The Marine Officer’s Spouse Club is an organization made up of, exactly as it sounds, spouses of Marine Officers. There are a few exceptions to that, where one could be an “equivalent” as a Navy Officer spouse or a GS employee spouse of a certain “level”. This club started an amazing non-profit which provides scholarships and charitable giving to local (overseas station) and American charities. They do this by the sale of gift and household items in a gift shop on base. All the net profits are given to the club to be distributed as they see fit. This gift shop is operated by a staff of 4-5 employees and many volunteers. For 40 years in order to be a staff member or volunteer it was a requirement that you also be an officer’s spouse (or equivalent). While Moran, et.al. state that “Human diversity is popularly understood to refer to differences of color, ethnic origin, gender, sexual or religious preferences, age and disabilities” (2009) there are more encompassing definitions within organizations. Within this particular organization the one area that lacked was that no wife of an enlisted military person could be employed or volunteer. They could have a graduate in fundraising and years of experience, the ability to bring the charitable giving to all time highs, but could not apply.
About 10 years ago, due to a lack of applicants, they club decided to allow spouses of all military members and their equivalents apply. The lack of applicants was due to a variety of other opportunities that had started to be available for spouses at this station. So, even though they didn’t want to, they accepted the fact that they would have no choice but to hire someone who was not an officer’s spouse. Many spouses scoffed at this new policy and required that at a minimum the Director continue to be required to be an officer’s spouse. The spouses who were against it were unsure if the enlisted wives could deal with the differences between themselves and the other spouses they would be working with. Just as the Moran, et.al. describes “strategies and interventions had to be put in place for the interactions” between the spouses, not only for the enlisted staff member but for the officer spouse volunteer as well (2009). The staff has the authority to direct the volunteers, some officer spouses were not willing to take direction from someone they did not think should be there.
This continued for many years where staff could be enlisted spouses but the Director and all volunteers were required to be officer spouses or equivalent. Until the day came where they could not fill the role of the director. They had to accept someone who was not an officer’s spouse. Now, she wasn’t an enlisted spouse either, she was a contractor’s spouse, but they questioned whether she would be able to relate to all the military spouses she would be working with. They made a one-time exception to the rule in order to fill the position. As time went on and the world around them changed more and more, they held tightly to their beliefs that this company could only and should only be run by officer spouses. That if they brought in others they just would not be able to relate to each other and it would cause chaos and break the system they had so carefully built.
The day came when they had to face the cold hard truth. They had been limiting themselves by not accepting others to volunteer in the company. The day came when they had so few volunteers that the staff was burning out and becoming jaded. Where other similar companies that they competed with were surpassing them, even though they were the first, the oldest. They finally folded and accepted that they needed more volunteers and they were not able to, after many campaigns, get those volunteers from their officer spouse club. They opened up the volunteering to everyone who was 18 and up. Fortunately, the company did not crumble and now has plenty of volunteers to man the shop and can continue to give to charity.
The fact that it took them so long to accept that by adding diversity to their ranks they would excel is unfortunate. I am thankful that they finally did realize that there was no other way to continue to serve their mission. I am hopeful that they will continue to diversify within the company. They next step would be to allow someone who is not an officer’s spouse to be on the Board of Supervisors. I don’t think I’ll see that in my time here, but I will keep an eye out for when it will happen. They day must come when a spouse is chosen not for the rank her husband wears, but for her own education and experience.
Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Mary Louise Thomas says
What a great example of our readings! As retired Air Force myself (Enlisted), I can see the tribulations involved. I can see the many opportunities missed out on. Even before I retired in 2006, many jobs became contractor jobs. In my humble opinion, all spouses supporting the military are just as equally important. Reading your blog, I do have to ask if there have any been any males applying for positions? If their wives are the ones that are active duty? I totally agree with the fact that a spouse should be chosen their education and experience, and not based on their spouse’s rank. Great post that also showed how the dividing line between officer and enlisted carried over to the spouses.
met5356 says
This sounds really frustrating! You said, “The day must come when a spouse is chosen not for the rank her husband wears, but for her own education and experience.” Interestingly, this made me think of not just the issue between the ladies (within the group) but also of an issue of gender bias. I know there are female officers (and enlisteds, and contractors), however males still make up the majority, meaning the spouses would traditionally still be female. Still, when you referenced being chosen not for the rank of her husband, but for her own education and experience, I immediately wondered whether any men whose wives are service members or contractors have volunteered in this charitable effort. If not, why not? Is the charitable service only open to female volunteers? If so, there is another area of discrimination – not just rank but also gender. If the opportunity is open to men, why aren’t men volunteering? Is it only marketed to female spouses? As Moran, Harris, and Moran say, “The obvious long-term goal is gender equality in the workplace” (p. 148). In order to truly be equal, we need to include women where men have traditionally tread, and men where women have traditionally tread. So I wonder . . . is there a gender issue as well as a rank issue?
Reference:
Moran, R.T., Harris, P.R., & Moran, S.V. (2011). Managing Cultural Differences: Leadership Skills and Strategies for Working in a Global World. Burlington: Elsevier.
amp6498 says
I was in the Marines, what seems like an eternity ago. When I started reading your entry I cursed myself for not thinking of it first. Spousal rank discrimination is very much a reality and you covered an example of it perfectly. My own perception of the phenomenon was, the officers spouses embraced a class disparity which made them not want to associate with the underclass of enlisted. Historically speaking, there was giant rifts in class hierarchy in the military. There was a time when most enlisted could not read or write. Those times however are long since passed and currently you can find even enlisted people with more education than some officers for whom they work.