The Role of Drill Instructors and Gender Integration at Recruit Training: Examining Intersections of Gender and Integration in the Recruit Training Environment (2024)

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Training cadre and drill instructors (DIs) are responsible for executing their Services’ recruit training programs. Training cadre (officer and enlisted) supervise DI teams, contribute to administrative and leadership tasks, and interact with recruits. DIs serve as day-to-day leaders, mentors, and teachers for recruits.^1,2 DIs demonstrate in real time what it means to be an excellent Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Guardian, or Coast Guardsman. In all Services, DIs assume a variety of roles, including teaching and developing practical skills and knowledge, mentoring, modeling appropriate behavior and attitudes, motivating recruits for success during and after recruit training, applying and instilling discipline, ensuring the safety and welfare of recruits, and mentoring and teaching junior DIs.²

The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard have trained male and female recruits with mixed-gender DI teams for decades, with some Services training with mixed-gender DI teams before integrating male and female recruits within training units.^2,3 The Space Force, the DoD’s newest Service, has also implemented training with mixed-gender DI teams.⁴ The Marine Corps remains the only Service to train recruits with same-gender DI teams. Male platoons are only assigned a team of male DIs, and female platoons are only assigned a team of female DIs. Officer and enlisted training cadre for the Marine Corps (who oversee DIs) do not have gender restrictions on assignments.² The Marine Corps values recruits experiencing strong same-gender role models¹ and posits that the 24/7 presence of DIs creates an “immersive transformation process.”⁵

DIs influence gender integration in the recruit training environment. For instance, they can explicitly or implicitly support harmful gendered stereotypes that recruits may emulate. These harmful gender stereotypes are reinforced in recruit training and have negative consequences for cohesion and team environments for both men and women.^6–8 The commitment of male and female DIs to gender-integrated training is necessary for the success of all recruits. Instructor attitudes toward gender-integrated training have been shown to affect recruits’ readiness and cohesion.¹ DIs are powerful role models in the recruit training environment and set the tone for gender-integrated environments by demonstrating professional mixed-gender interactions and ensuring that all recruits are treated with respect and fairness.¹ Exposure to mixed-gender DI teams may enhance cohesion and build role models of both genders whereas also modeling positive cross-gender teamwork, gender integration, cohesion, and unit performance.⁹

To better understand the role of DIs in the recruit training environment, this article presents Service leaders, training cadre, and DI perspectives examining two major research questions at the intersection of gender, gender-integrated training, and the DI role:

1. What differences exist in how DIs experience their role by gender?

2. How does gender-integrated recruit training affect DIs’ approach to training?

METHODS

The Marine Corps Training and Education Command commissioned an academic study to develop alternate models and recommendations for increasing gender integration in Marine Corps recruit training. This article uses data collected for this broader, mixed-methods interdisciplinary study; additional information about the full range of study methods as well as the resulting alternate models and recommendations can be found in other publications.^2,10 We obtained institutional review board approval from the University of Pittsburgh (STUDY20120069: sIRB USMC Gender-Integrated Recruit Training Study) and endorsem*nt from the USMC Human Research Protection Official. Letters of support were obtained from all sites where data collection occurred.

Our findings are informed by semistructured interviews conducted with Service leaders, training cadre, and DIs (n = 87) from the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard from June to November 2021. The Space Force was outside the scope of this study. Although each Service uses different nomenclature at training (seeFig 1), we refer to them throughout this article as “recruits” and “drill instructors (DIs).” Quotations retain participants’ own language, which may be Service-specific.

Our study team identified a mix of leadership roles at each Service and worked with Service representatives to solicit volunteers for the interviews. We aimed to capture a consistent set of rank perspectives and adequate representation from male and female interviewees. Interviewees self-identified as male or female. The DoD restricts gender classification to male or female. Interviews with Service leaders were conducted virtually or in-person; interviews with training cadre and DIs were conducted in-person. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hour, were audiorecorded, and transcribed verbatim. Fewer interviews were conducted with Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard personnel than Marine Corps (seeTablesI and II) given the study’s primary focus on the Marine Corps. This article, however, focuses on all Services in its examination of gender integration at recruit training.

