The Promotion Record of the United States Army: Glass Ceilings in the Officer Corps

Abstract

Although the federal government has achieved unprecedented diversity in its labor force, achieving representation across agencies and throughout their hierarchies remain two of the greatest challenges to contemporary personnel administration. Women hold only 25 percent of the supervisory positions and 11 percent of the senior executive positions in the federal government (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1992; 1). Minorities hold only 13.8 percent of the middle management positions and only 8.1 percent of the senior-pay-level positions in federal executive agencies (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1992). Agencies such as the Department of Transportation, in turn, employ only 23.89 shares (percent) of women, while the Department of the Interior employs only 5.11 shares of African Americans (Cornwell and Kellough, 1994; 267). Overall, unrepresentative agencies and hierarchies can prevent public programs from being administered in a manner sensitive to the perspectives of clienteles and the general public. Confronted with glass ceilings, female and minority public employees are also denied the economic and psychological benefits associated with higher level positions. In this research, I investigate the promotion record of a traditionally homogeneous public agency - the U.S. Army. I specifically examine the extent to which women and minorities are represented in the Army's promotion processes at the middle management ranks, and then examine the promotion rates of women and minority officers over time and relative to men and Caucasians. I conclude by examining whether the army promotes women and minorities at progressively higher or lower rates as rank increases. Investigating the promotion record of military organizations is particularly significant because they have substantial freedom to develop personnel policies and systems necessary for fulfilling their unique role of deterring aggression and defending the country. Although the Army has instituted various forms of affirmative action since the mid-1970s (Wilson, 1994), the programs have been relatively unaggressive. Current policy increases the number of women and minorities on promotion boards and encourages [promotion] board members to select women and minorities in proportion to their numbers in the zones of consideration.... When affirmative action goals are not met, the files of passed over women and minorities are reviewed by board members to determine if they contain any indication of personal or institutional discrimination.... If discrimination is detected, board members are expected to revote the files (Tice, 1994a; 9). Although Army exigencies and political sentiments may justify such policies, they are less aggressive than programs targeting women and minorities for promotions or for training and work assignments essential for promotions. This research, therefore, not only helps discern whether promotion inequities exist, it helps discern whether demanding affirmative action programs are necessary for overcoming glass ceilings. Investigating the promotion record of the army is also significant because the Army is a career system where officers enter at the bottom, advance one rank at a time, compete with each other for promotions, and generally spend numerous years in service. Serving in such a closed system, promotion board members often possess conservative values that may reinforce the traditional white-male power structure (Mosher, 1982; chap. 6). Moreover, because officer pictures are attached to the first page of their promotion files, some promotion board members may let their prejudices consciously or subconsciously affect their decisions. Although clearly superior women and minorities may not be affected, marginally qualified women and minorities may be vulnerable to discrimination. Previous Research Although few in number, promotion studies of military and semi-militaristic organizations include two studies of the Army. …