Why Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Matter to National Security

Editor’s note. This article originally appeared in the Fall 2022 issue of Phalanx magazine.

America depends on a strong military to protect and defend its interests. According to a recent Heritage Foundation article, the military enlisted nearly 158,000 recruits in 2020 for the active component alone [1]. The article went on to highlight that every indicator of future U.S. military recruiting success is either trending negatively or remaining stagnant. “These indicators include demographics, the economy, youth health, and trends that influence propensity to serve, including civic education, the number of veterans in America, the value of the military education benefit, the public’s perception of the military, and the percentage of youth that attend college immediately after high school” [1].

Without constructive changes to try to counteract these negative recruiting trends, the future strength of the U.S. military will falter [2]. Although the U.S. doesn’t have a negative population growth rate like India, China or Russia [3], at 0.47%, it's nearly one-third the U.S. growth rate in 2000 and is driven largely by immigration [4]. The U.S. population is growing older and more ethnically diverse. For the last couple of decades, the armed services have been challenged to fulfill recruiting quotas and retain required end strength [2]. This will be an even greater challenge should America need to further increase end strength in a time of war.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts are critical to future U.S. armed forces facing peer or near-peer competition. Improving DEI within the national security community will (1) increase the number of young Americans willing to serve, (2) cast a wider net to garner the country’s best and brightest and (3) maximize the performance of our armed forces organizations. DEI efforts can support each of these goals. Without DEI, the national security community is at risk.

National Security without DEI

At the time of the 9/11 attack, U.S. Army end strength was at the lowest point since the institution of the all-volunteer force (AVF), with active component end strength falling to approximately 480,000 by 2001. In January 2004, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld authorized the Army to exceed end-strength limits by 30,000. In January 2007, the Army’s plan to grow by an additional 74,200 soldiers by fiscal year 2013 across all three components – Regular Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard – was approved. Between 2004 and 2013, the greatest annual active duty end-strength growth was approximately 21,000. Contemporary studies have turned to the Army’s Grow the Army (GTA) experience as a baseline for understanding military regeneration capacity. This is considered to be an optimistic baseline assumption for regeneration capacity because this time period was aided by favorable recruiting conditions, including post-9/11 patriotism and a faltering economy [5]. A variety of methods were used during those years to boost Army end strength via increased retention and accessions, including monetary incentives and a series of waivers such as those for potential recruits with law violations or other characteristics that previously would have restricted them from serving [6]. “Given the formidable barriers to finding work, the military’s evident willingness to grant moral waivers makes it an appealing option for many ex-offenders” [7].

Elizabeth L. Hillman, author of a preeminent study on sexual violence in the military [8], has found that “sexist and violent men are indeed volunteering for the military. Worse, the military has been exacerbating the problem by applying an increasing number of ‘moral waivers’ to its recruits since 9/11, which means taking men with records of domestic and sexual violence, according to the DoD’s [Department of Defense] own reports” [9, 10]. These behaviors cost the services a loss in talent in the long run. A GAO report found that women were 28% more likely to leave the service than men. The report cited six themes explaining female attrition: work schedules, deployments, organizational culture, family planning, sexual assault and dependent care [11].

Propensity to Serve

One of the biggest known motivating factors on propensity to serve is having a family member who has served with a positive view of their experience [12, 13]. However, the number of veterans decreased by nearly one-third from 2000 to 2020 [14]. The veteran population has been shrinking for decades as previous war cohorts pass away and the size of the military shrinks. In 2018, post-9/11 veterans were the youngest, with a median age of about 37 years. They were also the most racially and ethnically diverse group and had the highest percentage of female veterans (about 17%). A smaller veteran population leads to a smaller percentage of young Americans motivated to serve by a family member.

Furthermore, as veterans continue to be more diverse, their perceptions of their service time are increasingly important. Bias, discrimination and not perceiving a fair path to career promotion can negatively impact retention and veteran views. DEI efforts are critical to recruit and retain our increasingly diverse service members [15].

The Country’s Best and Brightest

America’s shrinking youth population that meets the eligibility requirements to serve (including mental, medical, physical and moral fitness) combined with a shrinking propensity to serve and a hot labor market will require the DoD to cast as wide a net as possible to recruit the talent needed to manage the increasingly complex roles of U.S. armed services.

