Contextualizing inclusion: Developing a framework and measure for a military context

ABSTRACT

Given recent changes and transitions occurring within the US military, it is imperative – now more than ever – that leaders find a way to leverage demographic and functional diversity in their units to support mission effectiveness. Academic researchers have found that fostering a climate for inclusion, where all individuals feel like they are fairly treated, valued, and included, can maximize the benefits of diversity, while minimizing potential disadvantages. However, no research has systematically explored what it means to assess and develop a climate for inclusion in the military context. The current research employs a multi-study approach comprised of both qualitative and quantitative methods to understand how a climate for inclusion manifests itself within the military, how to assess it, and the factors that contribute to inclusive environments. Across the three studies, over 700 US Army Soldiers provided input via focus groups or surveys, resulting in a 16-item climate for inclusion measure representing two dimensions – horizontal social inclusion and vertical information inclusion. This research, and the resulting climate for inclusion measure, provides the foundation that military leaders need to effectively leverage diversity in their units to yield performance improvements.

What is the public significance of this article?—This study points to the importance of considering context when defining and measuring the inclusiveness of an organization’s climate. Specifically, unique cultural actors, such as the hierarchical and rank-based structure of military organizations, can influence how climate manifests within a particular context. The result of this work therefore provides a context-specific foundation for military leaders to understand and assess their unit’s climate, representing an important step toward ensuring the effectiveness of diverse units within the military.

Over the years, the U.S. military has recognized the importance of diversity in its uniformed and civilian personnel and has taken steps to increase the level and types of diversity in the military. While the primary focus of early diversity efforts was on increasing representation of demographic minority groups, the U.S. military has expanded its thinking beyond demographic factors to include other types of diversity such as values-based and informational diversity (e.g., expertise, education; see Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Consistent with this expanded view, the Department of Defense (DoD) defines diversity broadly, to include all the varied attributes, experiences, and backgrounds of DoD’s Total Force (Department of Defense, 2012). By ensuring the full-range of diversity is represented in a wide array of military occupational specialties and senior leadership positions, the DoD seeks to enhance organizational adaptability and operational capability (Department of Defense, 2012). Moving forward, experts forecast that the U.S. military will need an even more diverse group of men and women to effectively engage in multi-domain operations, suggesting that diversity – in all its forms – will be even more valuable in the future (Department of the Army, 2018).

While organizations such as the DoD stress the value of increased diversity, the effects of increased diversity in teams and organizations is less clear cut. For example, researchers often find the results of increased diversity to be mixed, with the impact depending on the particular outcomes of interest (e.g., creativity, effectiveness), or the type of diversity examined (for more information, see Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998; Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; Jehn et al., 1999; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Due to mixed findings, scholars have called for more research on potential moderators that might better explain how to effectively manage diversity for the benefit of organizations. One promising moderator, and potential diversity management strategy, is a climate for inclusion. Such a climate goes beyond fair representation and eliminating perceptions of bias (Dwertmann, Nishii, & van Knippenberg, 2016; Nishii, 2013). Instead, a climate for inclusion creates an organizational environment where diversity is valued and leveraged to promote positive individual, group, and organizational outcomes (Nishii, 2013; for a review, see Shore, Cleveland, & Sanchez, 2018).

Within the U.S. military, organizational leaders recognize the importance of fostering inclusive environments, where personnel with diverse attributes, experiences and backgrounds are valued and actively leveraged to meet the challenges associated with increasingly complex operational environments (Department of Defense, 2012). According to the DoD’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (2012), “Valuing diversity is not simply the right thing to do. Leveraging diversity ensures we maintain the competitive advantage … ” (p. 4; emphasis added). This quote conveys the realization that diversity itself is not enough; instead, the military must develop and execute strategies to employ diversity to facilitate performance gains. Senior leaders also emphasize other related benefits of fostering a climate for inclusion within the U.S. military, including greater retention of diverse talent and mitigation of problematic behaviors (Department of Defense, 2012; Department of the Army, 2010). To summarize, the U.S. military, believes leveraging the full-range of diversity is critical to maintaining a ready, innovative force capable of meeting current and future operational demands.

While the U.S. military embraces the concept of inclusion, no research has systematically explored what it means to assess and develop a climate for inclusion in the military context. Given this gap, research is warranted to fully understand how a climate for inclusion manifests itself within the U.S. military, the factors that contribute to inclusive environments, and how to assess climates for inclusion in the military. Because of the lack of existing military research, we began our effort with a review of the broader organizational literature on climates for inclusion.

Current conceptualizations of a climate for inclusion

As compared to alternative approaches to diversity found in the literature that aim to “ignore” the diversity of individuals (e.g., colorblind ideology; Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007) or to seek the fair representation of minority groups and minimize discrimination (e.g., fairness and discrimination perspective; Ely & Thomas, 2001), a climate for inclusion is founded on the belief that there is value in diversity if it is leveraged and integrated effectively (i.e., learning and integration perspective; Ely & Thomas, 2001). Specifically, an inclusive climate is present when “individuals of all backgrounds – not just members of historically powerful identity groups – are fairly treated, valued for who they are, and included in core decision making” (Nishii, 2013, p. 1754). To realize the true power and benefit of a diverse organization, inclusion researchers believe that organizational leaders and members must go beyond fair representation and fair treatment of diverse groups, to recognize the benefits of leveraging and integrating diverse perspectives, skills, and experiences. By creating an inclusive environment, characterized by a collective commitment to respect, value, and the productive contribution of all employees, organizations can buffer against the potential negative effects of increased diversity (e.g., relational conflict; see Nishii, 2013). Further, the potential benefits of diversity can be realized when members feel that they are included and their perspectives and knowledge are leveraged in decision-making processes (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2015; Shore et al., 2011).

Researchers have developed a number of frameworks that explicate what is core to the experience of inclusion and the workplace climates that enable those experiences (e.g., Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Nishii, 2013; Pelled, Ledford, Jr, & Mohrman, 1999; Shore et al., 2011). While each framework has unique aspects, when examined closely, common themes emerge. Specifically, inclusion in decision-making, which refers to the extent to which diverse perspectives are actively sought and integrated during the decision-making process, is included in several of the frameworks within the literature (Dwertmann et al., 2016; Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Nishii, 2013; Pelled et al., 1999; Shore et al., 2011). The notion that social identity differences need to be both valued and integrated cohesively is another key theme that emerges. This idea reflects that inclusion involves both a sense of being involved or belonging to the group (Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Shore et al., 2011), as well as feeling safe to be one’s true self (Ferdman, 2014; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011). These represent the “belongingness” and “uniqueness” aspects of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). The concept of information sharing, or access to information, is highlighted as another dimension of inclusion, because in order to be able to actively participate in decision-making, individuals need to feel like they are well informed and have access to need-to-know information (Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Pelled et al., 1999). While only mentioned in a single framework of inclusion climate (Nishii, 2013), the concept of equitable employment practices, which is commonly reflected in measures of diversity or equal employment opportunity (EEO) climate (Dwertmann et al., 2016), captures what is thought to be a necessary but insufficient condition for inclusive climates; it focuses on the extent to which diversity practices are implemented and human resource practices are perceived as fair. Finally, respect and dignity also surface as important concepts from the inclusion literature (Ferdman, 2014). In particular, researchers have proposed different types of respect which are potentially critical to inclusion (Decker & Quaquebeke, 2015; Grover, 2014; Rogers & Ashforth, 2017), including unconditional (respect that is unconditionally guaranteed to every human; similar to dignity) and conditional (respect that can be earned or lost based on merit, expertise, status, or accomplishments) respect.

