Can Diversity Management Improve Job Satisfaction for Military Veterans in the Federal Government?

Abstract

On November 9, 2009, Executive Order 13518 established the Veterans Employment Initiative and invigorated veteran hiring within the federal government. By fiscal year 2016, 635,266 veterans accounted for 31% of the federal workforce, an increase of over 5% in 7 years. To account for this growing employee demographic, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey began tracking veteran status in 2012 and analysis of these data show that veterans are more likely to express turnover intention than nonveterans. This raises a troubling question: Is the policy objective of the Veterans Hiring Initiative achieved if these veterans are more likely to turnover than nonveterans? This article explores whether diversity management mitigates lower job satisfaction levels among military veterans working for the federal government and whether veterans might be considered a stand-alone demographic in diversity scholarship. This study finds that perceptions of fair and effective diversity management are associated with higher job satisfaction among veteran employees, but slightly less so than among nonveterans. The results demonstrate that veterans are a unique employee demographic by showing statistically significant differences in job satisfaction between veterans and nonveterans while controlling for other demographics. Overall, this article contributes to public management research by highlighting military veteran employees and offering insight into an understudied employee population accounting for approximately 31% of the federal workforce.

Keywords

military veterans diversity management

Introduction

The federal government has a long history of providing military veterans employment opportunities following their military service (Johnson, 2014; Lewis, 2013). Often, the intensity of veteran hiring within the federal government is dependent upon the political and economic environment, as well as military force reductions following military conflicts, which often spur political action to ensure veterans are successfully reintegrated into the civilian workforce (Johnson, 2014). Increased emphasis on veteran hiring into the federal government occurred following the Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and is once again a major initiative following the conclusion of post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2009 Veteran Employment Initiative directed federal agencies to develop and implement veteran hiring programs, significantly increasing the proportion of veterans working in the federal government. In 2016, 31.1% of all new federal hires and 31.1% of the federal executive branch workforce were military veterans (U.S. Office of Personnel Management [OPM], 2017).

Despite the large number of veterans working in the federal government, limited empirical research addresses how veterans integrate into federal service. Public management and human resource scholarship has examined how employee characteristics, such as race, gender, education, and tenure are related to performance, turnover, and job satisfaction, but veteran status has not been included in this research (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Fernandez, Resh, Moldogaziev, & Oberfield, 2015; Kim & Min Park, 2014; Langbein & Stazyk, 2013; D. Pitts, 2009). This is troubling, as new-hire veterans have lower retention rates than new-hire nonveterans across federal agencies (U.S. OPM, 2017). There is a need, then, for research examining how veterans integrate into federal service. To help address this gap, we explore how veteran status, as a source of identity and values, is associated with job satisfaction, as previous research demonstrates job satisfaction is a key variable associated with employee turnover and performance (Llorens & Stazyk, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008; D. Pitts, Marvel, & Fernandez, 2011). In addition, we draw on intersectionality theory to examine how veteran status, combined with other demographic characteristics mediates the effects of perceptions of diversity management practices and organizational fairness on job satisfaction.

This article proceeds as follows. First, we discuss the literature on diversity management and veteran identity. Second, we develop hypotheses about veteran identity’s conditioning effect on predictors of job satisfaction. Third, we construct a job satisfaction model that tests the effects of different demographic combinations on job satisfaction while controlling for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management programs. Finally, we discuss the results, their implications for practice, and their limitations.

Literature Review and Theory

The Rise of Diversity Management

The increasing emphasis on diversity in both scholarship and practice reflect the changing workforce in the 21st century (Rice, 2010). Diversity may be defined as the “collective (all-inclusive) mixture of human differences and similarities along a given dimension” (Wise & Tschirhart, 2000, p. 387). Dimensions of diversity include, “race, culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, progression, organizational or team tenure, personality type, functional background, education level, political party, and other demographic, socioeconomic, and psychographic characteristics” (Wise & Tschirhart, 2000, p. 387). Current workplace trends point toward increasing demographic heterogeneity among employees, which creates complex interpersonal relationships that challenge the traditional workforce management practices of the past (Choi, 2009; Mor Barak, 2014). In addition, individuals are no longer willing to forgo their backgrounds and experiences to assimilate into the workplace (Thomas, 1990).

As the first scholar to develop the term “diversity management,” Thomas (1990) called upon organizations to use diversity to strengthen their competitive edge by effectively managing differences between employees. Managers are now called upon to lead, motivate, and retain a diverse workforce, as

it is no longer only a matter of righting past wrongs or of trying to achieve equality of opportunity by addressing underrepresentation of specific groups. Diversity efforts are focused on managing and engaging the company’s heterogeneous workforce in ways that give it a competitive advantage. (Thomas, 1990, p. 13)

Approximately 90% of federal agencies implement some type of diversity management program (Kellough & Naff, 2004; D. Pitts, 2009).

Diversity management practices are built upon equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action (AA) legislation, as many public and private sector organizations use this legislation to diversify their workforce (Riccucci, 2002). Much like the current veteran hiring programs, EEO and AA programs reflect a top-down approach by policy makers to enhance fairness and equality for a disadvantaged population within the workforce (Rice, 2010). Public sector organizations aggressively incorporated EEO and AA programs to set the example for the private sector and are now more diverse than private organizations with respect to race, sex, and age (Choi, 2009; D. Pitts, 2009; Riccucci, 2002).

Public management scholars are studying the effects of diversity focus primarily on women and racial/ethnic minorities (Choi, 2009; Choi & Rainey, 2010, 2014; Hur & Strickland, 2015; Kellough & Naff, 2004; D. Pitts, 2009; D. W. Pitts & Wise, 2010). However, as diversity in the federal workforce increases, there are new calls for broader diversity measures to study the effects of employee diversity on work outcomes (Langbein & Stazyk, 2013; Page, 2007; D. W. Pitts & Wise, 2010; Rice, 2010). By focusing on military veterans, we attempt to improve our understanding of diversity dynamics by exploring the implications of a prominent, but poorly understood demographic identity in the federal workforce.

