Gender and the Military Profession

Abstract

As increasing numbers of women are recruited into the U.S. Navy, retention of women (especially in combat occupational specialties) lags behind men. Data indicate that women and men leave the Navy because of impact on their family. Lack of career persistence for women in nontraditional professions such as science, technology, engineering, and math professions has also been attributed to social psychological factors including self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and bias. We build on this research to examine the military and service academies’ socialization of women into a traditionally male profession through role model influence. Surveys were collected from students at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) on their work–family expectations. Results show a gendered difference in career intentions and influences by male and female non-USNA peers, but not from their families or officers. Expected work–family conflict, gender ideology, and family formation intentions were employed to explore relationships between work and family expectations.

Keywords

gender issues family issues recruitment/retention role model influence

As women continue to earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men and enter the labor force in record numbers, there remains a lack of persistence in traditionally male occupations and professions. While social psychological factors, such as stereotypes, biases, and beliefs regarding abilities, have led to common views that women opt out due to family plans or discriminatory practices, less is known about how traditionally male organizations, such as the military, attract and influence people to pursue a professional career with a unique professional identity. Drawing on research in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educational programs, this research focuses on understanding how career attitudes and intentions develop and are influenced during the early stages of women and men’s socialization at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA). USNA can provide unique insight into this question, as its entire focus is producing naval officers, students are immersed in the culture and have formally committed themselves to serving in the military profession.

The recruitment and retention of women leaders is a continuing focus for the Navy and U.S. military more generally. With the repeal of the ground combat exclusion rule, all military occupational specialties are open to women, removing the final institutional barrier to women’s integration. Women currently comprise 16% of all Navy officers but represent a higher percentage of the Naval Academy’s Brigade of Midshipmen (almost 22%, with a recent class exceeding 25%; Navy Office of Women’s Policy, 2012; U.S. Naval Academy Institutional Research, personal communication, December 4, 2014). However, as increasing numbers of women are being recruited into all of the academies, retention of women (especially in combat occupational specialty areas) continues to lag behind retention of men. Currently in the combat specialties, more than 40% of the male officers choose to stay in the Navy past their minimum service commitment, yet less than 20% of women do. Qualitative data show that one of the reasons both men and women leave the military is because of its impact on their family (Navy Office of Women’s Policy, 2012). In the Navy, women officers are less likely to be married than their male counterparts. Married Navy women officers are 7 times more likely to be married to another service member (dual military couple) than a civilian (Department of Defense, 2012). They are also much less likely to have children (approximately 30%–56% of female and male officers, respectively, have children; Parcell, 2014). Women who want to be married and have children are particularly challenged because of deployment schedules, structured career path requirements, multiple relocations, and difficulty finding time to have children (Smith & Segal, 2013). While military men face many of the same challenges, traditional gender roles suggest that there is a different effect on women’s experiences related to work–family roles. To date, what has not yet been explored is the process leading up to decision points and how expectations develop and change.

Students at USNA provide a unique opportunity to explore the evolution of work–family expectations, as these students enter the institution knowing that they are required to perform a minimum of 5 years military service following graduation. Several studies related to college women’s career intentions in male-dominated professions have been conducted in STEM programs and focus on why women who enter college STEM programs “leak out” of the pipeline early in their professional career. The military profession provides another perspective, since women entering the academies have committed themselves to being in a nontraditional profession and receive a core STEM-focused general education, resulting in a bachelor of science degree and have similar retention rates (85%) to men while at school (U.S. Naval Academy Institutional Research, personal communication, December 4, 2014). However, even after 5–10 years in their professional career, Navy women currently leave the military profession at a higher rate than men (Navy Office of Women’s Policy, 2012; Rodriguez, 2009).

The 4-year leader education and development program at USNA is expressly designed to indoctrinate and socialize students into the naval profession, with the hope that they will make it a career. Role models, particularly current and retired officers, are presumably key to this process, although male and female role model influence may function differently for men and women’s career development and aspirations. The academies are unusual in that students are immersed in the profession throughout their daily schedule. A high percentage of the faculty and staff with whom students regularly interact are active duty, prior, and retired military members, providing professional role models. The military branches hire all of their service academy graduates and therefore have an interest in long-term retention and providing positive professional role models. We examine first-year students at USNA as an initial step in establishing a baseline for the impact of role model influence on career intentions which may provide insight into the process of professional socialization of future military officers.

While professional role models are likely important, familial influences, social influences (institutional/organizational culture and gender ideology), and structural influences (policies, rules, and career paths) have also been found to be influential during the transition to adulthood in STEM professions (Correll, 2001, 2004; Damaske, 2011; Fan & Marini, 2000; Xie & Shauman, 2003). Thus, students being socialized into the demanding rigors of the military profession may find it challenging to envision simultaneously attaining both a successful military career and their family goals. Being immersed in a masculine military culture, being a successful military leader, having a successful and viable career path, being a military spouse, and being a military parent individually and collectively may influence students’ expectations and work–family intentions.

