STechnical Report j05 0

111FILE COP

o Dual Army Career Officers: Job Attitudes

o and Career Intnntions of Male and Female Officers

O'-

Martha L. Teplitzky, Shelley A. Thomas,

and Glenda Y. Nogami

Personnel Utilization Technical Area

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

DTIC

ELECTE

U. S.. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1988

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating- Agency under the Jurisdictien of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

Technical Director Commanding

Technical review by

Allyn Hertzbach

Gail McGinn, Community and Family Support Center

NOTICES

TAlBUT10U Prmar kdisthiutijf of t6re rt has been made Rla d e

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no Icnger needed. Please do not

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

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army

position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

F
UNrLASSIFIED

eIMUY CLAsSIFICATION OF TRIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

la.REPOPT SECURITY CLASSIFk.ATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified .....

'a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION ,AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release;

2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution unlimited.

"4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

ARI Technical Report 805

"6a. NAME OF PERIORMING ORGANIZATION 16b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Research Institute fot (If applicable)

the Behavioral and Social Scienf es PERI-RP --

6c. ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City. State. and ZIP Code)

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 --

8a. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING T8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. P,.OCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

ORGANIZATION (If applicable)

Sr- ADDRESS (City. State. and ZIP Code) 10- SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK IWORK UNIT

ELEMENT NO. NO. 2Q263 No- ACCESSION NO.

-- _63731A I 731A7921 242 I H2

"11. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Dual Army Career Officers: Job Attitudes and Career Intentions of Male and Female

Officers

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Martha L. Teplitzky. Shelley A. Thumas, anA Glenda Y. Nogami

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIM: COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year. Month. Day) S. PAGE COUNT

Final I FROM_ 038 _jTOQ2L86. 1988, July 67

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES I18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary a.-d identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Careers Military families Retention

Dual career Officers Spouses

Dual military Career families Work/family conflicts

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

--t In 1985, dual Army career officers (N = 149) from nine installations in the continental

United States were surveyed. Consistent with data from prior research, female officers in

dual Army career marriages are much less likely than male officers to have plans early in

their careers to stay in the Army until retirement. Concerns about family separations,

pregnancy, and childcare appear to 'je important factors in the career decisions of these

couples. Almost half of the dual Army career women said they would leave the Army rather

than face a lengthy (1 year or more) separation from their husbands. Furthermore, althoug.'

only a minority of the sample expressed strong concerns about childcare and pregnancy, the

interviews suggested that time constraints and finding high-quality, flexible childcare

arrangements were especially problematic given the long hours and erratic work schedules

of Army officers

(Continued) --

20. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

a] UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITSD 0 SAME AS RPT. ODTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (nclude Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

Glenda Y. Notami (202) 274-8866 1 PERI-R.

DD FORM 1473,84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhr.asted. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

All other editions are obsolete. UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIEW

SIECURITY CLAISIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

'ARI Technical Report 805

19. Abs tractJýontinued)

Both male and female officers reported that their spouses and supervisors were very

supportive of their careers, and both sexes felt that their promotion potential was good.

Both male and female officers were also very satisfied with their jobs and the Army in

general, although they felt that family concerns should be given a higher priority in

the assignment system.

"I'Deploymsat in the event of war or a national emergency was not seen as a problem,

and respondents reported that their families were very co-mmitted to the Army mission.

In terms of everyday responsibilities, on the other hand, family needs were as likely

as Army needs to be given the first priority in the case of a conflict between work and

family. aken as a whole, the results suggest that dual Army career officets enjoy their

wcrk and lVe Army life, but that the demands of the dual Army career lifestyle appear to

be perceived\ by many as being incompatible with family goals.

Accession For

NTIS GFRA&I

DTIC TAF [1 U vu.u-i' o0n ed

By_

Dist ribet.toll/ -- 1

" vailAbilitY Codes

Ave-iieanu/or

Dial "\ Special II

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

li
Technical Report 805

".1

-i

Dual Army Career Officers: Job Attitudes

and Career Intentions of Male and Female Officers

Martha L. Teplitzky, Shelley A. Thomas,

and Glenda Y. Nogami

Personnel Utilization Technical Area

Paul A. Gade, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

Newell K. Eaton, Director

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 E3isenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

July 1988

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel

20263731A792

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

iii
F0 YJIORD

Tae Personnel Utilization Technical Area of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences performs research on the factors that lead to retention of Army personnel. Increasingly, the Army's

perspective on personnel issues reflects the avareness that soldters are

family members as well as members of the military community. The structure

of zi Individual soldier's immediate family, as vell as his or her familyrelated needs, concerns, and responsibilities, determines the family context

vithin vhich soldiers perform their duties and make decisions about their

careers. This family context and Its impact on the job attitudes and career

decisions of dual Army career officers are the focus of this report.

The percentage of officers vhose spouses are also active-duty officers

has increased dramatically since the influx of vomen into the Army in the

early 1970s. Dual Army career officers are confronted vith a number of difficult dilemmas, including both the coordination of their careers and the

integration of their domestic and childcare responsibilities into their demanding schedules. Concerns for the veil-being of dual military career soldiers and their families, as well as concerns about the impact of this demanding lifestyle on military performance, readiness, and retention, have provided

the impetus for the research described in this report. The findings discussed

focus on the differences betveen male and female dual Army zareer officers in

their feelings about work and family. The descriptive data pro;vide insight

into the stresses and strains of this family structure. The analyses also

draw attention to the fact that in some cases conflicts betveen the Army and

family needs are resolved in dual officer couples by having one spouse (typically the vife) leave the Army. In the context of the larger body of on-going

research on Army families, this report furthers our understanding of the york/

family interface and will contribute to our efforts to better understand, manage, and serve the military population.

The sponsors of this research include the Office of the Deputy Chief of

Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER), Enlisted Sustainment and Distribution Branch,

and the Community and Family Support Center (CFSC). An earlier draft of this

paper vas forvarded to, and approved by, key personnel in these agencies. Their comments indicated that the information included will be useful in the

development of programs and policies for the retention and veil-being ,f officers in dual Army officer career families.

EDGAR M. JOHO

Technical Director

V
DUAL ARMY CAREER OFFICERS: JOB ATTITUDES AND CAREER INTENTIONS OF KALE

AND FEMALE OFFICERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

Increasingly large numbers of Army officers are marrying fellow officers.

The difficulties involved in coordinating two military careers are videly

acknowledged, and the Married Army Couples Program has been Implemented in an

effort to help these couples find career-enhancing joint assignments. Little

is known, however, about the impact of dual Army career status on the family

life, job attitudes, and career decisions of this group of officers. To continue to design personnel policies and family programs that will have a positive Impact on the quality of Army life and the retention of highly trained

personnel, we need to increase our understandi:i.g of this growing segment of

the Army.

Procedure:

In 1985, exploratory interviews were conducted with both spouses in eight

dual Army career officer marriages. Surveys designed to tap the most relevant

issues were then administered to 149 dual Army career officers across nine Installations In the Continental United States, Responses to the attitudinal

and career intentions Items on the survey are reported separately for male and

female off icers,-and significant differences between the two groups are

indicated.

Findings:

Consistent with data from prior research, female officers in dual Army

career marriages are much less likely than male officers to have plans early

In their careers to stay in the Army until retirement. Concerns about family

separations, piegnancy, and childcare appear to be important factors in the

career decisions of these couples. Almost half of the dual Army career wom~en

said they would leave the Army rather than face a lengthy (1 year or more)

separation from their husbands. Furthermore, although only a minority of the

officers surveyed hal children at the time, over one third of the women in the

sample expressed strong concerns about childcare and pregnancy. The interviews suggested that time constraints and finding high-quality, flexible

childcare arrangements were especially problematic given the long hours and

erratic work schedules of Army officers.

Both male and female officers reported that their spouses and supervisors

were very supportive of their careers, and both sexes felt that their promotion potential was good. Both male and female officers were also very satisfied with their jobs and the Army in general, although they felt that family

concerns should be given a higher priority In the assignmezit system.

vii
Deployment in the event of var or a national emergency vas not seen as a

problem, and respondents reported that their families vere very committed to

the Army mission. In terms of everyday responsibilities, oia the other hand,

family needs vere as likely as Army needs to be given the first priority in

the case of a conflict betveen york and family. Taken as a vhole, the results

suggest that dual Army career officers enjoy their york and Army life, but the

demands of the dual Army career lifestyle appear to be perceived by many as

incompatible vith family goals.

Utilization of Findings:

The findings in this study provide information abnut the concerns, career

intentions, and attitudes of dual Army career officers. These lindings can be

used to inform policy makers about the impact and importance of policie~s aimed

at dual career couples (e.g., the Married Army C,.uples Program), end they can

guide the efforts of family advocates to design programs responsive to the

needs of this special segment of the Army population.

viii
DUAL ARMY CAREER OFFICERS: JOB ATTITUDES AND CAREER INTENTIONS OF KALE

AND FEMALE OFFICERS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .............................. 1

REVIEU OF THE DUAL MILITARY CAREER COUPLE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 2

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sample Selection o . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Scale Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . 10

Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . o * .o *. . .. 10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . o . . .o. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 11

Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

Military Characteristics ....... ............... 12

Representativeness of the Sample . o. ... .. .... . .o. .. o. o 13

VARIABLES RELATED TO CAREER DECISIONS .. ................ 14

Career Intentions . . . . . . . o o . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Long Separations . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . 16

Career Decision Factors .......... ............. 19

JOB-RELATED ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS .................... 23

Satisfaction vith Factors Related to Career Decisions . . ...... 23

Feelings about Vork and the Army ... .............. .. 27 Commitment . o... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 28

Career Priorities and Assignment Problems .............. 29

Career Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Promotion Opportunities . . ..................... 32

Army Treatment of Dual Army Couples .' ............... 33

Personal and Family Concerns ..................... 34

Officers vith Children . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

CONCLUSIONS . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

REFERENCES . . . .. . . . * . * . . . .......... 41

APPENDIX A. SCALE ITEMS AND RELIABILITIES 999999999...... A-1

B. DUAL ARMY CAREER OFFICERS QUESTIONNAIRE .......... B-1

ix
CONTINTS (Continued) I

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Officers: Personal characteristics . . . . . .

2. Officers: Military characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Officers: Grade of respondent Irr grade of spouse . . . . . . . 13

4. Officers: "areer intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. Officers: Career intentions of respondent and spouse . . . .. 15

6. Officers: Career intentions by sex and time in service .... 16

7. Officers: If a future assignment required a long separation

(1 year or more) from your spouse, vhat vould you do? ..... 17

8. Officers: Intentions if long separation required, by time i n s e r v i c e . . . . . . . . . .110.. . . . . . 6.. 0.. 0.. . . . . 1 8

9. Officers: Career decisions factors rated "very important"

by at least 50Z of male or female 'respondents . . . . . . . .. 19

10. Officers: Importance of career decision factors . . . . . . . 20

11. Officers: Frequencies for pregnancy and childcare concerns . 21

12. Officers (less than 11 years in Army); Importance of

decision factors by career intentions . . . ... ... .. . 22

13. Officers: Hcv satisfied are you vith the following? . . ... 24

14. Officers (les3 than 11 years in Army): Satisfaction vith

decision factors by career intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

15. Officers: Feelings about work and Army . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

16. Officers: Dual Army couples' (DACS) commitment to Army .... 28

17. Officers: Careor priorities and assignment problems ..... 29

18. Officers: Assignment problems by years married . . . . . . . . 30

19. Officers: Support for career intentions . . . . . . . . . . . 31

20. Officers: Beliefu about promotion opportunities . . . . . . . 32

21. Officers: Army treatment of dual Army couples (DACS) ..... 33

x
CONTRNTS (Cgntinuiad _

Page

Table 22. Officers: Personal and family concerns . . . . . . . .... 34

23. Officers with children: Vork/famlly role conflict . . . . .. 35

24. Officers with children: Current childcare arrangements . . . 35

25. Officers with children: Satisfaction with childcare

arrangements .* . . .% . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 36

26. Offictr with thildren: Quality of post daycare facilities . . 37

Xi
DUAL AIKY CARER OFFICERCt JOB ATTITUDES AND CARE INTINTIONS

OF KALE AND FMALE OFFICERS

INTRODUCTION

Since the advent of the All Volunteer Fort;* in 1973, signific:ant numbers of

women have been recruited into the Army. About 102 of the active duty force is

nov female, and 122 of the officer corps is made up of women. One outcome of

the influx of women into the Army is that as sale and female soldiers have

worked and socialized together, many have fallen in love and married. At the

same time, social Lhanges of the past decade are encouraging increasing numbers

of women to aspire to meaningful careers. The increasing numbers of women in

the Army, combined with the reluctance of married women today to give up their

work roles are both factors underlying the steady increase over the last 10 to

!S vearr in the percentage of soldiers in dual Army career mhrriages.

Currently, almost 37,000 soldiers, comprising over 5% o•' the active duty

force, are in dual Army career marriages (Military Personnel Center, 1988).

lore thdn 5,600 of these soldiers are officers, representing over 52 of the

total officer corps and 8Z of the population of married o.ficers. Because of

the smaller pool of women in the Army, the percentage of women in dual Army

career mar~riages in !s especially high. Approximately 32 of the current

population of male officers have spouses who are also in the active Army, in

contrast to almost one fourth (23%) of the female officers in the Army.

The large majority of officers in dual Army career: marriages are captains.

By the end of 1987, almost 5% of all male captains (0444 men) and 33% of all

female captains (7.464 women) had Army spouses (MILPEACEN, 1988). The

preponderance of dual Army career officers at the cmpany grade level suggests

that unleis these officers have exceptionally high divorce or service

separation rates, we can expect the percentage of d4ual Army career officers to

continue to increase.

The emergence of significant vumbers of soldier couples poses a critical

challenge to the Army. Male and female soldiers with active duty spouses face

a numbe.r of family and career dilemmas unknown to previous generations of

soldiers. The coordination of assignments and csreer requirements is likely to

be difficult and may require couples to choose between enhancing their careers

and staying together. In addition, couples who have children experience

additional demands on their time and resources, and with both spouses subject

to the unexpected demands of military life, childcare can become a major

problem. In order to manage and retain dual Army career soldiers, the Army

needs to be aware of and responsive to the special concerns of this growing

segment of the Army population. The rewards to the Army of effectively

managing and supporting soldier couples can be considerable. The majority of

these soldiers have several years of Army training and experience behind them.

They tend to be older, more experienced, higher ranking and better educated

than single soldiers (Raiha, 1986), making them desirable candidates for

retention. Furthermore, by virtue of their shared understanding of the mission

and requirements of the Army, soldier couples may reinforce each others'

dedication and professionalism in a unique and synergistic way. At the sane

time, however, the dual Army career lifestyle can easily entail personal and

family sacrifices that outweigh the rewards of an Army career. Soldier couples

who become disillusioned with the system or discouraged iu their efforts to

1
meet the needs of both the Army and their families represent a real loss for

the Army, even if one or both spouses decide to stay fo~r economic reasons.

It is incumbent upon the Army to try to understand the concerns and

problems of dual Army career couples, and to accommodate, to the extent it is

reasonable from a military standpoint, the needs of this important group of

soldiers. As long as men and women work together In the Arm!- there will be

dual Army career marriages, and both the soldiers themselves, and the Army as a

whole stand to benefit if this lifestyle is experienced as viable and

satisfying.

The Army has alread1y taken a significant step toward accommodating dual

Army career couples in the implementation of the Married Army Couples Program.

This program is designed specifically to address the assignment problems of

dual Army career soldiers. Within the program, the career needs and assignment

options of both spouses are considered simultaneously when either spouse is up

for reassignment, maximizing the opportunity for soldier couples to establish a

common household (joint domicile). The Military Personnel Center reports that

approximately 70% of the officers enrolled in this program are successfully

placed within 50 miles of each other. However, information on the concerns,

attitudes and career decisions of these officers is needed if we are to better

understand and accommodate dual Army career couples.

