Cultural Differences between the Canadian Forces and … Meeting Proceedings/STO... · Cultural...

Cultural Differences between the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

David Smith ϯ1, Lianne McLellan, and Col Dwayne K. Hobbs DRDC Toronto

1133 Sheppard Ave. W. P.O. Box 2000

Toronto, Ontario M3M 3B9 CANADA

[email protected]. [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Canada’s military, the Canadian Forces (CF), and Canada’s federal police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), often work collaboratively in both domestic and expeditionary operations. The two forces are often co-located and have strongly related goals. However, the RCMP is a police force responsible for enforcing federal laws, whereas the CF is a military force aimed at defending Canada and contributing to international peace and security operations. It is proposed in this paper that because the mandates of these two organizations differ, their procedures, training, and culture also differ in many respects (e.g., the RCMP typically reacts quickly to incidents, whereas the CF tends to develop detailed plans before acting). The authors had the opportunity to observe RCMP and CF cultures while conducting operational analyses during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, the G8/G20 Summits, several exercises leading up to these events, and other inter-agency domestic and expeditionary operations. In this paper we describe some of the cultural differences and similarities we observed and briefly discuss the implications of these differences and similarities in the context of a comprehensive approach to operations.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Canadian Forces (CF) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) often work collaboratively in both domestic and expeditionary operations. The two forces often find themselves working in the same location and have strongly related security goals. However, the RCMP is a police force responsible for maintaining civil order, enforcing the law, and preventing and detecting crime, and works primarily at the territorial and federal levels. The CF, on the other hand, is a military force with state-granted powers to execute national defence policy aimed at defending Canada and contributing to international peace and security operations. It is proposed in this paper that because the mandates of these two organizations differ, their procedures, training, and cultures also differ in many respects. In this paper we describe some of the differences and similarities between the two organizations, and we propose some of their implications for the effectiveness of inter-agency operations. The importance of understanding cultural differences between organizations cannot be understated, as this understanding can do much to enhance the coordination that is imperative to successful interagency security operations (Lannan, 2004).

1 ϯ Deceased April 2013.

STO-MP-HFM-204 6 - 1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 CF

The CF is responsible for implementing the decisions of the Government on 1) the defence of Canada and 2) security aspects of Canadian interests at home and abroad. It has a history of fighting in the two World Wars and has assisted in numerous international and domestic operations. At the time of this writing, it is currently engaged in the mission in Afghanistan under the NATO-led United Nations International Security Assistance Force in addition to several other NATO- and UN-led operations. As such, the CF is a modern military taking an active role in NATO and UN missions. With approximately 93,000 members, the CF is distributed on military installations throughout Canada and is deployed internationally. Beyond its central national defence mandate, the CF also supports domestic security and disaster relief operations and as such contributes to major domestic operations including the recent Vancouver 2010 Olympics and the G8 and G20 Summits.

The CF consists of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army (shortened to “Army” in the present paper), and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Of these three elemental commands, the Army works most often with the RCMP and so the present paper is based primarily on observations of the Army and the RCMP.

2.2 RCMP

The RCMP is Canada’s federal police force responsible for maintaining and enforcing civil order, but is unique in the world in that RCMP police officers2 also perform—on a contractual basis—provincial, territorial, and municipal policing. The RCMP polices the three territories, more than 190 municipalities, 184 Aboriginal communities, and 3 international airports. The RCMP consists of approximately 29,000 employees, most of whom are regular members (i.e., officers and non-commissioned officers).

In addition to everyday police work, the RCMP has led security operations for major national events. Like the CF, the RCMP is often deployed on UN- and NATO-led operations around the world and, in these cases, RCMP members usually work jointly with the CF.

2.3 OVERLAP BETWEEN CF AND RCMP

One of the first Commissioners of the RCMP was the first Commanding Officer of the Lord Strathcona’s Horse, a cavalry Regiment that was an instrumental component of Canada’s expeditionary contribution to the Boer War. The Canadian cavalry of the late 19th century had many skill sets and, in fact, many personnel in common with the North-West Mounted Police (Canada’s then western police force), which merged with the Dominion Police (Canada’s eastern police force until 1918) in 1920 to form the RCMP.

