University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Where are they? The underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the Department of Defense

(USC Thesis Other)

Where are they? The underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the Department of Defense

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Where are They?
The Underrepresentation of African or Black American Senior Executives in the
Department of Defense
by
Brian Lawrence Jenkins

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Brian Lawrence Jenkins 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Brian Lawrence Jenkins certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Anthony Maddox
Dr. Jennifer Phillips
Dr. Paula Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
African or Black Americans are underrepresented at the senior executive level within the
Department of Defense, or the DoD. African or Black Americans comprise 15% of the DoD
civilian employee population but only 6% of its senior executives (Congressional Research
Service, 2021). This situation African or Black American employee morale, retention, and
commitment (Beckwith et al., 2016; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). The purpose of this
study is to explore the perspectives of African or Black American senior executives within the
DoD, using the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, as the sample agency, regarding their
promotions. This study uses Weiner’s (1986) attribution theory as the framework. Attribution
theory examines what causal factors do individuals attribute their experiences in life to and how
this attribution influences their future actions and decisions. The methodology for this study was
qualitative and used interviews as the form of data collection. The results of the data analysis
were the development of themes that informed three recommendations for improving the
situation regarding African or Black American promotions to senior executive. The three themes
are that being qualified for promotion is not sufficient, White senior executives are important to
solving the problem, and African or Black American senior executives have limited influence.
The recommendations are to establish an executive sponsorship program for aspiring officers,
conduct an organizational culture audit, and develop a diversity, equity, and inclusion evaluation
criterion for promotion. If implemented, the recommendations may help improve the situation of
underrepresentation.

v

Acknowledgements
This study is the culmination of two and a half years of learning, research, and dedication.
It would not have been possible without the support and participation of others. I want to first
thank all the participants who committed their valuable time to me for interviews and related
correspondence. Their insights and perspectives were invaluable to providing the data that
informed the findings of this dissertation. I would like to also thank the Defense Intelligence
Agency, which served as the sample agency for this study, and among whom several offices
provided information or other forms of support for my research. Next, I give a special thanks to
my dissertation committee, who provided me not only their valuable and limited time, but also
their guidance and support for my efforts. Thank you Dr. Paula Carbone, the Chairperson, Dr.
Anthony Maddox, and Dr. Jennifer Phillips for all you did for me reference this study. Finally, I
would like to thank my wife, Laura, who sacrificed many a travel plan or modified many a
weekend itinerary for over two years to support my studies. I could not have accomplished the
completion of this study without her or anyone else I named in this acknowledgement. Again,
thank you all!

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ................................................................. 7
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................. 8
Definitions .....................................................................................................................11
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................17
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...............................................................................................19
African or Black Americans Notably Absent .................................................................20
Organization and Policies ..............................................................................................35
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..47
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………55
Chapter Three: Methodology .....................................................................................................60
Research Questions .......................................................................................................60
Overview of Design……………………………………………………………...………60
The Defense Intelligence Agency as Setting ..................................................................62
I, Researcher ..................................................................................................................63
Data Sources..................................................................................................................67
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................77

vii

Ethics ............................................................................................................................78
Chapter Four: Findings..............................................................................................................82
Participants ....................................................................................................................82
Findings ........................................................................................................................84
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................86
Being Qualified for Promotion is not Sufficient…………………………………………87
White Senior Executives are Important to Sovling the Problem…………………………………97
Research Question 2………………………………………………………………...….104
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 109
Chapter Five: Recommendations ............................................................................................. 112
Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................ 112
Addressing the Problem of Underrepresentation .......................................................... 119
Recommendation 1: Implement a Formal Senior Executive Sponsorship Program ....... 124
Recommendation 2: Conduct an Organizational Culture Audit………………………..126
Recommendation 3: Develop an Executive Core Qualification Focused on DEI .......... 131
Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………………..133
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 135
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 137
References .............................................................................................................................. 141
Appendix A: DIA Freedom of Information Act Response ....................................................... 163
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .............................................................................................. 165
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form...................................................................................... 168

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Research Participant Pseudonyms, Genders, and Professional Level 83
Table 2: Perceived Causal Dimensions Regarding Promotion 118

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1: African or Black American and White American Representation in the DoD 3
Figure 2: Discourses of Accountability 33
Figure 3: ECQs and their respective core competencies 40
Figure 4: Weiner’s Attribution Theory 52

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In 2008 a Black American recently retired military officer applied on three
occasions for senior executive positions with a federal government agency charged with
contributing to national security. The retired officer was selected twice for interviews.
In one case, the result of the interview was an email notification that the officer had not
been selected. In the other case, the hiring official, a White American male senior
executive, called the officer. He informed the officer that the officer was found to be
extremely qualified, frankly the best of the candidates, but he had selected someone
already working within his office for promotion. He informed the retired officer that he
was an outstanding candidate and that he, the White senior executive, believed the officer
would be a federal senior executive within a year. In both the former case and the latter,
the retired officer found out later on that the people selected for the senior executive
positions were White males.
I was that recently retired military officer whom the White male federal senior executive
had described as extremely qualified and the best of the candidates he had interviewed for the
senior executive position. In the subsequent 12 years, I tried multiple times unsuccessfully to
attain promotion to federal senior executive, both as an outside of federal service applicant and
as a federal civilian employee. After a while I began to wonder why I could not succeed. If I,
who had led organizations of over 100 personnel, led multi-million dollar projects, been a
military diplomat overseas, and held a graduate degree from a top university, could not be
2

promoted, how could others? It is my search for this answer that influenced my decision to write
this study.
I want to explain before proceeding further in this study that throughout this document
there are several personal examples relevant to the issue of underrepresented of African or Black
American Senior Executives in the United States Department of Defense, or the DoD. These
personal examples will appear in italicized form, as with the opening anecdote. This use of a
personal experience narrative is an ethnographic approach, which I define and discuss later in
this chapter in the section providing an overview of the theoretical framework and methodology
for this study. Now onto examining the focus problem of underrepresentation in more detail.
African or Black Americans struggle to advance professionally to senior executive levels
in the United States public and private workforces compared to their White and other racial
minority peers (Choi, 2011; Clark et al., 2013; Roberts & Mayo, 2019; Roberts et al., 2019).
Though comprising 12% of the total United States workforce, only 3.8% of senior executives are
African or Black American (Choi, 2011; Roberts & Mayo, 2019). The DoD also has a stark
underrepresentation of African or Black Americans at the top levels, with African or Black
Americans comprising 15% of the total civilian employee population but only 6% of its senior
executives, which is the highest civilian rank (Congressional Research Service, 2021). In
contrast, White Americans comprise 76% of the DoD workforce but represent 87% of the senior
executives (Congressional Research Service, 2021). By default, being the remainder, 9% of the
DoD civilian population and 7% of its senior executives are categorized under other races. This
group, however, is not the focus of this study and therefore will not be discussed further other
3

than to acknowledge there is disparity with this group as well and an important topic. Figure 1
graphically highlights this disparity by showing percentage representations of African or Black
Americans, White Americans, and others both in the DoD civilian population and among senior
executives.

Figure 1
African or Black American and White American Representation in the DoD

Note: Adapted from Defense primer: Department of Defense civilian employees, by U.S.
Congressional Research Service, 2021 (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11510.pdf). In the public
domain.

4

The lack of upward mobility for African or Black Americans can affect employee morale,
retention, and commitment (Beckwith et al., 2016; Choi, 2008; Heslin et al., 2012; Roberts,
Mayo, & Thomas, 2019; Thomas et al., 2019). In previous studies about this phenomenon, there
has been a focus on systemic racism and lack of advocacy (Beckwith et al., 2016; Nelson, 2016).
There is a need to examine the perceptions of affected African or Black Americans to inform
DoD senior executives on how their promotion policies and practices affect morale, productivity,
and retention rates among African or Black Americans, potentially negatively impacting national
security.
Background of the Problem
The mission of the DoD is as follows:
To provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the
security of our nation. Should deterrence fail, the Joint Force is prepared to win.
Reinforcing America’s traditional tools of diplomacy, the Department provides military
options to ensure the President and our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength.
(DoD, 2018).
In other words, DoD’s primary focus is to provide national security using military means.
In general, this focus is realized by over 1.3 million active and 800,000 reserve and National
Guard servicemembers (Performance.Gov, 2020, 30 August). However, there are also 750,000
civilian employees in DoD, who support military operations in a variety of areas, from research
and development of weapons systems, providing medical care to servicemembers, and providing
intelligence support, to name but a few (Defense Intelligence Agency, 2018; National Geospatial
5

Intelligence Agency, 2020; Performance.Gov, 2020, 30 August). It is the latter area of support,
intelligence, that is the professional field of focus of this study.
The DoD contains several agencies that conduct intelligence operations, analysis, and
planning in support of military forces, the U.S. Executive Branch, and the U.S. Congress. Some
of these agencies include the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, which conducts all-source
intelligence analysis and collection (DIA, 2018), the National Security Agency, or NSA, which
conducts communications and cyber intelligence operations (NSA, 2020), and the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or NGA, which conducts both imagery analysis and produces
imagery products such as maps (NGA, 2020).
This study examined the problem of practice as it applies to one of the DoD intelligence
agencies, the DIA. The DIA has approximately 16,500 employees (DIA, 2021), of which an
unknown percentage of which are African or Black American, as no publicly available data
exists based on my research. That stated, the DIA has a formal selection process for senior
executive positions based on my anecdotal experiences with the agency and being a former
promotion candidate.
However, a similar DoD agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, or NGA,
with 14,500 employees, does publish its promotion rates to senior executive. NGA is not DIA,
but both agencies have similar missions and populations. Both also have formalized promotion
processes for senior executive.
For promotion to senior executive, NGA promoted African or Black Americans at
roughly the same rate as White Americans during the period 2009-2018, at 1.17% (NGA, 2018).
6

However, at the level immediately below senior executive, or Pay Band 5, NGA has promoted
African or Black Americans at a 2% average rate from 2009-2018 compared to 2.4% for White
Americans (NGA, 2018). This means that over time, there are proportionately fewer Pay Band 5
African or Black American candidates for senior executive, so the representation steadily
decreases.
I suggest that NGA’s situation provides an example for the general problem of
underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in DoD, even if NGA’s
statistics cannot be directly applied to DIA. A 2020 report by the Government Accountability
Office, or GAO, which is an organization directed by the U.S. Congress to examine how the
Federal Government spends and accounts for its appropriated funds, supports my assertion. The
GAO published a report examining diversity and inclusion within the U.S. intelligence
community, or IC, which includes both DIA and NGA as DoD members of the IC (GAO, 2020).
The report found that IC member agencies have underrepresentation of racial minorities at the
senior executive level and that the situation is currently, as of 2020, not improving (GAO, 2020).
The GAO and NGA reports (GAO, 2020; NGA, 2018) demonstrate that current DoD
promotion trends and policies are not improving the situation of underrepresentation of African
or Black American senior executives. This suggests if DIA does not address this issue
effectively, the problem of underrepresentation will worsen, leading to lower morale,
performance, and retention among African or Black Americans in the agency (Beckwith et al.,
2016; GAO, 2020; Roberts & Mayo, 2019).
7

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of African or Black American
senior executives within the DoD, using the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, as the sample
agency, regarding their promotions. Their perceptions may influence their future decisions on
whether to remain with DIA, advocate and mentor other promotion-aspiring African or Black
Americans, continue to strive for promotion, or their level of professional productivity or
commitment to meeting their organization’s goals.
Two research questions guided this study:
1. What do African or Black American senior executives in the DoD attribute their selection
for promotion to?
2. How much influence, if any, do African or Black American senior executives in DoD
perceive they have on advancing African or Black Americans to senior executive?
Importance of the Study
The DoD, in its most recent strategy to address diversity and inclusion, entitled DoD
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan: 2012-2017 (2012), argued it is imperative that DoD
employee demographics match the U.S. citizens it serves. Furthermore, the DoD suggested that
without creating a more diverse and inclusive workforce, it will lose its competitive military
advantage in the 21
st
Century by not attracting and retaining the best minds and talent (DoD,
2012). This overarching argument that a lack of a diverse and inclusive workforce both does not
represent the country and simultaneously disadvantages the country in terms of competitive
8

military advantage over potential adversaries demonstrates the importance DoD claims it places
on the issue of diversity and inclusion.
In addition to the broader strategic ramifications for not addressing problem, DIA
explicitly states that diversity and inclusion is necessary for national security (DIA, 2018).
Beckwith et al. (2016) and Roberts and Mayo (2019, Nov) asserted that the lack of African or
Black American senior role models and mentors, in addition to other workplace factors, results in
lower morale, less commitment, and lower retention rates compared to White American
counterparts. In addition, when the often too few African or Black American leaders depart an
organization, it has a further demoralizing effect on non-leadership African or Black American
employees in that they now have even fewer potential mentors and role models (Thomas et al.,
2019). These situations suggest that if the stated diversity and inclusion goals of DIA are to be
met, the underrepresentation of African or Black Americans must be addressed if the
organization, and DoD in general, is to succeed in providing unmatched national defense.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Attribution theory frames my research approach. Bernard Weiner, a leading attribution
theorist (Harvey & Martinko, 2008; Hewett et al., 2018; Pekrun & Marsh, 2018), argued that
there is no single attribution theory (2011). Rather, attribution theory is a field of study that has
phenomenal causality as its focus, to include causal beliefs and their consequences (Weiner,
2011). In other words, attribution theory’s focus is on individuals’ perspectives on why a given
event or set of events occurred and, importantly, what the individuals’ subsequent actions will be
due to their perspectives (Försterling, 2013; Kelley, 1973; Weiner, 1986, 2011). Exploring
9

individual African or Black American DoD senior executives’ perspectives on what they
attribute their selection to is the focus of this study and therefore aligns directly with attribution
theory.
This study employed a qualitative approach to conducting research. Qualitative research
is focused on understanding the meaning of experiences or observed phenomena in the human
condition (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). This was the goal of the
research- to explore the perceptions of African or Black American senior executives as to how
they explain their selection to Senior Executive. Interviews were the main data collected.
Interviews as a form of data collection are often identified with qualitative research (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). This qualitative approach is detailed further in Chapter Three, Methodology, of
this study.
In addition to using attribution as the theoretical framework for this study, I also used
autoethnography as a supplementary approach. Autoethnography is the researcher examining a
social or cultural phenomenon through the lens of their own life experiences and perspectives
(Hughes & Pennington, 2017; Jones et al., 2013; Poulos, 2021). Similar to attribution theory,
autoethnography is focused on perspectives, especially on perspectives attempting to understand
humans in socio-cultural contexts (Hughes & Pennington, 2017). Autoethnography is an
inherently self-reflective approach, meaning I incorporated my own perspectives on my lived
experiences as relevant to this study (Poulos, 2021). Hughes and Pennington (2017) add that the
researcher’s salient life narratives should be supported by relevant research literature. These
narratives can examine experiences from the personal, professional, or both aspects of the
10

researcher’s life (Hughes & Pennington, 2017). Accordingly, I aligned my narratives throughout
this study with select arguments or positions I cited and with participant responses that related
experiences or perspectives similar to or are contrary to my own.
Autoethnography also seeks to establish a relationship with the readers, by involving the
reader in the study on more personal level, which can lead to a connection beyond what simply
discussing the research problem using existing literature could accomplish (Hughes &
Pennington, 2017; Jones et al., 2013). This approach can cause readers to become more
compelled by the problem of study and its importance, especially as I showed my vulnerabilities
related to issue of underrepresentation and my own ordeal with it (Hughes & Pennington, 2017;
Jones et al., 2013). In other words, by using an autoethnographic approach in this study, I
potentially made the issue more relatable for the reader and showed how real, frustrating, and
painful the problem can be (Hughes & Pennington, 2017; Poulos, 2021).
I began this study with an autoethnographic opening. For the remainder of this study, I
continued to interweave my own experiences and perspectives at different points throughout the
study as pertains to the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior
executives. As with the opening scenario of this study, I italicized the autoethnographic portions
to make it distinct for the reader from the rest of the content which was based on extant literature
and the findings based on participant responses. Before I proceed to the literature review in
Chapter Two, I first provide you with the definitions of key terms I used throughout this study.
11

Definitions
The following are some important terms and their definitions related to this study. They
may not be familiar to many readers so are provided to ensure clarity. Or, they may be familiar
terms, but it is important that the reader understand how I am defining them for the purposes of
this study, as there may be different understandings of the familiar terms.
African or Black American
In this study I use the U.S. Census Bureau definition of African or Black American.
According to the bureau, African or Black American refers to individuals who have origins in
one of the black racial groups of Africa (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). It includes any ethnic
distinctions such as Latinx or Non-Latinx African or Black Americans (U.S. Census Bureau,
2020).
I understand from anecdotal experiences in the U.S., Europe, and Africa, and some
research also suggests, that many individuals who match the U.S. Census Bureau definition do
not necessarily think of themselves as African or Black American or are biracial and
acknowledge both racial identities (Mason, 2017). However, I am using the official definition of
the U.S. Government because it is members of that government who fit the official racial
description that are the subjects of this study. That said, I readily acknowledge racial identity,
ascribed or self-ascribed, is a more complex issue than the U.S. Census Bureau definition
appears to suggest.

12

White American
The U.S. Census Bureau states White Americans are individuals whose ancestry traces
back to the original peoples of Europe, Middle East, or North Africa (2020). It includes any
ethnic distinctions such as Latinx or Non-Latinx White Americans. As with the definition of
African or Black American, I understand from anecdotal experiences in the U.S., Europe, Africa,
and the Middle East that many individuals who match the U.S. Census Bureau definition for
White do not necessarily think of themselves as such, and many other officially defined Whites
may also not think of other officially defined Whites as such. For example, anecdotally, during
my travels in the Middle East I encountered numerous native Arabic speaking or Hebrew
speaking White-skinned individuals who did not considered themselves White. And,
importantly, I knew many native European-language speaking White-skinned individuals from
Europe, North American, Australia, and New Zealand who did not consider native Arabic or
Hebrew speaking White-skinned as White. The same anecdotally applies to similar experiences
regarding individuals who are from Latin or non-Latin Central- or South America and the
Caribbean.
I am using the official definition of the U.S. Government for simplicity of establishing a
common understanding of the term for this study. I do however acknowledge as with African or
Black American identity that racial identity, to include White racial identity, is a more complex
issue.
13

Intelligence Community, or IC
The IC is a collection of 18 intelligence organizations within the Executive Branch of the
U.S. Government that collaborate and coordinate on intelligence operations and analysis efforts
(Intel.gov, 2020, 31 Aug). Their efforts contribute to the defense of the country and involve both
military and federal civilian personnel (ODNI, 2021, October 15).
The IC member organizations are aligned to many departments to include the DoD in the
case of DIA. The reader can reference the full list of member agencies with brief descriptions of
each at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence website at dni.gov (ODNI, 2021,
October 15).
Senior Executive Service
The Senior Executive Service comprises the senior non-elected civilian officials in the
U.S. Government, to include appointed and non-appointed officials. There are three types of
executive-level leaders in the Federal Government: senior executive service officers, senior
leaders, and senior technical advisors (OPM, 2021). Senior executive service officers provide
broad strategic leadership in and help formulate and implement policies in all federal agencies
and organizations, to include the legislative, executive, and judicial branches (OPM, 2021,
February 4). Senior leaders and technical advisors, in contrast, are supposed to focus on more
detailed, technical aspects of policy formulation and implementation such as engineering or
science areas (OPM, 2021, February 4).
In theory, then, as described in the first paragraph, senior leaders and technical advisors
are not senior executives. However, due to the needs of many agencies and the limited number of
14

senior executive service officers, many senior leaders and technical advisors serve in the same
roles as their senior executive service peers, a fact that in addition to OPM (2021, February 4), I
have also observed during my decades-long government affiliation. In this study, I use the term
“senior executive” to inclusively mean both senior executive service officers and senior leaders.
General Schedule and Pay Bands
The U.S. Government has several different pay structures for its civilian employees. The
two which are most relevant to this study are the General Schedule, or GS, and Pay Band
systems, or PB. The GS has 15 levels, 1 being the lowest and 15 being the highest (senior
executives have their own pay structure), with a GS-15 being the second highest civilian level
after Senior Executive (OPM, 2020, 31 Aug). Within the DIA and several IC agencies, there is a
direct equivalency with the GS levels, the General Government, or GG level (Department of
State, 2016). The PB is a corollary system, wherein there are five levels, with 1 being the lowest
and 5 being the highest. PB5 is the equivalent of GS-15 or GG-15 and is used by several DoD
and IC agencies. All three have in practice the same levels of responsibility and authority, as I
experienced anecdotally as a former GG-15.
The purpose of detailing the differences between the pay structure naming conventions is
to highlight that within the U.S. Government there are several different pay systems. However,
to simplify readability in this study, I will use the GS term for all three pay systems, as GS is the
baseline federal pay system and therefore most common (OPM, 2021). It is GS-15 personnel, as
I just defined, that are considered for promotion to Senior Executive.
Race
15

Omi and Winant (2015) describe race as a socially constructed concept that ascribes
significance to individuals or groups regarding their value and capabilities based on perceived
physical and phenotypic markers. Bonilla-Silva (2018) argues that though race may be socially
constructed, it is a social reality that has implications on interactions and outcomes between
groups aligned to a racial identity.
African or Black Americans, or Blacks, are identified in society as a race (Bonilla-Silva,
2018; Omi & Winant, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021) and are the focus of my study. It is their
racial identity and its potential influence on promotion results and trends that makes the issue of
race salient in this paper.
Racism
Lynn and Dixson (2013) argued that racism is societal discrimination based on one’s
racial identity. Omi and Winant (2015) suggested racism also involves the establishment and
maintenance of a structure of White social domination over non-Whites. Both authors further
argue that racism is a systemic part of American society; it both shapes society and is shaped by
society (Lynn & Dixson, 2013; Omi & Winant, 2015).
Racism impacts African or Black Americans systemically, according to Omi and Winant
(2015) and Bonilla-Silva (2018). This means that many fundamental aspects of life for most, if
not all, African or Black Americans, such as employment and promotions, access to housing and
loans, is at least partially impacted by racism (McNamee, 2018; Rothenberg, 2016).
Organizational Culture
16

Organizational culture is the pattern of beliefs, values, and behaviors that are taken as
given and that all members are expected to have and demonstrate in their professional actions
(Schein and Schein, 2017). Burke (2018) and Schein and Schein (2017) added that
organizational culture is expressed in the form of an organization’s vision, mission, goals, and
activities. The everyday actions and decisions of individuals can change the organizational
culture over time regardless of formal governance structures (Burke, 2018). Schein and Schein
(2017) also posited that organizational leaders manage the direction of cultural changes, a
position also held by Bolman and Deal (2017).
Diversity
This study uses the term diversity that aligns with the concept of differences in thought
tied to social or racial identity and experiences (Kezar, 2000). However, the study uses this
definition as applied to organizational policies and processes, focused on promotions.
In the context of this study, I examined diversity both as an organizational goal (DIA,
2021; NGA, 2018; ODNI, 2018, Tatli and Ozbilgin, 2012) and as culturally different ways of
thinking based on race (Kezar, 2000; Page, 2017; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). The focus
was on how African or Black Americans perceive their promotions to senior executive, so
organizational goals and different ways of thinking about this issue applied.
Sponsorship
In this study, Hewlett’s (2019) definition of sponsorship is applicable. Hewlett (2019)
defines sponsorship a professional relationship in which an executive or manager selects a
talented junior employee to help develop and advance their career. Randel et al. (2021) add that
17

sponsorship is an explicit instrument that involves enabling an individual’s career progression by
introducing them to influential networks and career opportunities.
Specific to this study, Erskine and Billmoria (2019) posited that when sponsorship
pertains to advancing African or Black American women to executive levels, sponsorship from,
or allyship, to use their term, with White American executives is an effective tool. To be clear,
Erskine and Billmoria (2019) do not exclude African or Black American men from benefitting
from this White allyship as well; it is simply their study was focused on African or Black
American women.
Inclusion
Sabharwal (2014) defined inclusion as creating an environment whereby differing views
are both sought and incorporated into organizational polices and activities to improve the quality
of outcomes. This definition includes the incorporation of views from individuals of differing
racial backgrounds as well (Sabharwal, 2014).
I used the concept of inclusion regarding African or Black Americans attaining entry into
the senior executive group as the primary form of inclusion for this study. Inherently then, it was
racial inclusion that was implied.
Organization of the Dissertation
This is a five-chapter dissertation. This chapter, Chapter One, introduced the problem of
practice, the stakeholder of focus, purpose of the study, the theoretical framework, and a list of
key terms’ definitions. The following chapter will be an examination of the current and recent
literature relevant to and informing this study. This literature will cover Bronfenbrenner’s
18

model, meritocracy theory, and U.S. Government studies related to the problem of
underrepresentation of African or Black Americans at the senior executive level. Chapter Three
will detail the methodology, to include the organization of focus, the data collection methods,
participant selection, and analysis approaches. It will also include a discussion of the researcher
and ontological and epistemological issues bearing on the problem. Chapter Four will be an
analysis of the data collection and processing results and Chapter Five will provide
recommendations to address the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American
senior executives in DoD, informed by the literature and data collected.

