Introduction
As defence systems become increasingly complex and integrated, the demand for technical expertise within military organizations is expected to grow (Asoni et al., 2022; Hawley, 2011; Hoffman et al., 2014; Johansson, 2021; Lake, 2019). Since much of this competence must be sourced from outside the military, persuading highly educated professionals to leave well-paid civilian careers behind in favour of military roles constitutes a central challenge. Despite the growing strategic importance of civilian expertise within modern military organizations, however, we still know little about what motivates civilian professionals to make this transition.
Existing research on military motivation has primarily focused on enlisted personnel and conscripts. In the Nordic context, studies have explored soldiers’ motivations (e.g., Gillberg et al., 2021; Hedlund, 2011; Lyk-Jensen & Glad, 2018; Österberg et al., 2020; Österberg & Rydstedt, 2013). Internationally, while there is literature addressing motivation among medical professionals such as nurses or physicians (e.g., Donelan et al., 2014; Wiesen et al., 2019; Wojcik et al., 2020), few studies have focused on technical professions. This study addresses this gap by focusing on newly recruited defence engineers in the Swedish Armed Forces, a group who combine an advanced university degree in engineering with military officers’ training, exploring the personal and professional motivations that shaped their career decisions.
Positioned at the intersection of military operations and technical expertise, the role of a defence engineer is unique. These officers are responsible not only for maintaining and developing military systems but for integrating technology with military tactics and safety. Their careers often begin with hands-on experience at military units and may later evolve into strategic roles at military headquarters or the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration. Historically, defence engineers entered the Armed Forces through various routes, including officers pursuing engineering degrees within the civilian education system. Today, the main pathway is through the recruitment of civilians who already hold advanced engineering degrees through the offer of military training via a salaried, accelerated one-year programme at the Swedish Defence University in Stockholm. Although defence engineers have long been part of the Armed Forces, this specific educational route has only existed since 2018. As of autumn 2025, around 30 individuals have completed the programme. With many current defence engineers nearing retirement, that number is expected to grow (Johansson, 2021).1
Understanding what drives trained engineers to pursue this career path requires an exploration of both personal and professional motivations. Classic theoretical frameworks, such as the distinction between institutional and occupational motivations for military work (Charles Moskos, 1977, 1986), offer a useful lens. Institutional orientations include a sense of duty, honour, and loyalty to the military mission, while occupational orientations are grounded in considerations such as salary, career advancement, and employment stability. Later research has introduced a third, postmodern category, emphasizing self-fulfilment, adventure, and personal growth (Battistelli, 1997). While previous Nordic studies (e.g., Gillberg et al., 2021; Hedlund, 2011; Österberg et al., 2020) have shown that Swedish soldiers are often driven by postmodern motivations (e.g., self-fulfilling and exciting short-term engagements), the career motivations of civilian professions entering the military remain largely unexplored.
This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by exploring the personal experiences and motivations of trained personnel who have recently transitioned into military roles as defence engineers in the Swedish Armed Forces. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, the study seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the interplay of professional aspirations, personal values, and practical considerations that shape their career decisions.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, the methodological approach is presented, including the use of semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. This is followed by a detailed presentation of the empirical findings, organized into three overarching themes: sources of motivation, conditions for career change, and sources of uncertainty. Each theme is explored through its associated subthemes and codes. The paper then discusses these findings in relation to existing research and implications for recruitment strategies, before concluding.
Materials and Methods
This study employed a qualitative research design to explore the motivations and personal experiences of trained engineers who chose to become military officers and work as defence engineers within the Swedish Armed Forces. In line with the qualitative research tradition, the aim was not to produce statistically generalizable findings, but to gain insights into the subjective experiences and perspectives of a group that has so far received limited scholarly attention (Lim, 2025). Drawing on a descriptive phenomenological approach, the study focused on participants’ lived experiences as expressed in their own narratives and from their own perspectives (Sundler et al., 2019).
The study builds on the same empirical material and analytical procedures previously reported in a Swedish-language institutional report produced for the Swedish Defence Research Agency (Bäckström, 2025). That report, which is not peer reviewed, was developed for a practitioner audience and therefore focuses on applied insights and recommendations for the Swedish Armed Forces. In contrast, this study extends the theoretical discussion and situates the findings within academic literature.
Generative AI (Microsoft Copilot) was used to translate certain passages originally written in Swedish (including quotations and background descriptions). All AI-assisted text was subsequently reviewed, verified, and edited by the author.
Participants and Recruitment
This qualitative study seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences and motivations of trained engineers who have recently transitioned into military roles as defence engineers. The selection of participants reflects this aim, focusing on individuals who had recently completed, or were about to complete, the accelerated officers’ training programme.