Drawing upon these themes, we developed an integrated, literature-based framework of a climate for inclusion to serve as the basis for the development of a climate for inclusion measure within a military context. The framework included seven dimensions aligned with those found in the literature: Equitable Employment Practices, Integration of Differences, Inclusion in Decision-Making, Information Sharing/Communication, Participation/Involvement in Informal Activities, Unconditional Respect for Dignity, and Conditional Respect for Rank and Experience.

Inclusion in the military

Like the civilian sector, U.S. military organizations have identified a need to understand the structural, procedural, and climate changes necessary to promote the benefits of diversity (Department of Defense, 2012; Department of the Army, 2010). It is unclear, however, to what extent existing frameworks (including the seven-dimension framework we synthesized from the literature) and measures of a climate for inclusion developed in academia and/or civilian-sectors generalize to a military context; more information is also needed on the degree to which they capture all of the factors relevant to inclusion in the military.

One reason to investigate the application of existing frameworks to the U.S. military is that in many ways military culture appears at odds with prevailing conceptualizations of inclusion. In contrast to most civilian organizations, the U.S. military has strict hierarchies and norms governing interactions and decision-making. Additionally, Warfighters are rapidly inculcated with the values of the military culture. For example, U.S. Army Soldiers are introduced to the Army professional ethic¹ very early on, and come to live and breathe the same value system. While these aspects of military organizations are believed to aid mission accomplishment, they may create conditions that contradict some of the main tenets of a climate for inclusion. For example, a climate for inclusion is commonly characterized as an environment where individuals feel integrated within the group, with experiences of inclusion also contingent on maintaining a distinct sense of self (Shore et al., 2011). Within the U.S. military however, there is a strong push for assimilation to the existing culture and rank-based hierarchical structure through experiences such as initial training. This adoption of dominant cultural norms is believed to build mutual trust, a shared professional identity, and cohesive teams, ultimately facilitating mission accomplishment (Department of the Army, 2015). However, once assimilated, the individual’s identity as a Warfighter may supersede, and perhaps conflict with, any unique individual identities. Further, because of the boundaries on acceptable forms of interaction and decision-making – as well as the high-intensity, high-risk work environment encountered by many Warfighters – the flow of communication and processes for problem-solving may be constrained as compared to non-military organizations.

While there are ways that the military context may work against traditional representations of inclusion, in other ways, the culture is well-aligned with existing conceptualizations of inclusion. For example, dignity and respect are important aspects of the Army values (Department of the Army, 2015) and are critical for a climate for inclusion (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). Additionally, mission command principles (e.g., building cohesive teams through mutual trust and creating a shared understanding; Department of the Army, 2019a), which have been adopted across services, appear to align closely with the climate for inclusion construct. Thus, while some aspects of the military context seem incongruous to current conceptualizations of inclusion, others are compatible with existing theory, and it is therefore unclear to what extent existing frameworks and measures will generalize to the military context.

The current effort

The U.S. military wants to foster inclusive environments that leverage diversity, cultivate innovation, and lead to enhanced capability. To do so effectively, it is necessary to vet current conceptualizations and measures of inclusion with military personnel to assess the degree to which the themes emerging from industry fully capture inclusion in a military context. The goal of the current research is therefore to explore how a climate for inclusion manifests in the military to understand where it aligns with, or diverges from, conceptualizations in the literature, and then develop and provide initial validation evidence for a military-specific measure that can be used by leaders to monitor, assess, and facilitate inclusive climates in their units. While the measure was developed with an Army sample, it is anticipated that this measure can serve as the foundation by which U.S. military leaders from all branches can begin to fulfill goals laid out in the DoD’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (Department of Defense, 2012).

To accomplish this research objective, we adopted a combination of deductive and inductive approaches to scale development (Hinkin, 1998) across three complementary studies; we drew both from the existing theoretical literature as well as insights collected directly from U.S. Army Soldiers about what inclusive climates entail. The first study employed a qualitative method to understand how Soldiers define a climate for inclusion within the Army and how it may manifest behaviorally. During the second study, we collected quantitative feedback on framework dimensions and behavioral indicators to understand which dimensions and indicators Soldiers perceive to be most relevant and critical to inclusion within the Army. The third study provided initial validity evidence for a measure to be used by leaders to assess inclusive climates in their units. Together, the results of this work support the longer-term goal of deploying a theoretically sound and empirically validated military-relevant measure that can be used by leaders to foster a climate for inclusion in their units.

Study 1: Identifying Army-relevant behavioral indicators and dimensions of inclusion

The purpose of this first study was to qualitatively identify and define a climate for inclusion within the Army setting.

Method

Participants

We collected data from 160 Soldiers participating in 52 focus groups across four U.S. Army installations located across the country. The majority of participants were Caucasian/White (64%) and male (93%). This breakdown aligns closely with the overall Active Duty Army demographic composition reported in the 2017 Demographics Report (https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2017-demographics-report.pdf). Both officer and enlisted Soldiers were included in the sample, with a mix of ranks and military occupational specialties (MOSs) represented. Finally, the majority (n = 120) of Soldiers had deployed at least once (M = 2.17; SD = 1.71; range: 0 to 8). See Table 1 for additional details.

Table 1.

Side-by-side comparison of Study 1, Study 2, and Study 3 demographics.

		Study 1		Study 2		Study 3
Characteristic	Categories	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
MOS Category	Combat Arms	60	38%	119	38%	132	54%
	Combat Support	8	5%	49	16%	60	25%
	Combat Service Support	82	51%	139	45%	43	18%
	Missing	10	6%	3	1%	8	3%
Age Group	18 to 24	22	14%	67	22%	121	50%
	25 to 34	72	45%	178	57%	101	42%
	35 to 44	44	28%	51	16%	17	7%
	45 to 54	20	13%	12	4%	1	.5%
	55 and over	1	1%	1	0%	0	0%
	Missing	1	1%	1	0%	3	1%
Rank Group	E1 to E4	15	9%	69	22%	125	51%
	E5 to E9	80	50%	81	26%	94	39%
	O1 to O3	46	29%	139	45%	22	9%
	O4 to O6	14	9%	14	5%	0	0%
	Warrant	5	3%	6	2%	0	0%
	Missing	0	0%	1	0%	2	1%
Deployments	No Deployments	37	23%	97	31%	144	59%
	At Least One Deployment	120	75%	208	67%	97	40%
	Missing	3	2%	5	2%	2	1%
Gender	Male	149	93%	240	77%	211	87%
	Female	11	7%	60	19%	30	12%
	Missing	0	0%	10	3%	2	1%
Race	American Indian/Alaskan Native	2	1%	5	2%	4	2%
	Asian	4	3%	24	8%	5	2%
	Black/African American	30	19%	47	15%	26	11%
	Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	3	2%	2	1%	4	2%
	White	102	64%	183	59%	179	74%
	Other/More than one	0	0%	1	0%	20	8%
	Missing	19	12%	7	2%	5	2%
	TOTAL	160		310		243

According to the 2017 Demographics Report (https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2017-demographics-report.pdf), 80% of Active Duty Army personnel are enlisted Soldiers; 85% are male; 33% are a racial minority; and the average age is 28.8 years old. Looking across the three samples, the demographic breakdown of the Soldiers participating in this research reflects a similar pattern as that of the overall Active Duty Army profile.

