Expectations, Obligations, and Moral Injury

When I left special operations, I felt betrayed. Plain, and simple.

The day after I officially posted out of my last special operations unit, I had returned to the base to clear out my lockers only to find that my base access card had been deactivated. Swiping my card repetitively drew the attention of the front gate guard, who approached my car with suspicion and treated me (quite rightfully) as a potential security threat. After explaining my situation, he granted me escorted access to the base for one hour and under the watchful eye of my security guard chaperone, I proceeded to recover my personal belongings from the medical centre that had been my second home for the previous three years.

Driving out of the base for the final time I recall watching the boom gate descend in my rear-view mirror with a spiteful feeling of good riddance.

It took me years of reflection to realise that my unceremonious departure from the unit was exactly the way it should have been. I had finished my time there and my number on the manning Excel spreadsheet for the unit had been replaced with that of my successor.

Ultimately, at a strategic level, the unit had a cold requirement to reduce its members to numbers on that spreadsheet in order to replace them emotionlessly as required. There was nothing personal about this process, it was borne out of the unit’s accountability to provide ongoing, no-fail capability to government.

In the decade since my departure from special operations I have had the chance to interact with hundreds of ex-military and first responders who have experienced a similar feeling of betrayal by their organisations for various reasons. Interestingly, despite the objectively more traumatic exposures of their roles, it is often the feeling of betrayal by their organisation that causes them the most angst and is frequently the precipitating factor, or a significant contributing factor, to them ultimately leaving their roles.

With hindsight, what occurred in my instance, and what I suspect has occurred with the many others who have had similar experiences, was a difference between personal expectations and organisational obligations.

Expectations and Obligations

Expectations and Obligations are often used interchangeably in everyday language, yet they possess distinct nuances in both meaning and application (1).

Obligations typically denote duties or responsibilities that one is bound to fulfil, underpinned by legal, moral, or contractual agreements. They entail a sense of compulsion or necessity, where failure to fulfil them may result in severe consequences including disciplinary action.

In contrast, expectations refer to anticipated behaviours or outcomes that others envision from an individual or organisation based on societal or organisational norms, personal relationships, or situational contexts.

While obligations are external mandates, expectations are internalised or externally projected by others, and influence the perception of appropriate conduct. Expectations often create pressure or anticipation.

Nowhere in my special operations job description was it written that I was obliged to invest as deeply as I did in my work role. The level of investment that ultimately led to identity fusion, or a visceral sense of oneness with my work role and tribe. This, however, was certainly an expectation of the role, underpinned by organisational values including the relentless pursuit of excellence.

I can now see the disparity that was created between the expectations that I put on myself (reinforced by those around me in special operations and the unit culture) and what I could ultimately hold the unit accountable for with regards to its obligations to me. I just hadn’t had cause to appreciate this disparity until my point of departure from the unit.

Underpinning the betrayal felt when I left the unit was the human tendency towards reciprocity bias.

Reciprocity is the mutual exchange of benefits or favours. Humans are wired for reciprocity due to the evolutionary advantage it confers in building cooperation, trust, and social cohesion, which in turn enhances collective wellbeing and resilience (2). Studies have shown that reciprocity activates neural pathways associated with social bonding and trust, indicating its fundamental role in shaping interpersonal relationships.

On the other end of the spectrum from reciprocity is altruism, where acts are done with no expectation of anything in return. In between the two is the concept of reciprocal altruism, in which one acts in an altruistic manner with the hope (but not expectation) that a benefit will be conveyed back to them in the future.

When I reflect on my high degree of investment in my role with special operations, I had created the hope that my commitment to the organisation would be reciprocated with acknowledgement beyond the unit’s obligations to me. The issue that I can now clearly see was with my expectations, and nothing more, leading to a sense of moral injury.

Moral Injury

One definition of Moral Injury is:

“…the lasting emotional, psychological, social, behavioural, and spiritual impacts of actions that violate a service member’s core moral values and behavioural expectations of self or others” (3).

The key word in this definition is expectations.

When I left special operations, the unit had not met the expectations that I had created in my own mind and reinforced through my hope of reciprocal altruism based on my high level of investment in the role. With hindsight, I’m not even sure what I expected when I left the unit. It certainly wasn’t a parade or a fast jet flyover, but one further day of grace to collect my belongings would have been nice. Ultimately, at the time I felt hurt and bitter.

When I further explore the situation, I feel that another psychological model is relevant, that being the:

Karpman Drama Triangle

The Karpman Drama Triangle, developed by psychiatrist Stephen Karpman in the 1960s (4), offers a framework for understanding dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics. It identifies three roles commonly assumed in conflict situations:

• The Victim,
• The Persecutor,
• and the Rescuer

Figure 1. The Karpman Drama Triangle (image source: www.mygrow.me)

In this dynamic, individuals may shift between roles, however as a generalisation, military members and first responders will often mostly perceive themselves to be in the Rescuer role.

The police officer will come to the Rescue of the domestic abuse Victim and use their powers to deal with the Persecutor.

The Firefighter will come to the Rescue of the Victim trapped in the building being destroyed by fire (the Persecutor).

The paramedic will Rescue the Victim of a heart attack (Persecutor).

The deployed military member will help Rescue the local national population being Victimised by the Persecutory insurgent force.

In all these examples, the role of Rescuer and the Organisation they work for are one. There is, for the most part, a clearly defined Victim and Persecutor or persecutory force.

This role clarity leads the military member or first responder to adopt the identity of the Rescuer and the concept of being the Victim is often foreign to them.

They are the ones who answer the calls for help, not the ones who ask for help.

This role identity as a Rescuer can make the moral injury of a failure of their organisation to meet their expectations even more confusing and hurtful. In that setting, the individual finds themself as the Victim, with the organisation as the Persecutor, and the only obvious source of Rescue being from within the organisation as well. When no one from within the organisation comes to their rescue, moral injury occurs.

One of the key strategies to minimise the risk of sustaining a moral injury is to reduce one’s expectations. As harsh as it sounds, this extends to reducing any expectations of what an organisation might reciprocate for any level of personal investment in a work identity.

I’m not for one moment suggesting that military members or first responders should reduce their level of investment in their roles. What I am suggesting is that high levels of work investment should be done for the personal growth and intrinsic satisfaction of performing well in the role and fulfilling the organisation’s expectations of them, whilst at the same time accepting that all they should expect in return is the bare minimum of what the organisation is obliged to deliver back to them. Any reciprocity on behalf of the organisation above and beyond its obligations to the employee should be viewed as a bonus and not an entitlement. In this setting, the risk of moral injury is significantly reduced.

As always, comments and questions are welcome. If you feel this newsletter might resonate with others in your community, please share it widely.

Until next Friday, stay safe, and don’t forget to have some fun!

Cheers,

Dr Dan Pronk

References

1. Smith, J. (2020). Obligations versus Expectations: Understanding the Difference. Journal of Social Dynamics, 12(3), 45-56.

2. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.

3. Litz et al. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: a preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clin Psychol Rev. Dec;29(8)

4. Karpman, S. (1968). Fairy tales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 39-43.