Research Nöte 84-65

00

CO

ASSESSMENT OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER PILOT PROGRAM:

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TWO CLASSES

Laurel W. Oliver and Lawrence R. Hicks

3

o

Submitted by

T. Owen Jacobs, Chief

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL AREA

and

Joyce L. Shield», Director

MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL RESEARCH LABORATORY

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

March 1984

Approved lor public t!••»•. distribution unlimited.

This report hat been cleared for release to tht Defense Technical Information Cantar (OTIC). It hat baan fivan no

other primary distribution and will ba available to requestors only through OTIC or othar rafaranca service! tweh

tha National Tachnical Information Service (NTIS). Tha «iawi. opiniont, and/or findings contained in this

raport ara thosa of tha authord) and should not ba construed as an official Dapartrrwnt of tha Army position,

policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

8 4 0

r

3 14 017
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dele Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

'• REPORT NUMBER

Research Note 84-65

2. COVT ACCESSION NO

READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

»CIPlENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

*• TITLE (end Submit)

Assessment of tne OENCO Pilot

Program: A Preliminary Analysis of Two Classes

"> AUTHORfa;

Laurel W. Oliver

Lawrence R. Hicks

» PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Human Resources Development Directorate

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Washington, P.C. 20310

««. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESS/" dllloront from Controlling OWcm)

5. TVPE OF REPORT 4 PERIOD COVERED

Interim - 1980-81

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

». CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfa.)

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

2Q263731A792

Task A, Work Unit 002

12. REPORT DATE

March 1984

13. NUMBER OF PAGES

72

IS. SECURITY CLASS. (<tl (Ma report)

Unclassified

15a. OECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thle Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the ebeuect entered In Block 20, // dllloront Irotn Report)

I». SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This report is second in a 1980-81 series entitled Assessment of the OENCO

Pilot Program." It presents the results of an evaluation of the second class

(Class 2-79) of the Organizational Effectiveness Non-Commissioned Officer

(OENCO) pilot program and compares these results with those of Class 1-79.

1». KEY WONOS (Continue- on reverie elde II neceeeety end tdontttr by block number)

Organizational Development (OD) Training

Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Training

Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Training

Non-Commissioned Officer Utilization

Program Evaluation

10. ABSTRACT (Cemtmmto em reweree ehern H nmeeteecy mod tdomjttr by M»c« in»»«)

A pilot program was established for training and utilizing noncommissioned

officers (NCOs) in Organizational Effectiveness (0E) work, and two classes

of Organizational Effectiveness Noncommissioned Officers (OENCOs) were

trained and placed in the field. This report presents data collected from

the second class (Class 2-79) of the OENCO pilot program and compares tho

findings with those obtained from the first class (Class 1-79) of OENCOs.

Questionnaires were administered to 45 OENCOs, their 0ES0 supervisors, their

DO,:2TnW3 EDIT ON OF • NOV •» IS OBSOLETE

i <—-

UNCLASSIFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACE (Wbmn Dete Entered)

'VfSMif
W*te

'*(!«£«""'

UNCLASSIFIED

Ii i

I..;

\ SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOCfWhi Oat. Bnfnd)

\

20. (cont'd.)

Key Managers (program managers), and a sample of OE users. In general,

results obtained from OENCO Class 2-79 confirm and extend the findings contained in the previous study conducted on Class 1-79, Although OENCOs and

OESOs perform many of the same tasks, OESOs make more

1 initial contacts than

do OENCOs. OENCOs and OESOs differ in their rankings of some OENCO roles

and tasks, suggesting that the OENCO role may need clarification. OESOs

and OENCOs consider some of the special OENCO skills and competencies

related to NCO status. Many OENCOs suggest adding a field training exercise (FTX) to the OENCO training course, and some OENCOs suggest putting

more emphasis on the acquisition of skills such as interviewing. OESOs and

Key Managers prefer a ratio of one OENCO for two or three OESOs and believe

OF.NCO" f»«'*H'v"

K

est at company and battalion levels. -* All measures of

effectiveness used to assess the program (attitudes, performance ratings,

increase in OE office productivity, acceptance of OENCOs, and OENCO job

satisfaction) indicate that the program has been successful.

This report is second in a 1980-81 series entitled "Assessment of the

OENCO Pilot Program." The first report presented data collected from

Class 1-79.

/

fr

UNCLASSIFIED

ii SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS "HQKWtttn D—t Enlmi»<l)

—
FOREWORD

The Leadership and Management Technical area of the Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is investigating the impact of the Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program of the Army. The

following report describes research conducted by the Organizational Effectiveness Technology Development Unit of ARI.

This report is second in a 1980-81 series entitled "Assessment of the

OENCO Pilot Program." It presents data collected from the second class

(Class z-79) of the Organizational Effectiveness Non-Commissioned Officer

(OENCO) pilot program and compares the findings with those obtained from

the first class (Class 1-79) of OENCOs.

This in-house research was carried out under Army Project 2Q26373iA792,

"Command Processes and Evaluation," FY 79 and FY 80 Work Program.

iii

*.
ASSESSMENT OF THE OENCO PILOT PROGRAM:

TWO CLASSES

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

Late in 1978, the Army decided to establish a pilot program for

training and utilizing noncommissioned officers (NCOs) to function as

Organizational Effectiveness (OE) practitioners in the Army. Two classes

of approximately 45 NCOs were trained and sent to the field. The Army

Research Institute (ARI) was asked to evaluate the pilot program, and _

previous report (Kessler & Oliver, 1980) presented information on the

first class (Class 1-79) of Organizational Effectiveness Noncommissioned

Officers (OENCOs) participating in the program. The present report contains data on the second class (Class 2-79) of OENCOs and compares the

results with those of Class 1-79.

Procedure:

The procedure followed to obtain information about Class 2-79 was

identical to that used to collect data on Class 1-79. Questionnaires were

distributeu by the major commands (MACOMS) to the OENCOs in Class 2-79,

to their Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officer (OESO) supervisors, to

their Key Managers (program managers), and a sample of OE users (commanders

who had contracted for OE operations in which the OENCOs had participated).

The respondents returned their completed forms directly to ARI. Questionnaires were received from 43 OENCOs, 40 OESOs, 34 Key Managers, and 84 OE

users.

Findings:

In general, the results obtained from OENCO Class 2-79 confirm and extend the findings of the previous research conducted on Class 1-79. Unless

otherwise noted, the findings contained in this section apply to both classes.

1. OENCOs and OESOs perform many of the same tasks, but with a different emphasis. OESOs make more initial contacts and do considerably more assessment analysis than OENCOs.

Significantly more members of Class 2-79 than Class 1-79 report

the following tasks as most frequent: designing implementations,

conducting workshops, and reviewing literature for OE ideas. It

is not known v.'hy these shifts occurred.
fwmimmnmmm »fWBBIWW

'^^^' ''P'mmimuiummvmfiiim.wmmim

-

ASSESSMENT OF THE OENCO PILOT PROGRAM: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF

TWO CLASSES

CONTENTS

! '

.

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

Purpose of Present Research 1

PROCEDURE 2

Questionnaires 2

Respondents 2

Distribution of Questionnaires 4

Analyses 4

FINDINGS 4

Description of OENCO Role 4

OENCO Role Characteristics 6

Effectiveness of Pilot Program 8

SUMMARY 11

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 12

REFERENCE 14

APPENDIX A. TABLES \5

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRES 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number and type of questionnaire respondents by MACOM for

Class 1-79 and Class 2-79 3

2. Changes in "Most Frequent" task ratings by OENCOs from

Class 1-79 and Class 2-79 5

3. OENCO/OESO ratios preferred by Class 2-79 respondents ... 8

4. Course changes suggested by OENCO respondents to improve

OENCO training (combined results for Classes 1-79 and 2-79). 9

vii

--...*&£
11J1IU ll|!IHimSff^llUM!P)Wl|f,«|iJJ«M*Ai'TT"' "^ •wmvwmmmv-wimmm**

CONTENTS (Continued)

J

f *

i

>: I

Page

Table 5. Responses of OENCOs on two job satisfaction items 10

A-l. Number and type of Class 2-79 questionnaire respondents

by MACOM 16

A-2. Average ranking of OENCO role by Class 2-79 OENCOs

and OESOs 17

A-3. Percentage of Class 2-79 OENCO's time spent on OE and

non-OE activities 17

A-4. Tasks most frequently and least frequently performed by

Class 2-79 OENCOs as rated by OENCOs and OESOs \g

A-5. Comparison of OENCO tasks and OESO tasks most frequently

performed by Class 2-79 OENCOs and OESOs 19

A-6. Frequency of OE operations in which OENCO participated

as reported by Class 2-79 OE users 20

A-7. OESO responses to questions concerning support and

planning for Class 2-79 OENCOs 21

A-8. Actions reported by Class 2-79 key managers and OESOs

to enhance OENCO utilization 2 2

A-9. Percent of Class 2-79 OESOs reporting highest and lowest

degree of confidence in OENCO ability to perform task .... 23

A-10. Number and percent of Class 2-79 OENCO respondents

enumerating OENCO skills and competencies not

possessed by OESOs 24

A-ll. Ratings by Class 2-79 OESOs and key managers o" OENCO

contributions to OE effort 2 5

A-12. Percentages of Class 2-79 OENCOs, OESOs, and key managers

responding that OENCOs could function effectively at

various organizational levels "usually" or "almost always" . 26

A-13. Number of Class 2-79 key managers and OESOs indicating

preferred ratios of OENCOs to OESOs ... 26

A-14. Preferences of Class 2-79 key managers and OESOs for

additional OE personnel 27

A-15. Ratings of OENCO overall competence by Class 2-79

OENCOs and OE users 28

vlii

i

BM

'
s

SS3«2SSS~!!C'?^<B^^

CONTENTS (Continued)

I Pag«

I I

I

Table A-16. Ratings of OENCO overall competence by Class 2-79

OESOs ...................... 28

A-17. Average OESO estimates of quantitative measures of OE

office productivity before and after Class 2-79 OENCO

assigned .................. 29

A-18. Percentages of Class 2-79 OENCOs and OE users responding

to questions concerning OENCO acceptance and

integration into OE team ,.,.,.,.. 30

A-19. Satisfaction of OE users with OE and with Clas.» 2-79

OENCO participation in OE operations ........

A-20. Job satisfaction of Chss 2-79 OENCOs .......

31

3 2

A-21. Factors considered by Class 2-79 OESOs to be most

important to OENCO competency . . , 33

ix

adofiäia MK
«BTASSESSMENT OF THE OENCO PILOT PROGRAM:

ANALYSIS OF TWO CLASSES

A PRELIMINARY

Background

The Army estabii

commissioned officers

Two classes of approx

tional Effectiveness

throughout the Army.

