1
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PROMOTION OUTCOMES IN MILITARY OFFICERS:
THE MODERATING ROLE OF RACE
Chapter 1: Introduction to Studies
Introduction
In 1973, the United States ended military service, which marked the beginning of
the era of voluntary-based military service (MacLean, 2017). Although the U.S. military
strives to reflect the diversity of the populations it serves, its senior leadership remains
underrepresented by minority groups (Kamarck, 2019). Statistics show that the U.S.
military officer corps is dominated by white individuals, which comprise 77.3% of the
overall officers, with 87.5% dominating the highest leadership echelons (Council on
Foreign Relations, 2020; Kamarck, 2019).
Research shows that the presence of military leadership from minority groups can
increase the retention rate of minority officers (Greene, 2019). However, the lack of
minority representation in senior officer corps, such as ranks O5 to O10 in the Navy and
Army, as well as ranks O4 to O10 in the Air Force and Marine Corps, often contribute to
low rates of officer retention from the group. In some cases, this can even lead to a loss
of trust in the military as an institution that fairly represents citizens (Baldwin, 2000;
Davis, 2018; Kamarck, 2019; McClellen, 2020).
The report of the Commission on Military Leadership Diversity (2010)
revealed that line officers from minority groups are promoted to O4 and O5 ranks at a
lower level than the average in some branches of the military. However, the commission
emphasized that demographic differences in promotion levels do not necessarily indicate
bias in the promotion process. This indicates the need for further evaluation of the factors
that contribute to inequality in leadership promotion and representation.
2
For promotion to senior officer ranks (O4–O6) in the U.S. military, a number of factors are
considered, including each officer's qualifications, performance reports (such as fitness reports,
officer evaluations, and officer performance reports), as well as the results of the selection board
(Greene, 2019; Spain, 2020). In the Navy, promotion criteria include elements of personality
characteristics and attributes (Slavonic, 2021), and similar elements are also covered in the Army's
evaluation report. However, this process is kept secret, and members of the selection board are
prohibited from discussing the results of the selection, so promoted or unpromoted officers are
unaware of the reasons behind the decision (U.S. Code Armed Forces, 2011).
Because of this lack of transparency, some officers may internalize the reasons for their promotional
status, often speculating that factors such as personality, leadership style, or even race influence
promotion decisions. Schmidt (2014) emphasizes that personality traits contribute to job
performance and can affect promotion opportunities in the military. In addition, implicit bias is often
identified as the cause of the lack of promotion of minorities to senior ranks (McClellen, 2020). To
address this issue, Defense Secretary Mark Esper (2020) adopted a three-pronged approach to
addressing discrimination, prejudice, and bias in the military, including a policy that prohibits the
use of photos in promotional and selection boards to reduce potential bias.
Research Contributions to Social Change This research has the potential to drive positive social
change by providing military and federal leaders with insight into the role of personality and racial
characteristics in the process of promotion to senior military ranks. These findings can help in the
design of more equitable data-driven leadership development programs, retention programs,
diversity initiatives, and promotion policies. Chapter Structure This chapter summarizes
relevant literature regarding the career development of senior officer corps, the challenges of
diversity, and the use of personality assessments in the U.S. military. In addition, this chapter
3
discusses:
- Problem Statement: Identifies key issues related to promotion to senior officers.
- Research Objectives and Questions: Explain the main objectives of the research as well as
the proposed hypothesis.
- Theoretical Framework: Using the Five Factor Model (FFM) as a theoretical guide to
assess personality characteristics and examine racial constructs.
- Nature of Research: Describe the methodological approach used.
- Definition of Terms: Provides operational definitions for the terms used in research.
- Assumptions and Significance: Highlights the underlying assumptions and importance of
this research in the U.S. military context.
This research is expected to provide valuable insights for military policy and practice to improve
representation, fairness, and transparency in the promotion of senior officers.
4
Background
Today, the surviving literature on the American military covers a large number of
topics. Relevant topics focus on the diversity of ranks, promotion rates, and personality
types of military officers. The essence of this dissertation lies in the lack of research on
the promotion of senior officers and their personality traits.
Schmidt (2014) explains the potential contribution of personality in job success,
especially where the position involves certain interests. Examining the personality traits
of military officers can help identify those who will excel in the senior officer corps.
Miles and Haider-Markel (2018) suggested that volunteering for service in the armed
forces is not genetic but the same genes that lead people to emotional stability and/or
extraversion also lead to service in the armed forces. Using five-factor personality traits,
Gardner et al. (2012) argue that in hierarchical organization (i.e., military), people who
exhibit a higher level of rigor and a lower level of openness are better integrated into
their hierarchical group. The researchers showed a link between FFM and military
organizations (Bech et al., 2021; Bobdey et al., 2021; Forman & Zachar, 2001; Johnson
& Hill, 2009; Klee & Renner, 2016; Magal et al., 2021; Ployhart et al., 2001; Skoglund et
al., 2021). In the United States, high accuracy is a predictor of military job performance,
and a high extraversion with leadership (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Leadership
effectiveness in the Australian military correlates with high precision and low
extraversion; In addition to high rigor and low extraversion, high openness predicts
attending promotional courses (McCormack & Mellor, 2002). A study involving the
Norwegian Special Operations Forces found that
5
agreement is higher on operators before deployment and that after a certain number of
combat deployments, their level of pleasure decreases, but extraversion traits are higher
in officers, resulting in those traits being associated with leadership (Skoglund et al.,
2020). A seminal Asian military study explains that the openness of the Singapore
military predicts maximum performance while the nature of neuroticism predicts typical
performance (Plyhart et al., 2001).
The perceived obstacle to promotion to senior officer corps is demographics.
Promotion to senior officer corps is not based on the affirmative action quota but on the
officer's record presented to the promotion board because the military is exempt from
Title VII (McClellen, 2020; Westergard, 2019). The percentage of minority officers
serving actively in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force has increased since 2010 but
declined in the Army (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The active-duty military has
233,189 officers, with 55,616 officers in racial minority groups; minorities represent
21.4% of the O4-O6 pay rate, and 11.1% of the O7-O10 pay rate (U.S. Department of
Defense, 2019). In 2017, the demographics showed Hispanics as the fastest-growing
ethnicity in the military (Barroso, 2019); however, the U.S. Department of Defense
demographic statistics (2019) do not include Hispanics as part of a minority racial group
but a Hispanic/Latino ethnic group.
The Obama administration developed the Military Leadership Diversity
Commission (2010) to investigate fairness in promotions and command opportunities for
all members of the U.S. military. Their finding that the lack of diversity in promotions is,
alone, not the same as bias in the promotion system leading to further demographic
studies. Asch et
6
The findings of al. (2012) and Kamarck (2019) are similar in demographic differences in
officer promotions although they show an increase in differences in higher ranks starting
from O4 promotions. The Air Force changed its promotion system in 2021 to reflect
career fields, resulting in increased diversity promotions (Cohen, 2021).
As of 2024, no study included examining the personality characteristics of U.S.
officers promoted to senior officer corps using FFM or moderation for race (Deibler,
2012; Drasgow, 2020; McCormack & Mellor, 2002; Miles & Haider-Markel, 2019;
Pastor Álvarez et al., 2019; Rad et al., 2019). There are many studies that examine the
personality traits of military members but minimal research uses FFM in relation to
promotion or race.
This study is needed to address the lack of research on promotion to senior
officer corps, personality characteristics of U.S. senior officer corps, and the scarcity of
diversity in senior officer corps promotions.
Problem Statement
Career advancement is the goal of members of the U.S. military, but promotion to
senior officer corps is more difficult by design (Baldwin & Rothwell, 1993; McClellen;
2020; Stewart & Firestone, 1992). Many eligible service members are not promoted to
senior officer corps and separate early or retire at age 20 of service (Sümer & Mete,
2019). The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) of 1980 determines
the number of active officers, so that each armed service has a billet of officers assigned
to O4 and above (Kapp, 2016; Rostker et al., 1992). The promotion amount reflects the
number of billets available afterwards
7
retirement, separation, or change of military power issued by the Secretary of Defense
(Baldwin & Rothwell, 1993; Kapp, 2016). Because of the secrecy of the selection and
promotion boards, service members are left to their own perception of what affects their
promotion status (U.S. Code Armed Forces, 2011). Despite research on implicit bias and
diversity issues regarding promotions (Baldwin, 2000, Greene, 2019, McClellen, 2020),
no previous research has focused on the relationship between personality traits and
promotions of senior military officers. The problem is that it is not known to what extent
personality traits predict U.S. military promotions to senior officer corps, and if they do
predict promotions, whether those relationships are moderated by race.
The military assesses officers' personality characteristics to examine officers'
performance, leadership skills, and traumatic-brain injuries, as well as in the selection
process (Belanger, 2020; Campbell et al., 2010; Drasgow, 2020; Kennedy et al., 2015;
Ingram et al., 2020; Stark et al., 2014). The specific issue investigated in this study is
whether there are differences in personality characteristics between those promoted to
senior officer corps and those who are not, as moderated by race.
Study Objectives
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the extent to which
personality traits predicted officer promotions in two sample groups associated with the
U.S. military's senior officer corps, while considering the role of racial moderation. In
this study, the personality characteristics of officers were independent variables,
promotion status to senior officer corps was a dependent variable, and race served
8
as a moderation variable. The two groups of promotion status are (a) junior officers (i.e.,
O4) who fail to be promoted to the senior officer corps and (b) senior officers (i.e., O5–
O10).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1: To what extent do personality traits, as measured by IPIP-NEO-60,
predict the promotion group of officers in the U.S. military?
H01.1: Personality traits Openness does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.1: Personality traits Openness does predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
H01.2: Personality traits Accuracy does not predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
HA1.2: Personality traits Conscientiousness does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.3: Extraversion personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.3: Extraversion's personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.4: Agreeableness personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.4: Agreeableness personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
9
H01.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
RQ2: To what extent does race moderate the relationship between officer
personality characteristics and promotion groups (junior officers and senior
officers)?
H02.1: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Openness officers and the promotion group.
HA2.1: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Open officers and promotion groups.
H02.2: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
HA2.2: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
H02.3: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Extraversion and the promotion group.
HA2.3: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers from the Extraversion and the promotion group.
H02.4: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
HA2.4: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
10
H02.5: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
HA2.5: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
Theoretical Framework for Study
The theoretical framework for this study is FFM McCrae and Costa (1987).
These theorists propose that the human personality consists of five traits: openness,
thoroughness, extraversion, pleasure, and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1987). FFM
ranks properties on the spectrum rather than based on categories. These rankings allow
personalities to be categorized by level of traits or characteristics instead of binary
options (McCrae & Costa, 1985). Researchers have used this theory to examine military
personality characteristics (Barańczuk, 2019; Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCormack &
Mellor, 2002; Plyhart et al., 2001; Skoglund et al., 2020). As a result, FFM is suitable
for examining the personality traits of military officers. Although FFM does predict
behavior, McCrae and Costa (2006) argue that behaviors influenced by personality traits
lack flexibility but are constant.
This research also uses the concept of race. According to the U.S. Department of
Defense (2019), individuals can be categorized as Native American or Alaska Native,
Asian, Black or African-American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or White.
For categorization purposes, this study uses two categories: Caucasian and non-
Caucasian.
11
Nature of Research
To answer the research question in this quantitative study, the specific research
design includes a cross-sectional design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, Singh Setia, 2016)
using a survey method. The cross-sectional design allows me to gather information about
what is happening to the military population while simultaneously examining various
characteristics. Online survey administration measures (a) for personality characteristics
and (b) for demographics. This quantitative analysis statistically compared personality
characteristics between two promotional groups associated with senior officer corps as
well as the effects of racial moderation. In this study, the personality characteristics of
officers were independent variables, the promotion status to senior officer corps was a
dependent variable, and race functioned as a moderation variable.
For my research design, I recruited Army and Navy officers who belonged to two
groups based on their rank (O4 who failed to be promoted to O5 and O5–O10 who was
promoted to senior officer) through social media sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook,
and military associations. Army and Navy officers are recruited based on their criteria,
which are determined by their service specifications, for the salary level of senior
officers. The salary value of senior officers in the Army and Navy begins with selection
to O5. Participants fill out two surveys online using Qualtrics. All data has been kept
confidential. This study used binary logistic regression for both research questions.
12
Operational Definition
Agreeableness is a dimension of personality that relates to interpersonal behavior,
according to McCrae and Costa (1987). Individuals with low scores for agreement may
exhibit antagonistic tendencies, while those with higher levels may be trusting and
cooperative (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Conscientiousness is a dimension of the FFM personality that "distinguishes
conscientious, well-organized, and diligent individuals from weak, disorganized, and
weak individuals" (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 6).
The extraversion in this study refers to the personality dimension of FFM related
to the level of association and affection (McCrae & Costa, 1987). People with higher
levels of extraversion may prefer to have fun or get along easily while those in the lower
continuum may be quiet and less affectionate (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
The Flag Officer/General Officer is the most senior of the senior officer corps
(i.e., O7-O10). The term is reserved for Admiral (Flag Officer) in the Navy and General
(General Officer) in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Openness is a dimension of FFM personality that reflects a willingness to ideas
and values (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Neuroticism is a personality dimension of FFM that is associated with human
psychological stress tendencies (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Those with higher scores may
experience more negative emotions and appear more temperamental than those with low
neuroticism scores.