Demographic Identities: The Case to Include Veteran Identity for Diversity Management

Race and gender signify one type of diversity and represent “immutable” or “visible” attributes affecting individual outcomes (Loden & Rosener, 1991; Thomas, 1991). Choi (2009) identifies additional “deeper level (attitudinal)” diversity traits that develop from “education, tenure, functional backgrounds, and belief structure, which usually have a direct effect on performance” (p. 605). Similar to the concept of mutable diversity, attitudinal diversity is malleable through values and life experiences, which influence employee motivation and work outcomes. Veteran identity may be classified within the attitudinal traits Choi (2009) describes when considering diversity types and the effects of diversity within an organization.

Military training and the unique demands of military service imprint shared values and expectations among veterans, shaping their attitudinal traits. The United States asks military veterans to place the national security needs of the nation over their own lives. Military service requires service members to move beyond individual immutable attributes and identify more with their military organization. In their discussion of veteran identity, Gade and Wilkins (2013) argue the following,

Military service, like other significant life events, influences a person’s self-concept and their values—values that the individuals bring with them into their workplace. We contend that similar to the formation of identities tied to social origins, the socialization that occurs within an organization can construct identities that dramatically affect values and attitudes. (p. 268)

The socialization of military service is unique in its difficulty and sacrifice required by service members, creating strong bonds among service members and veterans. This socialization lasts long beyond active military service and is further reinforced by numerous veteran benefits (such as veteran hiring preferences) and powerful veteran service organizations (e.g., The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of the United States, Military Officers Association of America, Wounded Warriors).

Social identity theory can inform our understanding of a distinct veteran identity. Grounded in psychology scholarship, social identity theory contends that individuals classify themselves and others into groups based on social categories, which include organizational membership, age, gender, race, and religion (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Social identity is unique in that it forms independent of “strong leadership and member interdependence, interaction, and cohesion” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 24). Social identity can be independent of the organizational culture, and members of the same social category will likely show favoritism toward each other, creating an in-group within an organization (Choi, 2009; Choi & Rainey, 2014). Favoritism between in-group members is likely higher in situations where the in-group enjoys high social valence and maintains positive self-esteem. Veterans are historically a favored population within the United States, enjoying a positive social perception throughout history (Gade & Wilkins, 2013; Schneider & Ingram, 2005). However, favoritism among in-group members within distinct social categories can decrease interaction and integration between groups and increase organizational conflict and miscommunication (Choi & Rainey, 2014).

The increasing number of veterans in an already diverse workforce may create conflict within federal agencies if veterans strongly identify themselves as a unique social category within their organizations. In addition, Gade and Wilkins (2013) argue “veteran identity is unique because veterans, as a group, have enjoyed high status in our country’s history and have not suffered the discrimination that racial, ethnic, or sexual minorities and women have endured” (p. 268). This creates the potential for conflict if the emphasis on veterans and veteran hiring overshadows previously protected demographics, such as women and minorities. For example, in 2016, 80.5% of veterans employed by the federal government were male compared with 45.7% of nonveterans (U.S. OPM, 2017). Veterans working in the federal government are also predominately White, at 64.7% (compared with 63.7% of nonveterans), whereas 20% are Black (compared with 16.9% of nonveterans), 8.7% are Hispanic (compared with 8.4% of nonveterans), and 3.7% are Asian (compared with 7.6% of nonveterans; U.S. OPM, 2017).

Gade and Wilkins (2013) contend veterans may develop a group identity potentially more powerful than a racial identity if they perceive their racial identity as lower status than their veteran identity. This is a novel concept, especially as traditional demographic determinants of representative bureaucracy include race, ethnicity, and gender, but not veteran status. Gade and Wilkins (2013) explore this concept by studying clients of the veterans administration and find they are more satisfied when they are serviced by bureaucrats who are also veterans. These findings suggest the importance of including veteran identity alongside other important demographic factors predicting workplace outcomes.

Emerging reports of resentment and organizational conflict between veterans and nonveterans suggest a developing separation between groups (The American Legion, 2014; Rein, 2014; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB], 2014). The increasing number of veterans in the federal workforce may hurt performance and job satisfaction if their presence creates organizational dynamics conducive to conflict and miscommunication (Foldy, 2004). It is incumbent upon managers, then, to effectively integrate veterans into their agencies by recognizing the unique social identity influencing veterans’ work behavior in the federal government.

Identifying veterans as a unique class has traditionally not been explored as veterans have not faced significant discrimination experienced by groups, such as women, racial minorities, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (Gade & Wilkins, 2013). However, the federal government does view veterans as a unique and deserving class within the American society. OPM recognizes the distinctive attributes of veterans by including veteran status in their definition of diversity:

We define workforce diversity as a collection of individual attributes that together help agencies pursue organizational objectives efficiently and effectively. These include, but are not limited to, characteristics such as national origin, language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, veteran status, and family structures. The concept also encompasses differences among people concerning where they are from and where they have lived and their differences of thought and life experiences. (U.S. Office of Personell Management, 2011, p.5)

In addition, the 2009 Veteran Employment Initiative is motivated by the concept of veteran identity as it highlights distinct characteristics of military veterans in The White House (2009): “our veterans, who have benefited from training and development during their military service, possess a wide variety of skills and experiences, as well as the motivation for public service, that will help fulfill Federal agencies’ staffing needs.” Executive Order 13518 asserts that veteran status is expected to result in a positive bureaucratic outcome for federal agencies. As best as we can determine, no diversity scholarship has focused on veterans, and most of the diversity literature focuses on sex, ethnicity/race, and age (D. Pitts, 2009; Wise & Tschirhart, 2000).