Procedure

We developed a semi-structured interview protocol to employ within small focus group sessions (approximately 1 to 7 participants within a group) to elicit ideas about a climate for inclusion in the Army. To start the discussion, we asked Soldiers to think about and share examples of when they worked in a positive work environment. We then introduced Soldiers to the concept of inclusion and asked them a series of targeted questions to elicit specific indicators (i.e., behaviors or characteristics) that would demonstrate the presence or absence of a climate for inclusion in the Army. For example, Soldiers answered the following questions: How do you know when you have a climate of dignity, respect, and inclusion? What does this look like? What are specific behaviors that individual Soldiers can engage in that contribute to an inclusive climate? What are specific behaviors that individual Soldiers engage in that serve as barriers to an inclusive climate? Follow-up prompts were used to drill down into specific answers or to seek clarification on a particular response when needed. One researcher actively took notes to transcribe the questions and responses from Soldiers, while the other researcher directed the discussion.

After all of the sessions were complete, the 52 focus group transcripts were independently reviewed by two members of the research team. Specifically, one researcher made an initial pass through the transcripts to extract potential indicators, and then the second researcher reviewed the transcripts to verify that the indicators identified by the first researcher were represented in the transcripts and to extract any additional indicators that were missed. An indicator was extracted from the focus group data if it appeared to be part of a Soldier’s description of what he/she would look for or see when a climate for inclusion was present or absent. If an indicator was mentioned multiple times within the same transcript, it was only recorded once. Only a small number of changes and additions resulted from the second review, suggesting that there was good agreement between the two researchers. Additionally, when conducting the initial focus groups, we noticed that some of the Soldiers had a hard time thinking about inclusion beyond traditional EEO concepts; as such, they struggled to think of indicators that were relevant to the broader inclusion concept being targeted. Therefore, to ensure that the initial pool of indicators was not overly restrictive, we also reviewed the published literature and existing measures to identify additional behavioral indicators to complement those extracted from the focus groups. To maintain the goal of an Army-specific representation of inclusion, Soldiers had the opportunity in Study 2 to review and narrow down the list to those most relevant in the Army context.

Following this initial review and extraction process, we combined, refined, and distilled the list of indicators from the focus groups and the literature. The goal was to remove indicators that were redundant, too vague, or irrelevant to inclusion (e.g., get the job done; be a good person). Additionally, indicators that focused on more general leader behaviors or characteristics not specific to inclusion were removed as they were too broad to uniquely define the inclusion space (e.g., leader is empowering; leader is competent). Where appropriate, we combined indicators that captured the same concept. The end goal for this process was a comprehensive set of indicators to help refine the dimension space and to serve as the foundation for an Army-specific measure of climate for inclusion.

Results and discussion

We extracted a total of 1509 potential behavioral indicators from the focus group transcripts (n = 864) and literature (n = 645) as part of the initial review process. After removing irrelevant, vague, and redundant indicators, a total of 935 potential indicators of a climate for inclusion remained, with slightly more than half of those coming from the focus group transcripts.

To further reduce the set of indicators, two members of the research team independently assigned each indicator to one of the seven dimensions in the initial framework developed from the literature (Equitable Employment Practices, Integration of Differences, Inclusion in Decision-Making, Information Sharing/Communication, Participation/Involvement in Informal Activities, Unconditional Respect for Dignity, and Conditional Respect for Rank and Experience). The researchers left an indicator unassigned when it did not seem to fit into any of the dimensions. Once the initial assignments were complete, a larger group of researchers, including the authors, reviewed the categorizations, discussed indicators that were difficult to categorize, and made refinements to the set of indicators as needed based on the discussion. Through this process, additional indicators that were redundant, too vague to categorize, or not directly related to a climate for inclusion were removed. In total 811 indicators (n = 407 from the focus groups; n = 404 from the literature) were categorized into one of the original seven dimensions.

The research team identified several areas of ambiguity and overlap within and across the initial seven dimensions as a result of the categorization process. To address this, Army and academic researchers, along with retired military personnel (subsequently referred to as Army subject matter experts, or SMEs)² engaged in an iterative review and revision process to refine the dimension descriptions, clarify distinctions between dimensions, update the wording of the descriptions to be more Army-relevant, and reduce the complexity of the dimension set and number of indicators. For example, the original Inclusion in Decision-Making dimension was revised to better align with the hierarchical and mission constraints of the Army, ultimately resulting in the Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise dimension. As another example, respect emerged as a theme that seemed to underlie all of the dimensions; as such, the Unconditional Respect for Dignity and Conditional Respect for Rank and Experience dimensions were interpreted to be general behavioral expectations in the Army that are not unique from the other dimensions and were removed.

After each wave of revisions, the group re-categorized the indicators to assess the extent to which the ambiguity and overlap among dimensions was resolved. The revised Army-specific framework that emerged from this process consists of five dimensions: Fair Treatment, Openness to Differences, Integration into the Unit, Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise, and Shared Understanding in Communication (see Table 2). Sub-themes for each dimension were also identified during this process. For example, under the Fair Treatment dimension, the themes that emerged included access to resources, clear and equal standards, and respect and recognition. When the indicators were categorized by dimension sub-theme, any remaining overlap among indicators was identified, and additional indicators were marked for deletion or synthesis. At the end of this process, we retained 114 indicators for use in Study 2 (Fair Treatment: 18; Openness to Differences: 17; Integration into the Unit: 29; Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise: 19; Shared Understanding in Communication: 31).

Table 2.

Study 1 final Army-relevant climate for inclusion dimensions.