Interviews with Service leaders (officer, enlisted, and civilian) focused on each Service’s recruit training policies, practices, metrics, and leadership perspectives. Interviews with training cadre and DIs captured the perspective of those who are managing and executing the mission of basic training for each Service. Training cadre included officer and enlisted leadership of DIs, active duty and civilian staff in key support roles on the installation, and installation of senior enlisted and officer leadership. Interview questions centered on the benefits and challenges of gender-integrated recruit training; impact of gender-integrated recruit training on DIs, training cadre, and recruits; gender integration in DI and leadership teams; barriers and opportunities with gender-integrated recruit training; sexual harassment and sexual assault in the recruit training environment; and recommendations for gender integration.

In response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, some Services halted gender integration practices to mitigate risk. At the time of data collection, the Navy and Air Force were not conducting gender-integrated recruit training. Interviews with Navy and Air Force DIs and training cadre members who had executed gender-integrated practices were prioritized.

The study team used a flexible coding approach developing an initial coding scheme, informed by the study’s broader research questions, literature review, data collection instruments, and team discussions.¹¹ Members of the study team coded transcripts in NVivo (QSR International, Burlington, MA, USA). Examples of initial codes included “Role of Instructors,” “Benefits of Gender Integration,” “Challenges of Gender Integration,” and “Challenges for Male and Female Instructors.” Secondary coding, an additional coding within each initial code, was conducted to identify further findings. The study team identified patterns and themes across and within relevant categories such as gender and Service.

RESULTS

Our findings are presented in two major sections, organized by research questions. First, we describe gender differences in how DIs experience their role. Second, we identify how gender-integrated recruit training affects how DIs approach their role and implement training. Each section below presents the most frequently raised themes in order of prevalence and is not an exhaustive list of all points raised by interviewees.

Challenges Unique to the Female DI Population

Training cadre and DIs were asked about unique challenges faced by male and female DIs. Although the DI role was universally described by both men and women as demanding and difficult, unique challenges for women consistently emerged. Only a few interviewees identified specific challenges more characteristic of male DIs, including alcohol-related incidents and domestic abuse. The top reported challenges faced by female DIs were personnel shortages, work–family conflict, culture-driven sexism in the training environment, and pressure to excel above and beyond their male peers.

Demand for female DIs surpasses population levels

Except for the Coast Guard, all Services noted that they “are always hurting for females,” as described by an enlisted male Navy training cadre member. Service leaders from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, and Army reported an urgent and critical need for more female DIs, noting that they were often falling short of desired staffing levels. A male Army Service leader described, “there’s not enough female drill sergeants or female candidates right now that could be drill sergeants that meet the requirements. There’s basically—there’s no bench for female drill sergeants right now … We absolutely need more. There’s not enough of them.” A male Navy Service leader also shared, “Routinely, we are not fully manned for all the females [DIs] that we’re supposed to have.” A male Marine Corps training cadre officer stated, “… female recruit training has been under resourced compared to the male recruit training its entire existence … they have more males [DIs] to meet their mission per capita … it’s hidden in the ways that we manage our structure and everything,” referring to the billeting system to assign DIs.

The timing of DI duty often coincides with family formation years, and pregnancies pull women out of the job in a way that does not occur for their male counterparts. Limited female DI staffing is further strained if a woman must be pulled out of a training cycle as a result of injury. Marine Corps interviewees reported more extreme personnel shortages within their female DI population, exacerbated by the smaller number of female Marines compared to women in other Services¹² and the restrictions with staffing same-gender DI teams (only a female DI can replace a female DI). These factors equated to Marine Corps personnel reporting that female DIs had less time off between training cycles than male DIs.

Work–family conflict may be more prominent for female DIs

Marine Corps and Navy training cadre and DIs reported that work–family conflict was a major challenge, particularly for women. Male DIs with families also sacrifice family time because of high occupational demands, but men were perceived as less likely to be the sole or primary caregivers for their children or other family members. A Marine Corps female enlisted training cadre described, “It’s definitely a struggle of trying to find that balance of being a good Marine, but then being a mom and a wife, which the males don’t seem to have that problem. Like [they’ll] still be at work all the time, which is great ‘cause you have a supportive wife, but men at home are not as understanding and supportive [of their female DI wives] because that structure of the gender roles always comes into play, especially in my house. So that’s always a struggle.” Similarly, a Navy male enlisted training cadre shared, “We have more single parents that are females … Most of the males that have children, or most of them here, are not single. So therefore they’re enjoying that advantage [of having another caregiver].”

