The mosaic of nearly 700,000 active-duty, reserve, and civilian military personnel stretching across the globe reflects the cultural diversity of the United States. The heart of the nation beats with the blood of people of every race, culture, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and this, coupled with diversity in thought, experience, and perspective, is one of the U.S. military’s greatest strengths.
In the summer of 1787, in a packed Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, the Founding Fathers addressed the idea of equality for a nascent nation. The 1776 Declaration of Independence states, “All men are created equal,” a truth that serves as the bedrock of the Constitution. Every service member’s oath to support and defend this long-cherished document demands their absolute adherence to this fundamental principle.
An inclusive environment is not only part of the oath of service, but also will pave the way to peak effectiveness. As great power competition evolves around the world, the U.S. military cannot afford to allow narrow-mindedness to stymie its full potential as a warfighting organization.
For the past several years the United States has been at a crossroads with racial tension. The Sea Services need a better strategy to overcome these tensions, as the current plan has fallen short. A shift is needed to meet the current and future challenges that revolve around equality, with a focus on diversity and inclusion.
Avoid “Blurry Vision Bias”
Navigating the turbulent waters of organizational change must begin with a clear and concise vision statement. Vision statements define an organization’s goals, which help subordinates understand their mutual purpose.1 Research suggests that many organizations craft vision statements using abstract language not easily visualized by teams at large, dubbed the “blurry vision bias,” rendering their visions statements largely ineffective.2 By avoiding blurry vision bias, the Sea Services can articulate a vision that clearly communicates what the future of diversity and inclusion looks like for the force.
A “blurry vision” example can be found in the Navy’s 2020 Inclusion and Diversity doctrine. There is no clear and concise vision statement in various messaging within the document. The Goal 1 objective states: “Navy sets the benchmark for institutionalizing inclusion and diversity across the services and the DoD.”3 It is difficult to determine what the future holds with abstract language that does not define the end state.
My personal vision statement for diversity and inclusion, which I ardently adhere to, is that every member of the Sea Services must feel they are an integral and valued member of the fighting force every day. Every member, regardless of gender, race, national origin, cultural background, religion, or sexual orientation must feel as though they have identical opportunities for success, achievement, progression, and growth as their peers.
Throughout my 15 years of naval service, the main metrics I have seen associated with diversity and inclusion have revolved around percentages and proportions. An environment of poor diversity practices may be identified by a lack of “numbers,” but those numbers are only a symptom of a larger illness. Examples include the ratio of senior male officers to senior female officers, the percentage of minorities selected for enlisted-to-officer programs, and the relatively low percentage of African American officers compared with the percentage of African American enlisted members.
These disparities are something to pay attention to, but the goal of diversity should not be to attain specific numbers and percentages. Rather, progress in narrowing these gaps should be viewed as a byproduct of true equality. The percentage of women selected for promotion to admiral tells an important story, but the moral of the story is lost without understanding the underlying perceptions. For instance, how do senior-ranking female officers view their promotion opportunities compared with their male counterparts? I posit that the perceptions of service members are a more accurate measure of diversity and inclusion practices.
Sea Services questionnaires on equality, diversity, and inclusion should include questions about individuals’ perceptions. Quarterly random samplings along with exit surveys with short, succinct questions will ensure maximum involvement without participation feeling like a burden. Although command climate surveys do address questions such as these, a more consistent feedback loop would provide the services with fresh information to identify and address problems in a timely manner.
Sea Service leaders must look beyond numbers because they do not fully address the underlying issues. Percentages and proportions should be tracked and analyzed as a measure of progress, but the services must address the root of the problem if the goals of a vision statement are to be met. Diversity and inclusion measurements must run parallel with the Sea Services’ vision statements.
A Three-Part Training Plan
Once a year, sailors and Marines sit with eyes glazed over while laws and requirements are presented via PowerPoint presentation. Everyone gets a check in the box, and commands can report they have a successful program with 100-percent completion.
