Research Report 1901 

Assessment of the Warrant Officer Technical and 

Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) 

Scott A. Beal, Robert Kilcullen, James W. Lussier 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Don Martin 

North Carolina State University 

Gonzalo Ferro 

Personnel Decisions Research Institute 

June 2009 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

BARBARA A. BLACK, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

Research Program Manager Director 

Training and Leader Development 

 Division 

 

 Technical review by 

 Michael L. Wesolek, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Scott Shadrick, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-ZXM, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report 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 findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

June 2009 

2. REPORT TYPE

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 June 2006 - August 2008 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Assessment of the Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical 

Certification Course (WOTTC) 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 633007 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Scott A. Beal, Robert Kilcullen, James W. Lussier (U.S. Army 

Research Institute), Don Martin (North Carolina State University), 

and Gonzalo Ferro (Personnel Decisions Research Institute) 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

 A792 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

 293

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

 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

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

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

 Sciences 

 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

 Arlington, VA 22202-3926

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Research Report 1901 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 Subject Matter POC: Scott A. Beal 

ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): In response to a request from the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and 

School, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) initiated a research effort to assess the 

effectiveness of the new Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) in terms of producing 

Special Forces (SF) Warrant Officers (WO) who could perform effectively on the job. A behaviorally anchored rating scale 

(BARS) was developed to assist the assessment process. Seventeen SF battalion commanders and 13 senior WOs 

provided individual job performance ratings for 91 WOTTC graduates, in addition to rating their performance as a group 

relative to other SF WOs of the same rank and experience. In general, the ratings for junior WOs suggest that the WOTTC 

produces graduates who perform capably on the job. Written comments provided by leaders reinforced the positive 

assessment of the WOTTC graduates’ job performance. This report describes the methods used to complete the effort, 

documents the results, and discusses how the findings reflect the utility of the WOTTC for SF WOs. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

 Special Forces Warrant Officer Technical Training Tactical Training Field Performance Assessment

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

OF PAGES 

38

Ellen Kinzer

Technical Publications 

Specialist 

(703) 602-8047 

PDRI: A Previsor Company 

1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 100 

Arlington, VA 22209

U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

 Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Fort Bragg Scientific Coordination 

 Office 

i 
ii 
Research Report 1901 

Assessment of the Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical 

Certification Course (WOTTC) 

Scott A. Beal, Robert Kilcullen, James W. Lussier 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Don Martin 

North Carolina State University 

Gonzalo Ferro 

Personnel Decisions Research Institute 

ARI-Fort Bragg Research Unit 

James W. Lussier, Chief 

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

June 2009 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

633007A792 and Training 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii 
iv 
ASSESSMENT OF THE WARRANT OFFICER TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL 

CERTIFICATION COURSE (WOTTC) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

The Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) Phase III Warrant Officer 

Study Report (2002) recommended that TRADOC modify the Warrant Officer Candidate School 

(WOCS) to align its approach with current Army needs. This course represented the first phase 

of common core Warrant Officer (WO) training and was not specific to any military 

occupational specialty (MOS). Following completion of the WOCS, candidates began MOSspecific training in the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC), the length of which was dictated 

by MOS. 

 The WOBC specific to Special Forces (SF) candidates typically produced an overall SF 

training timeline that impaired the tempo of building the SF force structure because candidates 

were required to complete the WOBC before they were eligible for further SF training and 

deployment as part of an operational detachment. In addition, SF candidates who attended the 

WOCS tended to be older, more experienced, and able to demonstrate higher levels of task and 

skill proficiency than Soldiers from other MOSs. 

 Leaders at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) requested approval 

to conditionally appoint SF WOs and to conduct a Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical 

Certification Course (WOTTC) specific to the needs of SF WOs. The Vice Chief of Staff of the 

Army, General Richard A. Cody, approved the request by USASOC conditional upon a two-year 

test period. One requirement of the two-year trial program was that Battalion Commanders and 

Senior WOs provide feedback about the field performance of junior WOs who graduated from 

the WOTTC. The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (JFKSWCS) 

requested assistance from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences (ARI) to determine the level at which WOTTC graduates performed on the job. 

Procedure: 

Seventeen SF Battalion Commanders and 13 Senior WOs provided individual job 

performance ratings for 91 WOTTC graduates. In addition, they rated their performance as a 

group relative to other SF WOs of the same rank and experience. 

Findings: 

In general, the ratings for junior WOs suggest that the WOTTC produces graduates who 

perform capably on the job. Written comments provided by leaders reinforced the positive 

assessment of the WOTTC graduates’ job performance. 

v 
Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

 The results of this assessment support the WOTTC for training the specific needs of SF 

WOs. In addition, the report supplies TRADOC with information necessary for a more 

comprehensive evaluation of the WOTTC in the future. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, 

GEN Richard D. Cody received the results briefing on this assessment. 

vi 
ASSESSMENT OF THE WARRANT OFFICER TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL 

CERTIFICATION COURSE (WOTTC) 

CONTENTS 

 

Page 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 

 

Method .............................................................................................................................. 2 

Results ............................................................................................................................... 5 

Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 10 

References ...................................................................................................................... 11 

Appendix A The WOTTC Field Performance Survey .............................................. A-1 

Appendix B Content of Email Request for Ratings ................................................... B-1 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Example Item from the WOTTC Field Performance Survey ............................. 4 

Table 2 Rating Scale for WOTTC Graduates’ Performance as a Group ......................... 4 

Table 3 Demographic Information from the WOTTC Field Performance Survey .......... 5 

Table 4 Response Percentages for Individual Performance Ratings ............................... 6 

Table 5 Analysis of Individual Performance Ratings across Raters ................................ 7 

Table 6 Selection of Raters’ Written Responses .............................................................. 9 

List of Figure 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution for group performance ratings ................................... 8 

vii 
viii 
Introduction 

 In July 2002, the Department of the Army published the Army Training and Leader 

Development Panel (ATLDP) Phase III Warrant Officer Study Report. The authors produced the 

report in accordance with the Chief of Staff, Army charter for the ATLDP and the U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Commanding General’s instructions to study and 

research the leader development issues relevant to Warrant Officers (WO). The report included 

63 recommendations within the following four broad directives: 

• Integrate WOs fully into the Army Officer Corps. 

• Improve the current WO Education System. 

• Develop and implement WO recruiting, accession, and retention. 

• Improve the professional development of WOs to meet grade and skill levels. 

In response to the ATLDP recommendations, TRADOC modified the Warrant Officer 

Candidate School (WOCS) to align its approach with current Army needs. The selected active 

duty Soldiers began the WOCS by completing a six-week course taught at Fort Rucker, AL. 

This course represented the first phase of common core WO training and was not specific to any 

military occupational specialty (MOS). Following the common core training, candidates began 

MOS-specific training in the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC), the length of which was 

dictated by MOS. 

 The WOBC specific to Special Forces (SF) candidates typically produced an overall SF 

training timeline of 29 to 53 weeks. This impaired the tempo of building the SF force structure 

because candidates were required to complete the WOBC before they were eligible for further 

SF training and deployment as part of an operational detachment. In addition, SF candidates 

who attended the WOCS tended to be older, more experienced, and able to demonstrate higher 

levels of task and skill proficiency than Soldiers from other MOSs. As such, the WOCS offered 

little in the way of learning value for SF candidates until late into the WOBC. 

 Leaders at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) requested approval 

to conditionally appoint SF WOs and to develop and conduct a Warrant Officer Technical and 

Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) at Fort Bragg, NC. The WOTTC integrated training of 

selected concepts, tasks, and skills drawn from the WOBC and the Basic Officer Leader Course 

(BOLC) I and II that were relevant to SF-specific needs and that were beyond the scope and 

charter of the school at Fort Rucker. In addition, the WOTTC served to reduce the overall 

timeline for SF WO training to 11 to 27 weeks. 

 The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Richard A. Cody, approved the request by 

USASOC conditional upon a two-year test period beginning with the first WOTTC rotation in 

August 2006. One requirement of the two-year trial program was that Battalion Commanders 

and Senior WOs provide preliminary feedback about the field performance of junior WOs who 

graduated from the WOTTC. The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and 

School (JFKSWCS) requested assistance from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) to determine the level at which WOTTC graduates 

performed on the job. This report describes the methods used to complete one requirement of 

1 
the two-year WOTTC evaluation, documents the results, and discusses how the findings reflect 

the utility of the WOTTC course. 

Method 

Sample and Procedure 

 Seventeen current and former SF Battalion Commanders and 13 Senior WOs provided 

individual job performance ratings for 91 WOTTC graduates. Eleven of the current and former 

Battalion Commanders and 12 of the Senior WOs rated the performance of 91 graduates as a 

group relative to other SF WOs of the same rank and experience. 

The Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs were asked to provide ratings for WOTTC 

graduates by responding to an email request (see Appendix B). The content of each email 

message included the names of graduates (as few as one and as many as 11) who had served 

under each leader’s command and were to be rated, as well as instructions for accessing the webbased WOTTC Field Performance Survey and providing the job performance ratings. Strict 

confidentially was maintained for both sets of ratings to encourage candid responses. 

Measures 

Individual Ratings. The WOTTC Field Performance Survey is a web-based measure that 

was developed to allow Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs to provide confidential ratings 

of the individual job performance of WOTTC graduates (i.e., junior WOs) who had served under 

their command (see Appendix A) on 17 job-critical performance dimensions. To develop the 

rating scales, previous job analyses were reviewed to identify critical competencies related to the 

duties and responsibilities of a SF WO serving as an assistant detachment commander (180A) of 

an SF operational detachment-alpha. Two previous efforts, the first by Russell, Crafts, 

Tagliareni, McCloy, and Barkley (1996), and the second by Ferro, Cracraft, and Ford (In 

preparation), provided the theoretical foundation upon which the survey was developed. The 

Program of Instruction (POI) for the SF WOBC provided additional guidance, along with an 

initial set of dimensions that included tactical performance, individual and team performance, 

diplomacy, decision-making, and leadership. 

Four focus groups consisting of active duty SF Senior WOs and SF training developers 

currently working at JFKSWCS provided subject-matter expertise and a formative review of the 

survey contents. In addition, three active duty WOBC instructors and former SF WOs working 

at the WOBC participated in focus groups for the same purpose. Based on recommendations 

from the subject-matter experts, 20 SF WO performance dimensions were identified, defined, 

and linked to an initial set of behavioral descriptions to which ratings could be anchored. 

A second panel of subject-matter experts reviewed the draft WOTTC Field Performance 

Survey. Ten experts including active duty Senior WOs from the Directorate of Training and 

Doctrine (DOTD) and Directorate of Special Operations Proponency (DSOP), and instructors 

from the WOBC, reviewed the document and offered suggestions for modifications. In addition, 

researchers interviewed SF Company and Battalion Commanders who had experience as leaders 

2 
of operational detachments-alpha and who executed various types of SF training. The second 

round of focus groups resulted in a final list of 17 performance dimensions, definitions, and 

behavioral descriptions specific to the field performance of junior WOs. A small group of Senior 

WOs and SF officers conducted a final review to determine the content validity of the 

performance dimensions. One final question was added to the survey that allowed SF Battalion 

Commanders and Senior WOs to provide any written comments they wished to make regarding 

each WOTTC graduate’s strengths and weaknesses (see Appendix A). As a result of this 

process, Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs were asked to provide individual ratings of 

WOTTC graduates on the following 17 performance dimensions: 

Leadership 

• Displaying Integrity and Army Values. 

• Mentoring/Advising Others. 

• Team Leadership. 

• Building Trust. 

• Briefing/Communicating. 

Decision-making 

• Planning. 

• Decision-making. 

• Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or Changing Work Situations. 

• Handling Crisis Situations or Work Stress. 

• Troubleshooting and Solving Problems Creatively. 

Diplomacy 

• Cultural Awareness. 

• Interpersonal Skill. 

Other 

• Writing Skills. 

• Training Management. 

• Risk Management. 

• Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, and Procedures. 

• Confronting Physical and Environmental Challenges. 

To strengthen the link between the actual field performance of junior WOs and their 

leaders’ ratings, each item on the survey was anchored to a scale with descriptions of effective 

and ineffective behavior (see Pulakos, 1997). An example of the survey items is shown in Table 

1. 

 

3 
Table 1 

Example Item from the WOTTC Field Performance Survey 

Task: LEADERSHIP: Building Trust 

Aiding in the development of a shared belief among team members that teammates will perform their 

roles and protect the interests of the ODA; fostering trust through team building as team composition 

changes; knowing the pulse of the team; factoring trust building into team training. 

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Cares more about individual 

success than team success. 

 Does not fully participate in 

team activities. 

 Shares important information with 

team members. 

 Willingness to admit mistakes and 

accept feedback. 

 Values opinions and ideas from other 

team members. 

 Allows others to take leadership roles 

as appropriate. 

 Stands up for the team and its 

members. 

 

The leaders rated the junior WOs on each performance dimension on the survey (e.g., 

Task: LEADERSHIP: Building Trust). The ratings were given according to a 7-point scale (1 = 

lowest and 7 = highest) that was grouped into low, effective, and high performance categories. 

Each performance category was anchored to one or more of the behavioral descriptions. 

The survey also collected demographic information from the Battalion Commanders and 

Senior WOs to include their rank, time in their current command position, whether they had 

worked with the graduates prior to the WOTTC when the graduates were NCOs, and the length 

of time they had known the graduates for whom they provided ratings. 

Group Performance Ratings. The leaders rated the graduates as a group by selecting one 

option from the scale shown in Table 2. 

Table 2 

Rating Scale for WOTTC Graduates’ Performance as a Group 

Rating Meaning 

5 The job performance of the graduates under your command, as a group, is well above that of SF 

WOs of similar grade/experience. 

4 The job performance of the graduates under your command, as a group, is above that of SF WOs 

of similar grade/experience. 

3 The job performance of the graduates under your command, as a group, is about the same as the 

SF WOs of similar grade/experience. 

2 The job performance of the graduates under your command, as a group, is below that of SF 

WOs of similar grade/experience. 

1 The job performance of the graduates under your command, as a group, is well below that of SF 

WOs of similar grade/experience. 

4 
As can be seen from the group rating scale, this research did not compare the knowledge 

of WOTTC graduates with those from the WOCS at Fort Rucker. However, this research 

evaluated what seemed to be a more meaningful criterion – the “end result” job performance of 

WOTTC graduates compared to non-WOTTC graduates of similar rank and experience. The 

actual job performance of WOTTC graduates was judged to be a more important bottom line 

indicator of the quality of the course. 

Results 

Demographic Information 

 The results for demographic information showed that 12% of the Battalion Commanders 

who provided ratings had been in their current command position for up to six months, compared 

to 16% of the Senior WOs who rated WOTTC graduates. Sixty-seven percent of the Battalion 

Commanders were in their command positions for six to 12 months, and 21% commanded for 12 

to 24 months. For the Senior WOs, 40% were in their positions for six to 12 months, 38% for 12 

to 24 months, and six percent for more than four years. These results are shown in Table 3. 

 Table 3 shows also that 30% of the Battalion Commanders had known the graduates 

whom they rated for up to six months, 40% had known the graduates for six to 12 months, 15% 

knew them for 12 to 24 months, and 15% knew them for more than four years. For the Senior 

WOs, 26% had known the graduates whom they rated for up to six months, 10% knew them for 

six to 12 months, 34% knew them for 12 to 24 months, and 30% knew them for more than four 

years. 

Table 3 

Demographic Information from the WOTTC Field Performance Survey 

Rater Time in Command Time Rater Has 

Known Graduate 

Raters Worked with 

Graduates as NCOs 

SF Battalion 

Commanders 

12% = 0-6 months 

67% = 6-12 months 

21% = 12-24 months 

30% = 0-6 months 

40% = 6-12 months 

15% = 12-24 months 

15% = >4 years 

35% rated graduates 

worked with as NCOs 

Senior WOs 16% = 0-6 months 

40% = 6-12 months 

38% = 12-24 months 

6% = >4 years 

26% = 0-6 months 

10% = 6-12 months 

34% = 12-24 months 

30% = >4 years 

62% rated graduates 

worked with as NCOs 

Ratings for Individual Performance 

The Battalion Commanders provided ratings for a total of 59 graduates, whereas the 

Senior WOs provided ratings for a total of 50 graduates. Because the total number of graduates 

was 91, 18 graduates received ratings from both Battalion Commanders and from Senior WOs. 

The raters provided individual ratings for graduates on each performance dimension according to 

a seven-point scale (1 = lowest, 7 = highest). Three categories of ratings were grouped on the 

scale and shown accordingly on the survey (see Appendix A): (a) 1 and 2 = Low Performance, 

5 
(b) 3, 4, and 5 = Effective Performance, and (c) 6 and 7 = High Performance. As shown in Table 

4, the vast majority of the graduates received Effective Performance or High Performance ratings 

on the 17 individual performance dimensions from Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs. 

Table 4 

Response Percentages for Individual Performance Ratings 

Performance Dimension % “Low” 

Performance 

Ratings 

% “Effective” 

Performance 

Ratings 

% “High” 

Performance 

Ratings 

Leadership: 

Displaying Integrity and Army Values 1 23 76 

Mentoring/Advising Others 2 24 75 

Team Leadership 1 24 75 

Building Trust 0 25 75 

Briefing/Communicating 0 38 62 

Decision-making: 

Planning 0 39 61 

Decision-making 0 40 60 

Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or 

Changing Work Situations 

0 39 61 

Handling Crisis Situations or Work Stress 1 32 67 

Troubleshooting and Solving Problems 

Creatively 

2 38 60 

Diplomacy: 

Cultural Awareness 7 24 69 

Interpersonal Skill 2 31 67 

Other: 

Writing Skills 1 43 56 

Training Management 3 34 63 

Risk Management 2 36 62 

Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, and 

Procedures 

1 32 67 

Confronting Physical and Environmental 

Challenges 

2 29 69 

 The mean ratings provided by Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs are displayed in 

Table 5. The results from Independent-samples t-tests showed that Senior WOs gave 

significantly higher ratings for the following individual performance dimensions: Displaying 

Integrity and Army Values, Building Trust, Briefing/Communicating, Planning, Decisionmaking, Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or Changing Work Situations, and Writing 

Skills. 

6 
Table 5 

Analysis of Individual Performance Ratings across Raters 

Performance Dimension Bn Commander 

Mean Rating 

Senior WO 

Mean Rating 

t p< 

Leadership 

Displaying Integrity and Army Values 5.93 6.26 1.98 .05 

Mentoring/Advising Others 5.86 6.24 

Team Leadership 5.97 6.16 

Building Trust 5.92 6.32 2.52 .05 

Briefing/Communicating 5.58 6.18 3.28 .01 

Decision-making 

Planning 5.59 6.08 2.32 .05 

Decision-making 5.68 6.12 2.21 .05 

Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or 

Changing Work Situations 

5.69 6.16 2.60 .05 

Handling Crisis Situations or Work Stress 5.78 6.12 

Troubleshooting and Solving Problems 

Creatively 

5.54 5.98 

Diplomacy 

Cultural Awareness 5.68 6.00 

Interpersonal Skill 5.76 6.02 

Other 

Writing Skills 5.36 5.86 2.25 .05 

Training Management 5.56 5.82 

Risk Management 5.66 6.08 

Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, and 

Procedures 

5.81 6.14 

Confronting Physical and Environmental 

Challenges 

5.98 6.10 

Ratings for Group Performance 

The Battalion Commanders and Senior WOs rated WOTTC graduates who had 

served under their command as a group by selecting one option from the scale shown 

in Table 2. Figure 1 shows that nine percent of the graduates were seen as performing 

at about the same level as other junior WOs with similar experience and grade. Sixtyone percent of the graduates were rated as performing above others, and 30% 

performed well above others with similar experience and grade. There was no 

significant difference in mean group performance ratings across the two groups of 

raters. 

7 
Group Performance Ratings

0% 0%

9%

61%

30%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Performs Well

Below Others

Peforms Below

Others

Performs About

the Same as

Others

Performs Above

Others

Peforms Well

Above Others

Ratings Categories

Percentage Distribution

Figure 1. Percentage distribution for group performance ratings. 

Written Responses from Raters 

 The final question on the WOTTC Field Performance Survey allowed the leaders to 

provide written comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the graduates for whom they 

provided ratings. These comments are shown in Table 6, with graduates’ strengths included in 

the left column and their corresponding weaknesses included in the right column. 

8 
Table 6 

Selection of Raters’ Written Responses 

Strengths Weaknesses 

Experience, natural intelligence, personality, technical and 

tactical skill. 

Overconfident, somewhat arrogant. 

Exceptional leader in combat. No weaknesses noted. 

Outstanding leader and mentor for junior SF enlisted Soldiers None that I have observed. 

Recently deployed on 1st mission since graduating from 

WOTTC. Has met all suspenses and thoroughly planned the 

deployment, as well as briefed mission to his Commander. 

None noted at this time. 

Technically and Tactically proficient. Personable and 

hardworking. 

Experience as an officer, which will come with time. 

Planning and adaptability - he effectively managed a very 

complex mission to Nepal with a very difficult weapons testing 

and evaluation cell. 

I have not identified any weaknesses yet in this 

Soldier. He has a terrific work ethic and adapts very 

well in a very fluid environment. 

Language and cultural awareness - he was tasked to work in a 

joint headquarters during an exercise in Korea and provided 

excellent support. 

Had a steep learning curve for the first couple 

months. He has adapted very well, but it did require 

extra work on his part. 

Exceptional leader in combat. No weaknesses noted. 

Experience and technical and tactical proficiency - he provided 

excellent planning and support for his detachment while on a 3 

month mission to the Philippines. 

He could become more involved in the systems of 

the detachment, but has done a very good job thus 

far. 

Attention to detail, creative and adaptive thinker, well 

respected based on a reputation of excellence. 

Building his own confidence as he develops as a 

warrant officer. 

Excellent tactical and technical SF Soldier with unlimited 

leadership potential. 

None I have identified at this time. 

Never shuns new challenges. Says yes to any task given him. Might learn to say "no" when appropriate. 

Dynamic leadership. Patience for those not up to his standard. 

A very focused, intelligent Soldier. He has the drive and 

experience to become one of the best Warrant Officers in his 

Group. 

He lacks the experience in his current position. He 

improves with each month. 

This Soldier was assigned while his battalion was engaged in 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). He immediately 

integrated himself into his Operations Detachment Alpha 

(ODA) in the conduct of combat operations. 

None noted at this time. 

He is a tremendous Soldier and a great addition to the WO 

Corps. He excels at planning (near-term and long-term). He 

has led his detachment through a very demanding overseas 

deployment and in preparation for an upcoming combat 

deployment. 

At times his communication within the company and 

battalion needs further clarification. He has been 

taken out of context on two occasions because the 

full intent of his communication was not fully and 

clearly conveyed. 

Outstanding performance throughout our Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) rotation. 

None I have identified at this time. 

Superb junior leader with unlimited potential None that I have observed. 

Outstanding leadership skills. He has been an excellent coach 

to his new Detachment Commander. He is an exceptional 

mentor to the Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) on his 

detachment. 

Understanding of Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The WOTTC course is a success and should be continued 

indefinitely! The NCO's I have recommended for WO 

selection have all excelled and some have received leadership 

awards. These WO1's need exactly what they are receiving in 

WOTTC. 

The NCOs just need more experience. 

Perhaps the best WO1 I've ever seen. Certainly based upon 

effective selection criteria and ensuring, at each level of 

command, that we recommend the right men for the program. 

Experience: will come with time. 

Excellent planner and instructor. His shooting skills and 

ability to train his detachment are tremendous. 

He has full understanding of all the tasks, but 

applying all the skills simultaneously. requires some 

additional work. 

9 
Demographic Influences on Ratings 

Pearson bivariate correlations were conducted to determine if there were any meaningful 

significant relationships between demographics and individual performance ratings. The raters 

who had more time in command positions tended to give graduates higher ratings for DecisionMaking (r = .226, p = .019), Handling Crisis Situations or Work Stress (r = .203, p = .035), and 

Risk Management (r = .255, p = .008). 

Discussion 

The purpose of this research effort was to fulfill one requirement as part of a two-year 

trial program mandated by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Richard A. Cody, to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the WOTTC by assessing the field performance of junior WOs who 

graduated from the course and comparing them to peers who had not attended WOTTC. The 

actual job performance of WOTTC graduates was judged to be a more important bottom line 

indicator of the quality of the course as opposed to knowledge attained, which may not always 

translate directly into effective job performance. 

In general, the ratings for individual performance provided by the Battalion Commanders 

and Senior WOs for junior WOs’ suggest that the WOTTC produces graduates who perform 

capably on the job. In addition, the WOTTC graduates performed at least as well, and in most 

cases better than, peers who were not graduates of this course. The positive evaluations of the 

WOTTC graduates’ job performance were reinforced by the written comments made by their 

leaders. 

 Prior to the implementation of the WOTTC, the typical training timeline, to include 

completing the WOBC specific to SF, was 29 to 53 weeks. It was not until SF Soldiers 

graduated from the WOBC that they could receive additional SF training or perform as part of an 

operational detachment. The WOTTC served to cut the training timeline in half, to 11 to 27 

weeks, which helped maintain training momentum and meet current SF force structure 

requirements, while at the same time producing high quality WOs for the force. 

 One limitation of this research is that it examined the job performance of WOTTC 

graduates only within the junior ranks. It would be useful for follow-up research to track the 

WOTTC graduates over time to see how well they perform at higher levels compared to their 

peers. With this caveat in mind, the data collected in this research indicate that the WOTTC is 

producing SF WOs who are strong performers at the lower levels. At the present time, there is 

no basis for assuming that this will change as these individuals advance to higher levels of 

responsibility. 

 

 

10 
References 

Ferro, G., Cracraft, M. L., & Ford, M. (In preparation). Special Forces NCO Field Performance 

Study (ARI Research Report). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Pulakos, E. D. (1997). Ratings of job performance. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.) 

Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology (pp. 291-317). Palo Alto, CA: 

Davies-Black Publishing. 

Russell, T. L., Crafts, J. L., Tagliareni, F. A., McCloy, R. A., & Barkley, P. (1996). Job Analysis 

of Special Forces Jobs (ARI Research Note 96-76). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2007, May). Changes to Army Warrant Officer Training. 

(Document produced by the Deputy Commandant, Warrant Officer Career Center, Fort 

Rucker, AL) Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2005). Commissioned Officer Professional Development and 

Career Managemen, (DoA Pamphlet 600-3) Washington, DC: Headquarters Department 

of the Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2002). Army Training and Leader Development Panel 

(ATLDP) Phase III Warrant Officer Study Report. (U.S. Army Combined Arms Center 

and Fort Leavenworth) Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army. 

11 
12 
Appendix A 

The WOTTC Field Performance Survey 

Welcome to the Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) Field Performance Survey. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) has conditionally approved USASOC’s new WOTTC. As part of this conditionarequested from field commanders regarding the quality of Warrant Officers produced by the new course. You have been sperformance feedback on recent graduates from the WOTTC currently serving under your command.In the box to the right, please enter your last name and the last 4 digits of your social security number. This will ensure a u

The information you type is not case sensitive.

WOTTC Field Performance SurveyWelcome to the Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) Field Performance Survey.

The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army has conditionally approved USASOC’s new WOTTC. As part of this conditional approval, feedback is requested from field commanders regarding the quality of Warrant Officers produced by the new course. You have been selected to provide performance feedback on recent graduates from the WOTTC currently serving under your command.

Tell us a little more about yourself.

Please help us to verify your records. In the space to the right, please enter or edit the requested information. This will help us to ensure a good, valid survey result.

First Name:

Last Name:

Rank: Please Enter

Time in Current Position: Please Enter

Time in SF: Please Enter

Time in Service: Please Enter

A-1
Task: LEADERSHIP: Displaying Integrity and Army Values

Understanding and practicing the Army’s seven core values and living by the four tenets of the warrior ethos – aplace mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade. Displaying honesty and integradhering to laws or rules of conduct; putting forth the effort to produce high-quality work in a timely fashion; volunteering for demanding tasks or extra responsibility; presenting a positive image of SF; supporting the chaicommand.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 During a mission, hesitates in 

pursuing avenues that are risky but will likely lead to mission success. 

 Leaves work undone to pursue 

personal interests and shows reluctance to learn new skills or tasks that are required. 

 Misrepresents own or others’ 

performance to gain advantage or to “look good.” 

 Avoids opportunities to volunteer 

for tasks or refuses to help; reports late for assignments. 

 During a mission, finds the strength 

to keep on going and helps others when fatigue sets in. 

 Completes task assignments up to 

standard in a timely manner and takes initiative to learn new skills that will improve work performance. 

 Consistently follows and adheres to 

standards, laws, or guidelines when pressured to compromise them. 

 Takes steps to maintain or improve 

the image of SF in military and civilian contexts. 

 During a mission, goes a

and beyond the call by voluntefor roles that others would rathavoid. 

 Puts in extra time and eff

needed to get the job done, seexample for others by taking ofirst. 

 Immediately takes full 

responsibility for personal mistensures that others are not blafor own decisions or actions. 

 Volunteers own spare tim

improve the welfare of others. 

A-2
Task: LEADERSHIP: Mentoring/Advising Others

Providing sound advice to detachment commander and other ODA members; advising detachment commander oappropriateness of his intent and COAs; providing advice to detachment commander on the budget process and sources of funding; pre-screening products developed by detachment commander; conveying knowledge and skothers (HN/G, ODA members, others); leading by example.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Does not provide useful 

advice to the detachment commander. 

 Fails to fully prepare the 

detachment commander. 

 Fails to interface with other 

ODA members, providing little to no guidance. 

 Does not have adequate 

knowledge to provide sound advice. 

 Engages in actions not 

commensurate to an officer. 

 Provides detachment commander 

and team members with basic knowledge and concepts that they need to perform well. 

 Sets an example for the team of 

meeting standards for performance. 

 Listens to concerns of the team or 

detachment commander and finds ways to assist in resolution of those concerns. 

 Provides sound advice to 

detachment commander, recommending the right resources for him to use. 

 Provides the detachment comm

with advice without allowing him to loface in front of others. 

 Sets the highest example for th

Soldiers on the team in every aspecjob. 

 Demonstrates own technical ex

when teaching. 

 Engages in self-development in 

to stay current on new technologies, 

 Devotes time to work one-on-o

bring individuals up to standard or to increase proficiency levels beyond standard. 

A-3
Task: LEADERSHIP: Team Leadership

Ability to direct and coordinate the activities of other team members; monitoring team performance; assigning tadeveloping team knowledge, skills, and abilities; communicating effectively with team members; motivating team members; establishing a positive team atmosphere; building team morale through personal interactions; providihonest feedback.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Sets vague or unrealistic 

expectations for the team. 

 Does not delegate to team 

members, and micromanages individuals on the team. 

 Fails to provide clear and 

precise guidance to team. Team members are unclear as to their roles and expectations. 

 Appears to be unprepared for 

team meetings. 

 Only offers feedback when 

asked; fails to provide it when needed. 

 Is not able to motivate the 

team under all circumstances. 

Demonstrates favoritism 

towards certain team members. 

Clarifies performance 

expectations and sets acceptable interaction patterns. 

 Seeks and evaluates 

information that affects team functioning. 

 Clarifies team member roles, 

such that in dynamic situations team members are able to adopt each other’s roles seamlessly. 

 Engages in preparatory 

meetings and feedback sessions with the team. 

 Motivates individuals and 

groups to high performance. 

Addresses performance 

problems in a fair, honest, respectful, and timely manner. 

 Monitors information that may aff

team and is proactive in protecting the interests. 

 Elicits team member input and fe

and is open to new ideas. 

 Makes sure the team is well-infor

and provides direction for the team sucteam members fully understand their rand how they should work together in circumstances. 

 Anticipates issues that will arise i

meetings, and is prepared for them. 

A-4
Task: LEADERSHIP: Bulding Trust

Aiding in the development of a shared belief among team members that teammates will perform their roles and pthe interests of the ODA; fostering trust through team building as team composition changes; knowing the pulse team; factoring trust building into team training.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Cares more about individual 

success than team success. 

 Does not fully participate in 

team activities. 

 Shares important information with team 

members. 

 Willingness to admit mistakes and accept 

feedback. 

 Values opinions and ideas from other team 

members. 

 Allows others to take 

leadership roles as approp

 Stands up for the team 

its members. 

A-5
Task: LEADERSHIP: Briefing/Communicating

Presenting information in a clear and concise manner; tailors communication (e.g., language, tone, level of specin ways that are appropriate to the audience; communicates in an influential or persuasive manner, as appropriaactively listens and attends to nonverbal cues when communicating with others.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Delivers moderately 

routine presentations or briefings. 

 Briefings tend to be the 

same, regardless of audience. 

 Lacks coherence in 

products. 

Talks above others’ 

level of understanding, and does not appropriately adjust to the audience. 

 Does not always listen 

to and consider others’ perceptions, needs, or concerns when framing positions. 

 Accurately responds to 

straightforward questions, and stumbles with difficult questions. 

 Communicates routine and complex 

concepts and issues clearly and effectively. 

 Targets communication to the level 

appropriate for the recipient. 

 Delivers complex presentations or 

briefings, conveying ideas effectively. 

 Uses visual aids, demonstrations, or 

presentation technology to enhance oral communication. 

 Negotiates effectively by identifying 

straightforward and complex issues underlying conflict or disagreement. 

 Responds to straightforward and 

difficult questions accurately and in a credible manner, taking others’ perspectives into account and anticipating potential problems. 

 Communicates routine and com

concepts and issues clearly and coneffectively tailoring material to the rein a manner that enhances understa

 Clearly explains highly technica

specialized information to others, so listeners can understand complex information. 

 Effectively adjusts level of deta

meet the needs of diverse audiences

 Listens to, considers, and addr

others’ perceptions, needs, or concewhen framing positions. 

A-6
Task: DECISION-MAKING: Planning

Conducting and synchronizing MDMP; developing concept plans; developing force protection plans; conducting focused analyses; developing combat orders; supervising the production of a link analysis and production of a tintelligence package (TIP).

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Only participates and does 

not lead in the team’s planning process. 

 Uses only certain 

personnel in the planning process. 

 Is reactive on all planning 

activities. 

 Fails to anticipate or 

request all necessary resource needs. 

Demonstrates poor 

coordination or haphazard planning. 

 Fails to meet deadlines for 

requests in support of planned missions. 

 Misses steps in planning 

process. 

 Fails to stay up-to-date in 

current procedures and regulations. 

 Leads and participates in group 

problem-solving efforts, facilitating the development of effective solutions. 

 Effectively coordinates with others 

in the team and Higher during planning process. 

 Engages in thorough analyses that 

result in clear plans and orders. 

 Considers different COAs during 

planning, adequately taking into account the pros and cons of each. 

 Recommends viable plans to 

commander based on own experience. 

 Keeps commander informed of 

plan at all times. 

 Exhausts all planning tools ava Effortlessly coordinates the plan

process, assigning roles to all team members and corresponding with Hi

 Engages in forward-thinking, co

up with several viable plans rather thviable plan and several unworkable p

 Considers the implications of pl

higher, strategic levels. 

 Understands which parts of the 

planning process need to be emphasbased on mission requirements. 

 Anticipates all of the commande

needs, assuring quick plan approval

A-7
Task: DECISION-MAKING: Decision-making

Assessing the situation and determining an appropriate course of action within a reasonable time frame; digestiinformation and drawing conclusions; using time, personnel, equipment, and tactics effectively; acting swiftly andecisively when needed; remaining level-headed and task-oriented in stressful situations.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Makes decisions that jeopardize 

mission accomplishment. 

 Makes mission-critical decisions 

without gathering full information; ignores advice and experience of others. 

 Draws inaccurate conclusions 

from intelligence. 

 In emergencies, may react 

brashly without due consideration of a matter or event or may stick with an obsolete plan that is likely to fail. 

 Evaluates the situation and 

determines a reasonable course of action, leading to mission success. 

Obtains complete 

research/information needed to develop a logical plan. 

 Uses time, equipment, 

personnel, and tactics effectively. 

 Makes reasonable decisions 

under stress, shifting gears/changes plans if necessary. 

 Makes decisions that maxim

effectiveness of tactics, time, equlocation, and personnel. 

 Obtains complete, accurate 

information when planning; draws collective expertise of the team aexperiences. 

 Weighs alternate points of v

accounts for all facts in making decisions. 

 Maintains awareness, stays 

headed, and considers different perspectives when making decisieven in the most stressful situatio

A-8
Task: DECISION-MAKING: Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or Changing Work Situations

Taking effective action when necessary without needing to know the total picture or have all the facts at hand; reand easily changing gears in response to unexpected events and circumstances; effectively adjusting plans, goaactions, or priorities to deal with changing situations, and doing whatever is necessary to get the job done; impostructure for self and others that provides as much focus as possible in dynamic situations.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 May have difficulty adjusting 

plans/actions as situations change, thereby reducing mission success. 

 May adopt a rigid approach 

to accomplishing work activities such that changing situations interfere with getting the job done. 

 When confronted with 

uncertain or ambiguous situations, has difficulty imposing meaningful structure, resulting in lowered productivity. 

 Adjusts plans and actions to 

remain effective when dealing with changing situations. 

 Tries to maintain a flexible 

approach to accomplishing or delegating work activities so that the changing situations do not interfere with ability to get the job done. 

 Is generally able to impose some 

structure on ambiguous situations, thus remaining reasonably productive. 

 Consistently adjusts own plan

actions, as well as those of subordto remain highly effective when deawith changing situations. 

 Always maintains a flexible ap

to accomplishing or delegating woractivities so that the changing situado not interfere with getting the job

 When confronted with uncerta

ambiguous situations, imposes meaningful structure to proceed wiproductive activity. 

A-9
Task: DECISION-MAKING: Handling Crisis Situations or Work Stress

Reacting appropriately, and with appropriate urgency in threatening, dangerous, or emergency situations; maintemotional control and objectivity during emergencies while keeping focused on the situation; stepping up to takaction and handle danger or emergencies. Remaining composed and cool when faced with difficult circumstanca highly demanding workload/schedule; managing frustration well by directing effort to constructive solutions ablaming others; acting as a calming and settling influence that others look to for guidance.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Sometimes fails to respond with 

appropriate urgency when dealing with crisis situations. 

 Sometimes lacks the resiliency 

necessary to remain productive or professional in the face of stressful circumstances. 

 Has difficulty remaining calm 

and focused when the workload becomes demanding. 

 Tends to cause teammates’ 

anxiety levels to increase as a result of own behavior in stressful situations. 

 Acts with appropriate 

urgency when dealing with crisis situations. 

 Remains productive, even 

in the face of stressful circumstances, and maintains a professional demeanor. 

 Tries to remain calm and 

task-focused when faced with a highly demanding workload. 

 In difficult situations, 

generally helps to calm and reassure teammates. 

 Always acts with appropriate sens

urgency when dealing with own or teamcrises. 

 In the face of highly stressful 

circumstances, maintains a professionademeanor, regardless of the situation. 

 Consistently remains calm and foc

on the task at hand, even when faced wextremely demanding workload. 

 In difficult situations, willingly steps 

forward and effectively serves as a calminfluence whom subordinates and cowoseek out for advice and reassurance. 

A-10
Task: DECISION-MAKING: Troubleshooting and Solving Problems Creatively

Thinking of alternative ways to solve a problem; improvising from own technical knowledge; employing unique analyses and generating new, innovative ideas in complex areas; integrating seemingly unrelated information andeveloping highly creative solutions; entertaining wide ranging possibilities others may miss; developing innovamethods of obtaining or utilizing resources when insufficient resources are available to do the job.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Lacks resourcefulness; may 

simply give up if needed tools are not available or may rely excessively on others to find a way to accomplish a task. 

 May fail to identify the cause of 

a problem. 

 Lacks the understanding of 

technology and technical principles. 

 Uses available resources to 

resolve problems and to construct needed items; may occasionally overlook some resources that might have been useful. 

 Is diligent at discovering solutions 

to problems. 

 Diagnoses problems accurately, 

but may need help to resolve unusual or sophisticated problems. 

 Makes the most of resources 

hand; thinks of novel ways to use available materials; invents or fabneeded items from seemingly usematerials. 

 Consistently arrives at solutio

complex problems by entertaining range of possibilities. 

 Quickly and accurately isolat

cause of problems, even when the problem is unusual or highly sophisticated. 

A-11
Task: DIPLOMACY: Cultural Awareness

Demonstrating respect for and engaging in behavior appropriate to indigenous culture, values, and customs; developing rapport and generating effective working relationships with HN personnel and leadership; providing services and assistance to develop rapport with indigenous people and building respect for SF; taking action to about and understand the climate, orientation, needs and values of other cultures; willingly adjusting behavior oappearance as necessary to comply with or show respect for others’ values and customs

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overlooks or avoids 

opportunities to build relations with locals. 

 Lacks awareness of or respect 

for the culture. 

 Is unwilling to adjust behavior or 

appearance to show respect for, or adapt to differences in, others’ values and customs. 

 Is unaware of how own or 

teammates’ actions might affect others. 

 Does not take action to learn 

about and understand the climate, orientation, needs, and values of other groups or cultures. 

 Helps indigenous persons when 

asked or when the need is obvious. 

 Is knowledgeable about and 

demonstrates respect for HN/G culture, values, and customs. 

 Is willing to adjust behavior or 

appearance to show respect for, or adapt to differences in, others’ values and customs. 

 Understands the implications of 

own or teammates’ actions on others of different cultural backgrounds. 

 Able to learn about the climate, 

orientation, needs, and values of other groups or cultures. 

 Anticipates and controls the 

psychological effects of own/other actions. 

 Discovers the needs and des

HN/G personnel and takes steps tsatisfy them. 

 Applies knowledge of HN/G c

and customs to identify with and pHN/G behavior. 

 Consistently adjusts behavio

appearance as necessary to show respect for, or adapt to differences others’ values and customs. 

 Understands even the subtle 

implications of own or teammates’ actions on others of different cultubackgrounds. 

 Consistently takes action to l

about and understand the climateorientation, needs, and values of ogroups or cultures. 

A-12
Task: DIPLOMACY: Interpersonal Skill

Dealing with others constructively, persuading rather than forcing own way; remaining composed, even when provoked; using non-verbal communication skills to interpret behaviors; resolving disputes; being flexible and ominded when dealing with others; demonstrating keen insight of others’ behavior and tailoring own behavior to persuade, influence, or work more effectively with them.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is inappropriately 

argumentative and confrontational, often creating tension and worsening conflict situations. 

 Is quick to anger; “loses it,” 

becomes loud, insulting, or physically threatening when upset. 

May become inflexible, 

close-minded, and uncooperative when dealing with others. 

 Not particularly skilled in 

gaining insight into others’ behavior or tailoring own behavior to work more effectively with them. 

 Is polite and courteous toward 

others; deals effectively with most conflict situations. 

 Refrains from acts of anger; 

ignores insults; removes self from the situation. 

 Demonstrates flexible, openminded, and cooperative behaviors 

when dealing with others. 

 Demonstrates understanding of 

others’ behavior and can alter own behavior to work more effectively with teammates. 

 Deals with others constructively, 

tact and diplomacy. 

 Reads people and the situation a

observes others’ behaviors (posture, expressions); adjusts own behavior to situation; diffuses tension in conflict situations. 

 Consistently demonstrates flexibl

cooperative behaviors when dealing wothers, but also sticks to own convictiowhen necessary. 

 Is extremely skilled at “reading” o

and demonstrates keen insight into motivations and behavior of teammate

A-13
Task: OTHER: Writing Skills

Producing materials that are clear, accurate, and in the proper format; considers the audience and their perceptiwhen framing the request or report; writing risk assessments, memorandums, training concepts, and corresponwith Company WO and chain of command.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Has poor grammar and 

sentence structure. 

 Does not seek input or 

constructive criticism on products. 

 When prompted, reviews 

and revises documents to ensure that the information is accurate and consistent. 

 Products need very few revisions, 

and are clear, concise, and to the point. 

 Effectively communicates complex 

concepts or ideas in writing, producing materials that are clear, accurate, and in the proper format. 

 Reviews and revises documents to 

ensure that the information is accurate. 

 Incorporates constructive feed

into his written products. 

 Effectively communicates com

sensitive concepts or ideas in writinproducing materials that are of the hquality. 

 Is consistently sought to provid

expertise and guidance in producing reviewing written work. 

 Consistently reviews and revis

documents to ensure that the informaccurate, consistent, logical, conciscomplete. 

A-14
Task: OTHER: Training Management

Developing training concepts covering a timeframe of 6 weeks to 2 years, including development, implementatioevaluation of the entire training cycle; developing cost/budget plans; outlining tasks that will be accomplished; conducting research on necessary resources, equipment, and logistics necessary for training; incorporating MErequirements, commander’s guidance, and all training activities the ODA has to perform; obtaining audience inteand involvement in training.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Does not have a comprehensive 

training plan. 

 Bases team’s training and 

technological needs on own needs, not those of team. 

 Designs and develops training 

programs and training aids (e.g., handouts) that address relatively common or straightforward training needs. 

 Training concepts presented to 

Higher are only accepted after substantial modifications and revisions. 

 Fails to conduct after action 

reviews (AAR) after training. 

 Identifies, justifies, and attempts to 

obtain the resources needed to develop and carry out training. 

 Identifies team’s training and 

technological needs and develops thorough and creative training programs to address common and complex training needs. 

 Most of training plans submitted to 

Higher are accepted with few revisions. 

 Conducts quality AARs after training, 

in order to improve future training plans. 

 Anticipates future miss

requirements and develops complex training to meet theneeds. 

 Is able to identify what 

guidance applies to the teamexplains how Higher’s guidainto training. 

 Develops innovative tra

plans that are accepted by Hwith little to no revisions. 

 “Sells” future training p

needs to Higher and gets ap

 Anticipates future traini

needs and develops these padvance. 

 Conducts quality AARs 

able to greatly improve futurtraining based on lessons le

A-15
Task: OTHER: Risk Management

Not being risk averse; being alert to safety at all times; maintaining high levels of situational awareness; preparinaccurate and comprehensive risk assessments for all missions and activities; rigorously following safety guideliand instructions for all military operations; identifying risks and emplacing control measures to mitigate risks; ensuring risk assessment is applied and enforcing protocols; monitoring others to ensure compliance with StanOperating Procedures (SOP) when using weapons/dangerous equipment.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 May be inattentive in 

situations where safety is essential. 

Disregards safety 

instructions, guidelines, or orders. 

 Fails to include and 

properly fill out risk assessments. 

 Lax in enforcing risk 

control measures. 

 Attends to behaviors of others 

when safety is critical; takes proper action to resolve unsafe situations. 

 Consistently follows established 

safety procedures when using dangerous or hazardous equipment or materials. 

 Adheres to Team SOPs and 

includes risk assessments in operations. 

 Enforces risk control measures 

at all times. 

 Is highly attuned to safety; watches o

and notices potential hazards or violationsquickly and appropriately neutralizes unsasituations. 

 Learns—beyond the basics—the qua

capabilities, and potential misuses of materials/equipment; foresees unsafe conand plans ways to manage or avoid them. 

 Is willing to step up and stop a situat

where risk management is not being carrieproperly. 

 Is highly aware of how own actions c

jeopardize position. 

 Anticipates and manages unforeseen 

not covered by risk control measures. 

A-16
Task: OTHER: Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, and Procedures

Demonstrating enthusiasm for learning new approaches for conducting work; doing whatever is necessary to keknowledge and skills current in a rapidly changing environment; quickly and proficiently learning new methods, adjusting to new work processes and procedures; anticipating changes in the work demands and searching for participating in assignments or training that will prepare self for these changes; taking action to improve work performance deficiencies. Up-to-date in new tools (e.g., SOMPE-G software).

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Generally lacks the 

motivation to keep knowledge “up to date,” and generally does not try to keep current. 

 May not anticipate changes in 

work demands or seek ways to prepare for such changes. 

 May have difficulty adjusting 

to new work processes and procedures. 

 Generally tries to keep self “up to 

date” by learning new techniques and procedures. 

 Tries to anticipate changes in work 

demands, and seeks ways to prepare for such changes. 

 Adjusts to new work processes 

and procedures by incorporating them into current work patterns, thereby improving productivity. 

 Always does whatever’s nece

to keep knowledge and skills, even rapidly changing environment. 

 Consistently anticipates chan

work demands, and seeks ways to prepare for such changes. 

 Deftly adjusts to new work pro

and procedures, incorporating them current work patterns so as to imprproductivity. 

A-17
Task: OTHER: Confronting Physical Environmental Challenges

Defeating odds and environment to survive an ordeal; maintaining team standard of performance in physically challenging situations; preparing physically for challenge; following field survival guidance; taking steps to ensuown health and endurance.

(Performance Scale Help)

Low Effective High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Lacks physical ability or conviction 

needed to deal with unfamiliar, stressful, or challenging circumstances; may give up in face of physical or environmental challenge. 

 Neglects environmental situations, 

failing to take precautions until it is too late; doesn’t take steps to ensure own health and endurance (e.g., preventing blisters). 

 Avoids participating in physical 

training; avoids or neglects to prepare for physical test or training exercise. 

 Devotes all physical training time 

to strength training, ignoring importance of endurance training; slows down or holds team back due to inadequate physical preparation or not willing to do own part. 

 Maintains a sufficient level of 

physical fitness; is capable of meeting the demands of most physical or environmental challenges or stressful situations. 

 Follows appropriate field 

survival guidance; takes steps to ensure own health and endurance. 

 Consistently participates in 

team physical fitness activities to prepare for exercises, marches, etc. 

 Competes in or completes 

endurance event or challenge. 

 Sustains high levels of physic

fitness over long periods of time; perseveres, overcoming environmdifficulties in survival situations; mphysical demands of stressful or dangerous situation to save a life. 

 Foresees problems likely to b

associated with weather or terrain; fieldcraft and survival skills wisely avoid injury and enhance enduran

 Devotes personal time and ef

physical training to ensure meeting performance goals or standards. 

 Seeks challenges; surpasses 

physical or time standards when completing physical tests 

A-18
WOTTC Field Performance Survey

Directions: In the space provided, please provide any comments you wish to make 

regarding each team member's strengths and/or weaknesses. Specific comments about weak areas could be particularly helpful feedback for the schoolhouse.

Progress: Page 18 of 

 Jump to Pa

Sele a page ct

Strengths Weaknesses

WO1 John Doe

none

none

Survey Administration Provided by PDRI for US Army Research Institute

Survey Site Administered by ERC Associates

A-19
A-20
Appendix B 

RE: Wrap-up Evaluation of the SF Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical 

Certification Course (WOTTC) 

To Battalion Commanders and Senior Warrant Officers, 

The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Richard A. Cody, 

conditionally approved the establishment of a SF Warrant Officer (WO) 

Technical and Tactical Certification Course (WOTTC) at JFKSWCS, 

Fort Bragg, as an alternative to the Army’s WO Certification Course 

held at Fort Rucker. An evaluation of the new WOTTC at Fort Bragg 

was mandated to ensure that graduates were of similar quality to those 

produced by the course at Fort Rucker. 

To help establish the ‘bona fides’ of the WOTTC, current (and former) 

SF Battalion Commanders and Senior Warrant Officers were asked to 

rate the performance of recent graduates of the course. 

Our ability to respond to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army is time 

sensitive and hinges on the information drawn from your ratings. This 

email represents a call for your performance ratings. 

First, we request that you reply to this email with a single rating of the 

collective job performance for the entire group of WOTTC graduates 

listed here: 

WO John Doe 

WO Buck Rogers 

WO Sam Smith 

Please provide a rating for this group by selecting one option from the 

following scale: 

Rating Meaning

B-1
B-2

 5 The job performance of all those listed above, as a 

group, is well above that of SF WOs of similar 

grade/experience. 

4 The job performance of all those listed above, as a 

group, is above that of SF WOs of similar 

grade/experience. 

3 The job performance of all the WOs listed above, as a 

group, is about the same as the SF WOs of similar 

grade/experience. 

2 The job performance of all those listed above, as a 

group, is below that of SF WOs of similar 

grade/experience. 

1 The job performance of all those listed above, as a 

group, is well below that of SF WOs of similar 

grade/experience. 

You can reply to this email with “No Rating” if you have not had 

sufficient opportunity to observe the job performance of at least one of 

the WOs listed above. 

Second, we request that you complete a brief on-line survey to provide 

more detailed ratings for each of the WOs listed here: 

WO John Doe 

WO Buck Rogers 

WO Sam Smith 

To fill out the surveys, please click on the link below or paste it into your web 

browser. 

>>link found here<< 

All ratings will be held in strict confidence, and only aggregated results 

will be reported. Your name will not be associated with your ratings in 

any way. 

We appreciate your help with the evaluation of the WOTTC.