Of note, one of the main areas of overlap between the two forces involves the operational capabilities and strategic end goals required for domestic security as evidenced at recent Canadian major security events such as the Vancouver Olympics and the G8/G20 Summits. However, these events were neither new nor unique in terms of the linkages between the forces. For instance, Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2), the CF Special Operations Forces, was originally located within the Special Emergency Response Team of the RCMP from 1986 until 1993, at which time the federal government transferred the role to the CF. Although JTF2, whose primary responsibility is counter-terrorism operations, is under CF command, it has a law enforcement component and maintains very close ties to the RCMP.

2 Throughout the paper, we use the term “police officer” to refer to both commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in a police force.

6 - 2 STO-MP-HFM-204


Given their historical links, and the overlapping areas of their defence and security mandates, the CF and RCMP share some similarities in their cultures and climates. There are, however, many notable differences in these areas. These differences and similarities are elaborated in Sections 4 and 5 below, respectively.

3.0 RESEARCH METHOD During and after the preparatory exercises and security operations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and the G8/G20 Summits that involved close coordination between the CF and the RCMP, the first two authors were members of a operational research team that conducted 108 interviews with members of the CF (N=10) and RCMP (N=98). The organizational differences and similarities presented here are based on relevant themes that emerged in the course of the interviews, from our observations in our roles as operational analysts (D. Smith and L. McLellan), and in collaborations with members of both organizations (D. W. Hobbs).3 We begin with an enumeration of the organizational similarities and differences and conclude with a section that discusses the implications of these differences and similarities for inter-agency operations.

4.0 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Before embarking on a discussion of cultural differences between the CF and RCMP, let us first clarify what is meant by the term culture in this context. Organizational culture refers to an organization’s symbols, rituals, values, and beliefs that are shared by its members (Schein, 2002). The study of organizational culture stemmed from the study of organizational climate, which refers to the manifest features of the organization, such as the physical surroundings and the employees’ self-reported attitudes. Researchers of organizational climate are more likely to use survey and psychometric methods, and to focus on individuals’ experiences of the organization (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Climate researchers often look to the policies, practices, and procedures that characterize the organization and look at individuals’ experiences of them. Schneider (2000) makes a distinction between organizational culture and climate such that climate captures how the members describe their surroundings, whereas culture captures members’ understandings of the belief system that caused the current climate.

An analysis of an organization’s culture can often be more informative for gaining insight into its operations than simply observing manifest parts (e.g., formal standards and protocols; Soeters, 2000). Understanding cultural similarities and differences between organizations that work together can help to elucidate areas where collaboration is likely to be strong, but also where problems might arise. Below, we outline a number of differences between the RCMP and CF that we have discerned through our observations and interviews, some of which are more explicitly observable, but all of which, we propose, contribute to an understanding of cultural differences between the organizations.

We use the term “culture” in this chapter to broadly capture differences in what some researchers would characterize as culture or climate. The differences described below are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive; rather, they represent some of the recurring and often inter-related themes that emerged from the authors’ analyses, based on direct observation and semi-structured interviews with personnel from both forces.

4.1 REACTING VS. PLANNING In everyday police work, personnel react quickly to emerging situations in order to keep the peace. Police seldom have the opportunity to engage in long-term planning and training for a specific operation because it is often unclear how they should respond until they are on the scene. It remains uncommon for police forces in Canada to be deliberately targeted with lethal force in strength. Therefore, instead of engaging in a lengthy, highly deliberate, or complex planning process in response to a particular incident, they must maintain a high level of readiness to be able to respond quickly to an array of usually smaller, discrete civil order and security incidents.

3 In order to maintain confidentiality when reporting results, we describe only general observations rather than quotes throughout the paper.



Military forces, on the other hand, usually know well in advance where they will be deployed and what they are expected to accomplish during a mission. In an ongoing expeditionary operation, CF members, by virtue of being party to the conflict, must assume that they are being targeted at all times in most deployed settings4. Indeed, given the size of deployed forces and the complexity of international military operations, this can require a substantial amount of preparation that includes building a task-tailored force, seeking authority from higher headquarters, conducting coordination with flanking elements, and performing reconnaissance to mitigate risk. As such, the military produces extensive plans and runs exercises in preparation for each mission.