In total, nine newly employed defence engineers were interviewed between August and October, 2024. All participants had started working in the Swedish Armed Forces between 2021 and 2024. The sample included both men and women, representing all three branches of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, and Air Force). While most participants were in their 30s, both younger and older individuals were included. All participants held advanced degrees in engineering from the civilian education system and had completed, or were about to complete, the accelerated officers’ training programme (Swedish: “särskild officersutbildning”) as part of their current employment within the Armed Forces. To protect anonymity, no detailed demographic data of the participants are presented in this paper.
Participants were recruited through the Swedish Armed Forces Technical School (Försvarsmaktens tekniska skola), which distributed information about the study to recently hired defence engineers. Fourteen individuals were invited to participate, and nine agreed to be interviewed.
Data Collection
The interviews were conducted by the author via telephone and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Each interview began with an explanation of the study’s purpose; the voluntary nature of participation; and how the data would be handled. Informed oral consent was obtained and recorded prior to each interview.
A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate the conversations (see Appendix A). The guide was developed to support an explorative and inductive approach, grounded in the participants’ lived experiences rather than predefined theoretical constructs (Alvinius et al., 2023; Sundler et al., 2019; Thomas, 2006). Moreover, in line with phenomenological traditions that emphasize the participants’ lived experiences as understood from their own perspectives, the interview guide was designed to encourage open-ended narratives rather than direct responses (Alase, 2017; Byrne, 2001; Kvale, 1983; Kvale et al., 2014; Priest, 2002; Wilson, 2015). Instead of asking direct questions such as “Why did you choose to work in the Armed Forces?”, the guide encouraged narrative answers with prompts like “Tell me how you ended up in the military”. Follow-up questions such as “What did you think at that point?”, “What happened next?”, and “Do you mean that…?” were used to deepen the discussion and clarify meaning (Kvale et al., 2014).
Data Analysis
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis following the guidelines of Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis was inductive and data-driven, meaning that themes and sub-themes were identified from the material rather than imposed beforehand by the researcher (Alvinius et al., 2023; Thomas, 2006). This analytical approach was considered appropriate given the exploratory aim of the study and its orientation towards descriptive phenomenology (Sundler et al., 2019).
The analysis proceeded in several stages. First, the transcripts were read multiple times to gain an overall understanding of the material. Next, the data were coded into meaning units – segments of text that captured key ideas, actions or experiences expressed by participants. These codes were then grouped into broader subthemes and themes that reflected recurring patterns and significant insights related to the study’s research questions. To ensure transparency and traceability, illustrative quotes were used to support each theme.
The final thematic map consisted of a hierarchical structure of codes, subthemes, and themes (see Appendix B). Importantly, the analysis went beyond mere description to interpret and explain why certain themes were meaningful in relation to the research questions and existing literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Naeem et al., 2023).
While data saturation was not formally assessed, thematic convergence was observed across the nine interviews. Participants consistently described similar motivations, concerns, and reflections, which allowed for the identification of recurring patterns relevant to the study’s aim.
Ethical Considerations
All participants were treated in accordance with the human research principles formulated by the Swedish Research Council (2024) and ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Ref. No. 2024-01081-01). Although the interview questions did not explicitly focus on sensitive personal information, the open-ended nature of the interviews meant that such topics could potentially arise. Participants were informed about the study both in writing and orally, and informed consent was obtained prior to each interview.
All audio recordings were handled confidentially and stored securely in accordance with the Swedish Defence Research Agency’s internal guidelines. After transcription, the audio recordings were deleted. All identifying information was removed from the transcripts, and no key was created.
Results
This section presents the findings from the thematic analysis of the interviews. The analysis resulted in three main themes: sources of motivation; conditions for career change; and sources of uncertainty. The results are structured around these themes.
The first theme highlights the various motivations and driving forces behind the participants’ decisions to work within the Swedish Armed Forces. However, the presence of motivation is only part of the journey toward becoming a defence engineer, with the possibility of transitioning from a civilian to a military career also influenced by other circumstances and enabling factors. These are addressed in the second theme. The third theme focuses on aspects of the participants’ narratives that contributed to uncertainty or hesitation when deciding to pursue a military career.
Main Theme: Sources of Motivation
A central part of the participants’ narratives was their descriptions of the motivations underlying their decision to work within the Armed Forces. These motivations were grouped into three subthemes: the attraction of technology; a meaningful job; and a dynamic work environment.
