I am reaching out for your assistance with my dissertation project. I have completed Chapter One in full, and now I need support developing Chapter Two (the Literature Review) and continuing with the remaining chapters through completion.
The requirements for this project are as follows:
- The dissertation is a qualitative study on Army officer promotion systems, focusing on the Command Assessment Program (CAP) and its cancellation in 2025.
- Chapter Two must include a thorough literature review (generally 30–40 pages). It should:
- Begin with an overview that explains the purpose of the review and its role in framing the study.
- Present the conceptual/theoretical framework, including Inclusive Leadership Theory (ILT) and Social Identity Theory (SIT), with integration of both and a brief biblical foundation.
- Review related literature on:
- Historical Army promotion practices
- Current promotion practices
- Leadership assessment programs (Army and civilian comparisons)
- Officer perceptions of fairness and trust
- Organizational inclusivity and leadership
- Conclude with a summary section that identifies what is known, what is not known, and how this study fills the gap.
- All sections must follow the M.E.A.L. (Main Idea, Evidence, Analysis, Link) structure.
- Sources should be scholarly, peer-reviewed, and recent (2019–2025 preferred), with APA 7th edition formatting.
- The literature review should emphasize both scholarly synthesis and the gap in research, particularly officer perspectives post-CAP.
I would like your help expanding Chapter Two so it reaches the required depth and rigor, while also preparing the foundation for the next chapters. Chapter One is complete and available as reference.
Thank you for your support, and I look forward to working with you on this project. i need you to continue on chapter 2 CHAPTER ONE
Overview
The central focus of the study is the Command Assessment Program (CAP), a program created to promote transparency and broaden evaluation methods, and its cancellation in 2025. The chapter provides background on Army promotion practices, outlines the problem that guides the study, explains the purpose and significance of the research, presents the theoretical framework, and connects the study to biblical principles of leadership.
Background of the Problem
Promotion patterns to higher ranks in the Army have not reflected fairness across all groups. A RAND study reported that Black officers promoted to Major (O-4) advanced at rates about five percentage points lower than White officers, with Hispanic officers trailing by roughly 3.3 points and Native American officers by 3.6 points (RAND, 2011). To address these concerns, the Army introduced the Command Assessment Program (CAP) as a way to create a more transparent and comprehensive process for identifying leaders. CAP began in 2019 as the Battalion Commander Assessment Program and later expanded to higher levels of command. the Army issued Directive 2024-14,In January 2025, which formally recognized CAP as an official program and highlighted its role in officer talent management (Morgado & O’Brien, 2025).
The design of CAP sought to provide a fuller picture of officer readiness by supplementing record files with leadership exercises, peer input, and character evaluations. On August 1, 2025, however, the Secretary of the Army cancelled CAP and returned selection to traditional boards (Nieberg, 2025). Officers who had trusted CAP as a fair process saw it removed, and selection once again relied almost entirely on records and subjective judgments. Concerns about subjectivity and unequal access to advancement intensified with the return to older methods. Minority officers may feel the effect more sharply because CAP allowed them to demonstrate readiness through performance rather than only through documents. Ending CAP, therefore, raised questions not only about fairness in advancement but also about confidence in how leaders are chosen. The change altered both the perception and the reality of pathways to command, and it remains essential to understand officer perspectives on these developments for both policy and practice.
The Army has long faced challenges with toxic and ineffective leaders. For many years, the selection of battalion commanders—one of the most critical leadership positions—relied on record reviews that lasted less than two minutes. In 2020, the Army launched the Battalion Commander Assessment Program (BCAP) to address this issue. BCAP expanded the process into four days of physical, cognitive, and psychological assessments along with structured interviews. It also introduced measures designed to reduce interviewer bias and expand diversity in command selection—the program aimed to improve fairness in promotion while strengthening confidence in the selection system. Span (2020) noted that lessons from BCAP extend beyond the Army and may inform leadership selection in other organizations.
Reforms did not change the process, as promotion decisions continued to rely on officer records, performance reports, and subjective evaluations.