This article sets a baseline using a cross section of first-year students in a study on future military officers’ expected work–family outcomes. First-year students provide an understanding of work–family expectations at the outset of a professional pipeline. We focus on demographic and natal family factors, including growing up in a military family, to determine gender differences, and we analyze influence factors present in the immersive military indoctrination and socialization experience during the first year at USNA.

Overview of the Literature

We employ two key concepts in our theoretical model for career intentions: family plans and role model influence. Family plans encompass expectations for family formation as well as gender attitudes and beliefs regarding social roles. Students’ expectations about work and family are shaped by social influences prior to coming to college but continue to be shaped over the course of college and professional socialization by new and prior role models.

Using a social cognitive theory perspective, we expect that role models (i.e., people we wish to emulate) provide direct and indirect influence related to career choices and professional identity development, emphasizing competencies and commitment to the profession (Bandura, 1997; Burke, 1991; Gibson, 2004; Stryker, 2008). Social cognitive theory posits that we seek role models to help us prepare for future roles (e.g., military officers, parents, etc.) and that these role models can positively impact persistence in that role.

In studies examining college student’s career and family intentions, role model influence has varied in terms of direct and indirect relationships as well as the level of significance. According to social cognitive theory, the relationship between role model influence and career intentions is mediated by self-efficacy. Positive role model influence increases self-efficacy and enables people to believe they can have careers that are compatible with their work and family expectations, including in nontraditional STEM professions (Hackett, Esposito, & O’Halloran, 1989; Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998; Quimby & Santis, 2006). Identifying which role models are influential is important to understanding influences on career choices.

Early research predicted that parents would have the most role model influence over their children’s career choices, and in particular that daughters would have definitive feelings about whether or not they wanted to be like their mothers (Basow & Howe, 1980). In the military context, this likely includes military parents, as is demonstrated by findings that children with one or more parents who served in the military have a higher propensity to serve and to serve longer (Faris, 1981; Kilburn & Klerman, 1999; Kleykamp, 2006). Much of this desire to serve may be comfort with the military lifestyle.

Additional research included nonfamilial role models, particularly those in career-relevant fields and nontraditional careers (e.g., STEM professions). In the USNA context, this translates to interaction with Navy and Marine Corps officers, both in the classroom¹ and in the living areas, as well as the summer experiential opportunities, presumably shaping students’ expectations for life in the naval profession. Female role models in career-relevant areas, in particular, are a key influence on career aspirations and choices for women in traditionally male STEM careers (Cheryan, Siy, Vichayapai, Drury, & Kim, 2011). The absence of female role models has been shown to negatively affect women’s professional identity in gender-imbalanced STEM career fields, in part because it has been associated with women’s lower self-efficacy and lack of identity development related to whether they belong in the profession (Richman, VanDellen, & Wood, 2011). Similar evidence has been found in Marine Corps units that typically have the lowest percentage of women in the military (Archer, 2013).

While college women’s career aspirations are generally positively influenced by female role models in nontraditional STEM career fields, family plans have been based more broadly on gender attitudes and natal family influences. Like their career aspirations, women’s expected work–family conflict (i.e., when work roles and expectations negatively impact family roles and expectations) has also been associated with their mothers’ work history (Barnett, Gareis, James, & Steele, 2003). More precisely, maternal employment has been associated with lower expected work–family conflict, suggesting that students expect to be able to balance their career goals with their family plans, if their mother was employed while they were growing up. However, in a study of college students, no significant relationship was found between maternal employment and students’ expected work–family conflict (Weer, Greenhaus, Colakoglu, & Foley, 2006).

For many women, increased educational attainment and labor force participation lead to career establishment precedence over family formation (Hoffnung, 2004). In the civilian world, this often means establishing a career and then taking breaks to have children or having fewer children (Hoffnung, 2004). And, there is evidence that college women anticipating work–family conflict may intend to delay marriage and/or delay or reduce child bearing (Weer et al., 2006). Other studies on STEM are less conclusive about the relationship between family plans and career persistence, finding college women’s family plans may not interact with career persistence, since most of these women have yet to experience parenthood, spousal roles, or the demands of a professional career (Cech, Rubineau, Silbey, & Seron, 2011).