Dimension	Description
Fair Treatment	This dimension is characterized by unbiased and transparent organizational practices, including merit-based promotions, and equitable access to resources (e.g., professional development and training opportunities). Unit members have a shared perception that everyone must meet the same standard, and corrections and disciplinary actions for failing to meet that standard are distributed fairly, respectfully, and according to Army regulations. Soldiers know where they stand based on formal and informal counseling and are given opportunities to make improvements.
Openness to Differences	This dimension is characterized by a respect for the diversity of all unit members. Members recognize that other Soldiers come from different backgrounds and have different experiences and beliefs. Members take the time to learn about and understand the people they work with, in order to show respect for others who are different. As a result, members feel they work in an environment where they are able to engage in honest and meaningful interactions.
Integration into the Unit	This dimension is characterized by an integrated unit identity in which all members are incorporated into the unit, leading to positive interactions and processes. Members are accepted by- and connected to- others in the unit whom they can rely on for support.
Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise	Members share the belief that there are multiple ways of achieving the same objective and see the importance of seeking and leveraging diverse perspectives for mission accomplishment. All members are encouraged to participate to their full potential, are recognized for their unique strengths, and are invited to contribute/participate when appropriate. Unit members know the value of working through disagreements even when it is uncomfortable, and believe by doing so, the unit can experience positive mission outcomes and broadened perspectives.
Shared Understanding in Communication	This dimension is characterized by a shared expectation of what needs to be communicated, to whom, when, and how (e.g., in a respectful manner) in order to promote understanding throughout the unit. Members recognize that individuals communicate in distinct ways, thus different communication styles are used in order to minimize misunderstandings. Members have access to and can share information through open, two-way communication that occurs both vertically (e.g., between immediate leaders and subordinates) and horizontally (e.g., peer to peer).

Study 2: Developing an initial measure

The purpose of Study 2 was to obtain quantitative evidence on the relevance and criticality of the indicators for further testing in Study 3.

Method

Participants

We collected data from 310 Soldiers across five U.S. Army installations. Similar to Study 1, the Soldiers represented a diverse range of age groups, ranks, and MOSs. As with Study 1, and consistent with the overall 2017 Army profile, the majority of the participants in Study 2 were Caucasian/White (59%) and male (77%) with a history of at least one deployment (67%). Refer back to Table 1 for additional details on the samples for all three studies.

Procedure

Small groups of Soldiers participated in data collection sessions with a group of their peers (similar ranks) lasting approximately an hour and a half in duration. After a brief introduction and informed consent process, we reviewed the survey packets with Soldiers, which included demographic questions, descriptions of the five climate for inclusion dimensions (refer back to Table 2), and a set of questions intended to gather feedback on the dimensions and indicators developed during Study 1. Soldiers received one of five different versions of the survey packet using a counterbalanced distribution approach. To help ensure that Soldiers had time to provide quality feedback on the indicators, participants provided feedback at the dimension-level for all five dimensions, but rated the indicators for only three of the five dimensions. As such, approximately 150 Soldiers provided feedback on the indicators for any one dimension.³ Soldiers were instructed to complete as much of the survey packet as possible during the allotted session time. In an attempt to collect higher quality data, we emphasized the importance of providing quality (rather than a greater quantity of) responses. Soldiers were also encouraged to ask questions as they moved through the survey items.

Measures⁴

Participants provided ratings about both the climate for inclusion dimensions as well as a subset of the individual indicators (e.g., Soldiers are verbally acknowledged for their work; Soldiers take into account the effect of their behavior on others.)

Dimension feedback

All participants rated the Army relevance of each of the five climate for inclusion dimensions; ratings were made on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all relevant to the Army) to 5 (completely relevant to the Army). Additionally, Soldiers rank ordered the three dimensions they felt were most important for Army leaders to focus on when developing climates for inclusion.

Indicator feedback

Soldiers rated how critical each indicator is for a climate for inclusion in the Army; ratings were made on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). As noted previously, due to time constraints, participants only rated the indicators from three dimensions to which they were randomly assigned.

Results and discussion

Dimension relevance results

The subsections below summarize the results from Soldiers’ ratings and rankings of the Army relevance of the five dimensions.

Mean dimension relevance ratings

We calculated the mean relevance rating for each dimension to determine the extent to which Soldiers perceived each dimension to be relevant for a climate for inclusion in the Army. Fair Treatment received the highest overall relevance rating (M = 4.36, SD =.95) followed by Integration into the Unit (M = 4.22, SD = .98), Shared Understanding in Communication (M = 4.19, SD = 1.03), Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise (M = 3.99, SD = 1.05), and Openness to Differences (M = 3.91, SD = 1.04). When looking across these mean ratings, the difference between the highest and lowest rated dimension is only .45 on a 5-point scale, which represents only 9% of the entire scale. These findings suggest that Soldiers perceive all five dimensions as similarly relevant to a climate for inclusion in the Army, with average ratings above the mid-point on the 5-point scale.

Group comparisons of dimension relevance ratings

To evaluate the robustness and generalizability of the mean dimension relevance ratings, we conducted a series of t-tests to evaluate whether or not the perceived relevance of the dimensions differed based on certain demographic or experience factors. Specifically, we explored several group breakdowns: branch (i.e., Combat Arms versus non-Combat Arms units), officer versus enlisted, Caucasian versus non-Caucasian, male versus female, and no deployments versus at least one deployment. The research team and Army SMEs determined these breakdowns to represent some of the most critical faultlines⁵ that might influence inclusion perceptions within Army units. As shown in Table 3, all groups rated each of the dimensions above the mid-point on the 5-point scale, suggesting that Soldiers perceive the dimensions as relevant to the Army, regardless of group membership. In general, there were only small mean differences in the average relevance ratings when comparing across groups (e.g., officers versus enlisted). While several of these mean differences emerged as statistically different at p < .01, given the large sample size, we also computed effect sizes. Only two of the statistically significant differences resulted in at least a medium effect size (Cohen’s d or Hedge’s g = .5). Both differences were found when comparing officers versus enlisted ratings, with officers rating both the Fair Treatment (M = 4.58, SD = .72) and Integration into the Unit (M = 4.48, SD = .71) dimensions as more relevant than enlisted personnel (M = 4.12, SD = 1.10; M = 3.93, SD = 1.14, respectively). Because both groups rated these dimensions as highly relevant, taken together, these results suggest that although some groups may experience the relevance of the inclusion dimensions slightly differently than other groups, the five identified dimensions representing a climate for inclusion are perceived to be relevant to the Army regardless of group membership.

Table 3.

Group comparisons of mean relevance ratings by dimension.

Full Dataset	N	Overall Mean	Overall SD	Combat Arms	Non- Combat Arms	Officer	Enlisted	No Deployment	At Least 1 Deployment	Male	Female	Caucasian	Not Caucasian
Fair Treatment	307	4.36	0.95	4.38	4.35	4.58**	4.12**	4.28	4.41	4.37	4.38	4.51**	4.19**
Integration into Unit	307	4.22	0.98	4.27	4.20	4.48**	3.93**	4.11	4.26	4.24	4.10	4.36**	4.06**
Shared Understanding in Communication	306	4.19	1.03	4.22	4.18	4.38**	3.98**	4.24	4.16	4.16	4.32	4.31	4.04
Leveraging Unique Perspectives & Expertise	306	3.99	1.05	3.86	4.07	4.03	3.95	3.95	4.01	3.91	4.20	4.03	3.96
Openness to Differences	307	3.91	1.04	3.71**	4.03**	3.99	3.79	3.82	3.94	3.86	4.10	3.94	3.89

**p <.01

Rank ordering of dimension relevance

While all five dimensions received high mean relevance ratings, Soldiers’ rank orderings of the dimensions provide additional insight into which of these dimensions Soldiers view as most important to – or relevant for – inclusion in the Army. Specifically, Fair Treatment was most frequently listed within Soldiers’ top three dimensions (n = 262; 29%); Shared Understanding in Communication was the second most frequently listed dimension within the top three (n = 217; 24%); and Integration into the Unit was third (n = 181; 20%). While the Openness to Differences and Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise dimensions did not emerge in Soldiers’ top three rankings as frequently as the other dimensions, the high mean relevance ratings for all dimensions suggest that all are important and should be retained and considered.

