Managing Diversity in the Military

Research Perspectives from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute

James Stewart, James Stewart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351507240
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

Although diversity is a twentieth-century term, as the United States continues through the twenty-first century, the issue of diversity in society and in organizations is becoming more complex. Managing Diversity in the Military addresses current equal opportunity and diversity issues and explores how the military is attempting to resolve them.The research presented reflects interests of scholars from various backgrounds who use different models, approaches, and methodologies, many of which are adapted from the study of civilian institutions. The work is divided into five sections ""Contemporary Approaches to Managing Diversity, "" ""Diversifying Leadership: Equity in Evaluation and Promotion, "" ""Gender Integration and Sexual Harassment, "" ""Military Discipline and Race, "" and ""Where Do We Go from Here?"" which proposes future research directions for equal opportunity and diversity management in the armed forces.All of the areas explored in this accessibly written volume have counterparts in the civilian sector. The book offers insights, practical methodologies, and effective management guidelines for commanders, civilian-sector executives, and human resource practitioners responsible for equal opportunity programs and outcomes. This is now the standard social research tool in an area of profound practical concerns.

Part 1

Contemporary Approaches to Managing Diversity

Introduction to Part 1

Importance of Teamwork and Readiness

Recent trends in organizational practice, such as the increasing use of quality teams, autonomous work groups, project teams, and management task forces, suggest that groupwork is becoming more pervasive in organizations and is recognized as a vital means of maintaining organizational effectiveness and productivity. Reduced bureaucracy, increased employee/member involvement, and high quality products are all potential benefits gained from the use of teams in organizations. In today’s business world the use of teams to increase product development, productivity, and profitability is rapidly expanding. Cross-cultural and cross-functional teams that can work effectively to tap the deep reservoir of knowledge possessed by all members have a distinct strategic advantage in the global marketplace. The U.S. Armed Services are effective team-based organizations with strong leadership. To be sure, the history of the U.S. military would strongly suggest that teams, system of teams, and team management—from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to basic training squads—are vitally inherent to the success of mission accomplishment and organizational effectiveness. Fundamentally, the core of military execution relies on preparedness, team cohesion, and responsiveness.

Readiness of the U.S. military has never been more important. Ready forces provide the flexibility needed to shape the global environment, deter potential enemies, and if required, to rapidly respond to a broad spectrum of threats. In addition, readiness, or more specifically personnel readiness, instills the confidence our people need to succeed in a variety of challenging situations. In recent years, DoD policy and budget guidance has made readiness a top priority. Today’s challenge is to sustain a high level of readiness. Each service has a different approach to maintain readiness and includes a mixture of elements (i.e., unique force characteristics, deployment levels, and specific materiel). Less tangible, although equally important, factors that influence readiness are quality of life, leadership, and composition of teams and intra-team dynamics.

Command readiness is contingent on the readiness of its collective teams. Without cooperation among teams the execution of operations will be compromised. Intolerance of people of different racial backgrounds, genders, values, and religions may be obstacles to team, unit or command cohesion, effectiveness, and accomplishment. With women and minorities entering the military at unprecedented rates, the challenge of diversity management remains a significant factor in command readiness and ultimately the security of our nation.

Military Diversity

Analyses examining diversity management in the military have been influenced heavily by research examining private sector organizations. This cross-fertilization is to be expected, in part, because the military exhibits many organizational characteristics similar to private sector institutions. As noted by Moskos and Wood (1991), in the wake of the transition to an all-volunteer force, researchers began in the late 1970s to examine the thesis that the U.S. military was evolving from an institutional format to one resembling an occupation. To the extent that this thesis has validity, there is every reason to expect that diversity management techniques developed in the private sector have some applicability in a military environment.

Much of the current research examining the management of diversity in the Armed Services has focused on two issues: (1) the effects of changes in demographic diversity on perceptions of the climate for equal opportunity (EO), and (2) the effects of changes in demographic diversity on organizational effectiveness (OE) or mission readiness. Data from the Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS) have been used to examine the effect of increases in the proportion of women on perceptions of the quality of the EO climate. Dansby and Landis (1995) found that minority women have the least favorable perceptions of the EO climate, but these perceptions improved as the proportion of minority women in the workgroup increased. Tallarigo (1994) reported that as the ratio of women to men in military organizations increased, women were less likely to see themselves as victims of discrimination, although their overall assessment of the EO climate did not improve.

Research examining the relationship between EO and OE in the private sector has attempted to resolve contradictory predictions regarding the effect of increased demographic diversity on organizational effectiveness (OE). Proponents of the “value in diversity” hypothesis hold that properly managed diversity can be beneficial for organizations and lead to improved performance. Advocates of what might be described as the “deleterious diversity” hypothesis insist that increased diversity invariably has a negative impact on the functioning of groups. The studies conducted to date have failed to generate consistent findings that favor one hypothesis over the other.