One potential strategy for women expecting to experience work–family conflict, particularly if they have traditional family intentions, may be to self-select out of these nontraditional career fields (for military women, this would mean leaving the military to start a family). In contrast, women without traditional family intentions may intend to stay in the military and may anticipate work–family conflict. Consequently, these women may intend to use conflict minimizing strategies. This military work–family conflict is likely influenced, at least in part, by gender ideologies. Women with traditional gender ideologies (i.e., who support the husband breadwinner and wife homemaker model) and who intend to marry would likely find a military lifestyle incompatible with their beliefs and thus intend to leave the military earlier. In contrast, military men with more traditional gendered beliefs would likely intend to serve longer, since the military model is consistent with traditional gender ideologies. However, research on role model influence suggests that the relationship between gender ideology and career persistence is more nuanced. For instance, women who are positively influenced by female role models in nontraditional career fields (e.g., the military and STEM fields) also find marriage and family relationships compatible with their career aspirations (Nauta et al., 1998). This evidence suggests that USNA women with female officer role models may expect to be able to effectively navigate the multiple roles associated with work and family in a military context.

Hypotheses

The military as a traditional and male-dominated organization is likely to create tension for people who do not fit neatly into this work–family model and thus be reflected in years of intended military service. This leads us to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Natal family characteristics related to parental military service, personal military service, egalitarian gender role attitudes for women, and traditional gender role attitudes for men are all anticipated to be associated with increased years of intended service.

Hypothesis 2: We expect that men and women who intend to marry someone else in the military will be associated with decreased years of intended service. We also expect that intent to delay child bearing as well as expecting to have fewer children will be associated with increased years of intended service.

Hypothesis 3: We anticipate that expectations of lower work–family conflict (both general and military) will be associated with increased years of intended service.

Hypothesis 4: Consistent with prior research, we expect that for first-year students at USNA, male and female family members and male and female officers will be influential role models, thereby increasing years of intended service. However, we expect that for female students, female officers will be more influential role models than male officers. For male students, we expect the reverse to be true that male officers will be more influential than female officers.

Hypothesis 5: We also expect to find interactions between gender role attitudes and military work–family conflict and between marrying a member of the military and military work–family conflict. More specifically, people with more egalitarian gender role attitudes who anticipate greater military work–family conflict would be inclined to decrease their expected time in the military. Similarly, those who expect to marry someone else in the military and anticipate greater military work–family conflict would also be inclined to decrease their expected time in the military.

Method and Measures

Data

Data were drawn from male and female undergraduate students enrolled at USNA. A sample of freshmen (Plebe) women (n = 98) and men (n = 169) was obtained through introductory leadership course announcements to freshmen randomly assigned to the course spring semester of 2014. This participant population constituted one half of the USNA freshman class. Participants completed an online survey and received course extra credit.

Key Variables

To measure career intentions (dependent variable), we asked how many years respondents planned to serve in the military following graduation. Categorical ranges of planned years of service included 5–10 years (minimum obligation²), 11–15 years, 16–20 years (minimum for retirement eligibility), 21–25 years, and 26–30 years. The measure is categorical rather than continuous as the pretest demonstrated that respondents perceived their service time in categories not discrete years; many respondents knew conceptually how long they wanted to serve (i.e., minimum service, retirement, etc.) but were not familiar with the actual commitment times associated with their objective. The variable was recoded to the midpoint of each category, so that it could be treated as if continuous, thereby reflecting number of years of intended military service.

We used an adapted version of the Influence of Role Model Scale (IRMS) to assess role model influence on career intentions (Basow & Howe, 1980). The IRMS uses a 7-point Likert-type scale with ratings of 1 to 3 for negative influence, a 4 for no influence, and 5 to 7 for positive influence. We adapted the IRMS to the military context of USNA, resulting in seven role models for each gender: female/male family member, female/male midshipman, female/male non-USNA peer, female/male “sponsor” family member,³ female/male USNA commissioned officer, female/male USNA civilian faculty/staff member, and significant other (gender not specified), for a total of 15 measures.

To measure family plans, we asked participants if they planned to marry and at what age, if they planned to have children and at what age they planned to have their first child, and how many children they planned to have. Categorical age ranges for marriage and first childbirth included 21–25 years (21 is the youngest age they could marry and have a child based on military obligations), 26–30 years, 31–35 years, 36–40 years, and 41–45 years. These family plans variables were recoded using the midpoint of each category to calculate age at planned marriage and first childbirth. The variable for number of children included response categories 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more children. Based on the number of years of intended service and age at marriage, we created a variable that shows if respondents planned to marry while in the military or after leaving the military. A similar variable was created for when they planned to have children.

We used Weer et al.’s work–family conflict expectations scale to assess participants’ anticipated role conflict between work and family responsibilities (see Appendix A; Weer et al., 2006). This 5-point Likert-type scale measured the extent to which participants agreed or disagreed with statements such as “The demands of family life and children will interfere with achieving success in my career.” Items were reverse coded, summed, and then averaged to create a single expected work–family conflict score with lower scores reflecting lower expected work–family conflict (Cronbach’s α = .81). Given the generic occupational context of these questions, it was unclear whether respondents were answering them in a military framework. Thus, to assess if there was a specific military context to expected work–family conflict, we added the statement, “It is possible to have a successful military career and have children,” which was analyzed separately as it was not correlated with any of the other scale items (all r < .29).