Noncommissioned Offic

izational Effectivene

not participate in a

INTRODUCTION

shed a pilot program for training and utilizing non-

(NCOs) in Organizational Effectiveness (ÖE) work,

imately 45 NCOs each were trained at the OrganizaCenter i-nd School (OEC&S) and placed in OE jobs

The training given the Organizational Effectiveness

ers (OENCOs) was identical to that given to the Organss Staff Officers (OESOs) except that the OENCOs did

field training exercise.

After the two classes of OENCOs were placed in the field, no more

OENCOs were to be trained until the pilot program could be evaluated.

Accordingly, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ARI) was tasked to evaluate the OENCO pilot program. Data

collected when the first class (Class 1-79) had been on the job for approximately four or five months indicated that the program was considered

very successful at that point (Kessler & Oliver, 1980). OENCOs seemed

to bring a different perspective to the OE effort and to be especially

effective and credible in dealing with enlistad personnel. The OESO

supervisors, Key Managers, and commanders who had used OE were all very

satisfied with the OENCOs. In addition, the OENCOs themselves reported

a high degree of job satisfaction.

Purpose of Present Research

The findings described above concerned Class 1-79. The purpose of

the present research was to evaluate Class 2-79 after they had had approximately the same time on the job as Class 1-79 and to draw conclusions

about the entire pilot program based on initial results from both classes.

The general objectives of the evaluation as specified by the Array were:

1. To describe the current roles of OENCOs and to identify the factors related to CENCO utilization.

I

2. Tc determine the role characteristics unique to the OENCO.

3. To assess the effectiveness of the OENCO pilot program.

- ^tmm>

••^ =
i

PROCEDURE

Questionnaires

The same four questionnaires were used for the second class (Class

2-79) that were used for Class 1-79. The instructions for a few items,

which had proved to cause some minor confusion, were changed slightly to

clarify their meaning. Otherwise, the content of the questionnaires was

identical. The questionnaires were:

OENCO Pilot Program—OENCO Questionnaire December 19/9 (PT5303a)

OENCO Pilot Prograci—OESO Questionnaire December 1979 (PT5303b)

OENCO Pilot Program—Key Manager Questionnaire December 1979 (PT5303c)

OENCO Pilot Program—Commander/OE User Questionnaire December 1979

(PT5303d)

Most questions were multiple choice items; some items required writing a

number (such as a percentage); and a few items were open-ended. Appendix B

contains copies of the four questionnaires.

Respondents

Questionnaires wpre distributed to graduates of Clas

supervisors, their Key Managers, and commanders who had c

operations in which OENCOs had participated. Questionnai

for 20 OENCOs in Forces Command (F0RSC0M), 15 in Training

mand (TRADOC), 9 in United States Army Europe (USAREUR),

trict of Washington (MDW), and 1 each in Health Services

Western Command (WESTCOM), and Intelligence and Security

Table 1 summarizes the numbers and per ntages by major c

the 4 groups of respondents for both classes. (Table A-l

breaks out the "Other" category for Class 2-79.)

s 2-79, their OESO

ontracted for OE

res were distributed

and Doctrine Com2 in Military DisCommand (HSC),

Command (INSCOM).

ommand (MACOM) of

in Appendix A

Members of Class 2-79 were very similar in demographic characteristics

to members of Class 1-79. Pay grades for Class 2-79 ranged from E-6 through

E-9, with slightly over half the class members serving in pay grade E-7.

Approximately two-thirds of the participants were white; the remaining

third was black. Other racial or ethnic minority groups were not represented, and all but one member of the class were men. Class 2-79 was very

well educated, and nonrepresentative in this respect of personnel in these

pay grades. Among the 49 members of Class 2-79, all but six had completed

it least two years of college, and three had obtained postbaccalaureate

degrees. In addition, nearly all class members were graduates of advanced

SCO Leadership courses. The predominant MOSs (Military Occupational

Specialties) were Infantry and Equal Opportunity, held by nine and ten

class members respectively.
* I

01i

0

TJ

(N

O> r| ID

0

tn

tfl >* HIN CO hi

tfl

0

M rd£

u r-\

V

01 01

u

3

i

inÖ

id

IN

w

en 01

tfl

o

i

H

in rH

Ü

«J ro ro r> ID rrH in rH (N IN r>

•

U tn

iH

T3 rH 0) §

CJ tn3

01 01

W

r- r- XI

O

i

(N

^ ei i*»*

0

rj( 01

0)

hi

in tfl tfl

H ro iß

0

j) hi Mi *—'e

IB 0) id

rH tnH hi

U idG

U

0

hi CO

•• 0)

0

X oi T3 "0

c

14H

>i

r- id 01

4J

01

4->

0

s 0) r-\

#

330

8

*

O CD 01 rf

m XI X! 4-1

u to r-i ro in •H

H

1

in tn

s

-' hi hi tn

+J

* 4J 4J 01

c rH in tn hi

>, 0)

U •H

H •-H

•

XI

c

TJ TJ rfl TJ C 0)

in

0 oi tn tn

C 4J

4Ja r- XI 0) <u

O3

C tfl

l ,—% hi hi •H XI

01 01 <N

# •H •rl 4J -H

Xi

« oo

o oo ^r

O IN id td tn hi

c tn rH rH

* co

c

G 0) 4-1

0 in •—F

c

G

3m

a (8

c

O cr-H

«A rH

H •H T3

2

U)

u 4-1 4J hi

o tn tn 0) >i w 01 01 U) rH

01

w 0133D^

hi

o r^ rd 0' tT 10

H

l ^—.

W3

fl rH

# CN Oi

O 4J

c rH !N 00 r- 00 e> U1 <* V.

0

c tfl i-H rH

m r- hi 10

0 tn ^-r 01

o 0)

rl id JB

Ä 73 01

u rH 4J 4J

ß hi

inu id oi

0)

00

g5

3

u 4->

E

<y oi

O tn

r» XI tn tn

U oi

<u

i -, o>

0 hi

0 (M

* t/i tn TJ -H

',NN tj\n ci oo

c

s

c <d

0! u)

^ rH

» T3

a

0 01

c

a to *•• ft tn

c

IT id tn tn

O

(A rH 01 0)

O -rt

o

U hi hi 4-1 4J

•ou tfl

c2

cCa oi

I«

wo

oi

10

0

0 Oi3

4JV

hi

l

*-± •0 tj tn

01 i-H dr 01 0) 4) >. 1 ri r M ii rH 01 tn te 3 C

0) r-t r-i Ft <» r- id r0 er

g

3

w *-" Xl X. 0)

E

z idu

tn

01

tn

4'

hi

3

010

Cf EP hi .c

id <0 OI

tn

V 4J

S3

£« >H

c

c0

5

RSCO

ADOCAREUher

Id 0) 0! tn

c

O

V

uuO J<

u

0 hi hi in

i

H 01 0)

U 4J

OK tl)U 0. a.

O0

In EiDO id XIuc

III
Distribution of Questionnaires

ARI sent appropriate materials to OE offices in the major commands

(MACOMs). For each OENCO, MACOM offices distributed one OENCO questionnaire, one OESO questionnaire, one Key Manager questionnaire, and three

Commander/OE User questionnaires to the OESO most familiar with the work

of the OENCO. The OESO distributed the st: of questionnaires to the appropriate persons. The OESO was also responsible for selecting the OE users

to whom the Commander/OE User questionnaire was given.

At the time these questionnaires were distributed, most of the Class

2-79 OENCOs had been on the job about six months. Class 1-79 OENCOs weie

surveyed when most of them had been in their jobs four to five months.

Analyses

The results of the analyses run on the data are reported as frequency

counts, percentages, or averages. Frt-vjuency counts and percentages indicate

the number or percent of people who responded to each alternative for the

item. Averages are usually the arithmetic mean, although sometime? the

most frequent response (mode) or the middlemost response (median) is given.

Statistical tests of the differences between the responses of the two

classes were also conducted. However, so few of these differences were

statistically significant that it is likely that most of them occurred by

chance.

FINDINGS

The findings presented in this section are based on the responses of

OENCOs, OESOs, Key Managers, and OE Users to the questionnaires described

above. The emphasis of the findings is on comparisons between Class 1-79

and Class 2-79 and on generalizations which can be made across both classes.

Only abbreviated tables will be presented in the text. Appendix A contains

detailed results for Class 2-79 which parallel the comparable data contained In the ARI report TR-489, "Assessment of the OENCO Pilot Program:

Class 1 Results" (Kessler & Oliver, 1980). References are made to the appropriate tables as each finding is discussed. The results are grouped by

the three major research objectives specified by the Anr.y: (1) description

of the OENCO role and factors associated with OENCO utilization, (2) role

characteristics unique to the OENCO, and (3) determination of the effectiveness of the OENCO pilot program.

Description of OENCO Role

Ranking of OENCO Roles. Both OENCO and OESO respondents were asked to

rate the importance of different functional aspects of being an OENCO. The

respondents ranked several OENCO "roles" according to the importance they

perceived for the roles. For both Class 1-79 and Class 2-/9, the rankings

by OENCOs and OESOs (the latter ranked both actual and expected OENCO roles)

were substantially similar. The order of the rankings was identical for

the four highest ranked roles (in order of importance, with the highest

ranked role first): OE Consultant, Assistant OE, Trainer, and Instructor.
The pattern of average rankings by OENCOs and OESOs was similar for both

Class 1-79 and Class 2-79. Details of the Class 2-79 rankings can be found

in Table A-2. Class 2-79 OESOs ranked the two top "actual" roles almost

identically—1.8 for OE Consultant and J.9 for Assistant OESO. The OENCO

respondents from Class 2-79, on the other hand, ranked Assistant OESO much

lower (2.8) than they did OE Consultant (1.3). The average rank for Trainer

was the same for both OESOs and OENCOs (3.0). It appears, then, that perceptions of OENCOs and OESOs differ somewhat with respect to the role of

Assistant OESO. OENCOs perceive the Assistant OESO role as definitely a

secondary one, whereas OESOs view the Assistant OESO role to be as important

as the OE Consultant role. Differing perceptions of the OENCO role could

lead to misunderstandings between OESOs and OENCOs concerning their respective roles.