19

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The review of literature regarding the problem of practice of underrepresentation of
African or Black Americans commenced with research on Federal Government documents.
These documents included official policies and studies on promotion practices for civilian
employees in addition to specific studies on racial minority promotions. The research of the
available literature also included non-government studies on the problem of practice or on the
general career trends of African or Black American employees in the government or American
society, to include hiring, promotions, and retention. This research suggests that African or
Black American underrepresentation at the senior executive level in the Federal Government has
a negative effect on morale and retention (Beckwith et al., 2016; Roberts & Mayo, 2019). The
first part of this chapter, then, will examine the researched literature bearing on the problem of
practice, to provide greater context to the study.
The next section of this chapter will examine the specific sample of Department of
Defense, or DoD, agency of this study, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA. This part will
detail the organization’s stated mission, values, and provide demographic information regarding
race and gender. The former demographic category is essential to the problem of practice. The
latter is also important to note because African or Black American women hold a dual-identity,
being both a racial minority and non-male in a White male-dominant organization (Allen, 2020;
Beckwith et al., 2016). This indicates they may experience the problem of underrepresentation
at least slightly differently than their African or Black American male peers (Allen, 2020).
20

This chapter also introduces the theoretical framework of this study. Weiner’s (1986)
attribution theory served as the primary lens for the problem of practice, as this theory involves
how perception is an individual’s reality and they take subsequent actions in response to events
based on what they attribute the causes of events to. In addition, this study incorporated the
concept of the meritocracy myth, or the idea that an individual in American society can advance
professionally and socially through effort and their abilities (McNamee, 2018). This concept may
both affect the perceptions of African or Black Americans and White Americans as it applied to
the problem of practice, and therefore is included as a supporting theory in this study.
African or Black Americans Notably Absent
The problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives is
not exclusively in DoD. The problem at DoD is symptomatic of a broader problem within the
United States. In this section, I will examine this broader issue in the context of American
society, detailing complementary theories and concepts, and then focus on how it is manifested
within DoD.
Underrepresentation in Greater American Society
The problem of underrepresentation of African or Black Americans is expressly
manifested within greater U.S. society. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
or EEOC, responsible for federal law against discriminatory employment practices against
various categories of workers, to include racial minorities, collects and reports data that
highlights the issue (EEOC, 2018). According to the EEOC, African or Black Americans,
though comprising 15% of the total private sector workforce of 56,073,774, have only 3% of
21

executive level positions (EEOC, 2018). In stark contrast, White Americans, comprising 57% of
the private sector workforce, occupy 84% of executive level positions (EEOC, 2018). These
data clearly demonstrate that African or Black American executives are underrepresented by
80% and White Americans are overrepresented by approximately 50% in private industry.
The challenges faced by African or Black Americans who do hold executive level
positions compared to their White American counterparts is also informative. Guest (2016)
researched the career patterns of African or Black Americans that attain executive rank. The
study showed that African or Black American executives had lower rates of promotion, higher
rates of demotion and departure from their positions than White American executives. Guest
(2016) conducted a quantitative study using data from Compustat Execucomp, a Standard &
Poor’s and Wharton Business School collaborative database that contained information regarding
U.S. corporate executive compensation and other topics, to include demographics (Wharton
Business School, 2020, May). The study examined 125,589 datapoints regarding executive
professional actions among 19,989 executives to include promotions, demotions, and job
departures over the period of 1992-2011, (Guest, 2016). The study found that African or Black
American executives, comprising 3% of the sample population, had a 35% lower probability of
promotion compared to White Americans (Guest, 2016). Further, Guest (2016) discovered that
African or Black Americans were 73% more likely to be demoted and 55% more likely to leave
their jobs than White Americans. Guest (2016) suggested the reasons for this disparity in
professional outcomes was due to discrimination but also adds that perhaps the African or Black
Americans may experience lower promotion rates because of risk avoidance of assuming more
22

responsibility or they indeed are less qualified than their White American peers, though he states
more research is needed to confirm or deny such suppositions. The main point to the study was
that African or Black Americans comprised a small percentage of executives in corporate
America and had a lesser probability of promotion than White Americans, aligning to the
phenomenon I am examining in this paper.
One related issue I want to highlight before proceeding to the next topic in this section,
systemic racism, is that of underrepresentation of African or Black American women at the
senior executive level. This study was not focused on gender as an issue per se, but one unique
facet of the problem examined more generally in this paper is that though African or Black
Americans in general are underrepresented at the executive level, African or Black American
women face a challenge beyond just their race in this regard. African or Black American women
in corporate American society have a particularly difficult situation advancing to executive level
due to both their status as African or Black Americans and as women (Beckwith et al., 2016).
Powell and Butterfield (2002) suggested that because senior executives are overwhelmingly male
in society, men are usually the ones who decide who gets promoted to senior executive, and they
tend to favor promoting men. Beckwith et al. (2016) concur with Powell and Butterfield (2002)
but added that because there are so few women of any race at the executive level (10% according
to the authors), African or Black American women have few role models or mentors to help
them throughout their careers to prepare for executive attainment. So, while I indeed focused
this study on African or Black Americans regardless of gender, I ask that the reader understand
23

that women may experience the challenge of underrepresentation at the senior executive level
differently than men in some respects.
Systemic Racism in American Society
Systemic racism is a contributing factor to the problem of underrepresentation of African
or Black American senior executives in American society (Beckwith et al., 2016; Guest, 2016;
Powell & Butterfield, 2002) and therefore this study included a brief examination of the
literature regarding it. Feagin and Ducey (2019) argued systemic racism is the collection of
White American developed and implemented racist policies, programs, and concepts established
to ensure White American privilege and power at the expense of African or Black Americans
and others of non-White descent. Young (2011) expressed the concept of systemic racism as
embedded in the ideology of the American populace and that it directly contributes to socio-
economic inequities in society for non-White Americans.
Critical race theory, or CRT, is a closely related concept to systemic racism. CRT
includes the tenets of systemic racism (Young, 2011) but adds the argument that because White
Americans benefit from systemic racism, there is no incentive on their part to end it (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2017). This incentive to keep systemic racism is based on the concept of White
privilege, or the historically and socially constructed condition whereby White Americans on
average have systemic benefits in society based simply on their racial identity and not on merit
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Feagin & Ducey, 2019; Rothenberg, 2016). Jensen (2016)
suggested that numerous studies show some of the major benefits include on average higher
salaries, healthier lives, lower chances of becoming unemployed, greater wealth accumulation,
24

and only one third the chances of being incarcerated in their lifetimes than African or Black
Americans. Wise (2016) added a further benefit to White Americans is not having to consider
their racial identity in navigating American society regarding engagement with law enforcement,
employment, education, and other aspects of life. Wise (2016) further argued that in contrast to
White Americans, African or Black Americans must consciously consider their racial identity
every day in navigating society due to systemic racism and racial microaggressions, affecting
most aspects of their lives.
A supporting concept to CRT is color-blind racism. Bonilla-Silva (2018) suggested that
one way that White Americans rationalize the socio-economic inequities in society suffered by
non-Whites is arguing the situation is due to market dynamics and poor decision-making in life,
not due to racism. This rationalization is “color-blind” by attributing non-White Americans
struggles regarding crime, employment, police brutality, education, and other injustices largely
to the inherent shortcomings of the oppressed, not to the policies and practices of White
Americans (Bonilla-Silva, 2018).
One additional idea that is not exclusive to CRT or systemic racism but does intersect in
society is that of stereotyping or stereotype threat. Steele (2010) argued that stereotyping about
race, gender, profession, or many other topics in life impacts individuals and how they view
themselves and how they make life choices, often limiting what they think their opportunities are
to succeed in society. Concurrently, stereotyping also occurs among those who influence others,
often informing the professional and other decisions those influential individuals make about
others (Schmader & Inzlicht, 2011; Steele, 2010). This stereotype threat includes when a
25

dominant racial group makes decisions about non-dominant racial groups both in society and
professionally (Schmader & Inzlicht, 2011; Steele, 2010). So, while stereotyping or stereotype
threat is not exclusive to issues that deal with race, the literature suggests it is a factor in how
systemic racism is expressed in the United States (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Omi & Winant,
2015; Steele, 2010).
The prevalence of systemic racism in society and in the workplace does not however
mean that African or Black Americans are mere victims without some means to resist and
combat it. Avery and Ruggs (2020) suggested that African or Black Americans occasionally
successfully confront workplace racism by challenging White American colleagues’ individual
microaggressions and this has led in certain cases to improvements in the office environment.
Pitcan et al. (2018) added that additional actions African or Black Americans take at work to
resist racism include establishing peer networks and using humor with co-workers to deflect
racial tensions. These actions suggest self-efficacy or agency, which is the topic of the following
section.
Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy
Bandura (2012) stated social cognitive theory is based on agency. Agency, or to be an
agent, is to intentionally shape one’s environment by one’s actions (Bandura 2000, 2012, 2018).
Bandura (2012) further expressed social cognitive theory as a triadic codetermination, or the
continually interaction between individuals’ intrapersonal influences, individuals’ (or personal)
behaviors, and environmental forces. The intrapersonal component of the triadic model conveys
the concept of human behavior influencing other humans’ behaviors, or reciprocal impact
26

(Bandura, 2006). Individuals’ behaviors are the concept of individual self-determinates, or
individuals acting in such a way to effect desired life outcomes (Bandura, 2006). The
environment component of the model captures Bandura’s (2006) concept that all human actions
with others produces outcomes that affect all individuals directly involved in the given actions.
In this study, African or Black Americans were their own agents, but they also operated
in a greater societal framework that influenced their efforts, and therefore social cognitive theory
is a compelling approach to understanding the problem of underrepresentation (Beckwith et al.,
2016). Specifically, within Bandura’s (2006) triadic model as applied to the problem of
underrepresentation of African or Black American executives in the DoD, I argue that African or
Black Americans influence the environment by their professional actions to attain executive
status. Further, their intrapersonal actions with White Americans, who comprise the majority of
senior executives, shapes both parties’ evaluation of the other. The individual behavior,
intrapersonal, in turn, impacts the professional environment, to include how African or Black
Americans are seen by those White Americans who largely determine their selection for
promotion (Beckwith et al., 2016).
Self-efficacy, or individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities and ability to shape their
environments to attain goals or aspirations, is a sub-component of social cognitive theory and
applicable to this study (Bandura, 2012; Beckwith et al., 2016). Self-efficacy influences
individual motivation to achieve (Bandura 2012, 2000; Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-
Pons, 1992), and is therefore germane to this study whereby achievement of senior executive is
the goal of the focus African or Black Americans.
27

African or Black Americans however face a professional environment that can impede
self-efficacy and agency (Cornelius, 2012; Heslin et al., 2012; Pitcan et al., 2017). Cornelius
(2012) wrote that African or American professionals often are not afforded the same level of
career development opportunities as their White American peers, due to racial discrimination and
lack of effective social networking, disadvantaging them for promotion and other positive
professional actions. Heslin et al. (2012) added that discrimination against minorities at the
workplace can lead to their abandoning professional goals, to include career advancement.
Heslin et al. (2012) further asserted that this lowered sense of self-efficacy is sometimes
worsened by external societal engagements among minorities whereby individuals see and hear
of other minorities more broadly suffering the same challenges, leading to a sense that
overcoming the problem is insurmountable.
The abovementioned assertions by Heslin et al. (2012) regarding minorities often
abandoning career goals and perceiving their advanced challenges as insurmountable are not
generalized across the literature. At least one study suggested that though racial discrimination
in the workplace does present challenges to minorities, or specific to the study, African or Black
American men, coping mechanisms can include a degree of self-efficacy. A study by Pitcan et al.
(2017) of African or Black American men and the effects of racial microaggressions at their
places of work contribute to this notion of discrimination lowering individual self-efficacy. The
researchers interviewed 12 African or Black American men who had at least 10 years of
professional experience working in predominantly White American organizations. Pitcan et al.
(2017) found that many of the participants coped with workplace racial microaggressions by
28

attempting to conform to the office norms of their White American peers. They also worked
longer hours than their White American peers in order to demonstrate their professional
competence and dedication to support their career advancement (Pitcan et al., 2017). These two
coping mechanisms led to stress, feeling marginalized, and lowered morale (Pitcan et al., 2017).
Pitcan et al. (2017) however did not find however, in contrast to Heslin et al. (2012), that
the participants considered their challenges related to career advancement unassailable, but rather
that the amount and type of effort required to overcome the challenges was stressful. Bandura
(2012) argued that the stronger the self-efficacy of an individual, the more an individual puts
effort behind goal attainment, which aligns with the findings of Pitcan et al. (2017). This
suggests that African or Black Americans who have stronger senses of self-belief in their
abilities are more likely to put extra effort to professionally develop themselves to be competitive
for promotion for senior executive than those who do not.
Referring back to Bandura’s (2006) triadic model, the above-cited literature indicates that
African or Black American professionals exert a degree of intrapersonal influence through their
actions, such as adopting White American norms and working longer hours, in the face of the
environmental forces of racism and discrimination. In this study, I expected that many of my
research participants would likely provide examples of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and the
triadic model, as the examined literature suggests these issues are generally applicable to African
or Black American professionals (Bandura 2000, 2006, 2012; Beckwith, Carter, and Peters,
2016; Cornelius, 2012; Heslin et al., 2012; Pitcan et al., 2017). I was also interested in what they
attributed these numerous challenges to, and attribution theory is the topic of the next sub-
29

section. Now that I have provided a brief examination of attribution theory, I will move on to the
next sub-section and discuss another applicable and important theory, that of social capital.
Meritocracy Theory
McNamee (2018) described meritocracy theory as the applied notion in U.S. society and
culture that an individual can advance professionally and personally in life as far as one’s
abilities can take them. Tenets of this theory include hard work and effort, academic
achievement, motivation, and self-determination (McNamee, 2018). The concept of meritocracy
is embedded in U.S. cultural norms and values (Markovits, 2019; McNamee, 2018; Sandel,
2020). Meritocracy theory, or the concept of advancement through effort, is therefore a constant
in the professional and personal lives of U.S. citizens (Markovits, 2019; McNamee, 2018;
Sandel, 2020).
Meritocracy theory is however a myth, as Markovits (2019), McNamee (2018), and
Sandel (2020) pointed out. Many White Americans have justified racism or racially
discriminatory policies against African or Black Americans for centuries using meritocracy
theory as a basis, claiming African or Black Americans do not work hard enough or have self-
defeating attitudes that keep them in perpetual second-class socio-economic status (McNamee,
2018; Sandel, 2020). However, as Markovits (2019) and McNamee (2018) illustrated, White
Americans have long discriminated against African or Black Americans both in law and practice,
directly affecting African or Black Americans’ ability as a whole to attain the comparable levels
of wealth, health, and safety of White Americans in general. Historically, even when African or
Black Americans attain the same levels of academic credentials and professional performance,
30

they still do not on average accumulate wealth or share equivalently healthy lives as White
Americans with equivalent attributes, further belying the myth (McNamee, 2018; Sandel; 2020).
Specific to the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior
executives in DoD, the promotion process is based on the concept of merit, as previously
discussed in this study (OPM, 2012). However, the fact that African or Black Americans are
represented at less than half their overall representation in the DoD population (DMDC, 2019)
and that this is a historical problem for DoD (DMEO, 2016; DoD, 2012) suggests merit, or lack
thereof, is not necessarily the salient reason for the situation.
Social Capital Theory
Coleman (1988, 1994), one of the founders of social capital theory, argued that social
capital is the changes among relationships that result in actions, normally of mutual positive
benefit. It is the interdependence between those actors who have control of a set of resources
that others need but they in turn can support the actors with said resources (Coleman, 1994).
Bordieu (1997), another founder of the theory, had a less positive outlook on social capital and
suggested that one actor gains in the relationship to the disadvantage of the other actor. The
commonality between both aspects is that social capital relies on the position that the interaction
of actors, be it in personal relationships or profession ones, results in outcomes that may be of
mutual or singular benefit (Gelderblom, 2018).
Choi (2016) posited that social capital influences how much knowledge is shared and
with whom it is shared. This position supports Coleman’s (1994) concept of resources control.
Further, Choi (2016) demonstrated that when individuals trust each other, they tend to share
31

more knowledge, benefitting both parties, and when the mutual trust is lower, they share less,
often to the detriment of one or both. Gelderblom (2018) provided a complementary supporting
argument, positing that often individuals form into social networks that can facilitate or constrain
others in an organization to achieve goals or objectives.
Social capital is relevant to the problem of underrepresentation in that research indicates
one difficulty African or Black Americans encounter is their professional networks often do not
facilitate career advancement, in contrast to White Americans (Guest, 2016). Fernandez and
Fernandez-Mateo (2016) suggested this is because African or Black Americans and other racial
minorities often rely on members of their own race to network with, and often those members are
not in power positions within organizations to help them advance. Tatli and Ozbilgin (2011)
supported this assertion by arguing dominant groups, or those who control social and other types
of capital in organizations, seek to maintain their dominance. The dominant group in
organizations establish hiring and career policies that support their power position within the
organization, thereby limiting the opportunities for those not in the group (Erickson, 2017; Tatli
& Ozbilgin, 2011; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2018). This last part suggests then that not only do
African or Black American candidates for senior executive in the Department of Defense may
not have sufficient social capital for promotion compared to their White American counterparts,
but also that White Americans control the degree of social capital African or Black Americans
can potentially attain.
Social capital theory is important to understanding the problem of African or Black
American underrepresentation at the senior executive-level, as this sub-section has highlighted.
32

It is not however the last theory I will examine in this literature review. The final theory I will
next examine is one that is overarching in the interactions between African or Black Americans
vying for promotion to senior executive and their White American peers who wield the most
influence in promoting them. This is the theory of accountability.
Accountability Theory
Dubnick (2014) argued that to comprehend governance in human relationships, which in
effect this study examines, one must have an understanding and appreciation for accountability.
Lerner and Tetlock (2003) supported Dubnick’s (2014) argument by describing accountability as
a feature of social life that includes managing the coordination of relationships between people.
Tetlock (1992) meanwhile described accountability as a critical enforcement mechanism for
society regarding norms and rules and that social life cannot exist without it. Wallis and Gregory
(2009) defined accountability as individuals or organizations being answerable for their
decisions and actions. The one common thread binding the descriptions of the concept of
accountability is that it involves interactions and relationships between individuals, and I suggest
the professional environment in this study qualifies as interactions and relationships between
individuals.
Dubnick (2014) argued that there is no one common definition for accountability, which
the differing descriptions of Tetlock (1992), Lerner and Tetlock (2003), and Wallis and Gregory
(2009) illustrate, but suggested the definition is based described as a set of four contextual
discourses: institutionalization, mechanization, juridicization, and incentivization. Figure 2
below details Dubnick’s (2014) description of the four discourses.
33

Figure 2
Discourses of Accountability

Note: Adapted from “Accountability as a cultural keyword”, by Dubnick, M., 2014, in Bovens,
M., Goodin, R., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.) 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability.
Copyright 2014 by the Oxford University Press.

The two discourses that I suggest are most applicable to this study are mechanization and
incentivization. Dubnick (2014) defined the former discourse as mechanisms to arrange control
in an organization to include hierarchies and bureaucracies, of which the Department of Defense
as a Federal agency is certainly a bureaucracy. Therefore, mechanization is applicable in that
Federal senior executives are responsible for providing effective and efficient government
operation, to include policy formulation and implementation (U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board, or MSPB, December 2015). The latter discourse, incentivization, includes performance
34

measurements within organizations that promote better organizational and individual
performance (Dubnick, 2014). The idea of incentivization was important to this study, as
performance is an important factor in selection for senior executive (OPM, 2012; OPM, July 1,
2019).
Bovens and Schillemans (2014) furthered the concept of the incentivization discourse by
suggesting that in the public, or government sector, accountability is partially comprised of
procedure. Procedure includes rules, regulations and laws that dictate public officials expected
behaviors by the public (Bovens & Schillemans, 2014). Heinrich (2002) indirectly supported
Bovens and Schillemans (2014) by arguing government performance reports, providing self-
assessments on the performance of specific government programs and the performance of
government employees, to the public is a method of accountability. Heinrich (2002) further
argued that government accountability includes developing, implementing, and periodically
assessing performance measures in all activities, to include outcomes of job performance
management of government personnel. Therefore, I argue that since job performance is a
reportable element of public accountability, and job performance is tied to promotions (OPM
2012, 2019), the promotion process is itself an element of public accountability. It then stands to
reason then Federal officials potentially have an incentive to improve African or Black American
representation at the senior executive level to demonstrate accountability to at least the African
or Black American public, if not the whole of the public.
Summary of Applicable Theories
35

In the preceding pages I examined literature germane to the problem of
underrepresentation of African or Black Americans at the senior executive level in greater
American society, to include systemic racism. I then analyzed the literature regarding several
theories that align to the problem. These theories included the social cognitive, meritocracy,
social capital, and accountability. I revisited these theories either directly or indirectly in the
conduct of my research, and they were an undercurrent to the theoretical framework of the study,
presented later in this chapter. I must however first detail for the reader the organization which
is the professional setting for the study and the sample agency, the Department of Defense’s
Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA. This will provide the reader a greater understanding of
the DIA’s general organization, mission, and the policies that are specific to either DIA’s and/or
DoD’s career advancement and promotion policies and practices.
Organization and Policies
DIA Organization, Mission, and Roles
The DIA is an organization that provides military intelligence analysis to the DoD (DIA,
February 1, 2021). In support of this mission, the agency has the two core functions of collection
and analysis (DIA, 2018). Collection involves the gathering and processing of intelligence
information from across the globe via different human and non-human means on foreign
adversaries’ military capabilities and intentions, to include violent extremist organizations (DIA,
2018). Analysis is critically examining the collected information and developing assessments for
senior military and civilian policymakers in DoD, the rest of the Federal Government, and
foreign partners to inform their decision-making processes (DIA, 2018). DIA has provided
36

continuous intelligence support to military and other operations since its inception in 1961, to
include the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam Conflict, Desert Storm, and the current operations
against violent extremist organizations such as al Qaeda and ISIS (DIA, 2011,2018).
Stakeholders’ Snapshot: Organizational Demographics
DIA has a workforce of 16,500 employees who work in 141 countries worldwide (DIA,
2021, February 1). Sources for the exact number or percentage of African or Black Americans at
DIA are not publicly available, but the IC Equal Opportunity Office (2017) reported that DIA’s
overall racial minority percentage was 31.6%. This percentage of minorities includes Hispanics,
Asians, and other racial/ethnic groups in addition to African or Black Americans. However, an
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, report (2019) states that African or
Black Americans represent roughly 50% of all minorities in the IC, therefore suggesting by
extrapolation the DIA may be in the 16% or higher range. This is not a definitive percentage, but
it does give the reader a sense that there are likely at least 2,500 or more African or Black
Americans in DIA. Of these, according to the agency’s response to my Freedom of Information
Act request (Appendix A), there were a total of 18 African or Black American senior executives,
compared to 158 White senior executives (DIA, 2021, July 13).
Diversity and Inclusion Policies
The DIA, as a federal agency and DoD component, is subject to both law and executive
policy regarding diversity and inclusion. Prior to 2020, DoD derived its diversity and inclusion
activities from a presidential executive order, Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide
Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce, signed by President
37

Barack Obama (Obama White House Archives, 2011). This order instructed all federal agencies
to develop diversity and inclusion programs and plans, with the goal of leveraging the talents of
the whole government workforce regardless of background.
In January 2021, President Joseph Biden signed a new executive order, On Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (The
White House, 2021). This new order expanded on the tenets of President Obama’s order by
establishing new government entities such as the equitable data working group that is charged
with examining the effectiveness of federal diversity and inclusion efforts.
DIA implements the executive orders and other equal opportunity statutes and policies
through its equal opportunity office (DIA, 2014; Intelligencecareers.gov, 2021). According to
DIA’s equal opportunity and diversity program directive, DIA directs its equal opportunity
office, office of human resources, and its training and education department to develop and
implement programs to foster diversity and inclusion (DIA, 2014). This directive also directs the
agency’s leaders to promote individuals and evaluate individuals’ performance based solely on
merit (2014). Promoting and evaluating individuals based on merit instead of other
considerations are themes bearing on the focus of this study. In the following section, I briefly
detail a few important federal agencies that play key roles in providing oversight and
accountability over the Federal Government to attempt to ensure promotion policies and
practices are based on merit and equal opportunity for all employees.
Federal Promotion Policies and Practices Oversight and Accountability
38

The Federal Government holds DIA, DoD, and other federal organizations accountable
regarding promotion policies and processes in a multi-layered approach. The OPM, as previously
mentioned, is the lead agency for formulating and implementing personnel policies, to include
promotions, for federal civilian employees. This agency tracks and analyzes promotion trends of
federal civilian employees, to include promotions to senior executive level (OPM, 2020). The
OPM has the authority to and has conducted investigations of federal agency promotion practices
and selection decisions and can direct changes to both if OPM deems it necessary based on
findings (OPM, 2020).
The OPM is but one of the agencies involved in promoting accountability for federal
agencies’ promotion policies and practices. The United States Merit Protection Systems Board,
or MSPB, is an independent federal agency that serves as an arbiter and protector of federal
merit systems, with a focus on federal management practices, to include promotions and
performance evaluations (MSPB, 2020, February 10; MSPB, 2021, February 14). The MSPB
hears individual federal civilian employee appeals to performance evaluations, promotions
decisions, and other career advancement or enhancement policies (MSPB, 2021, February 14).
If the MSPB judges the appellant employee was treated in a discriminatory fashion, be it based
on race or other category, the MSPB can rule on the appeal and force the offending agency to
reverse a decision or modify it (MSPB, 2021, February 14).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is yet another
federal entity that provides a layer of oversight and accountability regarding federal promotion
policies and practices. The EEOC is the executive agency charged with ensuring that federal
39

anti-discrimination laws in the workplace are upheld by all employers in the country, to include
federal agencies (EEOC, 2021). As such, the EEOC can investigate and if necessary, litigate
against an organization that the EEOC has determined violated equal opportunity law (EEOC,
2021).
I have now provided you a brief description of key federal organizations that provide
oversight and accountability of federal agencies regarding promotion policies. In the following
section, I will detail the actual promotion policies and practices that DIA follows that are subject
to the aforementioned oversight and accountability.
Promotion Policies and Practices to Senior Executive Level
In its agency strategy document, DIA Strategic Approach (2018), DIA states that one of
its priority goals is to promote individuals based on demonstrated capability and experience.
DIA promotion policies and process are not however publicly accessible. This means that for
this study I will describe the general policies that the OPM publishes about the senior executive
process. OPM oversees the promotion system policies for the government, as I detailed in the
previous section of this chapter (OPM, 2012; OPM, 2021, February 4). It provides guidance on
the policy and monitors and analyzes the promotion processes and trends of the entire Federal
Government (OPM, 2021 February 4).
Specific to promoting individuals to senior executive level, OPM has a set of minimum
qualifications each candidate must have to be both considered and selected (OPM, 2012). Each
candidate must demonstrate, through written submissions substantiating their claims, they have
and can effectively lead organizational change and people, are results driven, have business
40

acumen, and can build working coalitions (OPM, 2012). These five categories are called
executive core qualifications, or ECQs (OPM, 2012; OPM, 2021, February 14). Further,
candidates must, in written form, demonstrate that they exhibited these ECQs either as a lower
ranked government employee, such as GS 15/PB 5 which is the typical DoD rank competing for
senior executive (NGA, 2018), or in external positions in the non-government sector (OPM,
2012). Figure 3 below details competency areas for each ECQ that an individual candidate for
promotion must demonstrate in their narrative submissions. Agencies can add additional
technical criteria to assess in their promotion actions, but the ECQs are the mandatory criteria
and should be the dominant assessment considerations for promotions (OPM, 2012). Additional
details regarding ECQs are also available on the OPM website, at https://www.opm.gov/policy-
data-oversight/senior-executive-service/executive-core-qualifications/.