Gender ideology was measured using Vespa’s 6-item gender ideology scale (see Appendix A; Vespa, 2009). This 4-point Likert-type scale asked respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “A woman’s place is in the home, not in the office or shop.” Items were summed and then averaged to create a single score with lower scores being more traditional and higher scores more egalitarian (Cronbach’s α = .75).

Respondents were also asked about their prior military service (served/did not serve, excluding military prep school), their parents’ education, and their parents’ work history and military service (served/did not serve) over the course of the respondent’s childhood. Mother’s work history was used to create a measure of egalitarian (natal) gender roles, with mothers working full time outside the home while the respondents were children being coded as egalitarian (1 = egalitarian, 0 = traditional).

Respondents were dropped if they were missing on the dependent variable or key explanatory variables, resulting in 27 dropped cases. No meaningful differences were noted in these 27 participants’ responses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The majority of the students were White (68%). The mean age of all participants was 19.1 years, with men being slightly older (19.2 years) compared to women (19.0 years; see Table 1). Because the military offers commissioning opportunities for enlisted personnel, we find 9% of our respondents have prior enlisted military service, with men (11%) significantly more likely than women (5%) to have prior service. More than a third of respondents (36%) had parents who served in the military (36% of fathers and 11% of mothers). A fifth of respondents (21%) were military brats (i.e., age 3 or older with military parents). Most parents have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree with fathers having more graduate education than mothers. Based on their parents’ work history, the majority of respondents (55%) came from families that displayed egalitarian gender roles.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Key Variables.

Key Variables	All (n = 239)		Women (n = 87)		Men (n = 152)
Key Variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Race
White (%)	68		64		70
Non-White (%)	32		36		30
Age	19.14	1.07	18.98	0.95	19.24	1.13
Prior military service (%)	9		5		11
Parents with military service (%)	36		36		36
Mother served	11		11		11
Father served	36		35		35
Military brat (age 3 or older with military parents)	21		22		20
Parents’ years of education
Mother	16.70	2.71	16.71	2.48	16.59	2.85
Father	16.76	3.02	16.91	2.90	16.68	3.10
Egalitarian family gender roles (%)	55		52		57
Years plan to serve in military***	13.26	6.50	11.38	5.47	14.34	6.80
Age plan to marry	26.68	2.91	26.45	2.45	26.81	3.16
Plan to not marry (%)	7		3		9
Plan to marry a civilian*** (%)	57		20		78
Plan to marry military member*** (%)	36		77		13
Plan to marry after military (%)	28		35		24
Plan to have children (%)	91		93		89
Age plan to have first child	28.92	3.13	28.74	2.25	29.03	3.55
Number of children plan to have	2.54	1.26	2.70	1.33	2.45	1.21
Plan to have children after military*** (%)	42		62		31
Summative career intentions* (1–7)	5.05	0.72	5.21	0.71	4.97	0.71
Female family member***	5.80	1.52	6.28	1.22	5.52	1.60
Male family member	6.18	1.30	6.26	1.40	6.14	1.25
Female family friend***	4.95	1.20	5.31	1.29	4.74	1.10
Male family friend	5.41	1.24	5.28	1.17	5.48	1.27
Female midshipman***	4.83	1.26	5.31	1.36	4.44	1.17
Male midshipman	5.13	1.35	4.98	1.35	5.22	1.35
Female peer**	4.83	1.25	5.15	1.33	4.65	1.18
Male peer	5.00	1.25	4.93	1.38	5.04	1.17
Significant other	5.44	1.85	5.61	1.79	5.34	1.88
Female sponsor	5.02	1.48	5.09	1.51	4.97	1.47
Male sponsor	5.07	1.49	5.11	1.58	5.05	1.44
Female USNA officer***	5.03	1.42	5.44	1.44	4.80	1.36
Male USNA officer	5.44	1.39	5.39	1.34	5.47	1.42
Female USNA civilian	4.81	1.30	4.94	1.38	4.74	1.25
Male USNA civilian	4.85	1.33	4.91	1.40	4.82	1.30
Expected work–family conflict (1–5)	3.03	0.85	3.14	0.82	2.96	0.86
Expected work–family conflict in military** (1–5)	1.65	0.82	1.85	0.93	1.55	0.73
Gender ideology*** (1–4)	3.32	0.47	3.52	0.37	3.21	0.48

Note. Two-tailed t-tests by gender. USNA = U.S. Naval Academy.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Career-wise, these men and women intend to serve in the military for approximately 13 years with men planning on serving longer than women (an average of 14 years and 11 years, respectively). Nearly all respondents plan to marry (93%) and intend to do so before turning 27 years old, with no significant difference between men and women. The vast majority of women expect to marry another member of the military (77%), while the same is true for only a fraction of the men (13%). Most respondents (91%) plan to have children and expect to have their first child around 29 years old. Although many of these students plan to have children after they leave the military, women are more likely than men to indicate that they do not plan to become parents while serving in the military (62% vs. 31%).