OE Activities. OENCOs and OESOs from both classes agreed closely on

•he total amount of time OENCOs spent on OE-related activit'es (83% to

86%). (See Table A-3 for Class 2-79 data.) Large percentages (ranging

from 70% to 85%) of OENCOs and ">ESOs from both classes considered interviewing the most frequent OENCO task. Assessment analysis and conducting

workshops or meetings were also considered frequent tasks. As was found

for Class 1-79, there were some differences between the percentages of

OENCOs and OESOs rating a task "most frequent." For example, for Class

2-79, 70% of OENCOs but only 43% of OESOs reported designing implementations as a most frequent OSNCO task. Documentation was rated "least frequent" by large percentages of OENCOs and OESOs for Class 2-79, as it was

for Class 1-79.

Significantly more OENCOs from Class 2-79 than from Class 1-79 noted

three tasks as "most frequent." These tasks, shown in Table 2, were: designing implementations (+28%), conducting workshops/meetings (+22%), and

reviewing literature for OE ideas (+25%).

Table 2

Changes in "Most Frequent" Task Ratings by OENCOs from

Class 1-79 and Class 2-79

Task

Respondents rating activity "Most Frequent"

Class 1-79 Class 2-79

(N = 40) (N = 43) Change

Designing implementations 42%

Conducting workshops/meetings 45%

70%

f7%

+28%

+ 22%

Reviewing literature for OE

ideas 12% 37% + 25%
As was the case for the Class 1-79 respondents, Class 2-79 OESGs see

themselves as accomplishing more of the initial OE activities (marketing,

scouting, entry) than do OENCOs, while OENCOs report doing more training

and literature review than do their OESO supervisors. Detailed information

on Class 2-79 "most frequent" and "least frequent" tasks can be found in

Tables A-4 and A-5.

The OE operations in which OENCOs had participated (as reported by

users) were essentially the same for Class 2-79 (Table A-6) as for Class

1-79. Two operations accounted for 59% of the mentions: transition workshop (28%) and survey feedback (31%). The next most frequer tly mentioned

were Leadership and Management Development Course (12%) and workshops

(10%). Again, these operations were reported by OE users. Since the user

questionnaires were distributed by the OESO supervisors, these operations

may represent the more successful operations in which OENCOs participated.

We do not know the extent to which these operations are typical of those

in which OENCOs take part.

Support and Planning for OENCOs. Consistent with the results for

Class 1-79, Key Managers and OESOs were generally active in thinking about

and preparing for the role the new OENCO was to play and in integrating him

or her into OE activities (Table A-8). Fewer Class 2-79 OESO respondents

(78% vs. 90% for Class 1-79) reported their OE office had been consulted in

the assignment, and fewer Class 2-79 OESOs (70% vs. 92% for Class 1-79) said

their OE office had requested an OENCO (Table A-7). However, the high proportion of "don't know" responses indicates that these results are due to

the fact that the OESOs in question did not know whether their office had

been consulted or if an OENCO had been requested.

OENCO Role Characteristics

OENCO Skills. OESO questionnaire item:? concerning the skills of

Class 2-79 OENCOs yielded results similar to those of Class 1-79. With

respect to the OENCOs1 ability to perform certain tasks, OESOs tended to

express highest confidence in most frequently performed tasks, such as

interviewing, a. d lowest confidence in least frequently performed tasks,

such as documentation (Table A-9).

Table A-10 indicates that most of the special skills and competencies

OENCOs reported they had that OESOs lacked related to their status as senior

NCOs: ability to relate better to enlisted personnel (18% of all mentions),

different background (39%), and different perspective (9%). Again, the

picture emerged of older, experienced soldiers who possessed a different

outlook because of their NCO status. Although personal characteristics

were sometimes noted (23%), these tended to be traits specific to individuals and not necessarily a result of being an NCO. A comment by one OESO

about an OENCO notes the advantage of an NCO perspective and the importance

Tf selection factors: "I am more than happy with my OENCO. He ij> articulate, intelligent, and energetic. With dual capability (Off/NCO) we have

access to information neither could have learned on our own. Keep the

OENCO program and select only top-notch NCO's."
" - pvmgBgni

OENCO Contributions. Although ratings varied somewhat for Class 1-79

and Class 2-79, the Key Managers and OESOs associated with the OENCOs believed the OENCOs had made positive contributions to the functioning of

their OE efforts (Table A-ll). There were also no reliable differences

between Class 1-79 and Class 2-79 respondents (Table A-12) with respect to

levels of functioning—i.e., OENCOs were generally seen by large percentages (80% or more) of OESOs and Key Managers as being most effective at

company and battalion levels. Smaller percentages (51% to 74%) agreed that

OENCOs could function at higher organizational levels. OENCOs generally

felt more confident than did OESOs and Key Managers of OENCO ability to

function above battalion level. There appear to be some OENCOs, however,

who function effectively at the highest organizational levels. One 0ES0

commented: "SFC 's performance in organizational effectiveness is

equal to, and in some cases, better than that of OESOs with whom I've

worked. Most of our clients are 0-5s. SFC has worked with 0-5s,

0-6s, an 0-7, and an 0-8. None of these clients were turned off, so to

speak, by the fact that he was an NCO. They were primarily interested in

what he knew and how he could help them."

Related to the contributions of OENCOs are the views of the Key Managers and OESOs concerning a desirable 0ENC0/0ES0 ratio (Table A-13) and

on their preferences for additional OE personnel (Table A-14). About 50%

of the responses from Class 2-79 Key Managers and OESOs stated that another

OESO was preferred. This preference was mainly due to the number of high

ranking clients that the offices dealt with. Approximately a quarter of

the respondents preferred an OENCO. Several respondents who preferred

anocher OENCO said that OENCOs were equally as qualified as OESOs. One

respondent stated, "OENCOs have the same capabilities as the OESO, without some of the drawbacks, such as 'worrying about their careers.'" Another

reason for requesting another OESO or OENCO was due to the number of OESOs or

OENCOs in their offices, with respondents choosing either another OESO or

OENCO tc create a mix or balance in the office. One respondent preferred an 0Etrained civilian due to the large number of civilians at the location.

Thus, preferences for additional personnel seemed to depend more on specific

situations rather than on preferences for officers or NCOs per se. The

0ENC0/0ES0 ratio most frequently chosen by both Key Manager and OESOs for

both classes was "1 OENCO for 2 or 3 OESOs." Next most frequently chosen

was "1 OENCO for 1 OESO" followed by "2 or 3 OENCOs for 1 OESO." These

results are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3

0ENC0/OESO Ratios Preferred by Class 2-79 Respondents

Respondents

Key Manager

(N =• 32)

OESOs

(N - 40)

1 OENCO for 2 or 3 OESOs

1 OENCO for 1 OESO

2 or 3 OENCOs for 1 OESO

(Other ratios preferred)

38Z

28X

19Z

(15Z)

48Z

33Z

12X

(7X)
~~ » mill...

Effectiveness of Pilot Program

Results from both data collections indicate that the OENCO pilot program has been an effective one using the measures described below.

OENCO Competence. Respondents from both classes assessed OENCO competence very favorably. Of the OENCOs, 86% of Class 2-79 respondents agreed

or strongly agreed that their performance had been excellent. An even

larger proportion of OE users (947») agreed or strongly agreed that thei"

impression of the OENCO1s overall competence was highly positive. OESO

respondents rated the competence of 88% of their OENCOs as very good or

excellent. (See Tables A-15 and A-16.)

Productivity of OE Office. For both classes, OESO respondents estimated that the productivity of their OE offices had increased as a result

of adding OENCOs. However, these results are not clear cut because of the

personnel turbulence involved. Also, records of the data requested were

not always available, and estimates had to be made by the OESOs. (Details

for Class 2-79 are given in Table A-17.)

Changes in OENCO Course. OENCOs were asked what changes they felt

should be made in the OENCO course to provide more effective training. As

this information was not available for Class 1-79 when the previous OENCO

pilot program report (Kessler & Oliver, 1980) was written, the results for

both classes are shown in Table 4 on the following page.

Eight OENCOs (four from each class) stated that no changes were necessary. Of the 117 suggestions made by the remaining respondents, almost

half (47%) suggested lengthening the course to provide the field training

exercise (FTX) or to give the same training to both OENCOs and OESOs. One

respondent stated, "The NCO course should include the 'FTX.' It is just

more experience and it would give the NCOs a feel of what is going on, and

at the same time build confidence in themselves." Some OENCOs suggested

the same course for NCOs and officers. One OENCO stated, "Stop the OENCO

course and send officers and enlisted to same course for same skills;

officers will be officers and NCOs will still be NCOs. We know this and

so do you." Ten respondents saw a need for better selection of OENCO

candidates or instructors, and five expressed a need for clarifying OENCO/

OESO roles. It is not clear why all five respondents who requested ~.larification of the OENCO and OESO roles were from Class 2-79, since Class 2-79

as a group indicated greater sureness about job requirements than did Class

1-79 (see Item 56 section in Table 5).

Another 34% of the total mentions involved specific suggestions for

training content. Several OENCO responses concerned more emphasis on the

GOQ; more instruction on interviewing techniques, consulting skills, and

marketing OE. Also specifically mentioned were: additional emphasis on

meeting and dealing with 05s, 06s, and high ranking civilians; open-systems

planning; systems management; contracting; designing conferences, workshops,

and seminars; dropping the week spent on the GOQ to give more training in

management theory; OE in combat; and more realistic case studies.
Table 5

Responses of OENCOs on Two Job Satisfaction Items

Class

Responses

Neither

Strongly disagree Strongly

Average disagree Disagree nor agree Agree agree

rating (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Item 55: I would like to be assigned in the OENCO program during subsequent tours.

1-79

2-79

4.5

4.3

0% 15% 5% 9%

0% 5% 18% 19%

71%

58%

Item 56: I'm not sure what is required of me in my present assignment.

1-79

2-79

1.5

1.6

63% 2% 29% 5%

56% 33% 7% 2%

0%

2%

A changed pattern of responses is also demonstrated for Item 56.

In Class 2-79, 89% of the OENCOs disagreed or strongly disagreed with the

statement that they were not sure what was required of them in their present

assignments. In contrast, only 65% of Class 1-79 OENCOs responded similarly.

As the table shows, the shift in response pattern is due to the change in

the neutral ("Neither disagree ror agree") category. At the time the first

class was surveyed, the OENCO program was very new and it is likely that

some Key Managers and OESO supervisors were not yet sure just how to utilize their new OENCOs. By the time the second class was placed in the

field, some of these uncertainties may have been clarified.