Diversity Management, Organizational Fairness, and Job Satisfaction

Increased diversity in organizations may be associated with decreased job satisfaction, and one goal of diversity management programs is to mediate this effect (Choi, 2009). Organizations often adopt diversity management programs with a variety of strategies focusing on management, accountability, organizational structure, culture, diversity numbers, training, mentoring, and the emphasis of shared values among employees (Kellough & Naff, 2004). The variation of diversity management programs among agencies results in different outcomes among employees, which makes program success difficult to measure (Kellough & Naff, 2004). As such, there is no conclusive evidence that diversity management increases job satisfaction for all employees, rather it is presumed that diversity management increases job satisfaction for racial minorities when these employees feel that managers are actively working in their interests (Choi, 2009; D. Pitts, 2009).

Despite the growing literature on diversity management, there is a lack of consensus among researchers about how and when diversity management improves outcomes (Choi, 2009; Choi & Rainey, 2010; Kellough & Naff, 2004; D. Pitts, 2009). As Choi and Rainey (2014) point out, this suggests a need for clarifying how management strategies and organizational contexts condition the implementation of diversity management. Specifically, they suggest organizational fairness—which concerns whether employees feel organizational and personnel procedures are applied fairly among employees—may have important conditioning effects on how employees perceive diversity management programs. Perceptions of organizational fairness have far-reaching impacts within an organization, as high perceptions of organizational fairness can increase job involvement and low levels of organizational fairness can increase turnover intention (Hassan, 2013; Rubin, 2007).

Choi and Rainey (2014) find that the interaction of perceptions of diversity management and organizational fairness relate positively to employee job satisfaction. Surprisingly, however, they also find that

racial/ethnic minorities whom many experts expect to be beneficiaries of diversity management programs expressed significantly lower satisfaction with their jobs, as compared to whites, when they perceived their agencies as having effective diversity management and maintaining a high level of organizational fairness. (Choi & Rainey, 2014, p. 321)

The authors offer two interesting explanations for this counterintuitive finding. First, they argue that employees may view Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) questions relating to organizational fairness and diversity management as implying identity blindness. As Choi and Rainey (2014) point out, previous research has found that women and minority employees tend to prefer identity-conscious over identity-blind procedures, as they view them as important in correcting for past discrimination. Second, they argue the result may be explained by differences in expectations about, and sensitivity to, issues concerning diversity management and organizational fairness between White and racial minority employees. Specifically, they suggest that while minority employees will likely feel more comfortable expressing concerns about unfair treatment when an agency devotes significant attention to diversity management and organizational fairness, but they may not feel managers provide adequate responses to their concerns in identity-blind processes.

The Veteran Employment Initiative and federal veteran hiring preference laws are “identity-conscious” personnel hiring policies prompting federal agencies to hire veterans over nonveterans. Programs primarily focused on hiring veterans into the federal government may lead to unintended effects, as “programs that focus only on outcomes (e.g., hiring or promoting racial/ethnic minorities or women) without appropriate consideration of fair procedures that lead to the outcomes may result in negative consequences” (Choi & Rainey, 2014, p. 321). As discussed earlier, social identity theory supports the development of in-groups comprised of veterans who possess a “veteran identity” consisting of unique values and traditions, which may be in conflict with out-groups within their organization. Reports of resentment between nonveteran and veteran employees (Rein, 2014) and unfair favoritism toward veterans (U.S. MSPB, 2014) are examples of negative consequences arising from a program-based “identity-conscious” veteran hiring structure within the federal government. This is further complicated by the demographic characteristics of veterans working in the federal service as they are traditionally older (average age of veterans is 48.9 years compared with 46.3 years for nonveterans), less educated (only 41.6% of veterans have a bachelors degree or higher as compared with 55.7% of nonveterans), and male (80.5% of veterans are male compared with 45.7% of nonveterans; U.S. OPM, 2017). The “identity-conscious” structure of the Veteran Employment Initiative treats veteran status as a visible attribute of diversity rather than a combination of mutable and immutable traits. This creates interesting dynamics resulting from multiple identities, as there are female veterans, racial minority veterans, and female racial minority veterans. Each of these categories receives special attention from federal human resource managers in an effort to achieve diversity. For example, minority women veterans receive intense consideration from multiple federal diversity management programs focusing on the successful integration of women, minorities, and veterans in the workplace. Diversity management programs highlight the immutable traits of diversity and generally focus on distinct identities (gender, race, veteran status, LGBT), but employees can often connect to multiple identities. This creates challenges for traditional diversity management programs, as employees may value one identity over another (Gade & Wilkins, 2013).

Intersectionality theory offers a path for understanding how multiple identities combine to affect an individual’s work outcomes (Bearfield, 2009; Hutchinson & Mann, 2004). The combination of different identities may result in one identity having a stronger influence than another depending on the type of identity and the situation. For example, Gay and Tate (1998) find that African American women identify more with their race than gender when considering their political attitudes, unless the resulting political attitude is in direct conflict with the interests of women. Gade and Wilkins (2013) contend that veteran status may be a more powerful social identity than race if veteran status is perceived to have a higher social status than the individual’s race. We draw on intersectionality theory to develop hypotheses about how veteran identity interacts with traditional demographic characteristics to moderate the effects of perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management practices on job satisfaction.

Hypotheses

First, we expect military veterans will exhibit lower job satisfaction than nonveterans. Although veterans enjoy several advantages in federal employment, their in-group status may increase the difficulty of building relationships with nonveteran employees. In addition, reports of resentment and organizational conflict between veterans and nonveterans, as well as higher turnover rates among veterans, suggest veterans may report lower job satisfaction levels than nonveterans. Thus,

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Military veterans will express lower levels of job satisfaction than nonveterans.