Conversely, Air Force and Coast Guard interviewees described this issue as a single-parent issue, not associated with gender. More flexible training schedules and gender-neutral staffing options may help minimize these conflicts in comparison with the Marine Corps, but regardless of gender, Service members recognized the special challenges the DI tour of duty presents. An Air Force female DI said that work–family conflict is “… the same [for men and women]. I don’t have any children, but … if my buddy needs to switch schedules with me so that way he can go to his kid’s soccer games, and hell yeah, I’m going to jump on that for him. It’s just about communicating.” A female Coast Guard DI described the Coast Guard as “very accommodating to families” but noted that the DI role is “tough” and she was not sure she would have pursued it if she had a child.

Female DIs experience sexism in the training environment and feel a need to prove themselves

Male and female DIs described pervasive pressure for female DIs to prove themselves and their worthiness in this arduous role. Female DIs expressed feeling obligated to go above and beyond to dispel stereotypes or negative assumptions about their ability to excel in the role. A Navy female DI described, “As females, we pretty much got to prove who we are to get some positions or to be who the males think we should be, and honestly, that’s just my opinion, but sometimes that’s how it feels in certain areas that you work in.” A Marine Corps female DI described how this pressure results in women holding each other to an impeccably high standard: “female drill instructors are hard on each other because we know that, at the end of the day, the man looks at us and they’re like, ‘Oh, she’s weak. I can, I can break that.’” An Air Force male DI similarly reflected, “It’s just a male-dominated military, and sometimes women may feel like they have to work twice as hard, which is unfortunate, but sometimes women feel that way.”

Female DIs in all Services reported verbal and nonverbal sexism from male recruits and their male peers. Such behavior is, by regulation, not tolerated by any of the Services yet remains prevalent in the recruit training environment. One male Marine Corps DI noted how he corrects this issue with his peers: “I correct Marines on the spot … [another DI] would be like, ‘Ain’t no way we’re going to lose to females.’ I remember, like, specifically talking to him like, ‘Dude, you sound kind of sexist,’ and he was like, ‘I kind of am.’ And he just said it, like, belligerently in front of me. … I was like, ‘I understand wanting to beat everybody, but don’t do that stuff in front of the other hats [DIs], you’re just poisoning them.’” Female DIs also reported subtle sexism from male recruits. The strict training environment does not permit recruits to disrespect any DIs, but interviewees reported that male recruits use body language and attitudes to communicate hostile feelings towards female DIs. One Navy male DI commented, “some recruits just have trouble with having female leadership … they’re not used to having a female leader, just telling them what to do, and they have issues with that.”

How Gender Integration in Recruit Training Affects DIs

In recruit training, DIs are responsible for executing gender-integrated practices. Services expect DIs to set positive examples for recruits by modeling gender egalitarianism in a professional training environment. Service leaders, training cadre, and DIs described how gender integration practices affect their approach to the role and implementation of training.

DIs must actively address and dismantle sexist language

DIs highlighted the importance of addressing and correcting sexist language they might use themselves and hear from recruits and their peers. An Army female DI shared, “I know for a fact that if any one of those male trainees were to try and, in any way, shape, or form, approach me in a negative or derogatory way, those male drill sergeants will get in their faces and tell them, ‘You need to check yourself.’” A Coast Guard male DI also noted his vigilance, “I am a firm believer on handling things at the lowest level. … If it’s a comment, or if it’s just like, ‘Oh, we don’t want you on our team because you’re a female’ type of stuff, it’s like, ‘Oh, no, no, no.’” DIs reported that they must recognize and challenge offensive language and attitudes to ensure that they enforce Service expectations and values in integrated working environments. Even with this vigilance, sexism still pervades at multiple levels.