Research has shown that these practices often reproduce existing disparities. A 2023 RAND study confirmed that Black, Hispanic, and Native American officers continue to advance at lower rates than White peers, especially to the rank of Major (O-4). These disparities reinforce long-standing concerns about fairness in the Army’s advancement system (Lytell et al., 2023). Leadership scholars caution that systems based solely on past evaluations risk carrying bias forward and limiting opportunities for minority officers (Day et al., 2014).
(CAP) sought to address long-standing concerns by adding peer input, leadership exercises, and character assessments to the selection process. For many minority officers, it created a fairer way to show leadership potential. The cancellation in 2025 raised fears that the Army had returned to a process shaped by bias and narrow judgment. Officers who viewed CAP as fair and transparent now may face unequal outcomes.
Problem Statement
The Command Assessment Program (CAP) was introduced to provide a fair and transparent process for evaluating officer readiness for leadership, but it was rescinded on August 1, 2025 (Nieberg, 2025). The decision returned leadership selection to traditional promotion boards that rely heavily on officer files and subjective judgments (Span, 2020). Research continues to show disparities in promotion outcomes. A RAND study in 2023 reported that Black, Hispanic, and Native American officers advanced to higher ranks at consistently lower rates than their White peers, particularly to the rank of Major (O-4) (Lytell et al., 2023).
The loss of CAP may exacerbate those disparities. Minority officers benefited from CAP’s inclusion of peer feedback, leadership exercises, and character evaluations, which offered a fuller assessment of readiness beyond records alone (Span, 2020). Without those measures, advancement once again depends largely on past evaluations and subjective reviews, processes that have historically reflected bias (Sherrer & Hayes-Burrell, 2023).
Scholarly research has examined promotion gaps and the design of assessment programs, but little is known about officer perspectives on the cancellation of CAP and its impact on trust in Army leadership pathways. No peer-reviewed study has yet documented how officers perceive the return to traditional boards after CAP’s removal. The gap in the literature leaves unclear whether the Army’s current system supports its stated commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and equal opportunity in leadership selection. The problem is that the rescission of CAP returned Army leadership selection to a process that has historically produced unequal outcomes, leaving unresolved questions about fairness, inclusivity, and officer trust in promotion pathways.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine how active-duty Army officers’ perspectives on the termination of the Command Assessment Program (CAP)
Data will be collected through semi-structured one-on-one interviews and focus groups with officers in the ranks of Captain through Lieutenant Colonel (O-3 to O-5), between the ages of 25 and 45, who either participated in CAP or were eligible for it before its cancellation. The intent is to capture how officers interpret the removal of CAP and whether they perceive current promotion systems as equitable and transparent. Insights from this study are expected to inform Army leaders seeking to design selection processes that build fairness, inclusivity, and trust. From a biblical perspective, James 2:1–4 teaches that leadership must be free from favoritism, while Proverbs 11:14 points to the value of guidance that strengthens judgment. Together, these passages
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study is its practical contribution to the literature. The end of the Command Assessment Program (CAP) raised concerns about how officers viewed the Army’s promotion process. Once the program ended, questions about transparency and equity returned. Examining officer perspectives provides needed insight into whether current promotion practices continue to support inclusive talent management. The significance of the study also appears in its scholarly contribution. Leadership and organizational theory have rarely been applied in depth to military promotion systems. Research shows that when people view processes as fair, their trust in leadership grows (Day et al., 2014). Recent studies add that supportive leadership helps reduce burnout and improves well-being in professions that place heavy demands on individuals (Sørengaard, 2022). Other work points to the value of adaptive leadership, showing how it strengthens performance in complex and highly structured settings such as the armed forces (Teixeira, 2024). With guidance from Inclusive Leadership Theory (Carmeli et al., 2010) and Social Identity Theory (Turner et al., 1979), the study examines how the removal of CAP shaped views of fairness. Perspectives of minority officers remain largely missing in prior research, and this study begins to fill that gap with timely evidence.
The significance of the study also rests on a biblical foundation. Scripture speaks to leadership by cautioning against favoritism (James 2:1–4) and by stressing the value of wise counsel (Proverbs 11:14). Leaders who follow these teachings model accountability and fairness in their decisions. Looking at officer perspectives through this lens brings forward important questions about whether Army promotion practices reflect those values. The significance of the study spans several domains. It provides practical guidance for Army leaders, contributes fresh insight to leadership research, and reinforces fairness as a core principle in organizational life.