Second, based on the previous literature on diversity management and organizational fairness, we expect federal employees with high perceptions of organizational fairness and effective diversity management will express higher job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Perceptions of organizational fairness and effective diversity management will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Third, veterans likely prefer the identity-conscious construct of federal diversity management employment and retention programs (which gives them an advantage because of their veteran status) as it recognizes their military service. Thus, we expect that veterans will express higher job satisfaction than nonveterans when they perceive high levels of organizational fairness and effective diversity management.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Military veterans will be more satisfied with their job than nonveterans when they perceive high levels of organizational fairness and effective diversity management programs within their organization.

Data and Methods

Data

This study uses data from the 2012 FEVS. The 2012 FEVS consists of 687,687 acceptable responses from 42 agencies with a 46% response rate. Of the 687,687 survey respondents, there were 206,903 veterans (U.S. OPM, 2012). The FEVS provides information about employee perceptions of organizational culture, as well as engagement, job satisfaction, supervision, leadership, and talent management. In addition, the 2012 FEVS is the first Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey to include individuals’ veteran status, allowing for an empirical study of veteran job satisfaction within the federal service.

Method

We conduct linear regressions to test the main and interaction effects of perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management, veteran status, and demographic factors (racial and gender status). To explore the intersectionality effects of veteran status, race, and gender, we build nine models with specific demographic populations. Model 1 includes the total population, Model 2 consists of only military veterans, Model 3 includes only nonveterans, Model 4 includes only women, Model 5 only men, Model 6 includes only minority women, Model 7 only minority men, Model 8 includes only White women, and Model 9 only White men. The nine populations are analyzed in two steps. In the first step, we estimate the associations between demographic characteristics and job satisfaction. In the second step, we add variables measuring perceptions of diversity management and organizational fairness. We standardize the job satisfaction, organizational fairness, and diversity management variables to analyze how perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management moderate the effects of veteran status, gender, and minority status on job satisfaction. This allows us to estimate the main effect of the predictors on job satisfaction when the standardized diversity management and organizational fairness variables equal zero in the interaction equation (Bauer & Curran, 2005).

Measures

Dependent Variable

We use a multi-item index to measure job satisfaction. This is the same measure used by Choi and Rainey (2014), and measuring job satisfaction through a multi-item index is common (see Choi, 2009; Kim & Min Park, 2014; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008). The six items below construct the multi-item measure and a confirmatory factor analysis confirms they can be used as a single construct. The Cronbach’s alpha score of .88 is extremely close to Choi and Rainey’s (2014) score of .882, demonstrating the multi-item index is consistent between the two studies and an appropriate measure of job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction:

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?

How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?

How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization?

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?

Cronbach’s alpha = .88, CFI (comparative fit index) = .95.

Independent Variables

The primary independent variables of interest are perceptions of organizational fairness, diversity management, and veteran status. The veteran status variable consists of the following question: “Have you ever served on Active Duty in the US Armed Forces (Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps or Navy)?” and respondents are offered a “yes” or “no” response. In the 2012 FEVS, 32.6% of the respondents classify themselves as veterans.

The diversity management index is the same multi-item index used in the Choi and Rainey (2014) study. The index incorporates three questions, which focus on management’s commitment to diversity along with the employee’s perception of diversity policies and programs. This three-item index for diversity management is often used to capture employee perception of diversity management programs (see Choi, 2009; Choi & Rainey, 2010; D. Pitts, 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha score is .78, which is a lower score than Choi and Rainey’s (2014) index (.854), but still within an acceptable range. The three items below construct the multi-item measure and confirmatory factor analysis confirms that these items can be used as a single construct.

Diversity management:

Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit are committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society.

Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (e.g., recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).

Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds.

Cronbach’s alpha = .78, CFI = 1.0.

The organizational fairness index is modified version of the multi-item measure used by Choi and Rainey (2014) as one of the items is not included in the 2012 FEVS. The question, “complaints, disputes, or grievances are resolved fairly in my work unit” has been removed and there is not a similar replacement. Therefore, this study will create an organizational fairness measure using three of the original four questions from the Choi and Rainey (2014) study.

Organizational fairness:

Arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated.

Prohibited personnel practices (e.g., illegally discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to compete for employment, knowingly violating veterans’ preference requirements) are not tolerated.

I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule, or regulation without fear of reprisal.

Cronbach’s alpha = .83, CFI = 1.0, CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) confirms items can be used as a single construct.

Determinants of Job Satisfaction

Previous research finds that individual characteristics often correlate and can sometimes predict job satisfaction among employees (Kim & Min Park, 2014; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008; D. Pitts, 2009). We include gender, age (above/below 40 years), and supervisory status (supervisor, manager, executive) as dichotomous variables to control for their effects on job satisfaction. To analyze the intersectionality created by differences in race/ethnic backgrounds, we create a dichotomous variable for race/minority status (African American, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian, or Multiracial). In addition, we include federal tenure broken into three dichotomous variables (0-5 years of service, 6-14 years of service, 15+ years of service) to account for career progression.