13
Rank is a hierarchical assignment of U.S. military officers assigned to 10 vertical
levels with numbered assignments (i.e., O1–O10). It is known as a grade or paygrade.
Retirement is a term for leaving the military with a minimum of 20 years of service.
Service members can medically retire with less than 20 years with the approval of the
Department of Defense (DoD). Retirement entails a lifetime medical benefit and a
retirement salary.
Senior Officer Corps is a nomenclature when referring to the military officer level
between the ranks of O5 and O10 in the Army and Navy, and O4 and O10 in the Marine
Corps and Air Force.
Separated is a term used to leave the military when a service member is
separated from the military after 19 years or less.
Assumption
To conduct this study, the necessary assumptions were made. First, I assumed
that all participants were honest in their answers to the questionnaire because incorrect or
incorrect answers negatively impacted the results of the study. Another assumption is
that officers with such a level of training and education understand all the aspects
covered in the questionnaire without any questions or misinterpretations. The final
assumption is that the participants follow instructions because they are trained to follow
instructions as part of their profession.
Scope and Boundaries
It is not transparent why military leaders are chosen, and it allows military
officers to introspectively look for excuses. Today, studying this issue is appropriate
given the increasing personality assessment in leadership selection and the focus on
14
increasing diversity in leadership and types of leaders. The participants were not
surveyed in their workplaces due to population protection; Participants complete an
online questionnaire where they feel comfortable. The online format allows for a wider
population, but there is no certainty that all participants belong to the group they
designated in the questionnaire because they voluntarily participated. Socioeconomic
status information was not collected directly for this study, but the rank for active
officers provided that information. I collect participant demographic information such
as age, years of employment, gender, and education level solely for descriptive
purposes; This demographic response did not affect the results of the study.
Limitations
The study relied on social media to find qualified officers willing to participate in
the study, and that becomes a challenge if social media posts are not well received. I
received feedback from the officer before posting to ensure that the invitation to
participate was clear and without problems. Another limitation is the use of only Army
and Navy officers because it reduces the number of DoD participants. I reached out to as
many Army and Navy officers as possible through social media and was able to meet the
required sample size. Although I use race as a moderator variable, not analyzing other
descriptive data limits the results. If I do more research on this topic, I will use
descriptive data to analyze the impact. Although the sample was met, the number of
participants in each group was not the same and could be considered a limitation. As the
military spouse of an officer in the senior officer corps, I was constantly
15
evaluate myself for any bias to ensure that the research is not affected. I visited the office
hours session of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to consult for clarification of any
restrictions regarding the use of military officers.
Meaning
The study is significant because it addresses gaps in research regarding the
relationship between military officer personality characteristics and promotion to senior
officer corps while considering the role of racial moderation. The findings of this study
can promote positive social change by informing military and federal leaders about the
role personality traits play in those who lead the U.S. military as well as informing those
who design defense-geared development programs, retention programs, diversity
programs, and leadership programs. The importance of this research to social psychology
involves social influences and group behavior. The results increase awareness of the
social behavior of a military officer as well as their attitude towards the development of
their personality characteristics. Although military culture is one of conformity, the study
also shows that members of the group share similar personality characteristics.
Summary
Gardner et al. (2012) posited the importance of personality in hierarchical
organizations. Military promotion depends on a large number of criteria, but the
influence of personality characteristics on the process is unknown. This chapter reviews
the types of personality characteristics previously associated with military service,
demographic roles, and diversity. The purpose of this study was to compare personality
characteristics between two promotion groups associated with senior officer corps as
16
as well as the effects of race moderation. In Chapter 2, I provide a more in-depth
overview of the outcomes, predictors, and moderation variables of the research. First, I
expanded personality characteristics by providing seminal and contemporary literature
that highlights FFM. Next, I present an overview of U.S. military promotions,
demographics, and literature that reviews diversity in the military. Finally, I present
seminal and contemporary literature on the military and personality.
17
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare differences in personality
characteristics between officers in two sample groups associated with the U.S. military's
senior officer corps, taking into account the role of racial moderation. The lack of
minority representation in senior officer corps is one of the most prominent problems in
the U.S. military (Kamarck, 2019; McClellen, 2020; Commission on Diversity of
Military Leadership, 2010). Although there are many studies focusing on the US military
and personality (Deibler, 2012; Drasgow, 2020; McCormack & Mellor, 2002; Miles &
Haider-Markel, 2019; Pastor Álvarez et al., 2019; Rad et al., 2019), there is a lack of
specific research on promotion and personality in the armed forces. Therefore, this study
examined the differences in unknown personality characteristics between U.S. military
junior officers who failed to be promoted to senior officer corps and U.S. military senior
officers who promoted, and then examined whether the relationship was moderated by
race.
In this chapter, a description of the literature research strategy is included as well
as the theoretical background. This chapter contains a review of the existing literature on
topics such as career progression, diversity issues, and the current use of personality
assessments in the armed forces, followed by a summary.
Literature Search Strategy
The literature for this dissertation was obtained from the Walden University
Library and Google Scholar. Walden University Library provides EBSCO Host
18
database system, which accounts for most of the scientific and peer-reviewed articles
accessed for this research. Through the EBSCO Host database system, the following
databases are used: (a) APA PsycINFO, (b) ProQuest, (c) Sage Journal,
(d) PubMed, and (e) Military and Government Collections. The search is limited to full-
text peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, theses, and dissertations. Search
terms include Boolean operators (i.e., and, or, not) in addition to variables (i.e.,
personality, promotion, race, authentic leadership) and related terms such as military,
diversity, Five Factor Model, and ALQ. The main search terms and search combinations
include Military + promotion + personality + minority, Personality + promotion +
military, Authentic Leadership Questionnaire + military, Military + promotion +
promotion + minority group, Military + promotion + promotion + promotion +
promotion + promotion
+authentic leadership, Military + promotion + promotion + promotion + minority +
officer, Military + promotion + officer, Affirmative Action + US military, Military +
personality + United States - international, Military + personality + United States,
Diversity + military leadership, Five Factor Model + military, Five Factor Model +
military, Diversity + promotion + military, Race + promotion + military + Officer,
NEO-FFI-3 + military + promotion, and NEO-FFI-R + military.
The main research contained in this literature review includes peer-reviewed
journal articles, theses, dissertations, and theoretical framework basics. The study began
with an initial scope from 2015 to 2024, but the scope of the year was expanded to
reflect seminal research and the current lack of research. Seminal research includes both
theoretical and military historical frameworks. To deal with scarcity
19
current research (i.e., research on promotions, military officers, FFM, diversity), the
scope of the research dates expanded and international studies were included instead
of concentrating solely on research focused on the American military.
Theoretical Foundations
One psychological theory underpins this research and is key to understanding
the personality characteristics of U.S. military junior officers who fail to be promoted to
senior officer corps and those promoted to senior officer corps, as well as moderate
levels of race. The theory underlying this research is FFM, which focuses on the
dimension of human personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987) while supporting the idea of
trait similarity in culture (McCrae & John, 1992) which by extension is related to the
similarity of characteristics in officers promoted to senior officer corps. Organizations
use FFM as a selection tool because they look for specific personality traits that are
often associated with effective leadership (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The concept of race
(U.S. Department of Defense, 2019) is applied to account for diversity in promotion.
Five-Factor Model
McCrae and Costa (1987) theorize in FFM that the human personality consists of
five dimensions: openness, rigor, extraversion, pleasure, and neuroticism (McCrae &
Costa, 1987). Although FFMs provide five-dimensional traits categorically, each trait has
a unique subset of factors. McCrae and John (1992) assert that the completeness of FFM
and minimal covariance of personal traits supports the theory's assumptions that are
cross-cultural and social
20
important. A theory accepted across cultures reveals how diverse languages reflect
similar human traits due to cross-cultural interpersonal behavior (McCrae & John, 1992).
Allik and McCrae (2002) showed that FFM traits provide a cross-cultural foundation for
understanding human personality when compared across 40 cultures. The military
encompasses a diverse workforce with a variety of personalities but is its own culture
that incorporates subcultures by service departments (i.e., Army culture, Navy culture,
Air Force culture, Marine Corps culture). To understand human personalities in the U.S.
military, FFM provides the basis for overall military culture in this study.
Building on Eysenck's personality research of two traits, FFM adds the traits of
openness, fun, and conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Additional traits give
birth to the FFM theory, which results in reliability and validity that results in consistent
use of FFM across cultures. Barrick and Mount (1991) stated the relationship between
FFM and leader effectiveness; furthermore, companies, governments, the military,
academic entities, and non-profit organizations internationally incorporate FFM through
assessments (i.e., NEO format) to improve the effectiveness of leaders and the work
performance of their workers (Barron et al., 2016; Bobdey et al., 2020; Klee & Renner,
2015; Ployhart et al., 2001; Salgado, 1998; Wang et al., 2019). The Indian Armed Forces
examined whether they could identify personality traits that correlate with Officer-Like-
Qualities (OLQ; Bobdey et al., 2020). This study shows that rigor is positively correlated
with OLQ while neuroticism has a negative correlation. Bobdey et al. (2020) explain that
military officers around the world command troops in unconventional warfare and that
21
The findings show that armed forces equipped with positive, flexible, and imaginative
officers produce war fighters and decision-makers. McCrae and Costa (2003) assert that
all cultures need people with personalities that are geared toward thriving in war as well
as others who thrive in peace.
Although FFM has been one of the most prominent constructs of personality, it
has faced criticism. Given that one of the assumptions and strengths of FFM is its
universality, it is interesting that one critic assumes that these traits are universal
(Bowler et al., 2012). Bowler et al. (2012) argue that these traits are not universal for
individuals with lower cognitive levels, as the individual exhibits three factors while
those with higher cognitive levels exhibit six to seven factors. Various studies have
fought against Bowler et al. because their research has replicated the structure of the
five factors consistently. Another criticism is that some aspects overlap with nature.
Samuel and Widiger (2008) point out that although neuroticism and conscientiousness
are separate traits, impulsive aspects correlate with the two traits and therefore overlap.
However, there is always the potential for domains to be not statistically independent
with cross-relationships between aspects and traits (McCrae & Costa, 2003).
The FFM provides a system of classification of personality characteristics in
officers in military culture. Kaiser and Hogan (2011) argue that FFM systematically
classifies traits; it doesn't measure it. McCrae and Costa's (1987) theory provides
researchers with a framework that methodically supports trait comparisons (Kalshoven et
al., 2011), particularly in the military (Bech et al., 2021; Huijzer et al., 2022; Klee &
Renner,
22
FFM is further associated with authentic leadership (Meskelis & Whittington, 2020; Shahzad
et al., 2021), which is key in the criteria for military leadership and promotion.
Shahzad et al. (2021) explain the belief that leadership skills can be based on personality
traits, so their research shows that authentic leadership is positively correlated with
extraversion, fun, rigor, and openness to experience.
Concept of Race
Race is a socially constructed classification system that distinguishes differences
between humans based on their phenotypic characteristics (Maddox, 2004). The U.S.
military has six classifications for race and an ethnic classification for Hispanics. The
classification includes White, Black, Asian, multiracial, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native (DoD, 2021). While some studies have
not shown statistically significant differences in the traits of FFM when based on race
(Collins & Gleaves, 1998; Foldes et al., 2008), Tate's (2008) research showed that blacks
were slightly more extroverted and less neurotic than whites, and meanwhile whites
scored slightly higher in pleasurableness. In contrast, Johnson's (2000) study showed that
blacks scored higher than whites on pleasurable traits and lower than whites on
neuroticism. Unique to Johnson's (2000) research is the military population across all
services used as participants whereas other studies conducted relied on civilians.
Researchers have investigated the link between personality and racial prejudice.
Lin and Alvarez (2020) study anti-black personality and prejudice
23
White, non-Hispanic participants. The authors explain that pleasure and rigor are directly
related to anti-Black prejudice, but the controlled variables are authoritarianism,
orientation of social domination, and political leanings. Previous research has also found
a fit (Cohrs et al., 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008) is statistically significant in relation to
prejudice; Cohrs et al. (2012) found agreement and openness in their second data study
to be statistically significant in relation to prejudice. However, other studies have
contradicted the findings and have not found a statistically significant association
between FFM and prejudice (Duriez & Soenens, 2006; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Hodson
et al., 2009; McFarland, 2010).
Literature Review
Studies related to military promotion were reviewed. To fully address the scope
of this research topic, current and historical data aspects involving military reviews as
well as diversity are considered. Furthermore, the career development of military officers
and the study of military personalities are examined.
Demographics of the Senior Officer Corps
The American DoD includes three military departments (i.e., the Army, Navy,
and Air Force) with six armed forces (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). The Army is
organized as the sole entity as the Department of the Army, whereas the Marine Corps is
organized with the Navy under the Department of the Navy. The newly formed Space
Force is organized with the Air Force under the Department of the Air Force (Council on
Foreign Relations, 2020). Although the Coast Guard is reorganized under the Department
of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is legally a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces
24
Forces and considered a maritime service (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). The
U.S. government has kept a brief calculation of statistical information about its military.