The research described in the present report is a prelimina-ry effort to

address the information needs of the Army in this area. It is part of a larger

research program sponsored by the Community and Family Services Center, aimed

at better understanding the interface between family considerations and the

requirements of a military career. This report draws upon both interviews and

surveys to document some of the problems, attitudes and career considerations

of dual Army career 'officers. A subsequent research report will summarize the

data from the subsample of enlisted personnel.

The limited empirical literature on dual military career couples stems

primarily family studies conducted in the Air Force and the Navy (e.g., Farkas

and Durning, 1972; Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982). In these studies,

dual military career couples are typically examined as a subgroup of a larger

sample; the research is not specifically designed to address the issues most

relevant to dual military career couples. Studies conductad within the Army

focus on performance of dual Army career parents (GAO, 1982) and the personal

characteristics and attitudes of dual Army career soldiers relative to soldiers

who are single or married to civilians (Raiha, 1986). This body of literature

is reviewed below.

REVIEW OF THE DUAL MILITARY CAREER COUPLE LITERATURE

Orthner and his associates have conducted several studies of military

families in the Air Force (Carr, Orthuer and Brown, 1980; Orthner, 1980;

Orthner and Bowen, 1982). In the original "Families In Blue" study (Orthner,

1980), a representative sample of 331 Air Force families living together in the

continental United States (CONUS) and Germany were selected for interviews. Of

these families, 44 (13%) were dual Air Force couples (both husband an~d wife in

the active Air Force). The sample Included both officer and enlisted couples.

2
Orthner (1980) found that demographically, dual Air Force couples were

similar tc "traditional" couples (Air Force husband, civilian wife) except in

the number of children they bed. Almost three fourths of the dual Air Force

marriages were childless (802 of the offtcer/officer marriages and 69% of the

enlisted dual military marriages), compared to an overall childless rate of

about 30% for traditional Air Force couples (Carr et al., 1980). The authors

suggested that the dem¢nds of an Air Force car-er, the tendency of career

oriented woman In general to delay having children, and the recogrition that

there are some especially difficult childcare problems associated with having

both spouses in the military are at least partly responsible for the fewer

number of children found in dual military career marriages.

The Air Force husband/civilian wife couples were also compared to dual Air

Force career couples in terms of the quality of their marital relationships and

the "traditionality" of the values they held. Approximately 20% of both types

of couples reported experiencing some kind of marital strain or problem,

however, more of the dual Air Force couples reported being satisfied with the

communication and companionship aspects of their marriages. Dual career

couples were also mor. likely than their Air Force husband/civilian wife

counterparts to hold nontraditional or liberal family and sex-role values.

The sex-role attitudes of 59% of the dual military couples were classified as

liberal or "nontraditional", compared to only 29% of the couples where the wife

was a civilian. In about one fourth of the dual Air force couples, however,

the values of the two spouses were in conflict. Typically, when couples

disagreed, the husband's family and sex-roles values were traditional while the

wife's orientation was more liberal. Orthner (1980) noted that these

"transitional" couples represented a potentially volatile combination.

Transitional couples were more likely than couples in which both spouses held

similar values (either traditional or nontraditional) to experience poor

communication and mprital problems.

One of the more general findings of Orthner's (1980) research highlighted

the importance of spouse support to the decision to stay in the service. Data

based on the total sample of Air Force families indicated that both job morale

and intention to stay in the Air Force were strongly related to the degree to

which an individual's spouse supported his or her career. Women in the Air

Force, however, tend to be at a disadvantage with regard to career support from

their spouses. Typically, men in the Air Force get more career support from

their spouses (74% report moderate or high support) than Air Force women (57%

report moderate to high support). Women whose jobs are especially demanding

(e.g. extensive TDY, extra duty, long work weeks) and women with more

traditional husbands are the least likely to feel that their spouses support

their careers. The lower level of support experienced by women was suggested

as one reason fewer women than men intended to make the Air Force a career.

Although 66% of the married Air Force men reported that they planned to stay in

the Air Force until retirement, only 43% of the married Air Force women voiced

similar intentions. Married women without children were more likely than those

with children to intend to stay.

In 1981, Orthner and Bowen (1982) conducted a replication of the first

"Families in Blue" study with a stratified probability sample of 597 Air Force

families living together on bases in the Pacific. Dual military families were

over sampled in this study to allow for separate analyses, resulting in a final

subsample of 143 dual JAir Force couples. Compared to the earlier sample of

3
families based in the United States and Germany (Orthuer, 1980), dual Air Force

couples in the Pacific study were more likely to report marital problems.

Companionship and sexual Intimacy were the main problem areas, and both were

attributed, at least in part, to the limited amount of time dual military *1 career couples are able to apend together. Long work weeks, extensive TDY,

shifting schedules and separations were the quality of life issues of most

concern to the sample as a whole, and these factors are likely to be especially

problematic when both spouses are subject to the demands of a military job.

*AAs noted above, Orthner's (1980) study of dual Air Force couples stationed

in the continental United States (CONUS) and Germany indicated that there was a

disparity between men and women in the level of career support they received

from their spouses. This disparity was even more pronounced in the Pacific

sample (Orthner and Bowen, 1982). Only 30% of the women in dual Air Force

marriages in the Pacific study received strong career support from their

spouses, compared to 54% of the men. Furthermore, half of the dual career

husbands in the Pacific study stated that they would prefer to see their wives

leave the Air Force. It was suggested that the more negative attitudes of

husbands in the Pacific study were related to the higher percentage of husbands

in this sample, relative to the earlier sample, who held traditional family and

sex-role values. In both samples, husbands with more liberal 8ex-role

attitudes arnd family values were more supportive of their wives, careers.

With' regard to career Intentions in the Pacific sample, only 49% of the

dual military career women, compared to 74% of the men, intended to make the

Air Force a career. These percentages are slightly higher than those obtained

in the earlier study (Orthner, 1980), but the magnitude of the difference

between men and women is comparable. The authors again invoked the lower

levels of spouse support received by women, as well as conflicts between

military and family, responsibilities, as explai~ations of the lower levels of

commitment to an Air Force career exhibited by dual military career women.

Dual Air Force career couples were also the subject of a small pilot study

conducted by Williams (1978). William's sample was not representative because

only officer couples in which both spouses had already decided to make the Air

Force a career were selected for study. However, the interviews with this

small group of highly committed officers yielded sorae interesting insights.

First, all of the women in this sample-expressed the belief that children limit

the career potential of women in dual military career marriages. This was the

primary reason none of the women interviewed intended to have children.

Nevertheless, several women felt that despite their decision not to have

children, the~ir career aspirations were not taken seriously by male colleagues

and superiors. They noted that it is still typically assumed that women wqill

eventually give up their careers to have children, and this assumption was

perceived as perpetuating a subtle kind of discrimination against women.

Another concern reported by both the men and women in Williams's (1978)

study centered on their ability to meet the requirements for promotion while

still maintaining a somewhat normal married life. In order to obtain the

breadth of experience required for promotion, officers need to relocate

frequently and follow a prescribed sequence of assignments. The difficulty for

dual military career couples lies in finding career enhancing positions for

both spouses at the same location. In rome cases, one spouse has to accept a

less desirable assignment if the couple wants to stay together. In other

4
cases, military requirements and incompatible specialties make joint

assignments impossible. The couples in Williams' sample indicated that their

decisions about assignments and the acceptability of separations were based on

a careful consideration of the impact of their various alternatives onr both

their marriage and their two careers. These couples reported that they were

prepared to accept the necessary trade-off s between their careers and their

married lives, however, the prospect of haviug to choose between the two

-j created considerable anxiety as the time for reassignmenta approached.

The women in William's sample also identified as problematic the military

traditirnn of the wife serving her husband's career by meeting a variety of

social obligations.. Wives of officers, especially, are expected to participate

in social functions and conform to certain norms with regard to their behavior

and level of involvement in the life of the post. Several women expressed

concern that their inability to fulfill these auxiliary obligations could have

a negative impac~t on their husbands' careers. It is also conceivable that the

career of a female officer could be hindered by the lack of a traditional

"help-meet" spouse, however, this possibility was not addressed in the

interviews.

Despite the difficulties involved, all of the couples interviewed by

Williams (1978) were very positive about their dual military career lifestyle.

They enjoyed the financial benefits of having two incomes and felt that their

lives were more exciting and rewarding because both spouses were pursuing

careers. It isi worth reiterating, however, that in this highly select sample,

both spouses had already resolved any conflicts they might have experienced

about combining two military careers with the demands of raising a family. The

resolution of emotional conflicts related to the decision to have children,

and freedom from the heavy responsibilities associated with raising a family

greatly reduce the potential for career/family conflicts.

Dual Navy career couples were the focus of several supplementary analyses

in Farkas and Durning's (1982) examination of a stratified random sample of

male and female, officer and enlisted personnel in the Navy. Included In their

final sample of were 129 respondents with Navy spouses and 222 respondents

with working civilian spouses. Tn a limited number of analyses, respondents

with Navy spouses were compared to respondent~s with civilian working spouses.

The relocation demands of the Navy were problematic for individuals with

both Navy and civilian working spouses, however respondents with Navy spouses

reportedi much more difficulty arranging a common work site than those with

civilian spouses. Relocation and joint assignment difficulties we're also

clearly related to career intentions. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the

respondents in dual Navy marriages said that one or both spouses would leave

the Navy if in their next asaignment, suitable positions for both spouses

could not be arranged in the same location. Data on both career intentions and

the relative priorities of the careers of the two spouses suggest that when

careers are in conflict, it is the wife in a dual Navy couple who is the most

likely to leave. A slight majority of the dual Navy women reported that the

careers of the two spouses were given equal weight in family decisions. Yet,

30% of the dual Navy women surveyed reported that their spouses' careers would

take precedence in the case of a conflict, whereas only 5% said that their own

careers would come first. Interestingly, Navy women with civilian husbands

viece much more likely to attribute greater importance to their own careers; 30%

5
of the women married to civilians said that their own careers carried more

weight than their husbands in family decisions.

Overload from the joint demands of work and family roles and the difficulty

coordinating two military careers were identified by Parkas and Eruning as two

sources of pressu~re for one spouse in a dual Navy couple Lo leave the service.

Individuals in dual Navy marriages do, however, have one advantage over Wavy

personnel with civilian opouses; spouses who are also in the Navy tend to be

more accepting of the requirements of the job.

One study which included a focus on dual military couples in the Army was

the 1982 General Accounting Office (GAO) survey of the supervisors of sole

(single) and "in-service" (dual military career) parents. The research was

undertaken in response to concerns by military leaders that single and dual

military career parents represented "a serious problem requiring special

attention" (GAO, 1982, p. iv). The GAO effort was designed to provide

informiation on the performance and readiness of these parents in order to

inform policy makers of the advisability of restricting the enlistments or

assignments of these personnel. The survey required supervisors in highly

mobile units from Germany and Fort Bragg to evaluate the performance of 262

single and dual Army career parents. Performance evaluationis of 178 service

members who were not single or dual military career parents were also obtained

to serve as a baseline for comparisons.

A number of questions in the GAO (1982) survey concerned instances of

lateness or nonavailabili-*ty for different types of duty. Results indicated

that single and dual Army career parents were more likely than the control

group to be "occasionally late" or "occasionally unable to participate in

shift work". Nevertheless, 90% of the supervisors of single and dual Army

career parents indicated that these soldiers were never or only occasionally

late, leading the GAO to conclude that the attendance and availability of

these parents was satisfactory.

In terms of job performance, supervisory ratings in a variety of areas

(quality of work done, amount of work, contribution to morale, and overall

performance) indicated that single and dual Army career parents performed as

well as the comparison group. In fact, although the differences were not

statistically significant, the dual career parents were consistently more

likely than individuals In the single parent and comparison groups to receive

the very highest ratings. For example, 43% of the dual Army career parents

were rated "~at the very top" in overall job performance, compared to 31% of

the single parents and 332 of the comparison group soldiers.

Supervisory assessments of the readiness of the parent groups to deploy

were slightly less positive. More single and dual Army career parents (10%

overall) than comparison group soldiers (5%) were rated as somewhat or very

likely not to report for duty in the event of deployment. Concerns about the

deployability of a small percentage of these parents did not, however, result

in significant differences in the percentage of service members in each

category who were recommended for retention by their supervisors. Sixty-five

percent (65%) of the single parents, 74% of the dual Army career parents, and

73% of the comparison group soldiers were "strongly" recommended for retention

by their supervisors.

6
In their overall conclusions, the authors of the GAO rerort stated that

"the Army lacks a solid basis for restricting enlistment(s) ... or 2saigning

one member of in-service parent couples to positions coded as nondeployable"

(1982, p. 11). Their review concluded that "while some problems do exist, most

sole and in-service parents Included In our survey attend and perform work at

least satisfactorily and would most likely deploy In a timely manner In the

event of war or a national emergency" (GAO, 1982, p. 11).

A more comprehensive examination of dual Army career couples was undertaken

by Raiha (1986) in her re-analysis of the data from the 1983 Soldier Sample

Survey. This survey was designed to assess the characteristics and attitudes

of a representative sample of active duty soldiers. Raiha compared the

responses of dual military career soldiers with single and married non-dual

Army career soldiers across a variety of survey items. Of particular interest

are the items pertaining to the demographic characteristics and career

intentions of dual Army soldiers.

As a group, soldiers in dual Army career marriages are younger, less

experienced and lower ranking than married soldiers with civilian spouses, and

they are older, more experienced, higher ranking, and better educated than

single soldiers. Consistent with the Air Force studies (Carr et al., 1980;

Williams, 1978), dual Army career couples are also less likely than other

married soldiers to have children. In her representative Army sample, Raiha

(1986) found that just under half of the individuals in dual Army career

marriages had children, while over three fourths of the soldiers with civilian

spouses had children. The youth of dual Army career soldiers relative to other

married soldiers is likely to be one factor contributing to the different rates

of childlessness. The difficulty combining children with two military careers

may be another factor.

Compared to other soldiers, dual Army careerists are also over represented

in Europe and the Health Services command. Raiha (1986) notes that the high

proportion of dual careerists in the medical and combat service support

occupational groups is due to the greater concentration of women in these

areas. The high representaticn of dual Army career couples In Europe may be

explained by a preference among these couples for a stabilized minimum threeyear tour, most easily accomplished by voliunteering for duty in Europe.

On the whole, dual Army career couples were less likely than nondual career

married couples to be planning to stay in the Army, even when statistical

adjustments were made for the differences between the two groups in

demographics and job sat'afaction (soldiers in dual Army career marriages were

less satisfied with the!- jobs). The greater possibility of family separations

in dual Army career mani ages appeared to be a significant factor in their

lower level of commitment to an Army career. Being involuntarily separated

from one's spouse was associated with lower retention intentions for the sample

as a whole, and not surp~isingly, individuals in dual Army career marriages

were more likely to report being involuntarily separated from their families

than soldiers married to civilians. Dual Army career soldiers, and women in

particular, were also more likely than soldiers in other marital categories to

identify separation from the family as a reason for getting out of the Army.

In summary, the literature on dual military career couples is fairly

consistent. First, a much larger proportion of women than men are in dual

7
military career marriages, and women in these marriages are less likely than

men to intend to stay In the service until retirement. The literature suggests

a number factors which may contribute to the disparity between men and women in

their propensity to stay in the military. Several studios Indicated that

career support from one's spouse Is strongly related to the intention to stay

in the military and women typically receive less support for their career# than

their husbands (Farkas and Durning, 1982; Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen,

1982). Women also appear to be especially susceptible to the conflicts

associated with dual obligatiot~s to family and a career. The career oriented

women ia William's (1978) study firmly believed that children had a negative

impact on the career of a female officer. The time demands of raising

children, problems ar.ý-anging adequate daycarep and attitudes that women with

children are not seriously career oriented a11 appeared to contribute to the

perception that children would limit a woman's career potential. The

difficulties inherent in coordinating career and family obligations appear to

lead some service women to conclude that they can have either children or a

su~ccessful military career, but not both.