Veterans vary broadly along a range of characteristics including age, experience, race, military rank, years of military service, disability status, educational background, and job qualifications. By including variables for gender, minority status, age, federal tenure, and supervisor status in our models, we can isolate a constant effect for veteran status that is distinct from the constant effects of those demographic variables. This allows us to account for some of the demographic differences among the veteran population. Federal agencies also vary widely in their organizational structure, mission, job requirements, culture, and the type of skills required by their employees. In addition, each federal agency has an independent hiring process employing human resource managers who seek the best employees for that individual organization. Therefore, we also include subagency fixed effects to control for agency effects on job satisfaction. A summary of these variables is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Unit
Job satisfaction—Multi-item	0	1.000	−2.696	1.724	Factor score
Veteran	0.334	0.472	0	1	Veteran = 1
Female	0.434	0.496	0	1	Female = 1; male = 0
Minority	0.338	0.473	0	1	Minority = 1
Age (above 40 years)	0.777	0.416	0	1	Above 40 years of age = 1
Fed tenure dummy 0-5 years	0.261	0.439	0	1	0-5 years federal service = 1
Fed tenure dummy 6-14 years	0.302	0.459	0	1	6-14 years federal service = 1
Fed tenure dummy 15+ years	0.438	0.496	0	1	15+ years federal service = 1
Supervisor	0.143	0.350	0	1	Supervisor = 1
Manager	0.0720	0.258	0	1	Manager = 1
Executive	0.0115	0.107	0	1	Executive = 1
Diversity management practices	0	1.000	−3.105	1.506	Factor score
Organizational fairness	0	1.000	−2.557	1.365	Factor score
Observations	473,990

Results and Analysis

Table 2 shows results estimating the relationship between demographic characteristics, including veteran status, and job satisfaction. The results support Hypothesis 1, showing that veterans express lower job satisfaction than nonveterans across all demographic groups. In addition, while the female and minority variables are not statistically significant in the full population model, there are some interesting findings when considering the intersectionality of veteran status with race and gender. The results in Model 2 show female veterans express lower job satisfaction than male veterans holding all other variables constant, but Model 3 shows female nonveterans are more satisfied with their jobs than male nonveterans. The results in Model 2 also show that minority veterans expressed higher job satisfaction than White veterans, whereas the minority variable in the nonveteran model (3) is not significant. In addition, Model 4 shows minority women are less satisfied than White women, whereas Model 5 shows minority men are more satisfied than White men. Finally, Model 6 shows minority female veterans are less satisfied than minority female nonveterans, whereas Model 7 shows minority male veterans expressed lower job satisfaction than minority male nonveterans. The variation of findings among employees within different veteran, gender, and racial groups support the use of intersectionality theory to study the nuances of employee job satisfaction.

Table 2.

Step 1: Demographics—Job Satisfaction.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
	Full population	Veterans	Nonveterans	Female	Male	Minority female	Minority male	White female	White male
Veteran	−0.042**			−0.079**	−0.032**	−0.105**	−0.035**	−0.058**	−0.031*
Veteran	(0.008)			(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.012)
Female	−0.004	−0.075**	0.021*
Female	(0.011)	(0.017)	(0.009)
Minority	0.015	0.051**	−0.002	−0.051**	0.073**
Minority	(0.013)	(0.016)	(0.013)	(0.008)	(0.015)
Age (above 40 years)	0.076**	0.159**	0.029*	0.028*	0.100**	0.083**	0.135**	−0.007	0.083**
Age (above 40 years)	(0.018)	(0.027)	(0.014)	(0.014)	(0.021)	(0.015)	(0.025)	(0.017)	(0.022)
Fed tenure 6-14 years	−0.198**	−0.210**	−0.186**	−0.162**	−0.219**	−0.163**	−0.227**	−0.162**	−0.216**
Fed tenure 6-14 years	(0.011)	(0.011)	(0.013)	(0.009)	(0.012)	(0.010)	(0.016)	(0.014)	(0.013)
Fed tenure 15^†	−0.227**	−0.276**	−0.184**	−0.147**	−0.275**	−0.187**	−0.291**	−0.123**	−0.268**
Fed tenure 15^†	(0.016)	(0.022)	(0.014)	(0.014)	(0.017)	(0.013)	(0.022)	(0.018)	(0.015)
Supervisor	0.238**	0.210**	0.250**	0.255**	0.228**	0.266**	0.223**	0.247**	0.229**
Supervisor	(0.019)	(0.015)	(0.023)	(0.020)	(0.021)	(0.024)	(0.025)	(0.020)	(0.019)
Manager	0.437**	0.390**	0.460**	0.463**	0.428**	0.460**	0.389**	0.462**	0.443**
Manager	(0.024)	(0.023)	(0.027)	(0.031)	(0.024)	(0.042)	(0.020)	(0.029)	(0.026)
Executive	0.652**	0.543**	0.688**	0.634**	0.665**	0.537**	0.612**	0.661**	0.676**
Executive	(0.043)	(0.052)	(0.043)	(0.042)	(0.047)	(0.060)	(0.059)	(0.044)	(0.046)
Constant	0.038**	−0.060**	0.044**	0.056**	0.021	−0.013	0.067**	0.069**	0.034*
Constant	(0.012)	(0.021)	(0.012)	(0.015)	(0.013)	(0.016)	(0.020)	(0.012)	(0.013)
Observations	472,604	157,864	314,740	204,732	267,872	80,912	78,574	12,3,820	189,298
Pseudo R²
r ²	.025	.027	.025	.022	.030	.019	.025	.023	.031

Note. Includes subagency fixed effects and standard errors robust to clustering at the agency level. Standard errors in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The remaining predictors are relatively consistent across veteran status, gender, and minority status. Employees above the age of 40 years express higher job satisfaction than employees below the age of 40 years. Federal tenure has a strong, negative association with job satisfaction, as employees with 6 years to 14 years of service and 15+ years of service all report lower job satisfaction than employees with 0 year to 5 years of service across all demographics. One possible explanation for this finding is that as employees become more vested in the federal pension system, they are less likely to leave, even if they are unsatisfied with their job (Ippolito, 1987; D. Pitts et al., 2011). Finally, supervisory status has a strong, positive association with job satisfaction across all demographics. As employees increase in rank, they report higher levels of job satisfaction as compared with nonsupervisory employees.

Table 3 presents the second step in the analysis, in which we control for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management, as well as their interaction. The results across the nine models show how perceptions of diversity management and organizational fairness are associated with job satisfaction and also demonstrate how they moderate the effects of the job satisfaction determinants analyzed in Step 1.