Additional evidence of the impact of the integration of the Class 2-79

OENCO into the OE program was provided by OESOs concerning -he effect OENCOs

had had on their managerial/supervisory responsibilities. OESOs were asked

how managerial/supervisory requirements associated with having OENCOs in

their offices had affected their roles as CcSOs. Of the 38 responses, 28

(74%) could be classified as "little, none, or negligible effect." Eight

persons mentioned it took extra cime to plan, coordinate, or supervise the

training needed by th'iir OENCOs. However, this extra time was often offset

by the OENCOs' contributions: "Provides me greater flexibility." "Gives

me more time to manage the OE office and plan OE strategy for installation."

"Increases freedom to do more." One respondent noted that it took a greater

amount of time than expected to supervise the OENCO due to the latter's

lack of initiative. Under proper direction, however, the supervisor felt

the OENCO made valuable contributions.

10
^m •HfKmimmnmm w%**w*mmx*m!*Qr9 lliMNWW — -'

Factors Important to OENCO Competency. Class 2-79 OESOs (Table A-2i)

reacted similarly to their Class 1-79 colleagues in response to the query

concerning which factors are important to OENCO competency. For both

classes, about two-thirds of the responses were classified as experience/

education or skills. Thirty-five percent of the 129 items mentioned by

Class 2-79 fell into the experience/education category, which included

Army experience, rank, and educational experiences (not necessarily Armyrelated). The other major category was skills, which accounted for 34%

of the mentions. Most of the skills specified were verbal skills or OE

skills (e.g., GOQ expertise), but writing and interpersonal skills were

also noted frequently. A variety of personal charactc «.istics constituted

another 22% of the mentions, and a few respondents reported organizational

factors (7% of the mentions).

SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results obtained from surveys of OENCOs,

their OESO supervisors, their Key Managers, and OE users after OENCOs from

both training classes (Class 1-79 and Class 2-79) had been on the job a

relatively short time (usually 6 months or less). Results from the Class

2-79 surveys are presented, and differences between that class and Class

1-79 are noted.

For the most part, the Class 2-79 findings confirm the results obtained

from the Class 1-79 surveys. These findings are summarized below under the

three objectives of the research. The findings hold for both classes unless

otherwise noted.

i

Description of OENCO Role. OENCOs and OESOs rank OENCO roles in the

following order: (1) OE Consultant, (2) Assistant OE, (3) Trainer, and

(4) Instructor. Although their rankings are in the same order, OENCOs and

OESOs view the OE consultant role for OENCOs somewhat differently. OESOs

consider the OENCO roles of "OE Consultant" and "Assistant OESO" of almost

identical importance, while OENCOs see themselves much less an "Assistant

OESO" than an "OE Consultant."

Large percentages of OENCO and OESO respondents consider interviewing

the most frequent task of the OENCO. Assessment analysis and conducting

workshops/meetings are also considered frequent tasks. The largest percentage of OENCOs and OESOs rate "documentation" as least frequent. Significantly larger percentages of OENCOs in Class 2-79 than in Class 1-79

gave "most frequent" ratings to designing implementations, conducting

workshops/meetings, and reviewing literature for OE ideas. Future research may clarify the reasons for this shift. Like their counterparts

in Class 1-79, Class 2-79 OESOs report more initial OE contacts (marketing, scouting, entry) than do their OENCOs, while the latter repct a

greater percentage of time spent in training than do the OESOs. T.ie most

frequent operations reported by OE users are the transition workshop and

survey feet >ack. It is not known how representative these operations are

of the total number of operations in which OENCOs participated.

11
"CTJIWI wmmimm^wmsumm WUHMP *&^v^,

-<ww':mmg><wv!.m*i>im

OENCO Role Characteristics. OESOs report highest confidence in tasks

OENCOs frequently perform (e.g., interviewing) and lowest confidence in

tasks infrequently performed (e.g., documentation). Most of the special

skills and competencies OENCOs feel they had that OESOs lacked tended to

be related to NCO status—better able to deal with enlisted people, different background, and a different perspective. Large percentages of Key

Managers and OESOs agree that OENCOs function effectively at company and

battalion levels, with smaller percentages of these respondents agreeing

for higher organizational levels. Both Key Managers and OESOs report that

OENCOs had made a variety of contributions to their OE effort. These same

respondents indicate their preferred OENCO-OESO ratios are one OENCO for

two or three OESOs or one OENCO for each OESO. The most frequent preference (by almost 50% of the OESO and Key Manager respondents) is for an additional OESO, although about a quarter of the respondents would prefer an

OENCO. The preference is often based on clientele (type, organizational

level) or imbalance in 0ES0-0ENC0 ratio.

i ; :

Effectiveness of Pilot Program. All measures of effectiveness indicate that the OENCO pilot program has been successful. Almost all of the

OENCOs are viewed as very competent by OE users, OESOs, and the OENCOs

themselves. OE office productivity appears to have increased as a result

of the OENCOs' contributions, although interpretation of these results is

complicated by personnel turbulence and lack of records data. In general,

OESOs find that their managerial and supervisory requirements have been

relatively unaffected by having OENCOs in their offices. Respondents feel

that any extra time or effort is offset by the OENCOs' contributions.

OESOs believe the most important factors in OENCO competency are

skills (verbal, OE, writing, interpersonal), and experience/education

(Army experience, rank, educational experiences). Using combined results

from both classes, about half the suggestions OENCOs offer for improving

their training relate to providing a field training exercise experience.

Another third of the suggestions concern specific types of training.

OENCOs and OE users perceive a high degree of acceptance of OENCOs and

feel they are well integrated into the OE team.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

These conclusions and implications are based on the initial findings

of surveys of OENCO Classes 1-79 and 2-79.

1. In general, the OENCO pilot program has been very successful,

with OENCOs judged as competent and well integrated into their OE offices

where they make positive contributions to the OE program. In addition,

OENCOs report high levels of job satisfaction.

2. OENCOs and OESOs view the OE consultant aspect of the OENCO

differently, indicating a need for clarification of the OENCO role.

12
mil nil lim i ii i .jjpjyDi^p,

I

i

3. Specific circumstances such as the proportion of enlisted or

civilian personnel in the organization, the organizational level of the

clientele, and the desired OENCO/OESO balance appear to be the criteria

for determining whether OENCOs or OESOs are desired as additional OE

personnel.

4. The OENCO training course should be modified to include the

addition of a field training exercise (FTX)3 and to emphasize specifics

such as interviewing techniques (a frequent OENCO task) and GOQ administration and interpretation.

5. Selection criteria are important to the success of the program

since factors such as verbal skills and desirable personality characteristics cannot be easily developed during training by those who lack them.

Officers and NCOs now attend the same OE training course, which includes

an FTX.

I

13

is*-

-. V**Ä*
WVQ!W!WP!PPUWW ^---^

I I

REFERENCE

Kessler, J. J., & Oliver, L. W. Assessment of the OENCO pilot program:

Class 1-79 results. (ARI Research Note 83-15) Alexandria, VA:

Army Research Institute, 1980.
i

i

ymmmi^^^-^f^mwjm^mmvTa^im^^i^^ms^m* irgggj^^g^r?«^^^^^^«-^-^»^»«^^

APPENDIX A

TABLES

15
' ""l

—

I II I.I !

Table A-l

Number and Type of Class 2-79 Questionnaire Respondents by MACOM

MACOM

FORSCOM

TRADOC

USAREUR

USAREC

WESTCOM

DARCOM

INSCOM

MDW

OTHER

Totals

Resäpondents

OEKCOs OESOs Key Mgrs OE Users

19 18 14 40

12 10 9 17

9 8 7 21

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 4

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1

1 1 2 1

43 (88%)a

40 (82%)'1 34 (69%)a

84b

Percent returned of 49 questionnaires distributed.

Total number of questionnaires distributed by OESOs unknown.

( I.

HJ_

16
SS5K3T- "~~ Jm*imwwmmmmv^imsm$WMtwmmwmmm*i

Table A-2

Average Ranking of OENCO Role by Class 2-79 OENCOs and OESOs

Respondents' Rankings

Role Title

OE Consultant

Assistant OESO

Trainer

Instructor

Administrator

Survey Specialist

Other

OENCO

1.8

2.8

3.0

3.7

4.6

4.3

5.0

OESO

(Actual)

1.8

1.9

3.0

4.2

4.5

4.7

4.5

OESO

(Expected)

1.4

1.9

3.1

4.2

4.8

4.5

4.0

I

Table A-3

Percentage of Class 2-79 OENCO's Time Spent on OE and Non-OE Activities

:•

Time Spent on

Respondent OE Activities Non-OE Activities

OENCO (N = 43)

OESO (N * 40)

86%

832

14%

17%

17
"WHIPIW"- ■■) ' 4WIIWWPHIWWHTWWII1I mifmumf-'.-'mmm iu.«, ii.w«»ipjiRUHm >m*^mwiwmmmimmmm

Table A-4

Tasks Most Frequently and Least Frequently Performed by Class 2-79

OENCOs as Rated by OENCOs and OESOs

i

Percent of Respondents Rating Task

Most Frequent Least Frcjquent

Type of Task

OENCO

(N = 43)

OESO

(N = 40)

OENCO

(N = 43)

OESO

(N = 40)

Interviewing individuals/groups 70 85 5 3

Designing implementations 70 43 5 10

Conducting workshops, meetings,

etc. 67 48 7 10

Process observation 55 50 0 5

Giving organizational feedback 51 43 14 13

Assessment analysis 49 56 9 3

Reviewing literature for OE

ide?.d 37 18 12 8

Marketing OE 29 28 26 33

Training 28 33 44 40

Scouting and entry 26 25 23 33

Preparing, administering,

interpreting questionnaires 26 20 35 35

Routine OE-related administration 24 23 14 18

Team building with OE personnel 19 15 16 15

Evaluation of operations 19 8 37 48

Professional development

activities 14 5 42 45

Collecting historical data 7 3 60 53

Routine organizational isks 5 8 67 63

Documentation 5 5 72 80

Other 11 8 16 0

* I

18

\ 1 I;' i f I «s
" I -I»!» mm»

i

Table A-5

Comparison of OENCO Tasks and OESO Tasks Most Frequently Performed

by Class 2-79 OENCOs and OESOs

Type of Task

Percent of Respondents

Rating Task "Most Frequent"

OENCO OESO

(N - 43) (N - 40)

I

j

Interviewing individuals/groups

Designing implementations

Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

Process observation

Giving organizational feedback

Assessment analysis

Reviewing literature for OE ideas

Marketing OE

Training

Scouting and entry

Preparing, administering, and

interpreting questionnaires

Routine OE-related administration

Evaluation of operations

Team building with OE personnel

Professional development activities

Collecting historical dati

Documentation

Routine organizational tasks

Other

70

70

67

55

51

49

37

29

28

26

26

24

19

19

14

7

5

5

11

67

62

59

44

54

69

8

39

15

39

24

18

13

8

0

8

5

3

14

19
Table A-6

Frequency of OE Operations in which OENCO Participated

as Reported by Class 2-79 OE Users

Type of Operation

Number of Times Operation

Reported by OE Users

Survey Feedback

Command Transition Workshop

Leadership & Management Development

Course

Teambuilding

Workshop/Workshop Followup

Role Clarification

Survey Feedback

Other (Action Planning, Problem Solving,

Complete 4-Step Process)

Total Mentions

32 (31%)

29 (28%)

12 (12%)

7 ( 7%)

10 (10%)

4 ( 4%)

2 ( 2%)

6 ( 6%)

102

-

I

20

"Sä&SffSl
6^Ä!ii^ÜS)P,

l

Table A-7

OESO Responses to Questions Concerning Support

and Planning for Class 2-79 OENCOs

Questions

OESO Responses (N = 40)

Don't

Yes No Know

Was your OE office consulted regarding the

assignment of an OENCO before the assignment

was made? 78% 5% 17%

Did your OE office request the assignment

of an OENCO? 70% 7% 23%

Was the OENCO assigned to you in lieu of

other personnel that you had requested?