The DoD (2022) reported that in 2021, the U.S. active-duty military consisted of
1,335,848 service members, 236,388 of whom were officers, and of those officers,
58,519 included the Senior Officer Corps. Demographic data collected from 236,388
officers showed that 75.3% reported as White, 9% as Black, 5.8% as Asian, 2.3% as
multiracial, 0.7% as American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.6% as Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander, and 6.3% as other/unknown (DoD, 2022). In contrast, overall
demographic data collected from 1,333,822 service members showed that 68.9%
reported as White, 17.2% as Black, 4.9% as Asian, 3.0% as multiracial, 1.1% as
American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.2% as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and 3.7% as other/unknown (DoD, 2022).
According to demographic data collected from senior officer corps, white officers
represented 77.8% (O4–O6) and 89.1% (O7–O10) in contrast to racial-minority officers
representing 22.2% (O4–O6) and 10.9% (O7–O10) in 2021 (DoD, 2022). The racial
demographics of senior officers have remained largely unchanged since 2018 in the O4–
O6 ranks with an average of 78% but appear to fluctuate in the O7–O10 ranks between
10 and 12% (DoD, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022). The Military Leadership Diversity
Commission (2011) pointed out that a correlation cannot be made between these
demographic differences and bias in the promotion process. Demographically,
Senior U.S. military leadership lacks diversity, but the current level of diversity in the ranks
is a product of integration due to the Civil Rights movement and institutions
25
volunteer military over the past five decades (Barroso, 2019). In the Civil War, 179,000
black men fought for the Union Army, equivalent to 10% of the Union army, and 19,000
in the Union Navy; of those people, only 80 were assigned as officers (National
Archives and Records Administration, 2017). In World War II, the draft provided a large
number of service members, including 1,056,841 black enlistees, 13,311 Chinese,
20,080 Japanese, 1,320 Native Hawaiians, 19,567 Native Americans, 11,506 Filipinos,
and 51,438 Puerto Ricans from the Selective Service (U.S. Army Center for Military
History, 2021). In 1945, black officers accounted for 1.9% of commissioned officers
(Aponte et al., 2017). It was not until 1948 that the service was degregated, and they
were fully delegiated when the Vietnam War began (Aponte et al., 2017). Before the
Civil Rights Movement, integration was frowned upon and sometimes championed by
senior officers (Baldwin, 2000). With all-volunteer military inaugurations, all races are
given the opportunity to enlist or become officers, provided they meet the requirements
(Aponte et al., 2017). Due to the low rate of promotion of minority officers to senior
officer corps before the Civil Rights Movement, it took decades for minority officers to
be promoted to senior officer corps and take on senior leadership roles (McClellan,
2020).
Since officer promotion requires years in class/rank, it regularly takes O1 about 15 years
or more to be promoted to O5 (Kapp, 2016). Unlike their civilian counterparts, officers
are typically commissioned in their 20s, so the current senior officer corps are those
trained in leadership over the past few decades (Barroso, 2019). The military evolved at
its own pace with historical events and diversity movements, described below, leading
the way to change in recruitment, retention, and promotion.
26
Military Review
In 1973, the United States ended military service and began a voluntary armed
force (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). At the time, the military consisted of 1.9
million active service members, compared with 1.3 million active service members in
2020 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020; DoD, 2021). In contrast, 1% of the American
population serves, compared to less than 0.5% of the current population (Council on
Foreign Relations, 2020; DoD, 2021). The number of Americans willing to volunteer to
serve their country has decreased, which reduces military strength and readiness (Baldor,
2022; DoD, 2022). Service member retention as well as recruitment have declined
stemming from a competitive labor market, COVID-19 requirements, and a lack of
incentives for military careers (Baldor, 2022). This decrease in personnel justifies the
potential reduction in the necessary DoD force structure, so that the military meets
national security concerns (Baldor, 2022). Gaps in positions due to lack of personnel
prohibit military readiness, but cutting force structures removes articulated positions and
forces the service to reorganize while working with fewer personnel. Military leaders
believe that quality is better than quantity, so lowering recruitment standards is not
optimal, considering that in 2022, only 23% of prospective young recruits met the
military's mental and physical standards (Baldor, 2022). The country is only as strong as
the military protects it, and the US military has always tried to keep its country protected
(Lopez, 2022).
27
Military Structure
The Navy was formed in October 1775 as the first American armed force to
replicate the rank structure of the British Navy (Bisno, 2019). The Coast Guard then
mirrored the Navy's rank system (Bushatz, 2022). The U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Space Force reflect the British Army's officer rank structure as distinct from
the Navy's rank structure (see Figure 1; Bushatz, 2022). Hierarchical in nature, the armed
forces share a salary tier system so that the hierarchical status of service members is
clear, regardless of their armed service (Bushatz, 2022; Kapp; 2021). Enlisted pay levels
start at E1 and officers start with O1; enlisted in E9 and officers in O10 (Bushatz, 2022;
Kapp; 2021). The 79th Congress passed Public Law 333 (1946) which permanently
designated the five-star rank of O10 to indicate theater or fleet command during a
multifront war. This rank shows five stars and is awarded to nine Americans; The last 5-
star to be promoted was during World War II (Bushantz, 2022). Today, four stars
indicate O-10.
28
Figure 1
Armed Forces Ranks
Note. ranks and badges of U.S. military officers. Adapted from Officer Badge by
Department of Defense, 2022 (https:// www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Insignias/#officer-
badge).
29
In 1956, Congress passed Title 10 of the United States Code (10 USC) in which
the role of the armed forces is stated; Congress periodically passes amendments to Title
10 of the USC (Armed Forces United States Code, 2018). Chapter 36 of Title 10 governs
the promotion and is discussed later in the literature review. Chapter 32 of Title 10
regulates the rank limits of officers of the ranks O4-O10 on active duty; undifferentiated
limits for ranks O1-O3 (United States Armed Forces Code, 2018). According to Title 10
USC
§ 523, officers assigned to active duty in each of the declared ranks must correlate with
the total number of officers assigned active at the end of the fiscal year (some exceptions
to the officer category are included). The number of O4-O10 should not exceed the
number outlined by the total total number of approved active duty officers (United States
Armed Forces Code, 2018). If the number of officers exceeds the corresponding total,
under 10 USC, the number of officers in excess is evaluated for mandatory retirement or
mandatory separation for those who are unable to retire (United States Armed Forces
Code, 2018). During times of conflict, the U.S. military increased its numbers as
approved by Congress and reduced the strength of its forces when conflicts and wars
ceased (Kapp, 2016, United States Code Armed Forces, 2018). As the number of troops
fluctuates, so does the number of promotion opportunities. Kapp (2016) describes the
officer corps as a pyramid shape with the base of the pyramid being officers ranked O1-
O3 and O4 as the middle and O5-O10 as the top.
Historically, the higher the rank, the more class restrictions exist with this competitive
promotion system design (Kapp, 2016, United States Armed Forces Code, 2018).
30
Diversity
Although the DoD's goal is to represent the citizens served, the corps of senior
military officers is less diverse than the civilian population (DoD Council on Diversity
and Inclusion, 2020). After World War II, President Truman signed an executive order
mandating integration in the U.S. military in 1948 (Executive Order, 2018). This
executive order was met with resistance from some flag officers and generals who stated
integration could jeopardize the effectiveness of the army and disturb morale (Knowles,
2019). The service slowly followed orders with the Army setting a goal of 10% black
people in each unit (Knowles, 2019). Prior to the integration order, Benjamin Davis, Sr.
was appointed the first minority General in the Army in 1940 (U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 2015). It took thirty years for the Navy and Air Force to promote
minorities as general/flag officers. Samuel Gravely was promoted in 1971 as the first
minority Admiral in the Navy Department and Daniel James in 1970 as the first minority
General in the Air Force Department (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2022; U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2015). Human Capital Theory prevailed during the
1970s, which gave credence to the low number of minority promotions into senior
officer corps (Baldwin, 2002; Becker, 1982). Human Resource Theory puts forward the
amount of education and training invested and/or offered to individuals differs according
to the community and that education/training investment equals capital. The amount of
human capital then reflects the productivity of individuals (Holden & Biddle, 2017).
Albrecht (1976) reviewed the research on seminal human capital theory related to
military labor. Some of the studies reviewed relate to human resources related to the
level of
31
return on investment (ROI) in college/graduate education (Becker, 1960; Hanoch, 1967)
and education and ability (Gintis, 1971; Griliches & Mason, 1972; Hanushek, 1971).
The ROI of higher education is set as 13% in terms of human resources but the effect of
education and ability is not established due to the inability to separate variable outcomes
(Albrecht, 1976). Albrecht (1976) further stated that training in the military workplace
was expected to improve human resources regarding position opportunities but failed to
increase salary compensation. Because minorities in the military have difficulty
competing for promotions due to their lower qualifications and on-the-job training, their
human resources prevent them from gaining experience or an ascending career path that
includes taking command (Baldwin, 2002; Becker, 1982). However, Davis, Gravely, and
James' promotions represent a minority that senior ranks are available to them, even if
minority officers' promotion rates are less than white officers' (Baldwin, 2002; U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2015). McDonald (2019) explains that military
investment in on-the-job training increases the investment in human resources of their
troops. Contrary to the seminal research mentioned earlier, McDonald (2019) posited that
the benefits of human resource training are lower than that of college education.
Furthermore, McDonald's research (2019) showed that the improvement of human
resources through defense department training statistically affects the US economy by
providing human resources to the civilian sector after troops detach or retire. Schultz
(1961) assures human resources as the ability of humans to adapt to changing situations
for the better. The military trains their service members to adapt which improves their
human resources and adaptability is key to combat readiness and leadership (Reid,
2021).
32
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on multiple
bases, and in 1972 Congress extended Title VII protections to employees
US military department (Westergard, 2019). However, the 8th and 9th Circuit Courts
have ruled that the military is exempt from Title VII given that service members (a)
work for the armed forces and not "military departments", (b) are not categorized as
employees given that they cannot quit at will and are subject to the code of law and
military discipline. (Green, 2019; McClellan, 2020; Westergard, 2019) Whereas civilian
colleagues working in the defense department are subject to civilian law and can quit at
will (McClellan, 2020; Westergard, 2019). McClellen (2020) argues that there is no
correct mechanism to prevent minorities from facing discrimination in the military
because Title VII does not apply.
On the heels of the Civil Rights movement, the DoD took steps to remedy what
minorities saw as a lack of equal opportunities for those in the military with commanders
who failed to understand cultural differences (Knowles, 2014; Westergard, 2019). The
military seeks to fill the gap between cultural gaps by forming an equal opportunity
council consisting of officers and enlisted men. Affirmative action is enacted through
three components: (a) Integration Goals and Tracking Systems, (b) Racial considerations
in the service academies and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs, and (c)
Representation by minorities on the promotion board (Knowles, 2014). This resulted in
service academies increasing their minority admissions, and ROTC programs and
scholarships were established at historically black colleges (HBCs; Knowles, 2014). The
establishment of the ROTC program and scholarships at HBC is led
33
way to a formal mentoring program (Davis, 2018). ROCKS (2022), a program, a private
Army organization, guides recruits and cadets so that they start their Army careers well
prepared and then continue to help with professional development under the guise of
strengthening the Army officer corps. The Air Force Cadet Officer Mentor Action
Program (AFCOMAP) replicates the ROCKS program by initially mentoring minority
cadets, so they have a level playing field on par with their white counterparts, but the
program has changed to include all races (AFCOMA, 2022; Davis, 2018). With the
addition of the Space Force to the Air Force Department, the mentor program was
renamed the Air Force Cadet Officer Mentor Association (AFCOMA, 2022). The
National Association of Naval Officers (2022) began as a minority recruitment effort for
the Navy in minority communities. AFCOMA is no longer a minority-centered
mentoring program but a diverse program that recruits, mentors, and assists in the
professional development of its members (AFCOMA, 2022; Davis, 2018). Many
consider this mentoring program as a foundation for minority recruitment and retention
(Davis, 2018). Seminal studies found that minority officer retention rates increased when
led by minority commanders and senior leadership (Baldwin, 2000; Brown et al., 2020;
Stewart & Firestone, 1992). Greene (2019) analyzed the effect of minority command on
minority seafarer retention and found statistically significant evidence that the same
minority command leadership increases the likelihood of retention, especially among
Hispanic O4-O6.
Members of the qualitative study Richard and Molloy (2020) expressed a desire for
equality but positively inclined towards the diversity of their commands. The participants
articulated the lack of diversity in the senior officer corps and indicated the need for
more
34
"diverse leadership structures" in both enlisted and officer ranks (Richard & Molloy, p.
10, 2020).
The issue of diversity continues to arise in the military which prompted Defense
Minister Esper (2020) to enact a three-pronged approach to discrimination, prejudice,
and bias in the Department of Defense. The Esper Memorandum (2020) aims to increase
"diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity" for all members of the military (paragraph
1). To begin with, the DoD will remove all photos from the promotion board and
selection process to eliminate any implicit bias of race or gender. The memorandum was
followed by updating policies involving equal opportunity and diversity, analysis of
officer retention and promotion, creating bias awareness training and intervention
techniques, necessary education on unconscious bias, and review of treatment and
hairstyle policies for racial bias (Esper, 2020; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,
2020). Following Esper's direction, the armed forces started their own diversity
committee. The U.S. Navy formed Task Force One that dealt with issues affecting naval
readiness (i.e., racism, sexism, implicit bias, explicit bias) and the Air Force formed the
Diversity and Inclusion task force (Krishnamurthy, 2022). The DoD Council on
Diversity and Inclusion (2020) recommends transparency of the results of the promotion
board so that demographic data and other important data for promotion are released to
increase the DoD's transparency regarding career progression.