Obtaining career enhancing joint assignments is another problem for dual

military career couples. Both male and female soldiers are reluctant to endure

long separations from their spouses, preferring in many cases to have one or

both spouses leave the service. Since both men and women tend to give the

husband's career the higher priority in dual career families, career conflicts

are more likely to result in the departure of the wife than the husband.

Orthner (1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982) suggests that traditional sex-role

attitudes are one factor associated with a greater emphasis on the husband's

career in dual military career families. However, evidence that men in dual

Army career marriages tend to be further advanced in their carecrs than their

spouses (Raiha, 1986) suggests that the greater earning power or career

potential of the husband may also contribute to the tendency of career

conflicts to be resolved in favor of the husband's career.

Although potential problems are the focus of much of the dual career

research, a number of positive aspects of the dual career lifestyle are also

suggested in this literature. When dual military career couples share values

concerning family and sex roles, they are especially positive about the quality

of their marital relationshxip (Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982). The

advantages of two incomes and the excitement and challenge of combining two

careers were highlighted by Williams (1978). Farkas and Durning (1982) also

indicated that military spouses are likely to be more understanding of the

requirements of military life than civilian spouses.

The research reported here builds on the literature reviewed abtve in that

the questionnaire items were specifically designed to address the issues

identified as being most important to dual military career couples. The

descriptive analyses in this report provide a foundation for understanding the

concerns, attitudes and career intentions of dual Army career officers. In

addition, possible differences between male and female officers in dual Army

career marriages are explored. The discussion of the survey results is

supplemented by illustrations and examples from the preliminary interviews.

8
NETUODOLOGY

Procedure

Interviews. This research was conducted in two stages, explozatory

preliminary interviews, followed by a large scale survey. The interviews were

conducted in 1985 with eight dual Army officer couples (mostly captains) from

four CONUS installations. Interviews were conducted individually with each

spouse in sessions lasting about two hours each. The interviews focused on

areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the Army, opinions about

personnel policies relevant to dual Army couples, childcare issues, and the

factors affecting career decisions. Interview responses were used to guide the

construction of a questionnaire which was subsequently administered to a larger

sample of dual Army career couples.

Surveys. Surveys were administered in group sessions to 149 dual Army

career officers (67 males, 82 females) from nine CONUS installations. The

questionnaires took between 1 and 2 hours to complete, and respondents ,ere

assured of the confidentiality of their responses. A copy of the survey is

provided in Appendix B.

Sample Selection

Survey participants were selected from lists cf dual Army career couples

provided by the Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN). Individuals were

included on these lists only it they were enrolled in the Married Army Couples

and if both spouses, were currently assigned to the same post. This eliminated

from the survey population any dual careerists who had not yet enrolled in the

program, and all couples who, by design or circumstance were assigned to

different posts. MILPERCEN estimates that at any one time, approximately 30%

of the officers -nrolled in the Married Army Couples Program are not assigned

within 50 miles of each other. Those most likely to be living apart are the

more senior level personnel, for whom there are typically a more limited number

of positions, and soldier couples in unusual or incompatible occupational

specialties.

The initial survey sample was randomly selected from the lists provided by

MILPERCEN. However, in cases where couples were either no longer at the

specified post, or no longer married, replacement couples were selected on-site

from more up-to-date lists provide's by the individual posts. The original plan

called for both spouses in each couple to fill out a questionnaire. In about

one third of the cases, however, one mtwber of a couple was unable to appear at

the scheduled time because he or she was temporarily off-post (e.g., for

travel or field duty) or had prior commitments. The final sample thus

includes officers whose spouses were unavailable for the survey (33%) as well

as th.B officers whose spuuses also responded (67%).

Because the nonavailability of respondents appeared to be largely related

to J& demands, individuals in jobs requiring frequent travel, field duty or

critical tasks (i.e., they cannot leave for the purpose of taking a survey) are

likely to be underrepresented in the sample. In addition, it is important to

9
keep in mind that dual career couples who were not e~ssigned to the asame post

were excluded from the smapling frame. An Important Implication of both of

these semple limitations in that problems concerning family separation. may be

underrepr~ts.%rtted 0ii this ample relative to their actual occurrence in the

total. population of dual Army career families.

Scale Construction

Analyses are based on both single It~em variables and multi-item scales.

The development of the multi-item scales proceeded in three stages. First,

internal consistency reliabilities were computed for sets of items which

appeared on the basis of content to reflect a single construct (e.g.,

satisfaction with extrinsic aspects of the job). N~ext, factor analyses were

conducted on larger sets of related Items (e.g., all the satisfaction items) in

order to assess the appropriateness of the a priori, conceptual groupings of

items. Finally, on the basis of both the factor analyses and the reliabilities

of the a priori scales, scales were modified by adding or dropping items. The

entire sample, including the enlisted personnel as well as the officers was

used in constructing scales and computing Internal consistency reliabilities.

All scales, reliabilities and component items are presented in Appendix A.

The tables presented in the Results section include information on all the

usable items in the questionnaire (excluding some of the demographic items on

military specialties). Several ambiguous items were deleted for the final

analyses (e.g., question 117, satisfaction with family influence), as well as

one large set of items (questions 48 to 65) addressing spouse support and

various career options. It appeared that in responding to this particular set

of items a number of respondents failed to note a reversal in the order of the

response alternatives. About 10-20% percent of the respondents gave responses

to items in this section that were opposite to their responses to similar items

found elsewhere in the questionnaire. Given this di~screpancy it was deemed

prudent to exclude these items from the analyses.

Analyses

Frequencies for the demographic and career intentions variables are

reported first. Beginning with Table 10, means and standard deviations for the

attitudinal items are presented. Differences between male and female

respondents on these items were assessed using t-tests or analysis of variance.

Where differences are significant at the .05 level item means are underlined.

In discussing the results of the quantitative analyses of the survey data,

auecdotes and examples from the interview responses are used to Illustrate and

clarify certain points. It must be noted, however, that although the Interview

date. can provide a "real world" context for interpreting survey results, the

interview responses themselves are not generalizable to the population of dual

Army career couples. In the discussion of the results, an attempt Is made to

clearly distinguish between conclusions based on the surveay data and

interpretations or illustrations derived from the smaller Interview sample.

10
RnSULTS AND DISCUSSION

Personal CharacteristlCs

Hale and fesale dual career officers are very similar devographically (see

Table 1). Officers of both sexes are predominantly white (84) and nearly one

fourth have advanc'd degrees beyond college.

TAILE

OFFICERS, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

- - - -. -. -...- - - - - - --.. ---------- ------------------- --

I HALE FEMALE I OFFICER TOTAL I

( C) N x) (N) I (X) . I ) CX) I

~~--------------4 e a4---------4-----------*------w-------------I'eeeeeeeeeeeee

ETHNIC GROUP

WHITE .............. 55 86X 67 82X 122 84X

BLACK .............. 6 9x. 11 1x 17 12x

OTHER .............. 3 5x 4 5x 7 5x

COLLEGE

BA OR DS ............ 49 73X 66 Box 115 77*

PROF/MA/MS/PHD ...... 18 27x 16 2ax 34 23X

TIMES MARRIED

ONE ................. 52 79X 70 85x 122 82*

TWO ................. 13 20x 7 9z 20 14X

THREE OR MORE ....... 1 2X 5 6x 6 4X

YEARS MARRIED

1 YR OR LESS ........ 11 16X 10 12X 21 14X

2-5 YRS ............ 24 36X 35 45x 59 40::

4-5 YRS ........ i ... 16 24X 18 22X 34 23%

6-7 YRS ............. 12 18x 9 11x 21 14X

O'VER 7 YRS .......... 4 6x 10 12x 14 9z

SPOUSE IN ARMY WHEN

YOU MARRIED

NO .................. 11 16X 12 15x 23 15x

YES .................. 56 84X 70 85X 126 85X

CURRENT HOUSING

ON POST-FAM HOJSING. 2 3x. 2 2x 4 3x

OFF POST-GOV FUNDED. 0 Ox 1 lx* 1 1*

OFF POST-CIV........ 65 97X 79 96X 144. 97X

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

LIVING K14H YOU

NONE ................ 44 661 55 71x, 9) 68x

O1E ................. I5 2?x 14 18x 29 20x

TWO ................ 6 9X 6 8* 12 8x

3 OR MORE .......... 2 3x 3 4X 5 3* +4 - --- -- -- -- - - ------- ----------- .eeeeee4---------------.-----

Host officer- reported that their spouses were already in the Army when

they married (85%), and for all but 202 it was their first marriage.

Respondents had been married an average of four years, with the majority

married three or fewer years (54%) and only 9% married for more than seven

years. Host officer couples surveyed were still childless (68%), and rbe

couples who did have children typically had only one.

11
Military Characteristics

Of the officers surveyed, 831 were In the legular.Army, and 162 were in the

Army Reserves (see Table 2). The majority of both men snd woen were

commissioned through ROTC (66Z and 541, respectively), however a siseable

proportion of women (272) reported that the source of their commission was

something other than ROTC, USMA or OCS. Those in the "other" category are

likely to have rece! ,ed direct commissions.

TABLE 2

OFFICERS, M4ILITARY CHARACTERISTICS

------------------ ----------- ------- - ALE I FEMALE I OFFICER TOTAL I ---- ------- i 4--------4--------

SRIExC) x) I C) (X) I CM) I (x) I

BRANCH OF SERVICE

REGULAR ARMY ........ 57 85 65 81x 122 83*

ARMY RESERVES ....... 10 15* 14 17X 24 16%

OTHER ............... 0 Ox 1 x

HOW LONG

COMMISSIONED

1-3 YRS ............. 9 14* 22 27X 31 21X 4-6 YRS ............. 1) 29* 36 43X 55 38*

7-9 YRS ............. 16 25* 9 11x 25 17X

OVER 9 YRS .......... 21 32X 13 16X 34 23X

SOUrXCE OF COMMISSTON

OCS ................. 6 9X 8 10* 14 lax

USMA ................ 10 15X 7 9X 17 12%

ROTC ................ 43 66X 43 54X 86 59X OTHER ........ ; ...... 6 9x 22 27x 28 19*

YEARS IN SERVICE

1-3 YRS .... s....... 10 1SX 23 28* 33 22X

4-6 YRS ............. 18 27% 31 38X 49 33% 7-9 YRS ............. 14 21c 13 16X 27 1x 10 + YRS ............ 24 36X 15 18x 39 26X

GRADE

01-02 ...... *........ 12 18x 22 27X 34 23* 03 ................. 44 66* 52 63x 96 64X

04 ................. 11 16X 8 10x 19 13X

GRADE OF SPOUSE

HI-H2 ............... 1 1% 4 5X 5 3*

W3-M4 ............... 0 0x 3 4X 3 2X

01-02 .............. 17 25X 15 18x 32 21k

03 .................. 41 61X 49 60X 90 60x

04 ................. 8 12* 11 13X 19 13X ---------------------------- -------------- --------------------------------

Female officers had typically served less time in the Army then their male

counterparts. Women averaged just over six years in service compared to almost

eight and a half years for ma.n. Correspondingly, more women (41%) than men

(23%) had received their commissluns within the last four years, and more women

than men were still first or second lieutenants (27% versus 18Z). However, the

majority of both male and female officers in this sample wer'e captaina ("03" In

the table).

12
Husband# and wives generally bald the same rank (sae Table 3), but when

there were differences, the husband nearly always outranked his wife. For

example, of the 22 female lieutenants, elSht were marrled to captains and one

was marx cd to a major. Of the 12 male lieutananta, bowever, only one was

married ,o a woman who was senior to his In rank.

TABLE 3

OFFICERSV GRADE OF RESPONDENT BY GRADE OF SPOUSE

-ee -. -. . . . . ............................... eeeeee -e-e--e.. ...... ..

GRADE OF SPOUSE I ------------------- 4 ----

IIm-4 1 'o0-02 1 - 03 1 04 * I

÷ .............- I CN) I (X) ------------------ ÷ I (N) I Cx) I (N) I (X) I (N) I Cx) I ... . ÷. . ---. . . .4-- •-- -- ÷ . ..

MALE

01-02 ...... 0 o0 11 92x 1 ax 0 0o 03......... 0 0X 14X 35 80 3 ?x. 04 ........ 1 9x 0 0x 5 45X 5 45X

TOTAL ...... I Ix 17 251 41 61X a 12x

FEMALEf

01-02 ...... 1 5X 12 55x 36X 1 5x 03 ......... 6 12x I 6x 40 77X 3 6x 04+ ....... 0 Ox a Ox 1 13x 7 88x

TOTAL ...... 7 9x 151 lax 49 G0X 11 131 ---------------- +------ ----------------------- eee---

Representativeness of the Sample

The present sample of dual Army career officers appear& to be quite similar

to the representative sample examined by Raiha (1986). In both samples, about

84% of the couples were white, and about two thirds were childless. In terms

of military experience, the majority of officers In both samples were

captains, and men generally had more time in service than women in dual Army

career marriages. However, the difference between the length of time men and

women had been in the Army was not as great in the present sample as in the

soldier survey sample (Raiha, 1986). In the representative sample, male

officers in dual Army career marriages bad almost four years more experience than their female counterparts, whereas the difference In the present sample

was only about two and a half years. In addition, both male and female

officers in the present research averaged less time In service than the

officers in the soldier survey sample. Officers in the sample examined here

averaged just over six years in service, compared to almost eight years of Army experience for the officers in Raiha's (1986) sample.

The disparity in experience levels of officers in the two samples may be

due to the exclusion in the present study of couples who were not currently aesigned to the same post. More senior level officers typically have fewer

career enhancing assignment options, and thus are more likely than less

experienced officers to have difficulty obtaining joint assigunments. The

13
present sample appears to be reasonably representative of dual Army career

officers currently assigned to the same post, however, it musL. be remembered

that more experienced officers are underrepresented, and those living apart

from their spouses are not included at all.

VARIABLES RELATED TO CAREER DECISIONS

Career Intentions

The dual Army officers' current career intentions, as well as the career

intentions these officers attributed to their spouses are shown In Tablet 4 and

5. In Table 4, the distribution of responses to the seven career alternatives

'listed in the questionnaire are shown. In Table 5 and in subsequent tables

where responses are broken down by career intentions, the seven response

alternatives have been collapsed into the following three categories:

1. Stay Until Retirement, including only:

a) "Stay in the Army Until Retirement."

2. Undecided, including:

b) "Stay after completion of obligation, but undecided

about staying until retirement."

c) "I am undecided about action after present obligation."

3. Probably/Definitely Leave, including:

d) "Probably leave upon completion of present obligation."

e) "Definitely leave upon completion of present obligation."

f) "Probably leave before the end of present obligation."

g) "Definitely leave before the end of present obligation."

As indicated in Table 4, nearly all of the male officers and almost three

fourths uf the female officers anticipate staying in the Army at least beyond

their current obligations (911 and 712, respectively). Hen, however, ire much

more likely than women to intend to make the Army a career. Seventy-eight

percent (78%) of the male Officers and only 452 of female officers report that

they intend to stay in the Army until retirement. This trend is also -eflected

in the data on spouse career intentions (see Table 5). Over twice as many

women as men report that their spouses intend to stay in the Army until

retirement.

14
TABLE 4

OFFICERS, CAREER INTENTIONS

9 ................. -- . ---- ---------------.