The current training regimen only guarantees that service members know what diversity is and what not to do. The Sea Services have failed to deliver a product that increases diversity and inclusion to the force. To properly address any problem, it is imperative the training accurately reflect and contribute to achieving the goal, (i.e., fulfillment of the vision statement), and diversity goals are no different. The Sea Services’ previous attempts at diversity and inclusion training are a classic example of training that is incongruent with the desired outcome, which is why, after years of training, service members still feel the uncomfortable sting of ill-conceived diversity initiatives.
If the goal is to create an atmosphere in which everyone is treated equally and provided the same opportunities for success, growth, and achievement, then it is time for a course correction. An initiative that focuses on three significant aspects will provide the impetus for positive change.
Train To the ‘Why’
Organizational change is difficult but necessary for workforce growth and development and for attaining the goals associated with a vision statement. For change to be successful, lasting, and swift, all members of the workforce must support and buy into the objective. Evidence suggests that people are naturally resistant to change for a variety of reasons, but with proper messaging from leaders, a smooth transition can occur.4
To achieve the full support of Sea Service members, leaders must train to and answer the fundamental question regarding change: Why? When personnel do not understand why change is happening, it can result in a lack of ownership and commitment, which can eventually lead to resistance.5 Open communication from leaders at all levels while answering the why will teach people the role they play and the effect they can have. Leaders cannot assume that people comprehend the big picture. It is leaders’ duty to provide context, which can help members understand the significance behind the organizational change.
Part of the why acknowledges the compounding negative effects that arise from inequality. Research indicates that poor application of diversity and inclusion policies typically permeates an organization and can have the following lasting deleterious effects to the mission:
1. Lack of output from an individual with perceptions of inequality, which can reduce the overall effectiveness of a team
2. Feelings of inequality and non-inclusion, which can lead to internal team friction characterized by lack of communication, which could hamper progress toward objectives
3. Loss of diversity of thought and ideas
4. Attrition caused by negative work environments6
Leaders also must communicate and reinforce what the outcome of supporting the organizational change will look like. There are benefits that will make overcoming the challenge of change worth it, and the force needs to understand this. Improved perceptions of equality, supportive environments to improve resiliency, increased team cohesion, and improved warfighting capabilities are only a few of the positive benefits that help answer the why and will allow every Sea Service member to know what they are fighting for.
Train to the Challenges
The unfortunate truth that stands in the way of equality is that humans are imperfect creatures. This truth not only echoes throughout our country, but also in the passageways of ships, the barracks overseas, and aircraft flight lines. People are a culmination of their past experiences, which manifest in their actions, behaviors, decisions, and preconceived notions.7 There are many positive qualities that arise from this amalgamation of life, but negative qualities also exist and must be addressed. We judge people. We think our way is the best. We view our cultural upbringing as superior. We question others through our own paradigm. Right or wrong, this is a fact of our innately flawed nature. Diversity and inclusion training should focus on these inherent weaknesses to address the blind spots in peoples’ actions and decisions.
Blatant inequality and non-inclusion have no place in the Sea Services. Racial slurs, pejoratives about sexual orientation, and comments disparaging religion are easy to identify, and the Sea Services must continue to hold people accountable for such flagrant acts. But to make the services’ goals a reality, the subtle behaviors, attitudes, and biases must be acknowledged when training personnel.
I have witnessed several times in my career a focus on task completion while sacrificing personnel development. Time-constrained leaders opt to unevenly distribute workload based on natural proclivities rather than train, fine-tune, and polish team members with their own unique attributes. Studies have identified this natural tendency for a person to be drawn to other like individuals.8 This can hold especially true when the leader has more in common with subordinates as a result of similar background or culture.9 It has been suggested that this type of ostracism, whether intentional or unintentional, has a negative effect on innovation in the workplace.10 The stakes are too high for the Sea Services to allow this degradation of trust.
Leadership choices such as these are the types of behavior that can cause distrust in a team. Although only one example of challenges service members must face and train to overcome, this and other obstacles will stand in the way of a successful initiative if not addressed directly.
At the most basic level, the Sea Services must train their forces to be aware of their own actions, the reasons and motives for those actions, and how those actions could be perceived and affect those around them. Leaders cannot expect the force to modify its behaviors until unconscious bias and its effects are fully understood.