Career Progression
The career development of American military officers begins with their
commissioning to participate in the Officer Candidate School or ROTC program
(Knowles, 2014; Maclean, 2017). All original officer designations for those who enter as
O1-O3 are
35
appointed solely by the President while those who enter as O4-O6 are appointed as
officials assigned by the President in lieu of Senate approval (Kapp, 2016; United States
Armed Forces Code, 2018). When officers elect for promotion, their promotion requires
the approval of the President and confirmation of the Senate, which reflects the
promotion of officers as bound by law and congressional approval (Kapp, 2016;
Knowles, 2014; Maclean, 2017).
The hierarchical nature of the military, as outlined in 10 USCs, provides the
structure for career advancement (Kapp, 2016; United States Armed Forces Code, 2018).
Each rank has a mandatory minimum "time in class" before being considered for
promotion to the next higher rank with a time window considered to be promotion time
(Kapp, 2016, p.10; United States Armed Forces Code, 2018). Military data shows that
officers' time in the class typically exceeds the minimum stated in 10 U.S.C. but meets
the guidelines for promotion time in the Defense Officers Personnel Management Act of
1980 (DOPMA; Kapp, 2016; Rostker et al., 1992). Furthermore, with each promotion
there is a declared promotion opportunity relating to the percentage of officers in the
promotion group selected for promotion to a higher rank (Kapp, 2016). Promotion
opportunities fluctuate given the need for military force (e.g., wartime, peacetime), so
they are not determined by law but guidelines are included with the DOPMA (Rostker et
al., 1992). Although there are promotion opportunities based on rank, promotion
opportunities are narrower with special appointments because special appointments
require more officers than others (Baldwin, 2000; Davis, 2018). For example, according
to DOPMA guidelines, O5 has a 50% chance of promoting but the requirement for O5
special operators (SEALs)
36
higher than intelligence officers, so SEALs have a 90% chance of promotion while
intelligence officers are narrowed down to 42% in fiscal year 2022 (U.S. Department of
the Navy, 2022; U.S. Navy Personnel Command, 2022). Given the DOPMA dates and
changes in the world, some believe that Congress should modernize the military
promotion system to reflect the current military arrangements and military needs
(Friedman, 2018; Golan et al., 2021; Military Compensation to Support Retention,
Performance, and Talent Management, 2019). Although Congress amended 10 USCs,
DOPMA has not changed since the Carter administration (MCSRPTM, 2019; Rostker et
al., 1992).
The hierarchical military system sets value limits on the O4- O10 salary level due
to fewer official positions (Kapp, 2016; Kapp, 2021; United States Armed Forces Code,
2018). The pyramid shape of the officer corps reflects class limitations with the
decreasing number of available positions as ranks increase. Class limitations deliberately
made promotion to the senior officer corps more difficult. Evaluation for promotion
mainly relies on objective criteria through the observation of officers' superiors, so their
evaluation may be subjective (Golan et al., 2021). The subjective nature of such
evaluations is referred to as the glass ceiling for senior officer corps (Baldwin &
Rothwell, 1993; Golan et al., 2021).
Given the objective and subjective nature of officer evaluation, officers awaken
perceptions of what positively and negatively affect their potential for promotion.
Conklin (2018) examined whether certain Air Force assignments negatively impact
promotion. MAF squadron commanders argue certain assignments hinder career
progression, but
37
The researchers found no indication of a statistically significant negative effect (Conklin,
2018). Another factor is a bachelor's degree. While graduate degrees are noted positively
in officer records, the type of university does not differentiate in promotion. When
comparing distance learning graduate degree officers with traditional residential graduate
degree officers, no statistical differences were found to affect promotion, only obtaining
a graduate degree showed statistical significance in promotion (Bacolod & Chaudhary,
2018). Unique to the Air Force, the educational background is no longer presented on the
promotion board (Albright, 2022). Albright's study (2022) showed a statistically
significant difference in promotion rates for those without a bachelor's degree after the
implementation of the policy compared to the statistics of previous promotion selection
boards.
In the U.S., the minutes of the military promotion board are kept secret with only
results and statistics released (Baldwin & Rothwell, 1993; United States Armed Forces
Code, 2018; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2022). The process during the selection board
varies according to the service, but each board convenes under the same regulations set
forth under 10 U.S.C. and all diversity memorandums placed by the Secretary of
Defense. This is to prevent promotion by private connections, similar to Chinese Guanxi,
to prevent a rule-based system where only those who are within the guanxi network
promote (Wang & Wang, 2018). The regulation also prevents socioeconomic
backgrounds that limit promotion as studied in the UK where there is a class ceiling
(Clark et al., 2022). In World War II, the class ceiling was evident in the U.S. but with
the evolution of the military being all-voluntary, the majority of the senior officer corps
had a middle-class background
38
eliminating the classroom ceiling in the senior officer corps (Maclean, 2017; Watkins &
Shirk, 2008). By design, objective and subjective factors help the promotion board select
the best qualified officers (Rostker et al., 1992; CRS, 2016). However, Tarsiuk (2019)
argues that the composition of the board personnel is proven to have an effect on the
selection results.
Having many personnel on the board who are familiar/unfamiliar with the
designation or specialization of the officer affects their perception of the officer's
record for promotion (Tarsiuk, 2019).
According to the DOPMA, each O3 and above promotion board ranks officers
from best qualified to least qualified with the highest recommended rating for promotion
until all promotional billlets are filled (Rostker et al., 1992; CRS, 2016). This promotion
system allows many officers to be fully qualified and are excellent to pass on for
promotion due to the limited promotional billets. These officers have a choice between
continuing their service, separating from service, or retiring (CRS, 2016). Choosing to
continue their service allows officers a second and third chance to promote. Because
DOPMA restricts senior officer corps billets, the service relies on senior officer corps
billets, so they are available (Rostker et al., 1992; CRS, 2016). Each service member can
retire after twenty years of service, which correlates with senior leadership positions. In
2020, 438 active officers were separated for not being selected for promotion compared
to 6,489 retired active officers with a minimum of twenty years of service (DoD, 2021).
Officers who do not promote, regardless of whether they choose to continue their service
or leave the military, can internalize the reasons for their failure to promote because it is
a matter of personal pride
39
(Baldwin, 1990; Baldwin & Rothwell, 1993). Given the secrecy of the board process,
officers are left to review their records to look for factors that contributed to their
ineligibility such as their personality or race. Schmidt (2014) argues that personality
traits contribute to job performance similar to military promotions due to their
hierarchical nature.
Military and Personality
The U.S. military began implementing the use of personality assessments during
the abyss of World War I (Gibby & Zicker, 2008). Recorded as the first formal
personality assessment, the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet (WPDS) tests military
recruits on emotional stability (Gibby & Zicker, 2008). It initiated the use of military
personality tests to assess and select special task assignments, combat trauma symptoms,
and psychological screening (Butcher et al., 1990; Dalton et al., 1993; Gibby & Zicker;
2008; Kennedy et al., 2012; Kennedy et al., 2015). In the early twentieth century when
troops returned home from war, with what was classified as shell shock, personality
assessments had only recently increased in the field of psychology and psychiatry (Gibby
& Zicker, 2008). In the 1940s, personality assessment was explored as a way to predict
performance (Stark et al., 2014) leading to personality variables that measured
performance criteria in the Background and Life Experience Assessment Questionnaire
(ABLE; White et al., 1993). The Army sponsored ABLE as a long-term study that began
in 1982 to assist in selecting and classifying jobs for enlisted soldiers using temperament
measures (White et al., 1982). ABLE is one of the first assessments that links personality
temperament to work performance. Since ABLE, the U.S. military service developed the
Assessment
40
Individual Motivation (AIM), the Navy Computer Adaptive Personality Scale (NCAPS),
and the Adaptive Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) to help determine
job positions; NCAPS were added as part of the Special Operations enlisted selection
process for the Navy (Stark et al., 2014). Service academies and Professional Military
Education (PDEs; i.e., service war colleges) incorporate personality assessments into
their curriculum as a way for officers to understand themselves, their strengths and
weaknesses, and as a means to develop their leadership skills (Happawana, 2021).
Assessments based on FFM are part of this military training given the idea that Openness
is moderately correlated with intelligence encapsulated in a leader (Atwater &
Yammarino, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992).
The military relies on different types of assessments (i.e., MBTI, MMPI, Hogan,
NEO-PI-3) to predict military performance and personnel selection (Boe & Bang, 2017)
but the challenge that each service faces is individual differences in personality and
behavior (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). Identifying and developing character strengths has
been achieved through personality assessments based on FFM that help in characterizing
effective leader behavior (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) examined a power development approach that views
properties as impermanent but fluid because they adapt traits to achieve goals and
situations. Likened to the positive psychology idea that the human personality adapts
when individuals understand their strengths, Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) qualitatively
note that humans have personality blind spots that are considered ordinary traits until the
strength of that trait is praised by others. See FFM's personality
41
dimensions, related character strengths such as teamwork and fun; perseverance and self-
regulation with precision; leadership with extraversion (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). A
quantitative study compared 139 U.S. Navy SEALs based on their level of experience to
develop basic and demographic personalities to determine profiles for selection using the
NEO Personality Inventory (Braun et al., 1994). Braun et al. (1994) found more
experienced SEALs reported higher Accuracy and lower Extraversion than less
experienced SEALs but age was considered a factor in the effect (Braun et al., 1994).
Enlisted SEALs exhibit much lower Extraversion and Accuracy against SEAL Assigned
Officers; however, when compared to civilian data, SEALs reported lower neuroticism
and pleasure scores, average to lower Openness scores, and higher levels of Rigor and
Extraversion (Braun et al., 1994). This study allowed the Naval Special Operations
Command to create an average SEAL profile for recruitment, selection, and training
(Braun et al., 1994). A historical review of the psychological aspects of Special
Operations selection found that low neuroticism and extraversion are traits of success in
high-risk operational careers (Banks, 2006).
Johnson and Hill (2009) sought to find out whether certain FFM personality traits
would awaken ineffective military leaders by sampling 57 Army National Guard
officers. This quantitative study used the NEO-PI-R to measure officers' FFM by asking
officers to take the NEO-PI-R twice: first, by imagining the most effective leaders they
had, and second, by imagining the most ineffective officers they encountered (Johnson &
Hill, 2009). The officers were directed to think about the leader and how
42
Leaders treat them as well as how leaders behave before participating in assessments.
Johnson and Hill (2009) found that effective leaders scored lower in neuroticism than
ineffective leaders but higher in thoroughness, extraversion, pleasure, and openness to
experience. Previously, researchers showed that the difference between effective and
ineffective leaders could lie in differences in personality traits (Hogan et al., 1994;
Hakim et al., 2002); The findings of Johnson and Hill (2009) support previous research
and provide insight into the personality traits of military leaders' effectiveness. However,
the study contradicts Gardner et al. (2012) whose research shows that high awareness and
low openness to one's experiences will fit better in a hierarchical system such as the
military. Gardner et al. (2012) examined the relationship between recruitment strategies
(i.e., realistic and traditional) and FFM with people-organization fit using 234
undergraduate business school students. This organization fits into clans, adhocracies,
hierarchies, and markets which is how Gardner et al. (2012) recorded military
correlations without having military participants.
As the U.S. service expanded and sought personality assessments to strengthen
their militaries, other countries followed suit. In Singapore, Ployhart et al. (2001) used
FFM-based assessment by Goldberg which found the openness nature of the Singapore
army predicted maximum performance while the nature of neuroticism predicted typical
performance; High levels of extraversion were found in both performances indicating
overall presence in the study population. A quantitative study by Ployhart et al. (2001)
had 1,259 participants in the Singapore military where they tested to establish criteria
(i.e., typical, maximum) for leadership performance and if FFM traits differ between
43
Group. According to the data, the best predictor of maximum military performance is the
nature of openness (Ployhart et al., 2001). A seminal study in India sought to examine the
correlation between personality and performance using 607 cadets from the Armed
Forces Training Academy (Bobdey et al., 2021). This quantitative study used the NEO-
PI-R to assess the personality of cadets and a survey that assessed their Qualities Like
Officer (OLQ), Outdoor Activities (ODT), Acclamation, and Extracurricular Activities
(ECA) for performance measurement (Bobdey et al., 2021). The study found a
correlation between low neuroticism scores and high accuracy scores with effective
officer military service (Bobdey et al., 2021). An earlier Australian quantitative study,
examined personality traits and leadership effectiveness (McCormick & Mellor, 2002).
