Military Leadership Diversity Commission

Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

February 2011

MLDC decision papers present the Commission-approved, subcommittee-specific recommendations. 

These recommendations are the product not only of the logic and evidence presented in the decision 

papers but also the values and judgments of the Commissioners. Legally imposed time constraints 

naturally limited the Commission’s ability to undertake extensive research. Thus, the decision papers 

present the evidence that was available and that could be collected during the discovery phase of the 

Commission. The decision papers were reviewed by subject-matter experts external to the Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

CONTENTS

Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

Strategy to Examine Diversity Leadership Practices ........................................................................... 1

Guiding Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 2

Key Topic Areas .................................................................................................................................. 2

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Diversity Leadership and Diversity 

Leadership Training ...................................................................................................................... 3

Organization of This Paper ................................................................................................................. 3

Definitions of Relevant Terms...........................................................................................4

Diversity .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Diversity Management ........................................................................................................................ 4

Diversity Leadership............................................................................................................................ 5

The Relationship Between Effective Diversity Leadership and Mission Capability...............6

Leadership Practices and Capability .................................................................................................... 6

Effective Diversity Leadership Practices.............................................................................................. 7

Summary............................................................................................................................................ 11

Absence of Diversity Leadership Training in the Services..................................................12

The Services Do Diversity Training, not Diversity Leadership Training.......................................... 12

Diversity Leadership as a Leadership Competency ........................................................................... 13

The Potential for Training in Diversity Leadership .......................................................................... 15

The Potential of Current Cross-Cultural Training ........................................................................... 15

Summary............................................................................................................................................ 16

Recommendation and Conclusion ...................................................................................18

Recommendation............................................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 19

References ......................................................................................................................21
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

1

INTRODUCTION

As a concept, “diversity management” is an umbrella with many ribs. Based on its understanding that 

diversity management encompasses plans, policies, and practices, the Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission (MLDC) assigned its charter task on diversity management to two subcommittees: One 

subcommittee, Implementation and Accountability, addressed diversity management plans and 

policies; the other subcommittee, Diversity Leadership and Diversity Leadership Training, addressed 

diversity management practices. 

This decision paper documents the work of the latter subcommittee and puts forth the 

Commission’s recommendations regarding effective leadership practices for diverse work groups, 

including the need for education and training to develop appropriate leadership competencies. It also 

describes the logic and research on which the recommendations are based. It does not replicate work 

that is contained in other MLDC decision papers but refers the reader to them where appropriate.

Because the military calls people management practices “leadership” (i.e., the military “manages” 

resources but “leads” people), the Diversity Leadership Subcommittee interpreted its task as 

addressing effective and accountable leadership of diverse groups and developing leaders at all levels 

to provide such leadership. Thus, this decision paper has a specific concern that is not addressed 

elsewhere: how leaders at all levels actually lead diverse groups effectively. In other words, it is 

concerned with leadership practices from the bottom up as they are applied to diverse work groups. 

This decision paper does not address the role that top leadership plays in influencing the success 

or failure of diversity-related policies and programs. This is a common understanding of the term 

diversity leadership, but it is addressed in the Implementation and Accountability decision paper. Nor 

does this decision paper make the case for the positive relationship between diversity and capability 

in the military, as that has been done elsewhere.1

Strategy to Examine Diversity Leadership Practices

The diversity management charter task shared by the two subcommittees directed the Commission 

to assess “the ability of the current organizational structure to ensure effective and accountable 

diversity management across the DoD [Department of Defense], including the Office of Diversity 

Management and Equal Opportunity and other similar offices within the Military Departments.”

To meet this charter directive, the Diversity Leadership Subcommittee investigated how leaders 

“lead”—i.e., manage—diverse forces under their command effectively. Building on prior research on 

this topic (see, for example, Tsui & Gutek, 1999), the subcommittee requested presentations to the 

Commission by Service representatives, corporate practitioners, and academic researchers; 

interviewed Service representatives; conducted informational meetings with members of the four 

DoD Services; and surveyed servicemembers through the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 

Institute (DEOMI). The knowledge gained from these activities, including several issue papers, is 

referred to throughout this paper. Two basic assumptions guided the subcommittee in analyzing this 

research, which covered three key topic areas.

 1

 Williams and O’Reilly (1998) offer a broad review of the empirical literature; for a military perspective, see Lim et 

al., 2008; Issue Paper #14; and Decision Paper #5.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

2

Guiding Assumptions

The two broad assumptions that guided the subcommittee respond to a fundamental question about 

diversity management: Is it an extension of equal opportunity, or is it something different? The 

Commission took the latter direction: Diversity management is different from the military’s 

longstanding efforts to prevent unlawful discrimination and to provide equal opportunity. That is, 

the Commission adopted “the business case for diversity,” described in Issue Paper #14. The business 

case essentially says that workers from underrepresented groups bring different ideas and approaches 

to designing processes, framing tasks, communicating ideas, and so on, thus providing fresh and 

meaningful approaches to work from which the organization can learn and grow (Cox, 1993; Ely & 

Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Ely, 1996).

The first broad assumption is thus that the goal of military diversity management is improved 

capability—i.e., helping the organization to learn and grow from the differences that exist within it. 

This assumption derives from the overarching DoD policy statement about diversity and diversity 

management issued on February 2, 2009 (Issue Paper #50). The directive ties the definitions of 

diversity and diversity management and the diversity management program goals to improved 

readiness and capability, not to fairness and the prevention of illegal discrimination. Although the 

Commission found that the directive did not fully resolve the conflict between these two sets of 

goals, it concluded that it was a good first step in establishing diversity management as an effort that 

is separate from equal opportunity (EO).

The second broad assumption is that diversity leadership training is quite different from the 

diversity training that DoD and the Services have been doing for many years. The Commission did 

not address the topic of diversity training per se, nor did the charter ask it to do so. Diversity training 

is commonly built to combat bias and focuses on establishing a culture that values all individuals. 