Subtheme: The Attraction of Technology
This subtheme refers to the role that military technology and equipment played in participants’ decisions to apply to the Swedish Armed Forces. For several participants, military technology was central to their professional identity as engineers and an important reason for becoming a defence engineer. For those interested in working with systems such as fighter aircraft or underwater vehicles, the Armed Forces appeared as a natural employer:
I have this enormous interest in technology and think that the Swedish Armed Forces are the ones who have the absolute coolest technology. The cutting-edge technology that exists, really. So, on a personal level, that’s what drives me to work here. That you get to work with the coolest technology in the world, in my opinion. (Participant 4)
Here I saw an opportunity as an engineer to come and work with technology that is at the… you could say that the Swedish Armed Forces have interesting systems, so to speak. Who doesn’t think it sounds cool with [Gripen] fighter jets and combat divers and submarines, right? It really is cutting-edge technology, so that’s one aspect of it. (Participant 9)
These quotes show that participants found military technology both professionally appealing and emotionally engaging, often describing the Armed Forces as a high-tech employer.
However, it was not only the technology itself that mattered. Several participants emphasized the importance of being both an engineer and a military officer. This dual role allowed them to work closer to the application of technology, something they felt was missing in civilian industry:
That you get to work a bit more hands-on, that you get to see the [technical] part for real. That’s kind of what has been appealing too… it’s easy… or rather, it’s difficult, to sit in an office and try to decide how [the military equipment] should function… or this vehicle, what do you want with this vehicle? You really need to have the information about how it’s supposed to be used, for real. And to get that opportunity to see it, the [military equipment], in action, or [the military vehicle], for real. That it would give more understanding. (Participant 5)
This quote illustrates how participants valued the opportunity to work closer to the practical application of technology, which they described as increasing their understanding and engagement.
Subtheme: A Meaningful Job
This subtheme includes motivations related to the perception of the defence engineer role as meaningful and important. In some cases, this sense of meaning emerged in contrast to previous jobs or work experiences that were perceived as lacking significance. The role of a defence engineer was then seen as something different; something that mattered and was in demand:
You want to feel like a specialist in a certain area and be able to deliver in it. You don’t want to be stuck, like I’ve been before, with ten different projects at once where you’re just doing small tasks or filling out Excel sheets for each one, because then you don’t really feel like… what you do matters that much. (Participant 3)
I think the most important aspect was that I realized then that “No, this is not something I’m passionate about.” I felt that I have to do something that feels interesting and important. I mean, I probably did a pretty good job when I was there [at my previous workplace] doing my analyses. But for me personally, I might as well have been passing meat back and forth over a counter, it kind of felt like that. I realised I just didn’t have any real passion for it, so to speak. (Participant 9)
These quotes illustrate how some participants experienced their previous civilian roles as fragmented and lacking significance. The desire to “feel like a specialist” and to do something you are “passionate about” was contrasted with scattered tasks with limited impact and meaning. In contrast, the defence engineer role was seen as something connected to purpose and relevance and offering meaningful contribution. One participant emphasized the seriousness and real-world consequences of their work by noting “that’s another thing that drives the interest… it’s serious work. It literally becomes dangerous if something goes wrong. (Participant 7)
In many cases, participants expressed a clear desire, and perhaps also a sense of responsibility, to work specifically within military defence, often in response to the deteriorating security situation in Sweden’s vicinity in recent years. Some had long sought ways to join the Armed Forces but had not known how. Becoming a defence engineer appeared to be a way to contribute to something perceived to be important from a societal perspective:
I believed that Sweden needed a stronger defence. … I felt that I can’t just sit and think that if I’m not willing to do my part too. I think it’s a bit hypocritical to say that someone else should be prepared to risk everything to protect me if I’m not prepared to do my part. It’s easy to, like, point at someone else to be out there on the front line and be the one who has to do the dirty work. You should actually be prepared to do the dirty work yourself too. Something like that. So, I started looking for a way to do something. (Participant 6)
I just as well could have stayed at [the workplace where I did my thesis], and felt that I was doing just as much good there. But [with the Swedish Armed Forces], what attracts me is, honestly, the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t want to sit here at home in Sweden and not be of any use, and just go to an ordinary company, if I may put it that way… I still want my job to contribute to something important. (Participant 5)
These quotes reflect a strong sense of civic duty, suggesting that more idealistic motivations, such as contributing to national defence, play a central role in participants’ career decisions. In relation to this, wearing the military uniform was also described as a source of pride and a symbol of collective purpose:
I feel proud in the uniform. It’s … something I feel good in. It’s nice partly because you represent something but also because you work in a collective. It becomes so clear in a way that we’re all working toward one goal. (Participant 8)
This reflection indicates that participants associated meaningfulness not only with working together with others toward a shared goal, but also with representing something larger than themselves.