Train for Practical Application
When the services’ goals for diversity and inclusion have been set and the obstacles identified, Sea Service members must be armed with tools that can be applied in everyday situations. Even with a correctly communicated vision statement, without a robust repertoire of resources for to service members, there is a risk of failing to bridge the gap between knowledge and practical application. In opposition to our previous attempts at diversity and inclusion education, the services must train action instead of inaction.
Training cannot cover every possible situation with which service members may be presented, but it is never wise to allow the lack of a perfect solution to get in the way of a good solution. Extensive time and research need to be dedicated to identifying common issues and decisions that can have negative effects on equality. Pinpointing the most common obstacles can shape the training that will yield the greatest benefit.
Scenario-based examples can help pass on strategies service members can use to combat the adversity they face day-to-day. These scenarios should focus on the importance of challenging worldviews to overcome what is comfortable so one can act and do what is right. They will be a reference for personnel to guide and shape their behaviors for future decisions.
Be Committed
After the Sea Services set the stage to improve diversity and inclusion, it is up to each service member to commit to being intentional with their actions and decisions. To achieve the vision statement, there must be a focus on understanding the goals, the why, the obstacles, and the practical application. Each member must be ready to step outside their comfort zone and have the fortitude to go against natural tendencies to ensure everyone feels part of the team.
Leaders up and down the chain of command must open the door for dialogue and be ready to have difficult conversations to propel the vision statement into action. Maintaining a finger on the pulse of the workforce’s attitude toward diversity and inclusion will be imperative to taking corrective actions to keep the team on course. By supporting and driving the vision at all levels, leaders can push ownership to personnel and ensure the greatest degree of commitment, because as important as leaders will be to this initiative, diversity and inclusion is and will remain an all-hands evolution.
Achieving genuine diversity and inclusion will be no easy task, but the men and women of the Sea Services have triumphed over insurmountable obstacles in the past. Dedicated service members stand ready to drive the ship for equality; they simply need leaders to set the course.
1. Andrew M. Carton, Chad Murphy, and Johnathan Clark, “A (Blurry) Vision of the Future: How Leader Rhetoric About Ultimate Goals Influences Performance,” The Academy of Management Journal 57, no. 6 (2012).
2. Andrew M. Carton and Brian J. Lucas, “How Can Leaders Overcome Blurry Vision Bias? Identifying an Antidote to the Paradox of Vision Communication,” The Academy of Management Journal 61, no. 6 (2018).
3. OPNAV N17, “U.S. Navy Inclusion and Diversity” (2020).
4. Morgan Galbraith, “Don’t Just Tell Employees Organizational Changes Are Coming—Explain Why,” Harvard Business Review, 5 October 2018.
5. Galbraith, “Don’t Just Tell Employees Organizational Changes Are Coming.”
6. Amna Anjum, Xu Ming, Ahmed Faisal Siddiqi, and Samma Faiz Rasool, “An Empirical Study Analyzing Job Productivity in Toxic Workplace Environments,” International Journal of Environment and Public Health 15, no. 5 (May 2018).
7. Angela Bahns, Christian Crandall, Omri Gilath, and Kristopher Preacher, “Similarity in Relationships as Niche Construction: Choice, Stability, and Influence Within Dyads in a Free Choice Environment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 112, no 2 (February 2017): 329–55.
8. Bahns et al., “Similarity in Relationships as Niche Construction.”
9. Wu Youuou, David Stillwell, H. Andrew Schwartz, and Michal Kosinski, “Birds of a Feather Do Flock Together: Behavior-Based Personality-Assessment Method Reveals Personality Similarity among Couples and Friends,” Psychological Science 28, no. 3 (January 2017): 276–84.
10. Madeeha Samma and Samma Faiz Rasool, “Exploring the Relationship between Innovative Work Behavior, Job Anxiety, Workplace Ostracism, and Workplace Incivility: Empirical Evidence from Small and Medium Sized Enterprises,” Healthcare 8, no. 508 (November 2020).