North and South Korea are still technically at war. Their peace is maintained by an armistice agreement that established the 160-mile long, 2-mile wide buffer called the "De-militarized Zone." Contrary to its name, it is the most heavily militarized border in the world, seeded with landmines.
The Korean Army's main goal is to deter North Korean attacks by having strong defense capabilities, and to maintain the status quo of peace in the peninsula.
In Korea, all male citizens over the age of 18 are required to serve in the military for 21-24 months depending on the branch of the military. In 2012, conscripts got paid an average of 100 dollars a month. Alternatively one could fulfill the duty by volunteering to serve as a commissioned officer or an NCO, and start with a monthly pay of ~1300 dollars. Another advantage is that an NCO/officer will start with a higher rank than any conscript. However, NCO's and officers have to serve a minimum of ~4 years.
Conscripts make up the operating core of the organization. However, they have almost no incentive to perform well. As stated above, they get paid 1200 dollars a year, or approximately 50 cents an hour. This is 5% of the Korean GDP per capita, which is 26,000 dollars. Furthermore, almost no conscripts are put in combat situations. Since their lives are not endangered, there are no clear disincentives for performing badly.
Perhaps as a result of no incentives, there is a strong culture of discipline based on physical or verbal abuse in the Korean army. There is a strict culture of hierarchy among conscripts, based on the order of military service start date. Whoever started service earlier month is considered the "superior," even if one has gained a true higher rank over his "superior" through early promotion. For his superior, a junior is forced to do his laundry, clean his dishes, make coffee, clean his boots, and anything else that he might demand. Incompliant conscripts are bullied, insulted, humiliated, or beaten. Officers and NCO's turn a blind eye to this "acceptable" level of discipline. Other times, they are unaware.
This disciplinary culture has negative consequences. From 2012-2014, there was an average of 200 non-combat deaths per year. These deaths include an average of 70 suicides/year, mass-murder suicides, being physically bullied to death, and other safety-related accidents. Furthermore, people with ideas and more expertise cannot speak out to superiors due to fear of "discipline." Also, there is no reason to speak out when the organization's goal is maintaining "status quo".
Junior officers and NCO's make up middle management of the army. They take orders from Battalion/Regiment/Division headquarters, and relay them to the conscripts for execution. However, junior officers and NCO's are promoted without merit because there is no good measure of performance due to the lack of combat. Second lieutenants are promoted after a year, and first lieutenants are promoted to captain in 2-3 years.
The DMZ Reconnaissance unit:
I started my military service in October 2012. Near the end of my six-week basic training, I went through a mental and physical screening process, and I was chosen to go through the 4-week DMZ Recon selection process. It was pretty much designed to make one despise one's very own existence. After a week of intense PT, we spent two weeks learning how to identify and use South Korean/North Korean weapons. In the last week, we spent 72 hours awake, evading capture from our lovely drill sergeants. After passing the course, I spent an extra three weeks in sniper training, one week in emergency medical training, and another two weeks in path finding.
Despite all of the issues the Korean army confronts as a whole, my Recon team was very effective at performing our "peacetime" missions. We went on 3-4 missions every week. During the ~120 DMZ missions I took part of, nobody on my team ever got injured. None of us faced any disciplinary action for breaking any South Korean or U.N regulations. I attribute this to the following:
1. We had clear incentives. We had to go on recon-missions in a minefield. Slacking off or not paying attention could mean death or serious injury. Also, every mission was mentally and physically draining. Being effective as a team meant more time to rest and recuperate.
2. Each role was highly specialized, and each team member was an expert in his role. As such, even the team leader (NCO/officer) would be well advised to listen to a junior conscript.
3. As the squadron leader (I managed my team's barrack life), I personally eliminated discrimination based on seniority. I reasoned with the more senior teammates that our team would perform better if each was at his mental/physical peak. Dividing work fairly and putting a stop to "discipline" would be the best solution to this.
With this background, I define a "successful" team in the R.O.K (Republic of Korea) army as one that can fulfill the checklist in chapter 5:
1. High-performing teams translate common purpose into specific, measurable performance goals.
The DMZ is a dangerous and a tiring place. The longer a mission drags on, the higher chance we have of stepping on a mine, injuring ourselves in the rough terrain, or confronting North Korean soldiers. As such, our common goal was always to finish our given mission with the highest precision and safety, in the shortest amount of time possible. We measured our performance by how quickly we accomplished our objectives in comparison to other similar missions. This was in contrast to other branches in the army who's goals were to just maintain the status quo.
2. High-performing teams are of manageable size/High performing teams develop the right mix of expertise
Our recon team consisted of nine people in three groups. A demolition group, command group, and a fire support group. The demo group consisted of three men specializing in pathfinding and mine/explosives to lead the team into a safe route. The command group had two communication specialists and the team leader who would communicate with the battalion/regimental head quarters to report our mission and relay any changes in command. The fire support group had machine gunners and grenadiers to cover the flank. Each group had a leader that communicated with each other and the team leader. Each were well rehearsed in the mission objectives, and could independently make decisions to accomplish the mission. Because the two group leaders were experienced conscripts, less experienced officers/NCO team leaders always had people to rely on.