Subtheme: A Dynamic Work Environment
This subtheme includes statements that relate to the role of the defence engineer as a source of variation, development, stimulation, and enjoyment. A recurring theme in participants’ narratives was how they perceived the role as distinctly different from a traditional office job – or, as Participant 6 put it, “a classic engineering role”. Instead, the participant described working in the Armed Forces as being “in the borderland between the field and the soldiers, and a civilian office environment”. Being in this borderland, not “getting stuck in a purely office-based role” (Participant 6) and “just being an engineer” (Participant 7), was seen as a key motivator for becoming a defence engineer:
I had noticed that the [previous] career choice I had made involved quite a lot of sitting still, and I am, relatively speaking compared to others [who studied the same thing as me], maybe a bit more practically inclined. I thought that you want to be able to challenge yourself a bit too, physically, but also mentally. Not just sit in the same office all the time, but get more interesting, demanding tasks. That is, more stimulating, so to speak. (Participant 3)
[I wanted] to have a job that requires me to be an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering], while at the same time not just being that kind of job, which it easily becomes at many workplaces, where you just sit and send emails and type into different… I don’t know, SAP systems and Excel and stuff like that. Of course, that happens here too, but there’s also another side to it, that I go down to [the technical system] and crawl around and check things. This balance between the practical and the more office-based work, so to speak. (Participant 9)
Variation is one thing I hope to get in the job. And it feels like there’s a really big opportunity to achieve that here. Both variation in environment, both office and out in the field and working with technology and working with people. It feels like there’s variation on two axes. (Participant 6)
These quotes collectively highlight how participants valued a work environment that offered both technical depth and physical, real-world, engagement. The role of defence engineer was seen as a way to escape the monotony of office-based engineering and instead engage in a more diverse and stimulating professional setting.
Another aspect of this variation, which participants looked forward to, was the opportunity to continue learning new things on the job and have new experiences. Several participants shared experiences of professional stagnation early in their careers outside the Armed Forces. One participant (Participant 3) described a “dystopian image I had in my head of sitting in the same office for ten years, never working on anything else” while another (Participant 7) noted that “colleagues 20 years older than me hadn’t grown in any way… they were at about the same stage in life as I was”. In contrast, the Armed Forces were seen as an environment offering opportunities for professional growth and development:
I want to keep developing. Keep learning. … I mean, right now I’m interested in [a technical field] and so on, but there are many other things that are also interesting. And if it were in another subject, that would also be about developing. But I just don’t want to sit at work and do the same thing every day. I still want to feel that there’s some variation. (Participant 5)
This quote reflects a desire for ongoing growth and change, and positions the role of defence engineer as a way to maintain career development. The emphasis on “not doing the same thing every day” reinforces the importance of variety and challenge as an important motivation.
Participants also noted that the increasing investments in Sweden’s military defence made the career path more attractive (as Participant 2 put it: “They’re really investing a lot in that direction. So, I’m very hopeful, and it looks bright if you’re interested in those things”). Another commented:
Some years ago when I graduated from high school… I mean, a defence career back then kind of felt like digging your own grave, if you know what I mean? Whereas, it has really, from the time I graduated to when I became an engineer and had worked a bit too, it has really shifted. … So, that has made it feel like there are better future prospects working in the defence sector. So, that’s an important part of it too. (Participant 9)
These reflections suggest that the perceived dynamic nature of the defence engineer role was not only tied to actual daily tasks but to broader developments in the defence sector, too. The sense of being part of a growing and evolving organization seems to have added to the appeal. In this way, the attractiveness of the defence engineer role was influenced not only by individual motivations, but also by external signals of long-term investment and opportunity.
Finally, some participants simply described the daily work in the Armed Forces as fun and joyful. For Participant 8, who had previously served as an enlisted soldier: “I think the military, the military service, is fun. You want to enjoy your workplace.” Participant 4 emphasized: “I think it’s more important to work with something I enjoy than just something boring where I earn more money”. A third described how “having fun at work” was a central motivator, and that the Armed Forces provided that through memorable daily experiences:
If you quantify what’s fun at work then… number of laughs maybe… number of memories, number of things I talk about when I get home and chat with my [partner] “Today I did this, today I did that.” Things I want to share, events I want to share. (Participant 1)
These quotes suggests that enjoyment and memorable experiences were central to how some participants evaluated their work. The defence engineer role was not only seen as professionally stimulating and important, but also as a source of personal satisfaction and everyday meaning.
Main Theme: Conditions for Career Change
Participants described a range of factors and circumstances that enabled them to pursue a career as defence engineers. These were not necessarily the primary motivators but, rather, the conditions that made such a career change possible. This theme is divided into three subthemes: discovering the opportunity; the Armed Forces’ offer; and daily life considerations.
Subtheme: Discovering the Opportunity
To become a defence engineer, one must first be aware that the career path exists. This subtheme captures how participants came to learn about the role.