Because the CF is accustomed to extensive advanced planning but the RCMP is not, the two forces respond differently to situations that require reacting versus planning. While RCMP members do, at times, participate in large-scale training exercises (e.g., in preparation for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics or the G8/G20 Summits), they often do not take advantage of the opportunity to develop or exercise their plans as fully as is routine for the military. For example, in preparation for the G8/G20 Summits, some police officers in the command centres did not perceive much value in practicing responses to hypothetical scenarios because they saw the scenarios as too unrealistic and contrived. They did, however, appreciate that the exercises allowed them to establish relationships with their colleagues with whom they would be working. The CF members, by comparison, embraced the exercises more fully because they are used to participating in them to prepare for operations, and for exercises to routinely involve a variety of developments, including worse-case scenarios. Further, because military members traditionally take direct orders from above and have the opportunity to exercise their roles, they are used to being quite comfortable with their identified roles and responsibilities for an operation. A consequence of this, however, is that military members may not feel comfortable making decisions when plans and their responsibilities are not clear or directed from above. Because RCMP members are more accustomed to working under conditions where there is no specific plan or orders from above, they generally feel more comfortable exercising flexibility in their roles depending on the unfolding situation.

4.2 INDIVIDUAL VS. GROUP

Police officers, including RCMP officers, are trained to act alone, at least initially. They are trained to assess the situation and do what is necessary to protect themselves and those in their immediate vicinity (e.g., civilian bystanders). Because they are trained to make decisions and to act without support, they can work very effectively as individuals; indeed, some objectives (e.g., arresting a perpetrator) can be achieved by just one individual. Because RCMP officers are often required to work alone, they must behave in a way to protect themselves. The CF, on the other hand, usually work in teams to achieve their missions and, to do so, are trained to put mission objectives and the welfare of the unit above the individual (Department of National Defence, 2009; Ouellet & Kirley, 2009).

Notwithstanding the above, both the CF and RCMP have a strong sense of camaraderie and are generally trained to work in teams of different sizes – the CF in large groups and the RCMP in relatively small groups. However, RCMP officers may have difficulties working as part of an operation that involves the coordination of specialized teams because they are not normally involved in such large-scale or complex team operations. The CF, by contrast, is used to participating in large-scale group exercises and operations. The CF is trained to operate in large numbers (i.e., 5000 – 20,000) on a single tactical activity. To facilitate such large-scale coordination, introductory training in the operational planning process (OPP) is administered to officers at the Captain rank at the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College, and additional training is administered to Majors and Lieutenant-Colonels at the Canadian Forces College. OPP training may account for why CF officers generally have an easier time seeing the “big picture” and how their specialized roles fit within it.

4 Exceptions might include some peacekeeping missions and duties inside the wire.



4.3 SPECIALIST VS. GENERALIST

Because they are required to respond to a variety of situations in a reactive way, RCMP officers are typically generalists. Military members, on the other hand, are typically specialists such that they are trained to perform a specific function (e.g., as a sniper, logistics officer, or driver). As such, CF members would generally be uncomfortable performing a role for which they have not been trained. For example, a military member who is assigned a specialized function such as organizing transportation for security personnel at a major event would simply call a Transportation Officer in the CF who would have the requisite training and expertise to fulfil the requirements. Conversely, if a “beat cop” (i.e., a uniformed officer who performs community policing) were assigned such a function, he or she would not only lack training in such a specialized area, but also would not have a standing capability within the RCMP to coordinate large-scale transportation. As a generalist, the RCMP would have more difficulty in this situation, functioning in a specialized role.

4.4 COMMAND AND RESPONSIBILITY

When police respond to an incident, the police officer who first responds is considered the incident commander. The police officer’s role is to decide how a situation should be handled and whether additional support is needed. Decisions are often made on the ground, and in short order. Military members at the scene of the incident are usually acting under orders and know what they are expected to do in that situation. Thus, as alluded to earlier, RCMP officers typically make plans that are less well-defined, and respond accordingly, whereas CF members typically act according to detailed plans that have been made well ahead of time by a commander. Barr (2003) also observed this difference in his analysis of the 2002 Kananaskis G8 Summit, noting that the commanders from the RCMP and CF took these different approaches to their duties, consistent with the command and control structures of their respective organizations.

4.5 OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY VS. RIGIDITY

Both the RCMP and CF can be characterized as operationally both flexible and rigid, but in different ways. The CF is very mobile and has wide-ranging capability that spans, for example, defending territory, reconstructing communities, and providing disaster relief, and (in extreme cases) ensuring safety and security during national emergencies (i.e., under the Emergencies Act). At a high level, the CF is agile and can make fundamental changes to operations (e.g., shift from a defensive to an offensive position). The CF is flexible in that its members operate under different rules of engagement (ROEs) depending on the mission, but it is rigid in that members must adhere to the ROEs that are specified.