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I

.3f ----------- sne ss -------- -

I (N) I(X) I (N) I (X) I N) I (x) I ----- -a - --------- 9---ssssss---------

CAREER INTENTIONS

STAY IN UNTIL RET ........ 32 78x 37 45f 89 40X

STAY AFT CURR OIL ..... ... 9 13X 21 264 30 20X

UNDEC AFT CURR OIL....... 3 4x 11 13X 14 91

PRI LV AFT CURR OIL...... 0 O0 a lo0 8 5X

DEF LV AFT CURR OIL ...... 3 4X 4 5X 7 5x

DEF LV DUR CURR OBL ...... 0 ox 1 Ix I 1X

COLUMN TOTAL ............. 47 100X 82 10OX 149 100X -------------- sm -------- 4-------4----

TABLE 5

OFFICERS: CAREER INTENTIONS

OF RESPONDENT AND SPOUSE

------------------- w - -------- ss msss -nnnnnnnnnnnnnn--- m------------

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL ------ ---- ------------------------ 9nnnn~nnnnnnnnn

I(N) I(X) () (N) i (N) .1)W --------- m------------------------s - ----------- nn RESPONDENT'IS CAREER

INTENTIONS.I

STAY TILL RETIRE ...... 52 78x 57 45X 89 60Z UNDECIDED ............. 12 lax 32 39x 44 30X

PROB/DEF LEAVE ........ 3 4x is 16X 16 11x

TOTAL ................. 67 100z 92 lOOX 149 10OX

SPOUSE'S CAREER

INTENTIONS

STAY TILL RETIRE ...... 23 34X 62 76X 85 57X

UNDECIDED ............. 31 46X 17 21X 48 32X

4PROI/DEF LEAVE ......... 13 19X 3 4X 16 11x

ITOTAL ................. 67 100x 82 1001 149 I00x

4nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n ssss~ssss---------3--------- ---------------------

The presence of time in service differences between men and women suggests

that differences in career intentions might be an artifact of the generally

more advanced career stage of the men in the sample. The more years an

individual has been in the Army, the less likely be or she is to consider

leaving before retirement. To control for a possible time in service effect,

career intentions were examined separately for four different tenure groups

(see Table 6).

Specific percentages are unreliable because of the small number of

respondents in each category, however the patterns in the data suggest an

15
r -

interesting trend. The percentages of men avd women who intend to stay in the

Army are similar for officers who have seven or more years of service. The

majority of both men and women intend to stay. There are dramatic ddfferences,

however, in the percentages of men and women-who report firm intentions to stay

while they are still in the early stage of their careers. In the 1-3 and 4-6

year categories, only about one quarter of the women, compared to almost three

quarters of the men, report that they intend to stay In the Army until

retirement. Female officers in dual Army career marriages appear to have

adopted a "wait and see" attitude toward their careers in the Army, while the

majority of their male counterparts appear to have planned on an Army career

from the beginning.

TABLE 6

OFFICERS, CAREER INTENTIONS BY SE'

AND TIME IN SERVICE

4 ----------------..------.------------- -------------------------------- | MALE. FEMALE TOTAL I

-----------4 -- ------- I---------I--------+--------

(N) I X) (N) I (X)I (N) IC) I

---------------------------------------------- ----------- I-----------------

11-3 YRS IN SERVICE

STAY TILL RETIRE.- 7 7CX 6 26X 13 39X

UNDECIDED ......... 2 20X 13 57X 15 4t5x

PROB/DEF LEAVE .... 1 lOX 4 17X 5 15X

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 10 10OX 23 100X 33 10OX

4-6 YRS IN SERVICE

STAY TILL RETIRE.. 13 72X 8 26X 21 41%

UNDECIDED........... 4 22x 1'4 45X 18 3 ix

PROB/DEF LEAVE .... I 6X 9 29X 10 20C

COLUMN TOTAL ...... i1 OOx 31 lO1x 49 IOOX

7-9 YRS IN SERVICE

STAY TILL RETIRt.. 9 64X 9 69x 18 67X

UNDECIDED ......... 4 29X 4 31X 8 30X

PROB/DEF LEAVE .... 1 7x 0 ox i 4x

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 14 100X 13 10oX 27 10CX

10 + YRS IN SERVICE

STAY TILL RETIRE.. 23 96X 14 93X 37 95X

UNDECIDED ......... I (oX I 7x 2 5x

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 24 1OOX 15 10cX 39 10cX

------------------------------------------------------------------- I--------I

Lon•g Separations

The possibility of a long-term separation from one's spouse is an ever

present threat for dual Army career couples. Unwillingness to accept such a

separation appears to be one reason s number of dual career officers

16
(especially women) elect to~leave the service. When asked what they would do

If a future assignment required a separation of one year or more,

only about one quarter of the women and one third of the men said that they would accept the separation (see Table 7).

TABLE 7

OFFICERftS

IF 'A FUTURE ASSIGNMENT REQUIRED A LONG SEPARATION (I YEAR OR MORE)

FROM YOUR SPOUSE, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

4---------------I------------------4------------------ ----------------- I

MALE A FEMALE I TOTAL 1.~~- -I -------------------- * ----------- I---------

(N) I CX) I (N) I MX I (N) ICZ)I

ACCEPT SEPARATION..... 1 22 34X 19 124X 41 28X

LEAVE THE ARMY ........I 11 17X 35 44K 46 32X

SPOUSE LEAVE ARMY.... 19 29X 3 4X 22 15K

OTHER ................. 13 20X 23 j29x 36 25X

,COLUMN TOTAL ......... 65 lOOK so I lOO 145 lOOK I------------------------------4----4----------------4----- -- 4-------

The most common solution to the dilemma posed by the prospect of a

separdtion was for the wife to leave the Army. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of

the male officers said that their spouses would leave the Army, and 44% of the

women themselves said that they would leave if a future assignment required a

long separation. In contrast, only 4% of the women and 17% of the men

indicated that the husband in the family would be the one to leave. Women with

six or fewer years in service were the most likely to say that they would give

up their Army careers, however, women exhibit a greater willingness to leave

than their male counterparts across all four of the tenure groups (see Table

Unfortunately, the option that both spouses would leave the Army was not

included as a response alternative. Some of the 25% of the respondents who

selected "other" as a response may have had this option in mind. Another

possibility for those who selected the "other" response is that one spouse would leave the active Army but would enlist in the National Guard or Army Reserve. These possibilities suggest that the percentages associated with " I

would leave the Army" and "My spouse would leave the Army" may underrepresent the actual number of dual career officers who would rather leave active duty than accept a long separation.

The greater willingness of women, relative to men, to give up their Army

careers is consistent with the traditional emphasis on the primacy of the

family role for women, and the importance of the work, or breadwinner role for

men. Interview comments, however, suggest that practical rather than

ideological considerations frequently underlie the career decisions Uf dual

Army career couples. The fact that husbands typically have more time Invested

In their careers than their wives appears to be an especially salient factor.

17
TABLE a

OFFICERS: INTENTIONS IF LONO SEPARATION REQUIRED#

BY TIME IN SERVICE

4.-----------------*--------------*------------- ----------------------- 4

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I -aaaa---------------- ----- m ~~ ----- f--- --4------

ICN) I (X) l(N) I W I (N) I W~

1-3 YRS IN SERVICE

ACCEPT SEPARATION. 3 30x 5 23X a 25x

LEAVE THE ARMY.... 3 3OX 10 45X 13 41X

SPOUSE LEAVE ARMY. 3 30% 0 ox 3 9g

OTHER ............. I lOX 7 32X & 25%

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 10 lOOz 22 lOOX 32 lOOx

4-6 YRS IN SERVICE

ACCEPT SEPARATION. 3 17% 5 17X a 17X

LEAVE THE ARMY.... 6 33X 16 53X 22 46X

SPOUSE LEAVE ARMY, 5 28X 0 Ox 5 lOx

OTHER ............. 4 22X 9 3Ox 13 27X

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 18 lOOx 30 lOOx 48 lOO0

7-9 YRS IN SERVICE

ACCEPT SEPARATION. 4 31X 4 31X a 31X

LEAVE THE ARMY.... 1 ax 4 31X 5 19X

SPOUSE LEAVE ARMY. 5 38x 1 ax 6 23x

OTHER ............. 3 23X 4 31X 7 27X

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 13 lOOx 13 lOOx 26 lOOx

10 + YRS IN SERVICE

ACCEPT SEPARATION. 12 52X 5 33% 17 45x

LEAVE THE ARMY.... 1 4X 5 33X 6 16X

SPOUSE LEAVE ARMY. 6 26X 2 13% a 21%

OTHER ............. 4 17X . 3 20X 7 lax

COLUMN TOTAL ...... 23 lOOx 15 lOOK 38 lOOx ------------------------ 4--------4--------4---------* --- 4 -------- 4--------

For example, in two cases where both spouses were strongly committed to au

Army career, the wives said that they, rather than their husbands would be the

ones to leave the Army if faced with a long separation, primarily because their

husbands had seniority. In one case, the husband had only two more years in

service than his wife, but he was deemed to have greater career potential in

the Army. Both spouses also felt that the wife would be more likely than the

husband to find a comparable civilian job. In the other -.ase, the wife had 8

ycars in the Army and felt that she had excellent promotion potential, however

her husband's career was peaking after 20 years and there was no question that

he would stay. Given the strong preferences for an Army career expresses by

both these women, It might seem surprising that they would be willing to leave

the Army rather than face long, but temporary separation. However, several

women made it clear that a separation represented much more than an

inconvenience or a period of loneliness to be endured for the sake of their

careers. Both women believed that long-term separations generally caused

serious marital problems and increased the likelihood of divorce. For these

18
women, along separation represented & choice between marriage and career, and

they were not willing to jeopardize their marriages to remain in the Army.

Career Decision Factors

The value dual career couples place on staying together was especially

apparent in the importance attributed to "Joint domicile" in the career

decision process. In an item asking respondents to rate t~e importance of 23

factors to their career deciaion3, the ability to maintain a joint domicile was

given a "very important" rating more often than any other factor (see Table 9).

Concerns about family life, marriage, jobs, and promotion opportunities were

also very important factors for both men and women, although women tended to

give slightly more weight than the men to marriage and concerns.

TABLE 9

Officers: Career Decision Factors Rated "Very Important"

by at least 50% of Hale or Female Respondents

I I

HALE FEMALE II

• Joint Domicile (78%) * Joint Domicile (88%)

Job (73%) * Marriage Concerns (71%)

Promotion Opportunities (65%) * Family Life (67%)

• Family Life (63%) Job (67%)

Feelings about Army (61%) * Army view of Dual Army Couples (63%)

Benefits (53%) Promotion Opportunities (56%)

* Marriage Concerns (52%) Feelings about Army (56%)

• Assignments (52%)

Pay (51%)

Benefits (50%)

* = Items included in Dual Career/Marriage Concerns Scale in Table 10

Table 10 presents the means for male and female o),ficers on the four scales

computed from the original set of 23 items and the six remaining single item

variables. Three variables, Army job, promotion potential, and dual Army

career assignment and marriage concerns were rated as the most important career

decision factors by both men and women. The means presented in Table 10 also

indicate that pregnancy and childcare concerns are least likely to be rated as

important factors in the career decisions of male and female duul Army career

officers.

19
01

OFFICERS, SCPORTNE 10.----------7ON FCTORS

S(HIGH SCORE NDICATES HIGH IMPORTANCE)

-- - -- - W..........-.--.m.-------- +.------- .-. ....-- ----

I MALE IFEMALE ITOTAL 1 --- -------------------------- m- - - m - -

PAY, BENEFITS & SECURITY

5.MEAN2 3.123.13 3.13

STD DEV. .49 .65 .58

ARMY LIFESTYLE, LEADERS &

PEOPLE

MEAN ................... 3.18 3.19 3.18

STD DEV ............... .57 .53 .55

DUAL CAREER, ASSIGNMENT,

MARRIAGE CONCERNS

MEAN ................... 3.46 3.56 3.51

STD DEV ................ .49 .48 .49

CONCERNS ABOUT PREGNANCY

MEAN .................. z.?5 2.53 2.36

STD DEV ................. r-J.-W 1.03 1.11

ARMY JOB MEAN ............. 3.72 3.65 3.68

STD DEV. ............. .49 .50 .50

PROMOTION POTENTIAL

i MEAN ................... 3.61 3.41 3.50 1STD 0EV ........... .. 60 .78 .71

, ICHILDCARE CONCERNS MEAN ................... 2.25 2.54 2.41

STD DEV ................ 1.24 1.34 1.29

TRAVEL

MEAN2. • . .78 2.60 2.68

STD DEV.............. .. .93 .84 .88

LIVING QUARTERS MEAN ................... 2.46 2.63 2.56

STD DEV ................ 1.11 1.01 1.06

ASSIGNED POST

MEAN ... ........... 2.61 2.62 2.62

STD DEV,................ .89 .83 ..85 ------------------------------------------ eeee

NOTE Is THE FIRST 4 FACTORS ARE MULTIPLE ITEM SCALES.

NOTE 2: SIGNIFICANT MALE/FEMALE DIrFEkENCES (P< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

The pregnancy and childcare means should be interpreted with caution,

however. First, the large standard deviations for these items (especially "childcare concerns") suggests that the mean is a poor indicator of the central

tendency of the distribution of responses. There is, 4n fact, no central

tendency, because as the frequencies in Table 11 illustrate, responses to these

items are bimodally, rather than normally distributed. The means suggest that

pregnancy and childcare concerns are a minor consideration in the career

decisions of the "average" female dual Army career officer. The frequencies,

20
on the other band, Indicate that childeare concerns care are "very Important" factors for 138% of the female officers and either "not applicable" or "not at

all important" to an equal percentage of women. The 'majority of tiomen also

rated pregnancy concerns as either very important or not important-at all. 'In

both cases, the more neutral responses suggested by the, mean are Lot

representative of the feelings of dual Army career women.

TABLE 11

OFFICERS: FREQUENCIES FOR PREGNANCY AND CHILDCARE CONCERNS

--- ---------- --- 4--------- ------ *-- - e4--------

K ALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I +_--;-----(--- - - + --------------- m-I--------

-- -------- 4------------------4. N---- N --------------- IC) N 4-------- X--- 

PREGNANCY

NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 34 52X 28 34% 62 42%

FAIRLY UNIMPORTANT.. 7 11Z 10 12% 17 11X

FAIRLY IMPORTANT .... 12 18X 22 27% 34 23X

VERY IMPORTANT ...... 13 202 22 27X 35 24X

ARMY VIEW OF

PREGNANCY

NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 24 37X 18 22X 42 29X

FAIRLY UNIMPORTANT.. 19 29X 17 21X 36 24X

FAIRLY IMPORTANT .... 11 17X 27 '33X 38 26X

VERY IMPORTANT ...... 11 17X 20 24X 31 21X

CHILDCARE CONCERNS

NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 29 43% 31 38X 60 40X

FAIRLY UNIMPORTANT.. 7 l0X 7 9X 14 9X

FAIRLY IMPORTANT .... 16 24X 13 16X 29 19X

VERY IMPORTANT ...... 15 22X 31 39X 46 31X *----------------.------------ -.--- .------------- I--------

Another factor should also be considered in assessing the importance of

pregnancy and childcare concerns relative to other career decision criteria.

All of the other career decision factors listed in the questionnaire (e.g., pay and benefits, assignment concerns, travel, Army job) are at least potentially relevant to all dual Army career soldiers. The childcare and pregnancy items, however, are relevant only to those who have young children or are planning on

starting a family. Individuals for whom these issues are irrelevant (e.g., those who have decided to remain childless, or those with older children) are

likely to give these factors the lowest importance ratings, reducing the means

considerably. In future research It would be useful to Include questions additional questions on family status and future plans for children. The

relative importance of various career decision factors could then be rank

ordered separately for those for whom child related concerns are potentially

relevant.