Several described how they lacked prior knowledge, guidance, or a natural entry point into the defence sector. Without personal connections or exposure to military career paths, the idea that engineers could be employed by the Armed Forces was not part of their initial understanding. The role of defence engineer was not something they had been aware of or encouraged to consider when starting their civilian engineering studies; it was something they discovered later. This suggests that the pathway is not well known or easily accessible to engineering students:
I hadn’t even considered the idea that the Armed Forces have engineers. It’s very obvious in hindsight, now I understand. But back then, I didn’t have anyone in the family or anything like that who worked in the Armed Forces. (Participant 5)
It had never been revealed in that way, that you could be an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering], and employed in the defence sector. That had never reached me… it was more like you would work toward the defence industry, if anything, as an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering]. (Participant 8)
In some cases, the discovery was entirely coincidental: a tip from a former classmate, a job advertisement shown by a recruiter, or a thesis supervisor who happened to be a former defence engineer. Some participants were actively exploring new opportunities, though not specifically aiming for a military career, when they came across the defence engineer role:
[My partner and I] wanted to move. … And we started looking around for alternatives. … By pure chance, I saw this position for a defence engineer on the Armed Forces’ website. And, I didn’t really have any intention of changing employers. … But I applied for the position really out of pure curiosity. It was quite a lengthy process to get hired, but… yeah, it worked out. (Participant 2)
It was probably sometime when I was writing my thesis, that’s when the thought really hit me like “OK, what the heck am I going to do after this?” So I sat and thought a bit. And then I thought like “Well, the Armed Forces probably want engineers, right? They must work with interesting stuff.” So I logged onto the Armed Forces’ website. … I didn’t think much more than that, I just sent in an application and a CV. (Participant 3)
These examples show how the decision to apply often emerged from curiosity or chance rather than long-term planning. In other words: the defence engineer role was discovered rather than actively sought.
In other cases, participants had long been interested in working in the military and had actively searched for ways in. When they finally discovered the defence engineer role, it felt like a perfect fit:
I probably always had that thought in the back of my mind, like “the Armed Forces, that’s probably where I want to end up, I think.” So then, during my studies, when I was studying to become an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering], I was quite often on the Armed Forces’ website checking. What kind of jobs can you do as an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering]? Can you be a civilian employee? Can you be a military employee? What’s out there? Somewhere halfway through, I happened to come across an ad for [recruitment of defence engineers]. And that really sparked my interest. … That combined all the interests I had, so it fit my vision perfectly. … It was like “I’ve found my dream job, this is exactly what I want to do.” So already then, I started thinking. How do I get there? What do I need to do? (Participant 4)
This quote illustrates that even among individuals with a strong interest in the military, the role of defence engineer may not be well known or seen as a natural career path for engineering students.
Subtheme: The Armed Forces’ Offer
For trained engineers without military officers’ training, the defence engineer role includes the opportunity to take part in an accelerated and salaried officers’ training programme. Those with no previous military background at all (e.g., prior military conscription service) also undergo a basic military training course as a first step. This subtheme captures participants’ reflections on the importance of this structured and financially supported pathway into the military.
All participants had previously completed a five-year engineering degree, and several had already established careers in the civilian sector before applying to the Armed Forces. The fact that the military offered a salaried and accelerated military training programme was seen as a crucial condition for making the career change feasible. It reduced the perceived sacrifice in terms of time and income: “It wasn’t too big of a sacrifice … because I had considered becoming an officer when I was younger, but then it was like three years at the university. And I already had such a long education” (Participant 2). Others commented:
Since I didn’t do conscription, it’s hard to do anything. Then you’d have to start a whole new career from scratch. And throw away the entire civilian one, which I was already deep into. And then I felt that it’s not reasonable to sacrifice so much of the civilian side. (Participant 6)
I feel like this: I studied for five years at [a Swedish university], I studied to become an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering]. I don’t want to not be able to use that advantage now, if I’m moving forward. If it had been the case that I just applied [to the officer’s training program], without any particular benefits, then it wouldn’t have been as appealing. So absolutely, the fact that I could do it within the framework of [the accelerated officers’ training programme], and in a shorter time, made it absolutely worth it. (Participant 1)
These quotes illustrate how the accelerated officers training programme played an important role in making the military career choice feasible. For participants who had already invested heavily in their civilian education and careers, the idea of starting over was clearly seen as unrealistic. The Armed Forces’ offer helped remove that barrier. Also, interestingly, even participants who had actively sought ways into the military expressed doubt about whether they would have pursued a military career without the Armed Forces’ specific offer.