Table 3.

Step 2: Job Satisfaction by Population Type With Organization Fairness and Diversity Management.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
	Full population	Veterans	Nonveterans	Female	Male	Minority female	Minority male	White female	White male
Veteran	0.003			−0.028**	0.010*	−0.033**	0.002	−0.024**	0.012*
Veteran	(0.003)			(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.010)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.005)
Female	0.062**	0.016**	0.078**
Female	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.005)
Minority	0.135**	0.141**	0.132**	0.111**	0.155**
Minority	(0.004)	(0.007)	(0.003)	(0.005)	(0.005)
Diversity management	0.439**	0.445**	0.437**	0.457**	0.425**	0.484**	0.458**	0.438**	0.412**
Diversity management	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.009)	(0.007)
Organization fairness	0.408**	0.415**	0.404**	0.377**	0.431**	0.350**	0.393**	0.394**	0.445**
Organization fairness	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.008)	(0.006)	(0.005)
Diversity × Organization fairness	0.051**	0.058**	0.048**	0.048**	0.053**	0.046**	0.051**	0.050**	0.054**
Diversity × Organization fairness	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Net effect	0.899***	0.918***	0.888***	0.882***	0.910***	0.880***	0.901***	0.882***	0.911***
Net effect	(0.006)	(0.004)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.007)
Age (above 40 years)	0.076**	0.112**	0.060**	0.050**	0.090**	0.085**	0.118**	0.024*	0.077**
Age (above 40 years)	(0.008)	(0.010)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.013)	(0.010)	(0.008)
Fed tenure 6-14 years	−0.016**	−0.011**	−0.019*	−0.004	−0.022**	0.011	−0.002	−0.014+	−0.031**
Fed tenure 6-14 years	(0.006)	(0.004)	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.010)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)
Fed tenure 15^†	−0.009	−0.003	−0.010	0.022**	−0.027**	0.037**	0.005	0.013	−0.039**
Fed tenure 15^†	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.009)	(0.008)	(0.006)	(0.009)	(0.010)	(0.010)	(0.006)
Supervisor	−0.010	−0.022*	−0.003	0.000	−0.017*	0.011	−0.006	−0.005	−0.022**
Supervisor	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.009)	(0.012)	(0.007)	(0.015)	(0.006)	(0.012)	(0.008)
Manager	0.007	−0.018	0.022	0.052**	−0.015	0.070**	−0.027	0.046**	−0.011
Manager	(0.011)	(0.014)	(0.013)	(0.009)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.019)	(0.012)	(0.012)
Executive	0.051**	0.002	0.073**	0.065**	0.044**	0.093**	0.045*	0.055*	0.045*
Executive	(0.015)	(0.018)	(0.020)	(0.018)	(0.016)	(0.025)	(0.020)	(0.023)	(0.017)
Constant	−0.161**	−0.186**	−0.157**	−0.091**	−0.167**	−0.013	−0.044**	−0.066**	−0.151**
Constant	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.009)	(0.014)	(0.008)	(0.008)
Observations	472,604	157,864	314,740	204,732	267,872	80,912	78,574	123,820	189,298
r ²	.575	.600	.562	.581	.572	.616	.617	.556	.551

Note. Includes subagency fixed effects and standard errors robust to clustering at the agency level. Standard errors in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

First, the results show that diversity management and organizational fairness are strongly and positively associated with employee job satisfaction. This finding is consistent among all the tested demographics, supporting Hypothesis 2 and suggesting the importance of organizational fairness and diversity management programs to increase the level of job satisfaction among traditionally discriminated or underemployed demographics within the federal government. Second, the results also show that organizational fairness enhances the effects of diversity management, as the coefficient on their interaction is statistically significant and positive, which is consistent with Choi and Rainey’s (2014) findings. This suggests that diversity management programs are more effective when employees perceive that rules and procedures are applied fairly across the organization. Overall, the net effects of a standard deviation change in diversity management, organizational fairness, and their interaction, show a near standard deviation change in job satisfaction across the demographic groups we test.

The results pose particularly interesting implications for our understanding of how diversity management and organizational fairness moderate the effect of veteran status. After controlling for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management practices, veteran status becomes positive in the full population model (1), but is no longer statistically significant. The negative effect of veteran status disappears after controlling for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management, which suggests veterans maintain lower perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management, leading them to exhibit lower job satisfaction, lending some support for Hypothesis 3. Notably, the female and minority variables become positive and significant in Step 3, suggesting similar implications for minorities and women.

Examining veteran status across the gender and race subsamples, however, reveals the importance of intersectionality for understanding how veteran status matters for job satisfaction. First, the results show that veteran status is associated with decreased job satisfaction for women (Model 4), and increased job satisfaction for men (Model 5). This may indicate that women veterans are more likely to face compounding animosity from other employees resenting their place in the organization due to perceived undeserving preferential treatment for being both a woman and a veteran.

Running the analyses separately between minority men and women (Models 6 and 7), and White men and women (Models 8 and 9) lends further evidence to the importance of intersectionality. Veteran status remains negative for both minority and White women, but the negative effect is stronger for minority women, suggesting they may face the most animosity from nonveteran employees. Notably, veteran status does not have a statistically significant effect on job satisfaction for minority men. That the positive effect of veteran status on job satisfaction is exclusive to White men, lends evidence to the notion that women and minority employees may disproportionately experience the effects of resentment from nonveteran employees or that gender and minority status are stronger indicators for job satisfaction.

Here, it is worth turning back to a discussion of the results estimating the effects of diversity management and organizational fairness to explore the nuances between demographic groups. Although the net effects of diversity management and organizational fairness are remarkably consistent across the demographic groups we test, there are interesting differences in the effect sizes for the constituent terms. First, the effect of diversity management is largest for minority women (Model 6) and smallest for White men (Model 9). Conversely, the effect of organizational fairness is strongest for White men (Model 9), and smallest for minority women (Model 6). This suggests the importance of creating a sense that important organizational and personnel procedures are applied fairly and adequately communicated by managers to minority employees.