The preliminary Interviews suggested that time constraints are related to

pregnancy and childcare concerns among women who have, or are pIhmning to have

children. Nearly every officer interviewed agreed that it was very difficult

to combine raising children with the requirements of a military career.

Mlilitary jobs often entail long hours, travel, unexpected schedule changes and

occasional alerts and field exercises. These demands leave little time for

family. One woman, for example, said that her "absurdly long" working hours

21
left her with so little time for her husband'and chlldren that she considered

her family life "ruined". This woman expected to stay in the Army until

retirement, but noted that children had curtailed her career ambillons

considerably.

TABLE 12

OFFICERS (LESS THAN 11 YRS IN ARMY):

IMPORTANCE OF DECISION FACTORS BY CAREER INTENTIONS

(HIGH SCORE INDICATES HIGH IMPORTANCE)

*------------------------ 4------------ --- -- -+ ISTAY TILL RETIRE I UNDECIDED/LEAVE I

O---------I---------O------------------ I HALE I FEMALE I HALE I FEMALE I

4-----------------------4------------------ --4--------0---------

PAY, BENEFITS A SECURITYI

MEAN .................. 3.18 3.37 3.03 2.87-

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 25 14 44

ARMY LIFESTYLE, LEADERS

A PEOPLE

MEAN......... e ....... 3.27 3.26 3.27 3.13

RESPONDENTS ........... 34- 26 14 44

DUAL CAREER, ASSIGNMENT,

MARRIAGE CONCERNS

MEAN .................. 3.55 3.58 3.76 3.49 RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 44

CONCERNS ABOUT PREGNANCY

MEAN .................. 2.21 2.25 2.18 2.72

RESPONDENTS ........... 33 26 14 44

ARMY JOB

MEAN .......... 3.85 3.68 3.64 3.68

RESPONDENTS............ 34 25 14 44

PROMOTION POTENTIAL

MEAN .................. 3.73 3.85 3.64 3.16 &A, RESPONDENTS ........... 33 26 14 44

CHILDCARE CONCERNS

MEAN .................. 2.38 2.35 2.79 2.66

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 44

TRAVEL

MEAN .................. 2.85 2.52 2.57 2.47

RESPONDENTS........... 34 25 14 43

LIVING QUARTERS MEAN .................. 2.59 2.73 2.86 2.52 RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 44

ASSIGNED POST

MEAN ................. 2.68 2.65 3.07 2.57 RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 44

"€ SIGNIFICANT (P< .05) CAREER INTENTIONS MAIN EFFECT.

SIGNIFICANT (PC .05) SEX MAIN EFFECT. CISIGNIFICANT (P< .05) CAREER INTENTIONS BY SEX INTERACTION.

22
Women who are anticipating starting families seem to be aware of the tradeof fs involved In balancing careers and families. The stress and conflicts

generated by the attempt to excel In both roles at once leads some women tet

choose 'one role over the other. For example, two women who were undecided

about staying in the Army at the time of the Interviews said they would

definitely leave if and when they had children. Both cited as reasons their

desire to spend more time with their children then a career In the Army would

allow. One woman added that she would love to resume her Army career four or'

five years after starting her family If that option were available to military

parents.

Looking at the career decision factors' from a retention perspective, it is

Instructive to examine. separately the ra* tings given by those with most of their

careers still ahead of them (i.e., those who still have a fairly high

.probability of leaving the Army). Table 12 reports the means for officers with

10 or fever years in service, broken down by both sex and career Intentions.

Most striking In the similarity of the ratings across groups. There were only

two significant differences related to sex and career intentions: the pay, benefits and security factor was more Important for those Intending to stay in

the Army, and promotion potential was less important for women in the

undecided /leaving category. The career decision factors identified as most

im-. :tarat: Army job, promotion potential and dual career assignment and

marriage concerns, were the same for all four subgroups.

In summary, the data on career decision factors suggest that most male and

female dual Army officers agree that jobs, promotion potential, and dual

career/marriage concerns (especially joint domicile) are very important in

their career decisions. The same variables are important regardless of career

stage or 'ýareer intentions. The child care and pregnancy items received the

lowest overall mean importance ratings, but the distribution of responses indicaited that child care concerns are actually a very important factor for

over ',third of thie women surveyed. These data suggest that generalizations

about 'gnancy and childcare concerns should be made cautiously; means may obacur.. -Qportant, real differences across subgroups of women in the importance they as [be to these Issues.

JOB-RELATED ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS

Satisfaction With Factors Related To Career Decisions

Overall, dual career officers display a fairly high level of satisfaction,

and the responses of men and women are strikingly similar (see Table 13). For

both male and female officers, jobs, travel, and living quarters receive the

highest satisfaction ratings, and the child care and pregnancy concern items

receive the lowest ratings. For most Items, however, "satl~sfied" was the modal

response. In fact, for all but three of the 22 satisfaction Items, the

"satisfied" response alternative was selected by at least 501 of the sample. The exception on the positive side was Army job, where among men, a large percei.tage were "very satisfied" (391) in addition to the many who were "satisfied" (48%). The other two exceptions were the Items ranking lowest in

averAge satisfaction, "child care concerns" and "the Army's view of pregnant

women". Over half of the female respondents reported being either dissatisfied

23
(43Z) or very dissatisfied (61%) with the way the Army views pregnant women,

and almost half were either dissatisfied (14%) or very dissatisfied (342) with

the child care situation.

TABLE 13

OFFICERS' NOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING?

(HIGH SCORE INDICATES HIGH SATISFACTION)

-- MALE FEMALE ITOTAL ----- ~ ~--------------------) --------------

PAY, BENEFITS & SECURITY

MEAN .................. 22.91 2.92 2.92

STD DEV ................ .43 .47 .45

ARMY LIFESTYLE, LEADERS &

PEOPLE

MEAN.... t ..... . ...... . 3.00 2.92 2.96

STD DEV ...... . ....... .50 .44 .47

DUAL CAREER, ASSIGNMENTo

MARRIAGE CONCERNS

MEAN .................. 2.99 3.04 3.02

STD DEV ................ .43 .43 .43

ARMY VIEW OF PREGNANCY

MEAN ................... ..... 2.52.27 2.38 STD D)EV ................ . 74 .74 .75

JOB

MEAN ....... ........ 3.22 3.06 3.14

STD DEV ..... ........ * .76 .72 .74

PROMOTION POTENTIAL

MEAN ................... 3.00 2.85 2.92

STD DEV. ................. .67 .55 .61

CHILD CARE CONCERNS

MEAN ................... 2.64 2.26 2.44

STD DEV ................ .60 1.04 .87

TRAVEL

MEAN ......... t .......... 3.20 3.15 3.17

STD DEV ................ .53 .36 .45

LIVING QUARTERS MEAN ........ . ........ 3.09 3.09 3.09 STD DEV ................ .67 .74 .71

THE POST WHERE I AM

ASSIGNED WEAN ................... 2.99 2.92 2.95

STD DEV ... ..... q .3 8. .67 .74

4---- - ------------ - -- 4 ----------------

NOTE 1s THE FIRST 3 FACTORS ARE MULTIPLE ITEM SCALES.

NOTE 2s SIGNIFICANT KALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCESARE UNDERLINED.

Interview comments provide some insight into the reasons underlying the

dissatisfaction in these a:eas. With regard to the Army view of pregnant

women, there appear to be two potentially important sources of discontent.

First, everyone interviewed agreed that pregnant women in the Army tend not to

be viewed favorably. Pregnant women are often perceived as taking advantage of

their condition to get out of work, and colleagues resent it when they have to

24
cover for a pregnant woman who is not "pullung her own weight" in the unit.

Legitimate medical reasons, regulations, or over protective supervisors do

sometimes limit the activities of pregnant women. However, most women

interviewed believed that the negative attitudes toward pregnant soldiers were

largely a result of feelings that women, and especially pregnant women, do not

belong In the Army. Women reported that pregnant officers, for example, may be

characterized as not beins serious about their careers because they have chosen

to have children. In other cases, female officers have been viewed as letting

their troops down because man believe that women cannot serve as effective role

models when they are pregnant.

Negative attitudes are not the only difficulties pregnant women encounter.

Army policies on maternity leave are also problematic for many. Maternity

leave, like the leave granted for a physical disability or injury, is supposed

to be limited to the minimum amount of time required for medical recovery.

Standard practice is Foallow four weeks recovery time for a nbrial birth.

Many women, however, are not prepared physically or emotionally to resume their

full slate of activities four weeks after giving birth. As one woman pointed

out, regular uniforms are not likely to fit only four weeks after giving

birth, and only the most extraordinary women will be ready to resume PT and

pass the tests. Furthermore, even if a mother Is physically and emotionally

ready to leave her four week old infant for 8 to 10 hours a day, very few

childcare providers (including most post day care centers) accept infants only

four weeks old.

With regard to childeare, women reported in the interviews that their

childcare difficulties included not only finding good, regular and affordable

day care for working hours (or feeling guilty about accepting barely adequate

child care), but also making arrangements for sick children, field exercises,

alerts, TDY, "obligatory" social functions and overtime. The lack of adequate

facilities for the care of pre-schoolers as well as problems arranging after

school supervision for older children both appear to contribute to

dissatisfaction women feel with regard to childcare issues.

The satisfaction data reported in Table 13 are based on the entire sample

of officers. Of particular interest, however, are the differences between

those who intend to stay and those who are planning on leaving. Table 14

provides means on the satisfaction items broken out by career decision factors

(Table 12), male and female satisfaction responses are very similar. As one

might expect, however, the means for the two career intentions groups are

significantly different in several areas. Those who intend to stay until

retirement are most satisfied with their jobs, travel, and their currently

assigned posts. Those in the "undecided/leave" category exhibit a

significantly lower level of satisfaction in these three areas as well as three

others: promotion potential, Army lifestyle and dual career concerns.

In addition to the generally lower levels of satisfaction reported by the

"undecided/leaving officers", there are two interesting differences in the rank

ordering of the satisfaction factors across the two career groups. First,

officers who are considering leaving the Army are most satisfied with their

living quarters (typically off post civilian housing) and only moderately

satisfied with their jobs relative to other factors. Among the officers who

intend to stay in the Army, on the other hand, Army job ranks firs,. in terms of

satisfaction, while living quarters (one of the least important career decision

25
factors) is ranked sixth. In addition, those in the "undeciIed/leave"

category are relatively dissatisfied with their current post (only child care

and pregnancy rauk lower), whereas assigned post has one of the highest mean

satisfaction ratings for those intending to stay.

TABLE 14

OFFICERS (LESS THAN 11 'fRS IN ARMY)s

SATISFACTION WITH DECISION FACTORS BY CAREER INTENTIONS

(HIGH SCORE INDICATES HIGH SATISFACTION)

ISTAY TILL RETIRE I UNDECIDEDLEAVE

-HALE I FEMALE I KALE I FEMALE I

PAY, BENEFITS A SECURITY

MEAN .................. 2.91 3.05 2.80 2.88

RESPONDENTS ........... 33 26 t1 36

ARMY LIFESTYLE, LEADERS

A PEOPLE

MEAN ................. 3.13 3.10 2.70 2.86 0L

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 40

DUAL CAREER, ASSIGNMENT,

MARRIAGE CONCERNS

MEAN .................. 3.01 3.21 2.91 2.95 o, RESPONDENTS ........... 33 26 14 42

ARMY VIEW OF PREGNANCY

MEAN .................. 2.55 2.52 2.50 2.20

RESPONDENTS .......... 31 25 12 40

ARMY JOB

MEAN .................. 3.38 3.24 2.71 2.95 0.

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 25 14 43

PROMOTION POTENTIAL

MEAN .................. 3.12 3.08 2.71 2.84 Ca

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 43

CHILD CARE CONCERNS

MEAN .................. 2.59 2.64 2.60 2.11

RESPONDENTS ........... 17 11 10 1Is

TRAVEL

MEAN .................. 3.21 3.31 3.00 3.07 0.

RESPONDENTS........... 34 26 13 40

LIVING QUARTERS MEAN .................. 3.00 3.14 3.09 3.11

RESPONDENTS ........... 29 22 11 36

ASSIGNED POST

MEAN ..... o.......... 3.21 3.23 2.50 2.74 0..

RESPONDENTS ........... 34 26 14 42 ------------------------- 4--------- --------- 4--------------I---------

4ISIGNIFICANT CP( .05) CAREER INTENTIONS MAIN EFFECT.

In summary, the satisfaction ratings indicate that dual Army career

officers have few complaints beyond child care and pregnancy concerns.

Although those who plan on staying In the Ax-my until retirement tend to be more

satisfied overall, the satisfaction means even for those in the

undecided/leaving group seldom fall below the mid-point (2.5) of the

satisfaction scale. The only exception&* are the pregnancy and child care

26
items, where women who were undecided or planning to leave the Army indicated

that they were truly dissatisfied with the current situation. The data further

suggest that there are differences in the types of things those who are staying

and those who are undecided or leaving find most satisfying. Two factors

intrinsically associated with the Army, Army job and assigned post, are

especially satisfying for those who intend to stay. However, for those who are

undecided or planning on leaving, living quarters and travel are the areas of

greatest satisfaction.

Feelings About Work And The Army

The means in Table 15, consistent with the satisfaction data, indicate that

both male and female dual Army officers have vary positive feelings about both

their work and the Army in general.

TABLE 15

OFFICERS' FEELINGS ABOUT WORK AND ARMY

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEhENT)

I-I MALE IFEMALE ITOTAL

-- -- -- -- - - - - - -- -- - -- --- -- -- -- -

WORK IS MEANINGFUL, I TAKE

PRIDE IN IT

MEAN ..... .... ... .o..... 3.41 3.47 3.45

STD DEV .................. 54 .44 .9

WOkRK CONTEXT (PEOPLE,

ENVIRONMENT) PLEASANT

MEAN ................. 2.87 2.88 2.88

STD DEV ............ ..... .67 .56 .61

1 AN PROUD TO BE IN THE

ARMY

MEAN .................... 3.75 3.58 3.66

STD DEV ................ .47 .61 .56

MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO

ME INVOLVE JOB

MEAN ........ . .......... 2.40 2.27 2.33

STD DEV ................. .80 .78 .79

WORK MORE IMPORTANT THAN

MONEY I EARN

MEAN. ................... 3.01 2.80 2.90

STD DEV ...... ......... o .79 .73 .76

MAIN INTEREST IN ARMY IS

MONEY FOR OTHER THINGS

MEAN.......... .*......... 1.S3 1.66 1.62

STD DEV ................ .68 .69 .69

JOB SKILLS WILL NOT BE

USEFUL IN 5 YRS

MEAN ............ s...... 1.64 1.55 1.59

STD DEV...... .... ...... .87 .72 .79

---------------------------- Ieeeeee -- eee----------

NOTE 1 MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES CP< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

NOTE 21 THE FIRST 2 FACTORS ARE MULTIPLE ITEM SCALES.

27
Nearly all believe that their Work is Meaningful, and 982 say they are

proud to be in the Army. The officers survayed also generally like the people

they work with and find their environments pleasant. The majority (602),

however, do not agree that the moat Important things that happen to them

involve their jobs. This finding is noteworthy, suggesting that even highly

committed officers have needs and interests that cannot be satisfied through

work alone. Since all the officers in the sample are married, it in reasonable

to assume that families are the source of way of the Important things that

happen to dual Army career officers..

Commitment

Dual Army officers report that their faailies are committed to the Army

mission and lifestyle, and both sexes strongly reject the notion that dual Army

couples are harmful to the Army mission (see Table 16). Man and women also

believe that the Army can count on dual Army couples in an emergency or

deployment (86% agree), however, men express a stronger level of agreement.