Thus, diversity training per se is a necessary but not a sufficient step to making diversity improve 

organizational capability. Indeed, in terms of the specific focus of the Commission, academic 

research presented to the Commission at its meeting on June 17, 2010, found that diversity training 

has been generally ineffective in increasing demographic diversity among top leaders, a major concern 

of the Commission, and is often counterproductive. 

Thus, the Commission focused on the role of leadership competencies in leading diverse groups 

effectively—i.e., in terms of mission capability.

Key Topic Areas

Because the question of what practices produce effective leadership of diverse groups is a new 

question for the military, the subcommittee needed to understand the question before it could seek 

answers and develop recommendations. Hence, it organized its investigation around the following 

topics: 

• definitions of relevant terms

• the relationship between effective diversity leadership and mission capability

• how the Services are conducting diversity leadership training, as understood by the 

Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

3

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Diversity Leadership and 

Diversity Leadership Training2

The Commission makes one broad and two specific recommendations regarding diversity leadership 

and diversity leadership training: 

Recommendation 1—

To enhance readiness and mission accomplishment, leading diverse groups effectively 

must become a core competency across DoD and the Services. To implement this 

recommendation:

• a. Leadership training at all levels shall include education in diversity dynamics 

and training in practices for leading diverse groups effectively.

• b. DoD and the Services should determine the framework for how (e.g., 

curriculum, content, methods) to inculcate such education and training into 

leader development, including how to measure and evaluate its effectiveness.

Organization of This Paper

The remaining sections of this decision paper are organized according to the key topic areas listed 

above. Each of these issues is explored here at length, supported by information from the MLDC 

issue papers elicited by the larger project, as well as other research. The paper closes with a discussion 

of the recommendations based on these findings. 

 2

 The recommendations discussed in this decision paper are the Commission-approved, topic-specific 

recommendations that resulted from the Commission’s understanding and interpretation of the findings from this 

subcommittee. Following the approval of all of the subcommittee-specific recommendations, the Commission 

developed its final recommendations by combining recommendations across subcommittees to reduce overlap and 

repetition. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this paper do not map directly to the recommendations 

presented in the Commission’s forthcoming final report.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

4

DEFINITIONS OF RELEVANT TERMS

The lack of widely accepted definitions for common diversity-related terms creates confusion, masks 

disagreement, and limits mutual understanding. Because the Diversity Leadership Subcommittee was 

essentially mapping new territory in recommending that leaders at all levels become competent in 

practices that maximize the performance-related aspects of diversity, it was particularly important to 

do so with clarity. Thus, based on empirical and other academic and military-focused research, the 

subcommittee explicitly defined the terms it used to set the boundaries for its work.

Diversity

The Commission developed the following definition of diversity to use for its work and to 

recommend to DoD: “Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individuals that are 

consistent with Department of Defense core values, integral to mission readiness and 

accomplishment, and reflect the country we serve.”

The importance of this definition for this decision paper is that it defines diversity as the broad 

set of differences that individuals bring to the military, not just a subset of demographic differences. 

It thus reflects the empirical evidence that multiple aspects of difference between people are relevant 

for organizational performance and capability.3

Diversity Management

The Commission understands diversity management to be about how organizations drive or affect the 

impact of diversity on key organizational outcomes. Diversity management has three components:

• Plans. Organization-level strategic plans identify goals and strategies that tie diversity 

management to the overall mission.

• Policies. Organization-level policies define the parameters for action and behavior.

• Practices. Individual organization members, especially leaders, leverage diversity in service 

of the mission.

Diversity management is thus about managing how human differences affect organizational 

capability, whether differences refer to demographics, cognitive types and skills, place in the 

organizational structure, or identity within the broader global community. Thus, the characteristics 

and purpose of diversity management are very different from those of EO. 

The Commission understands EO to be compliance with laws that protect members of certain 

classes from discrimination (e.g., men and women as different members of the gender class, and 

whites, blacks, and Hispanics as different members of the race and ethnicity class). This includes 

ensuring that decisions related to hiring, promotion, and separation are made on the basis of 

qualifications and performance, not membership in a protected class.

In contrast, diversity management addresses a full range of demographic differences, not just the 

subset protected by law, as well as other nondemographic differences that are also not subject to legal 

protection. The Commission heard ample evidence that in private sector organizations, and the 

Services themselves, diversity goals are improved organizational outcomes. Even when the focus is on 

 3

 The Commission’s recommended definition of diversity is discussed in detail in Decision Paper #4.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

5

demographically underrepresented groups, diversity goals are organizational, such as reducing 

turnover or accessing particular markets more effectively. For instance, the Services speak specifically 

about the role of racial and ethnic diversity in winning the war for talent.

Diversity Leadership

Diversity leadership is a subset of diversity management as defined above, specifically the practices 

subset. Diversity leadership addresses how leaders at all ranks and organizational levels shape the 

impact of diversity dynamics (i.e., the group dynamics that arise specifically as a result of group 

diversity4) in the forces under their command.

In this decision paper, diversity leadership refers to specific leadership practices at the group level, 

whether the groups are small or large—wherever people interact to achieve an outcome. Thus, it 

refers to how leaders influence the ways in which people and groups under their command relate to 

one another. 

Diversity leadership requires the leader to understand diversity dynamics: how human differences 

affect interactions between people. Some people use the term diversity lens to drive home the insight 

that leading diverse work groups does not require a different leadership style but rather a different 

orchestration of tried and true leadership tools based on a sophisticated understanding of the nature 

of diversity in the unit and its impact on the way people work together. (See Kraus & Riche, 2009,

for case studies of this understanding in several Air Force squadrons.)