Figure 3
ECQs and their respective core competencies
41

Note: Adapted from Guide to Senior Executive qualifications, by Office of Personnel
Management, 2012 (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-
service/reference-materials/guidetosesquals_2012.pdf). In the public domain.

The ECQ core competencies are the personal and professional attributes of a candidate
for senior executive that the federal government has determined are important indicators of
successful performance at the senior executive level (OPM, 2012). Collectively, the core
competencies for each ECQ are what a selection board will assess to determine a given
candidate’s readiness for promotion (OPM, 2012). Accordingly, here is more detail regarding
each core competency per ECQ so the reader has a better understanding of each, per summarized
versions of OPM definitions (2012):
42

1. Leading Change:
a. Creativity and innovation. Individual encourages new ideas and questions
conventional approaches; designs new programs or processes.
b. External awareness. Understands and remains current on local, national, and
international policies and trends that affect the organization and stakeholders’
views.
c. Flexibility. Remains open to change and receptive to new information; adapts
rapidly to changing conditions or challenges.
d. Resilience. Handles pressure and setbacks well and remains optimistic even
when facing hard challenges.
e. Strategic thinking. Develops objectives and priorities in line with organizational
interests. Conducts risk management and identifies opportunities.
f. Vision. Has a long-term view of an organization’s future and develops a shared
picture of the future to inspire and guide individuals in the organization.
2. Leading People:
a. Conflict management. Individual encourages differing viewpoints and creative
tension. Resolves conflicts and disagreements in a constructive fashion.
b. Leveraging diversity. Fosters inclusive environment where individual
differences are valued and used to achieve the mission of the organization.
43

c. Developing others. Develops others to improve performance and contribute to
the organization’s success. This includes providing constructive periodic
feedback and providing training and other learning opportunities.
d. Team building. Fosters group commitment, pride, and trust to achieve
organizational mission.
3. Results Driven:
a. Accountability. Individual holds themselves and others accountable for
outcomes. Accepts responsibilities for mistakes.
b. Customer service. Meets the needs of both internal and external customers.
c. Decisiveness. Makes informed, decisive, and timely decisions and understands
the potential impact and consequences of their decisions.
d. Entrepreneurship. Identifies opportunities to develop the organization and tasks
calculated risks to achieve organizational objectives.
e. Problem solving. Identifies and develops solutions to challenges. Makes
recommendations to supervisors.
f. Technical credibility. Applies principles, procedures, and policies related to
areas of specialized expertise.
4. Business Acumen:
a. Financial management. Individual understands organization’s financial
processes. Oversees program budget and acquisition program for their area of
responsibility.
44

b. Human capital management. Develops and manages a workforce aligned to
organizational goals and budget considerations. Ensures employees are well
recruited, selected, evaluated, and rewarded.
c. Technology management. Effectively uses technology to achieve organizational
objectives.
5. Building coalitions:
a. Partnering. Individual develops networks and alliances to collaborate on the
achievement of common goals.
b. Political savvy. Understands organizational and political realities and acts
accordingly to achieve goals.
c. Influencing/negotiating. Gains cooperation through persuasion and compromise
to accomplish organizational goals.
OPM (2012) provides further guidance regarding the writing of ECQ submissions to
demonstrate an individual is qualified for promotion to senior executive. OPM recommends
candidates provide written examples of scenarios from their professional history that best
demonstrate their abilities and experiences for each ECQ using the challenge-context-action-
result model, or CCAR (OPM, 2012). In CCAR, the individual describes a problem, describes
the environment and people in which the problem existed, describes the individual’s specific
actions to address the problem, and the outcomes of their actions (OPM, 2012). Regardless of
the example given, each must clearly demonstrate that the example was at a level that effected or
45

influenced agency-level or higher policies or activities, which is expected of a senior executive
to do (OPM, 2012).
Agency representatives, who must be senior executives, then select candidates for
promotion aligned to a specific position or at-large within the given agency (OPM, 2021,
February 4; OPM, 2012). There is no specific guidance on how each senior agency
representative on a selection board must score candidates’ ECQs other than each selection board
member must make their best, unbiased judgement on whether ECQ narratives address required
core competencies and demonstrate ability to perform at an executive level (OPM, 2021,
February 14). In other words, selection board members ostensibly score promotion applications
based on objectivity and those selecting officials are expected to choose the best candidates equal
to available positions for promotion based on merit only (OPM, 2021, February 4). However,
the literature I previously detailed in this chapter suggests there is likely more involved in the
selection process than just merit. CRT, social capital, and systemic racism imply that factors
beyond merit may play a role in the promotion process for African or Black Americans to senior
executive in DoD.
Whysall (2017) suggests implicit biases, or cognition, may be a factor as well. Whysall
(2017) defines implicit biases as unconscious and unintentional impressions that influence
judgement and decisions. Foley and Williamson (2019) argue that implicit biases are ubiquitous
and influence professional decision making to include hiring and promotion decisions. They
further assert that these implicit biases can work to the advantage of some and the disadvantage
of others (2019). Specifically, those managers who make hiring or promotion decisions could
46

have implicit biases towards one category of people and against another, influencing their
decisions in favor of the former and disfavor of the latter (Foley & Williamson, 2019).
Guendemir et al. (2014) further Foley and Williamson’s (2019) assertion by adding that White-
descendant, or White, Americans tend to think of leaders being White, and therefore implicitly
associate African or Black Americans and other non-Whites as not being leaders. Guendemir et
al. (2014) add that their study of this issue suggested that this implicit bias results in higher
promotion rates for Whites, regardless of nationality, than for non-Whites. In my study, this
suggests that White American senior executives, who largely decide who is promoted to senior
executive due to their representing nearly 81% of DoD senior executives (OPM, 2018), may
make their decisions at least in part based on implicitly favoring White Americans and
disfavoring African or Black Americans.
I have now described the senior executive promotion process and the qualifications
candidates must meet to be considered for promotion. I further discussed how White Americans
tend to select fellow White Americans for promotion at higher rates than they do African or
Black Americans and how CRT, lack of African or Black American social capital, and implicit
biases may be factors in this condition. In the following section, I describe the theoretical
framework I will use to examine the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black
American senior executives in DoD in attempt to ascertain what African or Black American
senior executives attribute their selection to.
47

Theoretical Framework
Theoretical frameworks are the orienting lens for the study of issues regarding gender,
class, and race (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). They are the scaffolding of a study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further describe theoretical frameworks as broader in
scope than conceptual frameworks, which are often used analogously in qualitative research.
Theoretical frameworks include terms, concepts, theories, and models that a researcher uses to
approach or frame the examination of the studied topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Attribution theory is the framework for this study.
Attribution theory concerns individuals’ causal explanation for events and is based on
their perceptions (Kelley, 1973; Martinko, 2017; Weiner, 1986). This dissertation is focused on
exploring the perceptions of African or Black Americans regarding the reasons for their lack of
promotion to senior executive, and therefore attribution theory is applicable. Attribution theory,
as I detailed in introductory section to it in Chapter One, is not as much a single theory per se,
but rather a collection of theories regarding perception and attribution (Kelley, 1973; Weiner,
1986, 1989). Heider, the principal founder of attribution theory (Martinko, 2017; Weiner, 1986),
argued that perception was essential to how individuals cognize, or make sense of, the external
world (Heider, 2015). Heider suggested that perception helps individuals exert a degree of
personal control over their environment by the clarifications that perceptions give the individual-
even if the perception is based on inaccurate information (Heider, 2015). Weiner, whose
contributions to attribution theory I discuss later in this section, supported Heider’s assertion that
perception is a method of control by suggesting perception and attribution are a way to
48

understand oneself and their environment (2011). Heider called the perception of individuals
based on inaccurate information naïve psychology, and that it is common among humans (2015).
His main argument about naïve psychology is that whether individuals base their perceptions on
inaccurate information and therefore frequently draw inaccurate conclusions, it is how humans
often operate (Heider, 2015). In other words, attribution theory is not based on reality as it were,
but reality as individuals perceive it to be and act upon it.
Kelley (1973) advanced Heider’s ideas by introducing the causal attribution. Kelley
posited that there is a distinction between an individual’s perceptions and subsequent attributions
based on one observation of an event and those based on multiple observations (1973). For the
former situation, attributions based on one observation, Kelley introduces the discounting
principal, which is that a given cause, as perceived, will have less an effect on an individual if
there are multiple plausible causes present to the individual (1973). This is because the
individual could quickly alter their perception based on other available data (Kelley, 1973). The
latter distinction, that of attributions based on multiple observations of a given type of event such
as in the case of this study multiple attempts at promotion, enables covariation (Kelley, 1973).
Covariation is when a given effect can have multiple causes, and individuals tend to base their
attribution based on the more recent cause temporally, regardless of whether the more recent
cause is the most significant cause for a given effect (Kelley, 1973). This argument supports the
Heider’s (2015) original argument that often perceptions, attributions, and subsequent responses
are often based on incomplete or inaccurate information (Kelley, 1973; Kelley & Michela, 1980).
49

Another way to view this argument is frequently individuals act on first come, first served
regarding potential causes for a perceived effect.
Weiner (1986, 1989, 2010, 2018) furthered the ideas of Heider and Kelley, by focusing
on the causal beliefs of individuals in regard to achievement outcomes. Weiner suggested that
attributions must have an antecedent; that is, past experiences that frame individuals’ perceptions
about why a past event might have occurred and what future actions should follow based on
developed causal attributions by those individuals (Weiner, 1986, 2018). He argued that causes
share certain characteristics that directly affect an individual’s perceptions, attributions, and
subsequent behaviors, as well as psychological/emotional reactions (Weiner, 1986, 2018).
Weiner posited that the three most relevant characteristics are locus, stability, controllability
(1986, 1989, 2018). He further argues that these three characteristics are the only replicable
properties of phenomenal causality, as his research of empirical studies support (Weiner, 2005).
Weiner (2005) suggests that there may be a fourth characteristic as a property to phenomenal
causality. This fourth is generality or globality, which is being able to apply causality across
situations but empirical research does not support this concept so Weiner does not include it
(Weiner, 2005). Below are explanations of the three terms that form the basis of Weiner’s
attribution theory:
1. Locus: Locus, or location, focuses on whether an individual attributes achievement
success or failure to internal or external causes (Weiner, 1986, 2018). That is, does an
individual attribute success or failure to some internal strength or weakness, or to the
external environment? Weiner (2018) gives the example of a student who fails an exam:
50

does the student attribute their failure to lack of effort or ability (internal), or to bad luck
or a poor teacher? Importantly, to what the individual attributes success or failure,
internal or external causes, will influence their subsequent behaviors, such as studying
harder for an exam in the future (internal) or avoid taking a class with the same teacher in
the future (external).
2. Stability: Weiner (1986, 2018) defines stability as lasting or temporary. Keeping with
the example I used in the locus definition, an individual’s academic aptitude could be the
attribution for success at an exam, and aptitude is stable because aptitude is enduring
(Weiner, 2018). In contrast, an individual attributing their success to having put in more
effort to studying for an exam is considered unstable and temporary; the individual may
not always put in the same amount of effort or the effort itself may not be sufficient for
success in the future (Weiner, 2018). The important point is that an individual could
attribute achievement events to internal or external stable or unstable causes, and their
attribution will influence their future behaviors (Weiner, 1986, 2018).
3. Controllability: The final causal characteristic within Weiner’s attribution approach is
controllability (Weiner, 1986, 2018). This is the ability of an individual to control a
cause or if others are in control, or internal versus external controllability (Weiner, 2018).
How an individual attributes the cause or causes of a given event and their subsequent
behavior in response to this attribution is largely dependent on whether the individual
perceives they have control of the event or whether external actors have control (Weiner,
51

2018). For example, one can control their level of effort to study for an exam, but the
same person will not be able to control the contents of the exam.
In the African or Black American context, the literature also suggests that African or
Black American perceptions about what they attribute their promotions to is not only important
regarding underrepresentation. The attribution theory argument that perception influences
behavior is supported by studies regarding health and job performance. Weiner suggested that
attribution can affect emotions and if attributions regarding failure at something are viewed as
external and controllable by others, can elicit anger in the perceiving individual. Specific to
African or Black Americans, research suggests that if they perceive a given system or process as
socially unjust or racially discriminatory, it affects their mental and emotional health (Lucas et
al., 2016). One study argued that racial discrimination contributes to depression among African
or Black Americans, and this depression has greater consequences for the health and quality of
life for African or Black Americans than for White Americans on average (Mereish et al., 2016).
Choi and Rainey (2010) suggest that African or Black Americans’ perceptions of an
organization’s management of diversity and social justice issues impact their performance, job
satisfaction, and workplace retention.
Figure 4 below graphically depicts Weiner’s attribution theory model with the three
characteristics forming the basis. It shows antecedents, causal dimensions, or the three
characteristics, and the behavioral consequences following the individual’s attributions about a
given event.

52

Figure 4.
Weiner’s Attribution Theory

Note: Adapted from Weiner, 1986, 2010, 2018

I want to note here that though Weiner’s attribution approach is my theoretical
framework for this study, not all researchers in the field of attribution theory agree with Weiner’s
approach. Pekrun and Marsh (2018) argued that Weiner’s position that attributions can lead to
emotional reactions is flawed. The researchers posit that an individual can view a situation
without emotional consequences if the individual deems that the situation is not sufficiently
important to them (Pekrun & Marsh, 2018). Hewett et al. (2018) support Pekrun and Marsh’s
assertion that an individual’s perceived importance of a situation does determine the individual’s
level of interest in a situation’s outcome. It also determines the amount of cognitive effort used
to formulate causal attributions about the situation (Hewett et al., 2018).
Weiner acknowledged that several theorists in recent years have challenged his
attribution model, citing theorists questioning his antecedent-based attribution leading to
53

emotions (Weiner, 2019). He did admit that his attribution theory is not necessarily sufficient
and complete, and more work should be done, but he maintains that individuals, even if they do
not take observable actions based on their attributions regarding a situation, cannot be without
emotions even if a situation is of low importance to them (Weiner, 2019). This is because
humans are inherently emotional organisms, and therefore emotions will also inherently play a
role in attribution (Weiner, 2019).
Despite its potential limitations, Weiner’s attribution theory model using the three
characteristics of locus, stability, and controllability is useful for this study. It still provides a
logical approach to understanding human perceptions about events and the causal attributions
and subsequent behaviors those individuals make (Försterling, 2013, Martinko, 2017). I
acknowledge that Weiner’s attribution model may not be a sufficient model that completely
explains attribution, but the bulk of the literature I reviewed suggests it is still a logical and oft-
used approach and therefore a logical framework for my study (Brees & Martinko, 2015;
Försterling, 2013; Martinko, 2017; Pekrun & Marsh, 2018). The following section will apply
Weiner’s attribution theory approach to the African or Black American context at DIA.
Weiner’s Attribution Theory Approach in the African or Black American Context at DIA
Collective research findings suggest that African or Black American perceptions of why
they were not selected for senior executive promotion may influence their mental and emotional
health (Lucas et al., 2016; Mereish et al., 2016). In addition, if they perceive their non-selection
was due racism, systemic or otherwise, their subsequent job performance could be negatively
affected (Choi & Rainey, 2010; Heslin et al., 2012, Miller-Smith, 2020). The Office of
54

Personnel Management, or OPM, the federal government’s policy formulation and
implementation agency for federal employees, state job performance is an important
consideration for promotion to senior executive (2019). Therefore, perceptions of why African
or Black American candidates for senior executive were not selected can impact their future
performance negatively, potentially making them less competitive for promotion, exacerbating
the problem of underrepresentation.
African or Black American senior executives at the DIA likely have perspectives not only
about their own promotions to senior executive, but about the overall promotion system for
senior executive level. I base my argument on Weiner’s suggestion that humans naturally try to
make sense of their experiences, to include professional experiences, which Heider also
suggested (Heider, 2015; Weiner, 1986, 1989). It is also likely that based on their perspectives
about their experiences, African or Black American senior executives in the DIA attributed
certain factors or events to their selection promotion (Harvey & Martinko, 2009; Weiner, 2018).
It also then stands to reason that these individuals may also attribute similar or different factors
or events to others’ selection or non-selection for promotion (Bowler et al., 2011).
Specific to Weiner, African or Black American senior executives’ locus for their
attributions for their promotions may be internal, external, or perhaps both (Kelley & Michela,
1980; Weiner, 1986, 1989, 2018). For example, some of the senior executives may attribute
their promotions to effort, or internal factors, some to luck, or external factors, and some may
even attribute promotion to a combination of both effort and luck (Weiner, 1986, 2018). For
stability, some of the African or Black American senior executives at the DIA may attribute their
55

promotions to their professional skills or aptitude, which are stable and enduring, while others
may attribute their promotions to putting in extra effort in the few months before the selection
committees met, which would be an example of unstable and temporary characteristics (Weiner,
1986, 2018). Finally, for controllability, some of the senior executives may attribute their
writing of their ECQs to their success, which is controllable, while others may attribute factors
beyond their influence, such as luck, which is uncontrollable, to their success (Weiner, 1986,
2018). The point is that however the participants in this study are positioned within the
attribution theory framework, their subsequent thoughts and actions about their own promotions
and the promotion system will be at least partially influenced by their attributions (Heider, 2015;
Kelley, 1973, Weiner, 1986, 2018). And, I argue, this potentially applies to their involvement in
selecting other African or Black Americans for senior executive when and if they have been or
will be selecting officials. So, their attributions could also influence their willingness to
advocate for others, thereby contributing to improving the situation of underrepresentation in the
DoD.
Summary
Attribution theory is the theoretical framework for the next phases of this study, as I have
detailed in this chapter. Before I proceed to Chapter Three, Methodology, I will provide the
reader a brief summary of the literature that I presented and analyzed in order to contextualize
the both the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in
DoD.
56

In this chapter, I showed that African or Black American underrepresentation in DoD
reflects a general problem in U.S. society. The EEOC, which tracks discriminatory employment
practices for the U.S., estimates that though 15% of the U.S. workforce is African or Black
American, only 3% of senior executives are (2018). In contrast, White Americans are
overrepresented by 50% (EEOC, 2018). In addition, I detailed the fact African or Black
Americans have a lower probability of promotion to senior executive, more likely to be demoted,
and more likely to leave their jobs than White Americans (Guest, 2016). I then briefly examined
how African or Black American women face the double challenge of experiencing racial and
gender biases in attaining senior executive status (Beckwith et al., 2016; Powell & Butterfield,
2002). Following this, I examined systemic racism and its associated theory of CRT, which
argues that because White Americans benefit from systemic racism, there is no incentive on their
part to end it (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). I then proceeded to social cognitive theory and self-
efficacy.
Bandura’s (2012) social cognitive theory is based on the concept of agency. This agency
is expressed through a triadic model that includes individual’s intrapersonal influences,
behaviors, and environmental forces. I argued that African or Black Americans striving for
promotion to senior executive in DoD influence their professional environment through their
professional actions and intrapersonal actions at the workplace, either improving or worsening
their chances of promotion (Bandura, 2006; Beckwith et al., 2016). I further showed that self-
efficacy, which influences motivation to achieve goals (Zimmerman et al., 1992), can be a
challenge for African or Black Americans in a professional environment that frequently does not
57

afford them the same career development opportunities for advancement that White Americans
have (Cornelius, 2012; Heslin et al., 2012; Pitcan et al., 2017). This does not mean African or
Black Americans cannot achieve their goals, but rather they often have to work harder at it then
their White American peers (Pitcan et al., 2017).
I next discussed meritocracy theory, social capital theory, and accountability theory.
Meritocracy theory is the notion that individuals can advance professionally and personally in
society based on individual abilities and effort (McNamee, 2018). As I showed in the discussion
on the federal senior executive promotion system, selection for senior executive is supposed to
occur based solely on five demonstrated individual professional qualifications: leading change,
leading people, being results driven, business acumen, and ability to build professional coalitions
(OPM, 2012). This means it is ostensibly a merit-based system, yet the African or Black
American underrepresentation of senior executive belies there is likely more to promotion than
pure merit, which the literature suggests (Markovits, 2019; McNamee, 2018; Sandel, 2020).
Social capital theory is the concept of individual relationships and how these relationships can
influence professional or social outcomes, to include career advancement (Choi, 2016; Coleman,
1988, 1994). Several authors further argue African or Black Americans and other racial
minorities struggle with social capital as their networks are often within their own group, not
with the dominant power brokers, White Americans (Erickson, 2017; Fernandez & Fernandez-
Matteo, 2012; Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2011). Finally, accountability theory as expressed by Dubnick
(2014) and Lerner and Tetlock (2014) is the coordination of relationships between people, to
include expectations of professional and organizational performance. I showed how Dubnick
58

(2014) had discourses of accountability and how two of them applied particularly to public
accountability, such as government, and therefore applicable to this study. These two discourses
are mechanization and incentivization which are ways to regulate organizations and performance
measures that promote individual performance, respectively. Both are germane to the study as
the focus is on how DoD regulates its promotion system and how it fosters an environment to
prepare individuals to potentially be promoted.
In the next section, I detailed the DIA’s organizational mission and relevant demographic
details. Following that, I explained the DoD’s diversity and inclusion policies and how these
ostensibly support improving African or Black American representation at the senior executive
level and how despite this, the problem persists. I then explained the DoD promotion process and
used another agency’s promotion data to demonstrate how the problem of underrepresentation
can be generalized within DoD as a whole.
In the subsequent section, I detailed the theoretical framework for this study. Attribution
theory concerns individuals’ causal explanation for events and is based on their perceptions
(Heider, 2015; Kelley, 1973; Martinko, 2017; Weiner, 1986). Weiner focused on the causal
beliefs of individuals in regard to achievement outcomes and argued that causal beliefs could be
group into three characteristics: locus, stability, and controllability (1986, 1989, 2010, 2018).
Locus is whether and individual attributes success or failure to internal or external causes such as
effort or unfair business rules, for example (Weiner, 2018). Stability is whether the cause is
enduring or temporary, also called stable or unstable, such as aptitude or poor studying for an
exam (Weiner, 2018). Finally, controllability is how individuals attribute the ability to control
59

an event to themselves or to others, such as putting in extra study hours prior to an exam versus
not being able to control the content of said exam (Weiner, 2018). How African or Black
American senior executives in DoD attribute their promotions will be framed by Weiner’s
approach in this study.
The intent of this summary of the literature review was to inform the reader of the
information and theories bearing on the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black
American senior executives at DoD. Further, I presented the theoretical framework I use to
examine this problem. It is now time to move on to the next chapter, methodology.