TABLE 16

OFFICERS, DUAL ARMY COUPLES' (DACS) COMMITMENT TO ARMY

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEMENT)

• Dmn~dese m•em mmeo 4e n•,ee~d endeo eI•e

I HALE I FEMALE I TOTAL --------------------- e- e e------------- 4 --- --

IN EMERGENCY ARMY CAN

MEAN* COUNT .... ON o................ DACS 3.40 3.02 3.20

STD DEV. ..... . ... t.. . 05z .83

IF CONFLICT DET. FAMILY 8

ARMY NEEDS, ARMY 1ST

MEAN ... .%. .. ........... 2.64 2.47 2.55

STD DEV. ............... .88 .84 .86

OUR FAMILY COMMITTED TO

ARMY LIFESTYLE &

MISSION

MEAN.. ..... 3.30 3.21 3.25

STD DEV. . . .. .. .. .60 .67 .64

DACS ARE HARMFUL TO ARMY

MISSION

MEAN...o................. 1.43 1.44 1.44

STD DEV ... .. ........... 74 .79 .77 +-------. e e----------o-tootooo----4 ------ -------

NOTE it HALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES (P< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

It la interesting that while nearly all officers thougat that dual Army

couples could be counted on in an emergency, they were somewhat ambivalent

about their loyalties in the face of non-specific conflicts between work and

family. Officers as a group were fairly evenly split between those who agreed

(362) and those who disagreed (39Z) that in the event of a conflict between

family needs and the needs of the Army, the Army would come first. The fact

that few people expressed strong agreement (142) or disagreement (102) with

this statement suggests that most people may have mixed feelings. The

situation, rather than an absolute Army versus family decision rule may

determine priorities in the face of Army/family conflicts less compelling than

national emergencies.

28
Career Priorities And Assignumeut Problems

Both male and female officers are reluctant to ascribe more importance to

their own careers then their spouses' careers (see Table 17). Sixty-eight

percent (682) of the men and 882 of the women disagree with the statement: "In

our marriage, my career is the moot important." Even on the item that forces a

choice: "If I had to choose, my career is more important than my spouse's",

only 451 of the men and 142 of the women agreed. When these two items were

combined Into a scale (me. Table 17), women were significantly more likely than

men to strongly disagree that their careers were the most important. It is

worth reiterating, however, that in the majority of cases, both men and women

appear unwilling to say that their careers are more important than their

spouses'.

TABLE 17

OFFICERS' CAREER PRIORITIES AND ASSIGNMENT PROBLEMS

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEMENT)

4,..,..• , • . • -------- -- - -- - . -. -. ------------- 4

HALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I

4--------------------- - -- - -- -- - -----------

MW CAREER MORE IMPORTANT

M THAN E A N SPOUSE'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9 2 . 0 9

$TO BEV ...... *...........8 6 .76

JOINT ASSIGNMENT MEANS ONE

SPOUSE LOSES GOOD OPP

MEAN... ................. 2.46 2.52 2.50

STD DEV................. .93 .86 .89

I'VE TAKEN BAD ASSIGNMENT

TO BE NITH SPOUSE

MEAN ............ .......... 2.12 2.37 2.26

STD DEV ..... ........ ... .96 .87 .92

SPOUSE TOOK BAD ASSIGNMENT

TO BE WITH ME

MEAN .......... *......... 2.18 2.24 2.21

STD DEV ................. .93 .98 .95

-I---------- --------------- 4-- -- e ------------------

NOTE 1: HALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES (P< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

NOTE 2' THE FIRST FACTOR IS A MULTIPLE ITEM SCALE.

During the interviews, most couples did actually agree that the husband's

career would take prtority if or when they had to compromise the career of one

spouse. However, the interviewees took pains to explain that this decision

reflected practical considerations (e.g. promotion potential, children, time in

service), rather than a feeling that the wife's career was intrinsically less

Important or valuable than her husband's.

Most of the couples in the survey have been fortunate, so far, in that

neither spouse has had to accept a bad assignment in order for the couple to

29
stay together. Furthermore, 55% do not believe that joint assignments usually

mean that one spouse loses a good opportunity. This optimism is likely to be

at least partly a result of the sampling frame (no currently separated couples

were included) and partly a function of the relative youth of the sample. As

noted earlier, most (64%) of the officers in the sample have been married less

than 4 years, and just over half (55%) have fewer than 7 years In the Army. As

officers progress through the ranks there are fewer and fewer career enhancing

positions available. The longer a dual Army. couple. is together, thee more

likely they are to face a situation where the best career moves for each are in

different locations.

The data in Table 18 confirm tbat the longer a couple is married, the more

likely they are to have been forced to comp 'romise the career of -one or the

other partner. Officers married for four or more years are more likely to

report that either they (45%) or their spouses (41%) have taken a bad

assignment in order to stay together.' Only about one quarter-of those married

on to three years have been in a similar situation.

TABLE 18

OFFICERS: ASSIGNMENT PROBLEMS BY YEARS MARRIED

4--------------- - --- --- 4------------ -0----------4------------

13YS14 +. YRS I TOTAL IMAR RIED IMARRIED

I(N) I Cx) I *--4 (N) I1 CX) - I(N) - I (Z) - -------------------------------------- 4-----4----*---------4.

IF HAD TO CHOOSE, MY

CAREER MORE IMPORTANT I7x 4 8 0

DISAGREE. . . .. ... ... . .. ..... 5917X 4 8 10 72

AGREE ........................ 19 24X 22 32X 41 28%

JOINT ASSIGNMENT MEANS ONE

SPOUSE LOSES GOOD OPP

DISAGREE .................. 44 56% 37 54x $1 55%

AGREE............... *...... 34 44X 32 46X 66 45X

I'VE TAKEN BAD ASSIGNMENT

TO BE WITH SPOUSE

DISAGREE.............. 54 74X 37 55X 91 65X

AGE ...... .o .... 19 26X 30 45X 49 35X

SPOUSE TOOK BAD ASSIGNM.ENT

TO BE WITH ME

DISAGEE.. REE...... .55 75X 40 39X 95 67X

AGREE ....................... 18, 25X 28, 41x 46, 33X

Career Support

Although dual Army couples sometimes have to make career compromises to be

together, they are very supportive of each others' career Intentions (see Table

19). In fact, 88% of the male officers felt that their wives strongly

supported their career intentions, and none reported that they received no

support at all. The mean for women on the item: "How much does your spouse

30
spotyour career Intention:?" In lover than the mean for men because of the

Nevertheless, th vrl ee fsupport rciebyothuansndwives

iveyhigh.

TABLE 19

OFFICERS' SUPPORT FOR CAREER INTENTIONS

CHIOHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGIREEMENT)

0----------------------------I ---------I---------I

I I MALE IFEMALE I TOTAL I 0---------------------------I-- -------I----------------

YOU-SUPPORT SPOUSES CAREER

MEN ............ 3.85 3.91 3.89

STD DEV .............. ... .40 ..32 .36

SPOUSE SUPPORTS YOUR

CAREER

MEAN .................... ..... P..LZL 3.79

LDR/SUP SUPPORTS SPOUSE

CAREER

MEANN................2.95L. 3.29.L 4 3.14

STD DEV ............. ... .6 .5Z .90

LDR/SUP SUPPORTS YOUR

CAREER

MEAN. . . ... . ... . ... .. ..... 3.47 3.35 3.40

STD DEV .....................76 .78. .77

S---------------------------I---------I---------I-------

NOTE I'k MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES CP< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

Both male and female officer: also felt that their own leaders or

supervisors were very supportive. Men, however, were less likely to perceive their spouses' supervisors as being supportive. Almost a third (32Z) of the

men said that their wives' supervisors showed little or no support for their

spouses' career intentions. Among female officers, on the other hand, only 18%

felt that their husbands, supervisors were not supportive. What this

difference actually means In terms of Army support for women's career

Intentions is ambiguous, however. These Items refer to support for career

intentions, rather than simply support for one's career, and in many cases

female officers' carcer intentions "Lean toward leaving the Army. Husbands who

feel that their wives are not supported may be Indicating that their wives'

supervisors want them to stay despite their Inclination to leave, or they may

be indicating that they are particularly sensitive to any slights or

discrimination their spouses may suffer on the job. The interview responses,

as well as the data on equal opportunity (see Table 20) tend to support the

latter interpretation. Men strongly disagree that their wives have an

advantage because of their sex. In future research It would be useful to

distinguish between support for an individual's Army career, and support for

the individual's own career preferences and intentions.

31
Promotion Opportunities

On the whole, both men and women are quite optimistic about their promotion

opportunities (see Table 20). Eighty-eight percent (88%) and 86% of the male

and female officers, respectively, agree that their promotion chances rre good.

A large majority (75%) also agree that promotions in the Army are fair. There

is evidence, however, that a sizable minority of officers believe that women do

not have equal opportunities for career development in the Army. About one

fourth of the officers surveyed did not agree that Army promotions were fair

and that both spouses had equal opportunities for career development in the

Army. In addition, 27% of the women (in contrast to 7% of the men) agreed that

their spouses had more opportunity for career development because of their sex.

TABLE 20

OFFICERS i BELIEFS ABOUT PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEMENT)

4. 4-------------*----------aaaaaaa

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I --aaa-----a-aa ---------- a-a-a-4. ------------ 4----------

MY PROMOTION CHANCES ARE

GOOD MEAN ...... ........ 3.31 3.19 3.25

STD DEV ................. .87 .80 .14

PROMOTIONS IN ARMY ARE

FAIR

MEAN .................... 2.90 2.79 2.84

STD DEV ................. .91 .74 .82

SPOUSE " I HAVE EQUAL OPPS FOR CAREER DEV

MEAN............. o .. . 3.10 2.88 2.99

STD DEY.# .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .86 .82 .84

SPOUSE HAS MORE CAREER

OPPS BECAUSE OF SEX MEAN .................... 1 .91 2.20 2.02

STD DEV ................. . 66 .6/ .80

4.....................4---------4------- -------------

NOTE 1: MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES CP< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

Several of the Interview comments suggested that although the Army as a

whole is viewed quite favorably with regard to the opportunities available to

women, a woman's career can still be adversely affected by men who see the Army

as a "man's world", and want to keep it that way. For example, one woman said

that despite her excellent performance record, she had not been truly accepted

as an "insider" yet, and that being excluded from the influential, informal,

inner circle could have a negative impact or her career. Another woman noted

that her husband had greater promotion potential (and thus his career would

take precedence over hers) because he was being "groomed" for more senior

positions while she was not. In noting such instances of perceived inequality,

however, it is worth reiterating that despite the traditionally male

orientation of the Army, the majority of women surveyed did not feel that their

sex created any barriers to their advancement.

32
Army Treatment of Dual Army Couples

Male and female officers are very similar In their feelingb about the way

the Army treats Amy dual career couples, and by and large, these feelings are

positive (see Table 21). A large majority of the sample (81%) agree that the

Army tries to accommodate dual Army couples, and nearly as many (712) believe

that the Army treats soldiers and their famiiies fairly. Host also see room

for Improvement, however. Seventy-nine percent (79%) &elieve that the family

needs to be given a higher priority in the assignment system.

TABLE 21

OFFICERS# ARMY TREATMENT OF DUAL ARMY COUPLES (DACS)

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEMENT)

- -- -.------------- --- --- --.--------------------

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I S - ------ -------------------- m

ARMY TRIES TO ACCOMODATE

DUAL ARMY COUPLES

MEAN .................... 2.78 2.91 2.85

STD DEV ................. .69 .53 .61

ARMY TREATS SOLDIERS &

FAMILIES FAIRLY

MEAN .................... 2.75 2.69 2.72

STD DEV ................. .56 .65 .61

FAMILY NEEDS HIGHER

PRIORITY IN ASSIGNMENTS

MEAN .................... 3.13 3.14. 3.14

3TD DEV ................. .74 .80 .77

ARMY SHOWS FAVORITISM IN

POLICIES FOR DACS

MEAN. ; .................. 1.51 1.63 1.57

STD DEV ................. .64 .68 .66

I----------------------------4-------'--------------

NOTE 1t MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES (P< .65) ARE UNDERLINED.

According to the interview data, the belief that families need to be given

a higher priority does not mean that dual career couples expect or want their

needs to take precedence over the Army's needs. Instead. dual career couples

would like to see some flexibility built into the system to allow their needs

to be met in ways that would not jeopardize the Army mission. For example, one

person suggested that the Army might reconsider whether it is really necessary

for all officers to go to Europe or take unaccompanied tours in order to

advance their careers. Another commented that restrictions on when someone can

go to school might be relaxed to give dual careerists more flexibility.

Several people also mentioned that it seemed unnecessarily limiting to

automatically prohibit spouses from working in the same battalion. It was

suggested that commanders could be given the authority to decide, based on

individual situations, when it is and is not appropriate to have a married

couple in a battalion. In short, dual Army officers acknowlodge that the Army

is trying to accommodate them, but most appear to believe that the Army could

give more emphasis to family concerns and build more flexibility into the

assignment system without jeopardizing Army needs or mission.

33
Personal And Family Concerns

Table 22 indicates that balancing their soldier and spouse role$ Is not

problematic for most dual A,'uy couples. Women tend to agree that they would

like to see their spouses help out more around the house, however the

distribution of household tasks does not appear to be a major problem. The

conflicts that do exist seems to center around children. Half of both the male

(54%) and female (51%) officers agree that children suffer when both parents

are in the Army. This belief was echoed in the comments of several of the

officers interviewed. The long hours required of an officer limit the amount

of time available for children, and this factor, more than any other, was the

reason many interviewees believed it was nearly impossible to do justice to

both children and a military career. About half of the very small sample of

childless Interviewees Indicated that if/when they had children, the mother

would leave the service In order to have more time to devote to the family.

TABLE 22

OFFICERS, PERSONAL AND FAMILY CONCERNS

(HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE AGREEMENT OR MORE OFTEN)

-------------------------------- I----------- I.----I

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTALI --------------------------- I----------*---------4---------I

AS DAC, FEW PEOPLE TO

SOCIALIZE WITH

MEAN............ . ......... 1.99 2.01 2.00

STD DEV ................. .90 1.02 .96

I CAN COMFORTABLY BALANCE

SOLDIER A SPOUSE ROLES

MEAN .................... 3.58 3.59 3.58

STD DEV ................. .72 .61 .66

CHILDREN SUFFER WHEN BOTH

PARENTS IN ARMY

MEAN.................... 2.53 2.50 2.51 STD DEV ................. .97 1.00 .98

WISH SPOUSE WOULD DO MORE

HOME CHORES

MEAN ................. L1.. 22-.0 2.35

STD DEV ................ 71.4 .91 .92 ---------------------- 4----------4----------4---------.

NOTE It MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES (P< .05) ARE UNDERLINED.

The particular problems encountered by dual Army couples who currently have

children are examined in the next section.

Officers with Children

A small number of questions about stress and childcare were asked only of

those nfficers who had children. Because of the small number of officers in

the sample who had children, results from this subsample cannot be assumed to

be reliable or generalizable. DatA from the officers with children are

presented in Tables 23 through 26, however, the results should be interpreted

merely as suggestive trends, or hypotheses to be tested in future research.

34
Table 23 indicates that female officers are more likely than male officers

to find being a parent, spouse, and soldier stressful. Womaen also appear more

likely than men to be the ones to take time off from work for the children,

although it is worth noting that many men do report that they also take time

off for child-related reasons.