Diversity leadership thus focuses on the functioning of the unit rather than its individual 

members. To use a sports metaphor, diversity leadership does not address the coach’s inspirational 

role as motivator or cheerleader. Rather, it addresses the coach’s practices in assessing the skills of the 

team members and maximizing the ways in which they work together to defeat their opponents. As 

one Air Force case study participant put it, diversity leadership practices sum up to “the things you do 

in your diverse organizations that amplify the synergistic effect of having that diversity” (Kraus & 

Riche, 2009).

 4

 Group dynamics are commonly understood as the processes by which group members interact and influence each 

other’s behavior and, therefore, the group’s performance. These processes include norms, roles, relations, 

development, need to belong, and social influence, and they affect how members communicate, cooperate, and 

develop the trust needed to achieve the group’s purpose.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

6

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE DIVERSITY 

LEADERSHIP AND MISSION CAPABILITY

In developing the Commission’s definition of diversity, the Commissioners asked whether there is a 

business case for diversity and answered it affirmatively: Diversity can increase mission capability. 

However, research shows that achieving this link depends on diversity-conscious leadership.5 Hence, 

the subcommittee investigated what diversity-conscious leadership is and how it is acquired.

Note that although the Commission makes a distinction between diversity management policies 

and EO policies, its focus on leadership practices supports EO within the workplace. This is because 

a key aspect of successful leadership when diversity is present is making sure that people feel they are 

being treated fairly and equitably. Part of that process is making sure that work group members feel 

that evaluation, assignment, and promotion processes are fair and that the value of diversity is 

demonstrated through inclusive leadership practices, as well as organizational policies. Informational 

meetings conducted for this Commission communicated clearly that servicemember trust in fairness 

is a prerequisite for turning diversity into mission capability (Issue Paper #18).

Leadership Practices and Capability

Research has shown that if it is not managed effectively, diversity—whether defined in traditional 

demographic terms or more broadly in terms of work-related “difference”—can actually reduce 

capability, most frequently through the decreased communication and/or increased conflict that 

result when some people are (or feel) excluded (Thompson & Gooler, 1996; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). 

Thus, leadership practices that are conscious of the ways in which diversity can harm capability, and 

that can be “turned” to enhance it, are the link between diversity management policies and the 

realization of their performance-related goals.6

People “hear” such assertions about leadership in relation to diversity in different ways. Some 

hear them as saying that diversity leadership is used only when needed rather than being an integral 

part of leadership. Others hear them as implying that leading a diverse organization is no different 

from leading a homogeneous organization. Both perceptions miss the basic lesson of diversity 

research: Diversity dynamics require specific leadership practices to make sure that they lead to 

improved (not worsened) work group performance and organizational outcomes (Issue Paper #14).7

The subcommittee found that effective diversity leadership starts with looking through the 

“diversity lens” to identify and understand the diversity dynamics that are relevant in the leader’s 

command and extends to consciously employing practices to lead through those dynamics (Issue 

Paper #29). Doing this requires the leader to

 5

 See, for example, Issue Paper #14; Tsui & Gutek, 1999; and Thompson & Gooler, 1996. 6

 The Diversity Research Network, a joint business and university endeavor formed to remedy the research deficit 

regarding the impact of diversity on organizations, conducted field studies in four Fortune 500 companies (Kochan 

et al., 2003). Overall, the research found few direct effects of diversity per se on performance. However, when 

evaluating the indirect, or mediating, effects of diversity management practices, they found that such practices 

consistently made a difference. 7

 Thompson and Gooler (1996, p. 427) conclude that “effective diverse teams don’t just happen. Rather, they must 

be designed, implemented, and managed in order to maximize the potential advantages and minimize the potential 

disadvantages.”
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

7

• recognize the “differences” that exist within the command

• understand the dynamics that can cause those differences to have negative impacts, such 

as loss of cohesion, communications difficulties, or conflict, as well as create opportunities 

for having a positive effect on organizational performance 

• apply leadership practices that can neutralize the negative impacts and, if possible, 

leverage those differences in support of the mission.

Effective Diversity Leadership Practices

Research has identified effective practices for leading diverse work groups (Issue Paper #29; Kraus & 

Riche, 2009; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Diversity leadership involves applying practices that the 

management literature has long identified as successful people management techniques but that take 

on new significance for leaders of diverse work groups. This is because leaders are responsible for the 

on-the-ground functioning and development of the following elements that determine how diversity 

affects work group outcomes:

• communication

• cooperation

• cohesion

• trust.

These elements are in play because the fundamental mechanism through which diversity affects 

capability is social identity and social categorization (see, for example, Jackson et al., 2003; Tsui & 

Gutek, 1999; and Tsui et al., 1992). People attach meaning to their memberships in identity groups, 

such as demographic or occupational groups, and these identity groups then shape behaviors and 

perceptions in different settings (see Mor Barak et al., 1998). For example, in Air Force research, 

Kraus and Riche (2009) found numerous instances of intragroup conflict that were rooted in 

differences in component-specific rules governing annual leave,8 the length of the workday, and other 

work practices. These basic policy differences then affected how members of each component viewed 

members of the others, contributing to existing stereotypes about differences in commitment to the 

military mission.

Absent effective leadership, such as the leader focusing the group on the overarching mission, 

this fundamental and powerful human process can create in-groups and out-groups within a given 

work unit or organization. This can occur even when the characteristics associated with “otherness” 

are trivial with respect to the tasks being performed (as when stereotypes feature unfounded 

assumptions about competence). In other words, it is not negative categorization per se that leads to 

negative outcomes but categorization that translates into intergroup bias. This is the process that the 

leader must manage.

Figure 1 is a conceptual map of research-based findings about diversity dynamics developed by 

Air Force diversity researchers (see Kraus & Riche, 2009, for an explanation of terminology and 

other information). Overall, the mapping shows how diversity dynamics create and shape an indirect 

relationship between force diversity and mission capability. Within this framework, it also shows that 

management (leadership) practices moderate diversity outcomes and provides a platform for thinking 

about such leadership practices as role modeling, communicating, and climate creation in relation to 

diversity. 