The RCMP is more operationally rigid than the CF in the sense that the duties required of its members are more limited in scope and members are subject to the same ROEs regardless of their objectives. However, in the line of duty, RCMP officers can react and adapt more quickly as a situation evolves dramatically within a short period of time. For example, when deployed in theatre, military members have ROEs that dictate when and how to use force. In many cases, if the situation changes drastically, soldiers are not authorized to deviate from the ROEs, even if it would clearly advance their objectives. RCMP officers, by comparison, have much more flexibility in how they respond to changing situations.

Police are encouraged to be sensitive to the civilian communities they serve. The military, on the other hand, typically operates outside of civilian society (although under civilian control); self-expression and independent actions are frowned upon and replaced by conformity to the group and authority (Ouellet & Kirley, 2009).



4.6 ROLE OF LITIGATION AND THE LAW

A common concern that was expressed by RCMP officers who we interviewed (and that likely exists for other police forces) is to protect themselves against litigation (i.e., in case of lawsuits against them), as well as ensuring that criminals are prosecuted. This was not as large a concern for the CF, however. This difference should be expected, as the goal of the police investigation is to successfully prosecute a criminal. The goal of a military operation, on the other hand, is to defend national interests or to defeat an enemy.

As such, in deciding how to act, RCMP officers must carefully consider their actions to maintain the integrity of the investigation leading to the prosecution of criminals. Further, they must consider how their actions would hold up in litigation in case they are later involved in a lawsuit, and they typically keep impeccable records to document their actions in case of an inquiry. Because of these legal concerns, RCMP officers may (understandably) be inclined to act in ways that are somewhat risk-averse but that would protect the officer, the detachment, and the force more generally in case of litigation.

CF members, on the other hand, do not enforce laws and are not subject to the same risks of legal scrutiny5. The CF is mandated to act collectively. Because CF members do not make arrests and they are seldom called upon to testify, they do not keep records of individual decisions as a police officer would. Furthermore, major decisions are typically dictated by orders of senior commanders; hence, as long as more junior members operate within the parameters of their orders, they are generally not accountable for those decisions. This difference in focus on the law was articulated in Ouellet and Kirley (2009), who noted that “The military are also very much agents of the government while police view their role more as agents of the courts and the law.”

The primary legislation governing the CF is the National Defence Act. The CF’s authority to act must come in the form of Orders from the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), including all aspects of the use of force, rules of engagement, search and seizure policies, and detainment policies. Every theatre of operation will have a mission-specific set of orders requiring retraining of CF personnel about new orders for every mission in which they participate. Like all other Canadians, CF personnel are subject to the Criminal Code of Canada; furthermore, they are responsible for its enforcement on subordinates regardless of the deployed setting. In addition, CF personnel must frequently be aware of aspects of the Law of the Sea, The Hague and Geneva Conventions, United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and peace or ceasefire agreements. The RCMP must be masters of not only criminal law of Canada, but also of common law, due process, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sometimes provincial laws (e.g., laws governing highway traffic).

4.7 COMBATANT VS. NON-COMBATANT STATUS

Under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and international law, most CF personnel operating in a deployed setting like Afghanistan are considered combatants6. Combatants are legitimate targets according to international law. Under most conditions, RCMP members are not considered combatants in the legal sense. Whether RCMP officers are armed in international deployments depends on what is negotiated with the host nation. RCMP members typically do not have authority to act as police officers outside of Canada except by special arrangement. The RCMP’s obligations under the LOAC are manifestly different from those of the CF; for instance, while RCMP officers are responsible for enforcing Canadian law, the CF is responsible for following ROEs for its mission (e.g., to neutralize an enemy unit).

5 CF members have come under more legal and public scrutiny since the mission in Somalia and this has continued in theatres such as Afghanistan. 6 Exceptions include CF chaplains.



4.8 PARALLEL VS. LINEAR RANK STRUCTURE

While the RCMP has a rank structure that is superficially similar to that of the CF, there are two major differences between the two rank structures. In the RCMP: (a) the rank structure is linear rather than parallel (as it is in the CF), and (b) although rank is achieved based on status and the ability to command, many RCMP members choose not to advance in rank even when they have the capability to do so. We elaborate on each of these points below.

In the CF, rank determines who has command. One important distinction in ranks is between officers and non-commissioned members (NCMs). Technically, the lowest ranking officer (i.e., a Second Lieutenant in the Army) outranks the highest ranking NCM (i.e., a Chief Warrant Officer in the Army); however, in practice, junior officers listen to the advice of senior NCMs because the NCMs are more experienced.

In the RCMP, every member begins as a constable, the lowest-ranked non-commissioned officer7 (NCO), and is trained by superiors. With further training and experience, they may be promoted to become commissioned officers. Hence, it is a linear progression from NCO to commissioned officer, with commissioned officers typically having more experience than NCOs. Therefore, unlike in the CF, the most junior RCMP commissioned officers usually have more experience than the most senior NCOs.

A further distinction is that many RCMP NCOs choose to remain constables for their entire careers. To be promoted, an RCMP constable often has to change location and perform duties other than patrolling areas. These members who are content in their positions see no reason to progress. Hence, talented and experienced RCMP members sometimes remain constables.

In sum, the differences in rank structure between the two forces is not straight-forward. For RCMP NCOs, rank is not necessarily related to experience, as some may choose not to advance. For commissioned officers in the both the RCMP and the CF, the relationship between rank and experience is much stronger. In the CF, commissioned officers out-rank NCMs, but may seek guidance from senior NCMs who are more experienced. Thus, there is much room for confusion about ranks between forces if members of either force assume that the structure of the other is the same as their own.

4.9 OVERTIME AND WORK CONDITIONS

RCMP NCOs can earn overtime pay and this additional compensation can be a strong incentive when they are asked to perform special duties (e.g., work on a major investigation or perform security duties during a major event). Working long hours, even 24-hour shifts, is acceptable within the culture of the RCMP. CF members, on the other hand, are expected to be on duty whenever required, but are not paid overtime. Work shifts are, when possible, organized so that CF members get required rest. Military culture has been described as “greedy” such that its members can be called to duty 24 hours a day, but on a fixed pay structure only (Soeters, 2000). Hence, RCMP NCOs may be eager to work long hours; although this has its financial reward, working longer hours may expose them to additional work stresses (especially during crisis situations), but it is often expected, and it is difficult to decline additional pay. CF members may also be exposed to a high level of work stress, given that they are expected to be available for duty 24 hours a day and, especially if deployed, may be exposed to a variety of harsh and extreme conditions (e.g., sustained rocket attacks, improvised explosive devices, cramped conditions in vehicles, and long periods of time away from family). Hence while RCMP NCOs may work long hours in a stressful environment, they are compensated for it. It is not uncommon for CF members to also experience stressful conditions, but for longer periods of time and without overtime compensation.

7 A note on terminology: in the CF, the term “NCM” is used and in the RCMP, the term “NCO” is used.



4.10 IMPLICATIONS

In sub-sections 4.1 through 4.9 above, we have described a number of cultural differences between the CF and the RCMP. In this sub-section, we will briefly propose some implications of these differences in the context of a comprehensive approach to operations.

We propose that differences between the CF and RCMP in terms of reacting versus planning may affect their ability to cooperate effectively. Particularly during exercises, to which RCMP are less accustomed, such differences may lead to friction that could undermine the value of the exercise. By acknowledging the strength of one force (e.g., the CF for planning), the two forces can capitalize on that strength when they work together. Indeed, an integrated planning team that exploits the strength of the CF in this regard was noted in an analysis of the 2002 Summit (Barr, 2003).

Further, we propose that differences in specialist versus generalist orientations between the CF and RCMP may lead to difficulties when, for example, an RCMP officer’s expectation that a CF member will assume an unfamiliar role (as he or she would, being a generalist) is violated. Differences in command and responsibility could lead to confusion regarding the chain of command at a security incident. Differences in operational flexibility versus rigidity may lead to a lack of understanding between the two forces regarding, for example, how quickly and easily each force can change their postures to respond to a situation as it unfolds. Their different levels of focus on litigation and the law may cause frustration if, for example, CF members perceive RCMP officers as being overly attentive to detail when, in fact, the officers recognize the importance of such detail when prosecuting criminals. Differences in overtime and work conditions could cause tension between members of the two forces if they are insensitive to these differences. For example, a respectful RCMP officer would be careful not to “gloat” about earning overtime pay and sleeping indoors to a CF member who is not entitled to extra pay, and who is sleeping in a tent.