TABLE 23

OFFICERS WITH CHILDREN:-

HORK/FAMLIY ROLE CONFLICT

(HIGH SCORE INDICATES MORE OFTEN)

-----------------.-------.-------------------------- I

I I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I

4-------------------------4------------)--- --------- )------------4

STRESSFUL BEING PARENT,

SPOUSE A SOLDIER

MEAN RESPONDENTS....... ................... ____Z3:: 2.-7 M 23 3.2046

BEING SOLDIER MEANS NO

TIME TO BE GOOD PARENT

MEAN ........... ...... .14 2. 45 2.30

RESPONDENTS ............ 21 22 43

I TAKE TIME OFF TO DO

THINGS FOR CHILD

MEAN .................. 2.55 3.05 2.80

RESPONDENTS.............. 22 22 44 1

----------------------------- ------------- a I----- ------- 4

TABL.E 24

OFFICERS WITH CHILDREN:

CURRENT CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENTS

-------- ------------ ~-------1----------------I-- ----------------- 4

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL .----------- --------------------------. -- 4

(N) I (x) I (N) I Cx) I (N) I (%)

------------------------- 4---------4--------------------------

WHEN BOTH AT WORK WHO

WITH CHLD?

CC CENTER ON POST ..... 2 9x 2 I1x 4 lOX

PRIV CC CNT/NURSRY .... 4 17K 4 21X 8 19X

PRIVATE BABYSITTER .... 13 57X 10 53X 23 55X

RELATIVE,NOT SPOUSE... 1 4x 1 5x 2 5x

NO FORMAL CC ARR ...... 3 13X 2 11X 5 12X

PREFERRED CC

ARRANGEMENTS

CC CENTER ON POST ..... 1 5x 1 5x 2 5x

PRIV CC CNT/NURSRY .... 1 5x 0 Ox 1 2x

PRIVATE BABYSITTER .... 1 5x 1 5x 2 5x

RELATIVE NOT SPOUSE... 2 9x 2 11Z 4 1cX

SAT H PRES CC ARR..... 17 77X 15 79X 32 78X

HOW SAT ARE YOU WITH

CHILDCARE?

SATISFIED ............. 6 26% 9 43X 15 34X

VERY SATISFIED ........ 17 74X 12 57X 29 66X

HOW MUCH DOES CC COST

A WEEK?

NOTHING ............... 2 9x 2 10X 4 K%

$26-$5.............. 2 9x 3 14X 5 1lx

$36-$45............ 5 22X 5 24X 10 23X

$46-$55 .......... 4 17X 4 19K 8 lax

$56 OR MORE ........... 10 43X 7 33X 17 39X

+ aaaaa ------- ------------------------- ...------ -------

35
The majority of dual career parents hire private babysitters or use private

day care centers to care for their children during the day (see Table 24).

Very few (10%) use post dayeare facilities. Generally, parents report being

very satisfied with their current arrangements.

The more specific Items on the quality of childcare arrangements indicate

that parents are quite happy with both the quality and reliability of the

arrangements they hnve made (,see Table 25). They are also moderately satisfied

with the convenience of their childcare in terms of both hnurs and location,

although care for sick children is still a problem for most. Ratings of the

post daycare facilities indicate why so few parents (10%) use on-post centers

.(see Table 26). Inconvenient or inadequate hours of operation, long waiting

lists and poor child/staff ratios appear to be the primary reasons dual career

parents do not find post facilities adequate to meet their needs.

TABLE 25

OFFICERS WITH CHILDREN:

SATISFACTION WITH CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENTS

(HIGH SCORE INDICATES MORE AGREEMENT)

- --------------------------------- ---------

I MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL I .---------------------------------------- i

HAPPY WITH QUALITY OF

CHILDCARE

MEAN .................... 3.25 3.56 3.39

RESPONDENTS ............ 20 18 38

ARRANGEMENT IS FAIRLY

RELIABLE

MEAN. .......... ..... 3.35 3.58 3.46

RESPONDENTS ............ 20 19 39

HOURS CONVENIENT TO WORK

SCHEDULE

MEAN ........ ..... 3.15 3.06 3.11

RESPONDENTS 20.... 18 s38

LOCATION CONVENIENT TO

WORK

MEAN .................. 2.95 3.28 3.11 RESPONDENTS............ 20 18 38

PROBLEM WHEN CHILD IS

SICK

MEAN ........ * .......... 2.50 2.45 2.47

RESPONDENTS ............ 20 20 40

43----------------------------------- - ------------

36
TAWLE 26

OFFICERS NITH CHILDRENI

QUALITY OF POST DAYCARE FACILITIES

(HIOH SCORE INDICATES MORE AGREEMENT)

- - -. --------.. . -i ------

II MALE I FEMALE I TOTAL som somoosom --- --- --+--------- mo-------------------

CLEAN CHILD CARE

FACILITIES

MEAN.. ................. 2.50 3.00 2.76 RESPONDENTS ............ 10 11 21

TRAINED STAFF

MEAN... . ....... ....... 2.36 2.70 2.52

RESPONDENTS ............ 11 10 21

ENOUGH STAFF FOR CHILDREN

MEAN ................ A N 2.30 2.36 2.33

RESPONDENTS ............ 10 11 21

NO ED ACTIVS FOR CHILDREN

MEAN ........... 2.60 2.60 2:60

RESPONDENTS ............ 10 10 20

PRIM PLAY ACTIVITIES FOR

KIDS

MEAN .......... As........ 2.60 2.18 2.38 RESPONDENTS ............ 10 11 21

LOCATION CONVENIENT

MEAN ................... 3.00 2.79 2.89 RESPONDENTS ............ 13 14 27

REASONABLE PRICE

MEAN ................... 2.92 3.00 2.96

RESPONDENTS ............ 12 13 25

LONG WAITING LIST

". .............. N o .... 2.20 3.30 2.75 " ,.'PONDENTS .......... 10 10 20

HOURS OF OPERATION MEET

MY NEEDS

MEAN ............... 2.25 1.79 2.00

RESPONDENTS ............ 12 14 26 -- --------------- ---------

CONCLUSIONS

The data frc: 'his y indicate that early in their careers, the male

partners in A .rmy , couples are more likely to have made a firm

commitment to a.. Army career than their spouses. These findings are consistent

with the results of studies of dual military couples in the Navy and the Air

Force (Farkas and Durning, 1982; Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982). The

percentages of men and vo':: intending to stay iu the service are not directly

comparable across studies wever, because of differences in the composition of the samples (previous -udies included both officer and enlisted dual career

couples).

In both the present study and prior research (Farkas and Durning, 1982;

Raiha, 1986) the possibility of a long-term separation from one's spouse

37
appears to be a critical factor in the career considerations of both men and

women In dual military career marriages. Only about one fourth of the women

and one third of the men in this study reported that they would accept a year

long separation from their spouses, and joint domicile emerged as the most

important career decision factor for both male and female officers.

Furthermore, 44% of the women surveyed said they would leave the Army rather

than endure a lengthy family separation. In Interpreting this data it is

important to keep In mind that this sample included only dual Army career

couples who were currtatly assigned to the same post. Individuals who are

living apart from their spouses might have different feelings about the

acceptability of family separations. The is an issue which needs to be

explored in future research.

Concerns about children are also an important career issue for a number of

women. The majority of dual military career couples are childless in both this

and other studies (Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982; Williams, 1978), but

of the women who do want to have children, many appear to have serious

reservations about staying in the Army. Over a third of thit women surveyed

stated that pregnancy and childcare concernd were very important career

decision factors. The low levels of satisfaction associated with childcare

issues and Army attitudes toward pregnancy suggest that many women view dual

Army careers and children as being incompatible.

The problems inherent in coordinating two military careers can force

spouses to make some difficult choices, but few couples appear to fall

voluntarily into the traditional pattern of viewing the wife's career as

secondary. Both men and wcjien in this sample were very supportive of their

spouses' careers and appeared reluctant to say that the career of one spouse

was more important than the career of the other. The high level of support

women in this sample received from their spouses is inconsistent with the

results of the Air Force studies (Orthner, 1980; Orthner and Bowen, 1982) where

women received considerably less support for theIr careers than men. The

reason for the inconsistency is unclear, however, it is possible that attitudes

toward working women in general have become more liberal over the past five to

seven years.

The attitudes expressed by the respondents toward their jobs and the Army

environment in general, were very positive. The officers in the sample

overwhelmingly liked their work and were proud of being in the Army. The

majority also believed that the Army was making an effort to accommodate dual

career couples, but they saw room for improvement in the system. Most believed

that the Army should give more emphasis to family concerns.

The dual career officers examined in this research appeared to Mave a

fairly balanced orientation toward their families and 'thair careers. The

officers' commitment to their duty in the event of war was overwhelmingly

confirmed, yet most officers said that except in the case of a national

emergency, Army/family conflicts would not necessarily be resolved In favor of

the Army. The large number of women in the early stage of their careers who

are still undecided about remaining in the Army may be waiting to see if the

demands of an Army career will allow them to maintain the kind of family/career

balance they would prefer.

38
In summary, the data on dual career Army officers is generally consistent

with the limited $lat& available on dual military career couples in other

services. Women are less likely than men to have firm intentions to stay in

the Army early In their careers, and concerns about separations, and pregnancy

and childcare are to be especially salient for women. Dual career husbands in

the present study were very supportive of their wives careers and appeared to

be sensitive to problems (e.g., discrimination) which might Impede the

professional advancement of their wives. The job satisfaction and Army

commitment of these dual career officers was very high, but the importance of

family considerations was very apparent. The trends detected here appear to be

consistent with the trends toward more egalitarian ideals and more balanced

career/family orientations social scientists have observed in society at large

(Derr, 1986). Army policy makers need to be attuned to these shifting values

as well as the demographic changes in the Army if they are to optimize both the

potential and retention of their off icers.

The results presented here suggest several issues future researchers need

to address. First, researchers Interested in the career decisions of women in

the Army need to recognize that most married women in the Army are in dual Army

career marriages. *Oomen, therefore, are much more likely than men to have

another military career in the family to consider when they weigh the benefits

of military versus civilian job opportunities. Comparisons between male and

female soldiers are likely to be confounded if the prevalence of ehial Army

career marriages among women is not taken in to account. Second, it would be

useful In research on the career intentions of both men and women in dual Army

career marriages to have information on their plans and preferences with regard

to children. It appears that child :-elated concerns are important

considerations in career decisions, yet the impact of plans to have children on

retention decisions are seldom explored. In addition, it would be useful to

have information on the percentages of men and women in dual Army career

marriages who: a) plan to combine two military careers wi~th children, b) have

decided to forego having children in order to pursue their careers, or c) have

decided that one or both spouses need to leave the military If they are to have

the kind of family life they desire. Data on actual retention decisions also

need to be obtained to examine the extent to which behavior is consistent with

the career intentions expressed in surveys. When both spouses are in the Army,

a change in the career situation of one spouse may have an effect on the career

decisions of the other. This raises the possibility that the career

intentions of dual Army career couples may be less stable, or more subject to

change with changes in the family or career status of a spouses than the

career intentions of soldiers married to civilians.

Future research which examines differences in the Army experiences of

couples who are, and who are not happy with their dual Army career lifestyle

may also further efforts to Identify the most problemzatic characteristics of

Army life for dual Army career couples. Research suggests that time

requirements of the Army job, perceptions of equal opportunity, problems

associated with pregnancy and childcare, and the likelihood of family

separations may all be important factors. Subsequent research samples should

also include couples who are currently separated from their spouses In order to

fully assess the impact of actual, as opposed to anticipated, family

separations on satisfaction and retention.

39
The present research represents only a beginning effort to better

understand the needs and issues facing dUAl Army career couples. Research

aimed more specifically at uncovering how Individuals in dual Army career

couples perceive their options, deal with constraints and make decisions about

their careers is needed If decision makers are to make Informed decisions about

the Army policies and programs affecting this growing subgroup of the Army

population.

40
REFERENCES

Carr, R., Orthner, D.K., & Brown, R.J. (1980). Living and family patterns in

the Air Force. Air Univiraity Review, 31, 75-86.

Department of the Army (1986). Soldiers' report IV. Washington, D.C.:

Directorate of Human Resources &evelopment, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff

for Personnel, Department of the Army.

Derr, C. B. (1986). Managing the new careerists. San Fransisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Farkas, A.J., and Durning, K.P. (1982). Characteristics and needs of Navy

families: Policy Implications (NPRDC SR 83-1). San Diegc: Navy Personnel

Research and Development Center.

Orthner, D.K. (1980). Families in blue: Implications of a study of married

and single parent families in the U.S. Air Force (USAF Contract F3360-79-C0423). Greensboro, North Carolina: Family Research and Analysis.

Orthner, D.K. & Bowen, G.L. (1982). Families in blue: Insights from Air Force

families in the Pacific (USAF Contract F3360-81-R-0290). Washington, D.C.: SRA

Corporation.

Rah.ha, N.K. (1986). Dual career couples in the U.S. Army: A descriptive

study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1982). Army needs better data to develop

policies for sole and inservice parents (GAO/FPCK-82-50). Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office.

Williams, J., W., Jr. (1978). Dual-career military families. In E.J. Hunter

and S.D. Nice (Eds.), Military families: Adaptation to Change (pp. 103-110).

New York: Praeger Publishers.

41
APPENDIX A. SCALE I•EIS AND RELZABILITIRS

SCALES

I. CARiU DhCISIOt4 FACTORS

(4 point importance scale$ high score indicates more importance)

A. Extrinsic factors- pay and benefits (EXTRlI) H-575 0,-.76

Q4. (PAY)- Pay

Q5. (BENEIT)-Retirement pay and benefits

Q6. (QUAL)- Quality of medical, dental, dependent care

Q8. (TIME)- Amount of time spent in Army

Q15. (JOBSEC)- Job security

B. Army Lifestyle, Leadership, and People (FARiY)

N-577 ek=.73

Q3. (FEELING)- Feeling about the Lrmy

Q9. (LDRSHIP)- Army leadership

QI0. (LIFEST)- Amy lifestyle (i.e., environment,

organizational structure, discipline)

Q20. (PEOPLE)- People in work environment

C. Dual Career Assignment and Marriage Concerns (DACCON)

N-578 c=.74

Q12. (ASSIGN) Assignments

Q13. (HARRIAG) Harriage Concerns

Q16. (JOINTDO) Joint Domicile

Qia. (DUALARM) Army's view of dual Army couples

Q23. (FAMLIFE) Your family life In general

D. Concerns about Pregnancy (PREGCON) N-578 o0(.76

Q14. (PREG) Pregnancy

Q24. (PREGWOII) Army's view of pregnant women

II. SATISFACTION WITH... (same as career decision factors)

(4 point satisfaction scale, high score indicates more satisfied)

A. Extrinsic Factors- pay & benefits (SEXTRIN) N-508 o(0.71

Q114. (PAY) Pay

Q1lS. (SBENEFI) Ritirement pay and benefits

Q116. (SQUAL) Quality of medical, dental, deperdent care

Q118. (STIME) Amount of time spent In Army

Q124. (SJOESEC) Job security

A-1
B. Army Lifestyle, Leadership and People (SFIARM)

Nn566 o -. 79

Q113. (SFEELING) Peeling about the Army

Q119. (SLDISBIP) Army leadership

Q120. (SLIFEST) Army lifestyle (i.e., environment,

organisational structure, discipline) Q129. (SPEOPLE) People in work environment

C. Dual Career Assignment and harriage Concerns N-554 0(-.72

Q122. (SASSIGN) Assignment&

Q123. (SHMAIAG) Marriags concerns

Q125. (SJOINTDO) Joint domicile

Q126. (SDUALARM) Army's view of dual Army couples

Q132. (SFAMLIFE) Your family life in general

III. JOB AND LIFE SATISFACTION

(5 point semantic differential scale, high score is positive)

A. Uork is satisfying, important (WORKSAT) N-564 o,-.68

Q32. (SUCCESS)- Successful

Q33. (IMPORTA)- Important

Q34. (SATISFY)- Satisfying

Q35. (BEST)- Doing my best

B. Family life is happy, satisfying (FAMSAT) N-528 M -. 94

Q66. (HAPPY) Happy

Q71. (GOOD) Good

Q72. (BESTFAM) Brings out the best

Q73. (SATISFAM) Satisfying

Q74. (IHPFAM) Important

Q75. (SUCCFAM) Successful

IV. ATTITUDES ABOUT WORK ' (four point agreement scale, high score indicates more agreement)

A. Work is meaningful, I take pride in it (WORKMEAN)

N-553 o =-.68

Q37. (AFECTPE) Alot of people are affected by how well I

do my job.

