the top issue,military spouses reported that marital issues were their top issue more than anysingle issue (2011 Military Family Life Project, 2012). These results reinforce theimportance of focusing on the military families and the relationship of thefamily to readiness.

A related question is the method that military families used for seekingmental health services. Perhaps not surprisingly to military families, the militaryinsurance program TRICARE was the most common source of counseling usedby the military families that sought assistance (2011 Military Family Life Project,2012). The MFLP survey revealed that 50% of spouses used TRICARE, whichwas higher than all other available sources of support including MilitaryOneSource, Military Family Life Consultants, Child and Youth Military FamilyLife Consultants, military chaplains or other local religious leaders, or supportfrom the spouse’s installation or some other source.

Collectively, these results suggest that military families do not feel that theDoD and the individual services are meeting their family support needs.Likewise, families are not broadly motivated to participate in programs, whichwe argue is due to the coercive nature of the military for service members. Yet,it is clear that because at least some of the existing programs were beneficial tofamilies, one objective of DoD family programs must be increasing involvementand motivation of military families to participate at all stages of the servicemember’s career or time in service. Essentially, we need to find ways to increasemeaningful motivation and involvement to improve existing programs and topromote military family health and unit readiness. In summary, the DoD needsto do a better job for beneficiaries by using a different approach than they haveused in the past.


THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Using Self-Determination Theory to Separate Families from the Coercive Bureaucracy

To increase involvement and utilization of family programs, we believe themilitary needs to change how they approach family support fundamentally. Thisis not to say that we need to reengineer family team building and communityservice programs from the ground up. Instead, family programs require a newstrategic vision underpinned by a clear theoretical and evidence-basedframework. This is not a new requirement as the basic need to overcome thecoercive bureaucracy was identified by General Wickham when he stated thatwe need to support families “without being dictatorial.” However, the militaryhas not solved the problem in the last 30 years, and the DoD still lacks a clearimplementation approach. We propose the theoretical framework that shouldguide family programs overall is the SDT.

Key to SDT is the idea that purely intrinsic or extrinsic motivations arerarely the reason for our actions. Instead, the combination of both leads to avariety of results. SDT considers how a continuum of motivation is responsiblefor human behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Behavior that is solely extrinsicallymotivated may lead to the desired outcome, but it is done with less intensityand less personal commitment than more self-directed, intrinsically motivated,behavior. However, extrinsically motivated behavior generally has at leastsome small part of it that is motivated for intrinsic reasons, whether that isbecause the person values the opinions of others, the outcome, or esteem(Ryan & Deci, 2000).

In the continuum of extrinsic motivation, SDT discusses internalization as theprocess of transforming external regulations of behavior into internal ones andultimately integrating those regulations into one’s sense of self (Deci et al., 1994;Ryan & Deci, 2000). While internalization is a process, individuals do notnecessarily pass through each step in the process to identify the value of anactivity. Introjection, the lowest level of internalization, is suboptimal as oneunderstands a value but does not identify with it or accept it as his own.External motivations largely govern this type of internalization, and it oftenleads to tension and anxiety (Deci et al., 1994). Integration, on the other end ofinternalization, occurs when one identifies with the value and accepts fullresponsibility for doing the task. This behavior is largely a result of internalmotivation and is correlated with enjoyment and self-initiation (Deci et al.,1994).

To reach integration, each of three needs that maintain or enhance intrinsicmotivation must be met. These needs are Relatedness, Competence, andAutonomy (Church et al., 2012; Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan &Deci, 2000). People are social creatures and uninteresting tasks are generallyexternally motivated. That a behavior happens at all is generally a result of theimportance of a relationship and relatedness; the uninteresting task is donebecause it is important to someone the person loves, respects, trusts, etc. (Ryan& Deci, 2000). Competence is the knowledge that one has the ability to performthe requested behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Competencealso increases intrinsic motivation (Church et al., 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000).Perceived competence, while imperative to motivation, will only sustain actionwhen the person performing the action has autonomy (Silva et al., 2010).