60

Chapter Three: Methodology
The intent of this study was to examine the perceptions of African or Black American
senior executives in the Department of Defense, or DoD, regarding their reasons for promotion
selection in order to help DoD promotion officials improve the promotion process to increase
African or Black American representation. In this chapter, I detail the methodology for this
qualitative study, to include the overall design, the setting, my positionality, and sources. I then
describe how I analyzed collected data, the validity and reliability approaches, ethical
considerations in collecting the data, and limitations of delimitations of my study.
Research Questions
1. What do African or Black American senior executives in the DoD attribute their
selection for promotion to?
2. How much influence, if any, do African or Black American senior executives in DoD
perceive they have on advancing African or Black Americans to senior executive?
Overview of Design
This study used qualitative methods to collect data and used a phenomenological research
approach. Creswell and Creswell (2018) define the phenomenological approach as an inquiry
design that involves a researcher describing the experiences about a phenomenon as described by
those who experienced it. Butina et al. (2015) added to this definition by positing
phenomenological study’s purpose is to describe and understand the very nature of the shared
experience. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) add that in choosing a design, the researcher should
choose one that aligns with the researcher’s worldview, personality, and skills. The phenomenon
61

under inquiry in this study is underrepresentation of African or Black American senior
executives in DoD as expressed through the experiences of African or Black American senior
executives and qualitative research methods are therefore an effective approach (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This study used qualitative data collection methods to support my research. Bogdan and
Biklen (2007) defined data as the materials researchers collect about the topic they are studying.
The authors further posited that data grounds the researcher to the empirical world and when one
collects data systematically and thoroughly it links the research to other forms of science (2007).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued qualitative data consist of quotes from people about their
experiences and opinions collected through interviews, descriptions of behavior and actions
collected via observation, and information obtained through various documentation types.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) added that in qualitative data collection, the researcher is the key
data collection instrument. That is, they not only collect the data via interviews, observations,
and document examination, but they normally develop their own questionnaires or other inquiry
tools (Cress & Creswell, 2018). I was therefore the main instrument in the conduct of data
collection in support of this study.
My data collection method for this study was interviewing. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
suggested interviewing individuals or groups is necessary when one cannot observe behavior or
interpret how others view the world and this latter point supports my goal of understanding
perceptions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) asserted that interviews, in addition to being useful
when one cannot observe behavior, allows participants to provide historical information and
62

enables the researcher to control the line of questioning. I discuss interviewing to include its
advantages and disadvantages in more detail later in this chapter in the data sources section.
The Defense Intelligence Agency as Setting
I discussed the mission, goals, and general demographic information regarding the
Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, in Chapter Two. To provide a brief refresher, the DIA
mission is to provide military intelligence analysis in support of the DoD (DIA, 2021, February
1). It was comprised at the beginning of 2021 of 16,500 personnel located in 141 countries
(DIA, 2021, February 1). The DIA’s African or Black American population is not publicly
available, but as I suggested in Chapter Two, by extrapolation of available public data, DIA
likely had at least 16% representation (IC Equal Opportunity Office, 2017; ODNI, 2019). The
DoD as a whole at the time of this study had 21.9% African or Black American representation
(Department of Defense Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, or DMEO,
2016; Defense Manpower Data Center, or DMDC, 2019).
The DIA was approximately similar to the greater DoD in terms of proportionate
representation of African or Black Americans (DMDC, 2019; IC Equal Opportunity Office,
2017; ODNI, 2019). I know anecdotally through my own experience with the organization that
DIA, being a component of DoD, also has promotion policies that follow the DoD’s policies.
The DIA also directly supports DoD’s mission and interacts with all elements of the DoD, to
include military services (DIA, 2021, February 4). It was therefore an adequate site to conduct
my research and address my research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
63

My participants were five African or Black American senior executives in the DIA.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that in qualitative research, a researcher should develop a
holistic picture of the issue being studied. In my study, I involved participants who all
participated in applying for promotion to senior executive, were African or Black American, and
who therefore likely had perceptions of the process based on their experiences. Further, several
of the participants served on promotion selection committees to choose candidates for senior
executive, to include African or Black American candidates. These specific participants’
perceptions were more holistic in the sense they experienced both sides of the process, as
selectee and selector. In addition, my study is phenomenological and therefore five participants
are within the range that Creswell & Creswell (2018) recommends for such research.
I, Researcher
My epistemological orientation or, more simply put, my worldview, and my
positionality contributed to how I operated as the research instrument in this study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These are factors that if I did not consider and
control, could have led to bias on my part and distort the results of my research (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To control for my biases, I was reflexive in conducting my research. Reflexivity
is being cognizant of and monitoring the effects of any biases I had that may have affected my
research and how the research in turn has affected me (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Mackieson et
al., 2019). For example, if I were not aware of my biases, I could have developed interview
questions that contained questions that only sought to affirm my biases or assumptions (Galdas,
2017). Gringeri et al. (2013) and Creswell & Creswell (2018) argued an effective way for a
64

researcher to account for bias and demonstrate reflexivity is to explicitly address it in their
research. I did such both in this section and throughout this study where necessary, starting with
the following paragraph which deals with my worldview, or epistemological orientation.
The biases I struggled with the most during this study to include the interviews were my
positions on systemic racism and my skepticism of the senior executive promotion process. Both
biases stem from my life experiences. Regarding systemic racism, I am a Black American male
who has experienced racism throughout my entire life. The second issue, skepticism of the
promotion process, was formed over a four year period of not being selected in spite of my
demonstrated qualifications as well as observing others I thought were qualified not being
selected. In both cases, I dealt with these biases by ensuring that only participants’ responses
and the literature were used in the data collection and analysis efforts. For anything I thought I
needed to personally highlight from my own experiences, I distinguished this by writing the
anecdotal ethnographic pieces in this study.
I am a constructivist. Constructivism, sometimes referred to as interpretivism, is a
worldview whereby individuals assume reality is socially constructed and there is no single
reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Perkins (2006) added that the
external stimuli we as individuals experience do not inherently convey meaning. Individuals
must construct or reconstruct what these stimuli mean, in a social context (Perkins, 2006). In
other words, reality is as one perceives it to be. This means that in this study, I, as a researcher,
sought to understand the context of others’ experiences and interpret how those others’
understanding, or perception, of reality shaped their thoughts and actions regarding
65

underrepresentation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Participants’ perceptions as to how they
attained senior executive status is the focus of this research, and therefore my research focus was
aligned with my worldview as a constructivist.
My constructivist worldview was one major factor in how I as an individual conducted
my research. The other was positionality. Positionality is the concept that knowledge production
and understanding in research is shaped by how researchers see themselves and how others see
them (Lu & Hodge, 2019; Thuraiajah, 2019). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) added that
positionality also has a power element, in that the power relationship between the researcher and
researched affects how participants and researcher interact. Adu-Ampong and Adams (2020)
further argue that as a researcher, one is either an outsider or insider to the participant group, and
that this can help or hinder the collection of data by establishing rapport or barriers respectively
during data collection. Thuraiajah (2019) defines outsiders as those who do not share
positionalities while insiders as those who do. The condition of being an outsider or insider is
contextual and can fluctuate based on the topic or situation being discussed or observed with
participants (Adu-Ampong & Adams, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Thuraiajah, 2019).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Adu-Ampong and Adams (2020) both add to the positionality
concept that a researcher’s racial, gender, or other identity contributes to the outsider/insider
status and influences how a researcher approaches participants.
I self-identify as an African or Black American male. I grew up in an urban inner-city
environment as an only child to a working mother and at the time did not know my father. I
faced the challenges of poverty and racism growing up but focused on education as a means to
66

escape the former though I have not yet managed to escape the latter. I am also well-traveled,
having lived abroad as an exchange student in Europe during high school and then later being
stationed in Europe and Africa with the U.S. Army. My living and traveling abroad greatly
widened my view of the world and enabled me to see the U.S. in a more global context- to
include the issue of systemic racism as I also experienced or observed it in different ways
overseas.
I also until recently was an employee with the DIA. I was a senior intelligence officer
who unsuccessfully applied for promotion to senior executive four consecutive years. This is
one of several important reasons that I departed the agency at the end of 2020. It was the fact
that an African or Black American who received high performance evaluation ratings year-over-
year, had numerous times demonstrated that they met or exceeded the executive core
qualifications, or ECQs, for promotion, and had a graduate degree from an elite university could
time and again be passed over for promotion, that inspired my study. I asked myself, if I could
not achieve senior executive status, given my professional credentials appear to satisfy the
ECQs, then what other factors could be at play?
My positionality and experiences indicated that in conducting my research, I was both an
insider and outsider. I was an insider in that I am an African or Black American, worked at the
DIA, and applied for promotion to senior executive, so I shared those conditions with those I
studied (Thuraiajah, 2019). I was an outsider however in that unlike my participants, I never
achieved senior executive status, do not self-identify as a woman- which several of my
participants did- and may have quite different life experiences than my participants did
67

(Thuraiajah, 2019). I was mindful of these facts and how they may have affected me and my
participants in the conduct of my research.
Data Sources
The data collection method I used in this study was interviews. In qualitative
research, data refers to the materials or information that researchers collect that pertain to the
subject collect that pertain to the subject being studied (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Three
common forms of data include interviews, document and/or artifact examination, and
observations recorded as fieldnotes (Butina et al., 2015; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I could not
use observation as a method in this study, due to the classified nature of the DIA workspaces and
due to my no longer having access to those workspaces. I also could not access many documents
for the same reasons. However, I did have access to DIA participants and many publicly
available documents to inform my research context. In the following sub-section, I discuss
interviews as a data collection method in further detail.
Interviews
Patton (2002) posited qualitative interviewing is predicated on the assumption that
individuals’ perspectives are meaningful and knowable. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest
interviewing is necessary when one cannot observe behavior or interpret how others view the
world. Creswell and Creswell (2018) assert that interviews, in addition to being useful when one
cannot observe behavior, allows participants to provide historical information and enables the
researcher to control the line of questioning.
68

There are three types of interview structures in qualitative research: highly structured, or
standardized, semistructured, and unstructured or informal (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Structured interviews involve the researcher rigidly adhering to a set of predetermined questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) argued that a weakness of the structured interview
approach is its inflexibility does not allow the researcher to pursue emergent topics during the
interview. In contrast, semistructured interviews contain a mix of structured and more open-
ended questions, enabling the researcher flexibility in response to the interviewee’s responses to
the questions and any new ideas that emerge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One weakness of this
approach is that the interviewer may unintentionally omit asking questions about salient topics
(Patton, 2002). However, it is still an effective approach in that the questions posed do address
the topic(s) the researcher is interested in, even if potentially incomplete (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Patton, 2002). Unstructured interviews are even more flexible in that the researcher does
not have a set of predetermined questions; the interview is more of a conversation that develops
from responses and observations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). This type of
interview is often used when the researcher does not know enough about the topic being
researched to ask relevant questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I used the semistructured interview approach in this study. It provided me the flexibility
to obtain specific information while also allowing for emergent discussion with my participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). It was incumbent on me as the researcher to ensure
that regardless of the mix of questions, I obtained information that addressed my research
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
69

Participants
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) observed that researchers must choose what, where, when,
and whom to observe or interview. This process is called sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Johnson & Christensen, 2020). The size of the sample studied does not have a
definitive solution: it depends (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The size
depends on, for example, the research questions that need to be answered, the resources one has
to conduct the research, and the size of the population from which the sample is derived
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ideally, the researcher would sample
until they reach a saturation or redundancy point, which is the researcher begins to hear the
sample interview responses, observes the same behaviors, and no new information is derived
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). What is important is regardless of the
sample size, it should generally represent the population reflecting the situation or instance of the
phenomenon being researched (Merriam & Tisdell, 2013; Johnson & Christensen, 2020).
The participant group represented the focus stakeholder population for this study. The
criteria for participants were they self-identified as Black or African or Black American and were
also current senior executives or leaders in the DoD. In each case, the participants were also
members of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, which served as the sample agency for DoD
in this study. My sample consisted of African or Black American senior executives from the DIA.
They were a purposeful sample, meaning I selected them deliberately due to their ability to provide
me information necessary to address my research questions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). These senior executives, as I have mentioned previously mentioned in this study, were
70

well-suited to provide information that addresses my research questions as they both attained
promotion and in a few of their cases, also selected or considered other African or Black Americans
for promotion. Therefore, their perspectives on what they attribute their selection for promotion
to provided me great insight to inform this study.
My recruitment efforts for participants consisted of inviting 10 potential participants in
total. These 10 represented over 50% of the total Black or African or Black American senior
executives at the DIA, which numbered a total of 18 (DIA, 2021, July 13). Aside from the
participants meeting the study participation criteria of self-identifying as African or Black
American and being current senior executive leaders in the DoD in a purposeful approach, I also
considered information power. Malterud, Siersma, and Guassora (2015) defined information
power is when the information within a recruited sample group relevant to the aim of a study is
significant enough to justify a small sample size relative to the population of the study (Malterud,
Siersma, & Guassora, 2015; Vasileiou et al., 2018). More specifically, the researchers stated a
less extensive sample size is needed when the participants hold characteristics specific to the
study (Malterud, Siersma, & Guassora, 2015; Vasileiou et al., 2018). In addition, they also
argued that if there is relevant literature to the subject and that the quality of the interview
dialogue is strong, meaning the interviewees provide responses that demonstrate experience with
and knowledge of the subject of the study, a smaller sample size is sufficient (Malterud, Siersma,
& Guassora, 2015). This approach generally aligns with the position of Merriam and Tisdell
(2013) and Johnson and Christensen (2020) that regardless of the sample size used in qualitative
research, it should reflect the subject population of the researched phenomenon. It also aligns
71

with Creswell and Creswell (2018) who stated that in my type of study, where I am examining a
single issue or phenomenon, five participants suffice. In addition, Marshall et al. (2013) and
Merriam and Tisdell (2013) suggest that there are no agreed minimum sample sizes in qualitative
research, though Marshall et al. (2013) argue there should be agreed standards.
The criteria for participation in this study, which I also discuss in Chapter Three, was that
the participants be senior executives that work in the DoD and that they self-identify as African
or Black American. Five of the ten senior executives I contacted ultimately participated in the
study. One of the invitees that did not participate indicated to me initially that they would but
later informed me they had changed their mind. Two of the invitees never responded back to me
to schedule interview sessions after initially indicating they would participate. The remaining
two never responded to my invitations. One point of context during this period that may have
influenced whether invitees participated or not is the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have
limited individuals’ ability or willingness to participate.
The participants self-identified their respective genders as three females and two males. I
do not know if this gender breakdown was representative of the total African or Black American
senior executive population in the DoD by gender, given the information was not publicly
available. However, a report on the representation of African or Black Americans in the DoD
stated that approximately 43% of all African or Black American GS15s and Senior Executives
are women (DoD, 2020), suggesting the representation in this study may be slightly skewed in
overrepresentation of female senior executives.
72

The participants collectively represented various specialty areas within the DIA or other
previously in other DoD agencies to include intelligence analysis, intelligence planning, business
operations, general management and administration, public affairs and marketing, foreign partner
engagement, and equal opportunity. They were both experienced with and knowledgeable of the
problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the DoD,
which was demonstrated by their interview responses as discussed in Chapter Four, thereby
meeting an information power sample size criterion (Malterud, Siersma, & Guassora, 2015).
Interview Protocol
Qualitative research is primarily focused on meaning-making, or what individuals make
of individually or shared experiences or phenomena (Creswell & Creswell, 2016; Magnusson &
Marecek, 2105). My study, which relied on the perspectives of participants on what they
attribute their promotion to senior executive to as African or Black Americans, fits this
definition. In order to collect said perspectives, I conducted interviews with the participants
following an interview protocol, or guide.
Magnusson and Marecek (2015) argue that the researcher must create an interview
situation such that it encourages participants to share their experiences and perspectives. The
interview protocol assists in the goal of creating said conducive environment (Magnusson &
Marecek, 2015). Interview protocols are a plan to explore specific topics and ask specific open-
ended questions that address the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Johnson &
Christensen, 2020; Magnusson & Marecek, 2015). There is no specific order of questions for an
interview protocol, but Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend a researcher begin with neutral,
73

descriptive information about the phenomenon of interest. This information forms the context
for the questions that follow (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested that to help maintain a mutually conducive
atmosphere for conducting interviews, the researcher must remain neutral regardless of the
content or position of the participants’ responses, even if they are antithetical to those of the
researcher. I followed this advice and using the interview protocol as a supportive tool helped
me remain neutral by providing me focus on adhering to the process of collecting the
information.
Interview Procedures
The interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams or Zoom, dependent on the
participants’ wishes. This was due to the recommended COVID 19 restrictions regarding
physical distancing, privacy considerations, and for the participants’ convenience in several
cases. In each case, the interviews were no longer than one hour in length and I recorded the
interviews using a digital voice recorder, which I then had transcribed using a third-party service.
I also took notes during the interview, in order to have both a backup and to capture my
reflections of the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I used my interview protocol (Appendix B) to guide me through the interview. The
protocol included an introduction of myself, the study, and the format of the interview regarding
number of questions, to include both open and closed-ended, prompts, and total length of the
interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Magnusson & Marecek, 2015; Johnson & Christensen,
2020). The protocol also included questions regarding participant understanding of the study and
74

the interview process and requesting participant permission to proceed with the interview and to
audio record it for later transcription (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015).
Data Analysis
Flick (2014) argues data analysis is the most important step in qualitative research.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) support this argument by adding that a final research product is
shaped by the data collected and analyzed. Data analysis is the consolidating, reducing, and
interpreting of the collected data to make meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is the process
of turning collected data into findings (Roulston, 2014).
Analysis of the collected data was continuous during my research for this study, rather
than sequential once all data were collected. This approach would have enabled me to make any
adjustments to subsequent collection of data if it had been necessary, which it was not in the end
(Johnson & Christensen, 2020). Johnson and Christensen (2020) describe this approach as
interim analysis. Below, I describe in more detail how I analyzed my two types of data
collected: interviews and documents.
Interviews
The interview consisted of a total of 20 questions, of which the first five regarding
participants’ individual professional and educational status data, to include rank, date of
promotion to senior executive, and highest degree attained. These questions are relevant to the
subject population of this study, African or Black American senior executives. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) suggest that all interviews should contain background demographic questions
relevant to the study. The last 15 were questions specifically aimed at collecting data that
75

addressed the research questions which was the primary goal of the interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
I also posed probing questions at different points throughout the interviews, which were
follow on questions to previous participant responses in order to further develop or explore the
participants’ expressed thoughts about a question topic (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The responses from the probes often yielded more information regarding a
participant’s perceptions about a topic question than they had provided previously, enriching the
amount of data collected.
I conducted the interviews from June 11 to 18 July 18, 2021, based on the participants’
stated availability. The interviews were conducted using Zoom, but I used a digital recording
device to record participants’ responses. I did not record the Zoom video portions, in order to
protect the participants’ confidentiality. The average length of each interview was 55 minutes,
which was within the target goal of 60 minutes established in the invitations I sent to
participants. In all but one case, the participants were in their homes for the interviews. The one
participant was at work but in an enclosed office space and was not interrupted during the
interview, providing a secure environment for the interview, which is an important consideration
for participant comfort (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I took notes on the participants’ physical reactions such as facial expressions, verbal
pauses, and gestures during the interviews. I did this to capture impressions about how the
participants’ body language potentially indicated their emotional responses to the interview or
interview questions. Ellingson (2017) argues that for a researcher to fully gain meaning from
76

interviews, the physical or verbal reactions of the participants adds value by giving the
researcher insight into the potential emotional or mental state of the participants. Further,
Ellingson (2017) adds that these emotional or mental states influence the participants receptivity
during the interviews and their responses, so it was important for me to note the physical
reactions of the participants during the interviews accordingly.
Following my interviewing and receiving the transcription via a third-party service, I then
analyzed the interviews more thoroughly. I searched for recurring themes and statements that
potentially indicated common perspectives as well as outlier themes and statements that
potentially indicated individual perspectives that were not commonly shared. I coded these
themes per transcript that I later grouped into various categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Roulston, 2014). Coding is the process whereby the researcher assigns labels to words or themes
that give symbolic meaning to the descriptive information collected (Johnson & Christensen,
2020). The coding I used was in vivo, whereby I used the language and words of the participants
to inform the coding (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). I grouped the coded themes into several
categories, each of which met the following criteria, per Merriam & Tisdell (2016):
1. Responsive to the purpose of my research.
2. Exhaustive. That is, I was able to place all relevant data into a category.
3. Mutually exclusive. Each specific coded datum belongs to only one category.
4. Sensitizing. The naming of each category should convey a sense of what data is
contained within.
5. Conceptually congruent. Characterize all categories at the same level.
77

I then made connections, or relationships, between these category themes and my
conceptual framework, an inductive approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). These categories
and my aligning them to my conceptual framework in effect were the responses to my research
questions (Flick, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that being able to trust research results in applied fields
is important because practitioners intervene in individuals’ lives. Therefore, the researcher’s
work should be valid and reliable (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Johnson and Christensen (2020) add that in qualitative research, validity is achieved when a
research study is plausible, credible, trustworthy, and therefore defensible, a description
congruent with that of Creswell and Creswell (2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018) posit
qualitative research is reliable when the researcher’s approach to a study is consistent. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) add that for qualitative research, this consistency is achieved when the
researcher can demonstrate that given the data collected, the results make sense. This is different
from quantitative reliability whereby the research should be replicable with a different
participant group and yield the same results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In this study, I collected data from the conducted interviews. I added to the validity of
my research by explicitly stating my positionality as it concerns the topic of African or Black
American senior executive underrepresentation at the DoD and highlighting my need to control
for any related biases, which in this study were my feelings regarding systemic racism and the
promotion system, which I discussed in the positionality section of this chapter (Johnson &
78

Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I furthered strengthened the validity by using
respondent validation, or member checking. That is, I submitted transcripts of interviews to each
corresponding participant to ensure the information within was indeed accurate (Johnson &
Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, I purposefully looked for variations in the
understanding of the phenomenon of African or Black American senior executive
underrepresentation that might have suggested alternative explanations for the phenomenon other
than those I already understood from the literature (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Regarding reliability, this study meets the requirements as well. My findings are
consistent with data I collected, and the data were congruent with participants’ understandings of
reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also ensured I used the same definitions for codes and
categories during the coding process, strengthening the consistency of my findings (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Ethics
Inherent in qualitative research involving the use of human participants is the issue of
ethics (Criswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethics are the principles and
guidelines that support our values (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). The main goal in research
ethics involving human participants is protecting them or doing them no harm in the conduct of
the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Iphofen & Tolich, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative research methods such as interviewing can make participants feel uncomfortable or
even angry by asking questions regarding work or private matters, thereby causing unintentional
harm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It
79

is therefore imperative that a researcher take steps to ensure their data collection, analysis, and
findings are done in an ethical fashion (Johnson & Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
There are several actions I took during this study to ensure my research was conducted in
an ethical manner. I provided each participant with an informed consent form (Appendix C),
which explained the research problem, the purpose of the interview, and the fact I would ensure
their confidentiality throughout the research process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Johnson &
Christensen, 2020). The consent form also informed each participant that their participation was
voluntary, and they could withdraw or refuse to participate at any time during my research
without any penalty (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). Prior to commencing the interview, I asked
participants for their permission to voice record the interview before I began recording, verbally
explaining that the records would be used solely to inform my research (Johnson & Christensen,
2020). I also provided each participant with a copy of their respective interview transcript so
they could provide any comments about their responses before I used them in the study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I further explained to each participant that if they had any
questions before, during, or after the interview they could contact me (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
One important issue regarding this interview process is discussing sensitive topics.
Sensitive topics are those which discussing could potentially intimidate or bring psychological
pain or other discomfort to the participant (Dempsey et al., 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Some of these topics could be related to a job situation or struggles
with learning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My particular, but not sole, concern was that of
80

discussing topics related to the racial identity of the participants and the potential societal and
professional impacts of that identity. This concern was because African or Black Americans
often have a mistrust of research and researchers based on past unethical practices that hurt
and/or exploited African or Black American communities (Dunbar et al., 2001; Lyons et al.,
2012). One method I used to address this concern was I remained mindful of not causing undue
discomfort to my participants by being attentive of their physical gestures and verbal tones
listening for any sudden changes that may indicate discomfort or being upset (Lyons et al.;
2012). Another was my being upfront at the beginning about the purpose and benefit of the
interview, why their responses were important, and why they were selected, demonstrating
honesty and transparency (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Dunbar et al., 2001; Lyons et al., 2012). I
also asked each participant at the end of the interview if there was anything they wanted to add,
allowing the participants time to reflect on their previous responses and showing that I valued
their perspectives (Lyons et al., 2012). These methods ensured that I was aware of the potential
sensitivities of the topic and respectful of the comfort, safety, and privacy of my participants.
In addition to my steps to ensure ethical engagement and sensitivity awareness with my
participants, I also submitted my research proposal to the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for permission to proceed with data collection. The IRB
reviewed my proposal for potential risks to research participants before authorizing my research
(USC, March 5, 2021). I also took CITI human subjects research training prior to submitting my
research proposal to the IRB, in compliance with IRB requirements (USC, March 5, 2021).
Further, I reviewed the DoD instructions on human subjects research (DoD, 2020) and consulted
81

with the DIA Office of the General Counsel to ensure my academic research generally aligned
with DoD guidance.
My final comment regarding ethics is that while conducting the research for this study,
and especially during data collection, I made certain I was reflective about myself and how I felt
and/or thought about the engagements and the information obtained. Carpenter (2018) argues
that no researcher can be totally objective in conducting research; in fact, the researcher is likely
to be emotionally involved with their research. That said, I made certain during my research to
be continually reflective and mindful of my feelings and positionality to ensure they did not
overly affect my approaches and analyses (Carpenter, 2018; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

82

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of African or Black American
senior executives within the Department of Defense, or DoD, on what they attribute their
promotion selection to, using Weiner’s attribution theory as the theoretical framework guiding
the study. In this chapter, I present the findings from my data collection efforts that address the
two research questions guiding this study. The two research questions that guided the study are:
1. What do African-American American senior executives in the DoD attribute their
selection for promotion to?
2. How much influence, if any, do African or Black American senior executives in the
DoD perceive they have on advancing African or Black Americans to senior
executive?
Prior to presenting the findings I will provide an overview of the participants who
provided the primary data for this study. This overview includes their demographic composition,
and their educational and professional backgrounds. Following this discussion of the
participants, I will present a summary of my data collection methods, comprised mainly of
conducting interviews with the participants. I will then proceed to present and examine the
findings, delineated by research question.
Participants
The participants comprised two self-identified males and three self-identified females.
Each of them was a senior executive, or listed as SE in Table 2, based on the definition I
83

provided in Chapter One. The minimum amount of time participants had been senior executives
at the time of the interviews was two years while the minimum amount of time spent in the
Federal Government, to include the DoD, was 14 years. The average educational completion
level was a graduate program. I do not include more detail because doing so could compromise
the participants’ identities by narrowing further the pool of individuals who could have
participated in this study. Table 1 details the participant pseudonyms, in alphabetical order, their
associated genders, and their professional level, senior executive or SE, in this study.