Research Questions
RQ1: How do active-duty Army officers perceive the fairness and transparency of leadership selection following the cancellation of the Command Assessment Program?
RQ2: What are the perspectives of Black, Brown, and other minority officers regarding opportunities for advancement under traditional board processes compared with the Command Assessment Program?
RQ3: In what ways do officers describe the effect of the Command Assessment Program’s cancellation on their trust in Army leadership pathways and perceptions of inclusivity?
Definitions
Command Assessment Program (CAP). A U.S. Army initiative designed to broaden leadership selection by including peer feedback, psychological assessments, and character evaluations in addition to traditional file reviews (Span, 2020).
Inclusivity. Inclusivity in leadership refers to practices that intentionally involve diverse groups in decision-making, ensuring equal access to opportunities and advancement (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010).
Fairness. Fairness in organizational contexts reflects equitable treatment and transparent processes that reduce bias in opportunities and evaluations (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014).
Social Identity Theory (SIT). A theoretical framework explaining how individuals’ self-concepts are shaped by membership in social groups, which influences perceptions, behavior, and intergroup relations (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979).
Inclusive Leadership Theory (ILT). A leadership framework emphasizing practices that create psychological safety, openness, and equal access for individuals across diverse groups (Carmeli et al., 2010).
Minority officers. In the Army context, minority officers are those who identify as Black, Hispanic, Native American, or other racial and ethnic groups historically underrepresented in senior leadership positions (Lytell et al., 2023).
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this qualitative study will be to examine how active-duty Army officers perceive the termination of the Command Assessment Program (CAP) and how its cancellation shapes views of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency in promotion practices. Chapter Two will provide the scholarly context for this inquiry by reviewing the theoretical foundations and synthesizing research related to Army promotion systems, leadership assessment programs, and officer perceptions of equity and organizational trust. The review will highlight what is known about the inception and cancellation of CAP, identify gaps in the literature regarding officer perspectives, and position the present study to address those gaps. The chapter will conclude with a summary that links prior findings to the study’s research problem. The purpose of this qualitative study will be to examine how active-duty Army officers perceive the termination of the Command Assessment Program (CAP) and how its cancellation shapes views of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency in promotion practices. The present chapter will provide the scholarly foundation for the study by reviewing the major theories, organizational research, and prior studies that relate to leadership selection and promotion systems in the military. A well-developed literature review will establish both the importance of the problem and the presence of a gap in research that warrants investigation. A review of the literature will frame the inquiry, situate the study in the broader field, and demonstrate why the problem must be addressed (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). By organizing prior findings into clear themes, this chapter will show how the Army’s promotion systems evolved, what is already known about fairness in command selection, and what remains uncertain regarding officer perceptions after CAP’s cancellation.
Chapter Two will begin with the theoretical perspectives guiding the study. Inclusive Leadership Theory (ILT) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) will provide the conceptual foundation for interpreting how leadership practices and group identity influence perceptions of fairness in command selection. ILT focuses on leader practices that open opportunities for all groups (Carmeli et al., 2010). Social Identity Theory demonstrates the value of belonging to a group shapes how people view fairness and legitimacy in organizations (Turner et al., 1979).
In the Army, this perspective helps explain how officers understand changes in promotion systems, especially when programs like CAP, which focus on fairness, are replaced with older methods.
Review of the literature will include studies on military promotion practices and the advance in rank. RAND research found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American officers were promoted less often than White officers, especially to the rank of Major (O-4) (Lytell et al., 2023). Scholars noted that relying primarily on past evaluations and subjective judgment often allowed those gaps to continue (Day et al., 2014). The Army created CAP to address these concerns by adding peer feedback, communication exercises, and character reviews to the process (Span, 2020). When CAP was cancelled in 2025, it raised concerns about whether the Army would continue moving toward fairness and transparency or return to practices that sustained disparities (Nieberg, 2025). Reviewing this body of literature will clarify what is already established about Army promotion systems and what remains unknown about officer perspectives.