Before your OENCO arrived, did you have

specific expectations about the role

he/she would perform in your OE office

and operations?

10% 80%

93% 2%

10%

5%

21

fel^_

1—Hi -Z. M.

I
Table A-8

Actions Reported by Class 2-79 Key Managers and OESOs

to Enhance OENCO Utilization

Type of Action

Affirmative Responses

Key

Managers OESOs

(N = 34) (N = 40)

Thinking about the role the OENCO should play

in our OE office 65% 100%

4

Mj; i

:

Notifying unit commanders of the addition of

the OENCO to the OE staff

Introducing OENCO to current clients

Involving the OENCO in an operation for

training purposes

Conducting team building within the OE office

with the OENCO

Scheduling professional development activities

for the OENCO

Directing the OESOs to prepare for the

reception of the OENCO into the OE office

Arranging clerical support for the OENCO

Arranging for appropriate work space for

the OENCO

Providing necessary funding support

Other

50% 55%

N/A 90%

N/A 90%

N/A 83%

N/A 68%

41% N/A

38% 50%

53% 93%

56% 70%

30% 25%

22
Table A-9

Percent of Class 2-79 OESOs Repo.:ing Highest and Lowest Degree

of Confidence in OENCO Ability to Perform Task

Task

Interviewing individuals/groups

Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

Training (e.g., conducting Leadership

& Management Development Course)

Assessment analyses

Process observation

Giving organizational feedback

Marketing OE

Designing implementation (e.g., workshop,

transition meeting)

Routine OE-related administration

Scouting and entry (contracting and

orientation)

Team building with OE personnel

Reviewing literature for OE ideas

Preparing, administering, and interpreting

Questionnaires (e.g., the GOQ)

Collecting historical (e.g., records) data

Evaluation of operations (preparing case

studies, cost-benefit analysis, feedback

to commanders)

Routine organizational tasks (duty NCO,

details, etc.)

Professional development activities

Documentation (time, costs, tracking

your operations)

Percent of OESOs

Confidence in

(N = 40)

Indicating

OENCO

Highest Lowest

74 5

56 13

54 5

44 10

39 15

39 8

36 33

33 39

32 11

31 36

26 13

21 13

18 39

15 28

13

13

8

56

8

3

63

23

'
Table A-10

Number and Percent of Class 2-79 OENCO Respondents Enumerating

OENCO Skills and Competencies Not

Possessed by OESOs

Skill/Competency OENCO Respondents (N = 3 )

Experience/Training/Education

Personal Characteristics

Better with Enlisted

Different Perspective

Miscellaneous

Total Mentions

17 (39%)

10 (23%)

8 (18%)

5 (11%)

4 ( 9%)

44

Of the 43 OENCO respondents, 17 answered "none" to the query, "What

special skills or competencies do you feel you have that your local

OESOs do not?" The 27 persons answering the item made 44 responses.

24
i

Table A-ll

Ratings by Class 2-79 OESOs and Key Managers of OENCO

Contributions to OE Effort

Ratings

'

Contributions of OENCO

Has Had Has Had Has Had

Negligible Some Substantial

Effect Effect Effect

Responses of Key Managers (N = 34)

Enables us to do more for each operation.

Enables the OE office to serve more

clients in a given period of time.

Increases ability to get good info

from enlisted personnel.

Enhances credibility of OE within the

command.

Enables the OE office to conduct different types of operations than we did

before.

Provides access to different set of

people than before.

Facilitates routine staff work.

4 (34%) 20 (62%)

0 9 (30%) 21 (70%)

1 (3%) 11 (34%) 20 (63%)

7 (23%) 13 (43%) 10 (33%)

10 (35%) 8 (28%) 11 (38%)

6 (18%) 10 (30%) 17 (52%)

10 (31%) 16 (50%) 6 (19%)

Responses of OESOs (N = 40)

Provides "extra pair of hands" for the

OESO(s).

Enables us to do more for each

operation.

Enables us to serve more clients in a

given period of time.

Increases our ability to get good info

from enlisted personnel.

Increases our credibility with commanders and NCOs.

Enables us to conduct different types

of operations than we did before.

Provides access to different set of

people than before.

Facilitates routine staff work.

3 (8%) 4 (10%) 33 (83%)

2 (5%) 9 (23%) 29 (73%)

3 (8%) 9 (23%) 28 (70%)

5 (13%) 12 (302) 23 (58%)

5 (13%) 12 (30%) 23 (58%)

17 (43%) 13 (33%) 10 (25%)

11 (28%) 15 (38%) 14 (35%)

14 (35%) 17 (43%) 9 (23X)

25
Table A-12

Percentages of Class 2-79 OENCOs, OESOs, and Key Managers Responding

that OENCOs Could Function Effectively at Various Organizational

Levels "Usually" or "Almost Always"

Organisational Level

Company level

Battalion level

Brigade level

Installation/Division level

MACOM level

Respondent Group

OENCO OESO Key Manager

(N = A3) (N = 40) (N = 34)

79% 93% 79%

88% 88% 82%

79% 68% 74%

79%. 57% 66%

71% 51% 56%

Table A-13

Number of Class 2-79 Key Managers and OESOs Indicating

Preferred Ratios of OENCOs to OESOs

Preferred Ratio

1 OENCO for 6 or more OESOs

1 OENCO'for 4 or 5 OESOs

1 OENCO for 2 or 3 OESOs

1 OENCO for 1 OESO

2 or 3 OENCOs for 1 OESO

4 or 5 OENCOs for 1 OESO

6 or more OENCOs for 1 OESO

Respondents

Key Managers

(N - 34)

OESOs

(N - 40)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

2 (6%) 2 (5%)

12 (38%) 19 (48%)

9 (28%) 13 (33%)

6 (19%) 5 (13%)

2 (6%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

26
mmmmm-^ -~~-

Table A-14

Preferences of Class 2-79 Key Managers and OESOs for Additional OE Personnel

Type of OE Personnel

Key Managers

(N = 34)

Respondents

OESOs

(N = 40)

Another OESO

Another OENCO

Both or either

Neither/0.K. as is

Civilian

16 (49%) 19 (49%)

9 (27%) 10 (26%)

4 (12%) 8 (20%)

4 (12%) 0 ( 0%)

0 ( 0%) 2 ( 1%)

27
Table A-15

Ratings of OENCO Overall Competence by Class 2-79

OENCOs and OE Users

Respondent

(Competence

Statement)

Respondents Making Rating

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

OENCO ("1 think my

overall job performance as an OENCO

has been excellent.") A3 0% 2% 12% 23% 63%

OE User ("My impression

of this OENCO's

overall competence

is highly positive.") 8A 1% 0% 5% 25% 69%

Table A-16

Ratings of OENCO Overall Competence

by Class 2-79 OESOs

Rating (Scale Value) Percent of OESOs Making Rating

,

Poor (1)

Fair (2)

Good (3)

Very Good (A)

Excellent (5)

0

7

5

30

58

28

" ' . -

— mil
Table A-17

Average OESO Estimates of Quantitative Measures of OE Office

Productivity before and after Class 2-79 OENCO Assigned

Measure

Time Period

For the three

months before

OENCO's arrival

For the past

three months

(with OENCO assigned)

How many separate OE operations

did your OE office conduct?

For how many different clients?

7.8

6.9

10.6

9.3

*

On the average, how many weeks

did a client wait from the time

of request for OE services until

action was initiated?

On the average, how many calendar

days did it take for your OE office

to conduct the agreed-upon OE

operation?

What percent of their on-duty

time did OESOs at your location

spend on work "billable" to clients?

(Work which is billable to a client

involves all the preparation, direct

contact, analysis, report writing,

etc., such as a management consultant

would charge for.)

What percent of their on-duty

time did OESOs at your location

spend on OE mission-related work

not considered billable to clients?

(Include professional development,

research etc.)

4.4 2.8

24.9 21.6

63.1 64.5

21.7 19.1

>

29
Table A-18

Percentages of Class 2-79 OENCOs and OE Users Responding to

Questions Concerning OENCO Acceptance and

Integration into OE Team

Responses

Item

Neither

Strongly Disagree Strongly

Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

OENCO Responses (N 43)

Commanders/OE users have

received me very we'.l. 07. 2% 5% 49% 44%

I have been favorably

received by those of equal

or lower rank with whom I

associate (formal and informal

associations). 0% 7% 57. 33% 55%

I work very well with the

0ES0(s) here. 2% 7% 14% 9% 67%

I work very well with the

Key Manager. 0% 14% 165 30% 40%

This OE office functions

effectively as a team. 5% 7% 9% 21% 585

I have been fully integrated

into the OE team here. 2% 9% 12% 9% 68%

OE User Responses (N - 84)

This OENCO and the 0ES0(s)

work very well together as

a team. 1% 0% 10% 21% 68%
t

Table A-19

Satisfaction of OE Users vith OE and with Class 2-79

OENCO Participation in OE Operations

Responses of OE Users (N 84)

Item

Neither

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

The effect of recent OE

operations on my unit/

organization has been highly

positive. 1% 0% 4% 462 49%

There is a high probability

that my unit/organization

will request OE services in

the future.

The effect of this OENCO on the

OE operation(s) in question was

highly positive.

I would like to have this OENCO

participate in future OE operations in my unit/organizations.

1%

17.