Table 1
Research Participant Pseudonyms, Genders, and Professional Level

Pseudonym Gender Race Level
Alcindor M Black SE
Banneker M Black SE
Cromwell F Black SE
Marquis F Black SE
Smithers F Black SE
84

I have now provided a brief overview of the participants I interviewed in this study. In the
next section I will analyze the findings of the interviews, which will guide the development of
recommendations I detail in Chapter Five.
Findings
In this section I will detail the findings developed from the data I collected through
participant interviews. The findings indicated that participants perceived that contributing
factors to their own promotions to senior executive included having White executive sponsorship
and being qualified as defined by meeting the Executive Core Qualifications, or ECQs. Their
responses also indicated they perceived their own ability to influence the problem of African or
Black American underrepresentation at the senior executive level in the DIA or the DoD as
limited due to the dominance of White senior executives in promotion selection actions. The
participants’ responded that they perceived the DoD and/or the DIA not valuing having non-
White senior executives. Their response, coupled with their other perceptions suggest perhaps
that though not explicitly stated, they perceived African or Black American could not be
promoted by their own efforts alone in most or many cases.
I want to now provide the reader a brief discussion on themes. Themes are the major
findings of a research study (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). Themes can be developed for
individual cases or used for general description (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I chose the latter
usage, because I want to examine the perceptions of a general category, African or Black
American senior executives, to examine the problem of underrepresentation (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
85

Cleary, Horsfall, and Hayter (2014) posit that regardless of the sample size, findings
should represent the majority of the participants, which the findings in this study do. I based
themes from the findings on at least three of the five participants mentioning the topics
associated with the themes and having congruent perspectives. In some cases, all participants
shared the same perspectives on a theme; in others, only the majority three or four did. But this
was sufficient given the sample size, as I noted (Clearly, Horsfall, & Hayter, 2014).
One issue I want to highlight before examining the findings in detail is that in many
cases, but not all, the participants provided responses that were specific to the DIA and not
necessarily to the greater whole of the DoD. I as the researcher am responsible for this
specificity in responses, as I realized that most of my interview questions did not necessarily
effectively delineate the differences between the DIA as a sample DoD agency and the DoD as a
whole. Due to many of the participants responding specifically to questions in a DIA context,
their perceptions may not be generally applicable to their perceptions of the DoD, or in a
qualitative research sense, not externally validating (Gibbs, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I suggest my research findings may indeed be a least partially applicable to the greater
DoD. Creswell and Creswell (2018) argue that when a study shows that more than one case has
similar characteristics it may suggest a degree of generalizability, an argument shared by
Johnson and Christensen (2020). In Chapter Two of this study, I presented the NGA, another
DoD agency, as having similar demographics and similar struggles with promoting African or
Black Americans to senior executive (NGA, 2018). I also discussed how numerous federal
studies, to include Congressional and Defense studies, discuss the problem of African or Black
86

American underrepresentation at the senior executive level within the DoD in general and the
data is similar to that of the DIA’s as a sample agency (Congressional Research Service, 2021;
DIA, July 13, 2021; NGA, 2018; ODNI, 2020). This, I offer, is exemplative of Creswell and
Creswell (2018) and Johnson and Christensen (2020) positing that a degree of generalizability
may be applicable when there are more than one case sample provided in a study with similar
characteristics. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also offer that when autoethnographic examples are
similar to participants’ experiences and other research results, it can support a degree of
generalizability. In this study I provided at least one example of where I had similar experiences
with more than one agency regarding not being selecting for promotion to senior executive and
how I did not receive senior executive sponsorship in my career. I am not claiming that these
arguments indicate my findings are absolutely generalizable to the DoD whenever only the DIA
is mentioned in participant responses. Rather, I posit that my findings may have some general
applicability, as the literature suggests.
I have just provided a brief overview of the findings and discussed how my findings that
are DIA specific may not necessarily be generalizable to the greater DoD. I will now examine
the findings in more detail, presented as themes and supporting sub-themes aligned to the two
research questions.
Research Question 1: What do African-American American Senior Executives in the DoD
Attribute Their Selection for Promotion To?
This research question is the main focus of this study. What factors African or Black
American senior executives perceived to have contributed to their promotion might inform senior
87

executives in the DoD about how the current process results in underrepresentation. This
approach uses attribution theory as the guiding framework, in that perception is at the heart of
the theory (Weiner, 1986; Martinko, 2017). Further, answering this question, along with the
findings of Research Question 2, also informed the recommendations discussed in Chapter Five.
The themes I developed from the findings related to this research question are that being
qualified for promotion is not sufficient and White senior executives are important to solving the
problem.
Theme 1: Being Qualified for Promotion is not Sufficient
I developed this theme based on participant interview responses that address this research
question, as well as the literature I referenced for this study. This theme concern candidate
qualifications for promotion and career choices, and the associated perceived issues regarding
both. The main perceptions in this theme were that most of all African or Black American
candidates were qualified for promotion and that African or Black American career choices
could potentially limit their promotions in many cases.
Qualified But Not Promoted
All five of the participants generally perceived that African or Black American
candidates for senior executive promotion they knew of were qualified. Three participants stated
all candidates they have known were qualified, one stated the majority were, while one opined
that at least 70% of candidates they have seen were qualified. For example, Ms. Smithers stated:
“So in my experience, I think they’re all qualified.” Ms. Cromwell expressed similar views
when she stated, “I think those who apply are highly qualified.” In each of these cases, the
88

participants were providing their responses in the context of the ECQs being the main basis for
senior executive promotion qualifications.
Two participants, Mr. Alcindor and Ms. Marquis, qualified their responses, stating their
assessment of African or Black American candidates they have known were qualified was based
on the Executive Core Qualifications, or ECQs. The ECQs are the set of five competency areas
that candidates for senior executive positions in the federal government must demonstrate by
past performance as written in their promotion applications (OPM, 2012). The five ECQs are
leading people, leading change, business acumen, building coalitions, and results driven (OPM,
2012). There was no stated requirement for a candidate to exceed the qualifications listed in the
ECQs, nor a definition of what it was to exceed the ECQs. The policy simply states that
candidates for senior executive must meet the ECQs (OPM, 2012).
One issue that is pertinent to the theme of being qualified is whether candidates for
promotion understand the process and how to write ECQs that clearly demonstrate they are
indeed qualified for promotion (Miller-Smith, 2020). In other words, if candidates are not
familiar with the process and the ECQs, they may not prepare effectively for promotion
consideration. By inference, many candidates for promotion likely are familiar with the process,
either by attending formal training or by a mentor or sponsor speaking with them about it. This
inference is based on several of the participants’ responses regarding knowledge of the process.
For example, Mr. Banneker stated,
So, I had mentors in the agency, that when I expressed interest [in promotion to senior
executive] they started pointing me to areas where I could study and learn about the
89

process. An example of that is one of my key mentors that, you know, told me, ‘Hey are
you familiar with the Executive Core Qualifications?’. I’m like, ‘No’. ‘Okay, well you
need to go to the OPM website and you need to look at what the requirements are to
become a senior because you are going to want to assess yourself against each of the
Executive Core Qualifications.’
Another participant, Ms. Marquis, stated: “I was pretty well informed because I had applied
several times before and not just at DIA. So, I was pretty well informed about what the ECQs
were, where I and written some before as I applied for a specific position.”
Ms. Smithers added that training was important in acquiring knowledge about the process: “My
knowledge was fairly, I would say fairly well because I took several leadership courses where
they talk about, what it will take to get to senior executive.”
The participants’ statements were based on their own experiences, but they perhaps
implied that they were not alone. The implication, I suggest, was that perhaps many
unsuccessful African or Black American candidates were familiar with the promotion process, to
include the ECQs (Miller-Smith, 2020). This further implied that knowledge of the process
itself, or rather, lack thereof, was not necessarily a significant, or even extant, factor in why the
problem of underrepresentation exists. However, of course, further empirical evidence is needed
to substantiate this assertion and so as stated it is speculative.
Refocusing specifically on the participants’ perceptions of qualifications for promotion,
there was one notable exception among the participants regarding whether candidates were
90

qualified based on the ECQs. One participant, Mr. Alcindor, opined that though they believed the
majority of African or Black American candidates were qualified for promotion, that:
I think many would be hard pressed to get a senior executive position within the federal
government…because Defense intel [intelligence] is very, I think a lot more focused on
the mission accomplishments, versus the executive core qualifications and the true
nature of the competencies that are being evaluated within each of those, core
qualifications.
The participant further clarified their remarks later in their interview:
So, there’s this, there’s this, I think misunderstanding of kind of what those qualifications
[referring to ECQs] mean. And so, we’ve probably fudged a little bit on the Defense intel
side of qualifying people for the senior executive level [The term “fudged” likely means
that some agencies perhaps do not grade selected candidates for promotion against the
ECQs as strictly as others; a different version of grade inflation so to say].
Mr. Alcindor’s statements suggest that perhaps the DIA was not necessarily following the
OPM guidance, though none of the other participants in this study explicitly stated similar
perceptions. If Mr. Alcindor’s statement accurately reflected promotion grading tendencies
within the DIA, it would also suggest that if African or Black American candidates for
promotion would “be hard pressed” to achieve senior executive status outside of the DIA,
perhaps the same could be said for their White American peers. Ms. Marquis perceived the same
when she stated, “I’m not sure they [referring to some individual minorities she had known
91

throughout her career] were qualified, but I could say the same thing for people who are not, you
know, not a minority.”
The participant statements in the previous paragraph suggested that many DIA
candidates, regardless of race, would struggle to achieve senior executive outside of the agency
or perhaps the DoD. If true, my usage of the DIA as a sample agency for the whole of the DoD
might be flawed. However, there was no literature or official documentation that supported the
participants’ perceptions, and the other three participants did not provide similar remarks. This
does not necessarily mean the participants were wrong; this study is about perceptions after all,
but rather there was no evidence available to me at the time of the study that supported their
assertions.
The main point is that overall, the participants perceived African or Black American
candidates to be qualified for promotion. Indeed, the participants’ perceptions in general that
African or Black American candidates for promotion to senior executive were qualified is
partially supported by the literature. Cornelius (2012) and Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas (2019)
suggest that in the corporate environment, African or Black American candidates for senior
executive positions are similar in professional performance and hold similar qualifications as
their White American peers. My own experience several years ago with an informal evaluation
of ECQs I had submitted for a failed promotion attempt illustrates this issue of qualifications
anecdotally:
I was on the phone one morning with an acquaintance of mine who had once worked for
the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, which establishes policy regarding
92

federal employees to include promotions to senior executive. My acquaintance had once
worked in the part of OPM that oversaw ECQ reviews for senior executive selections.
This acquaintance had recently reviewed the ECQs I had submitted as part of a
promotion application package in an attempt to assess whether my ECQs would have met
OPM standards for senior executive selection. It turned out, according to my
acquaintance, that not only were my ECQs as written compelling and would have passed
OPM standards, but that they were better than many ECQs of people successfully
selected for senior executive that they had seen when working at OPM. The person
added that yes, the ECQs could be strengthened, but they were already compelling as
they were. This confirmation from an individual who had worked on senior executive
promotion policy at OPM itself that my ECQs demonstrated senior executive
qualification increased my conviction that lack of merit was not what was keeping me
from promotion.
This acquaintance, by the way, was White. However, they merely reviewed my ECQs to
assess whether the ECQs made a compelling case that I was qualified to be a senior executive.
The acquaintance was not involved with nor had influence on my failed promotion attempt. But
regardless of whether a former OPM employee assessed me as qualified or the participants in
this study viewed most or all African or Black American candidates for senior executive as
qualified, the problem of underrepresentation persists. Viewed through the lens of the attribution
theory causal dimensions, I saw the locus as due to external factors, others not assessing me
93

fairly, the stability as enduring, since this was my fourth non-selection in a row, and I certainly
felt as though I had little control over the situation.
The Right Career Choices Matter
Beckwith, Carter, and Peters (2016) suggest that African or Black Americans often do
not plan their careers strategically. Therefore, many make short term decisions regarding their
selection of which professional specialty areas, such as logistics or administration, to enter
(Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013). African or Black American
tend to choose professional specialty areas in federal service such administration that are readily
transferable to non-government corporate jobs (Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013). Unfortunately for
many African or Black Americans seeking advancement to more senior levels, the specialty
areas they often choose are non-managerial or operational (Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013).
However, research suggests that White American executives tend to favor management or
operations career areas, and that proportionately more White Americans enter those fields, which
gives them a professional advantage for promotion (Clark, Ochs & Frazier, 2013; Roberts,
Mayo, & Thomas, 2019).
The extant literature in this study does not suggest that it is impossible to attain
promotion to senior executive by choosing non-managerial or operational career specialty areas
(Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013). Rather, the literature suggests
it is simply more difficult to do so, and therefore I offer that African or Black Americans
frequently choosing non-managerial or operational careers limits but does not necessarily
94

preclude their potential to attain senior executive status (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Clark,
Ochs, & Frazier, 2013). In other words, career choices matter.
All the participants in this study provided responses suggesting they have observed
African or Black Americans often choosing non-managerial or operational careers, supporting
the assertions of the literature. Regarding the trend of choosing non-managerial or operational
careers, Mr. Banneker stated that,
I see a lot of blacks and Hispanics that join federal agencies going into fields that to me
seem more focused on building business-type skills. So, you know, they go into the
logistics fields or they go into the human capital fields or they go into the financial
management fields, the services fields, within a DoD organization. And I think that part
of that has to do with, that those fields can, you know, correlated to similar jobs in
corporate America. And that, those blacks or other minorities, want to be able to
develop extensible skills, that will help them be able to go back to the community and
attain wealth. You know, that’s what I think.
Ms. Smithers provided an example of a trend of joining the government and acquiring
skills that readily transferred into the private sector. Ms. Smithers stated she began her career in
DoD in the administrative field, as an administrative assistant and technician. However, she
chose at a certain point to enter the managerial field, and later she did attain senior executive
status. I detail what influenced Ms. Smithers’ decision in the upcoming sub-section regarding
sponsorship. This specific example supports the literature both in that the individual did start in
95

the administrative field but also changed to the managerial field, and perhaps as a result
eventually reached senior executive level.
Ms. Cromwell offered another aspect of the African or Black American career choice
issue. The issue is that of tokenism, which Roberts and Mayo (2019) suggest contributes to
African or Black Americans lower morale and frustration in the workplace. In referring to
tokenism, Ms. Cromwell opined,
Having opportunities beyond the token Black, the traditional, those typical token Black
positions, like EO and OHR [Equal Opportunity and Office of Human Resources], things
related to that or security, or having an environment in which the powerful are, you
know, able to share their knowledge and talk about what could be.
Ms. Cromwell also opined, in effect reinforcing her previous statement regarding African
or Black American career areas: “I definitely believe that there are, there are, in federal
government in general, so-called black positions. You usually see an African American in OHR,
or some OHR area, or EO, or perhaps security, perhaps.”
Ms. Marquis, who also held non-managerial and operational roles in her career, also commented,
If you look at the overall population across DIA, the majority of minorities are more in
the mission enabling functions [example mission enabling functions include human
resources and logistics], and certainly not in leadership positions [implying managerial or
operational in this context]. A few sprinkled here and there. So, there’s a tendency for
people to bring into that senior corps what looks like them, feels like them, thinks
like them. So therefore, race actually does not help if you will, for people of color to get
96

promoted into the senior corps [in the context of African or Black Americans being
associated mainly with non-managerial or operational career areas].
These comments support the idea that African or Black Americans do trend towards non-
managerial or operational career areas, such as human resources or equal opportunity (Roberts,
Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). The comments also show that some participants perceived tokenism is
a factor regarding African or Black American promotions to senior executive in the DIA. In
addition, Ms. Marquis implied that these career areas were not valued by the predominantly
White senior executive populations and that because African or Black Americans trend towards
those areas, they were at a disadvantage for promotion. Mr. Banneker did not link the career area
choices to promotion chances but did perceive that African or Black Americans trended towards
choosing non-managerial or operation career areas.
In addition to perceiving that African or Black Americans tend to choose career areas
such as human resources and logistics, Ms. Cromwell added that she perceived EO and OHR as
“token” career areas for African or Black Americans. A different way to express this notion is
that many White American senior executives expect African or Black Americans to be in those
career areas, which pertains to the idea of stereotyping and potential resultant negative
professional outcomes (Roberts, May, & Thomas, 2019; Steele, 2010).
The third point is that Ms. Cromwell’s perception that the powerful within the
organization were those senior executives that are outside of the non-managerial or operational
career areas. In other words, if one chooses a non-managerial or operational career area, one
perhaps does not have power within the organization equal to those who are in management or
97

operations, a concept supported by the literature (Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013; Roberts, Mayo,
& Thomas, 2019). Mr. Alcindor underscores the last point in the preceding paragraph when he
stated,
White males, they typically, especially Defense intelligence, they get into the, the jobs
that are providing them access to the Command Element [the head of the organization],
access to the decision makers, access to, the meetings at, having a seat at the table.
Having visibility, delivering information to the highest levels, external, internal. So, if
you don’t have that, it doesn’t really matter how good you are, right?
Theme 2: White Senior Executives are Important to Solving the Problem
The participants’ responses suggest that White senior executives must play a role in any
solution to the problem of African or Black American senior executive underrepresentation in
the DoD. This is based on the two findings I derived from my analysis of the data and the
literature on the topic, which are that diversity is valued only below the level of senior executive,
or the glass ceiling, and White sponsorship makes a difference in promotions. I will now
examine both in more detail.
Diversity Valued Only Beneath The Glass Ceiling
Participant responses indicated that they generally agreed there was a problem with the
DIA or the DoD not valuing having a diverse senior executive workforce. For example, Ms.
Smithers stated,
I think they [referring to the DIA and the DoD senior leadership] see the value, but I, it
goes back to this. So, DIA in specific has had a problem with diversity at the top, at the
98

senior ranks. The higher you go, the less diverse it is. This has been a problem that has
been in existence, could last another 15 years. There are not many problems I can think
of in the DoD that have been in existence for 15 years. So, I go back to, is it a true
priority that we’re trying to fix this problem?
Ms. Cromwell, in responding to the question of the DIA valuing a diverse senior
executive team, when she stated, “not very much, in my opinion”. Yet another participant, Mr.
Alcindor, added,
It tolerates diversity because it has to, and I think of the leaders who have tried to make
steps towards making positive change, but I think the system is the system and culture is
the culture, that it, it struggles against that, right? That’s why, you know, when you walk
down the main hallway in DIA, you see a bunch of pictures of White males, as the
leaders of DIA. That’s why when you participate in a senior leader, or a senior executive
meeting, you will mostly see White males, and that’s whether it’s on a video screen or
whether it’s in a room. It’s just that way, right?
Participant responses suggested that they perceive the DIA as valuing diversity either not
at all or only tolerating it. In a couple of cases, the participants’ responses appeared to indicate
doubt about whether the agency’s attitudes towards valuing diversity in the senior executive
ranks will change. Mr. Banneker, for example, opined that “I think that they [DIA] would value
having, you know, a racially diverse senior workforce, but I’m not sure that it is something that
they’re truly working towards, you know”. Mr. Alcindor, addressing the issue of whether the
DIA valued racial diversity at all, to include a diverse senior executive pool, added “DIA is an
99

institution, I think the culture there accepts it [racial diversity] and tolerates it. Mainly because
we’re based in a very diverse location in the D.C. area, right? If you put the same location in
Omaha, Nebraska, I think it’d be different, right?”
These participants’ perceptions regarding whether the DoD and the DIA valued having a
racially diverse senior executive team, I suggest, demonstrated that at least some African or
Black American senior executives did not think that the institutions value racial diversity. These
were of course perceptions, but these perceptions were shared to some degree among all five
participants may indicate and therefore may reflect a degree of truth, which the literature also
suggests (Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019; Seegars & Ramajan, 2019; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff,
2018).
White Sponsorship Makes a Difference
The participants all stated that sponsorship, in particular senior executive sponsorship,
made a difference in their perspectives either to being given developmental opportunities to
eventually become senior executives or to the sponsor advocating for their selection to senior
executive. Moreover, in four out of five cases, the senior executive sponsor was White. The role
of these White sponsors was often decisive in the eventual promotion of the participants, from
their perspective, as Ms. Marquis stated,
I think what prepared me the best was I was selected to work on a special project for the
agency and the person that, the senior who was leading that project gave me, I would say
a totally different perspective than any other senior I had worked with before. Gave me
access and opportunity. They gave me feedback, coaching, mentoring, more than any
100

other senior had given me before. And that person is who I call more of a sponsor. That
person made sure that I had not only, had an opportunity to take on very challenging
work, but that, I was, I had opportunities to be, to be in situations that most GG-15s
would not be in and treated me as though I was, a peer already, a senior executive
already.
Another participant, Ms. Smithers, spoke about how early in their career a White senior
executive sponsored her and gave her a chance to develop leadership traits that set her on a path
to eventual senior executive promotion:
…The senior executive who reassigned me there, told me point blank, “I’m reassigning
you, therefore, you can down there and fix [referring to a dysfunctional office team]”.
And I was like, you know, at the time I’m a GS-6 branch and the current lead [of the
dysfunctional team] is a GS-15, what do you mean I’m going to go down there and fix it?
And not only was he a GS-15, he was a PhD, GS-15. I was still school trying to pursue
my degree. And he [the senior executive] told me he would send me there because he
saw potential in me.
Ms. Cromwell was perhaps even more direct when it came to specifying how important
White American senior executive sponsorship was to her promotion:
So, when I think about my own experience, I know in my heart it was the commitment of
that high ranking leader to, his commitment to, helping me develop and grow, that made
the real difference…But at the same time, I think it’s pretty sad. So, had I not had that
great White hope, if you will, or that strong White male on my side, I don’t think I’d be
101

in this position right now.
In the cited cases showing the perspectives of the participants, sponsorship, be it at a
point in their career where senior executive was the next immediate step or earlier on the path to
becoming an eventual senior executive, was critical. Mr. Alcindor put it slightly differently,
when he stated, “If you get access to the decision makers, and they know who you are, that’s half
the battle [referring to promotion]”.
The research supports the participants’ perceptions of the role sponsorship played in their
careers. Beckwith, Carter, and Peters (2016) assert sponsorship is important to developing
African or Black American women into senior executives. Cornelius (2012) asserts the same
importance of sponsorship is applicable to African or Black American men as well. Erskine and
Billmoria (2019) are even more explicit in that they argue White American executive
sponsorship is often decisive, underscoring Ms. Cromwell’s remark regarding the “great White
hope”. Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas (2019) argue that advocacy, or sponsorship, is crucial for
African or Black Americans to attain career advancements in general. And, by default of the
majority of senior executives in corporate and federal areas being White, often when there is
sponsorship, it comes from Whites, who also tend to sponsor individuals more actively in the
workplace on average (Cornelius, 2012; Guest, 2016). A related experience from my past
underscored the importance of White sponsorship:
I once sat across from a White senior executive a couple of days after finding out I had
not been selected for promotion to senior executive yet again after multiple attempts.
The executive informed me that in their opinion, I was qualified and ready to be a senior
102

executive. The senior executive also informed me that they would reach out to other
senior executives to begin the process of formally introducing me and my qualifications
in the form of a draft promotion application in order to improve my chances for
promotion the following year. As they said this to me, I thought to myself: why now?
You, White senior executive, have known me and have seen my abilities and
accomplishments for two years and you are now just deciding to sponsor me? Where
were you two years ago?
It was obvious to me at the moment of this meeting that this specific White senior
executive was well aware of the importance of sponsorship, if not necessarily White sponsorship.
This scenario underscored how important White sponsorship can be. However, in my case,
unlike the cases of the participants in this study, the executive’s sponsorship never yielded
results. I left federal service for other unrelated reasons several months after the cited discussion
with the senior executive and I was never considered again for promotion.
To summarize this section, the findings I presented, based on participants’ perceptions
and supported by the cited literature, suggest that
1. African or Black American candidates for senior executive in the DoD will have a
better chance of promotion in general if they choose managerial or operation career
paths.
2. African or Black American candidates will struggle to prove their worthiness for
promotion against a White American senior executive dominant leadership that does
not value a diverse senior leadership group.
103