The review will also include scholarship on leadership assessment programs, both within and outside the military. Research on the Battalion Commander Assessment Program (BCAP) showed that broader evaluation methods gave officers more confidence in selection results (Span, 2020). The review will also highlight work that links leader selection methods to wider patterns of trust in organizations. Another area of research to be included will focus on how officers view fairness, trust, and inclusivity in military systems. The final component of the review will identify gaps in the literature. Prior research addressed disparities in promotion outcomes and evaluated the design of assessment programs; however, few studies examined officer perceptions of the cancellation of CAP. No peer-reviewed research to date has analyzed how minority officers interpret the return to traditional board systems after experiencing or expecting CAP’s multi-method assessments (Ohlsson & Nilsson, 2023).
Chapter Two will provide the foundation for the study by reviewing theories, past research, and prior evaluations of Army promotion systems. The chapter will move from the theoretical framework to a review of related literature and then highlight the gap that remains. The review will highlight what is known about disparities and reforms in Army promotion systems, and it will identify what remains uncertain about officer perspectives after the cancellation of CAP. This gap in knowledge provides the foundation for the present study.
Conceptual Framework
The framework for this study will rest on two theories that guide the research questions. A framework gives direction by showing how ideas connect to the survey and to earlier work (Greene, 2015). The two theories are Inclusive Leadership Theory (ILT) and Social Identity Theory (SIT). These theories explain how leadership practices and group identity shape officers views of fairness in promotion systems.
Inclusive Leadership Theory. Inclusive Leadership Theory came from organizational psychology. Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv (2010) first described it. The theory examines how leaders provide equal access to opportunities for growth. Studies showed that inclusive leaders build trust, create safe spaces for input, and open doors for advancement (Randel et al., 2018). In the Army, the Command Assessment Program (CAP) reflected ILT because it added peer input, communication tasks, and character checks to the process. These steps provided officers with additional opportunities to demonstrate leadership skills. When CAP ended, boards returned to relying primarily on records, which raised concerns for minority officers about fairness and equity.
Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory was created in the late 1970s by Tajfel and Turner (Turner et al., 1979). It explains how group membership shapes identity, behavior, and judgment of fairness. The conceptual framework for this study will be based on two theories that guide the research questions. A framework gives direction by showing how ideas connect to the study and to earlier work (Greene, 2015). The two theories are Inclusive Leadership Theory (ILT) and Social Identity Theory (SIT). These theories explain how leadership practices and group identity shape officer views of fairness in promotion systems.directly. Its removal created new doubts about belonging and fairness in leadership paths.
Integration. Using ILT and SIT together gives balance. ILT shows how leaders can open opportunities, while SIT shows how group identity shapes fairness and trust. This study will apply to both the Army context, where CAP was first added and then removed. Doing so may add insight into how systems of promotion shape both opportunity and officer trust.
Biblical Foundation. Scripture points to fairness as a core part of leadership. James 2:1–4 warns against favoritism, while Proverbs 11:14 shows the value of counsel in guiding leaders. These verses align with ILT and SIT by stressing fairness, inclusion, and accountability in leadership. Together, ILT and SIT provide the foundation for examining how officers interpret fairness and inclusivity in promotion practices. These theories will guide the analysis by explaining how leadership behaviors and group identity shape perceptions of legitimacy in the Army’s selection systems.
Related Literature
Historical Army Promotion Practices
Earlier studies of Army promotion practices showed consistent gaps in advancement for minority officers. A RAND report found that Black officers moving to Major (O-4) advanced about five percentage points less often than White officers, with Hispanic officers trailing by 3.3 points and Native American officers by 3.6 points (RAND, 2011). Other scholars noted that boards often relied on short file reviews and past evaluations, which tended to carry bias forward (Day et al., 2014). These practices limited fairness because they measured leadership through narrow and subjective standards. Concerns about unequal opportunity were part of a broader pattern across officer ranks. This background set the stage for new approaches such as BCAP and CAP, which were designed to create fairer promotion systems. This history shows that concerns about fairness in promotion are not new and explains why reforms such as BCAP and CAP were created. The persistence of these issues connects directly to the purpose of the present study, which seeks to understand officer views in the wake of CAP’s removal.