The inclusion of diversity management and organizational fairness also had interesting implications on the control variables. Unsurprisingly, the effect of age on job satisfaction is not moderated by diversity management and organizational fairness for most demographic groups. However, the results show that White females above 40 years of age have higher levels of job satisfaction than White females below 40 years of age when controlling for organizational fairness and diversity management. This finding suggests that White females above 40 years may face different types of discrimination beyond gender, such as ageism, which is moderated by diversity management and organizational fairness.

Controlling for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management also has interesting implications for the effects of the managerial status variables. Overall, controlling for diversity management and organizational fairness significantly reduces the positive relationship of supervisor status and job satisfaction shown in Table 2. The notable exception is the executive level, which shows weaker but still a positive and significant relationship with job satisfaction across all the models with the exception of veterans in Table 3, Model 2. This finding suggests that perceptions of organizational fairness and effective diversity management programs may matter more than supervisory status, especially for veterans and men.

Discussion

This article explored whether veterans should be considered a stand-alone demographic in diversity scholarship. To start, our results support Choi and Rainey’s (2014) findings that high perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management are associated with higher job satisfaction among employees. Second, without accounting for perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management, veterans express lower levels of job satisfaction than nonveterans. Controlling for these perceptions removes the negative effect of veteran status on job satisfaction, suggesting that veterans, overall, have lower perceptions of organizational fairness and diversity management. However, a closer examination reveals that the positive effect is exclusive to White male veterans, as the negative effect remains for White and minority women, and is not statistically significant for minority men. Generally, these results pose interesting implications for theory and practice when it comes to understanding veterans as a distinct demographic group, which we discuss below.

This study contributes to the identification of veterans as a unique employee demographic by showing statistically significant differences in job satisfaction between veterans and nonveterans when controlling for other employee demographics. The concept of veteran identity, linked to social identity theory, demonstrates how it is likely that veterans develop a set of beliefs based on their common military experience, and this social categorization can create an “us” and “them” mentality between veterans and nonveterans (Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2002; Gade & Wilkins, 2013). As federal budgets tighten during the current period of fiscal instability, combined with stagnant federal job growth, conflicts have arisen between veterans and nonveterans, which challenge the merits of veteran hiring preferences (U.S. MSPB, 2014; Rein, 2014). The growing number of veterans working in the federal government combined with the unique set of values, beliefs, and experiences possessed by veterans justify their unique consideration by human resource managers and leaders within federal organizations.

This study also showed the relevancy and usefulness of using intersectionality literature to examine nuanced employee populations in the federal workforce, as intersectionality had important implications for the effect of veteran identity on job satisfaction. We find that both White and minority women veterans express lower job satisfaction than nonveterans. This raises a question for human resource managers, as women traditionally report higher job satisfaction than men (Choi & Rainey, 2014; (Pitts 2009)) with the occasional exception (Choi, 2009).

Social identity theory and intersectionality may explain why White male veterans experience employment in the federal government differently than female and minority veterans. Generally, veterans as a unique employee group may maintain a higher sense of deservingness for the benefits that accompany the veteran hiring programs and diversity management initiatives due to a positive social identity. The Veteran Employment Initiative was developed in part to ensure veterans successfully transition to the civilian workforce and not suffer unemployment after honorable military service (The White House, 2009). Veterans may internalize this sense of entitlement for a federal job as a “thank you for your service” gesture from the federal government. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that veterans would consider an identity-conscious diversity management program focusing on veterans as fair and just. In addition, veterans receive strong political and social support, which may strengthen a positive social identity and influence their perception of what they deem as fair and just as related to preferential veteran treatment (Choi, 2009; Gade & Wilkins, 2013). However, for women and minority veterans, the sense of entitlement and positive social identity may break down in civilian work settings, and veteran status may exacerbate existing problems relating to resentment and animosity from nonbeneficiary employees.

One of the primary limitations of this study is the difficulty in analyzing diversity management and organizational as these variables are likely endogenous with job satisfaction. This is further complicated by the use of self-reported data collected within a survey, which reports an employee’s perception of diversity management programs rather than an objective measure of a diversity management program’s success. The FEVS also lacks key objective variables traditionally linked to job satisfaction, such as education, marital status, salary, and time in current position, which would be useful to overcome the limitations of self-reported data. In addition, the level of data available identifying veteran status is limited and new, which prevents the collection of cross-sectional data over many years to determine causal relationships among variables.

Conclusion

As the number of military veterans continues to rise after the drawdown from two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal government, through programs such as the Veteran Employment Initiative, will continue to hire large numbers of military veterans into federal service. The number of veterans working in the federal workforce has increased to 31.1% in 2016 from 25.8% in 2009 (U.S. OPM, 2017). The steady increase in the number of veterans creates challenges for public managers to integrate these employees into their organizations as veterans possess a unique set of values, attributes, and workplace expectations developed during their military service. Despite the distinctive characteristics of veteran employees, scholars have not devoted significant research efforts toward understanding the effect of veteran employees on the workforce. When analyzing the veteran workforce population, the FEVS reports that veterans maintain lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention than nonveterans (Kopp 2015; U.S. OPM, 2015; Vanderschuere, 2015). The growing number of veteran employees combined with negative workforce characteristics motivates the study of veterans as a unique employee demographic, which should be considered by human resource managers and diversity scholars. This article contributes to the literature on diversity management by treating veterans as a distinct demographic and demonstrating that, as a source of identity, veteran status affects workplace behaviors and attitudes.