Role model influence on career intentions was determined by the extent to which respondents indicated that each of 15 people positively or negatively influenced their career intentions. Examining the means for all respondents (see Table 1), we find that overall career intentions are most positively influenced by male and female family members, significant others, male USNA officers, and male family friends. Women are generally more positively influenced by their role models than are men. Men are significantly more influenced by male role models than female role models.⁴ Further analysis of correlational data examining warfare specialties shows that male students who intend to pursue aviation are influenced by male officer role models, while there was no significant association for the other warfare specialties. In contrast, role model gender is not relevant for women.

Men and women report significant differences in gender attitudes and expectations. Our findings on gender ideologies are similar to prior research on civilian college and military academy students in that women are significantly more egalitarian than men as they enter college (Bryant, 2003; DeFleur & Warner, 1987). Expected work–family conflict for all respondents is moderately high. Respondents expect lower military work–family conflict than overall work–family conflict, with women anticipating more military work–family conflict than men.

Multivariate Statistics

Ordinary least squares regressions were used to examine the factors associated with career intentions, measured as years of intended service. Two sets of models were run; the first contained everyone in the dataset, while the second excluded people who did not intend to have children. This was done so as to incorporate a measure of age at which respondents intend to have children (including this measure automatically drops those 22 people who do not anticipate having any children, since if they do not want children, there is no age at which they expect to have their first child). These individuals are not otherwise different from the remainder of the sample. Models are presented for those who plan to be parents, as these models provide additional insight and have greater explanatory power.⁵

Models presented in Table 2 contain only those demographic variables that were significant and those explanatory variables that were theoretically relevant. Model 1 contains demographic control variables, of which being male is the only significant item. Variables regarding family formation intentions are added in Model 2. People who expect to wait to have their children anticipate staying in the military longer than people who intend to have their children when they are younger. The expectation of having a civilian versus military spouse is not associated with years of intended service, nor is intended number of children.⁶ In Model 3, gender ideology, expected work–family conflict, and expected work–family conflict in the military are added. Gender and being a military brat remain significant. Of the new variables, only expected work–family conflict in the military is significant. Model 4 incorporates role model influence. We added role model influence variables separately and retained only male and female non-USNA peers, as the other role models were neither significant nor explained additional variation in the years of intended service. Both female and male peer role model influence variables are significant, although with opposite effects on years of intended service. While positive male peer role model influence increased years of intended service, positive female peer role model influence decreased years of intended service.

Table 2.

Regression Models of Effects on Career Intentions.

Key Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Male	3.21*** (.89)	4.32*** (1.17)	3.59** (1.20)	2.96* (1.22)	2.93* (1.20)
Prior military service	−1.63 (1.49)	−1.54 (1.48)	−1.32 (1.49)	−1.08 (1.48)	−1.13 (1.46)
Military brat	1.92 (1.05)	2.14* (1.04)	2.14* (1.04)	2.29* (1.03)	2.31* (1.02)
Expect to not marry		−.83 (3.18)	1.03 (3.27)	.99 (3.21)	3.88 (3.35)
Expect to marry someone in military		1.89 (1.17)	2.20 (1.17)	2.08 (1.15)	−1.98 (2.14)
Age intend to have children		.32* (.14)	.35* (.14)	.38** (.14)	.42** (.14)
Number of children		−.32 (.43)	−.38 (.44)	−.38 (.43)	−.29 (.43)
Gender ideology (higher is more egalitarian)			−1.32 (1.02)	−.98 (1.01)	−3.15 (2.08)
Expected work–family conflict (nonmilitary)			.00 (.52)	−.07 (.51)	−.17 (.51)
Expected military work–family conflict			−1.41*	−1.40* (.58)	−7.97 (4.19)
Career intentions—female peer				−1.01* (.49)	−1.01* (.49)
Career intentions—male peer				1.45** (.46)	1.40** (.46)
Expect to Marry Someone in Military × Expected Military Work–Family Conflict					2.60* (1.13)
Gender Ideology × Expected Military					1.58 (1.26)
Work–family conflict
Intercept	10.97*** (.74)	1.11 (4.79)	7.39 (5.98)	3.67 (6.18)	11.76 (8.14)
R ²	.07	.11	.14	.18	.21

Note. n = 217. Female, nonprior military service, nonmilitary brat, and marry a civilian are reference categories. Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Finally, in Model 5 (full model), years of intended service is regressed on control variables, gender role ideology, family formation plans, role model influences, and the two hypothesized interactions (marry military × expected military work conflict and gender ideology × expected military work–family conflict).⁷ All variables significant in Model 4 remain significant. However, there is a significant interaction between expected military work–family conflict and marrying someone in the military. Those who expect to marry someone in the military and expect higher levels of military work–family conflict anticipate spending slightly more time in the military than dual military low-conflict individuals. In contrast, the interaction between expected work–family conflict and gender ideology is not significant. Based on R², the variables in Model 5 explain 21% of the variation in years of intended service.