For those who had not completed military conscription or basic military training, the opportunity to do so as part of the defence engineer track was also a motivating factor. Some described it as a “second chance” to experience something they had previously missed:
It had always nagged at me that I never tried anything military or did conscription. I’ve always been interested in the [military] organization and thought it might be a good idea, but [it] never really fit into the [daily life considerations]. And here the Armed Forces came with an offer. So I thought that sounded very interesting. (Participant 2)
It has always been in the back of my mind that it would be fun to at least try it out. But, when I was [younger], there was no conscription. So I didn’t do it then, but I’ve always thought about it. … I think it’s great that this path in actually exists. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have been employed in the Armed Forces. It was kind of like I got a second chance to do the basic military training. (Participant 5)
These reflections show how the Armed Forces’ offer not only lowered the perceived cost and sacrifice of a career change; it opened up a path that felt personally meaningful. The defence engineer track was described not just as a career opportunity, but as a way to fulfil a long-standing interest or curiosity about military life.
Subtheme: Daily Life Considerations
This subtheme captures how participants’ decisions to work within the Swedish Armed Forces, and to begin officers’ training in Stockholm, needed to align with their broader life circumstances. As one participant put it, “it has to fit with the rest of life”. Many participants were older than typical university students and had already started families. As such, their decisions were not made in isolation but in relation to partners, children, and other responsibilities:
When you start becoming more of an adult, there are more things to juggle with civilian life outside. Just taking a year in Stockholm is… well… you have family and such, so it’s not just about deciding on your own. I’ve been dependent on my family being on board with it. (Participant 6)
In this way, practical and relational considerations affected the decision to pursue a military career. But also, those without families reflected on how becoming a defence engineer could be more difficult later in life. One participant described a sense of urgency and that the career change needed to be pursued before other life commitments made it more difficult:
I also felt a bit… I can’t really say pressure, but… if I’m going to do something really unique, then I have to do it now before… well, you can do it later in life too. But it’s much easier if you do it now, with a lot of travel and such, which I had gotten the idea was involved. [Laughs]. So I thought, now I’m throwing myself into this… if I do it now, it’s not as tough to go back to university again. (Participant 7)
While going from a civilian to a military working life was seen as a major change, some participants also viewed the military as offering better work-life balance compared to civilian employers:
From a family perspective, it was quite a bit easier to go to the Armed Forces. [In the Armed Forces], there are a bit more guidelines around working hours and you’re more at home and work more specific hours. (Participant 8)
I think there are few other places where, as an engineer [with a Master of Science in Engineering], when the clock hits 16:30, you go home, whether you’re done or not. [Laughs]. And I mean, that wouldn’t have worked at my previous job, I can tell you. … So, I appreciate that (Participant 9)
These quotes highlight how the structure and predictability of military work were seen as advantages, especially in relation to family life. For some, the Armed Forces offered not only a new career path, but also a more sustainable working life.
Main Theme: Sources of Uncertainty
Participants described several sources of uncertainty surrounding their decision to work within the Swedish Armed Forces. These concerns were grouped into two subthemes: not knowing what you are saying yes to, and financial sacrifice.
Subtheme: Not Knowing What You Are Saying Yes To
This subtheme captures participants’ reflections (and in some cases, concerns) about what the professional role of a defence engineer actually entails. All participants described some level of uncertainty about the nature of the job or where in Sweden they would be stationed. The following quotes illustrate this:
What I was most, not worried about, but what I wondered the most and hesitated the most about when taking the job… the description of what a defence engineer is, is incredibly unclear, you don’t know what you’re going to be working with, at all. And that has been the biggest downside of the process, so… I think several of my colleagues have felt the same, that you don’t really know what you’re saying yes to. (Participant 7)
Participant 5 concurred: “If someone asked me today ‘What does a defence engineer do?’, I still wouldn’t know the answer.”
These quotes illustrate how limited information about the role created hesitation. Even after being hired, some participants still felt unsure about what their future work would involve. This uncertainty also led to concerns about whether the Armed Forces would be able to match their professional interests and make use of their engineering skills. For Participant 9: “That was a concern I had, like ‘OK, what will my first position be – will I end up in a staff [position] where I’m basically just some kind of glorified staff administrator?”, while Participant 2 commented: “I wasn’t worried, but I was wondering whether there would be… enough interesting tasks for me, in my areas of interest. … I didn’t really know if I would be able to deepen my knowledge and develop within those areas.”
These reflections show that participants were not only uncertain about the general nature of the defence engineer role, but also about whether it would allow them to continue developing in their areas of interest. At the same time, not all participants viewed this uncertainty negatively. For some, it added a sense of excitement:
There have been some doubts, and there still are today, I should say. It’s that you don’t know where you’ll end up, or what the job actually entails. But that’s also something I’ve come to terms with, and maybe even look forward to… that there are many possibilities, and not knowing exactly what, that’s kind of what makes it a bit exciting too, in a way. (Participant 3)
This quote highlights how uncertainty could also be seen as something positive: a sign of variety, opportunity, and potential. In this way, for some participants, the lack of information was not purely a drawback, but part of the appeal of becoming a defence engineer.