Summary dimension results

Although some slight differences emerged, all five dimensions were perceived as relevant to inclusion in a military context, and this perceived relevance was similar, regardless of group membership. Dimension level results therefore support the retention of all five dimensions for consideration in Study 3.

Indicator criticality results

The subsections below summarize the results from Soldiers’ ratings of the criticality of the individual behavioral indicators.

Mean indicator criticality ratings

The average criticality rating for each individual indicator was computed to determine the extent to which each indicator identified in Study 1 is critical for a climate for inclusion in the Army. The results revealed that the average criticality rating for each of the individual indicators was above the mid-point on the 5-point scale (range: 3.12 to 4.51) with only a few exceptions,⁶ suggesting all of the indicators are perceived as being at least somewhat critical for a climate for inclusion in the Army.

Group comparisons of indicator criticality ratings

To examine potential group differences in the mean criticality ratings for each indicator, we conducted t-tests to compare the mean ratings for the same sub-groups used in the dimension-level analysis. Table 4 shows the number (and percentage) of indicators that were statistically different at p < .05 for each group comparison,⁷ as well as the number of these differences that reached at least a medium effect size. As seen in the table, in general, less than half of the differences that reached statistical significance at p < .05 yielded a medium or larger effect size, suggesting that there may not be as many meaningful differences in indicator criticality ratings as the p-values suggest. When examining the pattern of differences, the most prominent group differences in perceived criticality ratings exist between officer and enlisted groups. Twenty-three, or 20%, of the 114 indicators demonstrated a medium or larger effect size, with officers rating all of these indicators as more critical than enlisted personnel. A closer examination of the enlisted personnel data shows that junior enlisted Soldiers tended to have the lowest criticality ratings, with noncommissioned officers (NCOs) falling somewhere in the middle. In nearly all cases (90%), junior enlisted ratings were significantly lower than officer ratings.

Table 4.

Significant group differences in mean indicator criticality ratings.

	Significant effects (p <.05)		Medium Effect Size or Larger (d > 0.5)
Group Breakdown	Number of indicators	Percentage of all indicators	Number of indicators	Percentage of all indicators
Officer vs. Enlisted	44	39%	23	20%
Caucasian vs. Non-Caucasian	23	20%	8	7%
Deployed vs. Not Deployed	6	5%	1	1%
Combat Arms vs. Non-Combat Arms	5	4%	2	2%
Male vs. Female	4	4%	3	3%

Percentage of all indicators is based on a total of 114 indicators.

The Caucasian versus non-Caucasian breakdown yielded the second highest number of differences; however, only 7% of the 114 ratings had at least a medium effect size. The other group breakdowns resulted in only a minimal number of significant differences. Gender, unit type, and deployment status do not have a large impact on the perceived criticality of the indicators for a climate for inclusion in the Army. As a whole, while some group differences exist, these results provide support for the overall robustness and generalizability of the indicators.

Top 30 most critical indicators

To further examine the indicator criticality patterns, the mean criticality ratings for the individual indicators were sorted from highest to lowest to determine which ones emerged in the top 30 most critical indicators.⁸ The resulting pattern revealed that 39% of the Fair Treatment indicators were represented in the top 30, followed by 38% of the Integration into the Unit indicators, 23% each of the Shared Understanding in Communication and Openness to Differences indicators, and only 5% of the Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise indicators. Overall, the ratings of those items in the top 30 were not necessarily significantly different than those that did not reach the top 30; as such, while the top 30 provides an interesting perspective on the data, it should not be used in isolation to make decisions about which indicators should be retained.

Mean indicator criticality ratings by dimension

Finally, the criticality ratings for all of the indicators falling within a single dimension were averaged together to determine if different dimensions had more or less strongly rated indicators. Mirroring the rank ordering of dimension relevance results, the group of indicators comprising the Fair Treatment dimension had the highest average criticality rating (M = 3.94; SD = 1.19), followed closely by the indicators representing Shared Understanding in Communication (M = 3.87; SD = 1.16), Integration into the Unit (M = 3.82; SD = 1.15) and Openness to Differences (M = 3.82; SD = 1.13), and finally Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise (M = 3.57; SD = 1.16). The small mean difference (.37, or 7% of the scale) between the highest and lowest average ratings suggests that, as a whole, Soldiers perceived the set of indicators for each dimension as being similarly critical to a climate for inclusion.

Summary indicator results

As with the dimension level results, the majority of indicators were perceived as being at least somewhat critical for a climate for inclusion in the Army. Therefore, while nuanced differences exist and should be considered in the next step of Study 2, the average criticality ratings and dimension level indicator means support retaining indicators across the five dimensions for further consideration.

Indicator reduction and revision

The final step of Study 2 was to use the overall set of results to inform which indicators should be retained for an initial draft measure of a climate for inclusion in Army units. Results generally supported the retention of indicators across the five dimensions. Further refinement was based on criticality ratings, along with a consideration of the conceptual space and the Army context.

Using indicator criticality data, the research team initially flagged what roughly emerged as the top ten indicators for each dimension, with the majority of the top 30 most critical indicators retained for further consideration. Following this initial reduction, we engaged in multiple reviews and discussions with academic and Army researchers, as well as Army SMEs, to further refine the shortened lists. The main focus of these discussions was to ensure that (a) the remaining indicators were conceptually relevant to the targeted dimension; (b) the set of indicators for a dimension provided full coverage of the dimension space; (c) indicators that were rated as critical to minority group members, even if having lower overall mean ratings, were considered and retained, as necessary⁹; and (d) the potential cross-loadings (overlap) of an indicator across dimensions was minimized. The resulting draft measure, which was used in the initial validation study described in Study 3, consists of 52 indicators assessing the five climate for inclusion dimensions (see Table 5).¹⁰

Table 5.

Initial draft of climate for inclusion items.