With 99 participants from the Australian Army Command and Staff College (ACSC) and
the 4th Brigadier, McCormick and Mellor (2002) surveyed the effectiveness of leaders with
the Army-Officer Evaluation and Development Report (ERDO) and the NEO-PI-R for
personality traits. The study was divided into two analyses to examine differences in
personality traits between Army participants based on position and rank. The first
analysis consisted of O4-O5 officers present at the ACSC in one group in contrast to the
second group
O2-O4 who were not selected to take a promotion course at ACSC. The first analysis
found that officers were lower in extraversion and higher in openness and rigor attending
ACSC than non-promotional groups (McCormick & Mellor, 2002). The second analysis
sought to examine whether the nature of FFM predicted effectiveness in the same group;
The analysis showed high extraversion and average accuracy contributed significantly to
the prediction of effectiveness. Third analysis
44
attempted to determine the FFM traits and EDRO scores of senior officers and found that
low extraversion and average openness and rigor were presented (McCormick & Mellor,
2002). McCormick and Mellor (2002) found that leadership effectiveness was correlated
with high precision and low extraversion in Australian Army officers. In contrast, Klee
and Renner (2016) conducted a quantitative study with 235 German soldiers to examine
whether the Savior Personality, as coined by Mitchell (1983), aligns with the personality
of the German military and how it compares to the normal German population. The
Rescue Personality Profile includes low traits of neuroticism and pleasure, but high traits
of extraversion and precision. Using the Hamburg Personality Inventory (HPI-K) to
measure FFM and the German version of the Resilience Scale (RS-25), the study found
German soldiers scored higher on extraversion and rigor but lower on neuroticism,
openness, and pleasure than the normal population (Klee & Renner, 2016).
Similar to the US, the Norwegian military institutes personality assessments in
the selection process of their armed forces (Skuglund et al., 2021). A mixed-methods
study examined the Norwegian Special Operations Forces to examine the relationship
between the nature of FFM and selection rankings (i.e., interviews, field exercise
observations) with 551 military officer participants (Skuglund et al., 2021). The NEO-
PI-3 was used to measure the personality traits of participants with the Norwegian
Military Personality Inventory (NMPI) for test validation, and was assessed based on
their mission command leadership competencies in both interviews and observation of
war simulation field exercises (Skuglund et al., 2021). Leadership competence is
associated with Officer Talent
45
Rating (OAR). Skuglund et al. (2021) found that the characteristics of FFM and OAR are
related to a certain extent; Extraversion and openness have a small positive and negative
relationship. This means that positive extraversion and negative openness predict a small
effect on competency ratings in this study (Skuglund et al., 2021). Norwegian
researchers previously examined the relationship between FFM characteristics and
members of the Norwegian military's Special Operations Forces (NORSOF) by
questioning whether (a) personality is influenced by age, number of placements, and
rank,
(b) if employees in different commands within NORSOF have different FFM properties,
and (c) if the FFM properties of SOF operators differ from conventional military FFM
properties (Skuglund et al., 2020). This quantitative study used NMPI to obtain
personality information with 190 participants. The researchers found (a) lower emotional
stability (i.e., low neuroticism) in younger NORSOF members than older NORSOF
members, higher pleasure and slightly lower neuroticism by those with no placement
experience, and officers scored higher in extraversion than specialists; (b) No significant
differences were found in the nature of FFM between NORSOF command employees;
and (c) personality profiles emerged from SOF operators, categorized by lower
extraversion and pleasure, and higher neuroticism than conventional Norwegian officers
(Skuglund et al., 2020).
However, the Danish and Dutch Special Operations Forces identified higher
levels of precision, fun, and extraversion with low levels of neuroticism within their
Special Operations communities (Bech et al., 2021; Huijzer et al., 2022). Bech et al.
(2021) examined the personality traits of the Special Operations Forces of the Danish
Navy's Special Warfare Group (i.e., Frogman) and how these traits differ from civilians.
46
This quantitative study examined whether (a) Frogman's personality traits differed from
those of Danish students, and (b) if Frogman's personality traits were influenced by
training compared to Danish students' schools (Bech et al., 2021). Participants for the
study included 32 Frogman males and 192 Danish Technical University students who
took the Big Five Inventory (BFI) to establish personality traits (Bech et al., 2021).
The results of this Danish study showed that (a) Frogmen had higher levels of rigor and
pleasure with no apparent differences in extraversion, neuroticism, or openness, and (b)
training influenced Frogmen's personality traits by increasing their levels of extraversion,
rigor, and openness with lower levels of neuroticism; college students showed increased
levels of rigor after school (Bech et al., 2021). A longitudinal and quantitative Israeli
examined personality traits, stress-related symptoms, and neural activity to assess the
nature of neuroticism in 50 members of the Israel Defense Forces (Magal et al., 2021).
To assess personality traits, Magal et al. (2021) used NEO-FFI; Neural activity was
assessed by fMRI and questionnaires were assessed for post-traumatic and depressive
symptoms. The study found that the level of neuroticism increased during IDF military
service but decreased afterwards; accuracy increases during and after military service
(Magal et al., 2021). Increased neuroticism is associated with combat stress and it takes
one year to reach a pre-service level after leaving military service (Magal et al., 2021).
While FFM generalizes across cultures, differences in prevalent personality traits are
unexpected because cultures within themselves vary (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Use of
personality
47
Judgment helps in decoding who makes a good leader and thus military leaders should
be equally good psychologically as well as physically (Bobdey et al., 2019)
Summary and Conclusion
In short, military, diversity, and personality are explored extensively. This
literature review includes the military as an overview, historical and current data,
diversity in the military, military career development, and personality research on the
military. Of the 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, 58,519 military members
make up the senior officer corps with 24.7% minority officers. President Truman
mandated desegregation in 1948 that took years to fully implement. The DoD
implemented several programs to eliminate segregation and increase diversity within
both enlisted and officer corps. The addition of college mentoring programs and efforts
to minimize implicit bias in promotion and selection help build a more diverse leadership
structure. An overview of an officer's career progression includes promotion times and
promotion opportunities that vary by rank, specialty, and time in service that explains the
promotion process. In reviewing the literature, research on U.S. military personalities
began in World War I when the DoD used personality profiles for assessment and
selection.
Internationally, the military continues to assess leadership personality profiles that vary
by culture, nationality, and specialization. Although there is a wealth of information
related to military and personality dynamics, there is no research on the relationship
between personality traits and promotions.
In conclusion, due to the lack of research in this area, I examined whether officer
personality traits predict promotion to senior officer corps. My intentions
48
is to expand knowledge to the military community regarding personalities in senior
officer corps and how race plays a moderation role. Identification of such personality
dynamics in senior officer leadership personnel allows junior officers to nurture their
personality traits that positively influence promotion. In chapter three, I present a
research methodology on how the relationship between personality and promotion,
while moderating for race, is examined.
49
Chapter 3: Research Methods
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the extent to which
personality traits predict U.S. military promotion to senior officer corps, while
considering the role of racial moderation. The research design for this study was a cross-
sectional design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Singh Setia, 2016) using a survey method
through an online platform. The main independent variables for this study were the
personality traits of McCrae and Costa (1987) (openness, rigor, extraversion, pleasure,
and neuroticism). Race serves as a moderation variable, but demographic information
(age, years in service, gender, indicator/branch, and education level) is collected for
descriptive statistics. The dependent variable consists of two groups of promotional
status associated with the U.S. military's senior officer corps. The data were examined
using binary logistic regression.
This chapter presents an overview of the methods used in this study. The research
design and rationale for cross-sectional design, population sampling and procedures,
recruitment, data collection, and instrumentation are discussed. The chapter concludes
with an overview of threats to validity and ethical considerations.
Design and Research Rationale
This quantitative study uses a cross-sectional design using self-report data
collected from current and former U.S. Navy and Army officers. This quantitative design
is best suited for this study because it offers objective documentation of the investigation
constructs (i.e., personality traits, race) while allowing comparisons between the two
50
Promotion status group. Non-experimental research techniques are used in correlation
studies where the measurement of two variables determines a statistical relationship
(Price et al., 2015). Singh Setia (2016) stated that one type of correlation study is cross-
sectional research, which usually uses population-based questionnaires to collect data on
a single sample and analyze data relationships. In this type of research design, not cause
and effect but correlation is determined, meaning that there is a relationship between
variables (Sperandi, 2014). The independent variables in this study were FFM personality
traits (i.e., openness, rigor, extraversion, pleasure, and neuroticism). The dependent
variable consists of two groups of promotional status associated with the U.S. military's
senior officer corps. Race is a moderation variable. The data collection tools are the
International Personality Item survey (IPIP-NEO-60) and the demographic questionnaire.
Comparative analysis shows whether there are similarities or differences in
personality characteristics between the two groups of promoted status. The dummy
coding represents five personality types as well as two groups of promotional status. To
properly interpret the moderation effect, dummy coding is used to represent race. The
operationalization section of the construction below features the dummy coding for this
study.
The cross-sectional design is beneficial given the ability to generalize the
findings to a broader military group beyond the officers selected in this study. The
design also allows for replication studies that could indicate similar trends in other U.S.
military services or international military service.
51
Methodology
Population
The target population for this study includes active, separate, or retired duty
U.S. Army and Navy officers across the country who fit into one of two groups of
promoted status (i.e., O4 who failed to be promoted to O5 and O5–O10 who were
promoted to senior officer) while serving in the volunteer military. This population is
located all over the world but mostly in the United States. Determining the exact amount
of O4 passed for O5 is difficult, as is determining the exact amount of O5-O10 that is
retired. However, the DoD (2020) collects statistics for members on active duty. There
are 23,715 Army and Navy officers in the senior officer corps with an additional 5,323
documented as retired in 2020 (DoD, 2020), and the American Military Officers
Association has more than 20,000 members, which encapsulate individuals who belong
to one of the promotional status groups.
Sampling and Sampling Procedures
I used sampling of voluntary responses from Army and Navy officers. Social
media, LinkedIn, and military officer associations provide military officers who belong
to one of two promotional status groups to volunteer. Sample participants use Qualtrics'
secure online data collection system. All participants are on active duty, separated, or
retired from active-duty Army and Navy officers.
G* Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2007) is used to calculate the sample size
after considering the research question, the appropriate analysis, and a priori analysis.
A priori analysis based on logistic regression determined that the sample size was
52
237. Based on standard research practices (Cohen, 1988), the analysis was carried
out using 80% power, alpha rate at 0.05 and odds ratio of 2.3. Figure 2 reflects the
sample size output provided by the G* Power 3.1 software.
Figure 2
G* Power Output for Sample Size
53
Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection Procedures
The study recruits qualified Army and Navy officers through social media,
LinkedIn, and military officer associations that require military status to be accepted.
Any officer interested in participating in the study accesses the study by selecting the
Qualtrics link at the recruitment post. The link to Qualtrics starts with an approval form
and then access to the demographic questionnaire and the IPIP-NEO-60. Qualtrics does
not track participants' IP addresses, ensuring that their individual responses remain
confidential.
Each participant signs an consent form that also states that they meet the criteria
for participation (i.e., rank and Armed Forces) and includes an agreement section
indicating that all submissions will be kept confidential. Once the consent form is
submitted, the participants receive access to a survey about Qualtrics. All survey data is
collected through Qualtrics, an online data collection tool. Qualtrics contains participant
access to IPIP-NEO-60 surveys and demographic surveys. The self-assessable IPIP-
NEO-60 measures their five-factor personality traits, and the demographic questionnaire
measures the racial moderation variables. Participants have the right to terminate their
participation at any time as stated in the informed consent form. The consent form also
discusses the risks and benefits of the research study.
The termination option is included in each stage of each survey via an outbound
link. The outbound link leads to a page expressing my appreciation for participating in
the survey and my contact information if they have any questions.
54
Instrumentation and Operationalization of Construction
The instrument for this research has an academic history of providing reliable
and valid results in academic research. The publisher of the IPIP-NEO-60 instrument
was contacted to obtain permission for academic research purposes, and access was
granted because the instrument was open-source. This section reviews the instruments
for this study.
International Personality Item Set (IPIP-NEO-60)
This study used IPIP-NEO-60 Maples-Keller et al. (2019) to assess the predictor
variables. The IPIP-NEO-60 basis was developed using item response theory to produce
a survey of 60 questions focusing on FFM (Maples-Keller et al., 2019). Maples- Keller
et al. used undergraduate participants to compare the representation of FFM properties of
IPIP-NEO-60 with NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI, IPIP-NEO-300, and the Big Five Inventory
2. The comparison showed the same representation of the traits studied compared to
other FFM assessments (Maples-Keller et al., 2019). This self-report survey consisted of
60 questions measuring five personality domains (openness, rigor, extraversion, pleasure,
and neuroticism) influenced by Goldberg et al. (2006) 300-item IPIP-NEO. IPIP-NEO-
60 was chosen for this study because it precisely measures the personality characteristics
of FFM and is used internationally in research, particularly in the military community.