Our recon team consisted of nine people in three groups. A demolition group, command group, and a fire support group. The demo group consisted of three men specializing in pathfinding and mine/explosives to lead the team into a safe route. The command group had two communication specialists and the team leader who would communicate with the battalion/regimental head quarters to report our mission and relay any changes in command. The fire support group had machine gunners and grenadiers to cover the flank. Each group had a leader that communicated with each other and the team leader. Each were well rehearsed in the mission objectives, and could independently make decisions to accomplish the mission. Because the two group leaders were experienced conscripts, less experienced officers/NCO team leaders always had people to rely on.
3. Members of high-performing teams hold themselves collectively accountable.
All of our lives were on the line. If our team leader takes the wrong path, all of us could pay with our lives by stepping on mines (this happened to another team). One person's mistake could cause harm to everyone. As such, everyone on the team taught each other in their field of expertise, so that if one of them got injured on a mission, someone else could take over their role if necessary. This was not a requirement, but an effort on everyone's part to reduce risks and make sure that we could always accomplish our common goal of completing the missions and coming back home safely.
All of our lives were on the line. If our team leader takes the wrong path, all of us could pay with our lives by stepping on mines (this happened to another team). One person's mistake could cause harm to everyone. As such, everyone on the team taught each other in their field of expertise, so that if one of them got injured on a mission, someone else could take over their role if necessary. This was not a requirement, but an effort on everyone's part to reduce risks and make sure that we could always accomplish our common goal of completing the missions and coming back home safely.
4. High-performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an opportunity placed in their path, usually by higher management.
Every mission had a lot of external variables. The objective of our mission could be changed at a whim of the upper management in Division, even on the day of the mission. Furthermore, weather forecasts never seemed to be able to predict the conditions in the DMZ. Rain could become hail or snow within minutes. Temperature was off by +/- 5 degrees celsius, which could cause frostbite/hypothermia in the winter, and heatstroke/dehydration during the summer. Furthermore, North Koreans could sneak in, destroy our communication lines, or even set IED's around our ambush spots. It is difficult to account for these external factors by following strict military regulations for equipment and actions. Rules for Recon units are often laid out by Division commanders who have little to no experience in DMZ missions, they are often outdated, and do not account for the complex situations one encounters in the real world. However, the higher-ups' lack of expertise also meant that we had more freedom in which equipment to bring, and what course of action to take in the DMZ. Even if we did break some regulations from time to time, they had no way of finding out. In the end, this autonomy played to everyone's benefit. We could rely on our experience and knowledge to accomplish missions safer and faster, and the headquarters got their objectives accomplished.
Everyone had a clearly defined role, and we made sure that each understood what part he was playing in the big picture of the team. Work was divided among the team by his expertise and role. We had frequent live-ammo training exercises where people moved autonomously to carry out their responsibilities even before specific orders were given.
Overall, we had a vertical and lateral structure. There was a strict hierarchy based on rank, but our small size and individual expertise in different fields made our interaction lateral. Before every mission, we had a full meeting where every member memorized the routes and the time frames for accomplishing every objective. Aside from the big picture, every member had clear division of roles depending on his expertise. The division of labor, a common objective, clear incentives, and an inclusive team hierarchy created an effective team.
Sources:
Statistics on non-combat related deaths in the Korean military:
http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1701
Korean Army Pay:
http://www.mma.go.kr/index.do
Team Structures/High-Performing Teams:
Ch 3-5: Reframing Organizations
It seems that you opened a vein here. That was quite a post. I hope in the future you can get the posts done in earlier so I can comment on them before class and then use the substance of the post in the class discussion.
ReplyDeleteAs to what you said about overall morale, I don't know what pay is like in other countries that have mandatory service, but I'd think that mission would matter much more than pay. It sounded like your group took the mission aspect quite seriously. But others perhaps may not see there efforts reflected in greater safety for the country as a whole. In this case, morale can be quite low.
I was approximately your age during the Vietnam War. It terribly affected the mood of the country because the war simply didn't make sense. I wonder what the view is of the people of South Korea who have already served in the military. Is the threat from the North perceived as real?
Getting back to your specific approach, I think that breaking down hierarchy is normally a good thing. I am all for informality here, as a way to do that. However, in urgent situations hierarchy needs to be restored so there is not confusion about what actions need to be taken. An issue is whether discipline must be maintained at other times or not. I think that if people understand the issues they can behave well when the situation demands it. Since much of the time it is not necessary, lessening the hierarchy at other times is a good thing.
I apologize for the late post. I found myself rambling a lot in this post, so I had to rewrite it a few times.
DeleteRegarding the South Korean view of the North Korean threat:
This might be a generalization, but most Koreans do not think that a war will ever break out. If I recall correctly, we were on DEFCON 2 on the day of North Korean nuclear test in February 2013. Teams were geared and ready to infiltrate North Korea, memorizing the coordinates of their respective targets. Being a private with little experience, I was scared out of my mind. But all of my seniors were calm and casual. North Korea has made so many empty threats that people just assume that there isn't going to be a war.
This is how my friends and family feel about it too. I have never had a conversation about how they were worried about a North Korean attack. The usual conclusion is that "North Korean elites want to stay in power, they won't attack South Korea. A war would cause mutual destruction."
Regarding morale:
Because most South Koreans (especially my generation) don't seem to perceive the North Korean threat as real, it follows that most do not take their mission seriously. My cousin's army experience was mostly doing manual labor (for maintaining the base) and playing soccer. A popular satire show of the army experience "푸른거탑" also portrays it this way.
As for Recon teams, they had to take the mission seriously because they were constantly in danger. I remember seeing the aftermath of a truck that stepped on an anti-tank mine. It was very motivating.