Dim.	Item	Dim.	Item
FT	In my unit, advancement and promotion opportunities are based on merit.	FT	In my unit, Soldiers receive similar access to formal counseling as others.
FT	In my unit, Soldiers receive unbiased evaluations (e.g., NCOERs or OERs) based on accurate, objective data.	FT	In my unit, Soldiers are held accountable for their mistakes.
FT	In my unit, Soldiers have access to the resources necessary to complete their tasks and the mission.	FT	In my unit, Soldiers are put in for awards based on merit.
FT	In my unit, standards are consistently enforced across the board.	FT	In my unit, Soldiers receive similar access to informal counseling/coaching as others.
FT	In my unit, Soldiers are treated with dignity without changing Army standards.	FT	In my unit, Soldiers are evaluated based on their demonstrated performance rather than on assumptions others may have about their ability.
FT	In my unit, Soldiers are given equal opportunities to improve areas where they have received developmental feedback.	OD	In my unit, Soldiers can be themselves in this unit without fear of being physically harmed.
OD	In my unit, Soldiers can be themselves in this unit without fear of being ridiculed.	OD	In my unit, Soldiers take into account the effect of their behavior on others.
OD	In my unit, Soldiers believe that everyone has worth and value, regardless of the groups with which they identify (e.g., MOS, demographics).	OD	In my unit, Soldiers respect the boundaries of others.
OD	In my unit, Soldiers engage with others in ways that signify respect.	OD	In my unit, Soldiers have honest and meaningful conversations with others.
OD	In my unit, Soldiers try to understand how others’ unique perspectives influence how they react in different situations.	IU	In my unit, when a Soldier falls behind on a task (e.g., PT), other Soldiers step in and provide support and encouragement to help the Soldier accomplish the task.
IU	In my unit, Soldiers can rely on others.	IU	In my unit, Soldiers feel accepted.
IU	In my unit, Soldiers are encouraged to attend unit social activities and events.	IU	In my unit, Soldiers speak up if someone is being excluded.
IU	In my unit, Soldiers engage in team building activities to help bring the group together and reduce dividing lines.	IU	In my unit, Soldiers offer to help each other out if unexpected situations arise.
IU	In my unit, Soldiers work as a unit, not as individuals.	IU	In my unit, Soldiers take pride in being a part of that unit.
IU	In my unit, Soldiers celebrate unit members’ achievements.	IU	In my unit, Soldiers care about what happens to each other.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers build on each other’s ideas and thoughts during the decision-making process.	LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers actively seek out diverse perspectives with the goal of supporting mission accomplishment.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers believe that decisions are made with their best interests in mind.	LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers resolve conflicts that arise as a result of different perspectives.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers seek input from others of different roles/ranks to improve problem-solving.	LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers can express mission-relevant ideas, opinions, and perspectives that may differ from others without fear of negative consequences.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers are given voice in decision-making processes.	LUPE	In my unit, the quality of ideas matter more than who expressed them.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers are given opportunities to use their unique capabilities to contribute to the unit’s mission.	LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers recognize how others’ unique capabilities contribute to the unit’s mission.
LUPE	In my unit, Soldiers engage in productive debates, when appropriate, in an effort to improve decision making and support mission accomplishment.	SC	In my unit, Soldiers have access to the information they need to be prepared for the next task.
SC	In my unit, Soldiers are told the “why” behind decisions or changes.	SC	In my unit, Soldiers understand how members uniquely contribute to and support the overall unit mission/goal.
SC	In my unit, Soldiers recognize that members communicate in distinct ways.	SC	In my unit, Soldiers tailor their communication style based on who they are speaking to in order to avoid misunderstandings.
SC	In my unit, Soldiers communicate with each other honestly.	SC	In my unit, there is transparency about why certain decisions are made.
SC	In my unit, Soldiers consider the needs and circumstances of others when communicating information.	SC	In my unit, Soldiers perceive that communication goes up and down the chain of command.
SC	In my unit, information about the unit’s goals and expectations are openly communicated to Soldiers.	SC	In my unit, Soldiers are actively listened to, not just talked to.

Dim. = Dimension; FT = Fair Treatment; OD = Openness to Differences; IU = Integration into the Unit; LUPE = Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise; SC = Shared Understanding in Communication.

Study 3: Exploring the component structure and item reduction

The purpose of Study 3 was to further reduce and initially validate the 52-item measure of a climate for inclusion from Study 2.

Method

Participants

A total of 383 active duty Soldiers from four U.S. Army installations participated in the initial evaluation of the component structure and scale reliability of the 52-item climate for inclusion measure. For data to be retained, participants needed to correctly respond to an attention check question inserted within the climate for inclusion scale (Soldiers who are paying attention will choose Strongly Disagree for this item), complete over 50% of the measure, and not demonstrate an apparent lack of effort in responding (e.g., straight-lined responses). Based on these criteria, 140 participants were excluded. As a result, the final sample used for the analysis consisted of 243 Soldiers from across the four installations. As the climate for inclusion measure assesses platoon climate, all participating Soldiers were currently in a platoon. Similar to Studies 1 and 2, the sample was predominantly male (87%) and Caucasian (74%), and represented a range of ranks and MOSs. Soldiers reported being in their current unit for an average of 19.19 months (SD = 16.18 months) and having an average of 18.30 months (SD = 13.93 months) remaining in their unit. A more complete demographic breakdown is provided in Table 1, alongside the breakdowns for Studies 1 and 2.

Procedure

We conducted five separate data collections with groups of active duty Soldiers from four Army installations over the course of eight months.¹¹ Each data collection session lasted less than an hour. After a brief introduction and informed consent process, Soldiers were asked to complete a survey that included a brief background questionnaire and the 52-item climate for inclusion measure.

Measures

Soldier perceptions of their current platoon’s climate for inclusion were measured using the 52-item scale resulting from Study 2. Whereas in Study 2, Soldiers provided ratings of the perceived criticality of the indicators for inclusion in the Army, in Study 3, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which each indicator was present in their platoon using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Results

Component structure evaluation and scale reduction

We conducted multiple iterations of principal components analysis (PCA) using equimax rotation to explore the component structure that emerged from the empirical data. Equimax is an orthogonal rotation method that minimizes both the number of variables and the number of components. This rotation method best aligned with the objective of achieving a parsimonious structure and measure.

Our assessment of the completeness of the PCA results was driven by both empirical and theoretical considerations. We deleted items with low component loadings (less than .40) on at least one dimension as well as double loading items (where the difference in loadings on two components was less than .20) and repeated the analysis until a clear factor structure emerged (Hinkin, 1998). From a theoretical perspective, we also considered the conceptual representation of any one solution when determining whether or not to retain items and when evaluating the resulting solution. For example, when using the empirical rules for removing items, if all items from one or more of the dimensions were removed, we had to decide if the resulting solution represented the conceptual space of a climate for inclusion. While generally the goal was to retain representation from all the dimensions, in some of the early iterations, the Fair Treatment items repeatedly fell out due to weak loadings (i.e., less than .40). As we examined these items, it became clear that while Soldiers clearly view fair treatment to be foundational for inclusive climates, these items more closely represented unidirectional behaviors that only a person with formal leadership authority could enact rather than behaviors that captured the interactions between members of a unit. In other words, while important, these leader behaviors are believed to be drivers or antecedents of a climate for inclusion, rather than a behavioral manifestation of the climate for inclusion in a platoon. Thus, we made the decision to remove all Fair Treatment items from the analysis of the climate for inclusion measure.