3. African or Black American candidates chances for promotion will increase if they
have White executive sponsorship.
None of the participants’ stated explicitly that without the managerial or operational
career paths or having White senior executive sponsorship an African or Black American
candidate cannot be promoted. Rather, they perceived that these two factors improved the
chances of promotion, which the literature also supports (Beckwith, Carter, and Peters, 2016;
Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). And regarding White
American senior executives not valuing non-White membership among them, the participants’
agreed that this is a factor that disadvantages African or Black Americans advancing to senior
positions, which Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas (2019) and Zweigenhaft and Domhoff (2018) also
suggest.
The participants’ perceptions that African or Black American chances for promotion are
increased if individuals choose managerial or operational careers or have White senior executive
sponsorship suggest differing attribution theory loci. In the case of choosing careers, the
perceptions suggest that the locus is internal, or the failure to achieve promotion is due to
individuals’ selection of lesser chance career areas. For having White senior executive
sponsorship, participants’ responses suggest the locus is external because White senior
executives choose whom they want to sponsor. Regarding stability, the participants responses
suggest the career choices and the White senior executive sponsorship issues are enduring, as
they are suggesting recurring trends rather than episodic situations. Finally, for controllability,
the responses suggest that African or Black Americans can control the career areas issue by
104

choosing managerial or operational careers while there is little or no control regarding White
senior executive sponsorship due to the White executives making the decisions as to whom they
will sponsor.
The reader of this study at this point might wonder where African or Black American
senior executives are regarding sponsorship of African or Black American candidates for senior
executive. I will directly address that issue in my discussion of Research Question 2, which
follows next.
Research Question 2: How Much Influence, If Any, Do African or Black American Senior
Executives in the DoD Perceive They Have On Advancing African or Black Americans to
Senior Executive?
The theme supporting Research Question 2 based on my analysis of the information
derived from the interviews was that African or Black American senior executives perceived
they had limited influence on the issue of underrepresentation in the DIA. The majority of
participants perceived their ability to influence advancing African or Black Americans to senior
executive as limited due to the dominance of White senior executives in the selection process.
Several of the participants suggested that without the White sponsorship, which I discussed in
the Research Question 1 sub-section, it was difficult to become a senior executive, which implied
that non-Whites’ ability to influence was limited, in their opinions. As Ms. Marquis expressed,
I hate to say this, but it’s very much a club and whether or not, I think you’re able to be a
member of that club. And a member of that club often means you have a similar way of
thinking, similar way of leading, you get along with those people. They in turn help you
105

move up. For African or Black Americans or minorities, it’s a club that is difficult to
enter into, this is my opinion. And often I’ve spoken to other minorities in the senior
executive ranks. What I found often is that they too had a sponsor who was in the
club…and if anything, kind of introduced the club to them and in a way helped them get
into it.
Ms. Marquis added,
And so, I think in some cases, a few have to be selected and put into what I called a club.
Have to be allowed into the club just to be able to at least say, see, there is diversity. But
I don’t really think that is a genuine effort to really bring in a lot of minorities, a lot of
different races into the senior executive corps. It’s wanting to bring in enough to be able
to claim there’s diversity, but not so much it reflects the overall population [For
reference, 15% of the DoD is African or Black American while 6% of the senior
executives are, according to Congressional Research Service (2021)].
Mr. Alcindor expressed the opinion that since there were not many African or Black
senior executives in the DIA, there was not likely going to be effective sponsorship efforts from
that group at the time. As he stated, “I know that at DIA…the opportunities for people that look
like me are very slim. And then if that means that they are very slim, that means there’s very
few that are looking down, trying to bring others up to look like me, right?” He further stated
that, referencing the ability to improve the situation regarding promotions, “We’re not gonna
make it even, ‘cause it’s never been, right? And they, I’ve never believed it will be even. I think
106

one, that one day we’ll get better, but it’s never, that equal playing field that everyone has
dreamed about but has never existed”.
Ms. Cromwell echoed Mr. Alcindor’s position, when she stated:
But when you look at, in my opinion, when you look at things that could add to the
pipeline [of increasing African or Black American senior executive representation], or
help the actual situation, nitty gritty measures that could be taken, those seem pretty
anemic to me. Again, those are the developmental programs that often are make or break
when it comes to be able to, to even be, be considered for those top leadership roles. So,
I don’t see a lot of efforts there [among the senior leadership, who are majority White
(DIA, 2021, July 13)] and I, just anecdotally, I hear that many African Americans don’t
feel terribly supported, or don’t feel as if there’s strong encouragement. So that’s why I
say not much.
Mr. Banneker, meanwhile, offered a slightly different angle to the issue of African or
Black American senior executives being able to influence the situation. He spoke about how
hiring or promotion panels require at least one racial minority representative, and how because
there are so few in the DIA, he and his fellow African or Black American senior executives are
requested frequently to participate as the one representative:
So, just so that you understand that because it might be relevant for research, part of that
has to do with being one of the few, black and/or minorities at the executive level
[referring to the frequent instances he has been asked to be the racial minority
representative on senior executive promotion or hiring panels]. And the, you know,
107

DIA’s promotion policy says you need to have a minority on a selection panel to senior,
or, or on any personnel selection panel. So, as a minority executive usually if you’re
looking to hire another executive [contextually meaning if White senior executives want
to hire or promote individuals to senior executive], you know, people [contextually
implying White senior executives] say, “Hey participant [contextually the participant is
the racial minority representative], hey participant, can you help us out?”
Mr. Banneker did not explicitly address whether he thought he could influence African or
Black American promotion rates to senior executive. From an attribution theory aspect, I posit
this suggests that participant responses indicate they perceive that the locus is external, not due to
their own actions, stable, in that it is a trend, and that they have little to no control, in that White
senior executives control the promotion selections.
Participant perceptions of having limiting influence are supported by research literature
regarding African or Black American social capital in the workplace (Beckwith, Carter, and
Peters, 2016; Cornelius, 2012; Guest, 2016; Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas, 2019). There are so
few African or Black American senior executives proportionate to the general population of
many organizations that their ability to use their social capital to develop and advance fellow
African or Black Americans is limited (Guest, 2016; Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas, 2019). In
other words, their social capital with White senior executives was enough to get Whites to admit
them to the club, but it was not sufficient for them to get other African or Black Americans in the
club.
108

Guest (2016) further suggests that even if African or Black Americans could influence
admission into the senior executive club, they are often hesitant to do so, to avoid problems with
their White peers. Cornelius (2012) adds that African or Black American professionals
frequently must expend more effort to build social capital with the dominant White power
structure in most organizations than their White peers, perhaps partially explaining the nature of
the problem avoidance Guest (2016) refers to. Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas (2019) support both
Cornelius (2012) and Guest (2016) when they suggest that African or Black American
professionals are perhaps more reluctant to help other African or Black Americans because they
have to protect their professional reputation vis-à-vis their White peers. As Mr. Alcindor put it,
regarding the potential formation of African or Black American senior executive networking
groups to advance others professional in the DIA:
But I’ve never seen in, like an executive color working group, right? Or senior
executives of color, offering mentoring sessions or the opportunity of color, and, or
others to come talk to a senior of color about experiences, and how do you get past that?
Generally, it just happens, you know, by chance, and it shouldn’t, because I think to get
over that hump, you’ve got be very purposed about how to do it, and I think we’ve got to
do, make actual steps and do things like, putting together those groups they don’t like to
have, right? “We don’t wanna have that black executive group, ‘cause we don’t wanna
call attention to that”…they’re not visible, and that’s the unfortunate part I think of
executives of color, is they’re not visible at DIA, not at all.
109

The participant responses that address this research question as I stated at the beginning
of this sub-section surprised me as I had thought perhaps despite what the cited literature
suggested regarding hesitancy (Cornelius, 2012; Guest, 2016; Roberts, Thomas, & Mayo, 2019),
some participants would contradict it. So, while there did seem to me that participants had an
awareness that lack of African or Black American senior executive ability to improve the
problem of underrepresentation was troublesome, the fact the majority did not offer a potential
solution but seemed resigned surprised me. After all, if the perception among several of them
was that largely only through White advocacy, or sponsorship, African or Black Americans in
the DIA could advance to senior executive, it implies perhaps many African or Black American
senior executives may not see themselves as agents for change (Pitcan, Park-Taylor, & Hayslett,
2018). This in turn, I offer, suggests that in the eyes of at least some African or Black Americans,
the primary responsibility to change the underrepresentation African or Black American senior
executives in the DIA and/or the DoD lies with White senior executives. In the framework of
attribution, this perspective suggests the locus of the responsibility is external, in that Whites
must change their selection habits, stable in that underrepresentation is an enduring issue so far,
and controllable for Whites, but perhaps uncontrollable for African or Black Americans.
Summary
In this chapter I presented five key findings aligned to three themes that addressed the
two research questions. There were four findings supporting the first theme and one supporting
the second. These four themes were as follows:
1. Being qualified for promotion is not sufficient
110

2. White senior executives are important to solving the problem
3. African or Black American senior executives have limited influence
Regarding the first theme, the participants agreed that in general African or Black American
candidates for senior executive were qualified for promotion, with several referring to the OPM
(2012) guidelines for the ECQs. So, in the view of the participants, qualifications were not a
reason for the problem of underrepresentation. For diversity being valued only beneath the glass
ceiling, participants agreed that the DIA and/or the DoD appeared to value diversity, but not at
the senior executive level. Regarding theme of the right career choices matter, participants’
responses indicate that many African or Black American candidates chose non-managerial or
operational career specialty areas that many White senior executives do not value as much. So,
by choosing careers that may translate more readily to corporate positions in the future, African
or Black American candidates for senior executive may be unintentionally lessening their
chances for promotion.
For theme two, White sponsorship was also important to most of the participants, and
indeed their responses could suggest that without this sponsorship, an African or Black American
candidate’s chances for promotion are less likely. Related to this idea, the fifth and final finding,
aligned to the third theme, that African or Black Americans have limited influence on the
problem of underrepresentation, suggests perhaps that in the minds of the participants, it is
primarily White Americans who must change the situation.
This concludes this chapter on the findings derived from the data collection, in the form
of interviews, that I conducted. Now that I have presented my findings, it is time for me in the
111

following chapter to both discuss the findings and provide recommendations based on the
findings and literature to address the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black
American senior executives in the DoD.
112

Chapter Five: Recommendations

In Chapter Four, I presented the findings of my data collection efforts involving interviews
with five African or Black American senior executives in the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the
DIA. The DIA served as the sample agency for the greater Department of Defense, or the DoD,
which was this study’s focus, while the DIA participants represented a sample group for the
African or Black American senior executives in the DoD. In this chapter, I will discuss the
findings, present three recommendations to address the problem based on themes derived from the
findings, discuss further research recommendations, and conclude the study.
Discussion of Findings
I remind the reader that attribution theory, which is based on perception, is the theoretical
framework for this study (Heider, 2015; Kelley, 1973; Martinko, 2017; Weiner, 1986). The data
collection effort was therefore focused on collecting those perceptions, to determine both what
the participants attributed their selection for promotion to and what degree of influence, if any,
they thought they had to advance other African or Black Americans to senior executive. The
data collected based on participant interviews provided me ample information to develop
findings to address the two research questions.
I discussed in Chapter Four how I developed three themes based on the findings. The
themes were as follows:
1. Being qualified for promotion is not sufficient
2. White senior executives are important to solving the problem
113

3. African or Black American senior executives perceived they have limited influence on
advancing other African or Black Americans in the DIA to senior executive
The perceptions of the participants in this study from which the findings and themes were
based were also supported by the literature. I will now detail this further, beginning with a
discussion of the first theme.
The first theme was that being qualified for promotion is not sufficient. The first
associated sub-theme was that African or Black Americans are qualified but not promoted, all
the participants opined that either all or the major of the candidates for promotion that were not
selected they have known were qualified. The participants, based on their responses, based their
assessments on the known unsuccessful candidates’ written Executive Core Qualifications, or
ECQs, which were the main basis for senior executive selection (OPM, 2012). The research on
the topic of African or Black American candidates for executive promotion supports the
participants’ experiences in that generally African or Black American candidates for executive
are frequently qualified yet not selected (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Clark, Ochs, &
Frazier, 2013; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). McNamee (2018) and Omi and Winant (2015)
further suggest a reason for African or Black American career advancement lagging behind that
of White Americans is systemic racism, a fact which participant responses regarding White
American sponsorship being important may indirectly allude to.
The second associated sub-theme, the right career choices matter, was generally
perceived to be important by the participants and supported by the literature. The participants all
mentioned that their perception is that African or Black Americans tend to select non-managerial
114

or operational career areas such as administration which led to lower advancement rates, which
is also argued by the researchers referenced in this study (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016;
Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013). In contrast, White Americans tend to select managerial or
operation careers, leading to advancement (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Clark, Ochs, &
Frazier, 2013). To be clear, neither the participants nor the literature asserted that African or
Black Americans cannot advance to senior executive levels by choosing non-managerial or
operational career areas, but rather the chances for promotion are lower (Beckwith, Carter, &
Peters, 2016; Clark, Ochs, & Frazier, 2013; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019).
The second theme is that White senior executives are important to solving the problem of
underrepresentation. The first sub-theme is that diversity is valued only beneath the glass
ceiling. The DIA claimed to value diversity. Indeed, it was written into their organizational
strategy (DIA, 2021). However, the participants’ perceptions were that the DIA only valued
racial diversity below the senior executive level, which was the third theme. The literature on
the topic also supports the participants’ perceptions as it relates to organizations overall in
society. Several research studies suggest that most federal and corporate organizations in the
United States do not succeed in promoting African or Black Americans to the senior executive
level at rates that are even near their total representation (Cornelius, 2012; Powell & Butterfield,
2002; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019; Sabharwal, 2014). Beckwith, Carter, and Peters (2016)
add that while in practice many organizations do claim to value having a racially diverse
workforce, in practice the disproportionately low executive promotion rates for African or Black
Americans may suggest otherwise.
115

White senior executive sponsorship as a difference-maker was the next-sub theme of this
study. All the participants perceived that having senior executive sponsorship in their careers
was an important, if not decisive factor in their achieving promotion. Four out of the five
specified that their sponsors were White senior executives, and that this racial distinction was
important. The participants clarified that having White senior executive sponsorship, especially
in providing developmental opportunities and supporting them in preparation for promotion to
senior executive, was important because of the dominance of White executives in the DIA. The
participants’ perceptions about the role of executive sponsorship being important for African or
Black Americans attaining executive promotions in society is supported by the literature.
Beckwith, Carter, and Peters (2016) and Cornelius (2012) suggested that African or Black
Americans having executive sponsorship was often decisive in their attaining promotion.
Erskine and Billmoria (2019) argued more specifically that it is White American executive
sponsorship that makes a difference, due to Whites dominating executive positions in society,
which in the DoD stood at 87% at the time of this study (OPM, 2018).
The final theme of this study is that African or Black Americans have limited influence
on the problem of underrepresentation at the senior executive level in the DoD. This was based
on both the participants’ stated perceptions and on the literature. Three of the participants
likened the senior executive level at the DIA to an exclusive club, run by White Americans.
One participant, Mr. Alcindor, stated he wanted to have influence on advancing African
or Black Americans to senior executive level by sponsorship, but suggested it might not be
effective because of the White dominance over the promotion process. The literature supports
116

the participants’ concerns about having effective influences on improving the representation of
African or Black Americans at the senior executive level. Guest (2016) and Roberts, Mayo, and
Thomas (2019) suggest that because there are few African or Black American senior executives
in many organizations, their ability to use their social capital to develop and advance fellow
African or Black Americans is limited. Cornelius (2012) argues that African or Black American
professionals put in more effort to build social capital with the dominant White power structure
in most organizations than their White peers and concern over retaining that gained social capital
may limit their perceived ability to advance others to executive level. Pitcan, Park-Taylor, and
Hayslett (2018) assert many African or Black Americans perceive that their advancement to
executive level is due to White sponsorship, and therefore they view their own influence as
limited. This suggests that viewed from an attribution theoretical frame, many African or Black
Americans perceive the locus as external, or White promotion selection trends cause the issue,
the issue as stable, in that the problem is so far enduring, and that Whites control the situation
because they dominate the promotion selection process through sheer representation (Weiner,
1986).
The participants’ responses suggested, I argue, that overall, perhaps the necessary change
agents to improve the problem of African or Black American representation at the senior
executive level are the very White Americans which the literature and participants assert are the
cause of the problem. Weiner’s attribution theory is the theoretical framework for this study, it
therefore it is an effective tool for understanding this suggestion that White senior executives,
based on the findings, are decisive in changing the problem.
117

Weiner argues that individuals will take actions based on how they perceive their
realities, or the phenomena they experience throughout their lives (Weiner, 1986). He further
details that it is the perceived causality of a given circumstance that will influence their future
decisions and actions (Weiner, 1986). This causality Weiner (1986, 2018) delineates into three
causal dimensions. The causal dimensions are, according to Weiner (1986, 2018):
1. Locus, which is whether an individual attributes what they experience to internal or
external factors.
2. Stability, which is whether the circumstance is temporary or enduring.
3. Controllability, which is the degree of control an individual perceives they have over
the circumstance.
In this study, locus, I suggest, would be whether African or Black Americans attributed
their success or failure at promotion to their own efforts or to the actions of others, such as
sponsorship for example. Stability would be whether an individual who failed to attain
promotion perceived that they will eventually be promoted or that they will never be. Finally,
controllability in this study would be whether African or Black Americans perceived they can
influence their own chances to be promoted or influence others’ chances of promotion.
The findings suggested that in terms of locus, participants in general attributed their
promotions to a combination of their demonstrated skills, experiences, and efforts, or internal
causes, and to the external cause of White sponsorship. In the area of stability, those participants
who attempted multiple times to achieve promotion, which was the case of all but one, thought
the circumstance of failure was temporary. However, the participants perceiving that African or
118

Black Americans in general not achieving promotion was due to systemic racism, in the
expressed allegory of a near exclusive club for Whites by several participants, suggested an
enduring condition at the macro-, or demographic group-level. Finally, in the dimension of
controllability, participant responses indicated they perceived that for individual African or
Black Americans, by choosing managerial or operational career areas and demonstrating they
possessed the ECQ qualifications for promotion, they could at least partially control their
likelihood of promotion. However, the participants’ perceptions of systemic racism suggested
that the greater degree of control over whether they were promoted was in the hands of White
senior executives. Table 3 illustrates this discussion of the perceived causal dimensions
regarding promotion:

Table 3
Perceived Causal Dimensions Regarding Promotion
Dimension
Locus Internal:
Skills, experiences, effort
External:
White sponsorship
Stability Temporary:
Multiple attempts before Success
Enduring:
Whites systemically limit non-
White promotions
Controllability Partial:
Career choices and demonstrated
ECQ qualifications
Greater:
White senior executives
predominately determine
selection for promotion

119

I have now discussed how the findings in this study are supported by relevant
research literature. Further, I discussed and illustrated how the findings align to Weiner’s (1986,
2018) attribution theory, which is the theoretical framework of this study, with special attention
to the causal dimensions. Now it is time for me in the next section to detail my proposed
recommendations to at least partially address the problem of African or Black American
representation based on the participants’ perceived causal dimensions.
Addressing the Problem of Underrepresentation
The problem of underrepresentation of African or Black Americans at the senior
executive level in the DIA and/or the DoD was perceived by the participants in this study and
suggested by the literature to be caused by several factors as I discussed earlier in this chapter.
These factors include career choices, White senior executive sponsorship, and self-perceived
limited influence of African or Black American senior executives on the problem. As such, my
recommendations for addressing the problem incorporate consideration of these factors.
In addition to the factors I listed in the previous paragraph, there is another potential issue
I considered while developing my recommendations. The issue is that of sensitivity to issues
regarding race and racism both in society and in the DIA and the DoD overall. The literature
posits that White Americans, who dominate the senior executive positions in society as well as in
the DoD and the DIA (DIA, 2021, July 13; OPM, 2018), as a whole struggle to understand or
acknowledge that there are real inequities based on race in society (Bonilla-Silva, 2018;
McNamee, 2018; Rothenberg, 2016). The literature adds that this struggle to understand or
acknowledge also explains why so many White senior executives in general are reluctant or
120

refuse to address issues caused by this inequity (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; McNamee, 2018;
Rothenberg, 2016). The literature further suggests that a contributing reason for this reluctance
or refusal is the extant meritocracy myth, or the belief among many Whites that most social,
economic, or other inequities are due to lack of ability or effort, not race or other factors such as
gender (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Markovits, 2019; McNamee, 2018).
So, frequently White senior executives will cite qualifications as the exclusive or main
reason for either selecting or non-selecting an individual for promotion, using a meritocratic
argument, as the participants, my own anecdotal experiences, and the literature suggest (Bonilla-
Silva, 2018; McNamee, 2018; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). Roberts, Mayo, and Thomas
(2019) add that White senior leaders, who dominate most professional organizations, are
comfortable with the extant societal trend of non-selection of African or Black Americans to
executive positions because they use meritocracy as a justification, saying those candidates just
tend to not be qualified.
My recommendations for change take a mostly indirect approach to tackling this problem
of underrepresentation, in order to minimize causing reluctance or resistance among White
senior executives who by their dominance, I argue, must be involved in any meaningful and
enduring change. Indeed, in an organization wherein 87% of the senior executives are White
(OPM, 2018), it is difficult for me to see how their involvement and acceptance of any changes
would not be a necessary condition to any improvements in the situation regarding African or
Black American promotions, a view that is supported by Erskine and Billmoria (2019) in their
argument for needing White sponsorship for change. In other words, without White support
121

recommended changes would be, to use an anecdotally oft-heard phrase in the DoD, a non-
starter.
The aforementioned consideration of White support being a necessary condition to
effective change stated, I now move on to the recommendations themselves. I developed three
recommendations, which include a formal senior executive sponsorship program, conducting an
organizational culture audit, and developing a diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, ECQ. The
three recommendations are aligned with the participants’ perceived causal dimensions of
Weiner’s attribution theory which I discussed in the previous section of this study. I will now
discuss each dimension and how it aligns to recommendations in more detail.
In the causal dimension of locus, a formal sponsorship program addresses participants’
perceptions that senior executive sponsorship is important to promotion. This locus is external,
in that participants’ perceive that the senior executives who sponsor individuals, are the causal
factor for promotion. This recommendation also addresses the internal locus dimension, which
for participants were that their own skills, experiences, and efforts also contributed to their being
promoted as well in that a senior executive sponsorship program will likely also increase their
skills and provide more experiences at a senior-level, making them more competitive for
promotion (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Cornelius, 2013, Erskine and Billmoria, 2019).
The second recommendation, conducting an organizational culture audit, is focused more
on the external locus aspect of participants’ perceptions. That is, an organizational culture audit
may expose the impact that the current informal senior executive sponsorship program has on
senior executive promotions and how it is likely a cultural element of senior executives in
122

general society, to potentially include the DoD, as the literature also suggests (Cornelius, 2013;
Roberts, Thomas, and Mayo, 2019). If senior executives in the DoD see data from the audit
which suggests that their practice of informal sponsorship is embedded in their cultural
behaviors, and that their sponsorship is perceived as important to increasing promotion chances,
perhaps they will agree that a formal program for everyone rather than a few would make the
system more equitable. Erskine and Billmoria (2019) allude to this general suggestion when
they argue that White executive allyship, to include in the form of sponsorship, is critical for
African or Black American women to advance to executive level positions.
The third recommendation, develop a DEI ECQ, is both internal and external locus
aligned. For the internal, having everyone, regardless of race, focus on DEI during their careers
leading to being a candidate for senior executive, will likely improve their experiences and
efforts regarding DEI issues professionally. This enhanced awareness of and experiences with
DEI issues regarding race and systemic racism could improve professional behaviors of all
candidates over time, a supposition partially supported by Roberts, Thomas, and Mayo (2019)
and Rothenburg (2016).
The causal dimension of stability is also addressed by the three recommendations.
Specifically, the perception by the participants that White senior executives systemically limit
the number of African or Black Americans who are promoted to senior ranks and have done so
for decades thereby an enduring causal situation, is addressed. The formal sponsorship program
would create an enduring, or stable, program whereby White senior executives would often
sponsor non-White civilian employees and provide them the same exposure and advocacy
123

opportunities as the participants perceived and the literature suggests they do many White
employees (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Cornelius, 2012; Gottlieb & Travis, 2018). An
organizational culture audit might find that White sponsorship of other Whites is an enduring
cultural trait in the DoD and the DIA that inequitably favors Whites over non-Whites. Finally, a
DEI ECQ would be enduring and potentially contribute to a change in White behaviors regarding
non-Whites’ careers and promotions.
The recommendations also address the final attributional causal dimension of
controllability, both with individual African or Black Americans and with White senior
executives. The sponsorship program would likely alter the degree of controllability that White
senior executives have over favoring White employees by enforcing a system where the White
executives would have to sponsor non-Whites as well as Whites and be accountable for the
results (Bovens & Schillemans, 2014; Heinrich, 2002). The organizational culture audit may
find that White senior executives trend towards favoring White employees regarding promotions
and that these executives, by dominating the promotion process, effectively control promotions
along racial lines as a systemic cultural practice. Finally, a DEI ECQ would also address
controllability by emplacing a career development criterion that would force all employees,
including Whites, to demonstrate positive DEI behaviors during their careers leading up to and
including senior executive level.
My approach to developing the recommendations was also partially based on the concept
of focusing on organizational culture, or the pattern of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms of
an organization that are accepted by individuals as basic assumptions (Burke, 2018; Schein &
124

Schein, 2017). After all, Weiner’s (1986, 2018) attribution theory is based on perceptions, or
beliefs about causality and reality, and therefore an organizational culture approach to the
recommendations aligns well with attribution theory. Bolman and Deal (2017) added that
organizational culture also adds for individuals a sense of predictability, which also aligns with
attribution theory (Weiner, 1986). Gooden (2015) added that examining how an organization’s
culture leads to racial inequities in detail can inform effective approaches to resolving racial
inequity. That said, on to the recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Implement a Formal Senior Leader Sponsorship Program
The finding that White senior executive sponsorship is important to improving the
problem of underrepresentation drove my development of this recommendation. Detailing a
sponsorship program in this study is not the aim of this recommendation. Rather, the aim is to
argue there is research, in addition to the findings in this study, that suggests career development
and advancement sponsorship programs have benefits both for organizations and sponsored-
individuals, to include promotions and improved productivity within the organization (Gottlieb
& Travis, 2018; Huston et al., 2019). I will now discuss this in more detail.
The literature and most participants in this study asserted that senior executive
sponsorship can be decisive in an individual being selected for senior executive (Beckwith,
Carter, & Peters, 2016; Cornelius, 2012; Gottlieb & Travis, 2018; Huston et al., 2019).
Currently, according to the literature and based on my own anecdotal experience, where
sponsorship exists in organizations it is frequently informal, with individual senior executives
selecting individuals they have an affinity for (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016; Cornelius,
125