Current Army Promotion Practices
Recent research shows that promotion gaps remain in the Army even after reforms. Black, Hispanic, and Native American officers were promoted less often than White officers, with a gap more visible at the rank of Major (O-4) (Lytell et al., 2023). the Army started the Battalion Commander Assessment Program (BCAP) in 2020 To address these patterns,. CAP later expanded this effort by adding peer input, communication tasks, and character reviews to the promotion process (Span, 2020). The Army formally recognized CAP in 2025 as part of officer talent management (Morgado & O’Brien, 2025). Its cancellation that same year, however, raised concerns about whether progress toward fairness would continue (Nieberg, 2025). With the return to traditional boards, worries about subjectivity and unequal access resurfaced. These patterns show why officer perspectives must be studied after the end of CAP. Even with reforms, promotion gaps continue, leaving questions about fairness unresolved. This study will explore how officers view the end of CAP and how they judge the fairness of current promotion boards.
Leadership Assessment Programs
Research on leadership assessment programs shows that broader evaluation methods improved confidence in selection outcomes. The Battalion Commander Assessment Program (BCAP), and later the Command Assessment Program (CAP), expanded promotion evaluations beyond record reviews by including peer input, communication exercises, and character assessments. The changes reduced concerns about bias and made the promotion process appear fairer to officers (Span, 2020). Civilian research also showed that using multiple forms of assessment built trust, widened leadership opportunities, and supported diversity in organizations (Ng & Sears, 2020).Even with these benefits, questions remain about how officers now view the promotion system after CAP’s cancellation. Existing research has measured disparities and tested the design of assessment programs, but no study has yet examined whether ending CAP. The creation of BCAP and its expansion into CAP reflected the Army’s attempt to move beyond narrow evaluations and address long-standing concerns about fairness. These reforms set the stage for exploring how officers experienced CAP and how they now view its removal.
Officer Perceptions of Fairness and Trust
- Known: Perceptions of fairness increase trust and commitment (Colquitt et al., 2021). Inclusive leadership reduces exclusion (Ohlsson & Nilsson, 2023).
- Unknown: Perspectives of minority Army officers on promotion fairness remain unstudied.
- Gap: No qualitative work centers officer voices post-CAP cancellation.
Organizational Inclusivity and Leadership
- Known: Inclusive leadership expands opportunity (Randel et al., 2018). SIT shows identity shapes legitimacy.
- Unknown: How inclusive practices apply in the Army post-CAP.
- Gap: Study needed to extend ILT and SIT in military leadership context.
✅ Chapter Two will then close with a Summary section:
- What is known: disparities in promotion, fairness linked to inclusivity, value of assessment programs.
- What is not known: officer perspectives post-CAP cancellation.
- How the study fills the gap: captures officer voices and connects ILT + SIT to Army leadership.
References
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (2021). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (7th ed.). McGraw Hill
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
Lytell, M. C., Hansen, M. L., Calkins, A., Baird, M. D., Reed, N., Leuschner, K. J., & Grammich, C. A. (2023). Striving for diversity: Observations on racial and ethnic talent in the Regular Army’s senior officer corps. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RBA2011-1
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2020). Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(2), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4051-7
Nieberg, P. (2025, August 1). Army will review selection boards that choose leaders for command. Task & Purpose. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reviews-command-selection-program/
Ohlsson, A. A., & Nilsson, S. A. (2023). A qualitative study of military officers’ perceptions of the adaptations couples make to meet the military organisation’s implicit expectations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(5), 1899–1916. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2021-2940
RAND Corporation. (2011). Promotion rates by race/ethnicity in the U.S. Army officer corps. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA2011-1.html
Sherrer, J., & Hayes-Burrell, I. (2023). Leadership opportunity experiences among African American female veteran officers in the U.S. Army: A qualitative case study. Open Journal of Business and Management, 11(1), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.111010
Span, K. C. (2020). Reforming Army command selection: Lessons from the Battalion Commander Assessment Program. Harvard Business Review, 98(4), 142–149. [No DOI available]
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European journal of social psychology, 9(2), 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420090207