To explore the finding that military brats have higher years of intended service, we conducted additional analyses using t-tests. While there was no overall difference in role model influence on career intentions of military brats (M = 4.98, SD = 0.94) relative to those without military parents (M = 5.07, SD = 0.65), t(234) = 0.85, p = .40, there was for female military brats with military moms. These women both intend to remain in the military longer (M = 17.21, SD = 2.59) than those without (M = 11.46, SD = 1.59), t(17) = 2.01, p = .06, and are more strongly influenced by their female family members (M = 7, SD = 0) than those without military moms (M = 6.25, SD = 1.06), t(17) = 1.86, p = .08.

Discussion and Future Directions

We examined how gender differences are associated with years of intended service to begin exploring the lower retention of women military officers. We find a significant and meaningful difference in years of intended service for men and women in their first year at USNA.

Our expectation that exposure to the military (whether personal or through parents) would be associated with years of intended service (Hypothesis 1) was partially confirmed. While we anticipated that prior military service would be positively associated with years of intended service, this was not substantiated. However, this may be due to the small number of students with prior service (9% overall) or the limited time that they served prior to attending the Academy. In contrast, we do find that those respondents who were military brats intend to serve longer, which is consistent with earlier research (e.g., Kleykamp, 2006). Just over a fifth of our sample grew up with at least one parent in the military which contributes an increase of 2.3 years of intended service for those who were military brats. This may suggest that longer exposure to the military work–family model leads to a propensity to serve longer, possibly because of increased comfort with the military lifestyle and values, particularly for women.

While we anticipated that egalitarian gender attitudes for women and traditional gender attitudes for men would be associated with increased years of intended service (Hypothesis 1), this was not evident. Moreover, we found no relationship between gender attitudes and years of intended service. As described in previous military research on gender attitudes and stereotypes, the relationship between future career intentions and gender attitudes may develop over a longer period of time (Archer, 2013). Alternatively, gender role attitudes may not be as influential to people entering the military profession because the work and workplace are fundamentally already understood to be highly masculine and rigidly hierarchical (Barrett, 1996). Until structured career paths and work–family policies are adapted to provide work–family flexibility, gender role attitudes may be of little importance if work–family expectations are perceived to be unattainable.

Regarding family formation intentions (Hypothesis 2), results do not support our hypothesis that intent to marry someone else in the military or to have more children would be associated with decreased years of intended service. This finding supports earlier results on STEM retention that effects on career persistence may not be evident for women who have not yet experienced the combination of family and career roles (Cech et al., 2011). We do, however, find support for our hypothesis that intent to delay childbearing is positively associated with years of intended service lending support to previous findings that women anticipating work–family conflict intend to delay family formation plans (Weer et al., 2006). This lends further support for the argument that these students are already beginning to understand that having children early in a (military) career may not be conducive to a successful military career.

We find mixed support that expected work–family conflict is associated with years of intended service (Hypothesis 3). While work and family conflict in general is not predictive of years of intended service, work–family conflict in a military context is. This suggests an early understanding, independent of growing up in a military household, that the military lifestyle has unique challenges. Our findings support Weer, Greenhaus, Colakoglu, and Foley’s (2006) results that mothers’ work history was not associated with expected work–family conflict and career persistence for daughters. Implications of this finding suggest a need for demonstrating how diverse work–family role combinations are successful and valuable in traditionally male professions, like the military.

Hypothesis 4, that family members and military officers would positively influence years of intended service, was not supported. This is somewhat surprising, given that respondents indicated that family members and military officers were the most influential on their career intentions. We suspect that parents and officers are influential because of the support they provide these students in getting through the first academic year. Thus, Plebes indicate that these individuals are highly influential on their “career intentions” (e.g., “you can do it”), even though this is more about proximal success (navigating their first year of service academy training) and less about more distal goals such as length of military service. Alternatively, this apparent lack of influence could be due to the “reality shock” of unmet expectations about their academy life and future career (Hu, Wang, Sun, & Chen, 2008).

The difference we predicted in female and male officer influence (Hypothesis 4) is partially, albeit weakly, supported. While the gender of the officer was not relevant for women, it was highly relevant for men, with male officers being significantly more influential than female officers, based on means. These findings are consistent with research on STEM professions, where women’s career aspirations, self-efficacy, and identity development were positively influenced by the presence of female role models (Cheryan et al., 2011; Richman et al., 2011). However, this gender difference did not impact years of intended service. This may be a factor of respondent age and as students advance in their education and become ever closer to being officers the impact of these role models may change.

