國防政策評論，第三卷，第一期，二○○二年秋季
Taiwan Defense Affairs, Vol.3, No.1, Autumn 2002

以「策略性」的方式來思考關於與人事相關的政策
Thinking Strategically about Policy for People Issues

什麼是筆者所意指的策略途徑？筆者建議有三個獨特的理念：
* 首先，是人事政策的工具（徵募、維持、技能的傳遞以及重新安置以及軍事與民間社會之間相互支持的連結）應被視為整體途徑的元素。12
* 其次，「原則」是如何地在特定政策議題上被建構（而不是全部等同一致）。
* 第三點，為了思索長期政策的演化——一般是說十五到二年之後，政策工具和原則的的策略性運用，是如何地被發展？（以及造成變遷管理的議題，其政策如何能被採用，以及在組織的範圍內，哪裡是需要化解變遷的抗拒）。
What do I mean by a strategic approach?I suggest that three distinct ideas are involved here:
-- First, how the instruments of personnel policy (recruitment, retention, transferability of skills and resettlement and mutually supportive links between military and the civilian community) should be regarded as elements of an overall approach.12
-- Second, how principles can be constructed to inform decisions on specific policy issues (instead of an ad hoc approach).
-- Third, how the strategic use of policy instruments and principles can be developed to think through the evolution of policy over the longer term – generally speaking the next 15 -20 years (and how that policy can be applied, which poses the issue of the management of change and, where necessary
overcoming resistance to change within the organisation.

今天英國的人事主管以及他的參謀，就人力資源政策的角度來思考戰略願景，並將焦點放在二○○五年到二○一五年以及遠在二○三○年之後的時間點上。13 同時，他們也尋求找出「信條」來支撐以回應於一系列民眾的議題，而不是視情況處理個別性議題。
Today the UK’s Adjutant General and his staff are concerned with strategic vision in terms of human resource policy with a focus on the timeline of 2005-15 and beyond to 2030.13 Also, they are seeking to identify principles to underpin policy responses to a range of people issues rather than responding to individual issues in an ad hoc way depending upon the circumstances.

對於民眾以策略性地思考的結果，就是特別注意到在募兵和其他政策領域間的連結：尤其是部隊維持和對社會移轉技術。特別是目前注意到，需要避免太激烈地從對募兵的投資移轉到部隊維持上，過去幾年的經驗顯示，這都是平衡的問題。現在不僅注意到募兵及部隊維持間的連結，也注意到將軍隊視為一個系統的所有面向，以去看什麼是它可以去培育的募兵來源，然後去招募、聘僱、供養與照顧，以及當他們離開變成退伍軍人時，去記得這些人。在照顧或者是供養上，必須要去聽從人事部門的建議，諸如「人力過剩」以及家庭的議題；但是在同一時刻，也要保留軍事精神特質的根本基礎。
A consequence of thinking strategically about people is that there is a greater focus on the linkages between, say, recruitment and other areas of policy: especially retention and transferable skills to society. In particular, there is recognition of the need to avoid swinging too violently from investing in recruitment to retention, as in the past few years – it is all a question of balance. Now there is not just an awareness of a need to look at links between recruitment and retention, but also to look at all aspects of army as a system and be pro-active in seeing what it can do to cultivate the recruitment pool, then to recruit, retain, sustain and look after, and then remember people when they leave as veterans. In looking after or sustaining one must listen to the concerns of personnel, e.g. ‘overstretch’ and family issues, but at the same time retain the essential basis of military ethos.

除了新問題之外，對人民議題的策略性路徑，部隊中有許多已經明白顯示出一些潛在困擾議題正浮出檯面，需要採用這樣一個為了人民議題的途徑來加以處理。這些包括在戰鬥單位中雇用女性，以及在雇用同性戀人員的新政策。
This strategic approach to people issues is clearly needed as, quite apart from new problems, there are already a number of potentially troublesome issues under review in various parts of the services that would benefit from the application of such an approach to people issues. These include: the employment of women in combat units and the implementation of the new policy on the employment of homosexual personnel.