The U.S. Air Force published its “Rated Diversity Improvement Strategy” in 2021 with a series of initiatives “cooperating with the Total Force recruiting enterprise, aerial demonstration teams, affinity groups, and other community organizations to cultivate youth engagement” and goals to increase awareness of aviation careers among underrepresented segments to ultimately expand the diversity of the force [16]. The Air Force has defined diversity to include personal life experiences, geographic and socioeconomic backgrounds, cultural knowledge, educational background, work experience, language abilities, physical abilities, philosophical and spiritual perspectives, age, race, ethnicity and gender [17].

The U.S. Army mission requires its personnel to serve in hundreds of countries where many different languages are spoken, many different religions are practiced and many different cultures exist. A diverse Army population is a force multiplier. Former Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), Gen. James C. McConville, recognized that although diversity in the Army has increased over time and now, in aggregate, largely reflects the diversity of America, there are some compositional differences within Army subpopulations. The Army has developed a strategy with goals and objectives to embrace a more diverse U.S. population in the future as well as to “establish plans to acquire, develop, employ, and retain Soldiers and Civilians from all populations and communities” [18].

As stated by the former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony M. Kurta, in a DoD news article, “DoD strives to attract people reflective of America.” The article acknowledges that although the services closely mirror the cross section of America in regard to race and ethnicity, additional attention to recruiting from Asian and Hispanic communities as well as women is needed. Six U.S. states source 42% of the military, contributing to limited geographic diversity [19].

In 2021, the U.S. Department of the Navy announced a series of planning actions to improve diverse representation and remove potential barriers to diversity. The Chief Diversity Officer for the Department, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Department of the Navy, Catherine L. Kessmeier, said, “Equal opportunity is the fundamental promise of the United States. The Department of the Navy is committed to rooting out inequities that have sometimes kept that promise out of reach for underserved and underrepresented communities” [20].

In June 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce to “cultivate a workforce that draws from the full diversity of the Nation” [21].

Maximizing Performance

Performance improvements include smarter decision-making, accuracy in thinking and higher collective intelligence. Studies have shown that smarter decision-making and higher collective intelligence are more likely to occur in groups with ethnic and racial diversity as well as gender diversity. Ethnically and racially diverse groups think more accurately and produce fewer errors in scenarios, whether it is a jury deliberating over case facts or financial experts pricing stocks [15]. A meta-analysis of 22 studies found groups with greater percentages of women have exhibited greater collective intelligence, with social perceptiveness as a contributing factor to that collective intelligence [22]. These performance improvements will allow the U.S. armed services to compete in today’s complex warfighting environment.

Studies have shown the negative impacts of exclusionary behaviors on organizational performance. Examples of exclusionary behaviors include when minority team members are not encouraged to speak up and/or are not listened to; do not feel safe to propose novel ideas; are not empowered to make decisions or provide advice; are not given actionable feedback; and are not credited for team success. These behaviors result in consequences for both individuals and organizations, such as decreased loyalty, reduced commitment and higher turnover [23].

George Akst cited Marine Corps studies on integrating female Marines into the combat arms and described a series of experiments comparing “all-male” teams with “token-female teams” (teams with a single woman) [24-26]. In these experiments, one focus of the analysis was examining voice enactment: “when a person’s suggestions were acted upon rather than ignored. The advantages for the token-female teams were only achieved when the lone female’s voice was enacted.” In other words, the benefits of diversity were realized only when inclusive behaviors were exhibited by the team. Adding diversity simply as a symbolic gesture does not provide benefits. Numerous other studies point to the effectiveness of diverse teams when inclusivity is made a priority. Additionally, studies point to the harm of exclusionary behaviors on team performance, as previously noted.

Inclusion has been proven to be a contributing factor to broader organizational success. A study of 450 companies across two years compared those companies’ success while tracking 128 aspects of talent management [27]. Among these aspects, inclusive practices were predictors of the top performers of all companies examined. Top companies have proven to have greater cash flow, a higher level of innovation and more success developing leaders. High innovation and leadership are all desirable traits in supporting national security.

DEI Reflects Values

All federal employees and armed service members take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. America has long been known as the “melting pot” in which diverse cultures and ethnicities come together to form the rich fabric of the nation. The published values of U.S. armed services facilitate the nation’s vision for DEI.

By following through on efforts to be inclusive throughout the national security community, we will be adhering to our values. Living up to values shows that we are who we say we are – this can serve to attract members and make the U.S. national security community more effective.

