Burnout, morale, and psychological safety among designated group members in Canada’s military

Abstract

Introduction:

There is evidence that designated group members (DGMs; women, Indigenous individuals, persons with disabilities [PwDs], and racialized people) experience unique challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), including experiencing microaggressions and feeling less included than non-DGMs, which can impact well-being. Therefore, this article focuses on the experiences and perceptions of CAF DGMs in terms of key workplace outcomes (morale, burnout) and perceptions of workplace psychological safety.

Methods:

Data from a broad organizational survey (the 2022 Defence Team Your Say Matters Survey) were analyzed on a sample of 4,483 CAF Regular Force members. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to identify key differences between the four designated groups and a fifth group (those who were not DGMs; i.e., everyone else) on workplace outcomes (morale and burnout), and perceptions of psychological safety.

Results:

Both PwDs and Indigenous individuals appeared to fare worse than all other groups. Specifically, PwDs scored lower on morale and psychological safety and higher on burnout than all groups, except for Indigenous individuals. Indigenous individuals scored lower on morale than women who were not part of another group and racialized people, and higher on burnout than racialized people, who experienced less burnout than everyone else.

Discussion:

These findings highlight the importance of examining the unique experiences of DGMs with respect to their workplace well-being. This research contributes to reconstitution efforts aimed at increasing recruitment and retention by shedding light on differences in key workplace well-being outcomes and perceived psychological safety among DGMs in the CAF.

Lay Summary

Research shows that designated group members (DGMs; women, Indigenous individuals, persons with disabilities (PwDs), and racialized people) in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) experience unique challenges related to their group identities within the workplace (e.g., discrimination, microaggressions, feeling less included compared to non-DGMs), which can negatively impact workplace well-being outcomes. This article focuses on the experiences and perceptions of CAF DGMs in terms of key workplace outcomes (morale and burnout) and their perceptions of feeling psychologically safe in the workplace. The authors analyzed data on a sample of 4,483 CAF Regular Force members from a broad organizational survey — the 2022 Defence Team Your Say Matters Survey. Overall, the authors found that PwDs and Indigenous individuals appeared to fare worse than other groups (i.e., women not part of another group, racialized people, and a fifth group consisting of everyone else) on well-being outcomes, and PwDs fared the worst on perceptions of psychological safety. These findings are important for reconstitution efforts aimed at increasing recruitment and retention of members within the CAF.

Introduction

Under-represented groups in the Canadian Armed Forces

The Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence (CAF; DND) recognize the importance of improving employment equity and diversity in the workforce as outlined in Canada’s Defence Policy — Strong, Secure, Engaged — which highlights the CAF’s vision of striving for gender equality and building a workforce that reflects the diversity of Canadian society.¹ The CAF is committed to the health and wellness of Defence Team members, including fostering healthy and inclusive work environments, as outlined in the Total Health and Wellness Strategy.² Further, the CAF acknowledges the existing deficits in its current composition and the need to further understand and address the issues under-represented groups experience, in an effort to increase their representation and retention and provide an inclusive and safe work environment for all existing and future CAF members.³ Aligned with the CAF’s goal of striving for equality and ensuring the well-being and safety of all members, this article examines under-represented groups’ psychological well-being, specifically focusing on the workplace outcomes of burnout and morale, and the workplace resource of psychological safety.

In comparison to the Canadian population, the CAF comprises a lower proportion of designated group members (DGMs)—historically disadvantaged groups comprising women, Indigenous and racialized people, and persons with disabilities (PwDs). Specifically, while the Canadian population consisted of 26.5% racialized groups in the 2021 Canadian census,⁴ only 11.2% of the Regular Force (Reg F) were racialized people in the CAF/DND in 2024.⁵ Similarly, Canada consisted of 5% Indigenous peoples in 2021,⁶ whereas 3% of the Reg F were Indigenous in 2024.⁵ The representation of women in the CAF (16.1% Reg F)⁵ is much lower compared to the proportion of women (50.9%) in the Canadian population.⁷ Finally, a very small proportion of PwDs (1.3% Reg F) are enrolled in the CAF compared to 22% in the general Canadian population in 2017⁸; this discrepancy is partially due to the universality of service requirements, which means that individuals with certain disabilities are ineligible to join the CAF.⁹ When DGMs join the CAF, they may face unique challenges that could negatively impact their well-being. For example, the Minister of National Defence Advisory Panel found that DGMs experience systemic racism and discrimination.¹⁰ The 2004 and 2013 Employment Systems Reviews also described DGMs’ unique challenges in the CAF. For instance, women felt obliged to choose between their careers and family, Indigenous and racialized people experienced tension between their careers and their communities, and there was a perception that the majority of CAF members opposed accommodating cultural and religious differences among their peers.¹¹ Compared to majority group members, DGMs in the Reg F were also less likely to feel included in the CAF, and feeling less included was linked to turnover intentions.¹² As such, better understanding DGMs’ workplace outcomes and factors that may impact their well-being may provide insight into ways of improving their experiences and ultimately benefitting the defence community at large, through the recruitment and retention of DGMs.¹³