Q38. (WRKMEAN) The work I do is meaningful.

Q39. (WRKPRID) I take pride in the work I do.

Q46. (WR1KBEST) At work, I am given a chance to do things that

I do best.

A-2
B. Work Context (i.e., people, environment) Is pleasant (WORKCONT)

N-553 CK .. 67

Q44. (PEOPME) The people I work with take a personal interest

In me.

Q45. (PHYSICA) The physical surroundings at work are pleasant.

Q47. (SUPSUC) My superior Is successful in getting people to

work togeather.

V. CAREER PRIORITIES AND DUAL CAREE= CONCERNS

(4 point agreement scale, high score Indicates more agreement)

A. My career more important than spouse's (MYCARIMP) N-558 0(=.66

Q93. (OARINSP) If I had to choose, my career is more important than my spouse's.

Q105. (MYCARE) In our marriage, my career is the most important.

B. Dual Army Status involves career sacrifices (DACSAC)

N-519 oK -. 70

Q83. (LOSE) Joint assignments usually means that one of us

loses the opportunity for a good assignment.

Q85. (BADASSI) I have had to take an assignment that I did not

want so that I could be stationed with

my spouse.

Q89. (SPASSIG) My spouse has had to take an assignment that (s)he

did not want so that we could be stationed

together.

A-3
ATZI-AO-85-21 (ARI)

APPENDIX B. DUAL ARMY CAREER OFFICERS QUESTIONNAIRE

DUAL ARMY COUPLE SURVEY (OFFICER)

Turn your Answer Sheet to SIDE I. Fill in:

o Today's Date

o Social Security Number

o Ethnic Group

o College Education

o High School Education

o Rank/Grade

o Sex

o Form: 'On the first line from 0 to 9

0 - You DO NOT have dependents (do not include children or spouse)

1 a ONE dependent

2 - TWO dependents

3 THREE dependents

4 FOUR dependents

5 - FIVE dependents

Form: On the second line from A to j, total number of children living with

you.

A You DO NOT have children

B a One child

C - Two children

D - Three children

E Four children

F Five children

G - Six or more children

B-I
Under SPECIAL CODES:

In Columns A and B, use TWO digits for the NUMBER of YEARS IN SERVICE

In Column C, mark the code of the BRANCH OF SERVICE you are in.

0 Regular Army

I Army Reserves

2 National Guard

3 Other

In Column D, mark the code of the TYPE OF UNIT:

0. Training (Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training (AIT)

1. Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Armor, Armor Cavalry, Infantry

2. Chemical, Engineer, Military Police, Military Intelligence, Signal,

Aviation

3. Adjutant General, Finance, Ordnance, quartermaster (Supply),

Transportation, Medical

4. Headquarter Unit (Garrison without deployment unit)

5. Don't know

In Column E, mark the code for SOURCE OF COMMISSIONING.

0 oCS

I USMA

2. ROTC

3 Other

I

In Column F, mark the code for HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED (in years):

0 One-Three years 4 Thirteen-Fifteen years

I Four-Six years 5 Sixteen-Ei&hteen years

2 Seven-Nine years* 6 Nineteen and over years

3Ten-Twelve years

B-2
In Column G, mark the code for your CURRENT HOUSING situation.

0 On post - barrack/BOQ/BEQ

1 On post - family housing

2 Off post - government funded housing

3 Off post - civilian housing

In Columns H and I, use TWO digits for LENGTH OF CURRENT MARRIAGE (in years)

In Column J, mark the code for NUMBER OF TIMES MARRIED

o First

I Two

2 Three

3 Four or more

In Column K, was your CURRENT SPOUSE IN THE ARMY WHEN YOU GOT MARRIED?

O No

1 Yes

In Column L, mark the code for STATUS OF SPOUSE.

O Enlisted/NCO

1 Warrant Officer

2 Commissioned Officer

In Column M, mark the code for RANK OF SPOUSE.

1 EI/WO1/O1 6 E6/ /06

2 E2/W02/02 7 27/ /07

3 E3/W03/03 8 E8/ /08

4 B4/W04/04 9 E9/ /09

5 15/ /05

B-3
Turn your Answer Sheet to SIDE 2.

Under.SPECIAL CODES:

In Columns AA, BE, C C- fill in your Duty NOS (DMOS)

For example, an NOS Code might be 11B, 76C, etc.

In column DD, mark the code for:

How many children 3 Years or Younger do you have living with you?

0 None 2 Two 4 Four 6 Six 8 Eight

1 One 3 Three 5 Five 7 Seven 9 Nine

In column EE, mark the code for:

How many children 4 Years to 11 Years old do you have living with you?

0 None 2 Two 4 Four 6 Six 8 Eight

1 One 3 Three 5 Five 7 Seven 9 Nine

In column FF, mark the code for:

How many children 12 Years to 18 Years old do you have living with you?

O None 2 Two 4 Four 6 Six 8 Eight

I One 3 Three 5 Five 7 Seven 9 -Nine

In column GG, mark the code for:

How many children 19 Years or older do you have living with you?

0 None 2 Two 4 Four 6 Six 8 Eight

1 One 3 Three 5 Five 7 Seven 9 Nine

B-4
Turn your Answer Sheet to SIE1

i. What are your career intention& at the present time?

I will%

A. stay in the Army until retirement

B. stay after completion of obligation, but undecided about staying until

retirement

C. I am undecided about action after present obligation

D. probably leave upon completion of prisent obligation

E. definitely leave upon completion of present obligation

F . probably leave before the end of present obligation

G. definitely leave before the end of present obligation

Using the scale below, iudicate how important would each of the following is

to you in making this decision.

A B C DE

Very Fairly Fairly Not Important. Not

Important Important Unimportant at all Applicable

2. Job

3. Feelings about the Army

4. Pay

5. Retirement pay and benefits

6. Quality of medical, dental, dependent care

7. Family influence

8. Amount of time spent in Army

9. Army leadership

10. Army lifestyle (i.e., environment, organizational structure, discipline)

11. Child care concerns

12. Assignments

13. Marriage concerns

14. Pregnancy.

15. Job security

16. Joint domicile

17. The Army's view of dual Army couples

18. Travel

19. Promotion potential

20. People in work environment

21. Living quarters

22. The post where I am assigned

23. Your family life in general

24. The Army's view of pregnant women

B-5
25. What are your spouse's career intentions at the present time?

(S)he will:

A. stay in the Army until retirement

B. stay after completion of enlistment/obligation, but undecided about

staying until retirement

C. Is undecided about action after present enlistment/obligation

D. probably leave upon completion of present enlistment/obligation

E. definitely leave upon completion of present enlistment/obligation

P. probably leave before the end of present enlistment/obligation

G. definitely leave before the and of present enlistment/obligation

The scale below should be used for the following statements.

A B C D

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Do

Support Support Support Not Support

26. How much do you support your spouse's career intentions?

27. How much does your spouse support your career intention?

28. How much does the unit leader or supervisor support your spouse's career

intentions?

29. How much does the unit leader or supervisor support your career intention?

30. On an average week, how many hours do you spend at work?

A. 40-45 hours

B. 46-50 hours

C. 51-55 hours

D. 56-60 hours

E. 61 or more hours

31. Do you work the same hours each week or different hours each week?

A. Same hours each week

B. Different hours (shifts) each week

The next set of items deal with your feelings related to work. For example,

if you think that you are very "successful" in your work, mark A on your answer sheeot; if you think you are "not successful", mark E. If you think you

are somewhere in between, Mark a letter between A and E.

32. Successful A AB C D E Not Successful.

"33. Important A B C D E Not Importaut

34. Satisfying A B C -D E Dissatisfying

35. Doing My Best A B C D E Not Doing My Best

36. Boring A B C D E Interesting

B-6
Please indicate If you agree or disagree with the following statements.

A BC 3)

Strongly Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

37. A lot of people are affected by how well I do my job.

38. The w~ork I do Is meaningful.

39. 1 take pride In the work I do.

40. 1 feel that my present job. skills will riot be useful. five years from now.

41. Ny. main interest in the Army is to get enough money to do the other things

that I want to do.

42. My work is more important for me than the money I earn.

43. The most important things that happen to me involve my job.

44. The people I 'sork with take a personal interest in se.

45. The physical surroundings at work'are pleasant.

46. At work, I am given a chance to do things that I do best?.

47. My supervisor is successful in getting people to work together.

Using the scale below, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the

following statements.

A B C D

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

48. 1 have too much at stake in my job to leave the Army before retirement.

49. It would be easy to find a civilian job with about the same income and

benefits that I have now.

50. There ia a shortage of soldiers in my NOB/specialty who have my

experience, training and skills.

51. 1 can't quit'the Army because I can't find a job.

52. 1 have better promotion potential than my spouse.

53. 1 can't advance-as far because of restrictions on NOS or specialty.

54. My spouse is proud that I am in the Army.

55. 1 am proud that my spouse is in the the Army.

56. My spouse listens to me when I talk about work.

57. My spouse helps me be a good soldier.

58. A great deal of what I have achieved is due to my spouse.

59. Being a dual Army couple is hard because of the competition between us.

60. My spouse wants me to get out of the Army

61. My role as a soldier and my role as a family member are completely

separate.

62. 1 often think about a family problem when I am at my job.

63. My family life and work life seldom interfere with each other.

64. The most important things that happen to me involve my family.

65. The Army really does take care of its families.

B- 7
The next set of items deal with your feelings about your family life. For

example, if you think that your family life is very "happy", mark A on your

answer sheet. If you think your family life is "sad" mark 1. If you think

that your family life is somewhere in between, mark a letter between A and E.

66. Happy A B C D EBSad

67. Enjoyable A 3 C D B Not Enjoyable

68. Worried A 3 C D E NotWorried

69. Full A B C D E Okay

70. Tied Down A 3 C D B Pre*

"71. Good A R C D Bad

72. Brings out the Best A B C D B Brings out the Worst

73. Satisfying A B C D B Dissatisfying

74. Important A B C D E Not Important

75. Successful A B C D E Unsuccessful

Using the scale below, indicate how often you feel that the following

statements describe you.

A B C "

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Not Applicable

76. I experience a lot of stress being a parent, a spouse and a soldier.

77. It is difficult for me to be a soldier.

78. Being a soldier means that I do not have time to be a good parent.

79. I can comfortably balance the roles of soldier and spouse.

80. When someone has to do something for my child (children), I usually take

time off from work.

81. I wish that my spouse would spend more time on home chores.

B-8
Using the scale below, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each

statement.

A B C D ,

Strongly Strongly Not

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Applicable

82. In times of war, I will be deployed with my unit.

83. Joint asaignmehts usually mean that one of us loses the opportunity for a

good assignment.

84. As a dual Army coupla, we don't have many people with whoa to socialize.

85. I have had to take an assigzmint that I did tot want so that I could be

stationed with my spouse.

86. Children suffer when both parents are in the Army.

87. Both of us have had equal opportunities for career development in the

Army.

88. It's okay for enlisted and officers to socialize after work hours.

89. My spouse has had to take an assignment that (s)he did not want so that we

could be stationed together.

90. Pregnant soldiers do not belong in the Army.

91. Pregnant soldiers do their 3obs 3ust as well as anyone else.

92. Dual Army couples are harmful to the Army mission.

93. If I had to choose, my career is more important than my spouse's.

94. I feel that my chances for promotion are good.

95. In general, promotions within the Army are handled fairly.

96. Dual army couples are more committed to the Army than other Army families.

97. The Army Js too strict about enlisted-officer couples.

98. Praternization negatively affects morale and discipline.

99. The Army shows favoritism by making specific policies for dual Army

couples.

100. In times of deployment or war, the Army can count on dual Army couples.

101. In times of war, women will be deployed with their units.

102. Most pregnant soldiers tend 'to "get over".

103. The Army does try to accommodate dual Army soldiers.

104. My spouse has had more opportunity for career development because of

his/her sex.

105. In our marriage, my career is the most important

106. I am proud to be in the Army.

107. If there is a conflict between our family's needs and the Army's needs,

the Army comes first.

108. The family needs to be given higher priority by the Army assignment

system.

109. The Army treats its members and their families fairly and justly.

110. Our family shareb a commitment to the lifestyle and mission of the Army.

B-9
III, If future asslgnments req.•ire long separation (more than one year) from

your spouse, what will you do?

A. Take the assignment and accep• the separation

3. I will leave the Army

C. Spouse will leave the Army

D. Other

Using the scale below, indicate hov satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the

following:

A 3 C D E

Very Very Not

Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Applicable

112. Job

113. Feelings about the Army

114. Pay

115. Retirement pay and benefits

116. Quality of medical, dental, dependent care

117. Family influence

118. Amount of time spent in Army

119. Army 1.adership

120. Army lifestyle (i.e., environment, organizational structure, discipline)

121. Child care concerns

122. Assignments

123. Marriage concerns

124. Job security

125. Joint domicile

126. The Army's view of dual Army couples

127. Travel

128. Promotion potential

129. People in work environment

130. Living quarters

131. The post where I am assigned

132. Your family life in general

133. The Army's view of pregnant women

B-10
?OR RESPONDENTS WITH DEPENDENTS

Please use the following scale to answer the next set of questions.

A B CD

No Probably Not Kaybe Tea

Viil your dependent care arrangements work for the following situations?

134. Short term emergency situations such as mobilisation exercise

135. Long term situation such as unit deployment

136. Evacuation due to wartime situation

137. 1 don't have a dependent care plan

FOR RESPONDENTS WITH CHILDREN

138. When you and your spouse are at work, who takes car* of your child (childrea)?

A. The childcare center at the installation

B. Private daycare center or nursery

C. Private babysitter

D. relative other than spouse

E. No formal child care arrangements

139. How satisfied are you with your childcare?

A. Very satisfied

B. Satisfied

C. Dissatisfied

D. Very dissatisfied

140. How much do these arrangements cost you a week?

A. Nothing B. 51 - $25

C. $26 - $35

D. $36 -345

E. $46 - $55

P. $56 or more

B-11
1-11. What other childoare arrangements would you prefer instead of the one

that you have now?

A. The childcare center at the installation

3. Private daycare center or nursery

C. Private babysitter

D. Relative other than the spouse

E. I am satisfied with my present childcare arrangements

Use the scale below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each

statement.

A' 3 C D

Strongly Strongly Not

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Applicable

142. 1 am very happy with the qualit7 of my childoare arrangements.

143-. y childcare arrangements causes me problems with work.

144. The childcare arrangement 'have is fairly reliable.

145. The schedule of childcare arrangement is convenient in relation to my work

schedule.

146. When my child is sick, there is a problem with the childcare arrangement.

147. The location or place where my child is cared for is convenient in relation to where I work.

Use the scale below to describe the childcare facilities on your installation.

A B C D E

Strongly Strongly I Don't

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know

148. Clean

149. Trained staff members

150. Enough staff members for the number of children

151. Long enrollment waiting list

152. Convenient location

153. Reasonably priced

154. No educational activities for the children

155. Primarily play activities for children

156. The hours of operation meet my needs

157. On the average, how many hours do you spend each week with your children?

A. None F. 21 - 25 hours

B. Less than 5 hours G. 26 - 30 hours

C. 6- 10 hours R. 31 - 35 hours

D. 11 -15 hours. I. 36 - 40 hours

E. 16 - 20 hours J. 41 or more hours

B-12