The five domains are made up of six aspects that each provide clarity to the trait, with
equal weight given to each trait of FFM (Maples-Keller et al., 2019). Based on their
instruments on NEO-FFI Costa and McCrae (1992), Maples-Keller et al. listed aspects
based on domains: Aspects of openness include fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions,
ideas, and values; Accuracy consists of competence, order, devotion,
55
struggle for achievement, self-discipline, and deliberation; extraversion consists of
warmth, friendliness, firmness, activity, the search for joy, and positive emotions;
Pleasure includes trust, frankness, altruism, obedience, politeness, and a gentle mind;
and neuroticism includes anxiety, hostility, depression, self-awareness, impulsivity, and
susceptibility to stress. The five personality factors are operationally defined as follows:
Openness—the level of one's mind open to new ideas or experiences,
Thoroughness—the level of constraints or self-regulation, Extraversion—
the level of active interaction with others, Agreement—the level of
prosocial or antisocial interaction with others, Neuroticism—the level of
negative emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
Valuation
The IPIP-NEO-60 measures five dimensions of personality using a self-report
instrument. Because Maples-Keller et al. (2019) made their instruments open-source, this
study relied on available electronic versions. The IPIP-NEO-60 takes about 15 minutes
for participants to complete online through Qualtrics. The instrument uses a 5-point
Likert scale for every 60 questions with the options of (a) strongly disagree, (b) disagree
slightly, (c) disagree or disagree, (d) agree slightly, and (e) strongly agree. Assessing the
assessment involves several steps, starting with recording the raw scores for each of the
personality factors and correlated questions: Openness to experience is assessed from
Questions 25–36; accuracy is assessed from Questions 49–60; extraversion is assessed
from Questions 13–23; conformity assessed from the Question
56
37–48; and neuroticism is assessed from Questions 1–12. The raw score is converted into
a normative percentile score (T score) and then a rating interpretation. Similar to Costa
and McCrae (1992), Maples-Keller et al. designed the IPIP-NEO-60 to indicate a low,
average, or high score for each personality domain. The higher the score, the higher the
likelihood that a person will display that aspect of the personality. For example, Costa
and McCrae (1992) proposed, and Maples-Keller et al. agree, that the higher a person is
on the openness scale, the higher the likelihood that person is to display fantasies,
aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. The higher a person on the scale of rigor,
the higher the likelihood that the person will show competence, order, obedience,
struggle for achievement, self-discipline, and deliberation. The higher a person is on the
extraversion scale, the higher the likelihood that the person will exhibit warmth,
friendliness, assertiveness, activity, joy-seeking, and positive emotions. The higher a
person is on the pleasure scale, the higher the likelihood that person is to show trust,
frankness, altruism, obedience, courtesy, and a gentle mind. The higher a person on the
neuroticism scale, the higher the likelihood that the person will exhibit anxiety, hostility,
depression, self-awareness, impulsivity, and susceptibility to stress. An "intent to use"
email, regarding the use of IPIP-NEO-60, is provided for dissertation research purposes
from the author. A copy of the email is in Appendix B.
Properties of Psychometrics
Maples-Keller et al. (2019) tested IPIP-NEO-60 for reliability and validity. To
establish the validity of the IPIP-NEO-60 criteria, the authors calculated the results
57
between IPIP-NEO-60, NEO-FFI, and NEO-PI-R, resulting in good convergent validity
between IPIP-NEO-60 and NEO-FFI (.79 and .73, respectively); between IPIP-NEO-60
and NEO-PI-are convergent correlations were 0.85 and 0.76, respectively (Maples-Keller
et al., 2019). The authors of the IPIP-NEO-60 include a validity measure to weigh the
accuracy of the responses in a three-question format. If the instrument examiner sees a
questionable response, they should evaluate the validity of the assessment. The reliability
of IPIP-NEO is excellent, with domains ranging from
.74–.89. Maples-Keller et al. (2019) demonstrated the reliability of short-term testing
for IPIP-NEO-60 with NEO-FFI-3 and NEO-PI-R confirming the reliability of long-
term testing. After the IRB's approval to collect the data, but before running any
statistical analysis, I calculated and reported the Cronbach alpha for each scale used.
Demography
Appendix A contains a questionnaire that I used to collect participant
demographic information including race, age, years of employment, gender, and
education level. Race information was used to determine the effect of racial moderation
on personality traits and promotion status groups. The remaining demographic
information provides data for descriptive statistics such as the average years of military
service, the average age of participants, the number of male and female participants, the
number of participants by designation/branch, and the percentage of participants with
bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. The latter demographic information does not
influence the study but provides additional descriptive reporting.
58
Construction Operationalization
This study requires several quantitative variables to be collected. Table 1 shows
an explanation of each type of variable and its coding.
Table 1
Variables and Coding
Research
question
Types
of
variab
les
Variable
source
Variable
name
Variable
categories
Value
label
s
RQ1 Hang Demographic Promotion O4 1
shape group O5 2
O6 2
O7 2
O8 2
O9 2
O10 2
Demographic Gender
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
analysis)
Man
99
1
shape Woman 2
Demographic Age
Choosing not
to answer
30–35
99
1
shape 36–40 2
41–45 3
46–50 4
51–55 5
56–60 6
61–65 7
65 years and older 8
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
9
99
analysis)
59
Research
question
Types
of
variab
les
Variable
source
Variable
name
Variable
categories
Value
label
s
Demographic
shape
Years in
service
Less than 15 1
15–20 2
21–25 3
26–30 4
31–35 5
36+ 6
Demographic Service
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
analysis)
Army
99
1
shape Navy 2
Demographic Marker
Choosing not
to answer
(Excluded from
analysis)
Restricted Path
99
1
shape Unlimited Line
Officer Officers
Staff Corps Officer
2
3
Combat
Weapons
Limited Duty
Officer
4
5
Branch
Combat Support 6
Branch
Combat Service 7
Support Branch
Special Branches 8
Demographic Education
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
analysis)
Bachelor 's degree
99
1
shape level
Master's degree 2
60
Research
question
Types
of
variab
les
Variable
source
Variable
name
Variable
categories
Value
label
s
Professional
degree
Doctorate
3
4
RQ1 Independent IPIP-NEO- Personality
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
analysis)
Score on IPI-NEO-
99
60 Trait Levels 60
Openness: 44- 1
Openness: 45–55 2
Openness: 56+ 3
Accuracy: 44–
Accuracy:
1
2
45–55
Accuracy: 3
56+
Extraversions: 44– 1
Extraversions: 45–
55
Extraversions: 56+
2
3
Fun: 44–
Pleasure:
1
2
45–55
Pleasure: 3
56+
Neuroticism: 44- 1
Neuroticism: 45-
55
Neuroticism: 56+
2
3
Not answered 99
RQ2 Presenter Demographic Race Caucasia 1
shape non-Kaukasia 2
Opt out of
answering
(Excluded from
99
analysis)
61
Data Analysis Plan
The main objective of the study was to analyze the relationship of personality
characteristics between officers in two sample groups associated with the U.S. military's
senior officer corps, taking into account the role of racial moderation. In this study, the
personality characteristics of officers were independent variables, the promotion status to
senior officer corps was a dependent variable, and race functioned as a moderation
variable. Data (i.e., age, years in employment, education level) from the demographic
questionnaire serve as descriptive statistics for this study. The two groups of promotion
status are (a) Junior officers (i.e., O4) who fail to be promoted to the senior officer corps,
and (b) Senior officers (i.e., O5-10). G*Power calculates a sample size of 237. Using
IBM SPSS Version 28 statistical software, I performed data analysis. According to
Maples-Keller et al. (2019), data cleaning and filtering include when ten or more
responses are left blank then the assessment is considered invalid. When nine or fewer
responses are left blank on the IPIP-NEO-60, the item is rated as an
"inaccurate/accurate" response. Maples-Keller et al. (2019) designed assumptions based
on 10 or more blanked responses including not only each of the five factors but the level
of correlated sub-scores. So, based on the assessment design with 12 questions correlated
with personality factors, the missing data from one factor did not affect the scores of the
other personality factors. Each of the five personality factors is the sum of 12
coordination questions. The raw score is converted into a T score for the interpretation
of the ranking.
The following research questions guide this research:
62
RQ1: To what extent do personality traits, as measured by IPIP-NEO-60, predict the
promotion group of officers in the United States military?
H01.1: Personality traits Openness does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.1: Personality traits Openness does predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
H01.2: Personality traits Accuracy does not predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
HA1.2: Personality traits Conscientiousness does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.3: Extraversion personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.3: Extraversion's personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.4: Agreeableness personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.4: Agreeableness personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
63
RQ2: To what extent does race moderate the relationship between officer personality
characteristics and promotion groups (Junior Officers and Senior Officers)?
H02.1: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Openness officers and the promotion group.
HA2.1: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Open officers and promotion groups.
H02.2: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
HA2.2: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
H02.3: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Extraversion and the promotion group.
HA2.3: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers from the Extraversion and the promotion group.
H02.4: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
HA2.4: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
H02.5: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
HA2.5: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
64
This quantitative and cross-sectional study used binary logistic regression to
answer two research questions. Binary logistic regression is a statistical technique in
regression analysis that predicts the relationship between independent variables and
binary dependent variables (Midi et al., 2010). The following are the assumptions when
using binary logistic regression: (a) the dependent variable is dichotomous, (b) the
independent variable is categorical or continuous, (c) the observations must be
independent of each other, and the dependent variable must have mutually exclusive and
complete categories, (d) the linear relationship between the independent variable and the
logit transformation of the dependent variable, (e) the absence of multicollinearity, (f)
there is no significant outlier, high leverage value, or highly influential points, and (g)
there is an adequate sample size of at least 15 participants (Laerd Statistics, 2023; Midi,
2010).
Assumption testing reduces the likelihood of Type I and Type II errors (Osborne &
Waters, 2002). The results of the binary logistics analysis were interpreted using an
alpha significance level of 0.05 (i.e., a 5% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis, if
true), an estimated odds ratio of 2.3 (i.e., a 2.3 likelihood that a relationship does not
exist between personality traits and promotions), and a 95% confidence level to measure
the likelihood of personality traits predicting promotions. Ranganathan et al. (2017)
stated that binary logistic regression provides predictive analysis when analyzing data to
explain the relationship between one binary dependent variable and one or more
continuous or categorical independent variables.
An acceptable limitation for this study is that IPIP-NEO-60 is ordinal, given that
it does not have a defined 0. IPIP-NEO-60 shares scores that are similarly categorized as
65
NEO-FFI-3 with high, average, and low scores per each personality domain (Maples-
Keller et al., 2019). The T-score reflects the following categories: High (56 and above),
average (45-55), and low (44 and below). Data cleaning and filtering is done before the
analysis, as mentioned above.
Threats to Validity
Internal Validity
In this study, there are several potential threats to internal validity. Although the
internet is an efficient tool for data collection, it poses some difficulties in obtaining
adequate sample and participant responses as well as technological issues (Granello &
Wheaton, 2004). To address this issue, I ensured that the study link was working
correctly and that participants could contact me or Qualtrics if they had any technical
issues while participating. Historical events such as retirement from military service can
influence how participants perceive and change the dimensions of their personality
characteristics. To minimize that threat, retired officers who feel their personalities have
changed since retirement are asked not to participate in the recruitment poster.
External Validity
One threat to external validity is selection bias because the study is limited to
Army and Navy officers, not Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard or Space Force officers.
The Navy and Army consider the rank of O5 to be a senior officer while O4 in the Air
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force are part of the corps of senior
officers. To minimize selection bias that may arise due to Army recruitment
66
and Navy officers due to their senior officer corps rank structure, recruitment is
conducted through social media targeting U.S. Army and Navy officers around the
world.
Ethical Procedures
Participant protection and ensuring their privacy are ethical requirements of the
American Psychological Association (2017). Once approved by Walden University's
IRB, the study maintains and protects the privacy of all Army and Navy officers. The
officers were granted anonymity and confidentiality as part of their agreement to
volunteer for the study. The participants were told that they were allowed to leave the
study at any time. The consent form provides a proper explanation of the research and an
overview of the nature of the research through the online consent form, but any questions
are emailed to me via my email address on the consent form. No participant received any
compensation for participating in the study, it was completely voluntary. Participants are
guaranteed that their data is used solely for research purposes, as stated in the consent
form.
To ensure confidentiality and data protection, all data is stored on a password-
protected USB for a minimum of five years and stored in a locked drawer that only I
can access. By the end of five years, all data will be erased and permanently erased
from the USB. Each printed material is shredded in a cross-cut diamond shredder so
make sure no information can be obtained.
Summary
This quantitative study examines the extent to which personality traits predict
U.S. military promotion to senior officer corps, while considering moderation
67
the role of race. The target population and sampling procedures were discussed as well
as the instruments used to collect data from participants. The research questions and
hypotheses were reintroduced. Chapter four presents the results of data analysis and
conclusions.
68
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this non-experimental quantitative study was to examine the
extent to which personality traits predicted officer promotions in two sample groups
associated with the U.S. military's senior officer corps, while considering the role of
racial moderation. While previous research has focused on individual military personality
traits within the U.S. military, no one has studied officer promotions related to
personality traits and race. The study addresses this gap by providing information
regarding promotion and predictive personality traits while moderating between
minorities and non-minorities. FFM was used in this study to interpret the findings based
on two research questions. The research questions and hypotheses are as follows:
RQ1: To what extent do personality traits, as measured by IPIP-NEO-60,
predict the promotion group of officers in the U.S. military?
H01.1: Personality traits Openness does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.1: Personality traits Openness does predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
H01.2: Personality traits Accuracy does not predict the promotion group of officers in
the U.S. military.
HA1.2: Personality traits Conscientiousness does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
69
H01.3: Extraversion personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.3: Extraversion's personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.4: Agreeableness personality traits do not predict the promotion group of officers
in the U.S. military.