2012, Erskine and Billmoria, 2019). By inference, then, it stands to reason that establishing a
formal senior leader sponsorship program in the DoD for all civilian employees in the grades of
GS-14 and 15, the two levels just below senior executive, would assist their development
towards attaining senior executive promotion, not just African or Black Americans. This formal
program would again be for every civilian GS-14 and GS-15 officer in the DoD. In other words,
a formal program would potentially benefit everyone, not just a given racial demographic.
In addition, concurrent with establishing a program focused on developing and
sponsoring officers to advance to senior executive level, a similar sponsorship program could be
established for GS-12s and below led by GS-13 through GS-15 level officers to assist in
developing and sponsoring junior officers. The GS-13 through GS-15 officers could provide
sponsorship and mentorship to help junior officers broadening their career areas earlier on, so
that more of the junior officers would gain managerial and operational experiences by the time
they reach GS-14 and GS-15. Though this program would be open to all civilian DoD officers at
GS-12 level and below, it would also address both the participants’ perceptions and what the
literature suggests regarding managerial and operational careers which pertains to the idea of
stereotyping and potential resultant negative professional outcomes (Clark, Ochs, & Frazier,
2013; Roberts, May, & Thomas, 2019; Steele, 2010).
Huston et al. (2019) studied the influence of formal sponsorship programs in the
corporate and primarily academic sectors while Gottlieb and Travis (2018) studied the influence
of formal sponsorship programs in the medical sector. Their conclusions are that effective
sponsorship programs improve employees’ career development and promotion chances (Gottlieb
126

& Travis, 2018; Huston et al., 2019). The exemplar organizations all had different approaches,
from multiyear sponsorship to shorter terms, but all involved a formal program where senior
officers or academic faculty members were assigned individuals to sponsor (Gottlieb & Travis,
2018; Huston et al., 2019). Some of the organizations established these programs to help racial
minorities and/or women advance to senior levels, others were focused on the whole
organizational populations (Gottlieb & Travis, 2018; Huston et al., 2019). However, regardless
of the focus, the effective programs provided access to both senior leaders in organizations and
leadership development opportunities some of which were focused on development for
promotion to senior levels, findings that support the perceptions of the participants in this study
regarding the influence of sponsorship (Gottlieb & Travis, 2018; Huston et al., 2019). For all of
these reasons, I submit this recommendation for consideration in this study. I will next discuss
the second recommendation, conduct an organizational culture audit, in the following sub-
section.
Recommendation 2: Conduct an Organizational Culture Audit
This recommendation is based on the participants’ perceptions that White senior
executives do not value diversity at the senior executive level and perhaps not much at lower
levels, as I discussed in the Chapter Four findings. In addition, it is also based on the finding that
White senior executive sponsorship is important and the participants’ perceptions that White
sponsorship is almost exclusively practiced with White employees, resulting in a “club”, to
partially quote Ms. Marquis. These perceptions and the literature (Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas,
2019; Seegars, L. & Ramajan, L., 2019) suggest these two findings at least partially reflect the
127

organizational culture of the DoD and/or the DIA. Before I discuss what an organizational
culture audit is, I want to briefly explore what organizational culture is in order to provide
context.
Schein and Schein (2017) assert that culture is often hard to define and there are many
different definitions and recommended approaches to effect change among those who study both
culture in general and organizational culture specifically. For Schein and Schein (2017), culture
in an organization is the pattern of beliefs, values, and behaviors that are taken as given and that
all members are expected to share and exhibit. Burke (2018) supports Schein and Schein’s
(2017) general definition and understanding of organizational culture but adds that directly
attempting to change an organization’s culture normally does not work. Burke (2018) argues
that to change culture one should implement an indirect approach by changing the organization’s
goals, which will cause the organization to adapt its culture to meet those new goals. This
argument is also shared by Bolman and Deal (2017) in their study of organizational change.
Lewis (2011) warns that one difficulty in organizational change is that values, a basic
ingredient of culture according to Burke (2018) and Schein and Schein (2017), are not always
shared among leaders and members of a given organization. Fernandez and Rainey (2006), in
their study regarding public sector organizational change, suggest an explanation of an
organization not having shared values among all its members is that there are often different
interests among members driving their support or resistance to change. In other words,
organizational cultural change, and organizational change in general, is sometimes perceived by
128

some or many members as a threat to their specific professional situation (Burke, 2018;
Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Lewis, 2011).
Regardless of the approach taken to change organizational culture or its definition, the
underlying premise is that one must know and understand the culture, to develop effective
change strategies (Burke, 2018; Schein and Schein, 2017). The organizational culture audit is
one tool to aide in understanding an organization’s culture, and I will now discuss the audit in
more detail.
Testa and Sipe (2013) describe the organizational culture audit as a tool that
organizations can use to examine its organizational culture. The purpose of the audit is to
identify disparities between the desired or espoused culture of a given organization and the actual
practiced culture and associated behaviors (Testa & Sipe, 2013). The specific goals of the audit
are, according to Testa and Sipe (2013):
1. Examine cultural artifacts and determine their consistency with espoused and
actual values
2. Identify conflicts between espoused and actual beliefs and values
3. Re-examine assumptions and identify their validity
4. Develop an action plan for addressing inconsistencies
In the context of this study then, an organizational culture audit would examine in detail
the reasons for a potential inconsistency in the DoD espoused value of racial equity and inclusion
(DoD, 2018) and their consistent non-selection of African or Black Americans for promotion to
senior executive at levels commensurate with their DoD population representation
129

(Congressional Research Service, 2021). The audit itself collects data on ten different cultural
categories (Testa & Sipe, 2013). The categories are, according to Testa and Sipe (2013),
1. Physical characteristics of an organization to include symbols, furniture,
cleanliness, and signage
2. Customs and norms such as employee interactions, unspoken rules, greetings,
organizational language and phrases
3. Ceremonies and events such as staff meetings, office parties, formal and informal
gatherings
4. Rules and policies such as manuals, standard operating procedures, leader
perceptions of their role and function
5. Measurement and accountability such as employee evaluations, promotion
criteria, and disciplinary policies
6. Leader behavior in terms of leader-employee interactions, leader focus on task
versus people, and employee perceptions of leaders
7. Rewards and recognition such as types and quantity of rewards provided, formal
versus informal rewards, employee perceptions of reward value, leader
encouragement and praise of employees
8. Training and development to include types of training, formal versus informal,
leadership development programs, employee orientation programs
9. Communication such as how do employees receive information, how much face-
to-face interaction is there, and ensuring confidentiality for sensitive issues
130

10. Structure and culture development efforts such as degree of chain of command or
management formality, employee views of the culture, and organizational vision,
mission, values, goals consistency
The DoD, by conducting an organizational culture audit, I suggest, could help identify
specific areas within each or many of the ten categories where there are potentially
inconsistencies between the espoused values and norms and the actual practices affecting African
or Black Americans regarding promotions to senior executive and associated career
development. The audit could also examine inconsistencies on other topics such as gender
inequality, but other topics are not the focus of this study. My point is that the organizational
culture audit could benefit many employees in the DoD, not just African or Black Americans. It
would also indirectly address participants’ perceptions that White American senior executives do
not value racial diversity at the senior executive level by an audit potentially uncovering and
explicitly highlighting the fact, or perhaps disproving it.
Of course, as even Testa and Sipe (2013) point out, the organizational culture audit is just
a tool to collect data in order for leaders to understand their respective organizations’ cultures
more comprehensively and potentially identify inconsistencies between the espoused and the
actual regarding values, norms, and goals. It is not, nor meant to be, an implementation plan
(Testa & Sipe, 2013). Leaders in the DoD will still have to develop such a plan once they have
collected and analyzed the data from the audit to derive findings.
131

Recommendation 3: Develop an Executive Core Qualification Focused on DEI
The findings of White senior executives not valuing racial diversity at the senior level or
perhaps not at any level coupled with White senior executives almost exclusively selecting
fellow Whites to sponsor influenced this recommendation. There is already an Executive Core
Qualification, or ECQ, that has within it leveraging diversity. This ECQ is that of Leading
People (OPM, 2012). However, this ECQ is insufficient to hold accountable civilian leaders as
they progress to the point of being considered for senior executive because the leveraging
diversity element because it does not specify that the diversity must or should be race, ethnicity,
gender, or other type (OPM, 2012). It describes diversity only in terms of individual differences
(OPM, 2012). In other words, White officers could accurately state they successfully leveraged
diverse skills and backgrounds of individuals, all of whom could be White. By establishing an
ECQ focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, there would be both an explicit and implicit
requirement that officers, of all races in the DoD, successfully and consistently developed and
supported a professional environment that included diverse groups based on race, gender, or
other categories, and not just on skills.
As with the other recommendations I discussed before this one, I do not pretend that this
recommendation is a panacea or that it is perfect. A DEI ECQ would be one more element that
informs a senior executive promotion panel or group can use to assess an individual’s readiness
for promotion based demonstrated efforts to foster an inclusive environment for all the
employees they have led throughout their careers. This would also partially address the
participants’ perceptions that the DoD does not value having a diverse senior workforce in the
132

sense that adding a DEI ECQ would mean that all officers striving for senior executive would
have to demonstrate support for DEI by their described actions over time. Even if a given
individual did not necessarily personally value racial diversity within the senior executive ranks,
they would at least have had to demonstrate that they fostered DEI over their careers in writing
their DEI ECQ. Another way to put it is that the ECQ may not cause an individual to change
their beliefs, but it may cause them to outwardly behave in a DEI supportive manner throughout
their career. Actions, not thoughts!
In addition to providing a senior executive promotion panel an additional assessment
factor to consider, having a specific DEI ECQ would perhaps influence individual officers’
professional decisions and behaviors throughout their careers. Heckhausen, Shane, and Kanfer
(2017) discuss how professional goals that endure throughout a career can influence individuals’
behaviors within their respective organizations. In the context of this study, for example, if an
individual wants to attain promotion to senior executive as their professional goal and knows that
a demonstrated sustained effort to foster a positive DEI environment is a necessary factor for
said promotion, they are more likely to align their behaviors to match the requirements for their
goal (Heckhausen, Shane, and Kanfer, 2017).
I have now detailed and discussed the three recommendations. I described how
establishing a formal senior executive sponsorship program, conducting an organizational culture
audit, and developing a new ECQ focused on DEI could contribute to improving the situation of
underrepresentation of African or Black American underrepresentation at the senior executive
level in the DoD. I also explained how each recommendation directly or indirectly, wholly or
133

partially addresses many of the findings in this study. Before I move on to discussing
recommendations for future research, I want to briefly discuss a consideration regarding any
successful change attempts. The consideration is communicating the reasons for the need for
change.
Limitations and Delimitations
It is important to include limitations and delimitations in a research study, so that readers
will understand the researcher recognizes the limits of the study (Theofanidis & Fountouki,
2018). Moreover, it is important for the researcher to understand the limits to avoid
generalizations, assumptions, or presenting hypotheses as facts which could mislead the reader
regarding findings and conclusions (Johnson & Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). Limitations concern any potential weaknesses in a research
study that are out of a researcher’s control, such as a participant’s unexpected unwillingness to
participate in an interview after initial commitment in a study with only a few participants in the
pool (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). Delimitations are the intentional boundaries or limits the
researcher sets to ensure the goal of the specific study is achievable, such as purposive sampling
in data collection or only choosing one location to conduct interviews (Theofanidis & Fountouki,
2018). Delimitations are neither positive nor negative; they are an account of the rationale(s) for
a researcher’s choices in a given study (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). In the following
paragraphs I briefly detail my main limitations and delimitations in my study.
The limitations of my study included the limited number of participants and my using one
DoD agency as the sample organization for the overall problem of underrepresentation of
134

African or Black American senior executives in the department, limiting generalizability
(Johnson & Christensen, 2020). My participants included five African or Black American senior
executives, which is a small number but due to unavailability, unwillingness, or impracticality of
a larger number, this number of participants had to suffice. In addition, given the participants
worked for the Federal Government and an intelligence organization, there were certain details
about the nature of their careers they could not share with me, so there were some potential
nuances missing from their interview responses. Another important limitation I could not control
were the attitudes, moods, biases, memory, and potential ulterior motives of the participants.
These factors potentially affected the type and quality of responses the participants provided me
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, I was not able to obtain detailed demographic information
about the number of African or Black Americans in DIA. This was due to federal Privacy Act
considerations that limited what personnel information can be released to the public (Department
of Justice, 2021). This information would have enabled me to use DIA data rather than use other
DoD agencies’ publicly available data and use extrapolation and apply it to DIA, which might
have increased accuracy.
This study included several delimitations as well. To bound the study and limit the scope
to achieve study completion by the end of the doctoral program’s normal timeline, I conducted
interviews with participants from only one DoD agency, the DIA. For the rest of the DoD and
greater U.S. workforce I conducted document collection, which informed the context in which
the DoD participants operated and aligned to my use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory as the conceptual framework. My use of Weiner’s attribution theoretical approach was
135

also a delimitation in that I excluded others from my framework, though I addressed many of
them in the literature review to show my knowledge of other existing theories or concepts. I also
delimited my research by conducting interviews exclusively using Zoom or Microsoft Teams
video teleconferencing software due to the COVID 19 pandemic which restricted the ability to
meet with participants in person. I did not record the video portions of the interviews in order to
protect confidentiality and in two cases the participants chose to not be on video for the interview
and in another case the participant changed their mind about using video teleconferencing just
before the interview and opted instead to interview via phone. The decision to use video
teleconferencing and in one case, the phone, also made it more convenient for the participants as
they did not have to travel to meet with me. I also offered several potential meeting dates and
times to each participant and adjusted my schedule when necessary if the proposed dates and
times did not work or when a participant had to change their schedule unexpectedly. I also
limited the total time of each interview to 60 minutes in order to not burden the participants’
schedules. These delimitations demonstrated my reasoned approach to my research efforts
(Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018).
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was limited to examining the problem of underrepresentation of African or
Black American senior executives in the DoD using the DIA as the sample organization. Future
research could include a more expansive sample group, perhaps including non-intelligence
agencies such as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, or OSD, and the Department of the Army or other military departments.
136

This would broaden the research and provide a larger and more professionally diverse number of
African or Black American senior executive perspectives to incorporate and analyze as data,
enriching the narrative.
Another recommendation for future research is to conduct a comparative study
incorporating White American senior executive perceptions of the same issue of
underrepresentation. This study was limited to African or Black American participants, but a
study that includes White perspectives would perhaps provide a more holistic understanding of
the problem. This comparative study would likely be more challenging, given the literature that
suggests White Americans are often uncomfortable with discussing issues of race (Bonilla-Silva,
2018; McNamee, 2018; Rothenberg, 2016) and many might therefore be reluctant to participate
in a study, reducing the number of potential participants. However, challenges aside, gaining
this perspective would not only provide a more holistic framing of the issue, I argue, but it might
also make it more compelling. Many of the potentially participating White senior executives
may still disagree that there is a problem or that they are perhaps directly contributing to it and
benefit from it, but at least they will not be able to use the argument of the study reflecting only
the African or Black American perspective.
I offer one last recommendation to further the research on the topic to conduct a
comparative study of the African or Black American experience with that of other
underrepresented racial groups, such as Asian and Pacific Islanders or Native Americans in the
DoD. Do these groups share the same perspectives as African or Black Americans regarding
underrepresentation? If not, to what do they attribute their respective circumstances? Capturing
137

their perspectives would again, as with incorporating Whites, would build a more holistic picture
of the problem of underrepresentation, and perhaps identify commonalities that could be the
basis for working together to tackle the challenge of change.
Conclusion
This study was an examination into the problem of underrepresentation of African or
Black American senior executives in the DoD. I highlighted the fact that though African or
Black Americans comprise 15% of the DoD civilian workforce, they comprise only 6% of the
senior executive population (Congressional Research Service, 2021). In contrast, White
Americans comprise 76% of the DoD civilian workforce yet hold 87% of the senior executive
positions (Congressional Research Service, 2021). I further argued that the importance of this
underrepresentation is that it can affect African or Black American employees’ morale, retention,
and commitment within an organization that is responsible for defending the country from
hostile threats (Beckwith et al., 2016; DoD, 2018; Heslin et al., 2012; Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas,
2019). To provide more lived-experience relevance to the data, I interwove my own anecdotal
experiences with related issues throughout this study in a partial ethnographic narrative
approach.
I used Weiner’s (1986) attribution theory as the theoretical framework to guide my
research. This theory, as I explained in Chapter 3, is focused on how individuals’ perceived
causality of experiences or events influence their future actions and understanding of reality
(Martinko, 2017; Weiner, 1986). My focus in this study was on what African or Black American
senior executives attributed their promotions to senior executive to. Further, I was interested to
138

see if these senior executives thought they could influence African or Black American
promotions. I developed two research questions derived from these two topics of interest. The
purpose of this effort was to inform DoD senior executives who make the promotion selections
on how the promotion process is perceived to potentially influence changes that might improve
African or Black American promotions to achieve proportionate representation. In addition,
individual African or Black Americans who aspire to promotion may read this study and learn
from the participants’ experiences and attributions how to better prepare for successful selection.
My methodological approach in this study to obtain findings was qualitative and based on
interviews with five African or Black American senior executive participants as the sample
group. I then analyzed the interview data and developed three themes from the findings:
1. Being qualified for promotion is not sufficient;
2. White senior executives are important to solving the problem;
3. African or Black American senior executives have limited influence.
I developed three recommendations to address the findings. I discussed how I framed the
findings using Weiner’s (1986) attribution theory causal dimensions and how this framing
supported the development of the three recommendations. The recommendations were as
follows:
1. Establish a formal senior executive sponsorship program for employees to provide
support for their career advancement;
2. Conducting an organizational culture audit to better understand how some cultural norms
might contribute to the problem of underrepresentation;
139

3. Develop an Executive Core Qualification focused on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to
ensure that during the career progression of future senior executives that DEI support is
demonstrated in measurable ways.
This study contributes to the body of research regarding the struggle of African
or Black Americans both in U.S. society and in the federal government to advance to executive
levels by focusing on the DIA as a sample agency of the DoD and on the perspectives of
individuals who achieved promotion and what they attributed their success to. Many of the
studies I read for this paper focused on the problem from the aspect of how it is represented in
corporate or non-public sector areas (Beckwith, Carter, & Peters, 2016, Cornelius, 2012,
Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019). Other studies focused on the federal government in general
on the DIA and/or the DoD from the standpoint of trends of African or Black American non-
selection (Choi, 2011; Nelson, 2016). One study largely focused on aspiring African or Black
Americans who were not selected for promotion (Miller-Smith, 2020). By focusing on successful
African or Black American senior executives, I added different perspectives and data to the
research literature.
To conclude, the problem of underrepresentation of African or Black American senior
executives in the DoD is a complex issue, as this study has detailed. There are likely no panaceas
to this issue, and my recommendations in the study do not pretend to be such. What my
recommendations are intended to be are contributing actions to improving the situation in one
department of the federal government. Improving the situation in general society is another
matter entirely and was not the focus of this study. But even if this study only results in a few of
140

the majority demographic DIA and/or DoD senior executives involved with senior executive
promotions thinking twice before exclusively or almost always selecting individuals who look
like them, then this study will have made a difference. And maybe one day we will not have to
ask the question: where are they?

141

References
Abramovitz, M., & Blitz, L. (2015). Moving toward racial equity: The undoing racism
workshop and organizational change. Race and Social Problems, 7(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-015-9147-4
Adu-Ampong, E., & Adams, E. (2020). “But you are also Ghanaian, you should know”:
Negotiating the insider–outsider research positionality in the fieldwork
encounter. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(6), 583–592.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419846532
Allen, A. (2020). The black woman’s math problem: Exploring the resilience of black women
who lead in the United States Federal Government. Journal of African or Black American
Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-020-09498-z
Bandura, A. (2011). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal
of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A. (2016). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and
reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Beckwith, A., Carter, D., and Peters, T. (2016). The underrepresentation of African or Black
American women in executive leadership: What's getting in the way? Journal of Business
142

Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 115-134. https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/publiccontent/docview/1807470842?accountid=14749&pq-
origsite=primo
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Pearson Education, Inc.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6
th

ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in america (5th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Pub.
Bovens, M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press.
https://www-oxfordhandbooks-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780199641253
Bovens, M. & Schillemans, T. (2014). Meaningful accountability. In Bovens, M. (2014). The
Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press.
https://www-oxfordhandbooks-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780199641253-e-038
Bowler, M., Woehr, D., Bowler, J., Wuensch, K., & McIntyre, M. (2011). The Impact of
Interpersonal Aggression on Performance Attributions. Group & Organization
Management, 36(4), 427–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111408897
143

Brees, J., & Martinko, M. (2015). Judgments of responsibility versus accountability. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(4), 443–453.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815603127
Burke, W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Butina, M., Campbell, S., & Miller, W. (2015). Conducting qualitative research
introduction. Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 186–189.
https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.28.3.186
Carpenter, D. (2018). Ethics, reflexivity and virtue. In The Sage handbook of qualitative
research ethics (pp. 35-50). Sage Publications.
https://www-doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/97815264354
Choi, R. & Rainey, H. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of
diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational
performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109–121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x
Choi, S. (2008). Diversity in the US federal government: diversity management and employee
turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19(3), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun010
Choi, S. (2011). Diversity and representation in the U.S. federal government: analysis of the
trends of federal employment. Public Personnel Management, 40(1), 25–46.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601104000103
Choi, Y. (2016). The impact of social capital on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior: An
144

empirical analysis of U.S. federal agencies. Public Performance & Management
Review, 39(2), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108795
Clark, R., Ochs, H., & Frazier, M. (2013). Representative bureaucracy: The politics of access to
policy-making positions in the federal executive service. Public Personnel
Management, 42(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026013484570
Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Hayter, M. (2014). Data collection and sampling in qualitative
research: Does size matter? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(3), 473–475.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12163
Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In U. Flick The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 367-379). Sage Publications.
https://www-doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781446282243.n25
Coleman, J. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
https://www-fulcrum-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/concern/monographs/cr56n1673
Congressional Research Service. (2021). Defense primer: Department of Defense civilian
employees. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11510.pdf
Cornileus, T. (2013). “I’m a black man and I’m doing this job very well”: How African
American professional men negotiate the impact of racism on their career
development. Journal of African or Black American Studies, 17(4), 444–
460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-012-9225-2
Creswell, J. and Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
145

Defense Intelligence Agency. (2011). Defense Intelligence Agency 50
th
anniversary: An
illustrated history.
https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/About/History/DIA-50th-Anniversary-An-
Illustrated-History.pdf
Defense Intelligence Agency. (2014). DIA equal employment opportunity
and diversity program.
https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-
ReadingRoom/FileId/199474/#:~:text=Equal%20Opportunity%20Program%20%2D%20
Federally%2Dsanctioned,of%20equal%20opportunity%20through%20a
Defense Intelligence Agency (2018). Strategic approach.
https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/About/DIA_Strategic_Approach.pdf
Defense Intelligence Agency. (2021). Strategy 2021.
https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/About/DIA_Strategy_2021.pdf?ver=KXVsjZ
KiP0r1sLpWKX2C2Q%3d%3d
Defense Intelligence Agency. (2021, February 1). Frequently asked questions.
https://www.dia.mil/About/FAQs/
Defense Intelligence Agency. (2021, July 13). Memorandum: Response to freedom of
information act (FOIA) request.
Defense Manpower Data Center. (2019). Military and civilian personnel by service/agency,
March 2019. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp
Delgado, S. & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). NYU
146

Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?pq-
origsite=primo&docID=4714300
Dempsey, L., Dowling, M., Larkin, P., & Murphy, K. (2016). Sensitive interviewing in
qualitative research. Research In Nursing & Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21743
Denning, S. (2011). The leader’s guide to storytelling mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative. Jossey-Bass.
Department of Defense. (2012). Diversity and inclusion strategic plan: 2012-2017.
https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/DoD_Diversity_Strategic_Plan_%20f
inal_as%20of%2019%20Apr%2012%5B1%5D.pdf
Department of Defense. (2018). National defense strategy.
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-
Summary.pdf
Department of Defense. (2020). Portrait of Black/African or Black American active duty service
members.
https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Images/AA%202020_ACC.pdf?ver=2020-02-18-
072209-043
Department of Defense. (2020). DoD instruction 3216.02: Protection of human subjects and
adherence to ethical standards in DoD-conducted and -supported research.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/321602p.pdf
Department of Defense Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. (2016).
Department of Defense by Gender, Race and Ethnicity.
147

https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Presidential%20Memorandum/DoD`
%20Military%20by%20Gender%20Race%20and%20EthnicityV2.pdf?ver=2017-01-06-
090352-110
Department of Defense Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. (2020).
Demographic portrait of black/African or Black American DoD active duty services
members and government civilians
https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Demographics_Info/Demographic%2
0Portrait%20of%20Black_African%20American%20Active%20Duty%20Service%20Me
mbers%20and%20DoD%20GS%20Civilians.pdf?ver=2019-02-27-125522-237
Department of Justice. (2021). Privacy Act of 1974.
https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974.
Department of State. (2016). Glossary of Civil Service Terms. https://careers.state.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Civil-Service-Glossary-of-Terms.pdf
Dunbar, C., Rodriguez, D., & Parker, L. (2001). Race, subjectivity, and the interview process.
In Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research (pp. 279-
298). Sage Publications., https://www-
doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781412973588.n18
Ellingson, L. (2017). Embodiment in Qualitative Research (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105277
Erickson, B. (2017). Value of social capital theory to employers and employees. In
Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R. (Eds.) (2017). Social Capital: Theory and Research. Taylor
148

And Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2018). 2018 job patterns for minorities and
women in private industry.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/employment/jobpatterns/eeo1/2018/national/table
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021, February 2). Laws enforced by EEOC.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/laws-
enforcedeeoc#:~:text=This%20law%20makes%20it%20illegal,%2C%20national%20orig
in%2C%20or%20sex.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021, February 14). Overview.
https://www.eeoc.gov/overview
Erskine, S., & Bilimoria, D. (2019). White allyship of afro-diasporic women in the workplace: A
transformative strategy for organizational change. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 26(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819848993
Fernandez, F. & Fernandez-Mateo, I. (2006). Networks, race, and hiring. American
Sociological Review, 71(1), 42–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100103
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. In U. Flick. The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 2-18). Sage Publications, Inc.,
https://www-doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781446282243.n1
Foley, M. & Williamson, S. (2019). Managerial perspectives on implicit bias, affirmative
action, and merit. Public Administration Review, 79(1), 35–45.
149

https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12955
Försterling, F. (2013). Attribution: An Introduction to Theories, Research and Applications.
Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315804514
Galdas Paul. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992
Gelderblom, D. (2018). The limits to bridging social capital: Power, social context and the theory
of Robert Putnam. The Sociological Review (Keele), 66(6), 1309–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118765360
Gooden, S. (2015). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government (1
st
ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315701301
Gottlieb, A., & Travis, E. (2018). Rationale and models for career advancement
sponsorship in academic medicine: the time is here; the time is now. Academic
Medicine, 93(11), 1620–1623. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002342
Government Accountability Office. (2020). Additional actions needed to strengthen
workforce diversity planning and oversight.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/711362.pdf#page=21&zoom=100,45,212
Gringeri, C. et al.. (2013). Examining foundations of qualitative
research: A review of social work dissertations, 2008-2010. Journal of Social Work
Education, 49(4), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.812910
Guest, P. (2016). Executive mobility and minority status. Industrial Relations, 55(4),
604–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12153
150

Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in
psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4),
459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.549
Heckhausen, J., Shane, J., & Kanfer, R. (2017). Competence and motivation at work throughout
adulthood. In, Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (2017). Handbook of competence and
motivation: theory and application (2
nd
ed.). The Guilford Press.
Heider, F. (2015). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Martino Publishing Co. (Original
work published 1958)
Heinrich, C. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:
Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration
Review, 62(6), 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253
Heslin, P., Bell, M., Fletcher, P. (2012). The devil without and within: A conceptual model of
social cognitive processes whereby discrimination leads stigmatized minorities to become
discouraged workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(6), 840–862.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1795
Hewett, R., Shantz, A., & Mundy, J. (2019). Information, beliefs, and motivation: The
antecedents to human resource attributions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5),
570–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2353
Hewlett, S. A. (2019). What every leader needs to know about the power of sponsorship. Leader
to Leader, 2019(93), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20435
Hughes, S. & Pennington, J. (2017). Autoethnography: process, product, and possibility for
151

critical social research. Sage Publications.
Huston, W., Cranfield, C., Forbes, S., & Leigh, A. (2019). A sponsorship action plan
for increasing diversity in STEMM. Ecology and Evolution, 9(5), 2340–2345.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4962
Hyman, J. (2018). Employee voice and participation: Contested past, troubled present,
uncertain future. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315172880
Intelligence Careers.Gov. (2021). Defense Intelligence Agency diversity and inclusion.
https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/dia/diadiversity.html
Intel.gov (2020, 31 Aug). How the IC works. https://www.intelligence.gov/how-the-ic-works
Iphofen, R., & Tolich, M. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research ethics . Sage
Publications. https://www-doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4135/9781526435446
Jensen, R. (2016). White privilege/White supremacy. In Rothenberg, P. White privilege:
Essential readings on the other side of racism (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (7
th
ed.). Sage.
Jones, S., Adams, T., & Ellis, C. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of autoethnography. Routledge.
Kelley, H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. The American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–
128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31(1), 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
152

Education, 71(6), 722–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780840
Kinzig, A., Ehrlich, P., Alston, L., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T., Daily, G., Levin, B.,
Levin, S., Oppenheimer, M., Ostrom, E., Saari, D. (2013). Social norms and global
environmental challenges: The complex interaction of behaviors, values, and
policy. Bioscience, 63(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5
Lerner, T. & Tetlock, J. (2003). Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches
to judgment and decision making: the impact of accountability on cognitive bias.
In Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (pp. 431–457).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609978.015
Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic
communication (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R. (Eds.) (2017). Social Capital: Theory and Research. Taylor and
Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457
Lu, H., & Hodge, W. (2019). Toward multi-dimensional and developmental notion of researcher
positionality. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 225–235.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00029
Lucas, L., Lumley, M. A., Flack, J. M., Wegner, R., Pierce, J., & Goetz, S. (2016). A preliminary
experimental examination of worldview verification, perceived racism, and stress
reactivity in African or Black Americans. Health Psychology, 35(4), 366–375.
https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000284
Lyons, H., Bike, D., Johnson, A., & Bethea, A. (2012). Culturally competent qualitative
153

research with people of african descent. Journal of Black Psychology, 38(2), 153–171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798411414019
Mackieson, P., Shlonsky, A., & Connolly, M. (2019). Increasing rigor and reducing bias in
qualitative research: A document analysis of parliamentary debates using applied
thematic analysis. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 18(6), 965–
980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325018786996
Magnusson, E., & Marecek, J. (2015). Doing interview-based qualitative research: A learner’s
guide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449893
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview
studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in
qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
Martinko, M. (2017). Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (1st ed.). Taylor
and Francis. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/books/attribution-theory-
mark-martinko/e/10.4324/9781315137926
Mason, P. (2017). Not black-alone: The 2008 presidential election and racial self-
identification among African or Black Americans. The Review of Black Political
Economy, 44(1-2), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-017-9247-z
154

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?pq-
origsite=primo&docID=2089475
Miller-Smith, R. (2020). Examining the underrepresentation of African or Black Americans in
the senior executive service within the United States Federal Government’s civilian
workforce. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15799coll89/id/391068/rec/
1
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. (2018). State of black promotions at the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
https://www.nga.mil/resources/1595966558609_Freedom_of_Information_Act_(FOIA).h
tml
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. (2020). About us.
https://www.nga.mil/about/1595956020452_About_Us.html
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. (2020). Strategy.
https://www.nga.mil/about/1595956020452_About_Us.html
National Security Agency (2020). Understanding the threat.
https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/understanding-the-threat/
155

Neal, J. & Neal, Z. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological
Systems theory. Social Development (Oxford, England), 22(4), 722–n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018
Nelson, A. (2016). An overview of the Department of Defense senior executive service
corps. International Journal of Global Business, 9(1), 1–30. https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/overview-department-defense-senior-
executive/docview/1793598314/se-2?accountid=14749
Obama White House Archives. (2011). Establishing a coordinated government-wide initiative
to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce.
https://obamaWhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-
13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2020). Annual demographic report fiscal year
2019. https://www.dni.gov/files/EEOD/documents/IC_Annual_Demographic_Report.pdf
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2021, October 15). Members of the IC.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic
Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Guide to the senior executive service
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/reference-
materials/guidesesservices.pdf
Office of Personnel Management. (2018). Senior executive service report: 2017
156

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-
documentation/federalemployment-reports/reports-publications/ses-summary-2014-
2018.pdf
Office of Personnel Management. (2019). Evaluation of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management’s employee service’s senior
executive service and performance management office.
https://www.opm.gov/our-inspector-general/publications/reports/2019/4k-es-00-18-041
Office of Personnel Management. (2020). Pay and leave.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/
Office of Personnel Management. (2021). About us. https://www.opm.gov/about-us/
Office of Personnel Management. (2021, February 4). Senior executive service. (February 4,
2021). https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/scientific-
senior-level-positions/
Office of Personnel Management. (2021, February 14). Senior executive service overview.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/executive-core-
qualifications/
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Page, S. (2019). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press.
Pekrun, R., & Marsh, H. (2018). Weiner’s attribution theory: Indispensable—but is it immune to
crisis? Motivation science, 4(1), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000096
157

Performance.Gov (2020, 30 August). Department of Defense agency plans and reports.
https://www.performance.gov/defense/
Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In, Meyer, J., & Land, R.
(2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts
and troublesome knowledge. Routledge. https://www-taylorfrancis-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/chapters/constructivism-troublesome-knowledge-david-
perkins/e/10.4324/9780203966273-11?context=ubx&refId=889f0976-9e6f-42a4-90e3-
03b5d116a8ad
Pitcan, M. Park-Taylor, J., Hayslett, J. (2018). Black men and racial microaggressions at
work. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(4), 300–314.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12152
Poulos, C. (2021). Essentials of autoethnography. American Psychological Association.
Powell, B., and Butterfield, A. (2002). Exploring the influence of decision makers’ race and
gender on actual promotions to top management. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 397–428.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00115.x
Prior, L. (2008). Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology, 42(5), 821–
836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094564
Randel, A., Galvin, B., Gibson, C., & Batts, S. (2021). Increasing career advancement
opportunities through sponsorship: an identity-based model with illustrative
application to cross-race mentorship of african americans. Group & Organization
Management, 46(1), 105–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120978003
158

Roberts, L. & Mayo, A. (2019, Nov). Toward a racially just workplace diversity efforts are
failing black employees. Here’s a better approach. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/cover-story/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace
Roberts, L., Mayo, A., & Thomas, D. (2019). Race, work & leadership: New perspectives on the
black experience. Harvard Business Review Press.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=c41de34f-
1303-415d-8c95-8dcc2dfe4c1d%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=0&format=EK
Rothenberg, P. (2016). White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (5th ed.).
Worth Publishers.
Roulston, K. (2014). Analysing interviews. In U. Flick. The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 297-312). Sage Publications. https://www-
doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781446282243.n2
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.
https://10.1177/0091026014522202
Schein, E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
ed.). Wiley.
Schmader, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732449.001.0001
Scholl, A., Sassenberg, K., Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., de Wit, F. (2018). Highly identified
power-holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social
power within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 112–129.
159

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12225
Seegars, L. & Ramajan, L. (2019). Blacks leading Whites. In Roberts, L., Mayo, A., &
Thomas, D. Race, work & leadership: New perspectives on the
black experience. Harvard Business Review Press.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=c41de34f-
1303-415d-8c95-8dcc2dfe4c1d%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=0&format=EK
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at
work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews:
IJMR, 14(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00326.x
Testa, M., & Sipe, L. (2013). The organizational culture audit: Countering cultural
ambiguity in the service context. Open Journal of Leadership, 2(2), 36–44.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2013.22005
Tetlock, P. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social
contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60287-7
The White House. (2021). Executive order on advancing racial equity and support for
underserved communities through the federal government.
https://www.Whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-
order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-
federal-government/
Theofanidis, D. & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
160

Journal of Perioperative Nursing. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Thomas, K., Robinson, A., Provolt, L., & Brown, B. (2019). When black leaders leave. In
Roberts, L., Mayo, A., & Thomas, D. Race, work & leadership: New perspectives on the
black experience. Harvard Business Review Press.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=c41de34f-
1303-415d-8c95-8dcc2dfe4c1d%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=0&format=EK
Thurairajah, K. (2019). Uncloaking the researcher: Boundaries in qualitative
research. Qualitative Sociology Review: QSR, 15(1), 132–147.
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.15.1.06
United States Census Bureau. (2020, October). About Race.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (2015, December). Training and development for
the senior executive service: A necessary investment.
https://www.mspb.gov/mspbsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1253299&version=1258
322&application=ACROBAT
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (2020, February 10). United States Merit Systems
Protection Board strategic plan for FY2020-2024.
https://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1699794&version=1
705738&application=ACROBAT
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (2021, February 14). About MSPB.
https://www.mspb.gov/About/about.htm
161

University of Southern California. (2021, March 5). Office for the protection of research
subjects. https://oprs.usc.edu/
Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018). Characterising and justifying sample
size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health
research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 148–148.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7
Wallis, J. & Gregory, R. (2009). Leadership, accountability and public value: Resolving a
problem in “new governance”? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4),
250–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732608
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1989). Human motivation . L. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772218
Weiner, B. (2005). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional
approach (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4324/9781410615749
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596
Weiner, B. (2011). Ultimate and proximal determinants of motivation given an attribution
perspective and the metaphors guiding attribution theory. Group & Organization
Management, 36(4), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111410564
Weiner, B. (2018). The legacy of an attribution approach to motivation and emotion: A no-crisis
162

zone. Motivation Science, 4(1), 4-14.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/mot0000082
Weiner, B. (2019). Wither attribution theory? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 603–
604. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2398
Wharton Business School (2020, May). Compustat Execucomp: The basics. https://wrds-
www.wharton.upenn.edu/pages/grid-items/compustat-execucomp-basics/
Whysall, Z. (2017). Cognitive biases in recruitment, selection, and promotion: The risk of
subconscious discrimination. In Hidden Inequalities in the Workplace.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59686-0_9
Wise, T. (2016). Membership has its privileges: Thoughts on acknowledging and challenging
Whiteness. In Rothenberg, P. White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of
racism (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Young, E. (2011). The four personae of racism: Educators’ (mis)understanding of individual
vs. systemic racism. Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif.), 46(6), 1433–1460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911413145
Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163261
Zweigenhaft, R., & Domhoff, G. (2018). Diversity in the power elite: Ironies and unfulfilled
promises (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

163

Appendix A: DIA Freedom of Information Act Response

164

165

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol - The Underrepresentation of African American Senior Executives in
the Department of Defense

Primary Investigator: Brian Jenkins

Introduction: Hello. Thank you participating in this interview today. I am Brian Jenkins, the
researcher for this interview. I would like to audio record our conversation today and I ask that
you please sign the release form agreeing to recording the interview.

The information collected from this interview will be used exclusively for my dissertation
research looking into underrepresentation of African American senior executives and look for
pathways to include senior leaders who are African American, at the Department of Defense, or
DoD. As a point of clarification, “senior executive” in this interview means the categories of
both senior executives and senior leaders.

I anticipate this interview will not exceed 60 minutes total.
There are a total of 15 questions in this interview, aside from preliminary administrative,
background, and concluding questions.

Before we proceed, I would like to make clear that your participation is fully voluntary. Please
feel free to take as long as you need to answer any of the questions, there is no rush. The goal is
to finish in 60 minutes, but I am at your disposal if this session runs longer. If at any time during
the interview you indicate you no longer wish to participate, I will stop recording and end the
meeting. I will delete any recorded material and shred any hand-written notes should you decide
to withdraw. During our conversation, if you have any questions regarding this interview or
would like more clarification or a repeating of a question, please feel free to ask.

1. What is your current professional rank at the DIA?
2. In which organization did you obtain your promotion to senior executive or senior leader?
3. What year you were promoted?
4. How long you have worked at the DIA or at the DoD?
5. What is your highest level of education completed?
166

6. At this point I am going to proceed to questions that are more personal. The first is: What
motivated you to begin working for the Federal Government?
7. How much does the Federal Government, and more specifically DIA, value having a racially
diverse workforce, in your opinion?
Probing question: how much does DIA value having a racially diverse senior leader pool, in your
opinion?
8. What was your knowledge of the promotion process to senior executive prior to your applying
for the rank?
9. What professional positions did you have prior to being promoted to senior executive service?
10. Please explain what influenced you to seek promotion to senior executive?
11. Which positions do you think best prepared you to become a senior executive?
12. What leadership training did you have, if any, in your career prior to promotion to senior
executive?
13. How much, if at all, did professional mentorship prepare you to become a senior executive?
14. What do you think led to your selection for senior executive?
15. Have you ever applied for promotions you were not selected for? If so, to what do you
attribute that?
16. What are the most important qualifications for promotion to senior executive, in your
opinion?
17. What role do you think race or ethnicity plays in a candidate’s selection for promotion?
167

18. To what extent have you participated in promotion selection actions to senior executive,
either by promotion panel or direct hire to a position?
Probing question: To your knowledge, how many African Americans are usually on hiring
committees or panels for senior leadership promotions?
19. To what extent do you think African American candidates for promotion to senior executive
are professionally qualified, in your experience?
20. What do you think motivates African Americans to work for the Federal Government in
general?

Debrief: ASK: Before we conclude, do you have anything else you would like to add regarding
your interview responses or anything you would like to ask me? (Wait for response).

This ends the interview. I thank you for your time and your responses. I will send you a copy of
the interview transcription once completed for your review, to ensure it accurately reflects your
comments and thoughts.

ASK: May I have your permission to contact you following this session if I have any follow-up
questions? (Wait for response). If you have any questions of me after we finish today, please
feel free to reach out to me. Once again, thank you very much for your participation and
contributions to my study. Have a great day!

168

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form

Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los
Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH
Study Title: Where are They? The Underrepresentation of African American Senior
Executives in the Department of Defense
Principal Investigator: Brian Jenkins, EdD Candidate
Department: USC Rossier School of Education, OCL Program
24-Hour Telephone Number: 781-824-2069
INTRODUCTION
We invite you to take part in a research study. Please take as much time as you need to
read the consent form. You may want to discuss it with your family, friends, or your personal
doctor. If you find any of the language difficult to understand, please ask questions. If you
decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the signed form will be
provided to you for your records.
KEY INFORMATION
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you should
participate. More detailed information is listed later in this form.
1. Being in this research study is voluntary–it is your choice.
2. You are being asked to take part in this study because you are a member of the subject
population of this study- self-identified African or Black American senior executives/leaders
in the Department of Defense. The purpose of this study is to examine the problem of
African or Black American senior leader underrepresentation in the Department of Defense.
Your participation in this study will last approximately 2 hours total. Procedures will include
reading informational materials regarding this study prior to participating in an hour-long
interview.
3. There are risks from participating in this study. The most common risks are potential
feelings of discomfort by discussing potentially emotionally-charged subjects associated
with African or Black American career progression to senior executive. There is also a
minimal risk of a breach in confidentiality, but the researcher will take steps to minimize that
probability. More detailed information about the risks of this study can be found under the
“Risk and Discomfort” section.
4. You may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in this study. However, your
participation in this study may help us learn what factors may influence African or Black
American promotions to senior executive in the Department of Rossier School of
Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles,
CA 90089

169

Defense in order to develop recommendations to improve the situation of
underrepresentation.
5. If you decide not to participate in this research, there are no alternative methods of
participation in this study.
DETAILED INFORMATION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the problem of African or Black American
underrepresentation at the senior executive/leader level in the Department of Defense.
African or Black Americans in the Department of Defense represent approximately 15% of
the civilian employee population yet only 6% of the department’s senior executives/leaders
(Congressional Research Service, 2021). We hope to learn the perspectives of current
African or Black American senior executives/leaders as to what influences contributed to
their respective promotions in order to develop recommendations that may contribute to
improving the situation of underrepresentation. You are invited as a possible participant
because you are a self-identified member of the study population- African or Black
American senior executives/leaders in the Department of Defense. About ten participants
will take part in the study.
PROCEDURES
If you decide to take part, this is what will happen:
• • The researcher will schedule a two-hour video teleconference meeting with you
based on your availability. The meeting will use Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Skype, based
on your preference.
• • The researcher will send a DocuSign version of this informed consent form to you
at least 72-hours prior to the meeting to inform you of the purpose and procedures of the
study and the contents of the form. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN the DocuSign form until the
meeting with researcher.
• • During the scheduled interview meeting, the researcher will review this informed
consent form with you prior to conducting the interview. This review will consist of the
researcher detailing the information contained in this consent form and then asking you to
repeat the provisions of the form to ensure mutual understanding of the procedures. If you
consent to continue with the interview, the researcher will ask you to sign the DocuSign
version of the form prior to beginning the interview.
• • The researcher will begin the interview by asking for permission to record the
interview using a digital audio recording device. The researcher will not video record the
interview as a measure to protect your confidential participation in the interview. If you do
not agree to being recorded, the researcher will take written notes of the participant’s
responses instead. If you do not agree to the researcher taking any written notes in lieu of
electronic recording, then the interview will be terminated and you will no longer be part of
the study.
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips
Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

170

• • The interview will consist of five questions regarding your current professional and
educational background, as these are important for the context of the study. Next, the
researcher will ask you fifteen questions related to your perspectives on the problem of
African or Black American senior executive/leader underrepresentation in the Department of
Defense, based on your own experiences and observations. PLEASE DO NOT discuss any
U.S. Government classified information to avoid any potential information security
violations.
• • At the conclusion of the interview, the researcher will ask you if you have any
questions or anything further to add regarding either the interview or the study in general.
The researcher will address your questions/comments, if applicable, and then explain next
steps to you.
• • The researcher will have the digital audio recording of the interview professionally
transcribed and then provide you an encrypted copy of the interview transcription by email.
The researcher will ask that you review the transcript to ensure it accurately reflects your
responses and views. Please provide the researcher your response to the review within
seven days of receipt of the document.
• • You may request that the researcher send you a copy of the study upon its
completion. You may request this at any time during your participation in this study.

RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Possible risks and discomforts you could experience during this study include:
Surveys/Questionnaires/Interviews Some of the questions may make you feel uneasy or
embarrassed. You can choose to skip or stop answering any questions you don’t want to.
Breach of Confidentiality There is a small risk that people who are not connected with this
study will learn your identity or your personal information.
BENEFITS
There are no direct benefits to you from taking part in this study. However, your participation
in this study may help us learn more about the potential influences on the Department of
Defense promotion system to senior executive/leader that helps or hinders African or Black
Americans seeking promotion. Your perspectives and insights will help inform study
recommendations that may contribute to improving the promotion rates of African or Black
Americans to senior positions.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if
we are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. Efforts
will be made to limit the use and disclosure of your personal University of Southern
California Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470
Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

171

information, including research study and medical records, to people who are required to
review this information. We may publish the information from this study in journals or
present it at meetings. If we do, we will not use your name.
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human
Subject’s Protections Program (HSPP) may review your records.
Your responses, which are also called “data’, will be stored accordingly:
• • The researcher will store your digital audio recorded interview on a password-
protected, encrypted external hard drive following the interview meeting. The hard drive will be
connected to the researcher’s computer only for the time it will take to download the recorded
information onto it. Once successfully downloaded, the hard drive will be disconnected from the
computer.
• • The researcher will send the recorded interview to Rev, a professional transcription
company, to obtain a written transcript to use in the study. No personally identifiable information
will be sent to Rev, only the recorded interview itself. For more information on Rev, please view
their website at https://www.rev.com/transcription.
• • The researcher will store the transcribed document on a password-protected,
encrypted external hard drive. The researcher will connect the hard drive to the computer only
when using the information for writing the study; otherwise, it will not be connected.
• • The researcher will code your name to protect your identity in the study using a
pseudonym. The list that associates your real name with the coded pseudonym will be stored on
a password-protected, encrypted external hard drive. The researcher will connect the hard drive
to the computer only when using the information for writing the study; otherwise, it will not be
connected.
• • All materials related to the study will be secured in the researchers file cabinet and
accessible only to the researcher. The external hard drive with the recorded interview and the
transcription document will be password-protected and the data encrypted. Only the researcher
will have the password and encryption data.
• • The researcher will retain the data for two years and will destroy the data by formatting
the external hard drive.

Your data collected as part of this research will not be used or distributed for future research
studies, even if all your identifiers are removed. University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los
Angeles, CA 90089

172

ALTERNATIVES
Not to participate in this study.
PAYMENTS / COMPENSATION
You will not be compensated for your participation in this research.
COST
There an no costs related to participation.
NEW INFORMATION
We will tell you about any new information that may affect your health, welfare, or
willingness to stay in the research.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
It is your choice whether to participate. If you choose to participate, you may change your
mind and leave the study at any time. If you decide not to participate, or choose to end your
participation in this study, you will not be penalized or lose any benefits that you are
otherwise entitled to.
WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
You may withdraw from the study at any time. Please inform the researcher of your
withdrawal by email or by phone if you decide to withdraw.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, talk to the
investigator, Brian Jenkins, at (781) 824-2069 or brianj36@usc.edu.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a
research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as
a research participant or you have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB
at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu. University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale
Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

STATEMENT OF
CONSENT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this
form, I am agreeing to take part in this study.

________________________ _______________ ____________________
Name of Research Participant Signature Date Signed (and Time*)

Person Obtaining Consent
I have personally explained the research to the participant using non-technical
language. I have answered all the participant’s questions. I believe that the participant
understands the information described in this informed consent and freely consents to
participate.
173

______________________ ___________________ __________
Name of Person Obtaining Signature Date Signed
Informed Consent (and Time*)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Contribution of second shift responsibilities in underrepresentation of Senior Executive women in the Department of Defense; an intersectional view

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women in the senior executive service of the United States government

PDF

Examining the underrepresentation of African Americans in the Senior Executive Service within the United States federal government’s civilian workforce

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Black premedical student retention: exploring campus support programming through the eyes of the student

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American women in corporate leadership roles

PDF

Missed opportunities: lack of advancement of African American females  into senior executive healthcare leadership

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

The pursuit of anti-racism in university theater

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and people of color in executive-level information technology positions

PDF

The importance of mentoring in leadership self-efficacy for women in supply chain: a qualitative study

PDF

Exploring the barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite roles in corporate America

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Where are the female executive leaders?

PDF

Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework

PDF

Double jeopardy: the influence of prevalent race and gender bias on women of color executive leadership promotions

PDF

Outside the concrete wall: a qualitative study of Black women persisting in technology

Asset Metadata

Creator Jenkins, Brian Lawrence (author)

Core Title Where are they? The underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the Department of Defense

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/09/2021

Defense Date 11/10/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African American,Black American,Department of Defense,OAI-PMH Harvest,senior executives,underrepresentation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member)

Creator Email bljenk@hotmail.com,brianj36@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18367063

Unique identifier UC18367063

Legacy Identifier etd-JenkinsBri-10295

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jenkins, Brian Lawrence

Type texts

Source 20211216-wayne-usctheses-batch-904-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu