ARI Research Note 2000-07

Overview of ARI Recruiting Research

Walter C. Borman, Kristen E. Horgen, and Lisa M. Penney

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes

Selection and Assignment Research Unit

Michael G. Rumsey, Chief

January 2000

U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DTIC QÜÄ1.ITY INSPECTED 3
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes

Technical review by

M. A. Fischl

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: This Research Note has been cleared for release to the Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has

been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC and will be available only through

DTIC or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Note may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The views, opinions, and findings in this Research Note are those of the

author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

policy, or decision unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

January 2000

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Overview of ARI Recruiting Research

6. AUTHOR(S)

Walter C. Borman, Kristen E. Horgen, and Lisa M. Penney (Personnel

Decisions Research Institutes)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes

Tampa. Florida 33602

9 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

3. DATES COVERED (from... to

May 1999 - September 1999

5a CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

DASW01-98-D-0049. DO 04

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0602785A

5o. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

5d. TASK NUMBER

6900B

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

C01

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Note 2000-07

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The research presented in this report will subsequently be incorporated into a

comprehensive review of military recruiting research. It is being published at this time because of the lugh

importance of recruiting issues to the Army.

14 ABSTRACT (Max/imm, 200 «oräsy. This report presents in briefing form a summary of the research conducted

by the U S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) on Army recruiting and

selected recruiting research from other Service laboratories. The briefing is orgamzed around a model of

iSy recruitment that shows the important factors contributing to successful recruiting. The tetaedam

of the briefing outlines and explains the model and the subsequent sections review the research pertinent

to each section of the model. The briefing concludes with summaries of the research findings m each

area and directions for future research.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Recruiter, enlistment propensity, recruiter production, advertising, Army recruiting, recruitment model

i^':"""v-YriTi ivr •-• • •-•-• • ••• •

16. REPORT

Unclassified

Üu4iu^iiii2buäi*uU

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

fffiOW-yKW. .y.y.i?..<

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

100

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. Len White

703/617-0331
Overview of ARI Recruiting Research

Wally Borman, Kristen Horgen, and Lisa Penney

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes
Introduction

This briefing describes research conducted by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) on Army recruiting and selected recruiting research

conducted by other U. S. Military Service laboratories. The briefing is organized around a

model of recruitment productivity that shows the important factors contributing to success in

the Army recruitment process. The first section of the briefing outlines and explains the model

and the subsequent sections review the research pertinent to each section of the model. The

briefing concludes with summaries of the research and a brief discussion around the

implications of the research findings on future recruiting initiatives.
¥

2S^-Recruitment Productivity Model

Personal

Characteristics

Training and

Development

Recruiter

Performance

Technical and

Org. Support

^^ X

Recruiter

Production

Advertising

Support

^^^ /

"""—-^

Propensity to

Enlist

/ •

Environmental

Factors

____^__-—^

1
Briefing: Recruitment Productivity Model

Slide 1

• This model shows the important factors contributing to success in the Army recruitment

process.

• The model should help us to place a framework on the research ARI and some of the other

services have done around military recruiting.

• First, the box on the far right is the "bottom-line" effectiveness indicator, the number of

successful recruitments accomplished per unit time.

• Moving to the left in the model, it shows that successful production is a function of both

recruiter performance, i.e., the effort put forth by individual recruiters toward attracting

qualified candidates, and the propensity for youths to enlist.

• In turn, recruiter performance is influenced by certain personal characteristics they bring to

the recruiting environment, the initial training and subsequent development help they

receive, and the technical and organizational support provided by USAREC, and their

Brigade, Battalion, Company, and Station.

• Finally, propensity to enlist is a function of local and national advertising support for Army

recruiting and several environmental factors.

• The model suggests where our attention should be directed to improve recruiter

productivity. Going down the boxes on the left, first, identifying service members with "the

right stuff" for success in recruiting may be useful. Second, training new recruiters and

providing developmental experiences, as needed later in their tenure as recruiters, should

enhance performance and productivity.

• Third, technical support such as computerized systems to provide information on Army

MOS, or databases to identify candidates likely to enlist, should be helpful. Together these 3

factors should contribute directly to recruiter performance.

• Advertising may influence propensity to enlist in the Army. Both focused local advertising

and larger scale, national campaigns can enhance propensity. Also, a variety of

environmental factors probably have an impact on propensity to enlist. Such factors as

unemployment rate, local population density, presence of a military facility nearby,

traditional feelings toward the military, and ratio of military/civilian pay are examples of

environmental factors. An important distinction between environmental factors and the

other 4 factors in the model (i.e., person factors, advertising support, etc.) is that these 4

factors can be controlled by USAREC whereas the environmental factors cannot be as easily

controlled. Thus, emphasis in determining the factors to focus on should be placed on these

4 factors. However, it will also be important to learn about environmental influences so that

we know to what extent recruiter production can be enhanced by USAREC actions.

USAREC can have some impact on a few environmental factors through policy and

missioning requirements.

• We now want to examine ARI and certain other service research within each of these boxes

to get a good perspective on what we know about Army recruiting and where gaps in our

knowledge are evident. I'll start with the Recruiter Production box and work to the left of

the model.
-^^-Recruiter Production

mmmmmMmmsmsmmm, . - sammsmammmmmm

Gross Production: Average Number of

Recruits per Month

Production Against Quota: Gross

Production-Individual Quota

Research Shows Stability of Production is

Low to Moderate

Implications for Measuring Recruiter

Performance
Briefing: Recruiter Production I

Slide 2

• Some of the recruitment research has used gross production as a criterion or productivity

index (i.e., for a recruiter, the average number of recruits signed up per month).

• Production against quota has sometimes been used, albeit infrequently.

• To be used as a productivity index in recruiter research, the index should be reasonably

consistent or stable. For example, if a particular recruiter is above average (or average or

below average) over a 4-5 month period, we would like to see that recruiter's production at

about the same level on average for the next 4-5 months. If stability is very low, the

meaning of good or poor performance using production as an index is difficult to interpret.

• Research on stability done in the Navy suggests moderate stability; month to month

correlations within district (which holds quota constant) were about .45. More stability

exists when we use the average across several months. For example, the average production

for 3 months correlated with average production over another 3-month period was .70.1

• Some research has recognized that the production numbers may be influenced by factors

outside the recruiter's control. For example, the local unemployment rate and geographic

location may impact production rates.

• Several studies have attempted to adjust production measures to take these factors into

account. These efforts usually compare a recruiter's average production to the overall

average production for his or her territory (e.g., Company).2

• This kind of adjustment provides an improvement over raw production, but the resulting

index still may be a function of not only recruiter performance, but also factors beyond his

or her control. For example, some stations within the territory might be easier or more

difficult to recruit in for some reason.

• There are two implications for measuring recruiter performance using production as an

index. First, although it's not a perfect solution, Battalion or Company norms should be

employed to correct for differential opportunities to succeed due to different environmental

conditions and second, several months' production data should be averaged to provide a

stable performance indicator.

1 Borman, Rosse, & Toquam (1982).

2 Brown, Wood, & Harris (1975).; Borman, Rosse, & Toquam (1982); Larriva (1975).
ecruiter Production

Attempts to Factor Recruit Quality into

Production Index

Navy: Freeman Point Index and Abrahams'

Quality Index

Research Results
Briefing: Recruiter Production II

Slide 3

• Some military research has tried to take into account recruit quality as well as production.

• A Navy study attempted to factor Recruit Quality into two production indices, the Freeman

Point Index and Abrahams' Quality Index.1

• The Freeman Point Index measures both quantity andquality of recruits by considering

recruit educational level, ability, and early attrition in addition to the number of recruits

enlisted.

• The study found that the Freeman Point Index correlated highly with raw production and

did little to alter the rank order of recruiters from their rank order on raw production.

• The other index, the Abrahams' Quality Index is a pure indicator of recruit quality,

measuring only recruit educational level and ability. However, the results showed that it

was unstable over time indicating that recruiters were not consistently bringing in high (or

low) quality recruits.

• This research suggests that attempts to include quality measures in production indices are

problematic in that indices that adjust for quality either correlate very highly with raw

production or they are unstable and unreliable in measuring recruiter performance.

• In addition to environmental contamination issues (e.g. research indicates that the

unemployment rate is positively related to accessions2), production measures may not fully

represent the recruiter job. For example, recruiter efforts to provide support to other

recruiters or to establish and maintain community relations may not emerge.

1 Borman, Rosse, & Toquam (1982).

2 Daula & Smith (1986).
^-Recruiter Performance

Research at ARI and NPRDC

Eight Important Performance Factors Identified

1. Prospecting

2. Rapport

3. Good Person-Army Fit

4. Salesmanship

5. Relationships in Community

6. Providing Information

7. Organizational Skills

8. Supporting Other Recruiters & USAREC
Briefing: Recruiter Performance I

Slide 4

• Work at ARI and NPRDC identified 8 factors important for successful recruiter

performance.1 These factors are:

1. Locating and Contacting Qualified Prospects

2. Gaining and Maintaining Rapport

3. Obtaining Information from Prospects and Determining Their Needs and Interests

4. Sales Skills

5. Establishing and Mamtaining Good Relationships in the Community

6. Providing Knowledgeable and Accurate Information about the Army

7. Organizing Skills

8. Supporting Other Recruiters and USAREC

• Behavior-based rating scales were developed to measure recruiter performance on each of

these 8 factors. Several studies used these scales to gather supervisor and peer ratings of

recruiter performance. The scales worked well in that they provided reliable and valid

ratings.2

1 ARI work - Borman, Russell, & Skilling (1986); NPRDC work - Borman, Hough, & Dunnette (1976).

2 Borman, Dunnette, & Hough (1976); Borman, Toquam, & Rosse (1978); Borman, Rosse, Toquam, &

Abrahams (1981).
-^^"Recruiter Performance

Research Shows Three

Summary Performance Factors

Selling Skills Human Relations Organizing Skills

Skills

Prospecting - Rapport - Organizing Skills

Determining Needs - Community - Supporting Other

& Interests Relations Recruiters

Sales Skills - Providing Information

10
Briefing: Recruiter Performance II

Slide 5

• Additional research done using the rating scales consistently showed 3 summary

performance areas: Selling Skills, Human Relations Skills, and Organizing Skills. These

summary factors reflect the best depiction of the recruiter performance requirements. The

" research on recruiter performance is 15-20 years old so some updating of this work is

probably in order.1

1 Borman, Russell, & Skilling (1986).

11
Locating and Contacting Qualified Prospects

"Prospecting" effectively; contacting large numbers of persons likely to enlist in the Army; skillfully

using the telephone, referrals, DEPs, advertising ideas, special events, etc., to contact and get the

attention of civilians eligible for Army service; knowing where and when to prospect; ability to persist

in prospecting and following up on leads even under considerable adversity; getting prospects into the

office.

9 or 10

Extremely Effective Performance

Displays exceptional

ingenuity and energy in

advertising the Army and

in locating prospects.

Uses a number ofsources

for prospecting such as

unemployment offices,

sports events, and

employees at youth

hangouts.

• Makes very judicious use

ofreferrals or persons

recruited recently or placed

in DEP/DTP to get names

of qualified young men and

women likely to join the

Army.

6,7, or 8

Effective Performance

• Often persuades prospects

to visit the recruiting office

by using the telephone

effectively or by talking to

prospect in person.

Is adept at using a variety

of prospecting tools

effectively; PDR/prospect

cards, advertising, REACT,

school contacts, personal

appearances, telephone.

Follows up promising leads

on potential recruits.

12
Briefing: Recruiter Performance III

Slide 6

• Here is an example rating scale from the ARI research. The rater's task is to compare the

observed recruiter performance with the behavioral statements on the scale and make a

judgment about where on the 10-point scale the recruiter's performance best fits.

• Because of space limitations, we show only the top half of this scale. Behavioral statements

also anchor the "3,4, 5 somewhat ineffective" and "1, 2 very ineffective levels".

Locating and Contacting Qualified Prospects

"Prospecting" effectively; contacting large numbers of persons likely to enlist in the Army;

skillfully using the telephone, referrals, DEPs, advertising ideas, special events, etc., to contact

and get the attention of civilians eligible for Army service; knowing where and when to

prospect; ability to persist in prospecting and following up on leads even under considerable

adversity; getting prospects into the office.

Displays exceptional

ingenuity and energy in

advertising the Army

and in locating prospects.

9 or 10

Extremely Effective Performance

• Makes very judicious use

of referrals or persons

recruited.recently or

placed in DEP/ DTP to

get names of qualified

young men and women

likely to join the Army.

Is adept at using a variety

of prospecting tools

effectively;

PDR/prospect cards,

advertising, REACT,

school contacts, personal

appearances, telephone.

6, 7, or 8

Uses a number of sources

for prospecting such as

unemployment offices,

sports events, and

employees at youth

hangouts.

Effective Performance

Often persuades

prospects to visit the

recruiting office by using

the telephone effectively

or by talking to prospect

in person.

Follows up promising

leads on potential

recruits.

13
-^—Personal Characteristics

Personality

Vocational Interests

- Cognitive Ability

7

14
Briefing: Personal Characteristics

Slide 7

• These are personal characteristics or related attributes of people that may contribute to

success as a recruiter.

• The way these personal characteristics are examined for their role in successful recruiter

performance is typically through "validation research"

• In this research, recruiters are administered tests or other measures of these personal

characteristics, the job performance of the same recruiters is measured, and test scores are

correlated with job performance scores. A substantial correlation for a personal

characteristic with job performance means this personal characteristic is likely important for

recruiter performance.

• Personality, vocational interests, and cognitive ability have all been examined in research

done in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

There is evidence that some of these personal characteristics may be useful in predicting

recruiter performance.

15
Personal Characteristics

-PersonalityArmy, Navy, and Air Force Research

Personality Characteristics Most Often

Associated With Performance:

Dominance

Achievement

Warm and Outgoing

Confident and Self-Assured

16
Briefing: Personal Characteristics -Personality I

Slide 8

• Research on personality predicting recruiter job performance has been conducted in all 3

services.

• The personality factors most often found to correlate with military recruiter performance

are measures of Dominance, Achievement Orientation, "Warm and Outgoing" traits, and

Confidence and Self Assuredness.1

Navy work - Borman, Rosse, & Toquam (1979); Krug (1972); Borman, Rosse, & Abrahams (1980);

Borman, Rosse, & Rose (1983); Marine Corps - Atwater, Abrahams, & Trent (1986); Larriva (1975).

17
Personal Characteristics

-PersonalityARI Research on Personality Resulted in an

Assessment Center

Two "Cold Calls"

Follow Up Interview

Speech About the Army

Interview with a Concerned Parent

In-Basket

Assessment Center has Validity for

Predicting Success in Training

18
Briefing: Personal Characteristics -Personality II

Slide 9

• Research at ARI took the approach of first identifying personality characteristics thought to

be important for successful performance as an Army Recruiter and then developing an

Assessment Center, a series of role play exercises, to measure those characteristics.

• Briefly, the Cold Call exercises had Assessment Center participants (i.e., assessees ) call 2

role playing assessors and try to get them to come down to the recruiting office. One of

these 2 was very difficult to talk to, raised many objections, and ended up saying "no" to

the assessee. The other was easier to deal with and agreed to visit the office. The Follow-up

Interview exercise was with this second role player and required the assessee to further

"sell" the Army. The Speech exercise gave the assessee 1/2 hour to prepare a persuasive

talk about the Army to be delivered to a high school student audience and then to give a 5

minute speech to the assessors.1

• The Interview with a Concerned Parent exercise had the assessee talking with the father of

the prospect interested in joining the Army. This role playing assessor expressed several

concerns about his son's signing with the Army. Finally, the In-Basket was a series of

phone messages, memos, and letters presenting several problems for the assessee to deal

with by writing his or her likely response to each problem.

Experienced recruiters were trained to be assessors, and in a pilot test of the Center, they

rated the performance of about 60 Sgt.'s in the Center. These ratings correlated highly with

these Sgt.'s subsequent performance in the Recruiter School (r=.50)2

This Center was called the Recruiter Development Center and was used for about 3 years in

he early-80s to help motivate Sgts. for Recruiter School and to give them a head start on

Building recruiting skills. ARI won an award for this project.

Airman (1979); Borman (1982); Borman & Fischl (1980); Borman, Rosse, & Rose (1982).

3orman (1982).

19
\j/^ Personal Characteristics

/\ -PersonalityNPRDC Research on Personality

Personality Predicted Performance in Three

Elements ofJob

Selling Skills

Human Relations Skills

Organizing Skills

10

20
Briefing: Personal Characteristics - Personality III

Slide 10

• Selection Research done in the Navy on the personality predictors of recruiter performance

focused on paper-and-pencil personality tests.

• Rather than link personality to overall job performance, this research correlated personality

traits with the 3 components of recruiter performance you saw earlier in the briefing: Selling

Skills, Human Relations Skills, and Organizing Skills.1

3orman, Toquam, & Rosse (1979); Borman, Rosse, & Abrahams (1980); Borman, Rosse, & Rose (1983);

twater, Abrahams, & Trent (1986).

21
\l/ Personal Characteristics

^\ -PersonalitySelling Skills

Making a Good Impression

Enjoyment ofBeing the Center ofAttention

Human Relations Skills

Spontaneity

Ambition and Hard Work

Confidence

Organizing Skills

Planful and Organized

"Bad Actor" - Unruly in School (-)

22
Briefing: Personal Characteristics -Personality IV

Slide 11

• This overhead summarizes the traits that correlated highest with each performance element.

• For success in the Selling Skills area of the job, 2 personality factors, Making a Good

Impression and Enjoyment of Being The Center of Attention, seem to be most important.

Regarding Human Relations Skills, Spontaneity, Ambition and Hard Work, and Confidence

were the personality factors most closely linked to success. And for Organizing Skills, the

factors Planful and Organized and "Bad Actor" - Unruly in School (in the negative

direction) had the highest correlations.1

Borman, Rosse, & Abrahams (1980).

23
\j/ Personal Characteristics

/\ -Vocational InterestsMsrtz:- rases«

NPRDC Research

Selling Skills

Interest in Law and Politics

Interest in Sports and Competitive Activities

- Human Relations Skills

Interest in Teaching and Counseling

Interest in News Reporting and Foreign Service

Organizing Skills

Interest in High Level Management Jobs

Interest in Bookkeeping and Detail Work

12

24
Briefing: Personal Characteristics -Vocational Interests II

Slide 12

• Research conducted by NPRDC found that some fairly specific vocational interest patterns

correlated with job performance in the three performance areas.

• For Selling Performance, Interest in Law and Politics and Interest in Sports and Competitive

Activities were important.

• For the Human Relations Skills part of the job, the vocational interests related to Teaching

and Counseling and News Reporting and Foreign Service were important.

• Finally, for Organizing Skills, Interests in High Level Management Jobs and in Bookkeeping

and Detail Work correlated most highly with performance in this aspect of the job.1

5orman, Rosse, Toquam, & Abrahams (1981).

25
\l/ Personal Characteristics

"^^Cognitive AbilityARI Research

Low Correlations with Performance

26
Briefing: Personal Characteristics - Cognitive Ability I

Slide 13

• ARI research and research in other services has shown very low correlations between

general cognitive ability (or intelligence) and performance as a recruiter. As we have seen,

personality and vocational interests seem to be more critical in successful recruiter

performance.1

A ollack & Kipinis (1960); Brown, Wood, & Harris (1975); Hissong & Plotkin (1998); Vinchur,

-chippmann, Switzer, & Roth (1998).

27
"^ ^raining and Development j^]

Training Programs

Army Recruiter Training Program

On-the-Job Training

Realistic Job Previews

14

28
Briefing: Training & Development I

Slide 14

• Several reviews of Army Recruiter training programs have been conducted.

• The Army Recruiter Training Program was evaluated in 1988 and it was rated favorably by

over 300 students and instructors. The main suggestions for improvement were that more

emphasis be placed on salesmanship skills and on real world problems like meeting

missions and handling rejection.1

• A 1991 ARI review of the On-the-Job Training in 15 battalions was not as positive. Several

suggestions for the OJT program were provided based on interviews with Station

Commanders and recruiting personnel. Complaints included:

1. OJT was not consistently applied and was not standardized.

2. Recruiters felt that commitment to training was low, there was little individualized

feedback, and too much negative feedback, particularly regarding missions.

3. Remedial training was perceived as punishment.

4. And finally, recruiters reported wanting additional training on sales and

prospecting.2

Another training recommendation was made in a 1992 ARI report. The authors

recommended that Realistic Job Previews be used to help retain recruiters and improve

their performance. RJPs may give recruiters a better idea of what to expect in the field and

may make the transition to the job smoother, reduce stress, and help recruiters to be more

persistent in the face of failure.3

Hull, Kleinman, Allen, & Benedict (1988).

Hull & Nelson (1991).

Pond, Powell, Norton, & Thayer (1992).

29
V

7S^-Training and Development

Attempts to Improve Recruiter

Effectiveness Through Training

Analysis of Selling Techniques

Linguistic Analysis of Selling Strategies

15

30
Briefing: Training & Development II

Slide 15

• Research has also been conducted to identify effective recruiting techniques.

• In 1991, an ARI report examined the selling techniques taught by the Army Recruiting

School and the practices used in the field. The report suggests that the recruiting model

used by USAREC results in recruiters having a large rejection rate. Also, USAREC

requirements don't allow time for pursuing important and fruitful community involvement

activities.a

• The authors provided several additional suggestions for the school including building in

more material on how to deal with rejection and stress, and providing more training on

administrative skills, building relationships with potential recruits, and networking. They

also recommended using a system to quickly classify prospects because successful

recruiters were better at terminating unpromising prospects quickly, allowing them to

spend more time with promising ones.

^> A 1987 ARI study attempted to identify the selling strategies and skills of nine high

performing recruiters. A linguistic analysis of their activities in role-playing exercises and in

the field found no real theme to their linguistic behavior. The recruiters varied in their

personal styles. Apparently, within this small sample, at least, no single "magic" personal

style is most effective.2

Chonko, Madden, Tanner, & Davis (1991).

lacobson & Frieman (1987).

31
\|^ Technical and Organizational

Support

Technical Support

Computerized Adaptive Screening Test (CAST)

CAST Correlates with AFQT

Short Word Knowledge Test Administered by

Telephone

32
Briefing: Technical & Organizational Support I

Slide 16

• One of the tools available to recruiters to evaluate prospects is the Computerized Adaptive

Screening Test (CAST) which was developed by NPRDC and ARI.

• The CAST assesses the cognitive ability of prospects and correlates highly (.79) with

candidate AFQT scores. This means that a recruiter can administer the CAST to a prospect

to determine how qualified he or she is before spending a lot of time in the recruitment

process.1

• A telephone administered test containing the word knowledge items from the CAST

correlated highly with AFQT scores, making it possible to determine by phone before even

meeting prospects whether they are qualified or not before beginning the recruitment

process.2

Inapp (1987).

egree, Fischl, & Gade (1997).

33
\l/ Technical and Organizational

/^ Support

ARI Organizational Analysis of USAREC

Problems: Solutions:

Communication Eliminate Brigade Level

Mission Assignment Limit Officer Involvement

Motivation and Rotate Personnel

Training Station-Based Missioning

Low Training Priority Increase Lateral

HQ Out-of-Touch and Communication

Unsupportive Train Station Commanders

17

34
Briefing: Technical & Organizational Support II

Slide 17

• In 1991, ARI performed an organizational assessment of USAREC. Structured interviews

and surveys were administered to NCO's at all levels of USAREC, except HQ. Based on

responses to the interviews and about 400 surveys, the authors reached several conclusions

about the organization.

• First, they concluded that information is not communicated in an organized and timely

manner and recruiters often receive conflicting information from different levels within

USAREC.

• Second, surveys indicated an opinion that mission assignments are made unevenly and

unfairly.

• Third, the NCO's perceived the "motivation" and "training" efforts as more like harassment

and intimidation.

-> Fourth, training programs were seen as not administered effectively or given sufficient

priority. Little time was provided for On-the-Job Training and some training was perceived

as punishment.

» Finally, HQ was perceived as being unsupportive and out of touch with the field.

- The authors made several suggestions, including eliminating the Brigade level in the

organization, limiting officer involvement to the Battalion levels and above to reduce

micromanagement, rotating NCO personnel from HQ to keep them in touch with the field,

implementing Station-based missioning, increasing lateral communication between

Battalions and Companies, and focusing on the training skills of Station Commanders.1

Love, Jex, Richard, & McMullin (1991).

35
Technical and Organizational

Support

ff&&m

Recruiter Incentives and Bonuses

Army College Fund

18

36
Briefing: Technical & Organizational Support III

Slide 18

• 1997 and 1998 GAO reports have indicated that recruiters do not have sufficient incentives

to screen out applicants who may not complete basic training and recommended that

recruiters receive partial credit for screening out these "high risk" prospects.

• The GAO also recommended that recruiters receive bonuses for recruiting top quality

enlistees, and for screening prospects relative to all established criteria.

• Finally, GAO's analysis of the Army College Fund indicated that it was cost effective,

especially for males eligible for the program.1

GAO, Military Attrition, (1997).

37
ropensity to Enlist

•i&SSm

ARI Research on Several Topics

Trends in Propensity

Relations Between Propensity and Enlistment

Behavior

Person-Factors Important for Intentions to

Enlist/Enlistment

38
Briefing: Propensity to Enlist

Slide 19

• ARI research has been conducted on three major topics in this area.

• A couple of studies examined trends in propensity over time, some research has looked at

relationships between propensity and enlistment behavior, and other research has

examined person-factors that influence either intentions to enlist or actual enlistment

decisions.

39
-^—Trends in Propensity

The Response, "Definitely Not Join the

Armed Forces" Significantly Increased from

1976-96

Propensity Declined in 90s: Primarily

Because ofAfrican-American Reductions

40
Briefing: Trends in Propensity

Slide 20

• The main result of this research is that propensity has been declining. From 1976 to 1996 the

percent of youths who reported they would definitely notjoin the Armed Services went

from 59% to over 70%.

• Throughout the 1990s propensity has declined, but a major contributor to the decline has

been the decline in propensity among African-Americans. The percentage of AfricanAmericans who indicated they "definitely will" or "probably will" enlist was around 50%

in the 1980s, but has remained below 30% since 1991.1

Segal, Bachman, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley (1999).

41
Relations Between Propensity

and Enlistment Behavior

Propensity Strongly Predicts Enlistment

ACOMS Survey (1997): Intent to Enlist—

Enlist (r = .48)

Survey of 9000 Males (1980-86): 1/3 Enlist

of Those Intending To

21

42
Briefing: Relations Between Propensity and Enlistment Behavior I

Slide 21

• Some ARI research has shown a strong relationship between propensity and the enlistment

act. For example, in a 1998 study the correlation (eta) was .57 for men and .38 for women.'

In a 1998 publication on the Army Communications Objectives Measurement System

(ACOMS), the intentions to enlist -» actual application path coefficient was .48.2

• But in an interview survey of 9000 male senior and sophomore HS students in 1980 with

follow-ups in '82, '84, and '86, about 1/3 of those who said they intended to enlist had

actually done so two years after graduation.3

1 Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley (1998).

2 Nieva, Wilson, Norris, Greenlees, Laurence, & McCloy (1997).

3 Morrison & Myers (1998).

43
\)/ Relations Between Propensity

y\ and Enlistment Behavior

Definitely Intend to as HS Senior

70% ofMales Enlist

40% of Females Enlist

Probably Will Serve as HS Senior

29% of Males Enlist

8% of Females Enlist

44
Briefing: Relations Between Propensity and Enlistment Behavior II

Slide 22

• In still another survey study conducted from 1984-1991, senior male and female HS

students were asked about their intentions regarding enlisting in the Armed Forces. For

males, of those who reported they definitely intended to enlist, 70% did so as of 5-6 years

later. Of those who said they probablywould serve, 29% actually did.1For females, the

comparable percents are 40 and 8, respectively, for definitely and probably will enlist.

Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley (1998).

45
-^^-tmportant Person Factors

j!&&te*W' -

Significant Influences

Parents (Especially Father)

Friends and Relatives Associated with Military

Provide Personal Character

Gain New Perspective on Life

- Pragmatic: Means to an End

Desire to Serve Others

Escape From Problems

46
Briefing: Important Person Factors I

Slide 23

• There have been seven ARI studies that examine personal reasons for joining (or not

joining) the Armed Forces. These motives for enlisting (i.e., person-factors), are important to

learn about because of the guidance such knowledge might provide for advertising appeals.

Results of these studies can also help recruiters find candidates' "hot buttons" for special

appeals to them. Recruiters should also be aware of how these "hot buttons" may differ for

different genders and ethnic groups.

• A 1996 ARI review of enlistment research1indicates that the following factors are often

identified as the most important influencers of the enlistment decision: parents (especially

the father); and friends and relatives who are associated with the military can be important

in the process. The last five points reflect the rationales often used to make the decision to

enlist:

1. the military will provide me with more personal character

2. it will help me gain a new perspective on life

3. it's a means to an end (e.g., receive money for more education)

4. it fulfills a desire I have to serve others

5. it provides an escape from problems

1 Lawrence & Legree (1996).

47
sr~tmportant Person Factors

Direct Influences

Financial Inducements

Educational Benefits

Unit Assignment

Career Commitments

48
Briefing: Important Person Factors II

Slide 24

• A 1996 ARI study reported that direct influences on enlistment decisions include financial

and educational benefits, unit assignment, and commitment to a military career.1

• Notice that these factors are out of the control of recruiters, although they can emphasize

their positive features.

Lawrence & Legree (1996).

49
^^-tmportant Person Factors

HaaaaBB^BI .,sm

Indirect Influences

Patriotic Appeals

Comradeship

Feeling of Self-Worth

Quest and Adventure

- Escape from Boredom or Problems

50
Briefing: Important Person Factors III

Slide 25

• Indirect or more psychological factors important in enlistment decisions are patriotic

appeals, likely comradeship, a feeling of self-worth, a sense of adventure, and possibly

escape from boredom or problems.]

• If recruiters can determine which of these "buttons" are important to a prospect, they can

(and should) use them to motivate enlistment.

1 Lawrence & Legree (1996).

51
p—fmportant Person Factors

Research Predicting Intent to Enlist (Fishbein

Model)

Affect: Feels Right

Attitudes: Toward Pay/Benefits, Service to

Country, etc.

Norms: Feelings of Parents and Friends

26

52
Briefing: Important Person Factors IV

Slide 26

• A psychological theory put forth by Fishbein has been useful in understanding intentions to

enlist.

• The theory says that affect (feelings about the military), attitudes (toward benefits, serving

country, etc.), and norms (for example, how parents and friends feel about the military) all

make a difference in prospects' intentions to enlist.1

i Rakoff, Adelman, & Mandel (1987). Also Zirk, McTigue, Wilson, Adelman, & Pliske (1987).

53
sr~tmportant Person Factors

■■■■■■■

ACOMS Survey Results

Attitudes Toward Army (.29)

College Intentions (-.40)

Parent Approval (.44)

Peer Approval (.28)

54
Briefing: Important Person Factors V

Slide 27

• A 1997 ARI study used the theory to analyze ACOMS surveys of 16-20 year old males

collected from 1986 through 1988.

• In a test of the Fishbein model, the authors found that, especially, attitudes and norms had

an influence on intentions to enlist in the Army.

• Attitudes toward the Army in general and level of parent and peer approval were

positively related to intentions to enlist and plans to attend college were negatively related

to Army enlistment intentions.1

Nieva, Wilson, Norris, Greenlees, Laurence, & McCloy (1997).

55
^^-tmportant Person Factors

■■■■■■ ■■ MI iii ii in Bsg; ^st^.A^mmmmmammmmm

Monitoring The Future (MTF) Survey Results

Enlistment Rates Lower for:

• Students With College Educated Parents

Students With High HS Grades

• Students With College Plans

- African Americans and Hispanics

- Students Who View Military Work as Unattractive

Females Expectations and Desire to Serve

28

56
Briefing: Important Person Factors VI

Slide 28

• In another ARI-sponsored study published in 1998, Monitoring the Future survey data

gathered in the early 1990s from about 15,000 respondents in the 8th and 10th grades found

that enlistment rates were lower 6-7 years later for youths with college educated parents,

those who earned higher HS grades and had college plans, African-Americans and

Hispanics, and those who viewed military work as unattractive.1

• Other MTF results from a 1998 report, suggested that females have more desire to serve in

the Armed Forces, than they have expectationsthat they will serve. In the 1990's, 8-9% of

women indicated a desire to serve, while only 5-6% expected to serve. This is contrary to

the result for males who have about the same expectations (17-20%) about serving

compared to their desire to serve (16-19%).2

1 Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley (1998).

2 Segal, Segal, Bachman, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley (1998).

57
dvertising Support

SB»».. ■■■- ■■.^•smaaum

Impact on Enlistment

Indirect Influencers

Patriotic Appeals; Coming-of-Age

Comradeship; Self-worth

Quest and Adventure

Escape from Boredom or Problems

Other Factors

Self-Improvement; Money for Education

Work-related Opportunities; Benefits for

29 Women

58
Briefing: Advertising Support I

Slide 29

• Advertising research has focused on understanding the impact of advertising on the

enlistment decision and on determining the best way to influence that decision through

advertising.

• Advertising may not directly influence the decision, but may affect enlistment behavior

more indirectly through other factors, such as beliefs about the Army and intention to

enlist.

• Surveys conducted in the 1980s and early 90s identified several advertising factors that may

influence enlistment decisions.

• For example, in a 1996 ARI review of enlistment research we mentioned earlier, several

indirect influencers of the enlistment decision were found - Patriotic Appeals, Coming-ofAge, Comradeship, Self-Worth, Quest and Adventure, and Escape from Boredom. The

Army may have more control over these indirect influencers, particularly through

advertising.1

• A 1990 ARI study examined the impact of advertising on the perceptions of Army

opportunities among youth, and new and experienced soldiers. The advertising attribute

items from three surveys were used for the analyses: 2

1. The Army Communications Objectives Measurement System (ACOMS), a 30-minute

computer assisted telephone interview of 16-24 year old youth conducted in 1986

and 1987

2. The New Recruit Survey (NRS), a survey of new soldiers conducted at Army

reception battalions from 1986 through 1989

3. The Recruit Experience Tracking Survey (RETS), a survey administered to active

Army soldiers in 1989

• Opportunities for Self-improvement and Education, Work-Related Opportunities and

Opportunities and Benefits for Women were factors found to be most important in the

survevs.

1 Lawrence & Legree (1996).

2 Baker (1990).

59
Other Enlistment Motivators

Money for College

Escape Unemployment

Parents Support Enlistment

Advertising Recall

Research on T.V. Viewing and Radio

Listening Habits

60
Briefing: Advertising Support II

Slide 30

• A 1984 ARI study compared recruit motivation for enlisting in 1979, a poor recruiting year,

versus 1982 and 1983, two good recruiting years. The authors found that the percentage of

new Army recruits indicating Money for College and Escaping Unemployment as their

primary enlistment motives increased from 1979 to 1982 and 1983.aIt's possible that

advertising targeting these topics was especially effective in the early 1980s.

• In 1997, based on ACOMS survey results which determined that parents have a large

influence on enlistment intentions and behavior, ARI researchers suggested that advertising

should convey the message that parents support their sons' Army enlistment.2

• In a 1988 study of Army advertising, ARI researchers found that youth do recall the

messages presented in both print and TV advertising. However, different attributes of the

Army were recalled in the different media. For example, advertising messages about Army

opportunities to work with high-tech equipment, to gain experience to be proud of, and to

develop one's potential were recalled more in video ads. Messages about money for

education and pride in the Army experience were recalled more in print ads.3

• A 1988 study examined the TV viewing and radio listening habits of 16-24 year old males to

help guide future advertising initiatives. For example, the ARI researchers found racial

differences in self-reported television program viewing. They also found that more high

school graduates watch Monday Night Football and college football than non-high school

graduates.4 However, these results are over 10 years old and may need to be updated.

1 Dale & Hill (1984).

2 Nieva, Wilson, Norris, Greenlees, Laurence, & McCIoy (1997).

3 Baxter & Gay (1988).

* Elig (1988).

61
1

^Environmental Factors

ARI Study in 1989: Prime Market

Candidates Will Decrease by 21%, 1985-95

DEP Loss Related Negatively to Economy

and Pay

62
Briefing: Environmental Factors I

Slide 31

• Recall what we said earlier about Environmental Factors. For the most part, USAREC has

less control over these factors, so research on these factors provides little guidance on what

USAREC can do better to improve production.

• However, it is important to learn about how environmental factors influence production to

understand the magnitude of these influences and to understand how USAREC policies

and missioning requirements affect the impact of these influences

• First, an ARI study of census data done in 1989 suggested that Prime Candidates (i.e.,

Category Is and IIs) were going to decrease by 21% from 1985 to 1995.1 This turned out to be

quite accurate.

• In addition, two ARI studies found that low unemployment rates and low military pay

were related to higher DEP losses. Labor market conditions influence not only the

enlistment decision but also the decision to leave the DEP. 2

1 Verdugo & Berliant (1989).

2 Kearl & Nelson (1990).

63
>Är-Environmental Factors

watmim*;''**-"'- :Kv&-ssmam

Accessions Among High Quality Recruits

Correlate Positively With:

Military Pay

Unemployment Rate

Number of Army Recruiters Deployed

Fewer Other Service Recruiters Deployed

64
Briefing: Environmental Factors II

Slide 32

• Another ARI study conducted in 1984, found that higher military pay raises and high

unemployment rates were associated with increases in the number of high quality (i.e.,

Category I and II) accessions over 7 years. Similarly, larger numbers of Army recruiters

deployed in a particular region, and fewer other service recruiters in a region were

associated with higher numbers of quality accessions across 4 regions in the US. Regarding

number of Army recruiters, as we would expect, simply having more recruiters deployed

has a positive impact on recruitment results.1

Brown (1984).

65
V

2S^-Environmental Factors

' -ii«:SSSM8Ba

Accessions Correlate With

Military/Civilian Pay Ratio (.36)

Unemployment Rate (.30)

Attitudes Toward Military (.23)

Environmental Factors Account for 12.4%

of Variance

66
Briefing: Environmental Factors III

Slide 33

• Another study, done in the Navy, found that 3 environmental factors correlated

significantly with number of accessions: Military to Civilian Pay Ratio, Unemployment

Rate, and Youth Attitudes Toward the Military. All environmental factors taken together

accounted for only about 12-1/2% of the variability in number of accessions across the 43

Recruiting Districts.1 This is a positive finding in that it means more than 87% of accession

variability is a function of factors more under the military's control such as recruiter

selection, training and development, and advertising support.

1 Borman, Rosse, & Toquam (1982).

67
onclusions

The Model Revisited

Usefulness in Understanding Recruiting Production

Personal

Characteristics

Training and

Development

Recruiter

Performance

Technical and

Org. Support

^^^ X

Recruiter

Production

Advertising

Support /

Propensity to

Enlist Environmental

Factors

68
Briefing: Conclusions

Slide 34

• The model provides a good framework for helping to understand the "causes" of recruiter

productivity. Basically, recruiter production is a function of recruiter performance, the effort

and skill recruiters demonstrate in their role, andthe propensity of youth to enlist; i.e., their

willingness and motivation to join the Army.

• Recruiter performance is, in turn, a function of the personal characteristics recruiters bring

to the job, the training and development provided to recruiters, both at the beginning of

their assignment and later OJT or other developmental experiences, and technical and

organizational support provided by USAREC and other organizational levels.

• The propensity of young people to enlist has as its two primary antecedents, advertising

which is obviously under the control of USAREC and environmental factors over which

USAREC has less control.

69
onclusions: Production

£sams

The Bottom-Line Productivity Indicator

Quality Indices

35

70
Briefing: Conclusions — Production

Slide 35

• We know that recruiter productivity is the central way we keep score in the Army

recruiting business. However, there has been some effort to reflect recruit quality in

productivity measures. This has a certain appeal but research to date has been rather

negative on these attempts. Either the production indices adjusted for recruit quality are so

highly correlated with raw production, making the effort not really worth it, or the quality

index turns out to be highly unstable over time, with individual recruiter "scores" on

quality fluctuating considerably from month to month.

• Nonetheless, if USAREC anticipates that incentives might be introduced for enlisting high

quality recruits, research into other ideas for quality indices might be in order.

71
\|/ Conclusions: Recruiter

/^, Performance

BSS:

Eight Dimensions Reflecting the Important

Performance Requirements

Applications for the Dimensions

Need for Updating

36

72
Briefing: Conclusions — Performance

Slide 36

• In the 1970s and 80s, we learned a considerable amount about the performance

requirements of the military recruiter job. An 8-dimension system of measuring job

performance was appealing to the Army and to the Navy and Marine Corps.

1. Locating and Contacting Qualified Prospects

2. Gaining and Maintaining Rapport

3. Obtaining Information from Prospects and Determining Their Needs and Interests

4. Sales Skills

5. Establishing and Maintaining Good Relationships in the Community

6. Providing Knowledgeable and Accurate Information about the Army

7. Organizing Skills

8. Supporting Other Recruiters and USAREC

• For example, in the Navy the behavior-based descriptions of the 8-dimensions were used

informally for self-development and the development of new recruiters. The dimensions

basically laid out in unambiguous terms the behaviors that are effective and desirable and

those behaviors that are ineffective and should be avoided in each element of the job. The

dimensions as rating scales were also used to collect peer and supervisor ratings of recruiter

performance as part of test validation research to identify personal characteristics associated

with effective performance.

• Assessment of individual recruiter performance is at the heart of many human resource

applications (e.g., selecting & training), so this is an important topic for research. For

example, a performance appraisal system based on the 8-dimensions would be helpful in

identifying specific developmental needs. Training could then be designed to assist

recruiters in those performance areas where they would benefit most.

• The most recent work on these performance dimensions was approximately 14 years ago so

the behavior-based scales probably need updating. However, the effort should be minimal

because of the research already accomplished.

73
\j/ Conclusions: Personal

^f^Characteristics

- Considerable Research on Personal

Characteristics-Recruiter Performance

Links

Applications Related to Selecting Recruiters

74
Briefing: Conclusions — Personal Characteristics

Slide 37

• We learned a lot in the 1960s through the 80s about the personal characteristics important

for successful military recruiting. For example, cognitive ability seems largely unrelated to

recruiter performance. However, personality and to some extent vocational interests were

more successful in predicting recruiter performance. The relationships between recruiter

personal characteristics and their performance are not large, but under the right

circumstances it might be useful to use tests or inventories targeting these personal

characteristics to help select NCOs for recruiting duty. One idea is to have soldiers

routinely take a test battery at the time of their first re-enlistment and use scores on that

battery to help in the classification process later on in their careers.

• But more broadly, it would be most effective to initiate a program of research to identify the

personal characteristics important for succeeding in the current recruiting environment and

how we might evaluate NCOs on these important characteristics.

75
\|/ Conclusions: Technical and

/^ Organizational Support

Past ARI Survey Research

Possible Future Support from ARI

76
Briefing: Conclusions — Technical and Organizational Support

Slide 38

• There has been only one ARI study in this category. Results of a survey of 400 NCOs in the

field concluded that there may have been certain organizational support problems within

USAREC.

• It should be noted that (1) the study was conducted almost 10 years ago, and the current

support environment may be very different; and (2) field surveys like this often elicit

complaints and negativism, painting an overly dark picture of an organization.

• Regarding the future, ARI could certainly help USAREC with a more comprehensive and

current organizational assessment to identify the organization's strengths to be built upon

and areas where improvements might be made, with the goal of creating an even more

effective USAREC.

77
\j/ Conclusions: Training and

/^\ Development

■■■■■■■■■ ■■■

Effectiveness ofthe Recruiter School

Effectiveness of OJT and Subsequent

Developmental Opportunities

Potential ARI Training and Development

Support

78
Briefing: Conclusions — Training and Development

Slide 39

• A 1988 ARI report was generally quite positive about the Recruiter School. Then current

students, recent graduates, and instructors at the School responded favorably to many

aspects of the training. However, another ARI report, published in 1991, was critical of the

basic sales model used in USAREC.

• OJT was reviewed more negatively than the Recruiter School. Reasons for this view were

discussed previously.

• Finally, the Recruiter Development Center was developed to motivate new recruiters and

build recruiting skills.

• On balance, there seem to be some definite strengths in the recruiter training process.

USAREC can probably build on these strengths to improve, especially, the developmental

support recruiters receive after they reach the field.

• The approach most likely to result in significant improvements to the training and

development of the recruiting force is programmatic research to identify the most effective

strategies that provide both successful initial, out-of-the-box training and potent skill

building and motivational experiences later in their recruiting tenure.

79
^^ "OConclusions: Propensity to Enlist

ARI Research on Trends in Propensity and

Person Factors in the Enlistment Decision

Several Person Factors Identified

College Intentions

Parental Approval

80
Briefing: Conclusions — Propensity to Enlist

Slide 40

• First, ARI research shows that propensity is definitely related to the enlistment decision.

The strength of the relationship varies somewhat by time period and gender, but the main

conclusion here is that because of this link, propensity data are important to gather.

• Second, ARI research identified several person factors that influence both propensity to

enlist and, most important, the enlistment decision itself. The factors most highly related to

the enlistment act are college intentions (negative relation) and parent approval. But other

factors are also important when a young person thinks about enlisting; e.g., joining will

provide character, will help me gain new perspectives on life, and may help me escape from

problems.

• This research is important because it provides information relevant to advertising strategies

and it should help recruiters with "hot buttons" that will motivate prospects to enlist.

81
\j/ Conclusions: Advertising

"7^~Support

Advertising Likely an Indirect Influence on

Enlistment

Factors to Target in Advertising

82
Briefing: Conclusions — Advertising Support

Slide 41

• As mentioned, advertising is likely to have an indirect affect on the enlistment decision

through other factors such as beliefs about the Army and intentions to enlist.

• The ARI research on person factors associated with intentions to'enlist is the most relevant

to identifying targets for advertising. Such factors as serving country, comradeship, and

opportunities for self-improvement are important for many potential recruits, and showing

them that the Army can provide these outcomes is likely to be helpful to the recruitment

effort.

• Nonetheless, a more comprehensive market research initiative may be even more effective

in pinpointing the advertising approaches that result in a higher "hit rate" and identifying

those approaches that are less successful or cost effective.

83
Conclusions: Environmental

Factors

Environmental Factors are Related to

Accessions

Highest Relations: Military/Civilian Pay

Ratio and Unemployment Rate

84
Briefing: Conclusions — Environmental Factors

Slide 42

• Environmental factors do influence propensity to enlist, which is, in turn, related to

accessions.

• The highest relationships between environmental factors and the number of accessions

seem to be for military/civilian pay ratio and the unemployment rate.

• It is important to understand links between these factors and accessions for several reasons.

First, it's useful to know how much environmental factors affect accessions so that we know

how much we can improve productivity through other interventions (e.g., selecting and

training recruiters, advertising, etc.). Fortunately, the answer here is that environmental

factors don't have an overwhelming influence on production. Second, it's important to

understand how recruiting policies, such as quality requirements, can impact these

environmental factors. Finally, there are a variety of issues around setting quotas for

individual recruiters and for recruiting units, and environmental factors might be

considered in this goal-setting process.

85
rmy Recruiting Initiatives

Upgrading the Recruiting Sales Force

Geographic Positioning ofthe Sales Force

Restructuring the Army's Media Mix

86
Briefing: Army Recruiting Initiatives

Slide 43

• As you know, the Secretary of the Army established six major initiatives to eliminate

recruiting shortfalls, and we understand that the need to address these issues is urgent.

While a programmatic research plan is essential to meet the recruiting challenges over the

long term, there are some areas of research that can help with the Army's immediate

recruiting needs and inform the Working Groups as they develop plans to move forward

with these initiatives. That is, some of the previous ARI research should provide a platform

or a "base" to more quickly address some of the immediate problems confronting USAREC.

• The Secretary's first initiative, Upgrading the Recruiting Sales Force, addresses the

selection, training, and management of the recruiting sales force. These areas have been

examined in past ARI and other-service research on Recruiter Performance, Personal

Characteristics associated with successful recruiting,, Training and Development of

recruiters, and Technical and Organizational Support of the recruiting force. One example

here is the behavior-based rating scales for measuring recruiter job performance. These

scales could be quickly updated and used to evaluate members of the current recruiting

force to identify strong and weak areas of performance for immediate management

attention, for example, training toward the weaknesses or reassigning to take advantage of

strengths.

• The second initiative, Geographic Positioning of the Sales Force to maximize recruiting

efforts in the best markets could be informed by what we already know about

Environmental Factors and Enlistment Propensity. For example, research has shown that

the unemployment rate has a consistent negative correlation with accessions, so special

recruiting efforts in territories with a relatively high unemployment rate may be productive.

• Similarly, the third initiative, Restructuring the Army's Media Mix, might benefit

immediately by attending to the research results on Advertising Support. Research has

identified the "hot button" issues important for different groups as they make enlistment

decisions, and these can certainly inform on how best to deploy advertising strategies.

• The main point here is that programmatic research is our best bet for realizing sustained

improvements in recruiter productivity, but past research findings generated by ARI may

also help us more quickly support some of the Secretary's initiatives.

87
Bibliography

Abrahams, N. M., Neuman, I., & Rinland, B. (1973). Preliminary validation ofan interest

inventoryforselection ofNavy recruiters (NPTRL Research Memorandum SRM-73-3). San

Diego, CA: Navy Personnel and Training Research Laboratory.

Achatz, Mary. Understanding women'spropensity: Perspectives from in-depth interviews.

http://www.internationalmta.org/1998/9812c.html.

Arima, J. K. (1977). Determinants and a measure ofNa vy recruiter effectiveness. Prepared for

the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. San Diego.

Asch, B. J. & Hosek, J. R. (1999). Military compensation: Trends andpolicy options. A

documented briefing by RAND's National Defense Research Institute.

Asch, B. J., Kilburn. M. R., & Klerman, J. A. (1999). Attracting college-boundyouth into the

military: Toward the development ofnewrecruitingpolicy options. RAND: National

Defense Research Institute.

Atwater, D. C, Abrahams, N. M., & Trent, T. T. (1986). Validation ofthe Marine Corps Special

Assignment Battery (SAB). San Diego: Navy Research and Development Center.

Bachman, J. G., Segal, D. R., Freedman-Doan, P., O'Malley, P. M. (1998). Does enlistment

propensity predict accession? High school seniors' plans and subsequent behavior. Armed

Forces andSociety, 25(1), 59-80.

T5achman, J. G., Segal, D. R., Freedman-Doan, P., & O'Malley, P. M. (1998). Militarypropensity

and enlistments: Cross-sectional andpanel analyses ofcorrelates andpredictors.

Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper Series #41, Institute for Social Research, University

of Michigan.

oachman, J. G., Segal, D. R„ Freedman-Doan, P., & O'Malley, P. M. (in press). Who chooses

military service? Correlates of propensity and enlistment in the United States Armed

Forces. Unpublished paper. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Baker, T. A. (1990). A cross-sectional comparison ofArmy advertising attributes. (Research

Report 1578). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(ADA233 737)

Baxter, S. & Gay, N. L. (1988). The message content ofadvertisements for active army

enlistments. (Research Report 1473). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

88
Benedict, M. E. (1987). The 1986ARIsurvey of U.S. Army recruits. Technical Manual.

(Technical Report 735). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(AD A182 738)

Benedict, M. E. (1989). The soldiersalesperson: Selection and basic recruiter training issuesin

the U. S. Army. (Research Report 1534) U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences. (AD A212 827)

Bennett, J. T., & Haber, S. E. (1973). Selection, development, and evaluation ofMarine Corps

recruiters. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Engineering

and Applied Science, Institute of Management Science and Engineering, Project NR347020,

Office of Naval Research.

Borman, W. C. (1979). Development ofan assessmentprogram forselectingArmy recruiters.

(Technical Report #33) Personnel Decisions Research Institute: Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C. (1982). Validity of a behavioral assessment for predicting military recruiter

performance. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 6/\l). See also Borman, W. C. & Fischl, M. A.

(1980). Evaluation ofan Army recruiter assessmentprogram. (Technical Report #57)

Personnel Decisions Research Institute: Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (1976). Development ofbehaviorally based

rating scales for evaluating theperformance ofUSNavy recruiters. (Institute Report #6).

Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Eaton, N. K., Bryan; J. D., & Rosse, R. L. (1983). Validity of Army recruiter

behavioral assessment: Does the assessor make a difference? Journal ofApplied

Psychology, 63Q).

Borman, W. C. & Fischl, M. A. (1980). Evaluation ofan Army recruiter assessmentprogram.

(Technical Report #57) Personnel Decisions Research Institute: Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C. & Fischl, M. A. (1981). Recruiter assessment center: Candidate materials and

evaluatorguidelines. (Research Product 81-10). U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Borman, W. C, Hough, L. M. & Dunnette, M. D. (1976). Development ofbehaviorally based

rating scalesfor evaluating theperformance ofU. S. Navy recruiters (NPRDC Technical

Report 76-31). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

Borman, W. C, Rosse, R. L., & Abrahams, N. M. (1980). An empirical construct validity

approach to studying predictor-job performance links. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 65,

662-671.

Borman, W. C, Rosse, R. L., & Rose, S. R. (1982). Predictingperformance in recruiter training:

Validity ofassessmentin the recruiter development center. (Institute Report #73).

Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

89
Borman, W. C, Rosse, R. L., & Rose, S. R. (1983). Development and validation ofan inventory

battery topredictperformance in Navy Officerrecruiting. (Institute Report #85). Personnel

Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Rose, S. R., & Rosse, R. L. (1985). Identifyingpersons likely to be successful at

recruitingminoritiesforthe Navy. (Technical Report #98) Personnel Decisions Research

Institute: Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Rosse, R. L., & Toquam, J. L. (1982). The impact ofenvironmentalfactors and

consideration ofrecruit quality on Navy recruiterproduction. (Technical Report #78)

Personnel Decisions Research Institute: Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Rosse, R. L, Toquam, J. L. & Abrahams, N. M. (1981/ Development and

validation ofa recruiterselection battery. (Institute Report #30). Personnel Decisions

Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C., Russell, T. L., & Skilling, N. J. (1986). Development ofbehavior-based rating

scales and analysis ofrecruiterselection battery data for the Army recruiterjob. (Institute

Report #126). Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Toquam, J. L, & Rose, S. R. (1982). Evaluation ofthree programs to assistNavy

recruiters. (Technical Report #75) Personnel Decisions Research Institute: Minneapolis,

MN.

Borman, W. C, Toquam, J. L, & Rosse, R. L. (1976). Dimensions ofthe Army recruiter and

guidance counselor job. (Technical Report #10) Personnel Decisions Research Institute:

Minneapolis, MN.

Borman, W. C, Toquam, J. L., & Rosse, R. L. (1978). Development and validation ofan

inventory battery topredictNavy andMarine Corps recruiterperformance. (Institute

Report #22). Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Brogden, H. E. & Taylor, E. K. (1949). The validity ofrecruiterselection instruments at various

points ofcut(Report No. 781). Washington, DC: Personnel Research Section.

Brown, C. (1984). Military enlistments: What can we learn from geographic variation.

(Technical Report 620). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (ADA165 663)

Brown, G. H., Wood, M. D., & Harris, J. D. (1975). Army recruiters: Criterion development

andpreliminary validation ofselection procedure (FR-ED-75-8). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Buchs, T. A. (1994). Validation andjustification ofthe use ofa sales-aptitude testfor U. S. Army

recruiterselection. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Navy Postgraduate School.

90
Chonko, L. B., Madden, C. S., Tanner, J. F., & Davis, Roger (1991). Analysis ofArmy recruiter

selling techniques. (Research Report 1589) U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences. (ADA240 841)

Dale, C. & Gilroy, C. (1985). Determinants of enlistments: A macroeconomic time-series view.

ArmedForces and Society 10(2), 192-210.

Dale, C. & Gilroy, C. (1985). Enlistments in the all-volunteer force. American Economic

Review, 75(3), 547-551.

Dale, C & Hill, L. G. (1984). Military and civilian lifetime earnings comparisons. (Technical

Report 619). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A148

844)

Daula, T. & Smith, D. A. (1986). Recruiting goals, enlistment supply, and enlistments in the

U.S. Army. In C. L. Gilroy (Ed.), Army ManpowerEconomics (pp. 101-126). Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Drillings, M. & Fischl, M. A. (1999). Predicting enlistmentpropensity of youngAfricanAmericans. Scientific Parallel Processing Applied Research Center: University of the

District of Columbia.

Elig, T. W. (1988). Targeting the delivery ofArmy advertisements on television. (Research

Report 1484). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD

A199 495)

Elig, T. W., Johnson, R. M., Gade, P. A., & Hertzbach, A. (1984). TheArmy enlistment decision:

An overview of the AR1recruitsurveys, 1982 and 1983. (Research Report 1371). U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A164 230)

Elig, T. W., Weltin, M. M., Hertzbach, A., Johnson, R. M., & Gade, P. A. (1985). U. S. Army

advertising from the recruits' viewpoint. (Research Report 1407). U. S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A163 824)

Freedman-Doan, P. & Bachman, J. G. (1999). Analysis oflinkages between military enlistment

plans and behaviors. (Research Note 99-12). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

Freedman-Doan, Bachman, P., O'Malley, P. M. (1999). Is there a gap between soldiers and

civilians? Comparing thepolitical attitudes of youngrecruits with theirnon-servicepeers,

1976-1997. (Research Note 99-19). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Friedland, J. E. & Little, R. D. (1984). Educational levels, aspirations, and expectations of

military and civilian males, ages 18-22. ArmedForces and Society, 10(2), 211-228.

91
Frieman, S. R. (1987). Sales TrainingforArmyRecruiter Success: Interviews with excellent

recruiters. (Research Product 87-37). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (AD A192 326)

Frieman, S. R., (1987). Sales Training forArmy Recuiter Success: Modeling the Sales Strategies

andSkills ofExcellentRecruiters. (Research Product 87-38). U. S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A191 691)

GAO: Military attrition: DoD could sa ve millions by betterscreening enlistedpersonnel.

Chapter Report, 01/06/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-39. http://frwedbate.access.gpo.gov/.

GAO: Military attrition: DoD needs to better analyze reasons forseparation and improve

recruitingsystems (testimony 3/12/98, GAO/T-NSIAD-98-117).

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

Goldberg, L. & Greenston, P. (1986). Economic analysis of Army enlistments: Policy

implications. In C. L. Gilroy (Ed.), Army Manpower Economics (pp. 61-91). Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Graf, R. G. & Bower, D. B. (1976). The development ofan interest inventory for the selection of

Marine Corpsrecruiters. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development

Center.

Guthrie, T. J. (1991). First-term soldiers' attitudes and behaviors regarding reenlistmentand

reenlistmentpolicies. (Research Report 1596). U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A240 581)

Hissong, Jerry B., & Plotkin, Harris M. (1998). Successful Recruiter Profile Project. The United

States Army Recruiting Command. Contract No. TCN 97-010, Scientific Services Program.

Home, D. K. (1984). An economic analysis of Army enlistment supply (DRAFT-MMPPRG 84-

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

Howell, R. D., Wilcox, J. B., & Wilkes, R. E. (1988). Modeling the effects ofArmy advertising.

(Technical Report 821). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (ADA207 289)

Hughes, A. O. & Khatri, D. S. (1996). Exploratory researchon African-American youth's

propensity tojoin the military. (ARI Research Note 96-12). U. S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A307 050)

Hull, G. L. & Benedict, M. E. (1988). The evaluability assessment ofthe recruiter training

program. (Research Report 1479). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (ADA197 782)

92
Hull, G. L., Kleinman, K., Allen, G., & Benedict, M. E. (1988). Evaluation ofthe USArmy

Recruiting CommandRecruiter Training Program. (Research Report 1503). U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A206 844)

Hull, G. L. & Nelson, W. A. (1991). Instructional needs analysis ofthe USArmyRecruiting

Command (USAREC) on-the-job recruiter trainingprogram. (Research Report 1590). U. S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A237 800)

Jacobson, S. (1987). Sales Training forArmyRecruiter Success: Interviews with excellent

recruiters. (Technical Report 780). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Kearl, C. E., & Nelson, A. (1990). DelayedEntry Program (DEP) attrition: A microdata model.

(Technical Report 889). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD A223 800)

Kelly, W. G., & Tobias, Catherine W. Using YA TS to recruitforthe 21st Century.

http:/www.internationalmta.org/1998/ 9838.html

Knapp, D. J. (1987). Finalreport on a national cross-validation ofthe ComputerizedAdaptive

Screening Test (CAST). (Technical Report 768). U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A192 020)

Krug, S. E. (1972) Psychological and demographicpredictors ofsuccess as a Na valrecruiter

(final report). Washington, DC: Navy Recruiting Command.

Lancaster, Anita R., & Lehnus, Jerry. (1997). Declininginterestin military service: Qualitative

insights. Defense Manpower Data Center.

Larriva, R. F. (1975). U. S. Marine Corps recruiterperformanceprediction study. Unpublished

manuscript.

Lawrence, G. H., & Legree, P. J. (1996). Military EnlistmentPropensity: A review ofrecent

literature. (ARI Research Note 96-69). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (ADA319 605)

Legree, P. J., Fischl, M. A., & Gade, P. A. (1997). EstimatingAFQTby telephone using a

computer adaptive test. (Technical Report 1058). U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A328 971)

Legree, P. J., Fischl, M. A., & Gade, P. A., & Wilson, M. (1998). Testing word knowledge by

telephone to estimate general cognitive aptitude using an adaptive test. Intelligence, 26(2),

91-98.

Legree, P. J., Gade, P. A., Martin, D. E., Fischl, M. A., Wilson, M. J., Nieva, V. F., McCloy, R., &

Laurence, J. (in press). Military enlistment and family dynamics: Youth and parental

perspectives. Military Psychology.

93
Love, K. G., Jex, S. M., Richard, R. L., & McMullin, C. (1991). Organizational assessment to

support the USAREC On-the-Job (OJT) Recruiter TrainingProgram. (ARI Research Note 91-

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

Massey, I. H. & Mullins, C. J. (1966). Validation ofthe recruiter-salesman selection test.

Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division,

Air Force Systems Command.

McBride, J. R. & Cooper, R. R. (1999). Modification ofthe ComputerizedAdaptive Screening

Test (CAST) for use by recruiters in allmilitary services. (ARI Research Note 99-25). U. S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A362 350)

Military recruiting: DOD could improve itsrecruiterselection and incentive systems (1998).

General Accounting Office, Report to the Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on

Armed Services, U. S. Senate.

Military recruiting: More innovative approaches needed. (1994). General Accounting Office,

Report to the Honorable David Pryor, U.S. Senate.

Morrison, D. R. & Myers, D. E. (1998). Factors influencing the enlistment aspirations and

decisions ofHispanic, Black and White maleyouth. (Research Note 98-19). US Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A349 410)

Nelson, A. (1988). DelayedEntry Program (DEP) loss behavior. (Technical Report 823). U. S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A205 400)

Nieva, V. F., Wilson, M. J., Norris, D. G., Greenlees, J. B., Laurence, J., & McCloy, R. (1997)

Enlistmentintentions and behaviors: Youth andparental models. (Contractor Report 97-

13) US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A326 054)

Nord, R. D., Schmitz, E. J., & Weiland, T. A. (1986). Propensity and the enlistment decision.

(Technical Report 723). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(AD A178 444) '

Phillips, C. E. & Schmitz, E. J. (1985). A microdata model of delayed entry program (DEP)

behavior. (Technical Report 666). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Pliske, R. M., Elig, T. M., & Johnson, R. M. (1986). Towards an understanding ofArmy

enlistmentmotivationpatterns. (Technical Report 702) U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD Al73 817)

Pond, S. B., Powell, T. E., Norton, J. J., & Thayer, P. W. (1992). Feasibility ofusing realisticjob

previewsin the Army recruiter trainingprocess. (Research Report 1630). U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A257 914)

94
Rakoff, S. H., Adelman, L., & Mandel, J. S. (1987). A quantitative model ofthe considerations

determining enlistment andreenJistwent behavior. (Technical Report 773). U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A192 029)

Russell, T. L. & Borman, W. C. (1986). Predictingmilitary recruiter effectiveness: A literature

review. ( Research Note 87-23). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD A181 830)

Schmitz, E. J. (1990). The Army College Fund andmilitarymanpower: A reviewofexisting

research. (Research Report 1572). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (ADA229 049)

Schmitz, E. J. & Nelson, A. (1984). Modeling the enlistmentprocessforpersonnelplanning.

(Research Report 1416). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Segal, D. R., Bachman, J. G., Freedman-Doan, P., & O'Malley, P. M. (in press). Propensity to

serve in the US Military: Temporal trends and subgroup differences. ArmedForces and

Society.

Segal, M. W., Segal, D. R., Bachman, J. G., Freedman-Doan, P. & O'Malley, P. M. (1998) Gender

and thepropensity to enlist in the U.S. Military. Gender Issues, 64-87.

Tarver, S. M., Miller, A. E., & Ginexi, E. M. (1994). A qualitative evaluation ofreasonsfor

enlisting in the military: Interviews with newactive-duty recruits. Arlington, VA: Defense

Manpower Data Center, Program Evaluation Branch.

Taylor, J. G., Lindsay, G. F., Manager, B. K., & Weitzman, R. A. (1995). Development ofa model

topredictrecruitersuccess (initialresults). Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, CA.

Verdugo, N. & Berliant, K. R. (1989). Estimating theArmy'sprime recruitingmarket.

(Technical Report 832). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(AD A210 850)

Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of

predictors of job performance in salespeople. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 83(A), 586-597.

Weiss, H. M. (1988). Evaluation ofrecruiterperformance measures andpolicy. (Research

Report 1485). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD

A201 344)

Weiss, H. M., Citera, M, & Finfer, L. (1989). Evaluation ofan Army recruiterselection program.

(Research Report #1514) U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Wilson, Michael J., Berkowitz, Susan., Lehnus, Jerry. The meanings of propensity: Perspectives

from in-depth interviews, http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper26.html

95
Wilson, MichaelJ., Gay, Nancy L., Allen, Bruce F., and Celeste, Jan F. (1988). The Army

enlistment decision:A selectedannotated bibliography. (Research Note 88-65). U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Wilson, M. J. & Perry, M. Shelley (1988). The career decision survey: Modeling theArmy

enlistment decision. (Research Report 814). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

Wollack, L., & Kipnis, D. (1960). Development ofa device forselectingrecruiters(Task

assignment PF-016-003-W2). Washington, DC: U.S. Naval Personnel Research Field

Activity.

Zirk, D. A., McTeigue, R. J., Wilson, M., Adelman, L, & Pliske, R. (1987). Alternative

approaches to modeling the individual enlistment decision: A literature review. (Research

Report 738). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

96