Burnout, morale, and psychological safety in military samples

According to the Job Demands-Resource (JD-R) framework, work-related factors are classified as resources and demands that can impact well-being and performance outcomes.¹⁴ Job resources are those that can enhance positive outcomes and reduce negative outcomes, while demands are factors that can reduce positive outcomes and exacerbate negative outcomes. This article focuses on two workplace outcomes, burnout and morale, and one resource, team psychological safety, all of which are particularly relevant to a military context. Burnout refers to emotional, physical, and cognitive exhaustion and disengagement from work that results from ongoing stress or frustration¹⁵ and is especially relevant in a military context, given the often-demanding nature of work-related tasks. Previous research has found burnout in military samples to be associated with a range of negative psychological, behavioural, and workplace outcomes, including psychological distress and depression, low job satisfaction, low organizational commitment, and increased turnover intentions.¹⁶ Several factors contribute to burnout among military personnel, including work overload, low supervisor support, and exposure to traumatic experiences.^17,18 Concerningly, almost one-third of CAF Reg F members report high burnout rates.¹⁹ In the CAF, work overload, work-family conflict, and job stress^20,21 have predicted burnout, and burnout has predicted higher psychological distress and turnover intentions²¹ and lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment.²² Additionally, work fatigue (a construct that is similar to burnout) was found to be negatively linked to morale in non-deployed CAF members.²³

Morale is believed to be critical for organizational effectiveness and performance in the military.^24,25 Several researchers have operationalized military morale as a proxy for mental health and as an organizational climate factor that is a key ingredient to team functioning and mission success.²⁶ Britt and colleagues defined military morale as “motivation and enthusiasm to perform well within a specified context (such as a military operation).”^27(p35) Researchers have also focused on military morale in terms of psychological climate, with a focus on factors such as challenge, meaning, autonomy, and role stress.²⁶

In military samples, high morale has been linked to several positive individual factors including military pride, leadership satisfaction, and unit effectiveness and resilience, while low morale has been associated with work overload, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychological distress.²⁶ In the CAF specifically, high morale has been associated with myriad positive outcomes, including better performance, willingness to deploy, and lower turnover intentions, whereas low morale has been linked to psychological distress.²⁸

Employees’ experiences of morale and job burnout are likely to be impacted by how psychologically safe they feel in the workplace. A psychologically safe workplace describes a climate where people are comfortable expressing and being themselves, such as sharing their concerns and perspectives, offering opinions, and taking interpersonal risks without fear of retribution or embarrassment.²⁹ Indeed, psychological safety in non-military samples have been linked to reduced job burnout.^30–34

In military samples, team psychological safety or related concepts, such as team cohesion, have been linked to improved morale^35,36 and well-being³⁷and increased team learning behaviour³⁸ (i.e., “the development, modification and reinforcement of mental models through processes of group interaction”)^39(p286); these concepts have been found to buffer the impact of deployment stressors on depression, reduced morale, distress, PTSD, and alcohol and/or substance disorder.^40–44 In the CAF specifically, trust in teams has predicted higher morale,²⁸ and connection with peers and supervisors has attenuated the effects of job stressors on reduced unit morale.⁴⁵