HA1.4: Agreeableness personality traits do predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
H01.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does not predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
HA1.5: Personality traits Neuroticism does predict the promotion group of
officers in the U.S. military.
RQ2: To what extent does race moderate the relationship between officer
personality characteristics and promotion groups (Junior Officers and Senior Officers)?
H02.1: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Openness officers and the promotion group.
HA2.1: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Open officers and promotion groups.
H02.2: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
HA2.2: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of the Conscientiousness and the promotion group.
70
H02.3: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of the Extraversion and the promotion group.
HA2.3: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers from the Extraversion and the promotion group.
H02.4: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
HA2.4: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of officers of Agreeableness and the promotion group.
H02.5: Race does not moderate the relationship between the personality
characteristics of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
HA2.5: Race does moderate the relationship between the personality characteristics
of Neuroticism officers and the promotion group.
This chapter discusses data collection and results and includes a summary of the
research findings.
Data Collection
On September 12, 2023, the IRB gave approval (09-12-23-0549415) for this
study. Study invitations (Appendix E) are posted to social media sites starting October 2,
2023 and reposted until a sample size of 237 is reached. As stated in Chapter 3, the
Qualtrics online platform hosts the survey. The survey is open for data collection from
October 2 to December 31, 2023. Participants are encouraged to share survey invitations
with those who meet the survey requirements. On December 31, 2023, the sample size
was reached. During a collection period of nearly 4 months, 331 U.S.
71
military individuals participated. Of the 331 participants, 92 (28%) participants were
excluded due to exclusion criteria. I started cleaning up the data and noted that all 239
participants answered all personality questions but three chose not to indicate their
gender, and four participants chose "other" as their service pointer. Demographic
descriptive ranged from 235-239 participants, but the analysis of the research questions
reflected 239 participants.
According to the DoD (2023), there are approximately 27,052 O4s in the Army
and Navy combined; there are approximately 23,310 O5-O10 in the Army and Navy
combined. According to Faul (2007), G* Power estimates 237 participants as the sample
size needed for the data to be considered eligible for generalization. The information
gathered from this study can be used to analyze personality traits among military officer
promotions, while asking additional questions for further examination.
Result
Examples of Demographics
Table 2 contains statistical descriptive information for the sample participants (n
= 239) in the study. The demographics presented are based on data from 239 participants
who are considered eligible for this study. Of the 239 participants, all (100%) indicated
that they were active-duty, separate, or retired U.S. Army or Navy officers between O4
and O9 pay levels. Officers with a salary level of O10 (n = 10 Navy, n = 13 Army) were
not participants for this study. The majority of participants were male (57.7%), between
the ages of 46 and 50 (25.6%), and served 15–20 years (35.1%) in the military. Overall,
the majority of participants worked for the U.S. Navy (72.4%), with the highest
percentage
72
officers who serve as limited or unlimited line officers (51%). The majority of officers
reported their highest level of education as a master's degree (75.7%). Finally, the
majority of officers reported their race as Caucasian (84.1%).
Examples of Demographics Compared to U.S. Navy and Army Officers
The DoD (2023) provides an annual demographic report that determines
demographics as a whole and based on military service. The following data is taken from
the 2022 Demographic Report (DoD, 2023), and I combined Army and Navy data to
compare with the data of this study.
Age
The majority of officers participating in the study were between the ages of 46
and 50 (25.5%), followed by 41–45 (21.3%). According to the 2022 Demographic
Report, the majority of officers in the O4–O10 salary tier are aged 41 years and older
(24% Army, 25.7% Navy; DoD, 2023). It appears that the age range of the majority of
participants in this study reflects the age range of the majority of the Army and Navy
(DoD, 2023).
Gender
In the current study, the majority of participants identified as male (57.7),
followed by female (41%) and others (1.3%). According to the 2022 Demographic
Report, the majority of officers identify as male (80%), while women account for 20%
(DoD, 2023). It appears that this study has a relatively lower percentage of males to
females compared to the DoD report (2023).
73
Education
The majority of participants in the study reported their highest level of education
as a master's degree (75.7%), followed by a doctoral degree (13%). The 2022
Demographic Report does not separate officers from enlisted men regarding the
percentage of the highest education level, but a bachelor's degree is the most attainable
(17.6% Army, 12.6% Navy). It appears that this study has different educational
outcomes compared to the DoD report (2023).
Race
In the current study, the majority of participants identified as Caucasian (84.1%),
followed by non-Caucasians (15.9%). According to the 2022 Demographic Report, the
majority of officers (O4–O10 salary range) identify as Caucasian (80% Army, 85%
Navy). Although the study had a higher percentage of officers identified as Caucasian,
the sample was somewhat close to the DoD demographic (2023).
74
Table 2
Demographic Variable Frequency
Variable Golongan Number Percent
Age 30–35 10 4.2%
36–40 23 9.6%
41–45 51 21.3%
46–50 61 25.5%
51–55 30 12.6%
56–60 18 7.5%
61–65 20 8.4%
65 years or older 26 10.9%
Gender Man 138 57.7%
Woman 98 41.0%
Choosing not to say
(excluded from the analysis) 3 1.3%
Highest level of education Bachelor 's degree 18 7.5%
Master's degree 181 75.7%
Professional gelar 9 3.8%
Doctorate 31 13.0%
Military service U.S. Army 66 27.6%
U.S. Navy 173 72.4%
Marker Limited Line Officer 61 25.5%
Unlimited Line Officer 61 25.5%
Staff Corps Officer 47 19.7%
Limited Duty Officer 2 0.8%
Combat Weapons Branch 15 6.3%
Combat Support Branch
Combat Service
Support Branch
21
22
8.8%
9.2%
Special Branches 6 2.5
Other 4 1.7
Years in service 9–14 years 1 0.4%
15–20 years 84 35.1%
21–25 years old 74 31.0%
26–30 years 52 21.8%
31–35 years old 23 9.6%
36 years or older 5 2.1%
75
Variable Golongan Number Percent
Salary
level
O4 69 28.9%
O5 75 31.4%
O6 80 33.5%
O7 2 0.8%
O8 6 2.5%
O9 7 2.9%
Race Caucasia 201 84.1%
Non-Kaukasia 38 15.9%
Statistical Assumptions
As stated in Chapter 3, binary logistic regression has seven assumptions: (a) the
dependent variable is dichotomous; (b) categorical or continuous independent variables;
(c) the observations must be independent of each other, and the dependent variables must
have mutually exclusive and complete categories; (d) the linearity relationship between
independent variables and logit transformations of dependent variables; (e) absence of
multicollinearity; (f) no significant outliers, high leverage values, or highly influential
points; and (g) adequate sample size of at least 15 participants (Laerd Statistics, 2023;
Midi, 2010). All assumptions are met; however, (d) the transformation of the DV and IV
logies makes the N/A assumption, (e) is not valid because IV is not continuous but
strongly correlated with each other, and (f) to establish multicollinearity, the cross-
tabulation chi-square shows a significant relationship with extraversion, but when added
to the model by agreement, the extraversion does not produce a statistically significant
predictor. Due to the perceived high-level outlier (n = 1) of the extraversion nature, I
performed a binary cross-tabulation to combine the reported high and average responses
(n = 82), resulting in a significance of 0.02.
76
Result
Prior to performing binary logistic regression, simple descriptive statistics were
analyzed for each paygrade group (Table 3) and personality traits of each promotion group
(Table 4). Table 3 reflects participants categorized into two groups: O4 was not selected for
promotion to O5 and O5-O10. The majority of participants were in the O5–O9 group
(71.1%). Table 4 reflects the average of the paygrade groups, which are very similar to each
other across the properties of FFM.
Table 3
Paygrade Frequency Distribution of Study Participants
Promotion Groups O4 69 28.9%
O5-O9 170 71.1%
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of Personality Traits
Promotional groups O4 O5–O9
M (SD) M (SD)
Openness 42.7 (6.1) 42.7 (6.4)
Accuracy 50.9 (6.2) 52.3 (5.3)
The Extraverse 41.7 (5.5 44.1 (4.8)
Pleasure 47.9 (5.8) 49.5 (5.0)
Neuroticism 34.9 (6.4) 32.5 (5.5)
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the personality traits of FFM
McCrae and Costa (1984) about openness, rigor, extraversion, pleasure, and neuroticism
(or a combination) predict officers' salary levels. Due to binary logistics
77
regression (BLR) predicts the probability of DV dichotomy using continuous or
categorical IV, BLR can predict the probability of the dichotomy promotion group of
this study and some personality traits of the Likert scale. The following research
question was asked: RQ1: To what extent do personality traits, as measured by IPIP-
NEO-60, predict officer promotion groups in the United States military? The promotion
group of the result variable is encoded 0 = O4 that fails to be selected, and 1 = O5- O9 is
selected to be promoted. Each personality predictor variable is coded 1 = low, 2 =
average, and 3 = high.
The study used an alpha significance level of 0.05, an estimated odds ratio of 2.3
to double the odds of the outcome, and a 95% confidence level, which Cohen (1988)
described as statistically significant. Since there are multiple IVs, the odds ratio
increases, which is reflected in the estimated odds ratio of 2.3 (Faul et al., 2007; Norton
et al., 2018). The omnibus test showed only one FFM item as a statistically significant
predictor, X2(10) = 21.3, p = 0.019 (Table 5).
Conformity is the only trait that shows a significant correlation between
Personality traits and paygrade groups correspond to the opportunity ratio. The
opportunity ratio shows that officers with an average enjoyment rate are 2.1 times more
likely to be promoted to the senior officer corps, and officers with a high enjoyment rate
are 11.6 times more likely to be promoted to the senior officer corps. The strength of the
relationship between the fit and promotion groups was weak, using Nagelkerke R2 =
0.122 (Table 6), which means the fit measurement was low and the model was taken into
account
78
for 12% of the variability in the dependent variable. The model also correctly classified
71.5% of cases.
Table 5
Uji Omnibus Coupistin Model
Chi-
kuadrat
Df p
Step 1 Step 21.277 10 .019
Harley 21.277 10 .019
Pola 21.277 10 .019
Table 6
Model Summary
Step -2 possible logs Cox & Snell R persegi Nagelkerke square R
1265,995 A.085 .122
a Estimates end at iteration number 20 because the maximum iteration has been
reached. No final solution can be found.
Each independent variable is encoded 1 = low, 2 = mean, and 3 = high with a low
set constant in each model. The null hypothesis of openness, rigor, extraversion,
neuroticism failed to be rejected because it was found to be an insignificant predictor of
promotion, meaning there was no effect by all four IVs. Each of the four traits was above
the significance level of 0.05. The nature of openness is a non-significant predictor of
promotion (i.e., average [B = -.324, SE = .326, p = .319], high [B = .519, SE = 1.32, p
= .695]). Accuracy (i.e., mean [B = 0.575, SE = 0.482, p
= .332], high [B = .341, SE = .538, p = .526]), extraversion (i.e., average [B = .544, SE =
.326, p = .233], high [B = .19.879, SE = .40192.969, p = 1.00]), and neuroticism (i.e.,
mean [B = -1.22, SE = .786, p = .121], high [B = 19.195, SE = 26998.10, p = .999])
79
nor was it found to significantly predict promotions. However, binary logistic regression
analysis shows suitability as a statistically significant predictor of promotion. The
Omnibus test regarding the significance of the agreement is Χ2(2) = 10.5, p = 0.005. The
null hypothesis of the deal was rejected because it was found to be a significant predictor
of promotion, meaning there was an effect of that single IV. Table 7 summarizes the
results of binary logistic regression.
Table 7
Variable in Equations
B HERSELF Forest Df p Exploration(B)
Step 1 aCat neuroticism 2.401 2 .301
Cat neuroticism(1) -1.217 .786 2.401 1 .121 .296
Cat neuroticism(2) 19.195 26998.104 .000 1 .999 216916375.965
Extraversion cats 2.786 2 .248
Extraversion cat(1) .544 .326 2.786 1 .095 1.723
Cat Extraversion(2) 19.879 40192.969 .000 1 1.000 429948245.489
Cat Accuracy 1.606 2 .448
Cat Precision(1) .575 .482 1.421 1 .233 1.777
Categories Rigor(2) .341 .538 .403 1 .526 1.407
Cat openness 1.249 2 .535
Cat openness(1) -.324 .326 .991 1 .319 .723
Cat openness(2) .519 1.323 .154 1 .695 1.680
Fun cats 7.000 2 .030
Cute cats(1) .742 .368 4.057 1 .044 2.100
Cute cats(2) 2.453 1.108 4.904 1 .027 11.618
Konstan -.279 .510 .298 1 .585 .757
a Variables entered in step 1: Neuroticism category, Extraversion category, Accuracy
category, Openness Cat, Agreeableness category.
80
On further examination, additional binary logistic regression analyzes race as a
binary moderator variable to answer RQ2: To what extent does race moderate the
relationship between officer personality characteristics and promotion groups (junior
officers and senior officers)? Similar to RQ1, the promotion group of the result variables
is encoded 1 = O4 that fails to select, and 2 = O5-O9 is selected to be promoted. Each
personality predictor variable is coded 1 = low, 2 = average, and 3 = high. The racial
moderator variables are coded 1 = Caucasian (n = 201) and 2 = non-Caucasian (n = 38).