 8

 Here, component-specific differences include differences between the Active Component and the Reserve 

Component, as well as differences between military members and civilians.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

8

Figure 1. The Diversity Model

SOURCE: Kraus & Riche, 2009.

The following practice categories and related examples (taken from case studies of diversity 

leadership in the Air Force) demonstrate the practical nature of diversity leadership and suggest 

potential ways to teach it (Kraus & Riche, 2009). Once leaders learn to apply a diversity lens (i.e., to 

consciously attend to how diversity affects the mission), they can decide for themselves what will 

work for them based on the context and their leadership styles.

Practice Category: Instill a Mission-Related Sense of Identity

The military’s collective, mission-based culture lends itself to creating the conditions in which leaders 

can create work-relevant social categories that supersede nonrelevant social categories. Since the 

Services already focus on their mission, enhancing this focus can remove or at least lessen sources of 

conflict, process loss, or other drags on productivity that result from divisive social categorization.

Deployment seems to do this almost automatically, as situations calling for cooperative 

interdependence motivate group members to see beyond simple stereotypes (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) 

that lead to bias. But elsewhere it takes leadership to elevate a mission focus to bridge differences 

between people. As one Air Force squadron leader explained the process of focusing people on the 

mission instead of their differences, “It’s not comparing apples to oranges, but apples to the fruit 

basket” (Kraus & Riche, 2009).

Example of Practices

The leader can encourage and facilitate understanding between structurally different groups (e.g., 

active versus civilian or Reserve/Guard) by helping people learn how each unit or function 

contributes to the mission. One creative research subject overcame destructive interunit rivalries by 

creating teams that included people from each group in the squadron to accomplish high-profile 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

9

missions (Kraus & Riche, 2009). This leader also initiated unit-wide work-related activities in which 

different groups contributed different skills, to the (visible) benefit of the squadron as a whole.9

With these practices, this leader of a structurally and functionally diverse command instilled a 

learning orientation, as well as a performance orientation. Research finds that fostering such 

collaborative interdependence helps employees develop relational competencies within the context of 

diversity and become more likely to learn from the challenges they experience rather than retreat 

from them (Dragoni, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 2010; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).

Practice Category: Facilitate Effective Communication

Strong, effective communication practices are essential for leaders of diverse work groups (Tsui & 

Gutek, 1999, provides an extensive review; also see Issue Paper #14). Frequently, diversity means that 

people may “hear” the same thing differently, so leaders may need to communicate in different ways 

to produce a shared understanding. This involves listening, as well as talking, to acquire the diversity 

lens that will let leaders know what and how they need to communicate across diversity categories. In

essence, by not listening, a leader shuts off any learning about the effects of diversity, as well as 

signaling that he or she is not really acknowledging differences.

Example of Practices

Leaders can factor diversity dynamics into communications. Kraus and Riche (2009) found numerous 

instances of work group–wide communications that ignored some work group members or spoke to 

them inappropriately. The leaders who communicated effectively had prioritized getting to know 

(i.e., listening to) all types of people under their command, not just those who were similar to them, 

whether in terms of demographics, occupational specialty, or organizational component.

Practice Category: Motivate in Accordance with Needs/Goals 

Attending to employee motivation is a common theme in management literature, but a diverse 

workforce calls for leaders to use a diversity lens. Without such a lens, leaders can operate on 

inappropriate assumptions, sometimes relying on stereotypes, sometimes failing to acknowledge real 

differences, and sometimes assuming that the “others” will assimilate to the majority. For instance, 

Kraus and Riche (2009) found that Air Force squadron leaders who managed functional or structural 

diversity well were able to do so because they were credible—they had made an effort to learn about 

squadron functions that they had not performed themselves. Other squadron leaders tended to lack 

that credibility because they had not become sufficiently familiar with the diverse functions or 

components.

 9

 The full case study (pp. 145–154) describes the practices that this self-trained leader used to create all five 

facilitating conditions that Tsui and Gutek (1999, pp. 167–168) identify as “ensuring that inter-group contact will 

bring positive results”:

• equal status among members of different groups

• evidence that out-group members do not conform to stereotypes (but not so much that they are seen as 

exceptions to the rule)

• need for cooperation in achieving the work goal 

• interaction intimate enough that individuals’ knowledge of one another goes beyond stereotyping 

• an organizational context (policies and practices) that favors or promotes a group equality norm.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

10

Example of Practices

Leaders can use frequent meetings, including one-on-one meetings, to “know” all their people. Kraus 

and Riche (2009) found that ineffective research subjects did not meet with members from 

“different” functions or components before making decisions and had little or no understanding 

about how the decisions would motivate the “different” members.

Practice Category: Provide the Tools to Do the Job

Obviously, leaders need to see that work group members have the time, materials, and skills to 

accomplish their tasks. But in a diversity context, this need extends to providing the practice and 

policy support, such as appropriate mentoring and “having their backs,” that enables subordinates to 

deal with diversity dynamics as they affect their day-to-day work. 

Doing this successfully requires the leader to have used the diversity lens (i.e., to be aware of 

diversity dynamics and their likely sources). For example, leaders can help subordinates manage 

conflict, including reframing it as a way to reap performance benefits from diversity. Research finds 

that when people feel supported by their leaders, they can take the initiative to work through 

differences and otherwise take the risks necessary to engage in the work that develops deeper-level 

learning from diversity (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). 

Example of Practices

When diversity involves leading groups from different organizations and/or occupational specialties, 

successful leaders are more likely to empower subordinates and avoid micromanagement. Kraus and 

Riche (2009) found that ineffective research subjects were unaware of how policy changes affected 

different units within their command and inadvertently created animosity and process loss if they did 

not facilitate arriving at appropriately different solutions.