In sum, we did not observe or hear of any drastic clashes between RCMP and CF members that severely impeded their ability to work together effectively. A major theme among many of these differences are that they could violate expectations; if one force is accustomed to doing business a certain way, it may require some time and communication to dispel false assumptions about the other. By articulating the differences we have observed in a transparent (albeit simplified) way, we hope to draw attention to some of the potential areas whereby misunderstandings, tensions, or conflict might arise between the two forces. Being made aware of these differences, and the reasons and rationales behind such differences at the outset of an exercise or operation may help to pre-empt any negativity that could arise. Further, such awareness could help facilitate smooth execution of operations, and expedite the process of the forces becoming familiar with how the other operates, especially for emergency operations when inter-agency teams could be assembled with little preparation or warning. By mitigating risk of misunderstandings and expediting familiarization, the RCMP and CF could be optimally prepared to work together effectively and efficiently.

5.0 CULTURAL SIMILARITIES

Up to this point we have focused on differences between the CF and the RCMP. We have also suggested that such differences may undermine attempts at collaboration between the two organizations. In this section we would like to also point out some similarities. Similarities in the way the two forces operate may allow for a shared understanding of their environment (e.g., the difficulties that might occur), and may give them common ground for understanding each other. The tacit knowledge that the CF and RCMP share that comes with being uniformed members of federally administered organizations could help to create compatible goals and expectations for a security operation.



5.1 ROLE IN SOCIETY

Both the CF and RCMP, as uniformed organizations8, are sanctioned to use legitimated violence under certain conditions (see Hunt, 1995). Further, members of both organizations are expected to have a high level of commitment to their careers. They also have the distinction of working in both “cold” conditions (i.e., during prevention and preparation) and “hot” conditions (i.e., in a crisis or on a battlefield; see van Doorn, 1975). Members from both forces noted their mutual respect in the interviews which was, in part, facilitated by these shared professional expectations.

5.2 FEDERAL LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

Both the RCMP and the CF are controlled by the federal government. Because of this they follow many of the same legislations and procedures. For instance, they follow the same procedures for the handling of sensitive information (e.g., how documents are labelled, what clearances are required to allow others to access them, what networks they can be stored on or transmitted by, etc.). A common understanding of these procedures means that the CF and RCMP are under the same constraints and they understand when these constraints cause difficulties (e.g., some personnel are not allowed to see documents for which they are not cleared, even though the information could be useful to performing their duties). Contrast this to either the RCMP or the CF working with other organizations (e.g., local police), who may not understand the necessity of procedures, and thus may see the problems they cause as intentional and artificial barriers created by the federal-level forces.

Another example is that the RCMP and the CF follow the same financial administration rules. Purchasing equipment and paying personnel are handled in the same way for both organizations and thus both organizations have a common understanding of such procedures. Because of the large scale of the federal government (relative to a local police force), purchasing is complex; the government must follow a number of international agreements and national guidelines. To a local police force or a non-federal agency, some of these rules may seem byzantine and bizarre impediments to action.

5.3 RURAL FOCUS

The RCMP traditionally works in rural settings and with small communities (although there are many exceptions to this). Similarly, the CF train in rural, relatively unpopulated areas and frequently deploy to countries where they work out of an encampment. When working in urban areas, however, both groups may have challenges (e.g., adapting to the community and understanding the local terrain). In contrast to this, a municipal police force would be more familiar with the local area and have a better understanding of the urban domains in which they operate.

5.4 IMPLICATIONS

Despite their differences, there are many characteristics that unite the RCMP and CF than divide them. In this paper, we enumerate more differences than similarities in an effort to identify areas where the two forces could potentially misunderstand each other. We suggest that the shared characteristics may help the forces to understand each other and ultimately to work together effectively. For example, because they are both federal-level forces, the RCMP and the CF have a common understanding of, and familiarity with, federal rules such as those with the Treasury Board. Shared familiarity with these rules may facilitate their ability to work together. Further, their common challenges (e.g., working in a rural environment with which they are unfamiliar) may help unite them as they work through difficulties together (e.g., working with local police to become familiar with the urban environment). The camaraderie between the forces and mutual respect for each other seemed to facilitate effective working relationships, a point also noted by Barr (2003).

8 Soeters (2000) defines “uniformed organizations” as organizations that represent state authority (e.g., military, police, firefighters, etc.).



6.0 CAVEATS TO THE ANALYSIS

It is important to point out that although we believe that these cultural differences may be true in the larger sense (i.e., they may be true for the “average” RCMP officer or soldier, not just for the individuals we interviewed or observed), we are aware that there are exceptions. Below we will describe some of these exceptions.