Subtheme: Financial Sacrifice
Participants acknowledged that choosing a career as a defence engineer often meant accepting a lower salary compared to what they could earn in the civilian sector. This trade-off was a conscious decision, and many were aware of the financial implications:
Something I carried with me [and was thinking about] was how the salary levels would look like. Because there was basically [no information] when I applied for the position. … But of course, I mean, I come from the private sector, so you’re aware that salary levels are lower in the public sector. And then maybe you get something else in return, like other benefits. And that part. That was definitely a concern I had. (Participant 9)
It was quite a big step down in salary, from what I had at [my previous job], to taking this [military career path], but it was still enough for me to feel that it was worth it. That I can say. (Participant 2)
As these quotes illustrate, while the financial sacrifice did not appear to be the main reason for hesitation, but it was something participants had carefully considered and come to terms with. However, some participants still expressed lingering doubts about whether they had made the right choice:
I’d say it was a bit… mixed [coming back to the Armed Forces]. Some days it was super fun, really exciting. Other days, because it was so unclear [and] I didn’t know what I was getting into, it was like: “What am I even doing?” Throwing away a well-paid job, not even knowing where in Sweden I’ll end up, or if I’ll be allowed to live where I want. (Participant 7)
In this case, the loss in salary appears to be part of a broader sense of risk surrounding the career change. The participant was not only leaving behind higher pay, but also stepping into a new job that felt uncertain and not clearly defined.
Participants also reflected on how others perceived their decision. While most participants experienced support from their families, some noted that friends and peers viewed the move as irrational or even wasteful:
Some said “This is really cool, go for it, do it, awesome, that will benefit you in the future even if you don’t want to do it long-term, that’s great.” But my friends were mostly against it. They thought I was out of my mind. [They] believed I was throwing away a well-paid job going into the military. None of them have done conscription or anything like that. (Participant 7)
Some participants also described how their decision to work in the Armed Forces was met with scepticism from professional peers outside the military. One participant reflected on how other engineers sometimes placed strong emphasis on career progression and financial success:
I think, consistently, that it’s the salary that has been discouraging for many [other engineers]. The fact of working in the public sector. Also, in [my field], I think there’s a bit more focus on finding… well… high-paying positions or new innovations to work toward and… yeah, there’s a certain culture of switching jobs very quickly just to advance one’s own career. (Participant 3)
In this way, the decision to join the Armed Forces as an engineer could, for others, seem unusual and unexpected. It meant stepping away from a conventional career path and accepting a lower salary in exchange for other values and benefits that other people found hard to understand.
Discussion
Despite a growing strategic importance of technical expertise within modern military organizations (Asoni et al., 2022; Hawley, 2011; Hoffman et al., 2014; Johansson, 2021; Lake, 2019), there is surprisingly little research on why civilian engineers choose to pursue military careers.
This study fills this research gap by exploring the personal experiences and motivations of trained engineers who have recently transitioned into military roles as defence engineers in the Swedish Armed Forces. In doing so, the study not only addresses a pressing practical challenge faced by the Swedish Armed Forces; it contributes to the academic literature on military motivation by focusing on civilian professionals entering military careers, a perspective largely absent from previous research.
The findings reveal three central themes regarding motivation that help to increase understanding of this career choice. First, participants were drawn to the opportunity to work with advanced military technology and to be close to its practical application. Second, they viewed the role as meaningful, offering a chance to contribute to something of societal importance. Third, they perceived the defence engineer role as dynamic, developing, and enjoyable, often in contrast to the perceived monotony of civilian engineering roles.
In some respects, these findings echo previous Swedish studies on motivation for military work among soldiers, which, in line with Battistelli’s (1997) concept of postmodern military motivation, often emphasize adventure, challenge, and personal experience (Gillberg et al., 2021; Hedlund, 2011; Österberg et al., 2020). Similarly, several defence engineers in this study described their career choice in terms of personal development, variation, and enjoyment. For instance, participants spoke of wanting to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, or of seeking a job that would be stimulating and fun. This suggests that defence engineers, like enlisted soldiers, are drawn to experiential and self-fulfilling aspects of military work.
However, there are also distinct features that set defence engineers apart. First, the desire to contribute to a greater societal good through their professional role was a particularly salient theme. Several participants explicitly linked their decision to join the Armed Forces to a sense of responsibility towards society, often in response to the deteriorating security environment. While recognising that these altruistic motivations are articulated within a social and institutional context where civic responsibility is valued, this type of institutional orientation (see Moskos, 1977, 1986) appears more pronounced among defence engineers than has been reflected in previous studies on Swedish soldiers.
