Kompetansemangfold i Forsvarets toppledelse

en kvalitativ studie av ekspertise og kompetansemangfold i seleksjon til militære toppstillinger

Abstract

In this report, we present results from a qualitative study on competence diversity in the top leadership of the Armed Forces, group 1, and what can hinder or promote such diversity. Officers in the Armed Forces, from second lieutenant to general, are military leaders with academic leadership education and military training. The top leaders of the Armed Forces belong to Group 1, which includes the ranks of colonel, commander, and higher. Group 1 consists of just over 200 individuals. The purpose of the study is to gain greater insight into the perceptions of military top leaders about the knowledge and competence that qualify for a group 1 position, and what they understand by competence diversity in this context. Considering perspectives on knowledge and diversity, we discuss whether there is a tension between military expertise and competence diversity, or if military expertise itself is diverse. We base our understanding of diversity on three forms of classification within a given context: 1) observable demographic characteristics of people, such as gender or ethnicity, 2) personality, motivation, and behavioral traits, and 3) knowledge and skills. This report particularly emphasizes the last dimension.

Officers play a crucial role in the operational capability of the Armed Forces and their ability to achieve the goals set for the Armed Forces at any given time. To ensure that the Armed Forces acquire the competence they need, it is important to examine the knowledge and experience that the top leaders possess and what qualifies them to lead an organization like the Armed Forces. Group 1 officers are often described as a relatively homogeneous group; individuals with high rank, higher average age, and long seniority. Those holding officer positions in group 1 today mainly have work experience from the defense sector. Diversity is a central value in Norwegian society, which the Armed Forces are also committed to uphold as part of their societal mission. While there are numerous studies on diversity dimensions in the Armed Forces, such as gender, reports show a lack of implementation and practice of diversity thinking related to competence in the top leadership of the Armed Forces. Previous research argues that various forms of strategic selection in recruitment processes for group 1 positions, where informal social networks play a significant role in determining who wins the competition for positions, limit diversity in group 1. In this report, we will further investigate how the application and recruitment processes for group 1 positions take place, not just who is chosen, but which competence is prioritized.

The overarching research question is how competence diversity is expressed in the recruitment processes for military top positions, group 1. There are three themes we are particularly focused on: 1) what competence military top leaders perceive as central for a career path towards a military top leadership position, 2) what tensions related to military expertise are expressed in the application and recruitment processes for military top positions, and 3) what perceptions military top leaders have about competence diversity. The data is based on 16 qualitative interviews with Group 1 officers and applicants for Group 1 positions. Qualitative interviews gave us access to the topic of diversity by allowing us to hear different stories about their career paths and how they came into a top leadership position. The data is analyzed considering a professional theoretical and cultural analytical perspective on knowledge and diversity.

The report consists of 8 chapters. In Chapter 2, we introduce the Armed Forces as the context for the study with special attention to how competence is organized. In Chapter 3, we show what characterizes the officers' descriptions of the knowledge and competence that qualify for a military top leadership position. A typical description of the competence that qualifies for a vertical career is the sum of physical fitness and military conduct, education and academic grades, and leadership talent demonstrated through work practice. The officers in the study have generally followed the same educational path from officer candidate school to the command and staff college (NDCSC) and have completed a master's degree. Between education, they have had mandatory years with practical, context-specific work experience, such as operational service in international operations or jobs in the Ministry of Defense. An interesting finding in this chapter is that the officers do not speak about education as competence, but as something one must attain to move forward. Operational experience, however, and on-the-job training are emphasized as central forms of competence. At the same time, broad experience and education make the officers' knowledge base diverse. Chapter 4 focuses on the officer's perception of the application and recruitment processes for top leadership positions. What we find here confirms previous research on the importance of social networks in the recruitment process. Key actors, such as sponsors and mentors, can help the applicant to be noticed and stay in the "loop." Applicants' personalities are particularly emphasized using various personality tests. In the officers' descriptions of the recruitment process, they rarely talk about competence. What is considered most important is who the applicant is, what they have done, and where they have been. An interpretation of such stories is that context-specific competence is given the highest priority.

Chapter 5 elaborates on some of the findings related to the application and recruitment process and goes into more detail about the experiences of both top leaders and applicants regarding selection for group 1 positions. In chapter 6, we investigate more explicitly how the concept of competence diversity is understood by the officers in this study, and what significance they think it has in the military top leadership. Competence diversity is discussed considering three dimensions: as a diversity of education and knowledge, as a diversity of personalities, and as a diversity of gender composition. Here, we see that competence diversity includes not just skills and knowledge, but also who you are as a person. Chapter 7 discusses the findings from the various chapters collectively. We discuss how thinking about competence diversity can be developed, using operational competence as an example. Operational competence is the form of competence that is widely agreed to "trump" all other competencies. There is some disagreement, however, about what operational competence should encompass in terms of practices.

There are three main narratives about competence diversity in the material: 1) The knowledge and competence of the officers are perceived as diverse, and military expertise in group 1 is characterized by competence diversity, 2) in the application and recruitment processes, officers are selected based on both personality and competence, with operational competence being the most crucial factor. Military expertise is largely perceived as practical, even though the officers' competence background is broad. 3) The concept of competence diversity is unclear to the officers and not anchored in their understanding of what is needed in the military top leadership. At the same time, some believe that competence diversity is good and can bring about change. In the concluding chapter, we discuss the implications for the Armed Forces of the various narratives and provide our conclusions and recommendations for further work on competence diversity in the top leadership of the Armed Forces.