Autonomy is about understanding the purpose and value of a task andhaving a choice whether or not to perform the behavior. Autonomy promotesthe highest level of extrinsic motivation which is integration. This isaccomplished by providing people with a meaningful rationale, showing themrespect through acknowledging their perspectives, and minimizing pressure inorder to allow freedom of choice (Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The environment in which people live greatly affects their motivations. Ifthe environment supports self-determination, then people are more likely tointernalize their behavior, which will allow for greater congruence andconsistency between their behaviors and their self-concept (Deci et al., 1994;Rogers, 1957). SDT is so important in motivation that Deci and colleagues(1994) found that if people feel they have autonomy or perceived choice andthat their perspective is validated, then they are able to find meaning forthemselves—even in an uninteresting task. Additionally, they found thathaving a meaningful rationale was enough for participants to search forinteresting aspects of the work (Deci et al., 1994). Church et al. (2012) note thatbalancing the three needs of SDT is important in that an imbalance can reflectan improper allocation of personal resources and result in poorer overall well-being.

Wellness and psychological well-being are closely tied to motivation aspeople strive for growth and health (see Deci & Ryan, 2000 for a full review).Numerous studies have examined how self-determination affects numeroushealth-related behaviors. Two successful examples of SDT include smokingcessation (Williams et al., 2006; Williams, Niemiec, Patrick, Ryan, & Deci, 2009)and maintaining physical activity (Fortier, Sweet, O’Sullivan, & Williams, 2007;Silva et al., 2010). In particular, these studies examined the relationship ofcompetence to autonomy in pursuing health goals. They also examined whetheror not autonomy-supportive environments can have a positive impact on health-related behavior. The studies show that autonomy-supportive environments incontrolled experiments lead to internalization, increases in autonomy andcompetence, and ultimately higher rates of goal attainment (Fortier et al., 2007;Silva et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2006, 2009).

While these studies did not directly analyze the role of relatedness in theirresearch, we see that relatedness also matters in goal pursuit. Williams andcolleagues (2006) focus on the positive influence of the relationship with thecounselor. The control group received information and the freedom to choosewhether to take action without positive counselor interaction, whereas theexperimental group received counseling in addition to information and choice. Itis possible that the relationship with the counselor was the reason for improvedgoal attainment. Similarly, a review of research by Fortier et al. (2007) supportsrelatedness or connectedness as the third necessary component for self-determination for health-related behavior. In this latter study, counselors werepresent for both the control and experimental groups and the quantity of contactmattered in goal directed behavior. Thus, all three elements of competence,autonomy, and relatedness are required for maximal motivation and wellness(Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Creating and maintaining motivation for increased well-being among soldiersand family members is a priority for the DoD, as evidenced by the growth inprogram quantity and quality over the last few decades. For example, one lookat the AFTB website shows that the Army is dedicated to providing a


supportive environment to get families better prepared for growth andcommunity engagement. The mission statement of AFTB is:

Army Family Team Building empowers individuals, maximizing their personalgrowth and professional development through specialized training, transformingour community into a resilient and strong foundation meeting today’s militarymission. (Army Family Team Building, n.d. para. 1).

Applying SDT to this mission statement shows that this program supportsautonomy in concept by providing a meaningful rationale for engagement,respect for the potential participants, and choice as opposed to pressure. It alsoemphasizes relatedness as it discusses the community and the mission of themilitary at large. Further investigation shows that the program also attempts tomeet participants where they are with multiple levels of training so there istraining available without regard to the competency of the participant.According to SDT then, internalization should be high as people identify withthe value of the training and accept responsibility for participating in it.

However, the AFTB program is not seeing internalized motivation asevidenced by utilization of the program nor is it the result that many programsare seeing within the DoD as evidenced by the MFLP data. Unfortunately, evenextrinsic motivation is failing to maintain attendance in these courses andgroups. While the design of these courses perhaps unintentionally seemed toconsider SDT, they missed the mark in implementation so that spouses still feelforced to participate and are reluctant participants when they do get involved.