Final reduced climate for inclusion measure

After several iterations and reviews, the final rotated solution consisted of 16 items (α = .94) across two components that collectively explained 59.52% of the variance (Component 1: 30.92%; Component 2: 28.60%; see Table 6). This final structure represents two dimensions of inclusion: Horizontal Social Inclusion (HSI) and Vertical Information Inclusion (VII). The nine items in the HSI dimension (α = .89), represent the social aspect of inclusion, primarily focusing on the peer-to-peer interaction norms among Soldiers within a platoon (example item: Soldiers engage with others in ways that signify respect). The seven items in the VII dimension (α = .91) represent the bidirectional communication norms and interaction patterns between leaders and Soldiers that impact inclusion in decision making and information sharing within the platoon (example item: Soldiers are actively listened to, not just talked to). The item communalities, which represent the proportion of each item’s variance that can be explained by the principal components, ranged from .42 to .73. Once Fair Treatment was removed, all four of the remaining dimensions from the conceptual framework in Study 1 were represented with at least three items (Openness to Differences: 3 items; Integration into the Unit: 4 items; Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise: 4 items; Shared Understanding in Communication: 5 items). In general, the HSI dimension primarily encompasses items from the original Openness to Differences and Integration into the Unit dimensions, whereas the VII dimension is solely comprised of items from the original Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise and Shared Understanding in Communication dimensions. As such, the final empirical solution provides good representation of the conceptual space defined in the earlier studies. The resulting structure will be further evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) during a subsequent, large-scale validation effort using data from intact platoons.

Table 6.

Component loadings and descriptive statistics for final climate for inclusion measure.

	Item (In my platoon …)	Mean	SD	Original Dimension	Component 1 HSI	Component 2 VII
1	Soldiers offer to help each other out if unexpected situations arise.	3.96	.94	IU	.756
2	Soldiers engage with others in ways that signify respect.	3.62	1.01	OD	.743
3	Soldiers believe that everyone has worth and value, regardless of the groups with which they identify (e.g., MOS, demographics).	3.67	1.11	OD	.710
4	Soldiers celebrate unit members’ achievements.	3.68	1.03	IU	.695
5	Soldiers build on each other’s ideas and thoughts during the decision-making process.	3.61	1.00	LUPE	.687	.373
6	Soldiers take into account the effect of their behavior on others.	3.18	1.08	OD	.659	.364
7	Soldiers are encouraged to attend unit social activities and events.	3.95	.96	IU	.637
8	Soldiers communicate with each other honestly.	3.72	.99	SU	.599
9	Soldiers speak up if someone is being excluded.	3.22	1.10	IU	.563	.325
10	Soldiers are given voice in decision-making processes.	3.16	1.20	LUPE	.321	.795
11	Soldiers are told the “why” behind decisions or changes.	3.21	1.33	SU	.320	.756
12	Decisions are made with Soldiers’ best interests in mind.	3.21	1.20	LUPE	.356	.750
13	There is a transparency about why certain decisions are made.	3.23	1.22	SU		.721
14	Soldiers are actively listened to, not just talked to.	3.31	1.22	SU	.447	.721
15	The quality of ideas matter more than who expressed them.	3.46	1.24	SU	.432	.713
16	Communication goes up and down the chain of command.	3.49	1.18	SU	.333	.682

Analysis n = 236. Cross-loadings less than .30 were not included. Items prefaced with In my platoon. OD = openness to differences; IU = integration into the unit; LUPE = leveraging unique perspectives and expertise; SU = shared understanding in communication.

Overall discussion

The overall goal of this research was to determine how a climate for inclusion manifests itself in the U.S. military – and specifically in an Army environment – and subsequently develop a military-specific measure that leaders can use to assess that climate within their unit. While the Army was the context of the current work, given the commonalities across military branches in terms of hierarchical rank structure and value systems, we believe the insights gained from this research generalize to the military more broadly. Specifically, this research provides value by considering and addressing (a) the unique context of the military setting, and (b) the need for tools leaders can use to enact the DoD’s (2012) Diversity and Inclusion strategy. Our research goals were achieved through three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a qualitative analysis that identified 114 items that described a climate for inclusion within the Army along five dimensions: Fair Treatment, Openness to Differences, Integration into the Unit, Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise, and Shared Understanding in Communication. Through extensive data collection with Soldiers in Study 2, those 114 items were empirically and theoretically reduced to 52 items representing five dimensions. The component structure and reliability of the 52-item measure was then initially validated with a separate sample of Soldiers in Study 3. The result of this initial validation was a reduced, 16-item measure comprising two dimensions that reflect social inclusion and interaction norms among Soldiers within the platoon (termed Horizontal Social Inclusion) and bidirectional communication norms and interaction patterns between leaders and Soldiers across a platoon (termed Vertical Informational Inclusion).

The final 16-item measure demonstrates strong conceptual integrity when compared to the initial five-dimension framework resulting from Study 1. Although the original five dimensions were not explicitly retained, the final two-dimension measure includes items that conceptually represent four of the five original dimensions: Shared Understanding in Communication, Integration into the Unit, Openness to Differences, and Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise. While Fair Treatment received the highest overall relevance ratings in Study 2, as well as the highest average criticality rating across indicators for each dimension, results of Study 3 did not support retention of these items. Specifically, across multiple iterations of PCA, the Fair Treatment items performed poorly, and established rules supported removal of these items. Closer examination of the excluded items revealed that many of the items represented leader behaviors associated with enacting formal policies and procedures – which are seen as a driver of climate – and not the interactions or meaning making associated with climate emergence. These items were therefore removed from further iterations of PCA. The final, two-dimension structure represents a parsimonious, reliable solution to defining a climate for inclusion within the military.

Inclusion in the military

The final dimensions and items within the climate for inclusion measure developed with Army Soldiers for the U.S. military context demonstrate both overlap and differences with the way that a climate for inclusion is conceptualized in the literature.

First, the HSI dimension primarily encompasses items from the original Openness to Differences and Integration into the Unit dimensions, with one item each from Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise and Shared Understanding in Communication (see Table 6). As noted above, the nine items that comprise the HSI dimension describe unit member interaction norms, and include a focus on respect, support, and communication. In total, these items represent aspects of belongingness and uniqueness – key characteristics of inclusion highlighted in initial conceptualizations of the construct (Shore et al., 2011). As an example, items such as Soldiers engage with others in ways that signify respect highlight the importance of an integrated unit in which all members are accepted by – and connected to – others in the unit, while Soldiers believe that everyone has worth and value, regardless of the groups with which they identify (e.g., MOS, demographics) emphasizes the importance of respect for diversity within the unit.