References and Notes

1. Spoehr, T. W., 2021, “Improving America’s Long-Term Military Recruiting Outlook,” Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation Center for National Defense, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/improving-americas-long-term-military-recruiting-outlook.
2. Shane III, L., 2022, “Sluggish military recruiting worries Congress,” MilitaryTimes, April 27, https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/04/27/sluggish-military-recruiting-worries-congress/. 
3. TRTWorld, 2022, “Why the population decline in Russia has hit its highest in history,” TRTWorld News/Magazine, February 2, https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-the-population-decline-in-russia-has-hit-its-highest-in-history-54327.
4. World Population Review, 2022, https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population.
5. Murray, M. M., 1999, “Recent recruiting trends and their implications for models of enlistment supply,” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR847.html.
6. RAND Corporation, 2009, “Recruiting Policies and Entry Level Standards - Waiver Analysis.”
7. Boucai, M., 2007, “Balancing your strengths against your felonies: Considerations for military recruitment of ex-offenders,” University of Miami Law Review, https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/67.
8. Hillman, E. L., 2009, “Front and center: Sexual violence in U.S. Military Law,” Politics & Society, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 101-129.
9. Benedict, H., 2009, “Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Testimony on Military Culture,” June 25.
10. Women’s Congressional Policy Institute, 2019, “Causes of military sexual assault focuse of House subcommittee,” June 25, https://www.wcpinst.org/source/causes-of-military-sexual-assault-focus-of-house-subcommittee/.
11. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2020, “Female active-duty: Guidance and plans needed for recruitment and retention efforts,” Washington, D.C.: GAO, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-61#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Defense%20(DOD,grade%20category%20(see%20figure).
12. Lawrence, G. H. and Legree, P. J., 1996, “Military enlistment propensity: A review of recent literature,” U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, June, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319605.pdf.
13. Gehlhaus, D., 2021, “Youth information networks and propensity to serve in the military,” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, https://doi.org/10.7249/RGSDA1662-1.
14. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, 2020, “Percent Change in Veteran Population by State from 2000 to 2020,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, https://www.va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp.
15. Rock, D. and Grant, H., 2016, “Why diverse teams are smarter,” Harvard Business Review, November 4, https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.
16. U.S. Air Force, 2021, “U.S. Air Force Rated Diversity Improvement Strategy,” https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/Diversity/USAF-Rated-Diversity-Improvement-Strategy.pdf.
17. Babin, M. S., 2021, “Air Force recruiting seeks to broaden applicant pool to find best, brightest,” May 26, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2631833/air-force-recruiting-seeks-to-broaden-applicant-pool-to-find-best-brightest/.
18. United States Army, 2020, “Army People Strategy,” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex, September 1, https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/the_army_people_strategy_diversity_equity_and_inclusion_annex_2020_09_01_signed_final.pdf.
19. Garamone, J., 2019. “DOD Official Cites Widening Military-Civilian Gap,” U.S. Department of Defense News, May 19, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1850344/dod-official-cites-widening-military-civilian-gap/. 
20. Navy Press Office, 2021, “DON announces Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Planning Actions,” May 17, https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2619239/don-announces-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-planning-actions/.
21. White House, 2021, “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” June 25, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/.
22. Riedl, C., Kim, Y. J., Gupta, P. and Williams Woolley, A., 2021, “Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 17, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005737118.
23. Reece, A., Carr, E. W., Baumeister, R. F. and Rosen Kellerman, G., 2021, “Outcasts and saboteurs: Intervention strategies to reduce the negative effects of social exclusion on team outcomes,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 16, No. 5, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249851.
24. Akst, G. D., 2022, “What is Diversity, and How do you Measure it Anyway?,” Phalanx, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 58-62, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27116816.
25. Tokenism is typically understood to be a symbolic addition of an excluded group to a team or group. However, social scientists define it as the minority group, representing 15% or less of the team.
26. Nathoo, Z., 2021, “Why diverse hires can't always escape tokenism,” BBC, September 6, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210902-why-diverse-hires-cant-always-escape-tokenism. 
27. Bersin, J., 2019, “Why diversity and inclusion has become a business priority,” March 16, https://joshbersin.com/2015/12/why-diversity-and-inclusion-will-be-a-top-priority-for-2016/.