Studies focusing on military organizations have also produced inconclusive findings. Siebold and Lindsay (1994) found that the percentage of non-white soldiers in a platoon was not related to group cohesiveness. Rosen et al. (1996) determined that increases in the representation of women had a negative effect on men’s rating of group cohesion and effectiveness. Niebuhr, Knouse, and Dansby (1994) concluded that perceptions of racism and sexism within a work group correlated negatively with group cohesiveness and performance. Respondents’ race had a significant effect on perceptions of group cohesion and performance, but a similar pattern did not occur for gender. These studies suggest that the effects of increases in racial/ethnic and gender diversity on perceptions of OE may be asymmetrical in military organizations.

Further, EO may affect quality efforts of organization. Knouse (1994) found a systematic relationship among perceptions of quality of work group output, work group effectiveness, commitment, satisfaction, and positive EO behaviors. The degree of demographic diversity was correlated with the total quality (TQ) scale. In a subsequent study, a TQ scale was found to be correlated with work group effectiveness, leader cohesion, job satisfaction, group cohesion, organizational trust, and overall EEO climate (Knouse, 1996).

Research Overview

The findings cited above provide a context for the studies of how the military approaches the management of diversity that are presented in this section. They also support the expectation that when diversity is understood and managed effectively, a military organization can experience higher levels of productivity, more effective communication, greater teamwork, and enhanced morale. “Intercultural Training in the United States Military” by Mickey Dansby and Dan Landis discusses the history and philosophy of intercultural relations in the Armed Services as well as the diversity policies, training, and other methods used to implement equal opportunity and diversity programs.

A clear understanding of the various dimensions of diversity and their potential impact on organizations are prerequisites for the design of effective management strategies. This understanding is continuously evolving as both theoretical and empirical knowledge advances. Several of the articles in this section provide theoretical perspectives on the management of diversity. “Contemporary Models of Racism: Theoretical Perspectives, Institutional Assessment, and Organizational Implications for an Equal Opportunity Climate” by Olenda Johnson examines the relevance of three contemporary models of racism to the United States military. “Three Levels of Diversity: An Examination of the Complex Relationship Between Diversity, Group Cohesiveness, Sexual Harassment, Group Performance, and Time” by Gary Whaley introduces a tripartite typology for classifying different types of diversity. The nature of the relationship among three types of diversity is discussed and a general model of organizational behavior including diversity, group cohesiveness, group performance, sexual harassment, and time is presented. The next paper, “Religious Accommodation in the Military,” by Carlos Huerta and Schuyler Webb provides a brief history and overview of religious accommodation guidelines and cases in the military context. “Personality and Leadership in Diverse DoD Workgroups and Teams” by Robert McIntyre and Judith Johnson argues that for teams to be more effective in the military greater attention must be paid to individual psychological diversity in addition to demographic diversity.

Successful management of diversity requires recognition of the importance of developing strategies that promote constructive interpersonal dynamics. This can involve a variety of strategies including enhancement of leadership skills, greater use of team approaches to task performance and decision-making, and focusing special attention on the professional development of new members of the organization. “See No Evil, Hear No Evil: Senior Leaders’ Social Comparisons, and the Low Salience of Racial Issues” by Rupert Nacoste examines how the demographic and hierarchical isolation of senior military leaders can lead to inadequate attention to potential racial conflicts. “Mentors, Mentor Substitutes, or Virtual Mentors: Alternative Mentoring Approaches for the Military” by Stephen Knouse and Schuyler Webb asserts that although the traditional mentoring relationship is difficult to establish and maintain in a military environment, a number of adaptations to the traditional relationship can be implemented.

The evaluation of diversity programs is a critical but often overlooked dimension of the diversity management process. “Opportunities for Assessing Military EO: A Researcher’s Perspective on Identifying an Integrative Program-Evaluation Strategy” by Jack Edwards addresses the issue of designing effective evaluation techniques. The study examines global efforts by the DoD to assess equal opportunity programs including surveys and formal reporting procedures. Edwards notes that the only large-scale DoD evaluation of EO issues focused on the investigation of the efficacy of the discrimination complaint process which led to the publication of a two-volume document entitled “Report of the Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment” (Defense Equal Opportunity Council Task Force, 1995).

“Local Effects and Global Impact of DEOMI Training” by Judith Johnson and “Perceptions of Small Group Diversity Training at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute” by Ruth Greene present alternative approaches to the evaluation of the effectiveness of training provided through the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

Taken together these research studies provide a solid foundation for additional research that can lead to improvements in the management of diversity and equal opportunity in military organizations. These studies further emphasize that diversity management and equal opportunity are military necessities.

References

Dansby, M., & Landis, D. (1995). Race, gender, and representation index as predictors of equal opportunity climate in military organizations. DEOMI Research Series Pamphlet 95-112.

Knouse, S. (1994). Equal opportunity climate and total quality management: A preliminary study. DEOMI Research Series Pamphlet 94-103.

Knouse, S. (1996). Diversity, organizational factors, group effectiveness, and total quality: An analysis of relationships in the MEOCS-EEO Test Version 3.1. DEOMI Research Series Pamphlet 96-106.

Moskos, C., & Wood, F. (1991). Introduction. In C. Moskos and F. Wood (Eds.) The military, more than a job? Maclean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 3-14.

Niebuhr, R...