1%

0%

0%

0%

7% 30% 62%

9% 36% 54%

6% 19% 74%

<

31
I

Table A-20

Job Satisfaction of Class 2-79 OENCOs

Item

Responses of OENCOs (N - A3)

Neither

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

_01___J2)_____13) (it) (1)

My work here is personally

satisfying.

I am using my OE skills in a

highly effective manner.

I feel that what I do as an

OENCO improves the user

organization.

This assignment has increased

my competence as a soldier.

I'm not sure what is required

of me in my present assignment.

The climate in which I work

allows me to use my abilities

and knowledge of OE in an

effective manner.

I would like to be assigned

in the OENCO program during

subsequent tours.

2%

0%

0%

0%

56%

2%

0%

11

11

0%

n

33%

9% 33% 49%

11

51

111

11

11

12%

19%

37% 44%

5% 42% 53%

28% 58%

2% 2%

35% 44%

19% 58%

32
^W'CTW^^W!,'.*JI,W!i-!«'i:.WMi^Wllu"-l:«!PiiiJ««( ^ .lu^wmw.'- HHMBi 1

I' «

Table A-21

Factors Considered by Class 2-79 OESOs To Be Most

Important to OENCO Competency

Factor

Experience/Education

Skills

Personal Characteristics

Organizational Support

Miscellaneous

Total Mentions

Number of Times

Factor Mentioned

Total

45 (35%)

44 (34%)

29 (22%)

9 (7%)

2 (2%)

129

33
APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRES

1. OENCO PILOT PROGRAM--OENCO QUESTIONNAIRE

2. OENCO PILOT PROGRAM--OESO QUESTIONNAIRE

3. OENCO PILOT PROGRAM—KAY MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE

4. OENCO PILOT PROGRAM--COMMANDER/OE USER QUESTIONNAIRE

*

34

I .i
APPENDIX B-l

OENCO PILOT PROGRAM - OENCO QUESTIOtWIRE

DECEMBER 1979

US ARW RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

PT 5303a

5.
DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

(5 V.S.C. SS2a)

TITLI6M6AU PRESCRIBING DIRECTIVE

0ENC0 Pilot Program - 0ENC0 Questionnaire AR 70-1

1. AUTHORITY

10 ÜSC Sec 4503

2. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE«)

The data collected with the attached form are to be used for research

purposes only.

3. ROUTINE USES

This is an experimental personnel data collection form developed by

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1. When identifiers (name or Social Security Number) are requested they are to be used

for administrative and statistical control purposes only. Full confidentiality of the responses will be maintained in the processing of these data.

4 MAfiA*TO*V OR VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL NOT PROVIOlNO INFORMATION

Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary. Individuals are

encouraged to provide complete and accurate Information in the interests of

the research, but there will be no effect on individuals for not providing

all or any part of the information. This notice may be detached from the

rest of the form and retained by the individual if so desired.

FORM Prinsey Act St«t«m«nt 26 Sep 75

DA Form 4368-R, 1 M«y 75

36
DATE RECEIVED

/

OENCO PILOT PROGRAM; OENCO QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: This questionnaire 1s to be completed by all OENCOs

graduated from OETC/OECS In 1979. The purpose of this questionnaire

1s to provide the Army with accurate feedback Information about the

OENCO Pilot Program. Your answers will be held 1n strict confidence,

and your anonymity will be maintained. Reports based on this research

will not identify Individuals or units. Names are requested only for

follow-up purposes. (Completed questionnaires should be mailed to the

Army Research Institute, ATTN: PERI-IM-B, Dr. Laurel Oliver, 5001

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333, 1n the envelope provided for

this purpose.)

1. Name:

2. Mailing Address:

3. Name of OESO most familiar with your work:

4. Your rater (if different):

5. Key Manager:

6. Total number of OESOs in your OE office:

7. Total number of OENCOs in your OE office (including yourself):

8. MACOM: (1) FORSCOM (6) USAREC

(2) TRADOC (7) MOW

(3) USAREÜR (8) WESTCOM

(4) INSCOM (9) Other (please specify):

(5) DARCOM

During the past three months, please estimate the percent of your

on-duty time that you have spent on:

9. I OE mission-related activities

10. t Activities not related to OE mission

OENCO-1

37

«fcoai
11. Sex: (1) Male

(2) Female

•

12. Rank: _J1) E-6

_J2) E-7

___(4) E-9

(5) Other (please specify)

PMOS:

Training:

_J3) E-8

1-79

13.

14. (1) OENCO Class

_(2) OENCO Class 2-79

_(3) OESO course

(4) Other (please specify)

Rank the following titles according to how well they describe the role you

&S !

ctu?]lp>erfor n

9- (fei "l; for that which best describes your role;

"2" for thatwnich is next best;^1' for next best; and so on.)

15^ -Q£ Consultant 1&. Assistant OESO

17. Administrator

J9V Trainer

21. Other (please specify):

18. Instructor

20.__ Survey Specialist

Offic.

Use

Only

i* if

1=18.1

li 20

1« 21

1' 23

l< 25

I- 27

1:22

1:2»»

l: 26

To what extent do you feel that, as an OENCO, you could function effectively

at the following levels? (Please circle the number corresponding to your

chosen response.)

Almost Almost

Ne

22. Company level

23. Battalion level

24. Brigade level

25. Installat1on/D1v1s1on level

26. MACOH level

er Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

OENCO-2

38

129

1:30

ij

1:32

Hfc

Mk
J

Indicate the relative frequency with which you perform the OE tasks

listed below. Circle a "1" for the five tasks least frequently performed. Circle a "3" for the five tasks most frequently performed.

Then circle a "2" for the remaining tasks.

27. Marketing OE

28. Scouting and entry (contracting and

orientation)

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Least

Frequent

1

Collecting historical (e.g., records) data

Interviewing individuals/groups

Process observation

Preparing, administering, and interpreting

questionnaires (e.g., the GOQ)

Assessment analysis

Giving organizational feedback

Designing implementation (e.g., workshop,

transition meeting)

Training (e.g., conducting Leadership &

Management Development Course)

Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

Documentation (time, costs, tracking

your operations)

Evaluation of operations (preparing case

studies, cost-benefit analysis, feedback

to commanders)

Routine OE-related administration

Reviewing literature for OE ideas

Professional development activities

Routine organizational tasks (duty NCO,

details, etc.)

Team building with OE personnel

Other (please specify):

0ENC0-3

39

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Most

Frequent

2 3 1=31+

2 3 1:35

2 3 1:36

2 3 1=37

2 3 1 •• 38

2 3 1 = 39

2 3 l:lt0

3

3

Office

Use

Only

1-33

3 1:<»5

3 1'.«

3 Vkl

3 l'.M

3

l:<»9

3 1:50

i-.*j

X'.hk

It 81
46. What percent of your OE-related duties require the training you

received at OETC/OECS?

%

47. What specific skills end knowledge that you acquired at OETC/OECS

are not being used? Note reasons where possible. (Use back of

page if more space is needed.)

Off

Us

On

1:51

'

48. Describe below how you feel you can be most effectively used as

an OENCO. (Use back of page if more space is needed.)

49 . Describe below what you feel is the least effective use of you

as an OENCO. (USP back of page if more space is needed.)

50. What special skills or competencies do you feel you have that your

local OESOs do not? (Use back of page if more space is needed.

51 . How should the OENCO course be changed in order to provide more

effective training for OENCOs? (Use back of page if more space

is needed.)

0ENC0-4

40

!
/

Indicate the extent of your agreement with the statements given below.

Please circle the number corresponding to your chosen response. ,

Neither

Strongly Disagree Strongly

Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Agree

52. I feel that what I do

as an OENCO improves

the user organization. 1 2 3 4 5

53. This assignment has

increased my competence

as a soldier.

54. My work here is

personally satisfying.

55. I would like to be

assigned in the OENCO

program during subsequent tours.

56. I'm not sure what is

required of me in my

present assignment.

57. My training at OETC/

OECS prepared me well

for the job here.

5«. I have been fully

integrated into the

OE team here.

59 . The preparations that

were made to integrate

me into the local

organization and OE

efforts were excellent.

60. I am using my OE skills

in a highly effective

manner.

61. I think my overall job

performance as an OENCO

has been excellent.

0ENC0-5

41

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

Office

Use

Only

r-5«»

is 55

!•• 56

1:57

l: 58

l: 59

l: 60

1 = 61

1=62
Indicate the extent of your agreement with the statements given below.

Please circle the number corresponding to your chosen response.

Neither

Strongly Disagree Strongly

Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Agree

62. The climate in which I

work allows me to use my

abilities and knowledge

of OE in an effective

manner. 1 2 3 4 5

63. I work very well

with the OESO(s) here. 12 3 4 5

64. I work very well

with the Key Manager. 12 3 4 5

65. Commanders/OE users have

received me very well. 1 2 3 4 5

66. This OE office functions

effectively as a team. 1 2 3 4 5

67. I have been favorably

received by those of

equal or lower rank with

whom I associate (formal

and informal associations). 12 3 4 5

68. Please give us any additional information or conments you may have

concerning your job as an OENCO.

0ENC0-6

42

:(

M
APPENDIX B-2

OBNICO PIÜDT PROGRAM - OESO QUESTIONmiRE

DECEMBER 1979

US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR TWE

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

PT 5303b

. I

(
DATE RECEIVED

OENCO PILOT PROGRAM - PESO QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: This questionnaire should be completed by the OESO who

works most closely with the OENCO named below. The purpose of this

questionnaire is to provide the Army with accurate feedback information

about the OENCO Pilot Program. Your answers will be held in strict

confidence, and your anonymity will be maintained. Reports based on

this research will not identify individuals or units. Names are

requested only for follow-up purposes. (Completed questionnaires

should be mailed to the Army Research Institute, ATTN: PERI-IM-B,

Dr. Laurel Oliver, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333, in

the envelope provided for this purpose.)

The OENCO of concern for this questionnaire

1. Your name

2. Grade: (1) 0-3 (4) 0-6

(2) 0-4 (5) Other (please specify):

(3) 0-5

3. MACOM: (1) FORSCOM (6) USAREC

(2) TRADOC (7) MDW

(3) USAREUR (8) WESTCQM

(4) INSCOM (9) Other (please specify):

(5) DARCOM

4. Mailing Address:

5. AUTOVON:

6. Total number of OESOs in your OE office: (including yourself):

7. Total number of OENCOs in your OE office:

Office

Use

Only

1= 7

8. How many months has your OENCO worked in your OE office? months

0ES0-1

.v-,

l •• 9 . ! 0

1:11.12

Ü13.1«»
DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

IS V.S.C. S32a)

TITLSW PAW PRMCRWNG DlftiCTIVE

OENCO Pilot Program - OESO Questionnaire AR 70-1

1 AUTHORITY

10 USC Sec 4503

2. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE«)

The data collected with the attached form are to be used for research

purposes only.