DIs need to be aware of and shut down recruit-to-recruit romantic relationships

DIs and training cadre from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, who train in integrated units, felt that romantic distraction among recruits is inevitable but noted that DIs must be vigilant and take immediate action against it. An Army male enlisted training cadre shared that building recruit accountability can help, “… the [training] cadre catch on, but two, the trainees will tell on themselves too, because [of] the trainees that get it, and they come here knowing what they’re here for. So they’ll just, like, slide a note under the drill sergeant’s door at night: ‘Hey, Jimmy and Johnny are doing this,’ you know.” Several Marine Corps DIs and training cadre voiced apprehension that further gender integration would encourage inappropriate male–female relationships among recruits; this was a reason that they did not support further gender-integrated training, especially at the platoon level. DIs from the other Services felt confident that they were able to identify and handle these issues swiftly and correctly.

DIs must train all recruits equally, regardless of gender

With the exception of Service physical fitness standards (which are gender- and age-normed), male and female recruits are expected to execute and pass the same program of instruction. DIs noted that they must be consistent in how they train recruits, regardless of gender. If DIs show differential treatment toward one gender, they said it can send a harmful message. An Air Force female DI described an example of how she pays attention to equal training, “I’ll give females 30 push-ups to do for doing something, a correction or a tool, and I’ll give the male trainees the same exact ones. I never give a male trainee the same or more than I would just because they’re a male flight … I think it’s really on the instructor not to be biased.” Treating recruits equally and holding them to the same standards, however, does not mean that the same training method works equally well with both genders. Some DIs felt that male and female recruits require different management and motivational approaches. DIs, especially in the Marine Corps, felt that male recruits were more likely to be motivated by achievement-oriented goals whereas female recruits sought information about the “why” behind training events and processes.

DIs must learn and understand female grooming standards and specific gender hygiene needs

Recruits must present themselves in a neat and professional manner and follow their Service’s gender-specific grooming standards. DIs reported that they need a thorough understanding of how differences in these standards might affect daily schedules and routines, such as the time needed for men to shave or women to secure their hair. Male DIs and training cadre from all Services noted that they tended to learn about female grooming and hygiene regulations on the job rather than through formal lessons at DI school. Several male training cadre and DIs described how their female peers helped them better understand female grooming standards or how to approach female-specific hygiene or body issues.

Gender-integrated training requires additional time and communication among DIs

In the Army, Navy, and Air Force, gender integration involves moving recruits from their gender-segregated sleeping quarters to their integrated units each morning. A Navy male DI described the degree of communication necessary for gender-integrated training units, “You have to be in constant communication with brother division, because if we have to hygiene, then the houses do that, the all-female house and the all-male house, they have to do hygiene and you have to coordinate that.” An Air Force Service leader reflected how the coordination and time to integrate recruits in their training units serves a bigger goal, “…the inefficiencies are worth it. I would be surprised if there are that many inefficiencies [to integrating] that would be a deterrent to really thinking twice about doing this [gender integration at recruit training].”

Mixed-gender DI teams encourage greater teamwork and build trust among DIs

All Services except the Marine Corps employ mixed-gender DI teams to train recruits. DIs and training cadre working with opposite-gender peers noted the benefits of learning best practices and new methods from each other, engaging in healthy competition to push themselves to do better, and building mutual trust. An Army male enlisted training cadre shared, “I credit [drill sergeant name] to a lot of my success, because she set me up for success and vice versa. I was able to help her, too, because males would try her. … Not that she needed me to stand next to her as a tough guy, but for them to know like, ‘Hey, this is my partner. You ain’t going to mess with her.’ I couldn’t even imagine doing it any different, because I had that to fall back on, just like she had it to fall back on.” Male and female DIs reported that training in mixed-gender teams brought diverse ideas and perspectives that strengthened their training approaches.

DISCUSSION

DIs are asked to be the first, and best, role model for recruits as they transform from civilians into Service members. DIs and training cadre are critical to implementing and exemplifying Service expectations of equity and respect. Our research captured perspectives from Service leaders, training cadre, and DIs on the intersection of gender, gender-integrated training, and the DI role at recruit training. This qualitative examination provided a greater understanding of how gender-integrated practices affect DIs’ experiences and approaches toward gender-integrated training. Our research illuminates common, yet preventable, issues experienced by female DIs, pathways for improvement, and best practices for gender-integrated training environments.