In the “Reacting vs. Planning” section, we describe the RCMP as reacting to the situation and the CF as planning a response. In some cases, the groups do both react and plan. For instance, when investigating a complex criminal organization the RCMP must plan how intelligence will be gathered and how to intervene effectively. While the CF typically plans, lower-level commanders can adapt or take advantage of a situation when practical. For example, commanders may decide to employ a “hasty attack” if they come across an unprepared enemy; in this case, the development of a formal plan may simply take too long for the commander to take advantage of the opportunity to exploit an enemy’s weakness.

In the “Individual vs. Group” section, we describe RCMP officers as acting individually while CF members typically act as a group. In some cases the RCMP can form itself into relatively large units, such as Public Order Units, whose primary duty is crowd control. Similarly, an individual soldier’s actions (e.g., while forming local relationships in a village or performing an act of bravery during combat) can also be extremely important to an operation.

In the “Specialist vs. Generalist” section, we describe RCMP officers as generalists and CF members as technical specialists. While this is often true, there are important exceptions: some RCMP officers specialize in various types of crime or in certain skill sets (e.g., Public Order Units or police dog units). Similarly, although military members typically work as specialists, they often have similar basic skills (e.g., marksmanship in the Army).

One major limitation of this methodology is that it can be affected by the subjective interpretations of the researchers. However, our observations were corroborated by the interviews with several RCMP and CF officers, who concurred with our conclusions; our findings are also consistent with other research in this area (for a review, see Ouellet & Kirley, 2009). In our view, our categorizations of the cultural differences can act as a useful starting point for future systematic investigations in this area.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

It is important to note that the culture of neither the CF nor RCMP is superior to the other for achieving their respective operational goals. The strengths of each organization have developed according to what is required in their respective lines of work. Based on comments from both CF and RCMP members who have worked in inter-agency operations, members of one organization truly respect and admire the capability in the other, especially in the areas where they are particularly strong (e.g., the CF for their planning ability, and the RCMP for their agile responses to rapidly evolving incidents).

It is useful to acknowledge and understand these differences when the two organizations are working together in inter-agency operations, or within a comprehensive context, for a number of reasons. First, knowing the strengths of each organization for completing different tasks within an operation can aid decisions about how to assign responsibility for the various tasks. Second, police and military personnel may work more effectively together if they are briefed in advance on cultural and procedural differences between the organizations. Third, a more contextualized understanding of how the organizations work together will help to inform when and how the RCMP and CF should work together in inter-agency or comprehensive operations.

6 - 10 STO-MP-HFM-204


In this paper, we have briefly outlined some of the major differences between the CF and RCMP that we have seen, based on direct observation of exercises and operations and on interviews with the members. To maximize the effectiveness of future comprehensive operations involving both organizations, a more comprehensive understanding of their similarities, differences, and interactions is required.

8.0 REFERENCES

[1] Barr, D. (2003, Winter). The Kananaskis G8 Summit: A case study in interagency cooperation. Canadian Military Journal, 39-46.

[2] Department of National Defence, Canadian Defence Academy. (2009). Duty with honour: The profession of arms in Canada. Retrieved from Canadian Defence Academy website: http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfpds-sppfc/english/documents/Duty-with-Honour-The-Profession-of-Arms-in-Canada-2009-e.pdf

[3] Lannan, T. (2004, Autumn). Interagency coordination within the national security community: Improving the response to terrorism.” Canadian Military Journal, 49-56.

[4] Ouellet, E. & Kirley, E. (2009). The progressive convergence of the military and policing ethos in post-millennial Canada. DRDC CSS Contractor Report.

[5] Schein, E. H. (2002). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[6] Schneider, B. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. xxiii-xxx). London: Sage Publications.

[7] Soeters, J. L. (2000). Culture in uniformed organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 465-482). London: Sage Publications.

[8] Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

STO-MP-HFM-204 6 - 11

http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfpds-sppfc/english/documents/Duty-with-Honour-The-Profession-of-Arms-in-Canada-2009-e.pdf

http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfpds-sppfc/english/documents/Duty-with-Honour-The-Profession-of-Arms-in-Canada-2009-e.pdf


6 - 12 STO-MP-HFM-204

Cultural Differences between the Canadian Forces and … Meeting Proceedings/STO... · Cultural...

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Differences between the Canadian Forces and … Meeting Proceedings/STO... · Cultural...