Within the last week, the US Army has taken a step towards modifying their culture by eliminating an event that has been more “shock and awe” than it was beneficial. What has become known as the “shark attack”, an event where recruits are first introduced to their Drill Sergeants.
Recruits spend the first five to six days in a reception company which is led by cadre, recruits receive uniforms, immunizations, and are run through a variety of events that prepare them administratively for basic combat training. Afterward, they are shipped via bus to their new company barracks where they will live and conduct basic training. Upon arrival they are greeted by their company’s Drill Sergeants, their introduction comes in the form yelling and screaming (instruction) to exit the bus and are continuously fed instructions by Drill Sergeants via portable megaphone. The distance from the parking lot to the assembly area can be less than 100 meters, but as 200 to 240 stressed recruits all carrying their newly issued belongings in duffel bags, combined with ten to fifteen Drill Sergeants circling, with many zeroing in on the slowest recruit within the herd is a scene resemblant of a “shark attack”.
“People believe that if you learned the language, you could make yourself understood in a foreign culture” the shark attack is an event where recruits must rapidly learn a new language through stress and momentary chaos (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, p. 35). “Edward Hall the founder of the intercultural communication field, argued as much as 80 to 90 percent of the message we communicate or receive is nonverbal” this statement rings true during the shark attack (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, p. 35). As chaos ensues, recruits often merge into a herd and mimic the person next to them, whether its emptying duffel bags, or raising an item of equipment, many are confused, they are no longer listening, and resort to using nonverbal methods to interpret the message.
According to Fisher (2020), “The shark attack was seen as a way to launch trainees into a whole new way of life in which they’d have to obey the Army’s rules and listen closely to and follow instructions. The aim was to first establish psychological dominance – impress upon them at the outset that now that they’re in the Army, the Army’s the boss.”
As organizations across the world have been forced to experience change due to COVID-19, through layoffs, telework, and the determination of essential vs non-essential personnel. Changes due to the virus have altered the organizational culture for all employers. The US Army has had to experience its changes due to the virus. As recruits enter the Army, they come from every part within the United States and converge for three months to conduct basic training, creating an environment that is prime for the spread of a highly contagious virus. Senior Army leaders had to consider continuing an event that has become a rite of passage versus the risks associated with a global pandemic.
As we look at the US Army as an employer with its own set of values, vision, and mission. Are there substantial benefits from allowing Drill Sergeants to continue this one event, and how do they align with the organization’s values and culture? The image of a Drill Sergeant yelling in a recruit’s face has been glamorized by movies and has become a bragging right for veterans. As organizations are forced to transform, the Army is no exception. An alternative to the shark attack is still in development, but, leaders like Command Sergeant major Fortenberry who is in charge of the Army’s school of infantry, are considering a replacement for the shark attack version of reception with a newer version that better aligns with the values, attitude, and history that makes up the Army as a culture (Fisher, 2020). Fisher explains “The shark attack, Fortenberry says, “was developed during our draft Army years, were the cornerstones of the event were to establish dominance and authority using intimidation and fear to weed out the weak of heart.” The replacement to the shark attack is an obstacle like an event that forces teamwork through stress and better aligns with the generations entering the military and the culture that the US Army aims to produce.
References
Fisher, F., (2020). Infantry School ends traditional “shark attack,” adopts new way of instilling
warrior ethos in recruits. Army.mil. Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/239135/infantry_school_ends_traditional_shark_attack_adopts_new_way_of_instilling_warrior_ethos_in_recruits
Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R., & Moran, S.V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences 9th edition. Oxford: Routlege.
I really appreciated your post as it was very relatable. My husband and I were discussing this topic a few days ago because it is relatable to us. With both of us being veterans, we have both experienced the notorious “shark attack.” However, my husband is actively trying to go back into the military, and when we saw this we were shocked. I would argue that “shark attack” can be considered to some a right of passage into the military because it is a difficult thing to go through. With that being said, I actually disagree with them getting rid of it because it does get a soldier in the right mindset. If you would have someone yelling at you for doing something wrong, you would listen to that person, right? Of course! In this instance, a drill sergeant is trying to establish to a new recruit that they are the people in charge and it has proven to be effective throughout the military’s history.
Great post!
Mle23,
I appreciate your comments and providing a welcomed perspective from a Senior Navy leader. As you said, change is difficult especially for those with several years invested within the military. Many perceive the changes to the “shark attack” as an attack on what they view as tradition, a rite passage, or what they assume instills toughness. Regardless, this method of instruction is dated with no clear measurability of its effectiveness. You are right Schein’s theory on planned change requires the motivation to change and without it is the most difficult part (Penn State, 2020). What is surprising is the escalation of commitment to the many that are unwilling to support organizational change and its effect on their engagement level within the workplace. As you mentioned many of your peers digging their feet in as they resist change and protest that their submission of retirement is their final act of defiance towards the evolving institutions of each military branch. What is unique and ironic is that their retirement or resignation is a necessary cog in the wheel of cultural change, removing ineffective leaders so that the next generation of adaptable leaders can make their replacement.
Reference
Pennsylvania State University (2020). Leadership in Global Context – OLEAD 410. Lesson 05:
Learning and Change in a Global Setting. Planned change. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2075490/modules/items/29697176
This post is a great blog that demonstrates the beginnings of military life; while I was reading your post, I could see the scene unfolding within my mind’s eye. While I am not in the Army, I have been in the Navy for 24 years and have been on the receiving end and witnessed similar Navy scenes. To be honest, I never felt they accomplished the goal of establishing psychological dominance, which is probably why most of the services are doing away with events that lack clear direction and ambiguous goals. In the Navy, these events have transformed into planned evolutions that submittal of required POAM (Plan of Action Milestones) before the event taking place. I felt the CSM’s (Command Sergeant Major) plan to replace the shark attack scenario with an obstacle is excellent and will yield better results. I can’t help but think about this week’s lesson about organizational change as I consider the military members’ consternation that supports the shark tank evolution.
While the military is a dynamic environment, change is hard for those who have been in a long time. As a military leader, it is essential to understand military members’ human emotions and limitations, especially in a stressful environment. Gamble and Gamble (2013) stated that “The reality is that unless leaders understand their followers and stakeholders, they can’t possibly lead them effectively” (p. 150). Military members that have always known it one way don’t always accept it well when something new is announced; we cherish what we believe is tradition or a rite of passage.
Leaders can help this process significantly, according to The Pennsylvania State University (2020), “The leader must motivate people in the organization to want change … help them unlearn old behaviors, help them learn new behaviors, as well as make sure that there is a support system” (para. 3). When the Navy has made these significant changes, many Sailors get very upset and challenge the decision; some even submit their retirement papers because they are so upset about the change.
Often, the Navy follows Schein’s planned change theory or something close to it. While they haven’t always gotten it right, I can look back and see how the theory was applied even if I didn’t know what they were doing. I hope that the Army is doing something similar as they replace the Shark Attack.
References:
Gamble, T. & Gamble, M. (2013). Leading with communication: A practical approach to leadership communication. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
The Pennsylvania State University. (2020). OLEAD 410: Leadership in a Global Context [Online Course Lesson]. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2075490/modules/items/29697163.