3. ROUTINE US63

This is an experimental personnel data collection for» developed by

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1. When identifiers (name or Social Security Number) are requested they are to be used

for administrative and statistical control purposes only. Full confidentiality of the responses will be maintained in the processing of these data.

4 MANOATORV 0* VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND IFMCT ON INDIVIDUAL NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

Your participation in this research ia strictly voluntary. Individuals are

encouraged to provide complete and accurate information in the interests cf

the research, but there will be no effect on individuals for not providing

all or any part of the information. This notice may be detached from the

rest of th* form and retained by the individual if so desired.

FORM

OA Form 4iSa-R. 1 **ty 7S

Pfi«tii Act Sftwwnt 26 S»p 78 |

44
For items 9-12, please circle the number corresponding to your chosen

response.

9. Was your OE office consulted regarding the

assignment of an OENCO before the assignment

was made?

10. Did your OE office request the assignment of

an OENCO?

11. Was the OENCO assigned to you in lieu of

other personnel that you had requested?

12. Before your OENCO arrived, did you have

specific expectations about the role

he/she would perform in your OE office

and operations?

Yes No

2

2

2

Don't

Know

3

3

3

Office

Use

Only

1: 15

1=16

1: 17

1 = 18

If you answered "Ho" to item 12, please skip to item 20. If you answered

"Yes" to item 12, please rank the following titles according to how well

they describe the role you expected your OENCO to play when he/she was

assigned to your office. (Use "1" for that which best describes the

expected OENCO role; "2" for that which next best describes 1t; "3" for

next bast; and so on.)

13. OE Consultant 14. Assistant OESO

15. Administrator

17. _ Trainer

19. Other (please specify):

16. Survey Specialist

18. Instructor

Is 19 1 = 20

1:21 1:22

1 :23 \-2h

V 25

Now rank the following titles according to how well they describe the

role your OENCO is actually performing. (Use "1" for that which best

describes his/her actual role; "2" for that which next best describes

it; "3" for next best; and so on.)

20. OE Consultant 21. Assistant OESO

22. _ Administrator

24. _ Trainer

26. _ Other (please specify):

23. Survey Specialist

25. Instructor

27. If there is a substantial difference between your rankings for the

expected role and your rankings for the actual role, please explain.

1-26 1=27

l:28 1

:

23

1: 30 P31

1 = 32

0ES0-2

46
During the past three months, please estimate the percent of on-duty

time that your OENCO has spent on:

28. % OE mission-related activities

29. % Activities not related to OE mission

Check any of the following that were done to support the transition

of your OENCO into his/her new position.

30. Thinking about the role the OENCO should play in our

OE office

31. Notifying unit commanders of the addition of the OENCO

to the OE staff

32. Introducing (ENCO to current clients

33. Involving the OENCO in an operation for training purposes

34. Conducting team building within the OE office with the

OENCO

35. Scheduling professional development activities for the

OENCO

36. Arranging clerical support for the OENCO

37. Arranging for appropriate work space for the OENCO

38. Providing necessary funding support

39. Other (please specify):

OESO-3

47

Office

Use

Only

Ü33,3«»

1:35,36

1:37

1: 38

1 : 39

1:«*0

1: «fr 1

1: *»2

l:i»3

\--kk

1:<.5

l:«»6
;>

Indicate the relative frequency with which your OENCO performs the OE

tasks listed below during normal on-duty time. Circle a "1" for the

five tasks least frequently performed. Circle a "3" for the five tasks

most frequently performed. Then circle a "2" for the remaining tasks.

40. Marketing OE

41. Scouting and entry (contracting and

orientation)

42. Collecting historical (e.g., records) data

43. Interviewing individuals/groups

44. Process observation

45. Preparing, administering, and interpreting

questionnaires (e.g., the GOQ)

46. Assessment analysis

47. Giving organizational feedback

48. Desigr^ng implementation (e.g., workshop,

transition meeting)

49. Training (e.g., conducting Leadership &

Management Development Course)

50. Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

51. Documentation (time, costs, tracking

your operations)

52. Evaluation of operations (preparing case

studies, cost-benefit analysis, feedback

to commanders)

53. Routine QE-related administration

54. Reviewing literature for OE ideas

55. Professional dev-alopment activities

56. Routine organizational tasks (duty NCO,

details, etc.)

57. Team building with OE personnel

58. Other (please specify):

Least

Frequent

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

Most

Frequent

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

0ES0-4

f!

•*

i ,«> ^ uta - —

V

kW3
7

Now indicate the relative frequency with which you perform the OE tasks

listed below. Circle a-"l" for the five tasks least frequently performed.

Circle a "3" for the five tasks most frequently performed. Then circle

a "2" for the remaining tasks.

59. Marketing OE

60. Scouting and entry (contracting and

orientation)

61. Collecting historical (e.g., records) data

62. Interviewing individuals/groups

63. Process observation

64. Preparing, administering, and interpreting

questionnaires (e.g., the GOQ)

65. Assessment analysis

66. Giving organizational feedback

67. Designing implementation (e.g., workshop,

transition meeting)

68. Training (e.g., conducting Leadership &

Management Development Course)

69. Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

70. Documentation (time, costs, tracking

your operations)

71. Evaluation of operations (preparing case

studies, cost-benefit analysis, feedback

to commanders)

72. Routine OE-related administration

73. Reviewing literature for OE ideas

74. Professional development activities

75. Routine organizational tasks (duty NCO,

details, etc.)

76.

77.

Team building with OE personnel

Other (please specify):

OESG-a

49

Least

Frequent

2

2

Most

Frequent

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Office

Use

Only

2 3 1:78

2 3 1:79

2 3 2:7

2 3 *-8

2 3 2:9

2 3 2: 10

1:66

1 = 67

1:68

1:69

1:70

1:71

1: 72

1:73

1:74

1:75

1:76

1:77

2:11

riafita
;/

For the tasks listed below, circle a "1" for the fiyje. tasks for which

you have the lowest degree of confidence in your OENCO's skills and

abilities; circle a "3" for the fiye, tasks for which you have the highest

degree of confidence. For the remaining tasks, circle a "2" to Indicate

an intermediate degree of confidence or a "4" to indicate you have no

basis for making a judgment.

Degree of Confidence

Lowest

78. Marketing OE

79. Scouting and entry (contracting and

orientation)

80. Collecting historical (e.g., records)

data

81. Interviewing individuals/groups

82. Process observation

83. Preparing, administering, and interpreting questionnaires (e.g., the GOQ)

84. Assessment analysis

85. Giving organizational feedback

86. Designing implementation (e.g.,

workshop, transition meeting)

87. Training (e.g., conducting Leadership

& Management Development Course)

88. Conducting workshops, meetings, etc.

89. Documentation (time, costs; tracking

your operations)

90. Evaluation of operations (preparing

case studies, cost-benefit analysis,

feedback to commanders)

91. Routine OE-related administration

92. Reviewing literature for OE ideas

93. Professional development activities

94. Routine organizational tasks (duty

NCO, details, etc.)

95. Team building with OE personnel

96. Other (please s;>ecify):

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

No

Highest Basis

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

OESO-6 50

_^
In your OE office, how often does each of the following initiate the commitment of resources to OE work? (Please circle the number corresponding to

your chosen response. If category does not apply, leave item blank.)

Almost Almost

Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

97. Key Manager

98. Senior OESO

99. Other OESOs

100. 0ENC0

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

In your opinion, to what extent could your 0ENC0 function effectively at the

101. Company level?

102. Battalion level?

103. Brigade level?

104. Installation/Division

level?

105. MAC0M level?

Almost Almost

Never Seldom Sometimes Us ually Always

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

How are decisions made concerning who does what in your 0E shop? To what

extent is each of the following considered in making assignments?

106. Level of the client

107. Client preference

108. Preference of 0ES0/0ENC0

109. Skills of 0ES0/0ENC0

110. Whoever is available

111. Whoever made initial

contact

112. Other ^please specify):

Almost Almost

Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

<

0ES0-7

51

— ii
/

How does your OENCO expand the capabilities of your OE office? Estimate

the extent to which having an OENCO has affected the capabilities listed

below. Please circle the number of your chosen response.

N(jgligible

Effect

Some

Effect

Substantial

Effect

113. Provides "extra pair of hands"

for the OESO(s). 1 2 3

114. Enables us to do more for

each operation. 1 2 3

115. Enables us to serve more clients

in given period of time. 1 2 3

116. Increases our ability to get

good information from enlisted

personnel. 1 2 3

117. Increases our credibility with

commanders and NCOs. 1 2 3

118. Enables us to conduct different types

of operations than we did before. 1 2 3

119. Provides access to different set

of people than before. 1 2 3

120. Facilitates routine staff work. 1 2 3

121. Other (please specify):

122. What should be the ratio of OENCOs to OESOs?

(1) One OENCO for each OESO (5) One OESO for 2 or 3 OENCOs

(2) One OENCO for 2 or 3 OESOs (6) One OESO for 4 or 5 OENCOs

.(3) One OENCO for 4 or 5 OESOs

(4) One OENCO for 6 or more

OESOs

_(7) One OESO for 6 or more

OENCOs

_(8) Other (please specify):

0ES0-8

52

Office

Use

Only

2:1+7

2:<+8

2:<+9

2:50

2:51

2:52

2:53

2:5«+

2:55

2:56

w

sfca.

- :,.;

U£_
Yes No

123. Is this OENCO formally assigned to your OE office? 1 2

124. Do you have supervisory responsibility for this OENCO? 1 2

125. If you responded "No" to item 123 or item 124, please explain the

nature of any supervisory and control difficulties that may have

arisen.

126. How have the managerial/supervisory requirements associated with

having an OENCO in your office affected your role as an OESO?

127. What has been your impression of this OENCO's overall competence?

Very

Poor Fair Good Good Excellent

12 3 4 5

128. To what extent has your OENCO lived up to the expectations you

originally had for him/her?

(1) Not quite lived up to those expectations.

(2) Fully met those expectations.

(3) Exceeded those expectations.

129. If you had your choice, which of the following would you prefer?

(1) Another OENCO

(2) Another OESO

(3) Other (please specify):

130. Please state the reason for the choice you made in item 129.

0ES0-9

53

Office

Use

Only

2=37

2=58

2:59

2:60

2:61

V

——
Where possible, use records data

for Items 131-136.