Second, for the defence engineers participating in this study, the Armed Forces represent a continuation of their engineering careers, if in a military context. The dual role of engineer and military officer enables them to work closer to the application of technology and to gain a deeper understanding of how military systems function in practice. This is something not perceived to be typically accessible within the defence industry. This professional integration of technical expertise and operational context appears to be a key motivator, and one that is not directly comparable to the motivations of enlisted soldiers.
Interestingly, the dual role of engineer and military officer not only influenced participants’ professional tasks. It also appeared to influence their social identity. Several participants touched on how wearing the uniform, working in a collective, and contributing to national defence reshaped how they perceived themselves, not just as engineers but as part of a broader mission.
These reflections, similar to those observed among soldiers by Gillberg and colleagues (2021) support the idea that the transition from a civilian to a military working life entails more than a change in job context; it involves a redefinition and renegotiation of identity through the norms, values, and collective purpose of the military institution (Kaspersen, 2021, 2024; Scott, 2011). Indeed, this might very well contribute to a unique form of professional pride and belonging not typically found in civilian engineering roles. Future research could benefit from explicitly investigating how this identity transformation affects long-term motivation, commitment, and retention among defence engineers.
Implications for the Swedish Armed Forces
Recruiting trained engineers into military roles is one of the most pressing personnel challenges facing the Swedish Armed Forces (Johansson, 2021). The findings of this study offer several insights that may inform military recruitment and retention strategies. First, the Swedish Armed Forces’ offer of an accelerated and salaried officers’ training programme was a decisive factor for most participants. Without this structural support, many would likely have remained in the civilian sector. The programme not only reduces the opportunity cost of switching careers but also signals that engineers are valued within the military.
Second, the study highlights the importance of visibility. None of the participants had considered a military career when they began their civilian engineering studies. Many only discovered the defence engineer role by chance, often well into their civilian careers. This suggests that the Armed Forces must do more to raise awareness of this career path. Ideally, this should be done before students make important educational and career decisions. One potential solution could be to offer integrated programmes that combine officer training with engineering studies at civilian universities.
Third, while financial incentives did not appear to be a primary motivator, the economic sacrifice involved in switching careers was a concern, especially for those with established civilian careers, highlighting how purely occupational aspects also played an important role in participants’ career decisions. The Armed Forces should consider whether entry-level salaries for defence engineers should be adjusted based on prior civilian experience.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the study reveals a potential gap between participants’ expectations and reality. Many participants had only a vague understanding of what the defence engineer role entailed when they applied for the job. While some embraced this uncertainty as part of the adventure, others found it unsettling. If the Armed Forces cannot meet these expectations, there is a risk of early attrition – particularly given that defence engineers possess skills that are highly transferable to the civilian sector (see Becker, 2009).
To mitigate this risk, the Armed Forces must develop clear career pathways and ensure that defence engineers are supported in their professional development. The military organization must also recognize that these individuals are not only military officers but also highly trained engineers with specific interests and professional aspirations.
Whether the newly hired defence engineers’ expectations are met in practice is a question that warrants further attention, from both the Armed Forces and future research. Follow-up studies should examine how defence engineers experience their roles over time and whether their initial motivations are sustained. Future studies could also explore how engineers outside the Armed Forces perceive the defence engineer role and what factors might influence their decision to work, or not to work, within the military.
Conclusion
This study contributes novel insights into why civilian engineers choose to pursue military careers. Taken together, the motivations expressed by participants reflect a blend of institutional, occupational, and postmodern orientations. In this way, the findings suggest that defence engineers embody a pragmatic professional orientation, balancing institutional considerations (such as civic responsibility and societal contribution) with occupational goals related to career development, engineering challenges, and variation (see Jans & Frazer-Jans, 2009; Segal, 1986; Stahl et al., 1980).
Defence engineers appear to seek a professional career that incorporates both meaning and long-term career prospects. For them, the defence engineer role is indeed an engineering job, but not any engineering job. This pragmatic professionalism may help explain why multiple motivational orientations coexist in their narratives, and why the Armed Forces’ offer of an accelerated and salaried training programme was perceived as a necessary pathway for considering a military career.
Additional File
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
Notes
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the participants at a seminar organized by the Department of Leadership and Command & Control at the Swedish Defence University for their valuable feedback. Special thanks are also extended to Maria Hoff Rudhult and Cecilia Fredriksson, both at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, as well as two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions. The research project was funded by the Swedish Armed Forces and carried out within the Armed Forces’ research area the Military Profession, as part of the Research and Technology Development Programme (Forskning och teknikutveckling).