Recall that part of the business case for diversity is the potential to enhance capability by learning 

from a wider array of perspectives. Empowerment is one tool for using the accumulated experience at 

hand—down to the lowest levels, if possible. Observing the chain of command and keeping a mission 

focus seem to be basic requirements for successful empowerment in a diversity situation, since 

boundaries can be unclear. 

Practice Category: Establish Personal and Professional Credibility

A leader’s personal and professional credibility is particularly relevant in a diversity context because of 

the important role of trust in mediating diversity’s impact. When people are asked to work with and 

for people who are not like them, leaders need to consciously build confidence in their leadership. 

Example of Practices

Some leaders have successfully synthesized understanding of what all work group members are doing 

into a big picture that subordinates would not otherwise perceive. One research subject made a 

practice of doing this in his regular meetings with his squadron; by showing them how their work fit 

into a larger military conception, his big picture “take” not only built confidence in his leadership but 

also helped servicemembers value the functional diversity within their squadron (Kraus & Riche, 

2009).

Kraus and Riche (2009) found that in diverse squadrons, leaders who were seen to take 

responsibility for what they were supposed to take responsibility for (i.e., “walked the talk”) were 

more credible. Behavioral integrity is, of course, characteristic of effective leaders in general, but it 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

11

may be easier to realize the benefits of diversity (which tends to broaden the range of responsibilities) 

when leaders admit that they do not know everything and can make mistakes too. In this way, they 

model a learning orientation and contribute to a climate in which people learn from mistakes: 

Learning to see past stereotypes is obviously important in making diversity “work.”

Summary

In short, diversity leadership practices are basic people management practices; what is new is viewing 

them through a diversity lens. With this lens, leaders can explicitly manage the self-categorization 

mechanisms that accompany diversity and the mediators—trust, cohesion, conflict, and 

communication—that make the difference in the impact—positive, neutral, or negative—of diversity 

on mission capability. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

12

ABSENCE OF DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP TRAINING IN THE 

SERVICES

This section discusses the results of the Diversity Leadership Subcommittee’s exploration of how the 

Services are conducting diversity leadership training, as understood by the Commission. First, 

briefings requested from DoD and Service representatives indicated that the Services are generally 

not inculcating diversity leadership practices. Nor does the DoD Office of Diversity Management 

and Equal Opportunity include diversity-specific leadership practices in its strategic goals. Each 

briefing requested on this topic discussed diversity training, not diversity leadership training.10

Second, for the most part, the briefings and related interviews suggested that diversity leadership 

had not been explicitly identified as a necessary or core competency. However, some current 

training—as proposed, at least—contains elements of diversity leadership training. This includes the 

cross-cultural training that the Services are undertaking to help servicemembers work with and lead 

people from other nations and cultures—i.e., global diversity. 

The Services Do Diversity Training, not Diversity Leadership Training

Overall, none of the Services “educate” leaders about diversity and diversity leadership in the sense 

that the Commission understands such education: understanding the dynamics that diversity brings 

into the workplace and the way it can affect the mission. Instead, in response to the Commission’s 

specific requests for information about training leaders to lead diverse forces effectively, DoD and 

Service briefers mostly described diversity training—i.e., training about understanding and being 

sensitive to cultural and gender differences, not about practices for leading diverse groups.

In addition, a training assessment performed by DEOMI at the request of DoD found that the 

diversity training each Service provides at various points during the careers of servicemembers 

addresses respect for demographic differences (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 

2008). Similarly, the DEOMI-provided training aimed at improving servicemembers’ ability to work 

with people who are different from them focuses on fostering an appreciation for individual 

differences stemming from the cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds of others. The assumption 

seems to be that with increased knowledge and appreciation of differences, diverse teams may 

function more harmoniously, as well as effectively. The related implication for leadership is that 

recognizing and accepting diversity is sufficient. However, as the previous section describes, turning 

diversity into a capability advantage calls for leaders to “manage” such key processes as 

communication, conflict, and trust.

Through a survey of servicemembers supplemented by informational meetings conducted at 

several bases, the subcommittee heard that how leaders adapt their leadership practices to diversity 

plays an important role in perceptions of mission effectiveness and discrimination within units (Issue 

 10 The MLDC meeting on May 26, 2010, heard briefings from DoD and the Services that were specifically 

requested to describe their current activities in relation to diversity leadership education and training. Service 

representatives had been previously interviewed about this topic in preparation for an issue paper, which was 

foregone because of the lack of activities to describe. Following the briefings, a follow-up interview was conducted 

with the Navy representative, and email queries were sent to the Air Force representative and a DoD representative; 

this follow-up was directed at activities the briefers described that could potentially contribute to diversity leadership 

education and training.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

13

Paper #18). However, current diversity training in the military focuses on a subset of the differences 

that can affect capability. In addition, it focuses on building understanding of this subset of 

differences, not ways for leaders to leverage these and other differences to serve capability. 

By and large, the Commission heard that servicemembers at all ranks tend to equate diversity 

with demographics, not other work-related differences.11 The focus on demographics, in turn, leads 

them to confuse the goals of diversity programs and policies with the goals of EO programs and 

policies. This is particularly problematic for leaders who may have difficulty resolving the EO 

mandate to be both color- and gender-blind with the diversity management mandate to recognize 

and leverage individual differences to increase capability. 

Moreover, diversity training that is focused on understanding cultural, ethnic, and religious 

differences ignores nondemographic forms of work-related diversity, which, research shows, are 

equally salient in terms of their positive or negative impact on organizational performance (Webber 

& Donahue, 2001). Indeed, the Air Force provided the only briefing that explicitly addressed 

nondemographic types of diversity, such as functional (occupational) and structural (component) 

diversity. Yet, one Commissioner gave the Commission a vivid example of the impact of such 

diversity in the Army’s transition from divisions to brigade combat teams as the centerpiece of its 

fighting formations. This transition makes combat support and combat service support an integral 

part of the combat brigade, giving the brigade a more diverse set of skills and functions. In terms of 

leadership, the transition gives the commander more flexibility, a greater span of influence, and a 

more lethal, multitalented force to employ—if the leader has the skills to do this effectively. 