Delving deeper into these programs, the SDT can help explain why this is thecase. Church et al. (2012) found autonomy is less satisfied in tight cultures,cultures with strong social norms and low tolerance for deviation—the militaryis a tight culture where this applies. A suggestion for participation by acommander is received by his subordinates as an order, which gets passed on tospouses. The FRG, goes a step farther as it is a “Commander’s Program,”meaning that the “boss” runs it and a service member’s spouse’s participation init is now coupled with pressure and guilt. Thus, it is difficult to create anenvironment that supports autonomy under such hierarchy—a hierarchy thatmany commanders use to get participation. This reveals how the coercivebureaucracy exerts its effect not only on the employee, but also on the family.The program needs to be redesigned specifically with SDT in mind to bettersupport spouses and families.

Looking at another aspect of SDT, AFTB seeks to meet spouses where theyare by providing three levels of training, all available online. The approachundermines its own goal of competence by assuming that all spouses will fallwithin one of three levels and that at those three levels, all spouses are lookingfor the same things: basic military knowledge, personal growth, and leadershipskills. The prescriptive nature of what spouses should want to learn and whenthey want to learn it does not promote self-efficacy or competence in the waythe designers probably hoped would occur. Finally, placing all of the trainingonline depersonalizes the training in an environment where the quality of onlineeducation is already a significant concern (Masoumi & Lindstr€om, 2012).

Further, because the training is depersonalized, it misses the key concept ofrelatedness. While the goal of the training program is to help build thecommunity that is a very interconnected goal, the technique that AFTB andrelated programs attempt to use to reach that goal probably undermines


relatedness. The military is a collectivist culture and relies on interconnectednessto get almost every mission accomplished. Church et al. (2012) found that wecannot assume that relatedness is satisfied merely because a culture iscollectivist. The members of the culture must work to satisfy the relatednessneeds of its members, both within the ranks and in those who support them.

While we can find relatedness in some FRGs, those connections are oftenshort lived. The military thrives because of the rotation of people within unitswhich prevent the units from becoming stagnant. However, the leadershipwithin FRGs is also rotated at a similar pace, which is detrimental to the goalsof these groups. Without consistent leadership, commitment to the groupbecomes weak as does the group itself. The weak FRG is maintained, anddifficult to overcome, as perceptions of its perceived weakness spreadthroughout the service members within the unit who do not want their spousesinvolved.

Many spouses appear uninterested in the FRG because they see no need todevelop relationships with other spouses from the service member’s unit. Theygenerally feel that they have a support network of friends who are readilyavailable through social media such as Facebook and Skype. However, theauthors have observed that just prior to a deployment many spouses begin torealize that those friends on Facebook or Skype have no idea what they are goingthrough and they suddenly show up at the FRG, missing key time before themajor stressor to build relationships. Understanding how important it is forfamilies to be supported, especially while service members are deployed,commanders need to increase participation in the FRG early and often incentivizedoing so or require participation. This method of motivation underminesautonomy while trying to increase relatedness. They are equally essential inmotivating spouses to attend and one cannot be sacrificed for the other.

Deci et al. (1994) found that autonomy support will lead to self-initiation,participatory decision making, and choice when people are provided with ameaningful rationale, when their perspective is acknowledged, and when theyhave the choice as opposed to feeling controlled. Engagement in both FRGs andAFTB-like training will be greater if leaders can communicate the reason behindthese activities more effectively, acknowledge spouses’ competence in their owncoping and growth independent of these organizations, and stop incentivizingparticipation or punishing non-participation. Although the FRG is a“Commander’s Program,” the commander has no authority to order a spouse todo anything and attempting to control spouse’s behavior might do more to hurtthe organization than it does to help.