The null hypothesis of RQ2 failed to be rejected. The effect of racial moderation on the
promotion group and the relationship of the nature of the agreement was not significant
(B = -.076, SE =
.445, p = .864) as reflected in Table 8. Race does not affect the model according to
Nagelkerke (R2 = 0.123) which means the model accounts for 12% of the variability in
dependent variables, and the fit measurement is low (Table 9); The model correctly
classifies 72% of cases Dummy variables that combine conformity and race (agreecat-
_x_race) are used to find the moderator effect. Since fun is the only statistically
significant personality trait that positively predicts promotion, it's a trait that is focused
on the moderator effect.
81
Table 8
Variables in the Equation
B HERSEL
F
Forest Df p Exploration (B)
Step 1 Please indicate
aYour race:(1)
.103 .438 .055 1 .814 1.108
Categories of
neuroticism
2.373 2 .305
Categories
Neuroticism(1)
-1.213 .788 2.373 1 .123 .297
Neuroticism 19.225 26955.8 .000 1 .999 223436059.13
Category(2) 1
Categories
extraversion
2.874 2 .238
Extraversion(1) .556 .328 2.874 1 .090 1.744
The Extraverse 19.925 40192.9 .000 1 1.000 449887100.12
Category(2) 7
Cat openness 1.144 2 .564
Cat openness(1) -.310 .328 .892 1 .345 .733
Cat openness(2) .523 1.331 .154 1 .694 1.687
Kategori
Conscientiousnes
s
1.667 2 .435
Category
Conscientiousnes
(1)
.582 .483 1.453 1 .228 1.790
Categories of
Conscience(2)
.332 .539 .380 1 .537 1.394
Categories of fun 6.928 2 .031
Categories of
fun(1)
.794 .441 3.231 1 .072 2.21
Categories
Pleasure(2)
2.453 1.124 4.764 1 .029 11.612
agreecat_x_race .029 1 .864
agreecat_x_race(
1)
-.076 .445 .029 1 .864 .927
Konstan -.294 .539 .297 1 .586 .745
a Variables entered in step 1: agreecat_x_race.
82
Table 9
Model Summary
Step -2 possible logs Cox & Snell R persegi Nagelkerke square R
1 265,861 A.086 .123
a Estimates end at iteration number 20 because the maximum iteration has been
reached. No final solution can be found.
Summary
This study used binary logistic regression to determine whether personality traits
predict the promotion of Army and Navy officers to senior officer corps. After meeting
the sample size requirements, these results can be generalized to the U.S. military officer
population. Overall, personality traits were not statistically significant as predictors of
promotion except for pleasure traits. The Race moderator variable is not statistically
significant because it does not affect the model. Chapter five provides a discussion of the
implications of the research, as well as the limitations of the study and recommendations
for future research.
83
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the extent to which
personality traits predicted officer promotions in two sample groups associated with the
U.S. military's senior officer corps, while considering the role of racial moderation. The
cross-sectional design allows the study to gather information about what is happening to
the military population while examining various characteristics simultaneously. The
design uses a survey method to obtain personality and demographic information.
Through this research, I aim to fill in the gaps in research regarding the relationship
between the personality characteristics of military officers and promotion to senior
officer corps while considering the role of racial moderation.
A total of 239 Army and Navy officers participated in a research survey
regarding their demographic information and personality traits. Binary logistic
regression is used to analyze officer personality traits, ranks, and the effects of racial
moderation.
Overall, the findings of this study show the nature of agreement as a predictor of
promotion to senior officer corps of Army and Navy service. Race was not found to have
an effect on the model. Since the sample size is met, these results can be generalized to
inform as the information helps fill in the gaps in the literature.
Although not statistically significant, there are important findings related to
personality traits and promotion groups. According to the cross-tabulation analysis, this
model reflects that both promotion groups (Army and Navy officers O4-O9) show low
neuroticism profiles, average pleasure, low extraversion, low openness, and
84
average accuracy. However, the mean is too small to be statistically significant because
only 6% can be explained in the model summary (R2 = 0.06). The small 6% effect size
for promotions is explained by the officer's personality traits.
Interpretation of Findings
This research is based on previous research on military officers, as well as
research on military promotion, the nature of military promotion, and diversity. The
result of this study was that the only pleasant trait was found to be a statistically
significant predictor of promotion to senior officer corps, but race had no moderation
effect. The findings of this study confirm and contrast with previous military findings
regarding personality traits, barriers to promotion, and diversity issues.
Allik and McCrae (2002) explain that the traits of FFM provide a cross-cultural
foundation for understanding human personality when compared across cultures. The
military is one of the cultures that provides the basis for understanding the personality
of service members by assessing personality for specialty selection, promotion, officer
candidates, and unit selection (Bech et al., 2021; Bobdey et al., 2020; Huijzer et al.,
2022; Klee & Renner, 2015; Stark et al., 2014).
The Naval Special Operations Command bases the average SEAL personality
profile on the results of Braun et al. (1994). Braun et al. (1994) showed that, when
compared to civilians, SEALs showed lower neuroticism and pleasure scores, average to
lower openness scores, and higher levels of awareness and extraversion.
Gardner et al. (2012) showed that high rigor and low openness for experienced people
are better suited in a military-like hierarchy system. Implement this
85
The summary profile of IPIP-NEO-60 shows that Army and Navy officers also show low
neuroticism and low openness but differ with average pleasure and precision, and low
extraversion. These results may differ due to the type of personality and mindset required
in special operations given their unique skills and missions compared to traditional and
non-specialized operators in the military. Special operators with high precision and
extraversion present a higher level of self-discipline, obedience, order, assertiveness, and
the search for joy than traditional Army/Navy officers (Braun et al., 1944; McCrae &
Costa, 2010).
A Norwegian study suspected that members of the Norwegian Special Operator
Force (NSOF) who showed higher extraversion and lower openness were selected for
higher leadership positions (Skuglund et al, 2021). In contrast, the nature of pleasure in
current research is statistically significant in predicting higher leadership positions (i.e.,
senior officer corps). Due to the choice of demographic specialization on the
questionnaire, this study was unable to examine participants who were in a specific
operating community for comparison. However, looking at traditional Army/Navy
officer specializations, average to higher levels of conformity include above-average
trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and command obedience (McCrae & Costa, 2010).
Given the differences in the traits of special operators versus traditional officers, the task
of special operators may require different levels of personality characteristics to create a
superior mindset within that community.
Gardner (2012) and Schmidt (2014) affirmed personality traits as predictors of fit and
organizational performance with high rigor and lower pleasure.
86
When applying the study to this study, neither high awareness nor low pleasure appeared to
fundamentally affect the personality traits that predicted promotion.
The findings of this study show statistically significant personality traits that
predict promotions in military officers. The IPIP-NEO-60 design describes where
individuals score on FFM (Maples-Keller et al., 2019), and using IPIP-NEO-60, the
study identified not only statistically significant agreement in promotions, but also
personality patterns in officers regardless of promotion group. Patterns of low
neuroticism (i.e., calm and not easily irritated), low openness (i.e., a strong, grounded
moral compass), and low extraversion (i.e., reserved, not requiring social stimulation
to thrive) with average pleasure (i.e., problem-solving) and conscientiousness (i.e.,
hardworking with flexibility) appear, but clearly show a pattern of officer-nature that is
statistically insignificant in predicting promotions. McCrae and Costa (2010) suggest
that personality patterns can be helpful in identifying individuals with targeted
behaviors.
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (2010) investigated fairness in
promotions and command opportunities related to racial diversity. Their finding that the
lack of diversity in promotions is not the same as racial bias in U.S. military promotions
(MLDC, 2010) is reflected in this study because race is not a moderator of personality
and promotion. While the findings of this study confirm and refute previous literature on
the subject, this study expands the literature on personality traits and promotions by
examining the relationship between personality traits, promotions, and race.
87
Study Limitations
Research studies tend to include limitations that affect the findings and validity of
the research. When interpreting data, it is important to consider these limitations and
acknowledge them so that the audience understands the full picture of the research. The
first limitation is the method of recruiting participants. Because active service members
belong to protected classes, my hiring is limited to social media and word of mouth.
Must rely on social media and word of mouth limits participants to those who visit social
media frequently or have associations that share research invitations. Previous research
has shown that frequent social media correlates with higher rates of extraversion
compared to non-social media participants, and those who use social media show higher
levels of agreement, which translates into a higher willingness to share research (Wang,
2013). It is unclear whether the findings of Wang (2013) influenced the participation of
this study.
The second limitation is that it only focuses on Army and Navy officers. While
the findings of this study may be generalized, it is limited to the U.S. Army and Navy and
not the DoD as a whole. Having a complete sample of DoD services provides a larger
and more complete picture of the relationship between personality traits, promotions, and
race in military officers.
The third limitation involved my design choices and my decision to focus only on
promotional groups, personalities, and race. While demographic information is collected,
it is only for descriptive purposes and not to add additional influence findings. Binary
logistic regression research can determine predictability but not causality. It is not known
if there is any descriptive data that affects the participants' FFM scores.
88
The fourth limitation is the sample size. Although this study exceeded the overall
sample size requirement (n = 239), there was a disproportionate number of participants in
each of the two promotion groups (n = 69, n = 170). Having a more proportional number
of participants in each group will help in generalization. In addition, the autumn time of
the survey is inconvenient because the results of the O4-O10 promotion board are
released in the spring. If the survey is opened during the spring, more O4 will know
whether or not they voted for promotion, thus increasing the size of the group.
The last limitation was controlling my bias as a military partner for a Navy
officer in the senior officer corps. I try to overcome my bias when I interpret and write
the results of the study as a neutral observer.
Recommendations
I checked the predictability personality traits when I was promoted to the senior
officer corps. These data suggest that this study can be used by military officers as a
means to examine the relationship between their personality traits and the likelihood of
promotion. Since a statistically significant relationship was found between FFM (i.e.,
deals) and promotions, it is possible that a larger sample size including all DoD services
could find more predictability. Given the number of personality assessments, inventory
of other personalities can be considered.
The purpose of this study was to examine whether personality traits predict
promotion during moderation for race. While there is a lot of research on the military
and personality, there are still gaps related to its interaction with military promotion and
diversity. Previous research has shown the personality traits of MBTI, FFM, or Big Five,
89
each with a different theoretical basis that can vary in results based on theory (Boe &
Bang, 2017). Other studies have investigated military promotions and diversity, finding a
correlation between promotion and lack of diversity (Baldwin, 2000; Baldwin &
Rothwell, 1993; Barroso, 2020; Bech et al., 2021). To verify the results shown in this
study, it is suggested that future research incorporate racial diversity, gender, and
military specialties when examining personality traits and promotions. These diverse
variables may be a contributing factor in whether personality traits predict promotion in
the U.S. military. Qualitative research can identify promotional barriers experienced by
service members based on their race, gender, or specialty for further insights into the
level of promotion. In addition, mixed-method studies can be used to examine
personality traits and promotions while exploring their experiences overcoming the
previously mentioned barriers.
Future research involving the personality traits of military officers and
promotions should include all demographics included in this study (i.e., race, age, years
in service, gender, specialty, education, etc.). Bech et al. (2021) argue that the
personalities of service members change as they undergo training and experience combat,
so it would be useful to have unchanged demographics when examining the correlation
between personality and promotion.
Implications for Social Change
The purpose of this study was to find out whether personality traits predict
promotion in the military when moderating for race, and if the results are statistically
significant,
The U.S. military may be able to identify ways to identify officers who are likely to
90
senior officer corps. The analysis of the study did find that the nature of the deal
predicted promotion, but from an organizational perspective, FFM alone was not enough
in identifying officers to be promoted to the senior officer corps. However, FFM
considers personality to be developmental in nature, and officers can develop their
pleasant personality traits to reflect the findings.
The findings of this study can provide positive social change by informing
military and federal leaders about the role of personality traits in leadership positions in
the American military. It can also inform those who design defense-directed
development programs, retention programs, diversity programs, and military leadership
programs. Personality assistance can also be implemented as part of officer development.
As pointed out earlier, research on personality traits and military promotion is
limited. This research aids in ongoing research on personality as well as research on
diversity in the military. By understanding the relationship between personality and
promotion, military and government leaders may be better prepared to identify junior
officers who have potential for the senior officer corps. As a result of this study, future
researchers of hierarchical organizations may use the personality characteristics of FFM
and promotion groups as a foundation. The study may also be incorporated into the study
using different personality assessments when examining personality and promotion when
moderating for demographic items (i.e., gender, education level). However, more
research needs to be done to help minority officers reduce the gap in representation in
senior ranks.
91
Conclusion
This study shows that the pleasurable nature of FFM is statistically significant in
predicting promotion to senior officer corps. Although not significant, patterns of low
neuroticism, openness, and extraversion with average pleasure and rigor appeared in the
surveyed officers' data. IPIP-NEO-60 should be used but may not be exclusively a
predictor in identifying the promotion rate of military officers. The study contributes to
the existing body of research by examining the predictability of personality in lieu of
promotion when moderating for race. Social issues regarding the lack of diversity in
senior officer corps continue to be a concern amid DoD's directives that follow equality
in promotions. The findings of this study are helpful in understanding personality and
promotion, but more research is needed to understand the role of personality in military
promotion.