In a 2007 study for the Air Force, Riche et al. found that such structural diversity produces the 

same social identity mechanisms as demographic diversity and requires explicit leadership practices to 

deliver its benefits. Such understanding is not currently part of leadership development in the 

military, nor is training in the requisite practices and skills.

Diversity Leadership as a Leadership Competency

The Diversity Leadership Subcommittee inferred that the absence of diversity leadership training 

reflected the absence of an expectation that leaders at all levels of the Services should provide 

effective diversity leadership. Consequently, the subcommittee interviewed Service representatives 

and reviewed Service documents to develop an understanding of the current status of diversity 

leadership in Service leadership requirements.

The Services do not revise their leadership requirements on a regular basis and are at different 

stages in developing diversity management programs (Issue Paper #20). Thus, they are at different 

stages in considering the role of diversity leadership among other leadership competencies. Currently, 

some of them include diversity ideas in their materials about leadership competencies, but, with the 

possible exception of the Navy, they do not describe very well, or very concretely, what this means. 

Figure 2 shows how the Navy has integrated diversity in a comprehensive Naval Leadership 

Competency Model (U.S. Navy, n.d.). The model has an explicit place for diversity, but many other 

individual competencies in the model call for leadership skills that have been shown to leverage 

diversity effectively. Thus, the Navy’s individual competencies provide a framework for teaching 

leadership practices with a diversity lens, if the Service should choose to do so.

 11 This observation is consistent with findings from both military (Kraus & Riche, 2009) and civilian (Bell & 

Hartmann, 2007) research.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

14

Figure 2. Naval Leadership Competency Model

SOURCE: U.S. Navy, n.d. 

The Air Force doctrine document (U.S. Air Force, 2006) does not mention diversity, but many 

of the core leadership competencies that it describes call for leadership practices that, as described 

earlier, can be very effective when leaders know how to employ them with a diversity lens. A more 

recent document (U.S. Air Force, 2009) explicitly mentions diversity as one of three aspects of the 

Leading People institutional competency. In addition, many of the other institutional competencies 

that it lists can benefit from the application of diversity leadership practices. 

The Army’s current field manual on leadership (U.S. Army, 2006) includes “recognizing 

diversity” among the “interpersonal tact” conceptual components affecting the Army leader’s 

intelligence. Specifically, it states: “A leader’s job is not to make everyone the same; it is to take 

advantage of the different capabilities and talents brought to the team” (p. 6-3). Although this is the 

only reference to diversity as a core competency, throughout the manual the competencies called for 

include many diversity leadership practice categories, as laid out in Issue Paper #29 and as illustrated 

in the previous section. Thus, the Army has a framework for teaching diversity leadership practices, if 

it should choose to do so.

Current Marine Leadership Principles (U.S. Marine Corps, 2001) do not include the word 

diversity, but these principles were developed before this Service undertook its current diversity 

initiative, and its representative told the subcommittee that the initiative had not yet addressed this 

topic.12

 12 Note that the subcommittee did not receive leadership competency materials from the Coast Guard.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

15

The Potential for Training in Diversity Leadership

In addition to the potential framework for requiring diversity leadership described above, Service 

briefings to the Commission on May 26, 2010, as well as interviews with Service representatives, 

suggested that the Services already teach practices that can be effective in leading diverse groups; they 

just do not perceive them that way. Furthermore, no Service seems to perceive the importance of 

applying the diversity lens, as described in Issue Paper #29 and conceptualized in Figure 1. This 

subsection summarizes what the Commission learned about what each Service is currently doing or 

contemplating.

According to briefings to the Commission, the Navy has a potential space for diversity leadership 

in its training materials (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010). For example, the officer 

core curriculum in the Center for Naval Leadership Training Module starts this way:

• Describe the benefits and limitations of managing by “walking around.” 

• Describe the responsibility of a division officer to assist subordinate education and career 

planning.

• Examine the impact of delegation and empowerment on command environment and 

division effectiveness.

• Develop an effective approach for motivating and recognizing subordinates.

• Provide context and awareness for mission and divisional taskings.

• Integrate command and department priorities into division’s daily work.

These practices have all been found to be effective in leading both diverse and homogeneous 

work groups. However, the Navy does not know to what extent this module is being taught or how 

effective it might be, nor does it specifically educate leaders in how these practices can be effective in 

leading diverse groups. 

According to briefings to the Commission, in the Air Force, diversity and cultural studies are 

woven throughout the officer and enlisted education and training curricula (Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission, 2010). The curriculum features a Continuum of Learning, starting from basic 

understanding/knowledge and rising to strategic-level critical thinking/decisionmaking. However, it 

does not educate leaders in the dynamics of diverse groups or include training in practices for leading 

such groups effectively.

Army briefings to the Commission asserted that the “human dimension of leadership” and 

“managed talent” are aspects of mission readiness (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010). 

However, although an “expanded human dimension of leadership skills” is a strategic outcome that it 

seeks through training, there is no mention of educating leaders about the dynamics that diversity 

creates or training them in effective diversity leadership practices. Rather, the emphasis seems to be 

on building an understanding of human differences and assuming that leaders will adapt their 

leadership styles accordingly. 

Similarly, the Coast Guard’s current focus is on training to understand the value of diversity to 

the Service. (The Marines did not report any relevant activities.)

The Potential of Current Cross-Cultural Training

Research suggests that diversity-specific military leadership practices are transferable across contexts 

and situations and adaptable to individual leadership styles (Issue Paper #14; Kraus & Riche, 2009). 

Thus, the Commission surmised that training in working with and/or leading culturally different 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

16

people who are not under a leader’s command (i.e., global diversity) might be useful in developing 

training for effectively leading culturally different people who are under the leader’s command.

Consequently, the Commission asked DoD and the Services to describe the training they are 

developing and conducting in cross-cultural competencies (3C) to see whether it might be 

transferable to training leaders to lead diverse forces. Although this training is focused on working in 

foreign cultures, the DoD definition of 3C—“[t]he ability to quickly and accurately comprehend, 

then appropriately and effectively act, to achieve the desired effect in any culturally complex 

environment”—suggests that it might be equally effective when working with diverse work groups 

(Greene, 2010).

In 2008, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Plans) commissioned the Regional Cultural 

Capabilities and Assessment Working Group (RACCA WG) to identify the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities that constitute 3C and to recommend ways to institutionalize 3C across DoD. The RACCA 

WG concluded that 3C skills are related to diversity and recommended that they be linked within a 

developmental framework for servicemembers in the United States military (McDonald et al., 2008).

McDonald (2008) provided a nested diagram of 3C factors that may affect mission effectiveness 

(Figure 3). This model illustrates the potential relationship between diversity leadership skills and 

those skills associated with 3C, as well as how these skills may be developed. For instance, the 

RACCA WG suggested that the skills necessary to interact effectively with culturally diverse others 

originate with self-knowledge; are expanded by training, education, and interactions related to 

diversity; and are further developed through training, education, and interactions related to 3C 

(McDonald et al., 2008). Based on this logic, the RACCA WG concluded that acquired diversityrelated skills, including diversity leadership, are not only transferrable to contexts in which 3C is 

required but are also fundamental to the development of the skills associated with 3C (McDonald et 

al., 2008). 

In terms of exploring potential synergies, the DoD briefing to the Commission described the 

multiyear 3C and Diversity Research Project currently under way. The goal of this project is to 

identify the shared content, goals, and outcomes between 3C training and diversity training (Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010). Briefings from the Service representatives on May 26, 

2010, also addressed training being undertaken in 3C. These briefings furthered the Commissioners’ 

sense that the broad context of cross-cultural training can help leaders “lead” in the context of new 

operational demands, as well as of increased diversity of personnel within each Service. In short, 

training in leading through “differences” can be both internally and externally focused.

Summary

The Diversity Leadership Subcommittee found that neither DoD nor the Services are requiring or 

teaching diversity leadership as the Commission understands it. However, the subcommittee found 

elements in current training that have the potential for helping to develop such leadership if they are 

supported by education in diversity dynamics. Understanding such dynamics, as illustrated in Figure 

1, can alert leaders at all levels to ways in which the presence of differences calls for applying specific 

leadership practices.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

17

Figure 3. 3C Factors That May Affect Mission Effectiveness

SOURCE: McDonald, 2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

18

 RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

Recommendation

The Commission makes one broad recommendation regarding diversity leadership and diversity 

leadership training and accompanies it with two specific recommendations to facilitate its 

implementation:

Recommendation 1—

To enhance readiness and mission accomplishment, leading diverse groups effectively 

must become a core competency across DoD and the Services. To implement this 

recommendation:

• a. Leadership training at all levels shall include education in diversity dynamics 

and training in practices for leading diverse groups effectively.

• b. DoD and the Services should determine the framework for how (e.g., 

curriculum, content, methods) to inculcate such education and training into 

leader development, including how to measure and evaluate its effectiveness.

The broad recommendation—To enhance readiness and mission accomplishment, leading diverse 

groups effectively must become a core competency across DoD and the Services—is a direct response to the 

evidence presented to the Commission that effective leadership practices are necessary for 

neutralizing any negative impacts of diversity on the mission, as well as for eliciting the potential 

benefits of diversity for mission capability. This recommendation also addresses the charter’s 

emphasis on the future workforce, which, the Commission heard, is becoming increasingly diverse 

demographically. In addition, during the course of the Commission’s work, the 2010 Quadrennial 

Defense Review reported changes that are increasing functional/occupational and 

structural/component diversity in the military (U.S. Department of Defense, 2010). All these 

changes create more conditions in which military work groups include people who are different from 

one another and call for explicit, informed, and sustained attention from leaders at all levels of the 

military hierarchy.

Thus, the broad recommendation addresses a clear need—increasing the mission capability of 

diverse work groups—by proposing a new competency that, evidence suggests, will accomplish that 

task. 

The Commission also made two implementation recommendations based on its finding that the 

military does not currently address diversity leadership practices. Numerous briefings made clear that 

leaders, like all servicemembers, receive training in acknowledging and becoming comfortable with 

people who are culturally different from them, but this is not diversity leadership. They also made 

clear that current leadership training in the military does not include specific training in practices for 

leading diverse groups effectively. 

The first implementation recommendation—Leadership training at all levels shall include education 

in diversity dynamics and training in practices for leading diverse groups effectively—responds to both the 

empirical evidence regarding the role of leadership in leveraging diversity and the findings from the 

informational meetings with servicemembers conducted by the subcommittee. Both sets of 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

19

information lead the Commission to stress leadership training “at all levels,” because leaders who are 

in direct contact with work groups—from the lowest rank on up—are the ones whose practices make 

a difference in capability. The key term here is work group, because that is where day-to-day 

interactions among different people take place. In short, the Commission views leadership practices 

as what leaders do themselves day to day, not what others (e.g., EO advisors, diversity offices, etc.) 

may do on their behalf. 

This recommendation also reflects the Commission’s conviction that developing leaders to lead 

diverse groups effectively requires more than simply training them to understand diversity. It requires 

educating them about the dynamics that diversity, broadly understood, engenders in work groups (as 

in Figure 1) and then training them in practices that will neutralize the negative dynamics and 

maximize their positive potential.

In large part, these practices are already part of leadership training, but they need to be taught 

with the diversity lens that education in diversity dynamics produces. Thus, the Commission does 

not recommend new leadership activities but merely incorporating education in diversity dynamics 

and training in associated leadership practices into existing leadership development.

The second implementation recommendation—DoD and the Services should determine the 

framework for how (e.g., curriculum, content, methods) to inculcate such education and training into leader 

development, including how to measure and evaluate its effectiveness—follows the broad statement of the 

desired outcome with a broad statement of how to achieve it. The Commission found no syllabus 

that addresses diversity leadership and felt that someone needed to be given the charge of conveying 

the learning that the Commissioners want to impart. Thus, the Commission does not instruct the 

Services in how to achieve this outcome; it only recommends that DoD develop a framework for 

doing so effectively. 

This approach acknowledges the already-large training burden on the Services. As one 

Commissioner said about the recommendation, “The last thing we want is another training 

requirement, but we need to shift from an EO to a Diversity framework. This [recommendation] is 

different.” Such a framework would allow the Services to develop their own education and training 

modules while ensuring that they address the same goal: creating a core competency at each level of 

leadership for leveraging diversity in the service of mission capability. 

In addition, the Commission recommended that once the education and training that it 

recommends are developed and put in place, they should be evaluated. Evaluation, of course, is a best 

practice for any kind of training, and the subcommittee was unable to find any indication that the 

Services have even evaluated diversity training per se.13 This recommendation therefore addresses the 

Commission’s conviction that sustainability requires some form of institutionalization, which in turn 

requires evaluation for effectiveness and for assigning and monitoring accountability. The 

Commission observed that developing metrics to quantify effective diversity leadership is thus an 

implicit part of the recommendations. 

Conclusion

The recommendation on diversity leadership is the product of two strands of investigation by the 

Commission. First, briefings from numerous experts plus empirical evidence from diversity research 

made clear that effective diversity leadership is required to elicit the capability benefits that the 

 13 A training assessment performed by DEOMI (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2008) at the 

request of DoD asked the Services to specify how they were evaluating the attainment of their training objectives. 

Their failure to do so led the subcommittee to infer that no such evaluation has taken place.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

20

military seeks from diversity. Second, briefings by and interviews with Service representatives made 

clear that the Services are not teaching diversity leadership now, at least not systematically. 

Cognizant of the existing burden of career training, the Commission recommends no new activities 

but rather the incorporation of a diversity lens in military leadership development at all levels of the 

military hierarchy.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

21

REFERENCES

Bell, J. M., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities and 

consequences of “happy talk.” American Sociological Review, 72(6), 895–914.

Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: 

Berrett-Koehler.

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. (2008). Training assessment DoD diversity awareness 

and sensitivity education and training. Patrick Air Force Base, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity 

Management Institute.

Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work 

groups: The role of leadership and multi-level climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084–

1095.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on 

work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Greene, A. (2010). Culture, 3C, and diversity in the DoD. Briefing to the Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission, Seattle, WA.

Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: 

SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of 

corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., & Thomas, 

D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the Diversity Research Network. 

Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21. 

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership: The no-fads, heart-of-the-matter facts you 

need to know. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraus, A., & Riche, M. F. (2009). Approaches to and tools for successful diversity management: Results from 

360-degree diversity management case studies [CNA Research Memorandum D0020315.A2]. Alexandria, 

VA: CNA.

Lim, N., Cho, M., & Curry, K. (2008). Planning for diversity: Options and recommendations for DOD 

leaders [MG-743-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

McDonald, D. P. (2008). A brief note on the multi-layered nature of cross-cultural competence [Defense Equal 

Opportunity Management Institute Technical Report 22-08]. Patrick Air Force Base, FL: Defense Equal 

Opportunity Management Institute.

McDonald, D. P., McGuire, G., Johnston, J., Selmeski, B., & Abbe, A. (2008). Developing and managing 

cross-cultural competence within the Department of Defense: Recommendations for learning and assessment. 

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Business-case arguments for diversity and diversity 

programs and their impact in the workplace [Issue Paper #14]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

22

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Perceptions of diversity and diversity leadership within 

the Services [Issue Paper #18]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Services’ processes for developing definitions of diversity 

and diversity policy statements [Issue Paper #20]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Effective diversity leadership definition and practices

[Issue Paper #29]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Department of Defense Directive 1020.02: A foundation 

for effective, accountable diversity management? [Issue Paper #50]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010, May 23). Transcript of the May 2010 Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission meeting in Seattle, WA. Retrieved January 19, 2011, from 

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/may-meeting

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Defining diversity [Decision Paper #5]. Arlington, 

VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in 

diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral 

Science, 34, 82–104.

Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help the performance of diverse groups? The 

moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to group performance. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 94, 1412–1426.

Riche, M. F., Kraus, A., & Hodari, A. K. (2007). The Air Force diversity climate: Implications for successful 

total force integration [CNA Research Memorandum D0016190.A2]. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. 

Harvard Business Review, 9, 79–90.

Thompson, D. E., & Gooler, L. E. (1996). Capitalizing on the benefits of diversity through workteams. 

In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the 

workplace. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and 

organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2010, February). Quadrennial Defense Review report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Defense.

U.S. Air Force. (2006). Leadership and force development. [Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force.

U.S. Air Force. (2009). The enlisted force structure [Air Force Instruction 36-2618]. Washington, DC: 

Secretary of the Air Force.

U.S. Army. (2006). Army leadership: Competent, confident, and agile [FM 6-22 (FM 22-100)]. 

Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

U.S. Marine Corps. (2001). Leading marines [MCWP 6-11]. Washington, DC: U.S. Marine Corps.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #6: Diversity Leadership

23

U.S. Navy. (n.d.). Competency model diagram [submitted by the Navy to the Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission on June 15, 2010].

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedbackseeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group 

cohesion and performance: Meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 

years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.