Besides using an understanding of SDT at the unit commander level, we alsopropose that senior DoD leaders need to use the principles to promote policiesfrom the top-down. Systemic policies that promote competence need to startwith a culture of trust. The current environment focuses on resources (usuallymoney) above all and changing this culture is key to broadly changing theculture of trust in the military in a positive way. As for competence, the DoDshould work with the services to create quality training to motivate thosewanting to participate in a new family program. The family training could besimilar in content to existing programs like the AFTB program; however, thetraining must be tailored to allow for the specific needs of families and it needsto be carefully constructed to remove controlling language that can undermineautonomy.


Additionally, the DoD can further increase competence in military families byusing existing military educational organizations to provide college credit for thespouses motivated to participate in the program. This is an extrinsic motivator,but it moves the spouses toward more internalization especially if the creditspouses receive is from an accredited educational institution thereby potentiallyfurthering the individual goals and skills of military family members.Maintaining an autonomy-supportive environment that reinforces the excitementof some military spouses will collectively increase both elements of competenceand autonomy and take spouses and families a step closer to self-determination.

However, the last component that requires attention across the system isrelatedness. Increased individual interest and autonomy will improverelatedness across the military, but meeting relatedness fully will require thatfamily programs link to the communities in which they live.

Using Life-cycle Management to Serve and Connect Military Families to Communities

The 2011 MFLP data reveal that 73% of military families do not live oninstallations (2011 Military Family Life Project, 2012). This indicates that thefocus of military family programs cannot only be installations and that the needfor connectivity to local communities is particularly apparent. In essence, howcan the military meet families where they have the greatest need and allow forgreater public–private partnerships? Additionally, how can the DoD movetoward taking military family programs closer to Adler and Borys’ “enablingbureaucracy” rather than its current coercive bureaucracy? We believe that theDoD can accomplish this objective by creating a military family and support life-cycle management framework (c.f. product life-cycle management; Sudarsan,Fenves, Sriram, & Wang, 2005).

In brief, the DoD could base the life-cycle management framework on theconcept of product life-cycle management that is employed for the mostcomplex product and process development efforts in government and industry(Sudarsan et al., 2005). A life-cycle management approach is a strategic businessmanagement tool that integrates all of the major elements of a complex systemacross all phases of a product from origination to completion. This approachallows everyone involved with the system to understand and trace the availableinputs and outputs. This transparent approach could capture key processes forfamilies, communities, and other stakeholders alike so that everyone canparticipate in a meaningful manner.

The need for a life-cycle management framework that documents theavailable processes and services is readily apparent in the types of communityorganizations that have developed during the last 10 years of combat.Organizations like Community Blueprint and The Staff Sergeant Donnie D.Dixon Center for Military and Veterans Community Services (“Dixon Center”)reveal that there is a an intense need for community support services that linkmilitary, veterans, and the families to the community and available services atall stages of the service life cycle. These programs also more directly highlightthe overt need for improved partnerships between government agencies andservices.

In 2010, Community Blueprint developed specifically because of a need forenhanced partnerships between public and private sectors so that communitiescould meet the needs of military, veterans, and their families locally (History of


the Community Blueprint, n.d.). Likewise, the Dixon Center is a part of theEaster Seals with a focus that “builds partnerships, shares innovations, andconnects those who have served through collective impact initiatives in theirlocal communities” (Dixon Center-Reaching America, n.d.). While these are onlytwo of many organizations focused on the military, veterans, and the family, itis clear that there is a great need for improving connectivity betweengovernment and nongovernmental organizations.

Interestingly, General Wickham directly referenced this need in his originalthoughts on the topic in 1983. In his white paper, he stated, “We have and mustcontinue to promote individualized, community-unique projects and programsinitiated at command and, especially, installation level.” The spontaneousdevelopment and broad appeal of programs like Community Blueprint and theDixon Center strongly suggest that the DoD continues to fail in the mission of“nurturing a sense of community.” We are left asking what can be done tofacilitate a connection between the public and private sectors that will enhancemilitary and family support nationally and locally.

We believe that a life-cycle management framework will serve both thegovernment and private sector by providing process transparency. Suchtransparency will facilitate maximal military and family support. We use asimilar process map for our most expensive and important governmentacquisitions called the “Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, andLogistics Life-Cycle Management System” (Defense Acquisition University,2010). While the entire process can be overwhelming, it defines roles andresponsibilities to the organizations and individuals that work in particular areasof the process. Moreover, the process shows the integration touch points that arerequired across processes and organizations while also serving as a tool forleaders. Clarifying roles will enable family participants, government serviceproviders, and nongovernmental and community organizations to observe whatis done to support each other and the complexity of the system across all stagesof the life cycle of service members and their families.

We expect that some may argue that a life-cycle management framework willfurther exert control on the participants involved in the processes highlighted.We believe that such arguments will most likely come from those who have notworked within a complex system utilizing these types of product life-cyclemaps, project/program management tools, or a systems engineering process. Inreality, the life-cycle management and support framework does not exertcontrol; instead, it reduces role confusion and shows where personnel,organizations, systems, and services integrate in a larger, more complex system.Systems of systems then provide guidance, and not a dictate, for how the highersystem should operate.

This approach would also provide targets for leadership, research, anddevelopment, and easier identification of gaps or redundancies, all of which leadto better systemic support for service members and their families. If this novelapproach were applied to programs supporting military, veterans, and theirfamilies, it would help communicate where local and national organizations canparticipate in family support. Lastly, employing a life-cycle managementframework would also likely support an “enabling bureaucracy” rather than acoercive approach. This is because reducing role confusion betweengovernmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and communities is apart of the process for supporting an enabling bureaucracy.


CONCLUSION

Despite senior leader recognition of key problems facing the military and familyreadiness and mission support since at least the 1980s, (in our opinion) themilitary has not met some of their stated objectives. Families appear to bereluctant to utilize numerous family programs, particularly those requiringactive involvement as demonstrated by the MFLP data. Despite these failureswithin the DoD, numerous effective programs have developed piecemeal toattempt to meet the needs of families. Yet, when families participate, someprograms are seen as very beneficial. Thus, moving forward we still need tochange the nature of how we treat, serve, and support military, veterans, andtheir families across the entire system.

We believe that the SDT can serve as an important and useful guide forincreasing competence, autonomy, and relatedness in a directed fashion acrossthe entire DoD and possibly even Veterans Affairs. Over time intrinsicmotivation of families to use available products and services will increase, whichwill combat military family acceptance of the military’s coercive bureaucracy.Yet, SDT cannot meet the needs of the system alone. Process transparency is acritical requirement for linking and serving families to the communities in whichthey live. This novel application of product life-cycle management will help theDoD elevate the importance of the military family to its appropriate position asone that makes or breaks the success of the military in providing for thenational defense. We believe that this approach will help the military overcomethe problems associated with coercive bureaucracies that extend to families, andalso that it will help military families thrive.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 41, 61–89.

Army Family Team Building. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.myarmyonesource.com/familyprogramsandservices/familyprograms/armyfamilyteambuilding/default.aspx

Booth, B., Segal, M. W., Bell, D. B., Martin, J. A., Ender, M. G., Rohall, D. E., et al. (2007). What weknow about Army families: 2007 update. San Antonio, TX: Family and Morale, Welfare andRecreation Command.

Bowen, G. L., Mancini, J. A., Martin, J. A., Ware, W. B., & Nelson, J. P. (2003). Promoting theadaptation of military families: An empirical test of a community practice model. Family Relations,52(1), 33–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00033.x

Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., Vargas-Flores, J. J., et al. (2012).Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507–534. doi: 10.1177/0022022112466590.

Congressional Budget Office. (2012). Long-term implications of the 2013 future years defense program.(Congressional Budget Office publication number 4458) Washington, DC: Congressional BudgetOffice. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43428

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and theSelf-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Defense Acquisition University. (2010, June 15). Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and LogisticsLife Cycle Management System. Retrieved Sep 2, 2013, from Integrated Life Cycle Chart:https://ilc.dau.mil/pdf/ILC_hotspots_linked_pdf.pdf


Dixon Center – Reaching America. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 31, 2013, from http://dixon.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=dixon_overview&s_section=

Fortier, M. S., Sweet, S. N., O’Sullivan, T. L., & Williams, G. C. (2007). A self-determination processmodel of physical activity adoption in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 8(5), 741–757. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.006

Hajjar, R., & Ender, M. G. (2005). McDonaldization in the U.S. Army: A threat to the profession. InD. M. Snider & L. J. Matthews (Eds.), The future of the Army profession (pp. 515–530). New York:McGraw-Hill Custom Publishing.

History of the Community Blueprint. (n.d.). Retrieved Aug 31, 2013, from Points of Light: http://www.pointsoflight.org/programs/military-initiatives/community-blueprint/history

Huebner, A. J., Mancini, J. A., Bowen, G. L., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Shadowed by war: Buildingcommunity capacity to support military families. Family Relations, 58(2), 216–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00548.x

Jones, F. L. (2012). A “hollow Army” reappraised: President Carter, Defense budgets, and the politics ofmilitary readiness. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Retrieved 08 28,2013, from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1125

Masoumi, D. & Lindstr€om, B. (2012). Quality in e-learning: A framework for promoting and assuringquality in virtual institutions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 27–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00440.x

McLeary, P. (2013). Army’s problems go deeper than SCRM. DefenseNews. Retrieved 08 28, 2013,from http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130801/DEFREG02/308010021/Army-s-Problems-go-Deeper-Than-SCMR

2010 Military Family Life Project. (DMDC Report No. 2010-029) (2011). [Tabulations of Responses].Washington, DC: Defense Manpower Data Center.

2011 Military Family Life Project. (DMDC Report No. 2012-027) (2012). [Tabulations of Responses].Washington, DC: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Shinseki, E. K. (2003). The Army Family: A White Paper. Washington, DC: United States Army.Silva, M. N., Vieira, P. N., Coutinho, S. R., Minderico, C. S., Matos, M. G., Sardinha, L. B., et al.

(2010). Using self-determination theory to promote physical activity and weight control: Arandomized controlled trial in women. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33(2), 110–122. doi: 10.1007/s10865-009-9239-y

Soeters, J. L., Winslow, D. J., & Weibull, A. (2003). Military Culture. In G. Caforio (Ed.), Handbook ofthe Sociology of the Military (pp. 237–254). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science & BusinessMedia B.V.

Sudarsan, R., Fenves, S. J., Sriram, R. D., & Wang, F. (2005). A product information modelingframework for product lifecycle management. Computer-Aided Design, 37, 1399–1411.

The Family Readiness Group. (2009). The battlebook IV: A guide for spouse’s in leadership roles. Retrievedfrom www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/mfp/battlebook/pdf/Chapter%203.pdf

The White House (2011). Strengthening our military families: Meeting America’s commitment. Retrievedfrom http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2011/0111_initiative/strengthening_our_military_january_2011.pdf

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community andFamily Policy). (2012). 2011 Demographics: Profile of the miliary community. Washington, DC: Office ofthe Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy). Retrieved July 30,2013, from http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2011_Demographics_Report.pdf

Westphal, R. J. & Woodward, K. R. (2010). Family fitness. Military Medicine, 175, 97–102.Wickham, J. A. (1983). The Army Family: White Paper 1983. Washington, DC: U.S. Army.Williams, R. (2004). Military One Source solves service member, family member problems. American

Forces Press Service. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=26170Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Sharp, D., Levesque, C., Kouides, R. W., Ryan, R. M., et al. (2006).

Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: Supporting autonomyand competence in a clinical trial.Health Psychology, 25(1), 91–101. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.1.91

Williams, G. C., Niemiec, C. P., Patrick, H., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance ofsupporting autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence.Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 315–324. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9090-y


Documents

Motivating Military Families to Thrive