According to Shore et al. (2011), when belongingness is valued more than the uniqueness aspect of inclusion, individuals who are different are treated as an insider only when they conform to the cultural norm. Within a military environment, the somewhat lower relevance and criticality ratings on the Openness to Differences dimension in Study 2 may be attributable to a strong emphasis on belongingness in the military context and the belief that assimilation to the Army culture facilitates cohesion and combat readiness. Despite this reality, care was taken to retain items representing the Openness to Differences dimension for consideration in Study 3. This decision took into consideration (a) the importance of feeling safe to be one’s true self in initial conceptualizations of inclusion, (b) the strategic view that diversity is a force multiplier (Department of the Army, 2019b), and (c) the relatively high overall relevance ratings for the Openness to Difference dimension. Retention of these items was supported by analysis conducted in Study 3, and the final HSI dimension includes items describing norms for valuing others and treating individuals with respect, as well as norms for facilitating cohesion and integration.

The second dimension, VII, mainly emphasizes information flow within the unit. Given this, it is not surprising that this dimension is primarily made up of items from the original Shared Understanding in Communication dimension, with the addition of two items from the Leveraging Unique Perspectives dimension (see Table 6). The final VII dimension captures the importance of access to information, as well as the need to communicate in ways that ensure understanding throughout the unit (e.g., Soldiers are told the “why” behind important decisions or changes). While less prevalent in the existing literature on inclusion, the emphasis on information inclusion was consistent across all three studies presented in this manuscript. There may be a few reasons why the Soldier participants in this research continually emphasized the importance of information inclusion. First, given that the Army is a high-performing organization where personnel must operate in high-risk environments, communication is critical for success. In focus groups across all three studies, participants discussed how communication across personnel is essential to performance, whether in garrison or deployed. In addition, the focus on information inclusion aligns with the emphasis on candor and free exchange of ideas within the Army’s mission command philosophy. According to Army mission command philosophy, when Soldiers can see the “bigger picture,” they are better equipped to respond to complex operational environments in agile and adaptive ways (Department of the Army, 2019a). Further, “Commanders whose command climates make subordinates reluctant to share bad news are likely to be poorly informed and operate from faulty assumptions that put operations at risk” (Department of the Army, 2019a, ch. 3, p. 4). These excerpts highlight the importance of information inclusion, and illustrate the link between inclusion and mission effectiveness present within the military conceptualization of inclusion.

Finally, like the HSI dimension, the VII items tap both the belongingness and uniqueness aspects of inclusion. Items such as There is transparency about why certain decision are made are designed to capture the relationship between feeling included and feeling well-informed (Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Pelled et al., 1999). Further, items relevant to Leveraging Unique Perspectives and Expertise (e.g., Soldiers are given a voice in decision-making processes) highlight the importance of recognizing and respecting unique perspectives and identities, and illustrate the important role of leveraging diverse perspectives to facilitate decision-making and problem solving in a military context.

Implications

The mixed method approach used in the present research offers a unique way to understand the construct area and highlights the potential importance of exploring contextual factors that impact how a climate for inclusion may manifest in different organizations. While the final two dimensions represent many of the same factors seen in other conceptualizations of a climate for inclusion, the unique features of the dimensions show how context (including organizational culture) likely influence the emergence of more focused climates, such as a climate for inclusion. Ultimately, these dimensions reflect the emphasis on respect, mission accomplishment, and readiness experienced by Warfighters, as well as key aspects of inclusion that are central to the construct, but may not be consistently experienced by Warfighters (e.g., being open to new perspectives).

The fact that all of the dimensions and indicators were rated as relevant and critical by members of various subgroups in Study 2 bodes well for future applications of the measure. Even for the rare instances when group differences were found, which mostly occurred between officers and enlisted personnel, each subgroup still rated the dimensions and indicators above the mid-point on the scale, suggesting that regardless of group, the dimensions and indicators were consistently viewed as important aspects of a climate for inclusion. These results suggest that differences in assessed climates for inclusion will be more readily attributable to shared understandings of inclusion as opposed to varied interpretations of the construct itself. Further, the ability to assess potential differences in climate for inclusion perceptions directly addresses a need identified by the DoD. DoD leaders recognize the changing demographics of the nation and the need to recruit and retain individuals with more diverse knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences to address shifting mission requirements. Ensuring that diverse unit members are integrated into the unit, and leveraged to their full potential is essential to achieving these objectives. If a shared perception of climate fails to emerge in a unit, and instead different subgroups are reporting different climate perceptions, U.S. military leaders gain valuable information about diversity and inclusion in their unit. By providing a valid and tailored method to assess Warfighters’ perceptions of their units’ climate for inclusion, this research gives leaders a tool that can be used to identify potential areas for improvement within the unit to ultimately ensure mission readiness.

Limitations and future research

Tackling the construct of inclusion in a military context presented unique challenges, which have the potential to impact the results of the current effort. For example, it became evident early on in Study 1 that Soldiers struggled with the apparent contradictions between the Army culture and the way the literature discusses inclusion. As such, it was sometimes difficult for Soldiers to see the relevance of certain aspects of inclusion, and to focus in on what inclusion looks like in the Army. For example, throughout the three studies, it became apparent that Soldiers were more familiar and comfortable with conceptualizations of inclusion that involved communication, and were less comfortable with dimensions that involved leveraging differences. This likely reflects the fact that although the military is intent on enhancing inclusion, compared to civilian contexts, there are more conditions under which simply following commander guidance – rather than leveraging differences – is better aligned with success. The extent to which Soldiers’ struggle with the apparent contradictions influenced the validity of the resulting framework and dimensions is not fully known. However, multiple methods were used to address this challenge – including retaining items for consideration in Study 3 that capture the less familiar aspects of inclusion. We believe the resulting framework and indicators successfully captures the conceptual space, while also representing dimensions and indicators relevant to the Army, and the military more broadly.

More research is necessary to further validate this final group of indicators by evaluating their convergence with other inclusion measures in the literature and to demonstrate relevance to outcomes of interest to the military (e.g., unit performance). In addition, guidance is needed for military leaders to help them more effectively develop a climate for inclusion, especially in relation to those pieces of climate that may not be as prevalent within the traditional military environment. For example, it may be that leaders who are most successful at cultivating inclusive climates need to learn to clearly articulate the situational contingencies (Zohar & Luria, 2004) that dictate when open information exchange is desired and appropriate and when it is not; such behaviors may remove the perceived risks to Warfighters of voicing their perspectives under the wrong conditions, thus preserving the inclusiveness of the climate.

While we believe the measure developed in this research will generalize to other branches of the military, we also understand that additional refinements to the measure are likely as the items and dimensions continue to be tested in other contexts. Overall, however, this research provides a strong foundation from which to understand how a climate for inclusion manifests in the context of the military. Future empirical research examining the validity and utility of this measure within the Army context, and across the military branches, will further strengthen the impact of this research.

Funding Statement

The research described herein was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Department of the Army (Contract No. W911NF-17-C-0072). The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, DOD, or the U.S. Government.

Disclosure statement

This manuscript has not previously been under review at Military Psychology and is not currently under review elsewhere. Moreover, all work is original and my own and no previous publication has used these data.