While our predictions about family and officer influence were unsubstantiated, we unexpectedly found that male and female non-USNA peers were significant role model influences on years of intended service. Male peers may positively influence years of intended service through a self-comparison. There is likely still some prestige and honor in attending a military academy, especially as we have been in a wartime environment for more than a decade. Moreover, the guarantee of a secure job after graduation, as compared to the perceived limited job prospects in the current economic environment, may also be beneficial. However, explaining the decrease in years of intended service related to female peers is more problematic. This finding will require further investigation, but our hypothesis is that many male USNA students may perceive their current state of isolation at USNA as a negative factor related to their potential friendship/dating pool of the opposite gender. They may see the rigors of military life as being incongruent with their ability to have relationships with women outside USNA.⁸ For the female students at USNA, they may be experiencing jealousy or backlash effects from their civilian female counterparts. More investigation is required to further elucidate this finding. We do, however, predict that the influence of (presumably) civilian peers will decrease, as students are ever more immersed in the military culture.

The predicted interactions (Hypothesis 5) yielded unexpected results. We found an interaction between expecting to marry a member of the military and expected military work–family conflict; however, it was in the opposite direction than we predicted. Those who expect to marry someone in the military and expect higher levels of military work–family conflict anticipate spending slightly more time in the military than dual military, low military work–family conflict individuals but significantly less time than people who anticipate not having a military spouse. This may suggest that the dual military, low military work–family conflict respondents anticipate one member of the couple leaving the military. This finding is particularly interesting and important, since military women are more likely to marry another person in the military. Women are likely to be challenged in finding dual military couple role models at USNA as well as in the Navy and Marine Corps as only 7% of married couples are dual military. Because military family and career policies are largely based on the normative family type of a male service member and female spouse, women’s self-efficacy and career aspirations may be hindered based on perceptions of “work–family fit.” Future research should examine the association of diverse work–family types and women’s career persistence in both the military and STEM professions.

While previous research indicates the importance of role models on career intentions in STEM professions and other nontraditional careers (Cech et al., 2011; Cheryan et al., 2011; Weer et al., 2006), we find minimal indication that role models positively influence military retention, at least at the earliest stages of students’ military careers. This is troublesome for an institution that strives to produce career-minded individuals through intensive exposure to military role models. For women, the increased importance of both role models, in general, and female role models, in particular, would lead us to expect that these individuals would influence career intentions. Especially given research identifying the importance of military women aligning their loyalties with peer groups and mentors who can help them achieve their career goals, it is surprising that this is apparently not occurring at this early stage with these women (Brownson, 2014). This leads us to ask whether this is an artifact of the research procedure or reflective of their experience. If a goal is increasing women’s retention, and women military role models are not achieving this objective (while they do in the civilian STEM sector), it is important to understand why. Whether these findings about role model influence collectively are because of something unique to the military or the institution, the selection of role models available or something else is unclear.

Moreover, this research was restricted to one of the three U.S. military service academies, and while there is reason to assume that the populations and the socialization experiences are similar, there is evidence of differences (e.g., occupational specialty selection procedures). Consequently, it is worth verifying that factors influencing intent to serve are actually consistent across institution and branch, commissioning programs, and cross nationally.

Conclusion

Based on previous work done on retention in the STEM professions, we expected that a range of factors, including professional role models, familial influences, and social influences (e.g., gender ideology and expectations of work–family conflict) would influence the time first-year students at USNA plan to stay in the military. Instead, we found that while there is significant difference in time intended to serve, there are very few significant influencers at this stage of these future officers’ careers. The mandatory military minimum service commitment differentiates the military from other career paths. Knowledge of this commitment may reduce reflection on students’ personal long-term career trajectory, since such thought can be deferred until a later time. This may also help explain the lack of role model influence on time these students intend to serve. Given the military’s desire to increase retention, particularly among women, we must hope that something changes to convince officers to remain in the military.

The higher role model influence of female family members on career intentions for female military brats with military moms is an encouraging finding. In addition to their increased years of intended service, this finding suggests that moms who work in nontraditional occupations may provide more self-efficacy as role models for their daughters. The common approach of simply focusing on employment may not be enough, it may be that the type of employment (career field) matters more in terms of role model influence for young women.

Moreover, the importance of military moms on their daughters’ career plans suggests that increasing the visibility and access to women, especially those with children, for all young women could increase the influence these role models have on women’s career trajectories. Even in male-dominated professions, networking programs that provide increased access may help to overcome the fewer number of professional women. USNA established the Naval Academy Women’s Network in 2014 for this purpose, as well as initiating “lean in” circles. It is still too early to measure the impact of these types of programs, but these are positive changes showing women they are valued, play an important role in the profession and the military wants to retain the most talented people and address issues raised by advocates for women’s professional advancement and retention (e.g., Sandberg, 2013).