131. How many separate OE operations

did your OE office conduct?

132. For how many different clients?

133. On the average, how many weeks

did a client wait from the time

of request for OE services until

action was initiated?

134. On the average, how many calendar

days did it take for your OE office

to conduct the agreed-upon OE

operation?

135. What percent of their on-duty

time did OESOs at your location

spend on work "billable" to

clients? (Work which is billable

to a client involves all the

preparation, direct contact,

analysis, report writing, etc.,

such as a management consultant

would charge for.)

136. What percent of their on-duty

time did OESOs at your location

spend on OE mission-related work

not considered billable to clients?

(Include professional development,

research, etc.)

For the three

months before

OENCO^s

arrival

For the past

three months

(with 0|NC0

assigned)

(2:62,63)

(2=66.67)

(2:70,7l)

(2:7it ,7s)

t (3:7.8)

% (3:11,12)

Note: The percentages for items 135 and 136 will not total 100%. It is

expected that some proportion of time will be spent on normal

administrative duties.

137. Please note below any factors that may have affected the numbers

above (e.g., siynificant turnover, leave periods, reorganizations),

0ES0-10

54

Office

Use

Only

1

*

V

i

I

^2: 6 < . 6 5> ]

(2:68,69) f;

(2:72,73)

(2:76,77) If

(3:9.10) i

(3:13,l<t)l

IE: — d
\j

For the next three items, please circle the number

corresponding to your chosen response:

138. Has a client ever requested that you not use this

OENCO in an OE operation?

139. Has this OENCO ever asked not to participate in

an OE operation for a particular unit/organization?

140. Has a client ever asked that this OENCO participate

in an OE operation in his unit/organization?

Yes

1

1

1

No

2

2

2

141. What are those factors, personal and organizational, that are most

important to OENCO competency (e.g., formal education, verbal skills,

rank, previous Army experiences, local support)?

Office

Use

Only

3 = 15

3 -16

3:17

142. Please give us any additional information or comments that might

help us to understand better what having an OENCO has meant to

your OE office.
I

APPENDIX B-3

OENCO PIU3T PROGRAM - KEY fWNAGER QUESTIONNAIRE

DECEMBER 1979

US ARMV RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

FT 5303c

i 56
!/

DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

(5 U.S.C. 5S2a)

TITLE OF FORM QENCO Pilot Program - Key Manager Questionnaire PRESCRIBING DIRECTIVE

AR 70-1

1 AUTHORITY

10 USC Sec 4503

2. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S)

The data collected with the attached form are to be used for research

purposes only.

3 ROUTINE USES

This is an experimental personnel data collection form developed by

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1. When identifiers (name or Social Security Number) are requested they are to be used

for administrative and statistical control purposes only. Full confidentiality of the responses will be maintained in the processing of these data.

4 MANOATORV OR VOLUNTARY OlSCLOSURE AND EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary. Individuals are

encouraged to provide complete and accurate information in the interests of

the research, but there will be no effect on individuals for not providing

all or any part of the information. This notice may be detached from the

rest of the form and retained by the individual if so desired.

FORM Privacy Act Statement • 26 Sep 75

DA Form 4368-R, 1 Mgy 76

57
IDATE RECEIVED

OENCO PILOT PROGRAM - KEY MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: This questionnaire should be compl

Its purpose is to provide the Army with accurate

about the OENCO Pilot Program. Your answers will

confidence, and your anonymity will be maintained

this research will not identify individuals or un

quested only for follow-up purposes. (Completed

be mailed to the Army Research Institute, ÄTTN:

Oliver, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 2233

provided for this purpose.)

The OENCO of concern for this questionnaire is

eted by Key Managers,

feedback information

be held in strict

Reports based on

its. Names are requestionnaires should

PERI-IM-B, Dr. Laurel

in the envelope

1. Your name:

Grade:

MACOM:

(1) 0-3

(2) 0-4

(3) 0-5

(1) FORSCOM

(2) TRADOC

(3) USAREUR

(4) INSCOM

(5) DARCOM

(4) 0-6

(5) Other (please specify):

(6) USAREC

(7) MDW

(8) WESTCOM

(9) Other (please specify):

4. Mailing Address:

5. AUTOVON:

6- Total number of OESOs in your OE office:

7. Total number of OENCOs in your OE office:

KM-1

58

Office

Use

Only

1--7

1- 8

1: 9 . 1 Ü

1: 11. 12

3#- -t
8. Are you a school-trained OESO (i.e., do you have an ASI 5Z)?

(1) Yes

(2) No

9. Have you attended the Key Manager's Course?

(1) Yes

(2) No

10. How many months has this OENCO been assigned to your office?

months

Check below the actions you yourself directed or performed to support

the transition of this OENCO into his/her new position.

11- _ Thinking about the role the OENCO should play in our OE office

12. Notifying unit commanders of the addition of the OENCO to the

OE staff

13. _ Directing the OESOs to prepare for the reception of the OENCO

" into the OE office

14. _ Arranging clerical support for the OENCO

15. _ Arranging for appropriate work space for the OENCO

16. _ Providing necessary funding support

17. Other (please specify):

18. If you had your choice, which of the following would you prefer?

(1) Another OESO

[2) Another OENCO

_(3) Other (please specify):

19. Please state the reason for the choice you made in item 18.

I(

KM-2

59
How does your OENCO expand the capabilities of your OE office? Estimate

the extent to which having an OENCO has affected the capabilities listed

below. Please circle the number of your chosen response. If you cannot

respond to the item, leave it blank.

Has Had

Negligible

Effect

Has Had

Some Effect

Has Had

Substantial

Effect

28. Concerning this OENCO's strengths and weaknesses, what feedback

have you received as a result of his/her participation in OE

operations?

KM-3

60

Office

Use

Only

20. Enables us to do more for

each operation.

21. Enables the OE office to

serve more clients in a

given period of time.

22. Increases ability to get

good information from

enlisted personnel.

23. Enhances credibility of

OE within the command.

24. Enables the OE office to

conduct different types

of operations than we did

before.

25. Provides access to different

set of people than before.

26. Facilitates routine staff

work.

27. Other (please specify):

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

V 25

1=26

1-27

1=26

is 29

l: 30

I- 31

1: 32
(1

is

29. What should be the ratio of OENCOs to OESOs?

(1) One OENCO for each OESO (5) One OESO for 2 or 3 OENCOs

(2) One OENCO for 2 or 3 OESOs (6) One OESO for 4 or 5 OENCOs

(3) One OENCO for 4 or 5 OESOs

(4) One OENCO for 6 or more

OESOs

(7) One OESO for 6 or more

OENCOs

(8) Other (please specify);

In your opinion, to what extent could this OENCO function effectively

at the

Almost almost

Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

30. Company level?

31. Battalion level?

32. Brigade level?

33. Installation/Division

level?

34. MACOM level?

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

35. What are those factors, personal and organizational, that are most

important to OENCO competency (e.g., formal education, verbal skills,

rank, previous Army experiences, local support).

36. Please give us any additional information or comments that might

help us to understand better what having an OENCO has meant to

your OE office.

KM-4

61

Office

Use

Only

1 = 33

1;34

l: 35

1: 36

1:37

1:38

11

'".'••"
APPENDIX B-4

OBCO PILOT PROGRAM - O0WWER/ÖE USER QUESTIONMIRE

DECEMBER 1979

US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

PT 5303d

62

i:(
i

DATA PEQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

(5 V.S.C. SS2a)

TTrTFöTTo'RTr

1 AUTHORITY

10 USC Sec 4503

0ENC0 Pilot Program - Commander/OE User

Questionnaire

PRESCRIBING DIRECTIVE

AR 70-1

2. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S)

The data collected with the attached form are to be used for research

purposes only.

3 ROUTINE USES

This is an experimental personnel data collection form developed by

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1. When identifiers (name or Social Security Number) are requested they are to be used

for administrative and statistical control purposes only. Full confidentiality of the responses will be maintained in the processing of these data.

4 MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary. Individuals are

encouraged to provide complete and accurate information in the interests of

the research, but there will be no effect on individuals for not providing

all or any part of the information. This notice may be detached from the

rest of the form and retained by the individual if so desired.

FORM

OA Form 4368-R, 1 Miy 75

Privcv Act St-ttm«nt - 26 S«p 75

63
3

i

-*.

I

DATE RECEIVED

OENCO PILOT PROGRAM: COMMANDER/OE USER QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: This questionnaire is intended to be completed by

commanders and/or users of OE services who have worked with the OENCO

named below. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information which will provide the Army with feedback concerning the OENCO

pilot program. The objectives of this data collection are to determine:

(1) the current roles of OENCOs, (2) the role characteristics unique

to OENCOs, and (3) the effectiveness of the OENCO pilot program. All

answers will be treated in strict co/>fid2nce, and your anonymity will

be maintained. Reports based on responses to this questionnaire will

not identify units or individuals. (Completed questionnaires should

be mailed to the Army Research Institute, ATTN: PERI-IM-B, Dr. Laurel

Oliver, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333, in the envelope

provided for this purpose.)

The OENCO of concern in this questionnaire is

If this OENCO has participated in more than one OE operation for your

unit/organization, please give us your overall impressions. Please

also describe on the line below the type of cperation(s) that was/were

involved (e.g., command transition workshop, survey feedback, Leadership

and Management Development Course).

1

2. My organizational level is:

._(!) Company

(2) Battalion

__(3) Brigade

3. My grade is:

__(1) 0-1

(2) 0-2

__(3) 0-3

(4) 0-4

(4) Installation/Division

(5) MACOM

J6) Other (please specify)

_(5) 0-5

_(6) 0-6

(7) Other (please specify)

Cdr-1

Office

Use

Only

1:7-16

P 17

l: 18
y

I

Indicate the extent of your agreement with each of the statements given

below. Please circle the number corresponding to your chosen response.

Neither

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

4. The effect of recent

OE operations on my

unit/organization has

been highly positive. 1 2 3

5. There ü a high probability that my unit/

organization will request

OE services in the future. 1 2 3

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

6. The effect of this OENCO

on the OE operation(s) in

question was highly positive.

7. My impression of this

OENCO's overall competence

is highly positive.

8. This OENCO and the OESO(s)

work very well together as

a team.

9. I would like to have this

OENCO participate in future

OE operations in my unit/

organization.

10. Based on your experience with him/her, what would you say are the

particular strengths and weaknesses of this OENCO?

Office

Use

Only

l: 19

1:20

l: 21

l: 22

1:23

l=2i»

(

Cdr-2

65