In summary, this article offers two outcomes and policy considerations for public managers. First, veterans benefit from effective diversity management programs, and it is important for veterans to believe their organization is fair and just. Second, veterans exhibit distinctive workforce qualities, which justify their unique consideration when tackling common public management challenges, such as employee performance, motivation, retention, and job satisfaction. Therefore, to truly maximize the value added by veteran employees, managers must recognize the unique employee attitudes, behaviors, and motivations exhibited by veterans working in the federal service.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Matthew Vanderschuere

Author Biographies

Matthew Vanderschuere is an adjunct professorial lecturer in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at American University. His research interests include human resource management, leadership, and employee motivation within public organizations.

Chris Birdsall is an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Boise State University. His research focuses on public management and higher education.

References

The American Legion. (2014, October 9). Legion wants feds to leave veterans preference alone. The American Legion. Retrieved from http://www.legion.org/careers/224795/legion-wants-feds-leave-veterans-preference-alone

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Bauer

D. J.

Curran

P. J.

(2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400.

Bearfield

D. A.

(2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review, 69, 383-386.

Brunetto

Farr-Wharton

(2002). Using social identity theory to explain the job satisfaction of public sector employees. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15, 534-551.

Choi

(2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 603-630.

Choi

Rainey

H. G.

(2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70, 109-121.

Choi

Rainey

H. G.

(2014). Organizational fairness and diversity management in public organizations: Does fairness matter in managing diversity? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 307-331.

Cotton

J. L.

Tuttle

J. M.

(1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.

10.

Fernandez

Resh

W. G.

Moldogaziev

Oberfield

Z. W.

(2015). Assessing the past and promise of the federal employee viewpoint survey for public management research: A research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75, 382-394.

11.

Foldy

E. G.

(2004). Learning from diversity: A theoretical exploration. Public Administration Review, 64, 529-538.

12.

Gade

D. M.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 267-288.

13.

Gay

Tate

(1998). The impact of gender and race on the politics of Black women. Political Psychology, 19, 169-184.

14.

Hassan

(2013). Does fair treatment in the workplace matter? An assessment of organizational fairness and employee outcomes in government. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 539-557.

15.

Hur

Strickland

R. A.

(2015). Diversity management practices, do they make a difference? Examining consequences of their adoption in local governments. Public Administration Quarterly, 39, 325-357.

16.

Hutchinson

J. R.

Mann

H. S.

(2004). Feminist praxis: Administering for a multicultural, multigendered public. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 26, 79-95.

17.

Ippolito

R. A.

(1987). Why federal workers don’t quit. The Journal of Human Resources, 22, 281-299.

18.

Johnson

(2014). Service after serving: Does veterans’ preference diminish the quality of the US federal service? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 669-696.

19.

Kellough

J. E.

Naff

K. C.

(2004). Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal agency diversity management programs. Administration & Society, 36, 62-90.

20.

Kim

Min Park

(2014). Determinants of job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees: evidence from US federal agencies. International Review of Public Administration, 19, 63-90.

21.

Kopp

. (2015, August 17). Veterans flock to federal jobs but don’t stay long. Federal News Radio. Retrieved from http://federalnewsradio.com/hiringretention/2015/08/veterans-flock-federal-jobs-dont-stay-long/

22.

Langbein

Stazyk

E. C.

(2013). Vive la différence? The impact of diversity on the turnover intention of public employees and performance of public agencies. International Public Management Journal, 16, 465-503.

23.

Lewis

G. B.

(2013). The impact of veterans’ preference on the composition and quality of the federal civil service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 247-265.

24.

Llorens

J. J.

Stazyk

E. C.

(2011). How important are competitive wages? Exploring the impact of relative wage rates on employee turnover in state government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 111-127.

25.

Loden

Rosener

J. B.

(1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

26.

Mor Barak

M. E

. (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 205-227.

28.

National Guard Bureau. (2016). Pay calculator. Retrieved from http://www.nationalguard.com/pay/calculator

29.

Page

S. E.

(2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

30.

Park

Shaw

J. D.

(2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 268-309.

31.

Pitts

(2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338.

32.

Pitts

Marvel

Fernandez

(2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among U.S. Federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71, 751-760.

33.

Pitts

D. W.

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Workforce diversity in the new millennium: Prospects for research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 44-69.

34.

Rein

(2014, September 14). Obama push to hire veterans into federal jobs spurs resentment. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-push-to-hire-veterans-into-federal-jobs-spurs-resentment/2014/09/14/c576e592-2edc-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html

35.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: John Wiley.

36.

Rice

M. F.

(2010). Diversity and public administration: Theory, issues, and perspectives (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

37.

Rubin

E. V.

(2007). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the department of defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143.

38.

Schneider

A. L.

Ingram

H. M.

(2005). Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

39.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: NelsonHall.

40.

Thomas

R. R.

(1990, March-April). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107-117.

41.

Thomas

R. R.

(1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York, NY: AMACOM.

42.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2014). Veteran hiring in the civil service: Practices and perceptions (A Report to the President and Congress of the United States). Washington, DC: US Merit Systems Protection Board.

43.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2011). Guidance for Agency-Specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans. Retrived from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/reports/diagencyspecificstrategicplanguidance.pdf

44.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Federal employee viewpoint survey results: Employees influencing change. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012files/2012_Government_Management_Report.PDF

45.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2017). Employment of veterans in the federal executive branch: Fiscal year 2016. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/QuickFacts/Homepage_opm_vets_quickfacts_2017.PDF

46.

Vanderschuere

. (2015). Military veterans working in the Federal government: Why do they want to leave? In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 17685). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

47.

The White House. (2009). Employment of veterans in the federal government. In Executive Order 13518—Veterans employment initiative. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-veterans-employment-initiative

48.

Wise

L. R.

Tschirhart

(2000). Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is diversity research for public-sector managers? Public Administration Review, 60, 386-394.