同性戀及兵役的議題將會繼續下去，就像當思考到住屋和配偶的問題，將會連結到嘗試去合法化同性戀的婚姻以及撫養孩子的權利等較廣泛的爭論。這也是津貼服務等等的議題（舉例來說，配偶的雇用機會與支出），而因此無論是駐地或者傳統的兵團系統是否要改良都會有番爭論。擴大地說，屋舍供給以及軍隊團體的問題，也需要注意。我們要注意：透過住屋的取得、雙重職業以及為了準備在退伍後生涯規劃，軍隊會關切到他們正疏散在廣大的社會中（就像其他兩個軍種，以及尤其是近三十年來的皇家海軍）。除此之外，有為數不少關於軍隊紀律及標準報告的討論14—要求軍事人員堅守一個比對民間社會中的那些人可期望的還要高的道德和倫理標準的正當性和看法，因而這是個關鍵問題。然後在當下社會有個較廣泛的議題，在筆者先前曾提到關於少數族裔社群，在當前爭議中已經被突顯出來。這些政府的倡議，包含著為了尋求讓軍隊能夠反映出一個更多元的英國社會的寬廣思考路徑所構成。15
The issue of homosexuality and military service will evolve, as can be seen when one considers the question of accommodation and partners and how this is linked with wider debates on the attempt to legalise homosexual marriage and rights to adopt children. There is also the issue of accompanied service (and the costs spouses pay in terms of, for example, their own employment opportunities) and thus the debate on whether the ‘arms plot’ and regimental system has to be reformed. The broader question of housing and the military community also needs to be addressed. Here one may note the debate on the extent to which the army should be concerned about the process whereby it, (like the other two services and the Royal Navy in particular for the last 30 years) has become dispersed into the wider civilian society through house purchase, dual careers and the desire of personnel for a base to prepare for post military life. In addition, there was a good deal of discussion about the army discipline and standards paper14 – and thus the key question of the wisdom and legitimacy of asking military personnel to adhere to a moral and ethical standard higher than can be expected of those in civilian society. Then there is the broader issue of representing society, which has been highlighted in current initiatives concerning minority ethnic communities to which I have already alluded. These government initiatives comprise one component of a broader approach to seeking to make the military reflect a more diverse British society.15

更進一步地，在人力資源策略上有一個值得注意問題，那便是在三個軍種的基礎上，建立一個部隊策略並與三個軍種產生連結的問題上。在當下，部隊正發展著他們的《部隊整體人事策略》。這個繼承了「可忍受之差異」的理念。當一個軍種為了環境的特殊需求（在作戰的基礎上）以合理化這樣的差異，如英國軍隊裡住屋提供的政策上、津貼服務或是駐地問題上。還是，它就像是在性騷擾、不當管教或是機會平等政策上中的沒有差異寬容度一樣，放諸三個軍種皆準的。其它較少部隊特殊性的的問題包含了關於國防教育訓練之未來的研究，其中一個面向是關注在這個在軍事教育上伴隨著華而不實的趨勢，其程度有多深。同時有一個問題是在戰場上契約商的角色，無論這個角色是可以在某種形式的維和行動擔綱，但在戰時還是需要被小心地限制的。16
Furthermore, there is the question of the extent to which human resource strategy should be developed on a tri-service basis and thus the question of the linkage between an army strategy and such a tri-service approach. At present, the armed services are developing their ‘AFOPS’ (Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy). This entails the idea of ‘tolerable variation’ or not. Such variation is allowed when the specific demands of a service environment justify it (on operational grounds), as in the area of housing policy and accompanied service and the arms plot (so far) in the British army. Or it is forbidden as in the implementation of a tri-service policy on zero-toleration of, sexual harassment, bullying and the whole raft of equal opportunities policy initiatives. Other questions that are less army specific include the current study into the future of Defence Training, one aspect of which is a focus on how far one can and should go with purple trend in military education. There is also the question of the role of contractors on the battlefield, in particular whether this role can be extended in certain kinds of peace support operations, but needs to be carefully restricted in time of war.16

所有這些議題都在處理軍隊為在主流社會／法律的風氣中有所不同的需要，所造成的普遍問題，其中一些（雖然，它必須這麼說，不全然是全部的）和軍隊需求是相異的。
All of these issues pose the general problem of managing the armed services’ need to be different in the prevailing socio-legal climate, some (though, it must be said, far from all) of which is divergent from military requirements.

透過在人力資源上一個策略式途徑來思考有所不同的需要，必須置焦於對每一個別而言（包括在哪裡、適當的、一個為了克服抗拒的策略）都有適當的行動計畫所編成的四個清單。一個在人民議題上策略式的途徑，必須置焦在於將一個對個別而言都適當的行動計畫所編成的四個清單：
* 首先，在廣泛社會的那些變遷，軍隊應該要主動因應。
* 其次，他們需要知道變遷或多或少是不情願的，但這是不可迴避的。
* 第三點，即使抗拒變遷也應該在一般機制中處理。在這一點上，價值傳統以及一個和社會之間有所不同的需要之必要性的差異應該非常清楚。
* 第四點，也是最後一點，而這似乎在英國部隊的脈絡裡尤其有意義；有必要在思考有所不同的需要此一議題時，標示出這個軍種不只是不同於社會，同時也不同於其他個別軍種。
為了篇幅的理由，讓筆者先著重在上述前三點。
In thinking through the need to be different a strategic approach to human resource must focus on the compilation of four lists with an appropriate action plan for each (including, where, appropriate, a strategy for overcoming resistance). A strategic approach to people issues must focus on the compilation of four lists with an appropriate action plan for each
-- First, those changes in wider society that the armed services should embrace with some enthusiasm
-- Second, changes that they should accommodate – more or less reluctantly but in recognition of the inevitable.
-- Third, those changes that should be resisted through the normal mechanisms. Here the difference between valued traditions and a necessary need to be different from society should become very clear.
-- Fourth, and finally - and this seems especially significant in the context of the British army - there is a need to think through what are the need to be different issues that mark out this service not just from society but also from the other individual services.
For reasons of space, let me concentrate on the first three of these lists.

主動因應變遷
Changes that Can Be Embraced with Enthusiasm

一般而言，在經濟上我們可以預期資訊科技的運用散播，將伴隨著對更具才智以及進取資質的受雇者逐漸增長的需求和抱著希望的供給。數位化作戰部隊的準則強調著任務指揮，這個社會的趨勢與這樣的風氣與準則是高度相容的，雖然筆者接受這可能對在軍隊需要必要的強制力會造成若干問題。現在部隊強調機會平等、對性騷擾與不當管教的不寬容以及傾聽人員的困擾（不只是他們個人的生涯歷程和興趣上能被重視和被考量）上的強調，將能在未來競爭性的勞動市場中，足以吸引最好和最前途光明的人。為了回應寬廣的社會價值，軍隊將維繫他們在社會中的正當性，尤其是為了向社會和法院推銷軍隊在某些面向上他們的文化和實踐是有所不同的需要上建築這樣一個基礎。
In the economy generally, we can anticipate the spread of the use of information technology, together with a general increase in the demand for and hopefully supply of more intelligent employees, with the aptitude for using their initiative. Given the digitised battlefield army’s doctrinal emphasis on mission command, this social trend is highly compatible with its ethos and doctrine, although I accept this might pose problems for the necessarily coercive element in military command. The current emphasis on equal opportunities and zero tolerance on harassment and bullying and a concern to sustain by listening to worries of personnel (not least their desires to be treated and consulted as individuals about their career paths and interests) will provide the basis for attracting the best and the brightest in the future competitive labour market. In echoing wider social values the services will sustain their legitimacy in society, in particular building a foundation for selling the case - to society and the courts - for the armed forces’ need to be different, in certain aspects of their culture and practice from the wider civilian community.

變遷應該謹慎，但要持續地適應
Changes that Should Be Regarded with Caution but Will Require
Continued Accommodation

在九○年代中期，特別是一九九六、七年間，筆者認為國防部回應了同性戀與部隊的問題，這正是一個關於如何「不」去發展出一個人事政策思考途徑的好例子。反而是鼓吹一種便宜行事的和被動性的策略，接近澳洲或美國的模型。現在跟隨政策上的改變，17 這些問題題都處理了嗎？去看「不要畏懼它，不要炫耀它」是如何地運作將是有趣的，而在指揮鍊中，對於個體的行為會不會逆向影響整個軍種的作戰效能，採取著謹慎的判斷，這一點容我們多作說明。
In the mid-1990s and especially in 1996/7, I argued that the way the MOD was responding to the question of homosexuality and military service was a good example of how not to develop an approach to personnel policy. Instead a more pro-active and defensible strategy was advocated including the recommendation of either the Australian or the US model. Now with the recent change in policy17 the question is often asked was all the fuss justified? It will be interesting to see how ‘don’t fear it, don’t flaunt it’ will work and how discretion is used in the chain of command in judging whether ‘actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service? One must not be too quick to jump to conclusions.

英國的「不要畏懼它，不要太炫耀」的政策，奠基在於軍種的測試（同性戀者或非同性戀者的行動是否將傷害作戰效能）意味著同性戀人員必須將他們的軍種認同置於他們的性別認同之上。任何的不妥適、政治化以及/或者自我賣弄因之將被依紀律提出控訴。18
The UK’s ‘don’t fear it, don’t flaunt it’ policy, based on the service test (will an action by gays or straights damage operational effectiveness) means that gay personnel must place their service identity above their sexual identity. Any inappropriate, politicised and/or self-regarding showboating is therefore likely to lead to a disciplinary charge.18

一個更進一步地對同性戀者的開放程度的侷限，並非在於常規的行為規範上，而是非正式的異性戀軍事文化。它仍舊是個常態（大多數像筆者曾晤談過的同性戀軍事人員也接受這點），在軍中的同性戀必須尊重多數人還是異性戀這樣的事實。這些現實必須去順從。多數必須尊重少數，而少數也必須特別重視關於他們在認同和行為上的慎重。當然這將有所變化——在這裡有一個性別取向上以及相關連的政治戰爭！舉例來說，皇家海軍是在一個相對地較輕鬆的方式上，來看待未婚的夥伴是否應該有機會得到住屋提供的討論。它認為這將有助於募兵以及部隊維持。相當有趣地，陸軍對此則比較存疑，並不只是因為它在婚姻看法上是較為傳統的（而它也想到部分的軍人妻子是一股保守的力量），而且也因為部分陸軍人士認為提供軍隊住屋予同性戀夥伴的基礎，將有礙於部隊的整合，而這正是一個野戰部隊在軍事文化上的關鍵考量。
A further limit on the degree of open integration of gays that is possible or acceptable is not the regulations or code of conduct but the informal heterosexual military culture. It remains the case that (as is accepted by most gay personnel I have talked to) gays in the services must respect the fact that the majority is heterosexual. These realities must be deferred to. While the majority must respect the minority it is the minority that is obliged to think hard about being discreet about their identities and conduct. Of course this will change - there is a sexual orientation and related political battle here! For
example, the Royal Navy views the debate over whether unmarried partners ought to have access to service housing in a relatively relaxed way. It thinks that it will help in recruitment and retention. Interestingly, the Army is more suspicious of this not just because it is more conventional about marriage (and it does have to take into account Army wives some of whom are a conservative force) but also because some in the Army see such a move as a basis for gay partnerships in military housing and thus a further ratcheting up of the process open integration; a key concern in the teeth arms military culture.

現在，在同性戀者出櫃（自承為同性戀）的議題上，並不只是考慮到軍種測試放在社會行為規範的核心部分，也是軍事文化在軍種間具體操作的特定模式。發生在皇家海軍的主要作戰軍官，與一個步兵排長或者是連長，是相當不同的一回事。
Now, in ‘coming out’ for gays they must not only take into account the service test at the core of the code of social conduct but the specific modes in which the above military culture operates in their service. It is one thing for a principal warfare officer to come out in the Royal Navy, quite another for an infantry platoon or company commander to do so.

這也有賴於同事或夥伴對自己的認識的。一個人的能力已經被檢證也被團體所接受之後才出櫃是一回事——會導致他們去說像是：「我們早知道你是同性戀者。」但在他們加入一個部隊之前，出櫃或者是被知道是一個同性戀者則是另一回事。這就是為什麼部隊所提供的資料不得公開行之有年後，造成我們必須等待新人（包含那些在他們軍隊生涯早期已經出櫃的人）完成訓練才可能知道。而一旦他們被分派到新單位，他們將如何地被接受？除非筆者前述所提的東西被謹慎地處理，他們將會順利地被接受。
Also much depends upon the knowledge about oneself that is held by peers or comrades. It is one thing to come out after one's competence has been tested and accepted by the team - thus leading them to say something like ‘ah we knew you were gay anyway’. It is quite another thing for someone to come out and be known to be gay in advance of their joining a unit. This is why informed sources in the military say while the lifting of the ban may have gone smoothly so far, actually to be confident about this, we have to wait until the new cohort comes through training, which will include those who have come out at this early stage of their military careers: how will they be accepted once assigned to new units? I would say it should go fairly well so long as the discretion I referred to above is accepted.

近來，英國的行為規範採取一個比較謹慎的作法，透過指揮官們詮釋著軍種測試，以及正式規則與非正式制約，去具體指出何時以及到什麼樣的程度，部隊裡人員去宣稱他們的同性愛情是合適的。然而，這並不能在更法制化、更形式化的美國地起較好作用（在那裡，法律規範要求對待與權利的平等，非正式性並不被鼓勵）。筆者認為，如果現行這樣一個朝向不問、不說以及不要追求之政策推展下去，律師將發現有機可乘。至少在這個議題上，這些顯示出去假定英國的教訓可以輕易地去勾勒出適合於美國的方案是不明智的。
Lastly, the UK code of conduct is based on substantial discretion by commanding officers as they interpret the service test and a blend of formal rules and informal conditions specifying when and how far it is appropriate for personnel to declare their gayness in a military context. However this would not work too well in a more legalistic, formalistic USA (where legal norms enforcing equal treatment and equal rights seek to drive out informality). There the lawyers would, I think, find gaps to drive through
should such a system be proposed as a way forward from the current don’t ask don’t tell and don’t pursue policy. All this shows that at least on this issue it would not be wise to assume that lessons from UK could be drawn too easily to fit the US scenario.

回到家庭和部隊的問題，有許多的討論在於所謂的軍事社群在廣泛社會的散佈之進程：無論這個進程是不可避免的，以及在軍事風氣上其成本代價是什麼。有必要去關注在此一進程的範圍之內，維繫軍事社群的方式；而不是假定它可以退縮或逆轉。因而克利斯•傑色普已經顯示軍人家庭的福利，可以由部隊與民間社會共同處理，這回應了美國經驗，並指出假定軍眷補助機制必須是那些由部隊所提供的正式機制而且必然是比由軍眷人員自身所鍛造出非正式的網絡較好的論點是錯誤的。19
Turning to the question of the family and the services there has been much debate on the process of the so called dispersion of the military community into wider society: whether this process is inevitable and what the costs are in terms of military ethos. There is a need look for ways of sustaining the military community within that process of dispersion rather than assuming it can be held back or reversed. Thus Chris Jessup has shown how the welfare of military families will increasingly be shared between the armed services and the civilian community, echoing the American experience and indicating that it is a mistake to assume that community support mechanisms can be equated with those provided by the armed services, or indeed, that formal mechanisms are always superior to those informal networks forged by service personnel themselves.19

現在有個關於一些在一九七○年代的討論「軍人工會」的問題，且在現在回歸到吾人必須去問軍隊如何地回應歐盟法律的壓力，以及去制訂相對獨立於指揮鍊的群體代表權形式的指令（在一九九五年《貝特報告》有提到的一點，但之後並未有所行動）。三年前，一個指揮官建議著，也許軍隊中「最後的禁忌」是正持續地嘗試去定義和辯護著它和民間規範與實踐間相比較出的獨特性。20 某些人將同意這個，並將此放在筆者現在要提到的表單中第三點。
There is now the question of ‘military unions’, which was a matter of some debate in the 1970s and has returned as now one must ask how the armed forces will respond to pressure from the EU law and directives to institute forms of group representation relatively independent of the chain of command (a point that was raised in the Bett Report in 1995,but not followed up). Three years ago one commentator went so far as to suggest that this is perhaps the ‘last taboo’ in the military’s ongoing attempts to define and defend its uniqueness in comparison with civilian norms and practices.20 Some would agree and put it on third of the list to which I now turn.