Across all Services, the most common challenges reported for female DIs centered on personnel shortages, work–family conflict, sexism in the training environment, and the pressure to prove their worthiness. The lack of unique challenges identified for male DIs could be ascribed to many factors, including the current and historical dominance of men in military institutions, successful DI traits and their alignment with masculine characteristics (e.g., physicality, assertiveness, and authoritative leadership styles), and societal expectations normalizing men’s full dedication to their careers over domestic and caregiving responsibilities.^6,12,13 The challenges women face in this role, as reported by both male and female interviewees, are compounded with women being a demographic minority in the military. The shortage of eligible women for DI duty across all Services amplifies the existing challenges of this role for women structurally, logistically, and culturally.

Women are a necessary and highly desirable population of DIs, particularly as Services aim to expose recruits to leaders of both genders during their critical first training experience. A lack of women volunteering to serve as DIs may lead Services to assign women to these roles, raising retention concerns, especially with the overlap between DI duty and family formation years. Sexism, gender-based treatment, and discrimination are not condoned in any Service, yet the continued existence of these issues pressures women to prove themselves by outperforming their male peers. This relates to the documented experiences of other minority groups, classified as the “minority spotlight effect” and “stereotype threat,” where members of a group become de-facto representatives of their group and feel immense, disruptive pressure to not succumb to negative stereotypes.^14,15 Many of the unique challenges for female DIs are preventable or can be mitigated with both attention and intention. For instance, female DIs noted that male DIs and leaders who actively correct and shut down discriminatory behavior positively impact the training environment. Other ways to better support Service members in this unique role include improving family support systems, such as 24/7 childcare facilities, and working to improve work–life balance for DIs and other training personnel.

The consequences of these unique challenges for female DIs extend beyond staffing and retention concerns. Exposing recruits to leaders of both genders during their initial training experience is crucial, as is retaining strong role models through all ranks and career stages. Taking measures to eliminate gender disparities in DI experiences would not only ensure that DIs are modeling gender equity in the training environment, but it would also ensure the continued opportunity for all to serve to their highest potential. DIs’ experiences in integrated training environments emphasize the need for a willingness to learn and a commitment to equity and respect. DIs and training cadre must be vigilant to shut down prohibited, distracting, or negative behaviors among recruits and peers and understand gender-specific needs or regulations. Male and female DIs from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard found support and strength in mixed-gender DI teams, noting how they improved their execution of gender-integrated training and sharpened their own professional development. Our research provides additional insights into how DIs shape and consider gender in gender-integrated training environments.

CONCLUSION

DIs play an important role in ensuring the successful completion of recruit training, ultimately helping to build the future leaders of the military. This study is a starting point to understand how DIs influence and are affected by gender-integrated training environments. Future research can build on this work by expanding the scope to other military training environments (beyond recruit training) and examining how DIs’ own sociodemographic positions (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation) inform their perspective on and approach to gender equity in the training environment. The experience, training, and practices of DIs are important to consider in any examination of integration practices at recruit training because of their integral role in developing recruits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study team would like to acknowledge additional study team members who contributed to this work: Erika Tarzi, Sade Akinbayo, Meredith Kleykamp, Jeff Lucas, Sam Cohen, Ethan Graure, Michael DiBello, Emeline Walker, Elizabeth Balch-Crystal, and Rachel Gaddes.

FUNDING

Funding source: U.S. Marine Corps AWD00003104 M95494-20-C-0021.

SUPPLEMENT SPONSORSHIP

This article appears as part of the supplement “United States Marine Corps Gender-Integrated Recruit Training Study,” sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The original data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly attributable to the sensitive nature of the data.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (HUMAN SUBJECTS)

We obtained institutional review board approval from the University of Pittsburgh (STUDY20120069: sIRB USMC Gender-Integrated Recruit Training Study).

INSTITUTIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE (IACUC)

Not applicable.

INSTITUTIONAL CLEARANCE

Reviewed and approved for public release by U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Command.

INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

All authors contributed to the data collection, analysis, and writing of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Author notes

© The Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2024. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.