Burnout, morale, and psychological safety in DGMs

There is a paucity of research examining burnout, morale, and perceived psychological safety in DGMs, specifically in a military context. Studies investigating gender differences in burnout in non-military samples have been inconclusive, with some finding higher levels in women,^46–48 others finding higher levels in men,^49,50 and yet others reporting no gender dissimilarities.⁵¹ A meta-analysis suggested that different types of burnout may vary by gender; women were more likely to report work-related emotional exhaustion, while men were more likely to report depersonalization-type burnout,⁵² which may explain some of the discrepancies observed in the literature on this topic. In military samples, some studies have found women have higher levels of exhaustion^53,54 and psychological distress,^55,56 while others have found men have higher levels of burnout.⁵⁷

Differences in burnout among racial/ethnic individuals compared to non-racial groups in North America have been inconclusive.⁵⁸ However, in Canada, 41% of Black individuals and 37% of South Asians reported experiencing burnout, compared to 17% of non-racialized individuals.⁵⁹ Younger generations of women of colour in government occupations have been found to be particularly vulnerable to burnout, and different dimensions of burnout have been found to vary across gender and racial identities.⁶⁰ Burnout may be higher in DGMs due to feelings of exclusion. Indeed, discrimination among racialized people has been linked to burnout and poorer well-being,^61,62 whereas organizational inclusion has been linked to lower burnout in a military sample.⁶³

While there are scarce studies directly examining morale and team psychological safety among DGMs in military samples, there is research to suggest that DGMs are at risk for lower levels of morale and psychological safety, due to perceived exclusion in the workplace. In non-military samples, women (compared to men), racialized groups (compared to white individuals), and PwDs (compared to those without a disability) tend to feel less included in the workplace.^64,65 Additionally, racialized individuals have reported more negative workplace experiences including microaggressions⁶⁶ and toxic leadership,⁶⁷ while Black military women have reported more uncivil treatment,⁶⁸ all of which can impact morale.

A large-scale study on American companies found that Black women and Latinas scored lower on facets of psychological safety (e.g., they felt less comfortable disagreeing with co-workers and were more worried that they’d be penalized for mistakes compared to white women).⁶⁹ One study in a non-military sample found that the relationship between psychological safety and work performance was stronger for minorities than for white participants.⁷⁰ Many Indigenous persons experience racism and discrimination in the workplace (18% and 13%, respectively)⁷¹ and a report by Catalyst found that 61% of Indigenous persons in Canada do not feel psychologically safe at work and 52% are on guard to protect against bias because of their race or gender.⁷²

PwDs face many workplace challenges that can impact workplace well-being, including discrimination, and harassment (20% and 17%, respectively on the Public Service Employee Survey [PSES]).^73–76 Fewer PwDs feel that every employee is accepted as an equal member (74%) and that their organization respects individual differences (65%), compared to persons without disabilities (83% and 78%, respectively).⁷³

Qualitative research suggests that there remain feelings of exclusion among DGMs in the CAF, such as interviews with members who describe that senior officer professional training prioritizes masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexual identities,⁷⁷ and that the prototypical image of military warrior is based on being male, and excludes women, Indigenous individuals, and racialized Canadians.⁷⁸ A qualitative study found that Indigenous CAF members and CAF Indigenous program students felt there was a lack of Indigenous cultural awareness in the CAF, which at times led to CAF members stereotyping Indigenous individuals.⁷⁹ Sexual misconduct and barriers to inclusion and diversity persist in the CAF,⁸⁰ and racialized people still experience forms of racism, harassment, and discrimination, including being singled out or experiencing cultural insensitivity.⁸¹ Research in the CAF has found that women (compared to men), Indigenous and racialized people, and PwDs (together categorized as DGMs in that study compared to non-DGMs) were more likely to report having experienced personal harassment, abuse of authority, and discrimination in the past 12 months.⁸²

Researchers argue that under-represented groups in the workplace will experience tokenism (i.e., exclusion by the majority group).^83,84 Little research has compared workplace well-being outcomes between DGMs. A recent study on the Your Say Matters Defence Team Well-Being Survey (YSM) found that DGMs with less representation in the CAF scored lower on inclusion measures (e.g., lower levels of relatedness with others, organizational inclusion, and more microaggressions) and retention-related measures than groups with more representation.¹²

Purpose and hypotheses

This article focuses on the experiences and perceptions of Reg F DGMs in terms of their workplace outcomes (burnout, morale) and perceptions of psychological safety among their team members. Based on the aforementioned findings in the previous literature,¹² it is predicted that DGMs with smaller numerical representation in the CAF will feel less included and thus have more negative workplace experiences in terms of burnout, morale, and team psychological safety compared to groups with larger numerical representation.

The authors’ hypotheses are summarized below:

1. Reg F members who are not DGMs (i.e., who do not have a disability, are not Indigenous, not racialized, and not women) will have lower burnout, higher morale, and higher team psychological safety than all DGMs.

2. In general, DGMs with larger numerical representation will have lower burnout, higher morale, and higher team psychological safety than groups with lower representation (i.e., women not part of another group will have lower burnout than racialized people who will have lower burnout than both PwDs and Indigenous individuals; women not part of another group will have higher morale and team psychological safety than racialized people, who will have higher morale and team psychological safety than both PwDs and Indigenous individuals.). Based on Peach and colleagues’ findings,¹² the authors did not expect significant differences between PwDs and Indigenous individuals.

Methods

Procedure

Secondary analyses of select scales from the YSM survey were conducted. The survey was administered electronically to a stratified random sample of CAF members (Reg F members and Primary Reservists) and DND public servants (PSs) between March and June 2022. Respondents could complete the survey in either English or French. This article focuses on the Reg F members, who had a response rate of 30.9%. Results were weighted by Defence Team organization, occupational authority, rank group, and self-identified DGM status, to ensure that the estimates were more representative of the population of interest.

Participants

A total of 4,483 Reg F members completed the survey. Based on unweighted responses, the majority of respondents were men (70%), 27.5% were women, and a small number identified as gender diverse (0.7%); 16.6% identified as racialized, 8.9% identified as having a disability, and 6.2% identified as Indigenous (see Table 1). When designated group membership was prioritized and weighted (described below), 3.9% were Indigenous, 6.8% were PwDs, 9.0% were racialized, 13.1% were women who did not belong to another group, and 67.1% were everyone else.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics

Characteristic	Percentage of Regular Force members
Gender; n = 4,469
Woman	27.5
Man	70.0
Gender diverse	0.7
Prefer not to disclose	1.9
Indigenous; n = 4,451
Yes	6.2
No	90.7
Prefer not to disclose	3.1
Racialized*; n = 4,420
Yes	16.6
No	79.9
Prefer not to disclose	3.4
Persons with a disability; n = 4,458
Yes	8.9
No	88.1
Prefer not to disclose	3.0

^*Member of an ethnicity other than white.

Materials

Burnout

Burnout was assessed with an eight-item version of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, which included both disengagement (assessed with four items; e.g., “It happens more and more often that I talk about my work in a negative way”) and exhaustion (assessed with four items; e.g., “During my work, I often feel emotionally drained”) subscales.^15,85 Reverse coded items were omitted. Respondents were instructed to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α coefficients (based on the full scale and overall Defence Team population and not specific for the Reg F members) were 0.91 (both English and French), indicating both versions of this scale had excellent internal consistency.

Morale

Morale was assessed with a single-item measure of individual morale (i.e., “How would you rate your current individual level of morale”). This item was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high).

Team psychological safety

Team psychological safety was measured with seven items of the Team Psychological Safety scale.⁸⁶ Respondents were instructed to rate the accuracy of each statement (e.g., “It is safe to take a risk on this team”) as it relates to their work environment and those they work with, on a 7-point scale (1 = very inaccurate, 7 = very accurate). Psychometric properties (based on the overall Defence Team population) were found to be excellent, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.87 (English) and 0.83 (French).

Prioritized designated group membership

Designated group membership was coded such that members who had two or more intersectional designated group membership identities were coded into the group with the smallest representation in this sample. The priority order was Indigenous individuals, PwDs, racialized people, women not part of another group, and everyone else. The everyone else category consisted of those who were not Indigenous, PwDs, racialized, or women. It included those who had missing data on the demographic questions that assessed gender and designated group membership and also consisted of the few members who identified as gender diverse, because this group was too small to analyze separately (a total of 30 survey respondents indicated they were gender diverse, with 17 of them being captured in another category [Indigenous, PwDs, or racialized] and the remaining 13 being captured in the everyone else category). Among those not captured elsewhere, 88.3% were men who were not racialized or Indigenous and did not have a disability, 0.6% were gender diverse individuals who were not racialized or Indigenous and who did not have a disability, and 11.2% preferred not to disclose any designated group identity and/or had missing data on all of the designated group identities. This method allowed for the examination of women not captured elsewhere (who are likely mainly white women without disabilities) separately from the everyone else category (who are likely mainly white men without disabilities and gender diverse individuals).

Although white men without disabilities are often used as the reference group for comparison, this method of analysis has been criticized by some researchers⁸⁷ for establishing their experience as the default. Therefore, the current study did not treat white men without disabilities as the only comparison group but instead looked at overlapping confidence intervals between all groups. The authors’ analyses are thus centred on under-represented groups (i.e., DGMs) that are typically not described in CAF research.

Data analysis

Weighted group comparisons

Weighted responses were analyzed using the Complex Samples module in SPSS version 26 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Comparisons were conducted between the prioritized DGMs using ANOVAs to test for group differences. These comparisons were conducted on workplace well-being outcomes (morale, burnout) and team psychological safety. If the overall F test was significant, non-overlapping confidence intervals were then examined to determine significant differences between groups.

Using the same cut-offs as Peach and colleagues¹² and Statistics Canada,⁸⁸ the coefficient of variation (CV) was used to assess whether weighted results could be generalized to Reg F members. Specifically, CVs equal to or less than 0.166 indicate acceptable sampling variance and thus, estimates were deemed reliable; estimates with CVs between 0.166 and 0.333 were interpreted with caution; and estimates with CVs greater than 0.333 were not reported because they had unacceptably high sampling variance and were deemed unreliable. R² is reported as a measure of effect size to show the percent of variance explained in the dependent variable by the independent variable, using Gignac and Szodorai’s recommendations.⁸⁹

Results

Group differences in burnout, morale, and team psychological safety

Results by DGMs on all the variables are reported in Table 2. All results were deemed reliable based on the CVs. Group differences were found on burnout (Wald F_{1, 4167} = 14.46, p < .001, R² = 0.027). Non-overlapping confidence intervals revealed that PwDs reported higher burnout than racialized people, women not part of another group, and everyone else, while Indigenous individuals reported higher burnout than racialized people who reported less burnout than everyone else (see Figure 1).

Table 2.

Designated priority group differences in the Regular Force

	Mean (95% CI)					F	p	R 2
	IndigenousA	Persons with a disabilityB	RacializedC	Women not part of another groupD	Everyone elseE
Burnout	2.68C (2.53–2.82)	2.90CDE (2.79–3.01)	2.36ABE (2.27–2.46)	2.52B (2.46–2.57)	2.53BC (2.48–2.57)	14.46	< ٠.001	0.027
Morale	2.48CD (2.20–2.76)	2.28CDE (2.09–2.48)	2.99AB (2.83–3.15)	2.91AB (2.83–2.98)	2.78B (2.71–2.86)	11.42	< ٠.001	0.023
Team psychological safety	4.98 (4.72–5.23)	4.62CDE (4.38–4.85)	5.00B (4.86–5.14)	5.07B (4.99–5.15)	5.14B (5.06–5.22)	4.85	0.001	0.012

Note: Statistically significant differences among pairs of groups, based on non-overlapping 95% CIs, are denoted by superscript letters. Superscripts next to an estimate indicate that the groups have non-overlapping 95% CIs.

Figure 1.

Designated priority group differences in burnout

Group differences were found on morale (Wald F_{1, 4167} = 11.42, p < 0.001, R² = 0.023). Non-overlapping confidence intervals showed that PwDs scored lower on morale than racialized people, women not part of another group, and everyone else. Indigenous individuals reported lower morale than women not part of another group and racialized people (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Designated priority group differences in morale

Only PwDs showed differences on team psychological safety compared to other groups (Wald F_{1, 4167} = 4.85, p = 0.001, R² = 0.012). Specifically, non-overlapping confidence intervals revealed that PwDs scored lower on team psychological safety than women not part of another group, racialized people, and everyone else (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Designated priority group differences in team psychological safety

The general pattern of results remained the same for burnout, morale, and team psychological safety when gender diverse members and those with missing DGM data were excluded from analyses.

Discussion

The present study delved deeper into workplace well-being and safety through more nuanced comparisons of Canada’s Reg F DGMs (Indigenous individuals, PwDs, racialized people, and women not part of another group). To avoid focusing on white men without disabilities as the sole reference group, overlapping confidence intervals were examined between all groups. PwDs and Indigenous individuals appeared to fare worse than all other groups in terms of workplace outcomes (e.g., burnout and morale). PwDs scored lower on morale and higher on burnout than all groups, except for Indigenous individuals. Indigenous individuals reported lower morale than women not part of another group and racialized people and higher burnout than racialized people. PwDs also fared worse than all other groups, except Indigenous individuals, on perceptions of team psychological safety. Thus, the results presented in this paper contribute to the CAF’s understanding of DGMs’ experiences of workplace well-being and safety.

The findings partially support hypothesis one. Specifically, the majority group (predominantly white men) reported lower burnout and higher levels of morale and team psychological safety than PwDs. Contrary to expectations, the majority group did not fare better than women not part of another group and unexpectedly had higher burnout than racialized people. Although unexpected, this finding is consistent with a recent review showing inconclusive findings in the literature regarding differences in burnout among racial groups.⁵⁸ Gender differences in burnout may be attributed to many factors such as roles (e.g., managers versus employees), occupations, and how burnout is measured.⁵² The present study analyzed burnout as a global measure rather than by sub-scales (e.g., disengagement and exhaustion separately), whereas previous studies have found gender and racial differences on different facets of burnout.^52,60 For example, Barboza-Wilkes and colleagues found no differences between gender on emotional exhaustion, while women were found to have higher levels of depersonalization than their male counterparts.⁶⁰ A recent study on job burnout in a range of occupations and industries in the United States suggests that the gender gap in burnout may be attributed to women’s perspectives of their role in society (e.g., job burnout was only higher among women who self-identified as more traditional).⁹⁰

The present findings are seemingly at odds with previous studies showing that DGMs (including women and racialized people) in the CAF, when compared to non-DGMs, were more likely to report having experienced personal harassment, abuse of authority, and discrimination in the past 12 months⁸² and to have experienced more microaggressions and feel less included than the majority group.¹² However, in a United States military sample, no differences were observed in psychosocial, organizational, and health outcomes between token women, Black soldiers, and non-tokens.⁹¹ Further, racialized employees were slightly less likely to feel emotionally drained than other employees in the 2017 Canadian PSES.⁹² Additionally, a study on health care workers found no gender differences in team psychological safety.⁹³ The present findings contribute to this literature, showing a surprising lack of differences in well-being outcomes and psychological safety between women not part of another group and racialized people compared to white men. These findings may represent the outcome of different coping mechanisms or social supports among women or racialized people to reduce burnout and boost morale.^94,95

The authors’ findings partially support hypothesis two. As predicted, DGMs with the smallest representation (PwDs and Indigenous individuals) showed lower levels of morale than other groups. These findings partially support the notion of tokenism — that groups with smaller numerical representation will experience greater exclusion,⁸³ and this arguably impacts workplace well-being. The authors’ findings are in line with Peach and colleagues, who found that groups with the lowest representation (i.e., PwDs and Indigenous individuals) had the most negative scores on relatedness with co-workers, organizational inclusion, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions.¹² Indigenous individuals may be especially vulnerable to feelings of exclusion in the military given that they are more likely to experience organizational and systemic discrimination in Canada as a whole than non-Indigenous non-visible minorities,^96,97 and the CAF has been part of this troubled history of systemic racism.⁹⁸

Contrary to the authors’ hypotheses, only PwDs reported lower team psychological safety compared to other groups, except for Indigenous individuals. PwDs may be particularly vulnerable to adverse work experiences in a military context that is oftentimes characterized by hegemonic masculinity with an emphasis on physical strength and a warrior image.⁹⁹ Previous research shows that PwDs are more likely to experience burnout and exclusion in the workplace than those without a disability^64,100 and that lack of social acceptance by coworkers is often a reason PwDs leave organizations.^64,101 No differences were observed between women not part of another group and racialized people. Women and racialized people have larger numerical representation in the CAF than PwDs and Indigenous individuals, and thus differences on workplace safety and well-being may not be as prominent among these groups.

Examining DGM differences on constructs related to psychological well-being, including burnout and morale and resilience through psychological safety, is especially important in a Canadian military context. Canada is a very diverse country, with high representation of PwDs, racialized groups, and Indigenous individuals.^4,7,8 While these groups have lower representation in the CAF,⁵ the Canadian military’s current reconstitution efforts includes a large recruitment campaign and would thus benefit from being an attractive employer to these historically under-represented groups. Ensuring DGMs feel psychologically safe, have high morale, and low burnout, should also increase their retention. A diverse organization will enhance military operational effectiveness by ensuring all CAF members can use their strengths and talents. A better understanding of the challenges that existing CAF DGMs face in the current military climate would allow the CAF to provide a safer and more welcoming environment for these groups to ensure they are supported and respected. Given the military’s ethos emphasizing cohesion and team dynamics, finding ways to ensure that DGMs can also feel included and part of the team is integral to ensuring the continued operational effectiveness of the CAF.

Limitations and future directions

This study has some limitations. First, response rates for this survey were relatively low (i.e., less than 50%). Second, respondents with multiple group identities were coded into one category, which artificially categorizes a respondent’s identity in a way that does not reflect their own identity. The first category included everyone not captured elsewhere, including those who chose not to self-identify, which also adds some bias to the comparisons. However, when these individuals were removed from analyses, the significance and pattern of results remained the same. Third, the authors did not measure different facets of burnout, and the measure of morale was based on one item; however, these methods replicate some previous work examining these well-being constructs, so are not completely unique in their use. Finally, it should be noted that individuals were placed into broad, homogenous categories (i.e., Indigenous individuals, PwDs, racialized groups), whereas in reality there are many sub-categories within these groups (e.g., many racial groups, different types of disabilities). Future research would benefit from studying other under-represented groups (e.g., LGBTQIA2S+ individuals) as well as intersectional identities (individuals with multiple group identities) and continuing to examine the experiences of DGMs in relation to other topics germane to a military context.

Nonetheless, this study found that under-represented groups, notably PwDs and Indigenous individuals, experience higher burnout and lower morale, and PwDs experience lower team psychological safety in the CAF.

Conclusion

Ensuring all members feel comfortable being themselves and sharing their perspectives and experiences should increase their psychological safety,²⁹ which in turn should improve morale^35,36 and reduce burnout.^30–34 The findings fill a gap in the literature by examining the experiences of DGMs with respect to their workplace well-being, and highlight the importance of continuing to examine differences in workplace outcomes among military DGMs. This research contributes to ongoing reconstitution efforts aimed at increasing recruitment and retention in the CAF¹³ and sheds light on ways of fostering a safe and inclusive workplace for all Defence Team personnel.

Biographies

Keith Pearce, PhD, is a Defence Scientist at Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis at the Department of National Defence, Canada. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Ottawa in experimental psychology. His main areas of expertise include workplace well-being and organizational culture among Defence Team personnel, the military-to-civilian transition, and topics related to health and lifestyle behaviours among Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

Megan E. Therrien, MA, works for the Department of National Defence as a defence scientist at Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis at the Department of National Defence, Canada. She obtained her Master of Arts degree in Experimental Psychology at the University of Ottawa in 2009 and currently heads the Psychosocial Health Dynamics team, where she has developed expertise in health-related defence topics, focusing on substance use by Canadian Armed Forces members.

Jennifer M. Peach, PhD, is a Defence Scientist at Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis at the Department of National Defence, Canada. She completed her PhD in social psychology at the University of Waterloo.She was the main researcher for the Your Say Survey from 2012–2013 and 2014–2017. Her research interests include attitudes and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Within the domain of diversity, equity, and inclusion, she has conducted research on bias and harassment/discrimination.

Kayla Boileau, PhD, is a Dene-Cree woman. She completed her degree in Experimental Psychology at the University of Ottawa. Her areas of expertise include Indigenous data governance, statistics, and behavioural neuroscience. She is also passionate about quantitative and qualitative research methods, especially relating to Indigenization and decolonization. Her interests include health research that is grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems and the Indigenization and decolonization of higher educational institutions. She also strongly advocates for strengths-based approaches to wellness.

Funding Statement

No funding was received for this article.