The military has recognized both the importance of retaining women and how family formation often contributes to women’s perception of their military service. The military’s structured career paths and rigid “up or out” promotion policy create a “fast track” that institutionally penalizes people who disrupt the career trajectory. Today’s generation of women and men are more egalitarian and fluid with gender roles and expect to find careers that fit their family type and situation. Professions that do not show that they value their newly qualified employees and their families will continue to face a talent retention problem. Recent military talent management initiatives (e.g., increased parental leave, career intermission programs, increased childcare availability, opening all occupational specialties to women, increased female accessions, and creating an environment intolerant of sexual assault) send positive signals to women (and men) at all stages of their career that the military values and respects them and their work–family intentions (Secretary of the Navy, 2015). While it is too early to know the impact of these initiatives, they indicate a change in how the military views the very real challenges of balancing work and family.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank W. Brad Johnson, Melonie Teichert, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments. The views of the authors are their own and do not purport to reflect the position of the United States Naval Academy, the Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

An accompanying podcast for this article is available at .

Notes

References

Archer

E. M.

(2013). The power of gendered stereotypes in the US Marine Corps. Armed Forces & Society, 39, 359–391.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Barnett

R. C.

Gareis

K. C.

James

J. B.

Steele

(2003). Planning ahead: College seniors’ concerns about career–marriage conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 305–319.

Barrett

F. J.

(1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Gender, Work & Organization, 3, 129–142.

Basow

S. A.

Howe

K. G.

(1980). Role-model influence: Effects of sex and sex-role attitude in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 558–572.

Brownson

(2014). The battle for equivalency female US Marines discuss sexuality, physical fitness, and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 765–788.

Bryant

A. N.

(2003). Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex Roles, 48, 131–142.

Burke

P. J.

(1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836–849.

Cech

Rubineau

Silbey

Seron

(2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76, 641–666.

10.

Cheryan

Siy

J. O.

Vichayapai

Drury

B. J.

Kim

(2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656–664.

11.

Correll

S. J.

(2001). Gender and the career choice: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691–1730.

12.

Correll

S. J.

(2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.

13.

Damaske

(2011). For the family? How class and gender shape women’s work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

DeFleur

L. B.

Warner

R. L.

(1987). Air Force Academy graduates and nongraduates: Attitudes and self-concepts. Armed Forces & Society, 13, 517–533.

15.

Department of Defense. (2012). DoD Demographic profile of the military community. Retrieved from http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf

16.

Fan

P. L.

Marini

M. M.

(2000). Influences on gender-role attitudes during the transition to adulthood. Social Science Research, 29, 258–283.

17.

Faris

J. H.

(1981). The all-volunteer force: Recruitment from military families. Armed Forces & Society, 7, 545–559.

18.

Gibson

D. E.

(2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134–156.

19.

Hackett

Esposito

O’Halloran

M. S.

(1989). The relationship of role model influences to the career salience and educational and career plans of college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 164–180.

20.

Hoffnung

(2004). Wanting it all: Career, marriage, and motherhood during college-educated women’s 20 s. Sex Roles, 50, 711–723.

21.

Wang

J. C.

Sun

M. H.

Chen

H. H.

(2008). Formal mentoring in military academies. Military Psychology, 20, 171–185.

22.

Kilburn

M. R.

Klerman

J. A.

(1999). Enlistment decisions in the 1990s: Evidence from individual-level data. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

23.

Kleykamp

M. A.

(2006). College, jobs, or the military? Enlistment during a time of war. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 272–290.

24.

Nauta

M. M.

Epperson

D. L.

Kahn

J. H.

(1998). A multiple-groups analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science, and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–496.

25.

Navy Office of Women’s Policy. (2012). Today’s women and tomorrow’s Navy. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/organization/bupers/WomensPolicy/Documents/Women%27s%20Policy%20Brief_March%202013.pdf

26.

Parcell

(2014). Women in the Navy. Arlington, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.

27.

Quimby

J. L.

Santis

A. M.

(2006). The influence of role models on women’s career choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 297–306.

28.

Richman

L. S.

vanDellen

Wood

(2011). How women cope: Being a numerical minority in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 492–509.

29.

Rodriguez

(2009). Predicting the military career success of United States Air Force Academy cadets. Armed Forces & Society, 36, 65–85.

30.

Sandberg

(2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY: Random House.

31.

Secretary of the Navy. (2015). Department of the Navy talent management initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.secnav.navy.mil/innovation/Documents/2015/05/TalentManagementInitiatives.pdf

32.

Smith

D. G.

Segal

M. W.

(2013). On the fast track: Dual military couples navigating institutional structures. Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, 7, 213–253.

33.

Stryker

(2008). From mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 15–31.

34.

Vespa

(2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23, 363–387.

35.

Weer

C. H.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Colakoglu

S. N.

Foley

(2006). The role of maternal employment, role-altering strategies, and gender in college students’ expectations of work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 55, 535–544.

36.

Xie

Shauman

K. A.

(2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB