U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1845

Deployment Consequences: A Review of the

Literature and Integration of Findings into a Model of

Retention

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Meredith L. Cracraft

George Mason University

Consortium Research Fellows Program

Tonia S. Heffner

U.S. Army Research Institute

January 2006 20060127 051

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

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

.A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1

Authorized and approved for distribution:

MICHELLE SAMS ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Technical Director Director

Technical review by

Kelly S. Ervin, U.S. Army Research Institute

Morris Peterson, U.S. Army Research Institute

NOTICES

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

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

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

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

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

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official

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

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

January 2006 Final September 2003 - April 2005

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Deployment Consequences: A Review of the Literature and

Integration of Findings into a Model of Retention

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

Michelle Wisecarver (U.S. Army Research Institute), Meredith A790

Cracraft (George Mason University), Tonia Heffner (U.S. Army 5d. TASK NUMBER

Research Institute) 271

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

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

Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1845

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Subject Matter Expert and POC: Michelle Wisearver

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Deployment activity for the armed services increased during the 1990s and the deployment tempo continues to be

high. This makes understanding the consequences of these deployments for manpower and personnel areas such

as retention particularly important. This report summarizes research regarding the effects of deployments, and

proposes a framework for understanding the effects of deployments on retention using an existing model of

organizational turnover. Results suggested that either too few or too many deployments can have a negative effect

on retention, and that while number and length of deployments are important, other characteristics of a deployment

such as the perceived fairness of decisions can play an even more important role in Soldier and family reactions to

deployments. Survey data has also consistently indicated that the amount of time a Soldier is separated from his/her

family is one of the top reasons that Soldiers consider leaving the Army. The effect of deployments on other

personnel areas such as morale, finances, and readiness, has been equivocal. We argue that it is imperative to

develop a model of retention that demonstrates the role of deployments in the decision to reenlist. We suggest a

model and justify the proposed links based on the literature.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Deployments, retention, reenlistment, organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance commitment,

normative commitment

CSECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER

ECURITY .ABSTRACT OF PAGES 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Ms. Ellen Kinzer

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Technical Publication Specialist

703-602-8047
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

January 2006 Final September 2003 - April 2005

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Deployment Consequences: A Review of the Literature and

Integration of Findings into a Model of Retention

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

Michelle Wisecarver (U.S. Army Research Institute), Meredith A790

Cracraft (George Mason University), Tonia Heffner (U.S. Army 5d. TASK NUMBER

Research Institute) 271

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

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

Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1845

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Subject Matter Expert and POC: Michelle Wisearver

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Deployment activity for the armed services increased during the 1990s and the deployment tempo continues to be

high. This makes understanding the consequences of these deployments for manpower and personnel areas such

as retention particularly important. This report summarizes research regarding the effects of deployments, and

proposes a framework for understanding the effects of deployments on retention using an existing model of

organizational turnover. Results suggested that either too few or too many deployments can have a negative effect

on retention, and that while number and length of deployments are important, other characteristics of a deployment

such as the perceived fairness of decisions can play an even more important role in Soldier and family reactions to

deployments. Survey data has also consistently indicated that the amount of time a Soldier is separated from his/her

family is one of the top reasons that Soldiers consider leaving the Army. The effect of deployments on other

personnel areas such as morale, finances, and readiness, has been equivocal. We argue that it is imperative to

develop a model of retention that demonstrates the role of deployments in the decision to reenlist. We suggest a

model and justify the proposed links based on the literature.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Deployments, retention, reenlistment, organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance commitment,

normative commitment

, ,SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER

SECURITY C ,SSIFICATION ,ABSTRACT OF OF PAGES 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Ms. Ellen Kinzer

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 55 Technical Publication Specialist

703-602-8047
ii
Research Report 1845

Deployment Consequences: A Review of the Literature and

Integration of Findings into a Model of Retention

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Meredith L. Cracraft

George Mason University

Consortium Research Fellows Program

Tonia S. Heffner

U.S. Army Research Institute

Selection and Assignment Research Unit

Michael G. Rumsey, Chief

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

January 2006

Army Project Number Personnel Performance

622785A790 and Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

111,,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank a number of researchers for their assistance in providing background

materials and information for this report including Bruce Bell, Paul Gade, Morris Peterson, Mike

Rumsey, and Alma Steinberg. We would also like to thank Kelly Ervin, Krista Langkamer,

Martha Lappin, Morris Peterson, Mike Rumsey, and Alma Steinberg for their reviews of this

report. Their insightful comments provided significant improvements to the final product.

iv
DEPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND

INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO A MODEL OF RETENTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

Deployment activity for all of the armed services increased during the 1990s, and with the onset

of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), the deployment tempo continues to be high,

particularly deployments to hostile locations. This makes understanding the consequences of

these deployments for manpower and personnel areas such as readiness, retention, and

performance particularly important.

The link between deployments and Soldier retention is of particular interest to current manpower

planners. There is concern that the high rate of deployments and long length of deployments

could weigh heavily on a Soldier's decision to reenlist. If deployments lead to lower

reenlistments, this would create a decrease in personnel at a time when the demand for Soldiers is

increasing. A literature review was required to identify and summarize the knowledge that exists

regarding the consequences of deployments.

Procedure:

Sticha, Sadaaca, DiFazio, et. al. produced an initial review of the literature on deployment

consequences in 1999. We used this as a foundation for our review and searched for subsequent

research that provided information regarding the relationship between deployments and a variety

of personnel areas, focusing primarily on reenlistment. In the first section of this report, we

summarize research we found regarding the effects of deployments. We then propose a

framework for understanding the effects of deployments on reenlistment, using an existing model

of organizational turnover and emphasizing the role of organizational commitment.

Findings:

Research identified in the literature review has reported both positive and negative effects of

deployments on reenlistment. Quantitative analysis of Soldier retention between fiscal years (FY)

1996 and 1999 found Soldiers with one or two deployments actually had higher rates of

reenlistment, although this trend leveled off or reversed with three or more deployments (Hosek

& Totten, 2002). Sticha et al. (1999) suggest a moderate level of deployments is beneficial for

retention, although too many could have a negative effect. Importantly, with the current

involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the pervasiveness of the GWOT, a higher level of

deployments could be expected. Some data collected since 9/11 suggests that deployments longer

than 3 or 4 months to hostile locations are having a negative impact on first term attrition

(Wardynski, 2003).

Survey data has consistently indicated that the amount of time Soldiers are separated from their

families is one of the top reasons that Soldiers consider leaving the Army (Sample Survey of

Military Personnel, 2005b). While research suggests that deployments do have a negative impact

on the spouse and family, most spouses reported being able to cope with the absence for at least

up to 6 months (Survey of Army Families IV, 2001). While it is clear that the family impacts

v
retention, this is due not only to deployments but a number of aspects of a military career such as

frequent moves and separations caused by factors other than deployments.

Research suggests that deployments also affect Soldier health, although the subsequent effect of

this on reenlistment is not clear. The effect of deployments on other personnel areas such as

morale, finances, and readiness, has been inconclusive. While number and length of deployments

are important, research indicates that other characteristics of a deployment such as the perceived

fairness of decisions, conditions during the deployment, and supervisor support may play a more

important role in Soldier and family reactions to deployments. This suggests that while the

number and length of deployments are important factors to consider when making decisions

about deployments, they are not the only factors to consider.

In order to understand how deployments and other factors affect reenlistment decisions, we argue

that it is imperative to develop a model of retention that demonstrates the role of deployments in

the decision to reenlist. We suggest a retention model and predictors of retention from the broader

literature on organizational turnover to use as a foundation. This literature indicates that a variety

of factors impact retention, including experiences on the job, commitment to the organization,

commitments to family or hobbies, ties to the surrounding community, and unanticipated events,

such as an unsolicited job offer.

While many of these factors are largely outside the control of the Army, the Army's actions can

have a significant impact on two of these elements: an individual's job experiences and their

commitment to the Army as an organization. The remainder of the report emphasizes the

importance of organizational commitment to retention, and suggests that deployments are a

contextual factor that impact organizational commitment and subsequent retention through

variables such as the perceived fairness of Army policies, job conditions, supervisor support, and

work-family conflicts.

Three different types of organizational commitment are identified as relevant. First, the Soldiers'

sense that they want to remain in the organization, called Affective Commitment. Second, the

Soldiers' sense that they need to stay in the organization, either due to lack of other alternatives,

or to a significant investment in the organization, such as time earned in the retirement plan. This

is called Continuance Commitment. Finally, the Soldiers' sense of obligation to the organization,

the organization's mission, and/or to their work unit, called Normative Commitment.

Understanding what influences each of these three types of commitment provides leaders with

insight that can be used to inform decisions, develop policies, and shape leader actions. Army

leaders who are interested in mitigating the effects of deployments on retention can consider the

extent to which current deployments are having an impact on each type of commitment and work

to reduce and minimize the impact. Suggestions for how to do this in each area of commitment

are discussed.

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings:

This report provides researchers with a description of the state of the literature on deployments

that can be used to inform and direct future research efforts. The report also provides a

framework within which to understand the impacts of deployments on retention decisions.

Having this type of framework can clarify equivocal results from the literature and can help

leaders identify ways to minimize the negative effects of deployments. Finally, suggestions made

vi
in the report can provide policy makers and leaders with a reference tool to inform future policies

and decisions.

Importantly, ongoing research at the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ARI) and other organizations may provide information that changes in minor or major

ways the tenets of the models presented. This is a desirable and useful aspect of developing a

more lucid understanding of complex psychological relationships.

This report represents the first widespread dissemination of these findings.

vii
viii
DEPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND

INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO A MODEL OF RETENTION

CONTENTS PAGE

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

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Deploym ent Effects on Reenlistm ent ......................................................................................... 2

Deploym ent Effects on Families ................................................................................................. 7

Deploym ent Effects on M orale and Health ................................................................................. 9

Deploym ent Effects on Finances .................................................................................................. 11

Deploym ent Effects on Readiness ............................................................................................. 12

Summ ary of Research Findings ................................................................................................ 13

M odeling the Effects of Deploym ents on Retention ................................................................ 14

Predicting Affective Comm itment ........................................................................................... 18

Predicting Continuance Commitment ...................................................................................... 24

Predicting Normative Commitm ent ........................................................................................... 27

Summ ary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 30

References ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix

Appendix A: Self Assessm ent of Supportive Leadership Skills ............................................ A-1

List of Tables

Table 1: Description of Predictor Variables from Meyer et al. (2002) Meta-Analysis ............ 17

List of Figures

Figure 1: Family Coping During Deploym ents ........................................................................... 8

Figure 2: M odel of Factors that Predict Turnover .................................................................... 15

ix
CONTENTS (continued)

Figure 3: Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) Model of

O rganizational Com m itm ent ...................................................................................... 16

Figure 4: Model of Antecedents to Affective Commitment ...................................................... 19

Figure 5: Model of Antecedents to Continuance Commitment ................................................. 25

Figure 6: Model of Antecedents to Normative Commitment ................................................... 28

x
DEPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND

INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO A MODEL OF RETENTION

Introduction

Deployment activity for all of the armed services increased during the 1990s (Sticha, Sadacca,

DiFazio et al., 1999), and with the onset of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), the

deployment tempo continues to be high, particularly deployments to hostile locations. This makes

understanding the consequences of these deployments for manpower and personnel areas such as

readiness, retention, and performance particularly important.

The link between deployments and Soldier retention is of particular interest to current manpower

planners. There is concern that the increasing number of deployments and increasing length of

deployments could be a significant factor in a Soldier's decision to reenlist. If deployments lead

to lower reenlistments, this would create a decrease in personnel at a time when the demand for

Soldiers is increasing.

This report will review historical research that describes the relationship between deployments

and a variety of personnel areas, focusing primarily on reenlistment. We will then provide a

framework for understanding the effects of deployments on reenlistment, using an existing model

of organizational commitment and turnover.

Background

Understanding the effects of deployments on personnel issues is complicated by the fact that

research in this area has differed in how "deployment" is defined and measured. Some of the

research focused on one deployment for a specific unit, examining Soldier opinions across a

variety of issues before, during and/or after the deployment. In other situations, researchers

measured deployments at an individual level, using a measure such as personnel tempo

(PERSTEMPO), defined as the number of days away from home station for any reason (Sticha et

al., 1999).I This latter method allows examination of correlations between the number of days

deployed or type of deployments and Soldiers' attitudes or actions. Because different approaches

provide different types of information, results cannot be combined across the studies. This review

will provide an inclusive summary, describing differences in approach as well as differences in

results.

Overall, research on the effects of deployments on personnel factors has been sparse. The U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducted a thorough

review of the literature in 1999 to provide a summary of the findings to date as well as conduct

additional analyses using existing data (see Sticha et al., 1999). Researchers searched for articles

that explored the relationship between PERSTEMPO and retention, readiness, and/or quality of

life for any of the services. They found eight studies that examined the relationship between

PERSTEMPO and retention, six for readiness, and five for quality of life. Although these studies

provided tentative conclusions about the effects of PERSTEMPO in these areas, they emphasized

that the research generally demonstrated inconsistent results. Sticha et al. suggested that a level of

complexity existed in the relationships that was not yet clearly understood.

1 Additional information about the definition and measurement of PERSTEMPO can be found in Sticha et

al. (1999).
Since the 1999 review by Sticha et al., a number of organizations, including RAND, the Walter

Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),

the Center for Naval Analyses, and ARI have reported results related to this topic. The samples

and nature of the analyses differ among the projects, and the results continue to be equivocal.

Nevertheless, none of the reports provides evidence that substantially contradicts the 1999

review. Of the research located since the review that included information about deployments and

retention, many reflect data from before the events of 9/11, and a number of them focused on

attitudes of Soldiers in units deployed to the Balkans. Most recently, an initial report by the

Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis (OEMA) at the U.S. Military Academy described

the implications of deployments for retention under the current GWOT (Wardynski, 2003). It

suggests the deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are related to higher first-term attrition.

We will focus first on research that has specifically examined the relationship between

deployments and Soldiers' intentions for reenlistment or actual reenlistment. Then we will review

the relationship between deployments and other personnel issues including family, finances,

personal health, morale, and readiness. While the effects of deployments on these secondary

factors are important because they influence the Soldiers' general quality of life, they are also

important because, as our model will illustrate, all of these factors combine to affect reenlistment.

In order to be maximally inclusive, all research using the term "deployments" will be included

and descriptions will be provided regarding how the authors defined deployments.

Deployment Effects on Reenlistment

After reviewing the existing eight studies that linked deployments to retention, Sticha et al.

(1999) concluded that there was no evidence that PERSTEMPO levels were having large adverse

effects on the majority of Soldiers. They reported that PERSTEMPO was related to both

increases and decreases in retention. The type of effect depended on the number of deployments

as well as other characteristics of the deployments. We will review research related to these

factors, then review research that has been conducted specifically regarding deployments for the

GWOT.2

Number and Length of Deployments

While some research did not find a relationship between number of deployments and reenlistment

(e.g. Alderks, 1998), Sticha et al. indicated that the most convincing research concluded that at

low levels of deployment, increasing time away from home station was associated with higher

retention and greater Army career intentions. At higher levels of deployment, however, the

positive effect was reduced and then became negative (Cooke et al., 1992; Hosek & Totten,

1998). Specifically, Hosek and Totten (1998) found that having at least one deployment over a

24-month period prior to their reenlistment had a positive effect on reenlistment, but higher rates

of deployments, particularly deployments to hostile locations, had a negative effect on

reenlistment. Sticha et al. (1999) provided similar conclusions based on an analysis of Soldiers

with expiration of their first or second term of service between FY96 and FY98, and Fricker

(2002) provided similar conclusions for the effects of PERSTEMPO on officer retention.

In follow up research in 2002, Hosek and Totten used personnel data from active duty records to

examine a model of reenlistment utility. The analyses included service members who were facing

2 To prevent redundancy, the research reviewed by Sticha et al. (1999) is not described in detail in this

review; factors highlighted as critical by Sticha et al. are included in the appropriate section.

2
a reenlistment decision during FY1996-1999, and they counted deployments for 3 years prior to

their reenlistment decision. Their conclusions were similar to those from their earlier research:

that reenlistment was either higher among members who deployed than those who did not or

remained constant. Again, however, reenlistment rates began to show either a leveling or a

decline for service members with the most deployments. Specifically, for first-term Soldiers,

reenlistments increased with the number of non-hostile deployments and showed no change with

increasing hostile deployments. For second-term members, reenlistment increased with nonhostile deployments and with the first and second hostile deployments, with a decline in

reenlistments for members with three or more hostile deployments. Importantly, the researchers

noted that the reenlistment rate for Soldiers with three or more hostile deployments was still

higher than for those Soldiers with no hostile deployments. Results varied slightly for the

different services.

The Hosek and Totten, Sticha et al., and Fricker (2002) analyses examined the relationship

between deployments and retention using data from personnel files, capturing actual reenlistment

choices. Hosek and Totten (2002) emphasize that their results are dependent upon the types of

deployments and deployment pays that occurred between FY93-99. Their research is unique in

using objective data to reflect deployments and reenlistment; other research has examined selfreported measures of deployments and reenlistment intentions, rather than actual reenlistment.

One weakness of using file data is that Soldier's deployments are only captured if they fit the preestablished criteria. Badger (2004) provides an example of this weakness, indicating that Fricker

(2002) used imminent danger pay (IDP) and family separation allowance (FSA) to determine

number of deployments, and therefore did not capture, for example, deployments of single

officers to nonhostile areas.

On the other hand, a weakness of the self-report method is that Soldiers could misremember or

not perceive a relationship. For example, Ramsberger and Wetzel (1998) indicated that the

service members in their special operations sample did not perceive that PERSTEMPO had an

impact on retention; however, the data revealed that service members with higher rates of

deployment actually indicated lower intentions to stay in the service. Despite inherent

weaknesses, both methods can provide valuable information.

Measuring Soldier perceptions, Adler and Golembe (1998) surveyed more than 2,000 Soldiers

and measured the total number of deployments in which each Soldier had participated throughout

his or her career as well as the average number of deployments over their number of years of

service. They labeled this second value the "deployment load." Results indicated that Soldiers

with fewer years of service had fewer deployments, but had higher deployment loads. Of those

Soldiers in the sample who were planning to get out, 33% reported that having too many

deployments was the reason.

Research by the GAO also found frequent deployments cited as a reason to leave the military.

They investigated retention across the services specifically in "retention critical specialties," such

as intelligence analysts, military police, computer programmers and operators, electronics

technicians, and pilots (GAO, August 1999). "Frequency of deployments" was listed as one of the

top 10 things with which service members in these areas were dissatisfied. Out of 44 items from

which they could select, "Frequency of deployments" was one of the most commonly selected

reasons to leave the military for both enlisted service members and officers.

Castro, Bienvenu, Huffman, and Adler (2001) surveyed 1,718 troops both prior to a 6-month

deployment to Kosovo and during mid-deployment. They found that, while only 14% of the

Soldiers in the pre-deployment survey planned to leave the military due to too many

3
deployments, 32% planned to leave due to too many deployments when surveyed at middeployment. Based on the data they collected, they concluded that Soldiers prefer an average of

1-2 deployments of about 5 months over a 3-year period. 3 Results did not specifically indicate,

however, how this deployment preference was linked to their intentions to stay or leave.

While Castro et al. (2001) suggested 5-month deployments are optimal, little empirical data is

available regarding the relationship between length of deployments and retention. Analyzing data

from Soldiers at their first and second expiration of term of service between FY96 and FY98,

Sticha et al. (1999) found that average length of deployment was negatively related to retention.

This suggests that Soldiers with longer deployments generally had lower retention.

Based on DoD survey data, the GAO found that personnel away from home for more than 5

months during the previous 12 months were more likely to report being dissatisfied in general

than those away for I month or less (GAO, 2000, as cited in GAO June 2001). Phelps and Farr

(1996) found a decline in reserve Soldiers' willingness to stay in the Army during a 6-month

peacekeeping mission on the Sinai Peninsula. The 5-6 month mark was also highlighted in a

survey of Army Special Forces (SF) Soldiers in the Spring of 2000. Results indicated that, while

most SF soldiers were "willing" or "very willing" to deploy up to 5 months over a 12-month

period, 75% were reluctant or very reluctant to deploy for 8 months or more. This was true even

though SF Soldiers list "Being involved in 'real world' missions" as one of their top three reasons

to stay in SF (Zazanis, Sanders, & Carpenter, 2001). While each of these studies provide some

insight into attitudes of Soldiers with respect to deployment length, only the Sticha et al. (1999)

analyses statistically linked the number of months deployed with Soldier retention.

Finally, another GAO investigation reviewed the effects of military operations other than war

(MOOTW) on the services (GAO, 1999). Based on information collected from service members

deploying to Bosnia, they indicated that two significant negative aspects of the deployments were

the length of the deployments and the uncertainty about when they would return home. Given

their findings, however, GAO concluded that while MOOTW might contribute to retention

problems, for the most part, the services were meeting their retention goals. The Army,

specifically, was meeting its retention goals, and, in fact, U.S. Army Europe's (USAREUR's)

retention rates for initial and mid-term enlisted Soldiers for the most part had met or exceeded the

rate of the overall Army since 1994. Ultimately, given the equivocal findings, no conclusions can

be reached regarding the relationship between length of deployments and reenlistment based on

existing research.

Other Important Factors

Some research has suggested that there are deployment factors other than length and number of

deployments that are related to intentions to reenlist. Data from special operations personnel

indicated a number of deployment factors that appeared to be more important: whether they had

appropriate training and adequate time between deployments, whether their unit provided support

when their job demands conflicted with personal responsibilities, the adequacy of family support

activities, and perceived support from their chain of command (Sticha et al., 1999).

Research on two Patriot missile battalions suggested the importance of Soldier expectations and

perceptions of leader and organizational support (Segal, Rohall, Jones & Manos, 1999). In this

research, 50% of married soldiers in a Patriot missile battalion deployed to Korea reported they

3 Note that the fact that these values are averages indicates that some Soldiers actually preferred more

deployments and some preferred fewer.

4
would leave if future assignments required long family separations (Segal et al., 1999). This

particular battalion was deployed to South Korea and had been promised a two-year tour at Fort

Bliss following their tour in Korea. They were then told they had to stay unaccompanied in Korea

for an additional six months. 4 Not surprisingly, this created a negative reaction. When the

replacement unit was surveyed six months later, attitudes toward family separations were not as

negative: only 25% of the married members said they would leave if long family separations were

required. Segal et al, concluded that the high propensity to leave in the first unit was due

primarily to a sense of betrayal by senior Army leadership for the sudden change of unit

assignment as well as perceived problems with battalion leadership and a sense of inadequate

family support.

The data from Segal et al. (1999) suggest that expectations and perceptions of fairness can play

an important role in Soldiers' reactions to deployments. Expectations also appeared to affect

Navy sailor reactions to deployment. Cooke, Marcus, and Ouester (1992) found that sailors were

more likely to reenlist when their deployment was a typical length (106-205 days) as opposed to

being particularly long (244-350 days). Ambiguity regarding the redeployment date is also

viewed as highly negative (Castro et al., 2001).

Finally, in 1998 Foley and Steinberg conducted interviews and surveys of Soldiers deployed to

Bosnia for Operation Just Endeavor (OJE). They reported that about one quarter of the Soldiers

said they would leave the Army sooner than planned as a result of their OJE deployment,

although this differed somewhat for officers and enlisted and for active duty versus reserve

component Soldiers. Somewhat fewer reserve Soldiers indicated they would leave earlier due to

the OJE deployment (18%). Areas in which Soldiers tended to report negative effects of the

deployment included their marriage or other significant relationship, their children, and the

likelihood they would volunteer for a similar operation. Some viewed the deployment as having

negative effects on their Army career and level of commitment to the Army, but others viewed

these as positives. A number of these topics will be discussed further in later sections of this

report.

Global War on Terror (GWOT)

A recent report from the Office of Economic Manpower Analysis (OEMA) at the U.S. Military

Academy examines reenlistment data from an individual perspective following the initiation of

the GWOT. They found that reenlistment probabilities for first term personnel rose by about 7 to

8% after 9/11 when examining first-term reenlistments between FY1996 and FY2003

(Wardynski, 2003). The author suggests that this increase may be due to an increase in patriotism.

Deployments to hostile locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, however, were associated with

lower reenlistment likelihood. In particular, deployments over 3 to 4 months in length resulted in

a decline in reenlistment rates. As an example, a 12-month deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan

was associated with a 13 percentage-point drop in Soldier reenlistment, as compared with nondeploying Soldiers. These findings suggest a somewhat greater impact on first term reenlistments

than the impact on overall reenlistment reported by Sticha et al. (1999).

Golding and Griffis (2003) examined Navy attrition data from Desert Shield/Desert Storm

(DS/DS) to provide an estimate of the retention implications of the GWOT. Data from DS/DS

indicated that attrition dropped during the conflict, particularly for ships deployed to the region,

4 The term "unaccompanied" indicates that their spouse and children are not authorized to live at that

location with the military member.

5
then spiked following the end of the conflict. The extent to which it is logical to apply the DS/DS

pattern of attrition to the current situation is not clear, however.

A number of other reports have been published since the start of the GWOT that discuss retention

issues and the potential impact of deployments on retention, but they do not provide empirical

evidence to describe a relationship between deployments and retention (e.g., Devlin, 2003; Fetter,

2004; Hansen, MacLeod, & Gregory, 2004; Proctor, 2004; Sthultz, 2004). While the information

in these reports is thought-provoking, it is limited in providing insight to determine the

relationship between deployments and retention.

Results from a Stars and Stripes survey are of some interest, although it should be noted that they

did not use a scientific sampling method to obtain their respondents. In August 2003, reporters

from Stars and Stripes interviewed and obtained questionnaire responses from nearly 2,000

service members across Iraq about a variety of topics, including retention (Josar, 2003). They

reported that some brigades had no trouble meeting their reenlistment goals, citing the 101"

Airborne Division's 3

Pd Brigade as an example. This Brigade was meeting its reenlistment goals

for careerists (over 10 years), and exceeding its goals for "first-termers" and mid-careerists (less

than 10 years). Anecdotally, however, one article indicated that some service members (not

necessarily in the 3rd Brigade or 10 1St Airborne Division) were using reenlistment as a way to get

reassigned to another location (Boyd, 2003). When asked whether they planned to stay in the

military after their current obligation, 49% of the Stars andStripes sample indicated that it was

either not likely or very unlikely (Josar, 2003).

Scientific data regarding intentions to remain in the military have indicated that intentions have

remained stable since the onset of the GWOT. For example, the Army Sample Survey of Military

Personnel reported that from 1996 to 2002 about 60% of all officers reported that they probably

or definitely planned to remain in the Army until retirement and about 20% reported that they

probably or definitely planned to leave the Army before retirement (Sample Survey of Military

Personnel, 2005a). In 2003 the percent who planned to probably or definitely stay in the Army

until retirement actually increased to 68% and remained at that level in 2004.

For enlisted Soldiers, between 1996 and 2004 slightly more than 40% reported they were

probably or definitely intending to leave the Army at the end of their present obligation and

slightly less than 40% indicated they were probably or definitely intending to stay until retirement

(Sample Survey of Military Personnel, 2005a).

Although importantly the SSMP data did not include responses from Soldiers who are in units

preparing for deployment, currently deployed, or recently returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom

(OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the data from Fall 2003 and 2004 does include

Soldiers who had previously deployed for OIF or OEF. When their career intentions were

examined, results showed that Company Grade officers and junior enlisted Soldiers who had

deployed for OIF or OEF had similar career intentions to those who had not deployed. For the

junior NCO's, however, Soldiers who had deployed for OIF or OEF were more likely to report

that they planned to leave after their current obligation. In 2004, for example, 34% of junior

NCOs who had deployed to OIF/OEF indicated that they would probably or definitely leave upon

completing their present obligation; whereas 27% ofjunior NCOs who had not deployed to

OIF/OEF indicated they would probably or definitely leave.

6
Summary

Some research reviewed in this section described service members who were concerned with

their level of deployments, and some who planned to leave the Army sooner than expected

because of those deployments. The numbers were moderate, however, and it is not known

whether these service members actually left or only expressed a desire to leave. The GAO (1999)

emphasized the point that, despite the high level of deployments to Eastern Europe, the services,

including USAREUR, specifically, were meeting their goals for retention. Therefore, while

deployments may have an effect on service member attitudes, the effect was not translating into a

wide spread effect on retention.

Data from the Hosek and Totten (2002) utility analysis suggested that deployments actually had a

positive effect on reenlistment behavior, supporting the conclusions of the previous literature

review (Sticha et al., 1999). Notably, however, that trend leveled off or reversed with three or

more deployments, a point that is important given that current deployments are expected to be

both longer and more frequent than those in the mid-1990s, the timeframe of their data collection.

In addition, while Hosek and Totten measured differences based on "hostile" and "non-hostile"

deployments, the "hostile" deployments in their research were primarily peacekeeping or

peacemaking operations, which present substantial differences from the current wartime

deployments. The impact of these differences in mission on the relationship between deployments

and reenlistment is not clear. Importantly, data from Wardynski (2003) suggests that the long

deployments to the hostile locations of Iraq and Afghanistan are having a negative impact on

first-term retention.

Taken together, these findings suggest that although deployments have not had a significant

negative impact on reenlistment in the past, long deployments and high levels of deployments in

current and future conflicts have the potential to negatively impact reenlistment. Importantly,

research suggests that reenlistment decisions are affected by more than simply the length or

frequency of deployments.

Hosek and Totten purport that the service members' reenlistment decisions are affected by their

deployment preferences and deployment satisfaction, as well as the financial gain or loss they

might incur due to deployments. The potential importance of these elements suggests the need to

better understand factors that are related to Soldier attitudes about deployments. The next section

reviews research concerning the effects of deployments on factors such as family, finances,

morale, and soldier health.

Deployment Effects on Families

Sticha et al. (1999) concluded that high levels of PERSTEMPO were related to measures of strain

on the family. This is not a surprising finding, and has been supported in research conducted since

then as well (e.g., Adler & Golembe, 1998; Castro et al., 2001; Foley & Steinberg, 1998; Sample

Survey of Military Personnel, 2005b; U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2003). Surveying Soldiers

deployed to Kosovo, Castro et al. (2001) found that 59% of the married personnel agreed that the

number of deployments put a big strain on their family. For Soldiers deployed to Bosnia, 54% of

the married Soldiers agreed that the deployments put a strain on their family (Adler & Golembe,

1998).

One factor that is not clear, however, is the point at which the deployments become such a strain

on the family that they affect reenlistment decisions. The Survey of Army Families IV (2001),

7
conducted prior to the GWOT, found that the percentage of spouses who expected to have

problems coping with deployments increased with increasing length of deployment; while 64%

indicated they would not have a problem or would have only a slight problem coping if their

spouse was away for 3 to 6 months, only 30% said they would not have a problem or would have

only a slight problem coping if their spouse was away for more than a year. Bell, Bartone, J.,

Bartone, P.T., Schumm, and Gade (1997a) reported that spouses had difficulty with year-long

deployments for OJE in Bosnia and Hungary, and Foley and Steinberg (1998) reported that

Soldiers on a 12-month rotation for OJE were more likely to indicate that the deployment had an

adverse effect on their children and marriage. On the other hand, research by Phelps and Farr

(1996) of Soldiers on a 6-month rotation to the Sinai did not find a notable impact of the

deployment on families.

How much of a problem would you have coping if your spouse had

to go away on an Army assignment, such as a deployment, for...?

less than a month? 95%

1to 2 months? 87%

3 to 6 months? 64%

7 months to a year? 43%

more than a year 30%

overseas, undetermined length? 1 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent no/slight problem coping

Figure 1. Coping during deployments from Survey of Army Families IV (2001)

Some research suggests that between 6 and 7 months is a turning point at which the majority of

spouses begin to have trouble coping with the deployment (see Figure 1) (Survey of Army

Families, 2001), but this still does not necessarily mean that longer deployments would affect

reenlistment decisions. In one survey of special operations personnel, over half of the respondents

agreed that PERSTEMPO had a negative impact on their families, but nearly two-thirds agreed

that the problems were manageable if the family worked together (Ramsberger & Wetzel, 1998).

Bell, Stevens, and Segal (1996) indicated that while families of Soldiers deployed to the Persian

Gulf were twice as likely to experience stress during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm as

families of non-deployed Soldiers, 85% of both groups said that they were able to meet the

family, work, and social demands that they faced.

Two recent studies provide some insight regarding the effects of deployments for military

families involved in the GWOT. A report for the U.S. Army Surgeon General (2003) indicated

that some of the most frequently reported deployment stressors for Soldiers included separation

from their family and poor communication with their family, with 57% of Soldiers reporting high

or very high concern or trouble being separated from their family. Surveying military spouses,

Ricks (2004) reported that 41% had difficulty sending or receiving communications with their

spouse who was deployed at some time after 9/11, although communications reportedly improved

late in 2003 for many. Despite these communications problems, however, 76% of these spouses

8
reported either no problem or only a minor problem coping with their spouse's deployment. On

the other hand, 76% also indicated that they believe the Army is heading for personnel problems

as Soldiers and their families decide to leave the service due to the pace of deployments.

While deployments disrupt family life, there are other aspects of the military job that disrupt

family life as well, including family separations that are not considered deployments, certain

types of assignments, and permanent change of station (PCS) moves. Castro et al. (2001), for

example, reported that Soldiers were concerned about family separation not necessarily because

of their 6-month deployment to Kosovo, but because lengthy training exercises had kept them

away from their families for several months just prior to the deployment.

Further, when analyzing Army data from a spouse survey, Bell, Schumm, & Martin (2001) found

that length of separation did not predict whether or not the spouse supported the idea of staying in

the service; support was determined by whether the spouse thought the pay and benefits were

better than in the civilian sector and whether the spouse was satisfied with the amount of family

life disruptions they were experiencing.

This suggests that the impact of deployments on families must be examined in conjunction with

the other aspects of military life that disrupt or create conflict within the family. These factors,

along with whether the spouse supports a military career, can be good predictors of whether the

soldier will remain in the service (Bell et al., 2001).

While research in this area has been somewhat inconclusive, it is clear that the impact of

deployments on families is important. A 1987 Rand report found that family separation was one

of the top five reasons why married soldiers leave the Army (Vernez & Zellman, 1987), and

Whitlow (1990) reported that, based on interview data, "Too much family separation" was the

primary reason for Marines in the sample to leave. Further, the Sample Survey of Military

Personnel conducted by ARI has found that "amount of time separated from family" has

consistently been one of the top reasons that Soldiers consider leaving the Army (Sample Survey

of Military Personnel, 2005b). In addition, the percentage of Soldiers who select this as a reason

to consider leaving has increased over the last few years (Sample Survey of Military Personnel,

2005b). For example, while about 15% of officers selected this reason in 2001, this increased to

18% in the fall of 2002, 26% in the fall of 2003, and 30% in the fall of 2004. For enlisted

Soldiers, about 11% selected this reason in 2001, 14% in the fall of 2002, and 18% in the fall of

2003 and 2004.

Deployment Effects on Morale and Health

Effects on Morale

The review by Sticha et al. (1999) did not find a consistent relationship between deployments and

morale. While some samples reported poor morale, it was not necessarily linked to the length or

frequency of deployments, as much as the management of the deployments. Specifically, the

research cited earlier on the Patriot missile battalions (Segal et al., 1999) concluded that it was not

the deployments alone that predicted low morale within the first Patriot battalion that was

surveyed, but rather a sense of betrayal by senior Army leadership for the sudden change of unit

assignment, perceived problems with battalion leadership, and a sense of inadequate family

support. Another problem cited with the management of deployments is insufficient recovery

time between deployments, which has also been found to decrease morale (Sticha et al., 1999).

A number of recent research studies have provided additional information about morale.

9
Castro (1998) measured the morale of Soldiers deployed to Bosnia for OJE. He found a moderate

level of morale prior to and during the deployment, with 68% rating their morale as moderate to

high prior to the deployment, and 62% rating morale as moderate to high during the deployment,

One month after redeploying to Germany, morale increased considerably, however, with 82% of

the Soldiers rating morale as moderate to high. Castro et al. (2001) then surveyed troops deployed

to Kosovo, and again found moderate levels of morale; 71% reported their morale was medium to

very high. For these Soldiers, morale was relatively high despite the fact that 74% reported that

their level of burnout was medium, high, or very high. Adler and Golembe (1998) also surveyed

troops deployed to the Bosnia Theater; they concluded that the number of deployments was not

related to personal morale.

On the other hand, interviews and surveys from OJE by Foley and Steinberg (1998) reported that

Soldiers believed the long deployment (one year) led to lower morale and increased stress. One

potentially important factor with this deployment is that the Soldiers did not know initially how

long the deployment would last, and they were surprised to find out that it would be one year.

Recent data from the Fall 2003 Sample Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP) measured morale

for officers and enlisted Soldiers who were not currently deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom

(OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) (U.S. Army Research Institute, 2004).5 These

results indicated a moderate to high level of morale, with 84% of officers and 72% of enlisted

Soldiers reporting their personal morale as Moderate, High, or Very High. These levels of morale

were similar to the levels of morale reported for previous years, and morale has been relatively

consistent both prior to and after 9/11.

Although they did not use a scientific sampling method, a 2003 survey by Stars and Stripes

provides the only published glimpse into the issue of morale in Iraq. Results indicated that

conditions varied greatly from one camp to the next, and, not surprisingly, opinions about issues

such as morale and living conditions seemed to vary as well (Josar, 2003). Fifty percent of the

service members surveyed rated their unit's morale as average, high, or very high. And 64% rated

their own personal morale as average, high, or very high. The results for personal morale are

similar to those from reported by Castro for Bosnia and Kosovo, and suggest moderate levels of

morale.

To summarize, research on the relationship between deployments and morale indicates that

morale has remained moderate during a number of recent deployments. While the length and

frequency of deployments may have some effect on morale, perceived fairness in the way the

deployment is managed may be even more important. This includes factors such as sufficient

notice for deployments, adequate time with families prior to and following deployments, and

management of any financial burdens caused by the deployment.

Effects on Soldier Mental and Physical Health

Sticha et al. did not specifically cite research from their review that examined the relationship

between deployments and Soldier health. "Soldier health" was included as a component in their

definition of "Quality of Life," however, which also included topics such as morale and family.

We found a number of reports from WRAIR in our review of the recent research that provided

insight into the effects of deployments on Soldier health, particularly mental health.

5 While Soldiers who had previously deployed for OF or OEF may have been represented in the sample,

the survey was not specifically targeted for Soldiers who had recently returned or would soon be deploying.

10
Overall, research suggests that deployments have a negative effect on Soldier health after a

prolonged amount of time. Castro (1998) found that rates of post traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD), depression, and alcohol abuse all increased for Soldiers deployed to Bosnia for OJE,

with the first increase occurring after 5-6 months, then continuing to increase throughout the

year-long deployment. Fortunately the percentage of Soldiers exhibiting these problems remained

small in magnitude; however, the increases were consistent. Over the year's time, the rate of

PTSD rose from 3% to 6%; for depression, 7.5% to 12%; and for alcohol abuse, 7.5% to 11%.

Huffman, Adler, and Castro (1999) subsequently confirmed these findings using a sample of

military and civilian personnel who had deployed for 30 days or longer in the Bosnia theater.

Foley and Steinberg (1998) also concluded that the OJE deployment had a negative impact on

Soldier health. Enlisted soldiers were more likely to report that the deployment negatively rather

than positively affected their emotional well-being. Officers were more likely to say the

deployment negatively rather than positively affected their physical health.

For Soldiers deployed to Kosovo, Castro et al. (2001) found that those who reported being

exposed to violent or traumatic events and those who saw dead or injured civilians demonstrated

higher rates of depression than those who did not. Based on the effects of deployments on

Soldiers' health and morale, Adler and Castro (2001) recommended that upon redeployment

Soldiers be given at least a 6-month break from future deployments, and at least 2-3 months in

garrison before conducting training exercises.

Proctor (2004) has reported that recent data on Soldier health and deployments for Army National

Guard has been collected by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, and

should be available in reports soon.

While research suggests that Soldier health is affected by deployments, the subsequent effect of

this on reenlistment is not clear. Wilcove et al. (2003) found a direct effect of various personal

factors such as health and family on reenlistment intentions, as well as an indirect effect through

organizational commitment. Saxton, Phillips, and Blakeney (1991) found that emotional

exhaustion was significantly related to intentions to leave and actual job change in a study using

personnel from the airline reservations service sector. Sticha et al. (1999) suggest that the sum of

the Quality of Life factors, such as marriage and family life, income, standard of living, and

health combine to create more global individual attitudes such as morale and job satisfaction.

These global attitudes, in turn, affect job outcomes such as performance and retention. Empirical

tests of retention models that include these variables are required to provide a more definitive

understanding of the relationships.

Deployment Effects on Finances

The Sticha et al. (1999) review found little research regarding deployment effects on finances.

The research they did report indicated that there were some negative financial implications for

deployments, such as loss of commuted ration allowance and the high cost of international

telephone calls. When they analyzed Army special operations data they found that high levels of

PERSTEMPO were somewhatpredictive of financial strain on the Soldier and his/her family

(Sticha et al., 1999).

Logically, the financial impact of deployments would be expected to differ greatly depending on

a number of factors specific to the mission and unit, such as the length of the mission, the

destination (e.g. hostile or not hostile), whether the deployment is during peacetime or wartime,

11
whether the mission is considered a deployment or TDY travel, and the Soldiers' activities during

the deployment. While the SOF data suggested PERSTEMPO was predictive of financial strain

(Sticha et al., 1999), the SOF survey was conducted during peacetime, which suggests that some

of the financial benefits awarded during conflicts and war could be assumed to not have applied

to those Soldiers (e.g., Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay, Combat Zone Tax Exclusion). In

addition, SOF Soldiers often deploy to remote parts of a country without the logistics footprint of

conventional units; this results in a lack of support systems such as communication lines to

contact home (other than for emergencies).

The financial impact of deployments also can differ for Active Component (AC) Soldiers versus

Reserve component (RC) Soldiers. For Soldiers on a 6-month peacekeeping mission on the Sinai

Peninsula, Phelps and Farr (1996) found that members of the AC suffered a small financial loss,

while members of the RC experienced a small financial gain. In other cases, the effect may be

reversed; Foley and Steinberg (1998) found that the OJE deployment had a positive impact on

finances particularly for AC Soldiers, especially AC officers.

Given that the current deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq are wartime deployments, there are a

number of additional pays to which Soldiers may be entitled, including Family Separation

Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, Hardship Duty Pay, Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, and

Combat zone income tax exclusion (Boyd & Burgess, 2003). Based on anecdotal information

from interviews, Stars and Stripes (Boyd & Burgess, 2003) reported that the deployment to Iraq

is typically providing Soldiers with financial gain, and they view the additional pay they are

receiving as a positive factor.

The relationship between deployment pay and reenlistment has not been determined. Hosek and

Totten (2002) indicated a belief that deployment pay played a role in reenlistments, but they did

not have the data required to actually test the relationship. They suggest that a Soldier assesses

the utility of continuing in the military based on their changing preferences for deployment as

well as associated deployment pays and costs.

Deployment Effects on Readiness

Sticha et al. (1999) found six studies that explored the relationship between deployments and

readiness and/or performance. The research they found was based largely on interviews with

service members. They found reports of both positive and negative effects of deployments on

readiness, but concluded that there was no evidence of quantitative links between PERSTEMPO

and readiness (Sticha et al., 1999).

Rumsey (2002) concluded that, for peacekeeping missions, time away from home station is

associated with reductions in readiness. He indicated that units are frequently broken up before

they are deployed, equipment experiences wear and tear, and the Soldiers do not get a chance to

practice certain war fighting skills. These conclusions were based in part on those of Foley and

Steinberg (1998), who found that Soldiers deployed for 12 months for OJE (a peacekeeping

mission) perceived that their readiness was decreased.

Logically the effect of a deployment on the readiness of an individual or unit would depend on

their actual duties for that particular deployment, and the extent to which that is commensurate

with their assigned individual job or primary unit mission. If the deployment enables them to

rehearse or practice skills required for their primary mission, Soldiers would be likely to report

that the deployment enhanced their readiness; on the other hand, if the deployment required that

they perform duties collateral to their primary mission, it would be likely that they would report

12
negative effects on readiness. The latter situation may be common for combat units deployed on

peacekeeping missions.

This is essentially what a sample of senior-level Army SOF Soldiers indicated to the GAO, who

reported that 60% of the Army SOF Soldiers believed that their readiness has been or could be

adversely impacted by the current level of unit deployments and that DoD could reduce this

negative impact by using conventional forces for collateral activities, such as embassy support

(GAO, 1997).

No research was identified in this review that linked perceptions of readiness with Soldier

reenlistment. A possible effect, if any, might be through the effect of readiness on morale.

Summary of Research Literature

Quantitative analysis of Soldier deployments and retention found that Soldiers with one or two

deployments actually had higher rates of reenlistment, although this trend leveled off or reversed

with three or more deployments. Researchers suggested a moderate level of deployments is

beneficial for retention, although too many could have a negative effect. Importantly, with the

ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the pervasiveness of the GWOT, a higher level of

deployments could be expected. Some data collected since 9/11 suggests that deployments longer

than 3 or 4 months to hostile locations are having a negative impact on first-term attrition.

In addition, survey data has consistently indicated that the amount of time a Soldier is separated

from his/her family was one of the top reasons that Soldiers consider leaving the Army. Research

has suggested that deployments do have a negative impact on the spouse and family, although

most spouses reported not having a problem coping with an absence for at least up to 6 months.

While it is clear that family considerations impact retention, this is due not only to deployments

but a number of aspects of a military career such as frequent moves and separations due to factors

other than deployments.

Deployments also affected Soldier health, although the subsequent effect of this on reenlistment

is not clear. The effect of deployments on other personnel areas such as morale, finances, and

readiness, has been equivocal. Poor management of deployments has been linked with low

morale. This includes deployment issues such as insufficient notice for deployments, inadequate

time with families prior to and following deployments, failure to manage financial burdens

caused by the deployment, and overall perceived unfairness in the way the deployment is

managed. Sticha et al. (1999) suggested that the sum of Quality of Life factors, such as marriage

and family life, income, standard of living, and health combine to create more global individual

attitudes such as morale and job satisfaction, and that these global attitudes, in turn, affect

retention. Some support for this is provided by Sinclair (2004) who found that, although there

were some direct effects of Quality of Life factors on retention intentions, the strongest effects on

retention intentions came from the more global constructs of commitment to the military and job

satisfaction.

For the most part the research reviewed here has examined either simple descriptive responses or

bivariate relationships - that is, focusing on the relationship ofjust two factors to the exclusion of

other related factors (e.g., the effects of deployments on retention to the exclusion of morale or

13
family impact)6. The large number of equivocal findings we found provides a strong suggestion

that these bivariate relationships are not providing sufficient detail. While a bivariate correlation

accurately describes the existing relationship between two variables, it is not sufficient to predict

one of the variables from the other. Only by developing a model that can examine the combined

effect of these factors on retention, can we begin to understand how the factors interact as a

system and how deployments affect this system. This requires that we define a model of the

factors that affect retention.

Modeling the Effects of Deployments on Retention

There has been considerable research in the area of predicting retention in organizations, typically

under the label "turnover." Although the name is different, both terms refer to the choice of

staying in or leaving an organization. Because the literature uses the term "turnover," we will use

this term as well.

An individual's decision to stay in or leave an organization is affected by a variety of factors,

including their attitudes toward their job and the organization, the availability of job alternatives,

their family commitments, conflicts between work and family responsibilities, and the extent of

the person's ties to the organization as' well as the surrounding community (Mitchell, Holtom,

Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Research also suggests that the level of fit between a person and

organization (Kristoff, 1996) or some type of precipitating event, such as a spouse changing jobs

or an unsolicited job offer, can stimulate a decision to leave (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell,

Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999). The manner in which these factors combine to predict turnover

is likely complex. Lee et al. (1999) suggest that individuals use one of four decision processes

depicted by flowcharts to take all of the factors into consideration. Other research suggests a more

additive and compensatory approach (e.g., Mitchell, et al., 2001). The manner in which all of

these factors combine and the relative importance of the factors have not yet been established.

While empirical research is required to determine an accurate model, we provide a depiction of

relevant variables in Figure 2.

Notably, an organization has very limited influence over several of the factors in this model. The

exception to this is the individual's commitment to the organization, which is highly determined

by their experiences at work and experiences with that particular organization (Meyer, Stanley,

Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). As a work event, a deployment would logically impact the

Soldier's work experiences, and could therefore be hypothesized to impact their decision to stay

in or leave the Army through organizational commitment (e.g., Sinclair, 2004). This does not

preclude possible direct effects of deployments on turnover, but rather provides an initial theorybased rationale for how to capture the impact of deployments within a model of turnover.

Research with military samples has repeatedly found that an individual's organizational

commitment is an important predictor of their intentions to stay in or leave the military service

(e.g., Diana, 1998; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Gade, Tiggle, & Schumm, 2003; Heffner & Gade,

2003; Kelley et al., 2001; Kim, Price, Mueller, & Watson, 1996; Sinclair, 2004; Teplitzky, 1991;

Wilcove et al., 2003). Given this, we will focus specifically on understanding the organizational

commitment elements of the turnover model, to the exclusion of the other macro-level variables

that may affect turnover, such as unanticipated events, person-organization fit, and other

commitments (see variables in Figure 2).

6 The Hosek and Totten (2002) utility model and Sinclair (2004) research are exceptions, although

they do not capture the realm of constructs that have been shown to predict retention.

14
Factors that Predict

Affective Commitment Turnover

"* Emotional Attachment

"* Sense of wanting to stay

Continuance Commitment

9 Costs associated with leaving

e Sense of needing to stay Turnover

* Choice to stay in

or leave the

organization Normative Commitment

"* Perceived obligation to stay

"* Feeling (s)he should stay

Unanticipated Events

"* Spouse changing jobs

"* Unsolicited job offer Other Commitments

"* Etc. * Ties to the community

* Commitments to family

Person-Organization Fit

* Amount of compatibility between a

person and organization

Figure 2. Model of Factors that Predict Turnover

Organizational Commitment as a Predictor of Turnover

Three types of commitment have been identified that predict whether an individual is likely to

leave an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990), although the precise way in which these combine is

still under debate (Meyer et al., 2002). These can be seen in both Figure 2 and Figure 3, and are

labeled, Affective Commitment, Continuance Commitment, and Normative Commitment.

The first type, affective commitment, is an emotional attachment to and involvement with an

organization. This is probably the concept most commonly associated with the term

organizational commitment. The second type, continuance commitment, reflects perceived costs

that are associated with leaving the organization, due to factors such as lack of alternatives,

financial obligations, or retirement vestment. The third type, normative commitment, refers to a

perceived obligation to stay in the organization. In simple terms, affective commitment is often

viewed as a measure of whether an individual wants to stay in an organization, continuance

commitment as a measure of whether the individual feels he or she needs to stay in, and

normative commitment as a measure of whether the individual feels he or she should stay in.

Predicting whether Soldiers plan to reenlist or leave the Army, then, requires determining

whether they want to stay, whether they feel that they need to stay, and whether they feel an

obligation to stay. In order to understand the role of deployments in creating organizational

15
commitment, we need to examine the complete set of variables that create a Soldier's attitude in

each of these areas.

Correlates of Organizational Commitment

- Job Satisfaction

- Job Involvement

- Occupational Commitment

Antecedents of Affective TunvrIneto

Commitment Affective and

- Personal Characteristics Commitment Turnover

- Work Experiences

Antecedents of Continuance nteJbBhvo

Commitment Continuance - Attendance

- Personal Characteristics Commitment - OCB

- Alternatives - Performance

- Investments

Antecedents of Normative CEmployee Health

Commitment - Normative and

- Personal Characteristics Commitment Well-Being

- Socialization Experiences

- Organizational Investments

Figure 3. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) Model of Organizational

Commitment

A recent meta-analysis reported a number of variables that consistently predicted the three

dimensions of commitment (see the links labeled A, B, and C in Figure 3) (Meyer et al., 2002).

These included categories such as personal characteristics, perceptions of work experiences, and

alternatives/investments, abbreviated here as "alternatives". Personal characteristics included

demographic variables (e.g., age, gender) as well as two individual attribute variables (locus of

control and self-efficacy).?

The meta-analysis indicated that while some of the demographic variables showed significant

correlations with the three forms of commitment, the magnitude of these correlations was

generally small, typically. 15 or less. Results did, however, suggest a moderate relationship

between locus of control and affective commitment, such that individuals with an internal locus

of control reported higher affective commitment. This relationship is important because it

indicates that, to some extent, regardless of the Soldiers' deployments or other work experiences,

' Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as the belief that you can produce a certain action and locus of

control as a belief about whether actions affect outcomes. These beliefs influence courses of action chosen,

how much effort is put forth, perseverance, levels of stress, and ultimately performance.

16
their personal attributes may affect their commitment to the Army and their subsequent

reenlistment decision.

Because of the generally weak performance of the personal characteristics predictors, however,

for the purposes of the current model we will focus on the work experience and alternatives

variables, both of which showed strong prediction of organizational commitment (also, see Meyer

& Allen, 1997). The work experience variables showed particularly strong relationships with

affective and normative commitment, and alternatives showed particularly strong relationships

with continuance commitment, which makes intuitive sense. A list and description of the work

experience and alternatives variables from the meta-analysis can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of predictor variables from Meyer et al. (2002) meta-analysis

Variable Description

Work Experiences

Perceived organizational Employees' beliefs about the extent to which the organization

support "values their contributions and cares about their well-being"

(Eisenberger et al., 2002).

Transformational Leaders who, through charisma and personal abilities, are able to

leadership create a vision for an organization, develop commitment to the

vision among subordinates and implement strategies to accomplish it

(Yukl, 1989).

Role ambiguity Role information is unclear to the point that an individual is unsure

of what he or she is supposed to do to perform the role (Jex, 2002).

Role conflict Having two or more sets of pressures in which complying with one

pressure creates difficulty in complying with the other pressure(s)

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Interactional justice The perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment of employees by

managers (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

Distributive justice The perceived fairness of outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Spector,

2001).

Procedural justice The perceived fairness of the process used to achieve an outcome

(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

Work/Family conflict A form of interrole conflict in which participation in the work role

(or family role) makes it difficult to perform in the other role

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Morale The degree to which individuals are enthusiastic and committed to

their work (Harrell, 1997).

Alternatives/Investments

Alternatives The perception of the number of alternative employment

opportunities that exist beyond one's present job (McGee & Ford,

1987).

Investments Things such as time, effort, and money that an employee has

invested in an organization, such as through relocation or specialized

training (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Transferability of The extent to which an individual's education will apply to work in

education other organizations.

Transferability of skills The extent to which an individual's skills will apply to work in other

organizations.

17
For each type of commitment, we will next describe the variables that predict that type of

commitment. That is, we will describe in more detail the links labeled as A, B, and C in Figure 3

that predict affective, continuance, and normative commitments. We will present a more detailed

"sub-model" for each of these links (see Figures 4, 5, and 6) that includes the variables tested in

the meta-analysis (Meyer et al., 2002) as well as predictors identified through other research. We

will then discuss how these variables apply to the Army and the role of deployments in each submodel.

We should note that, while Figures 3 - 6 suggest that organizational commitment completely

mediates the effects of the antecedents on turnover and turnover intentions, this may not be true

for each of the antecedents (e.g., Wilcove et al., 2003). The pattern of direct and indirect effects

for these variables must be determined empirically.

Predicting Affective Commitment

The strongest predictor of affective commitment identified in the meta-analysis was perceived

organizational support, with an average corrected correlation of .63 across 18 studies. A number

of other work experience variables showed strong relationships as well: transformational

leadership (.46), role ambiguity (-.39), role conflict (-.30), interactional justice (.50), distributive

justice (.40), and procedural justice (.38).8

This indicates that employees are more emotionally committed to their organization when: (1)

they perceive that their organization supports them, (2) they perceive a high level of fairness or

justice in organizational outcomes, decisions, and interactions with supervisors, (3) their leader

demonstrates transformational actions, and (4) they perceive low levels of ambiguity and conflict

in their job. Other research has also indicated that individuals with lower levels of work-family

conflict (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000) and lower stress (Meyer & Allen, 1997) reported

higher levels of affective commitment. Based on the research identified, we will discuss five

categories of predictors for affective commitment: organizational support, organizational

policies/decisions, quality of supervisor support, work-family conflict, and morale.

Organizational support

The variable that showed the strongest relationship with whether an individual wants to stay in

the Army is perceived organizational support. Because research on perceived organizational

support has identified a variety of predictors, for the sake of parsimony we identified three

predictor categories that would summarize these variables: organizational policies/decisions, job

conditions, and quality of supervisor support (see Figure 4). These categories provide a

framework to discuss the predictors and are not intended to represent latent constructs.

Many of these variables have been discussed both as predictors of perceived organizational

support and of affective commitment, but evidence has suggested that perceived organizational

support mediates the relationship of these predictors with affective commitment (Rhoades,

Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). This indicates that these variables

affect an individual's perceived organizational support, which in turn affects their level of

affective commitment. Given this evidence of mediation, we depict a mediated relationship in

Figure 4, although we leave open the possibility that these variables have both a direct

g Note that the number of studies for each variable differs. See Table 3 in Meyer et al. (2002) for more

specifics on the meta-analysis.

18
relationship with affective commitment as well as an indirect relationship through perceived

organizational support. The next three sections describe each of these categories of predictors.

Work Experiences

Organizational Policies

* Pay/Benefits

9 Fairness of Policies

9 Fairness of Rewards

• Supportiveness of Work Family Conflict

Personal/Family Life

Work Events/_

Work Job Conditions

Context

* Stress Affective

9 Deployments * Role Ambiguity Commitment

* Home station * Role Conflict Perceived

activities * Personal Reward from Organizational

* War/peace Task Support

9 Adequacy of Resources

Supervisor Support

"* Transformational Style

"* Interactional Justice

"* Fairness in Carrying Out

Policies (Procedural

Justice)

Figure 4. Model of the Antecedents to Affective Commitment

Organizational Policies/Decisions

The organizational policy dimension captures the extent to which the individual believes that the

policies or decisions of the organization are fair and sufficient to meet their expectations and

requirements. This includes the adequacy of pay and benefits, distributive and procedural justice,

and the extent to which organizational policies and culture are supportive of one's personal and

family life. The perceptions are based both on the actual policy or decision as well as the

individual's expectation for or interpretation of it. Research has found that if an organization does

not meet employee expectations in critical areas those employees are more likely to intend to

leave (e.g., Turnley & Feldman, 2000).

For the Army, then, this would include a wide range of factors such as base pay, retirement

policies, promotion procedures, assignment procedures, bonuses, awards, health care, housing

and post facilities. Parker (1998) found a direct relationship between perceived Army support for

family and Soldiers' work/family conflict, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Policies

and decisions regarding deployments would have an impact as well, such as deployment-related

pays, and decisions regarding who deploys, when they deploy, and for how long. The critical

19
factor with each of these issues is that the individual must believe that the organizational policies

and decisions are fair and meet their expectations.

The potential impact of deployments in this area is illustrated by several of the research studies

cited earlier. Steinberg and Foley (1998) found that Soldiers perceived their deployment as too

long if they believe they have been deployed too frequently, if their previous deployments had

been long, if their deployment was longer than that of others involved in the operation (e.g., other

U.S. services, militaries of other countries), and if the projected length of their deployment had

been increased. Each of these illustrates a perceived lack of fairness in the organization's

deployment decisions.

Another example is the Patriot battalion deployed to South Korea that was told they had to stay

unaccompanied in Korea for an additional six months (Segal et al., 1999). The highly negative

reaction of these Soldiers to future separations was a result of the perceived unfairness of the

decision and the perceived disregard for their personal and family lives.

Along the same line are the findings of Cooke et al. (1992) that Sailors were more likely to

reenlist when their deployment was a typical length as opposed to being particularly long. This

also emphasizes the importance of Soldier expectations in their reactions to organizational

policies and decisions.

While it may be impossible to meet every Soldier's expectation of fairness, it is clearly important

for leaders from the squad level to the Department of the Army level to take perceived fairness

into consideration in decision-making processes and to closely monitor Soldiers' views of

policies and decisions. It is also critical to shape appropriate expectations, a theme emphasized by

Segal et al. (1999), in preventing negative reactions to deployment decisions. Survey information

from Operation Iraqi Freedom suggests that problems do exist with perceived inequities in

personnel and deployment policies there (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2003).

Job Conditions

This dimension captures the extent to which the conditions of the job create either anxiety and

stress or personal reward. This includes the physical environment of the job and working

conditions, role ambiguity and role conflict, the adequacy of resources provided, and the extent to

which the individual gains a sense of personal reward from the task. In a recent report that used a

Navy sample, job factors such as those related to shipboard life and the Sailors' global quality of

life predicted reenlistment intentions through organizational commitment (Wilcove et al., 2003).

Again, the critical factor here is notjust the actual job conditions, but the individual's

expectations and perceptions of them.

In the Army, physical working conditions can be meager and stressful, although roles are

typically well defined. The adequacy of resources and extent to which the Soldiers gain a sense of

personal reward from their task are likely to vary by situation and by military occupational

specialty. Deployments could potentially impact each of these areas. The physical environment

and working conditions typically become more difficult and stressful, and the importance of

adequate resources is more acute. In addition, roles can sometimes become more ambiguous and

conflicted as Soldiers work within shifting political climates and vary from warfighting to

peacekeeping and nation building situations, as well as working within joint and combined

commands.

20
On the other hand, Soldiers may gain an increased sense of reward from their job during

deployments, with an increased sense of satisfaction from participating in a real-world mission.

This explanation was suggested by Adler et al. (2000, as cited in Adler & Castro, 2001), who

found that Soldiers reported high levels of job commitment during a deployment, and lower

levels post-deployment. It is also reflected in the findings from Special Forces research that

"Being involved in 'real world' missions" was listed as one of the top three reasons for SF

Soldiers to stay in SF (Zazanis et al., 2001).

Also relevant here are the findings that deployments can have a negative effect on Soldier health

after prolonged periods of time (Castro, 1998; Huffman et al., 1999), which may be physical

health or emotional well-being (Foley & Steinberg, 1998). The fact that job conditions on

deployments can create physical and mental health problems suggests that these are particularly

stressful conditions, and therefore ones that would have a negative impact on perceived

organizational support and affective commitment.

While military leaders may have no control over factors such as shifting political climates and

have limited control over physical conditions and stress, it is important to recognize the potential

impact of these conditions on Soldier commitment. Research suggests that support from leaders

can significantly impact subordinates' perceptions of their work, such as their perceived workload

(Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988). In some cases intervention strategies could minimize the effects

or actions could be taken to provide some type of compensation (not necessarily monetary) for

conditions perceived to be substandard. At a minimum, leaders can develop communication

strategies aimed at developing realistic expectations forjob conditions.

Quality of Supervisor Support

Quality of supervisor support reflects whether the supervisor is viewed as doing what he or she

can to facilitate individual and unit success and provide for individual and unit needs. This

includes using a transformational style and demonstrating fairness in his or her interactions

("interactional justice").

Perceived supervisor support has been specifically linked with perceived organizational support,

particularly if the supervisor is viewed as being representative of the organization (Eisenberger,

Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Affective commitment has been

linked with supervisor supportiveness, leader consideration, and using a transformational

leadership style (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Some research has also linked satisfaction with supervisor support directly with higher reenlistments (Cakmak, 2004). This included actions such as leaders' efforts to keep people

informed about issues and leaders' provision of resources to do jobs. Along these lines, Devlin

(2003) emphasizes the importance ofjob satisfaction and provides a quotation from a Marine

Corps commandant who said, "... retention is the daily responsibility of every leader... I expect

commanders and leaders at all levels to create a command climate that makes our Marines want

to stay Marine."

Leader actions will impact subordinates' commitment to the organization regardless of whether

an individual is deployed or has been deployed; deployments, however, can potentially change

the nature of what is expected and required from the leader. They could also influence the nature

of the vision the leader needs to develop for the unit.

21
The critical role of leadership could explain equivocal findings regarding the effects of

deployments on Soldier attitudes and actions. For example, while Wardynski (2003) reported that

deployments to hostile locations such as Iraq were generally associated with lower reenlistment

likelihood, the Army Times reported that the 10 1st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade was exceeding

their goals for "first-termers" as well as mid-careerists (less than 10 years) (Boyd, October 20,03).

This could be due, at least in part, to leader actions and support within the unit that create a desire

in the Soldiers to remain in the service. Transformational leaders may also engender a sense of

duty and obligation to remain in, something we will discuss further under the topic of normative

commitment.

The role of leadership in creating affective commitment is pivotal because the position enables

them to manage the effects of the other two key predictor areas - organizational

policies/decisions, and job conditions. While there are limits to their authority, leaders can control

job conditions to minimize negative effects and maximize personal reward. For example, leaders

may be able to minimize levels of role ambiguity and conflict and provide attention to personal

and family needs and work-family conflicts. There may be less latitude in this, however, during

deployments, particularly wartime deployments. Even in situations that dictate poor job

conditions or policies that cannot be changed, however, leaders can use communication strategies

to create realistic expectations and to provide rationale for decisions.

Work-family Conflict

Work-family conflict is considered a form of role conflict in which responsibilities or pressures

experienced in one domain (work or family) create difficulties for meeting the requirements

associated with the other domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). It is unique from the role conflict

that occurs within the organization in that the interests of the organization are in competition with

the interests of an outside entity, in this case, the family. Work-family conflict is particularly

important in the military services because the Soldier and his or her family are so highly

immersed into the military culture and organization. As an example of this, while many

organizations may issue identification cards to employees, it is rare for organizations to issue

mandatory identification cards to family members, as they do in the uniformed services.

Some researchers have made a distinction between family interfering with work and work

interfering with family, suggesting that the conflict that results from each type may differ with

respect to causes and consequences (Gutek et al., 1991). The essence of the problem remains the

same, however; there is insufficient time, resources, or capacity for an individual to accomplish

both roles successfully. To maintain simplicity, we will focus only on the general concept of

work-family conflict.

Work-family conflict was examined briefly in the Meyer et al. (2002) meta-analysis as a

consequence of commitment, although convincing evidence has not been presented to establish

whether it functions as either a predictor or consequence. Meyer et al. reported a significant

negative correlation of-.20 between work-family conflict and affective commitment across 10

studies. Similarly, Allen et al. (2000) found a weighted mean correlation of-.23. This indicates

that higher work-family conflict is related to a lower emotional connection with the organization.

When there is conflict between work and family domains, individuals want to avoid the strain

associated with having to reconcile these two roles, and in fact, work-family conflict has also

been associated with lower job satisfaction and higher intentions to leave the organization.

While a number of features of life in the services can cause strain on the family, deployments can

create an added level of strain, as shown in the research reviewed earlier, and can therefore create

22
a high potential for work-family conflict. The physical absence of an individual due to

deployment prevents their participation in the daily activities of the family. As Foley and

Steinberg (1998) indicated, many Soldiers reported that deployment negatively affected their

personal relationships with their children and spouse, and others have found that high levels of

PERSTEMPO and longer deployments create a strain on the family (Sticha et al., 1999; Survey of

Army Families, 2001). In a sample of female active duty enlisted Navy Sailors who had children,

Kelley et al. (2001) found that ship assignment, which is associated with deployments, long

hours, and overnight duty, was an important consideration for these women when considering

reenlistment, and that reenlistment intentions were predicted by work-family concerns.

Despite the strain that deployments can create on the family, other research suggests that most

spouses are able to adapt well to deployments (Bell & Schumm, 2003). Orthner and Rose (2003)

found that a number of assets enabled some spouses to adjust better to separations than other

spouses. These assets included knowledge of Army systems (e.g. medical, other agencies,

emergency contact procedures), having a personal and social network for support, and being

satisfied with the unit and post leaders' perceived concern for the members' families. They

recommended that the military assist leaders in creating a culture of support in their unit, promote

actions such as ensuring spouses know how to deal with Army agencies, and encouraging

families to spend time together when service members are not deployed.

These results suggest that, although deployments can create stress and work-family conflict, there

are interventions that could potentially minimize this effect. Without these interventions,

however, it appears that the conflict between the Soldier's work and family could decrease his or

her affective commitment to the Army and lower the likelihood of their reenlistment. Importantly,

although not depicted in Figure 4, work-family concerns may have a direct effect on turnover

intentions as well, not just an indirect effect through organizational commitment.

Morale

"Morale" is considered a general sense of well-being, and is viewed as a variable that is relatively

fluid and changing (Liefooghe, Jonsson, Conway, Morgan, & Dewe, 2003). Methods for

measuring morale have varied greatly and included items tapping job satisfaction, motivation,

stress levels, commitment, and enthusiasm, as well as items that ask individuals directly about

their "level of morale" (Liefooghe et al., 2003). There are also debates regarding whether morale

should be considered an individual or group level issue.

As discussed previously, Sticha et al. (1999) found inconsistent relationships between

deployment and morale. Some research has reported moderate levels of morale during

deployments (Castro, 1998, Castro et al., 2001), and Reed and Segal (2000) reported a significant

negative relationship between number of deployments and morale. The relationship between

morale and organizational commitment is not clear, nor is the relationship between morale and

turnover, although a theoretical model proposed by Liefooghe et al. (2003) includes morale as a

predictor of reenlistment intentions.

Given the general concept of morale as fluid and changing, however, it may be a variable that is

too unpredictable to be useful for this type of a model. It can be affected by a myriad of day-today factors and could therefore arguably fluctuate daily. For these reasons we will not include this

construct in our current model, although we agree it should be used as an indicator of underlying

systematic problems that need to be addressed.

23
Multivariate Prediction

One disadvantage of the Meyer et al. meta-analysis results is that they only provide information

regarding bivariate relationships. The consequence of this is that based on the meta-analysis we

do not know the extent to which the variables overlap in their prediction of perceived

organizational support or affective commitment. Fortunately, research using modeling techniques

provides some information. This research has indicated that each variable provides a unique

contribution to the prediction of perceived organizational support, and the magnitude of the

relationships is similar to those reported for the bivariate relationships in the meta-analysis (e.g.,

Allen et al., 2003; Rhoades et al., 2001).

Predicting Continuance Commitment

As described previously, continuance commitment reflects the perceived costs that are associated

with leaving the organization, due to factors such as lack of alternatives, financial obligations, or

retirement vestment. Results from the Meyer et al. (2002) meta-analysis indicated that variables

from both the alternatives and work experience categories were significantly correlated with

continuance commitment. Specifically, fewer perceived alternatives and less perceived

transferability of education and skills were related to higher levels of continuance commitment.

This is logical, given that the concept of perceived alternatives is embedded in the definition of

the construct. While correlations with work experience variables were significant, they were

small in magnitude: perceived organizational support, transformational leadership, role

ambiguity, role conflict, interactional justice, and procedural justice.

This indicates that individuals felt a greater need to stay in their organization primarily if: (1) they

perceived that their skills did not transfer well outside of the organization, (2) their educational

training was limited in how well it transferred outside of the organization, and (3) they did not

believe that they had many alternatives outside of the organization (see Figure 5). As with the

predictors of affective commitment, the individual's perception is critical - in this case, the

perception of his or her investments and alternatives. Meyer and Allen (1997) suggest that some

sort of "triggering event" can have a great influence on an individual's continuance commitment

if it focuses the individual's attention in a particular area. As an example, if one employee heard

of the successful job search and increased salary of another employee, this could bring the

concept of alternatives to the forefront and impact his or her continuance commitment - in this

.case, lowering their continuance commitment. A deployment might be another example of a

triggering event - the possible effects of deployments are discussed in a subsequent section.

It is important to note that an individual's assessment of perceived alternatives includes not only

the availability of alternate jobs and their corresponding salaries, but also the other benefits

provided by the jobs, such as medical insurance, retirement benefits, or company perks. In some

cases, one benefit may be particularly salient to an individual, such as when someone in a family

has a medical condition that requires continuing treatment. In this case, medical insurance may be

particularly important to that individual's perception of their other options. If there is another job

opportunity, but it does not provide the sufficient health care benefits, it would not be viewed as a

feasible alternative. Another factor that would affect an individual's perception of alternatives is

having time invested in a retirement plan, since the time invested may be lost upon leaving the

organization.

In addition to the factors in the meta-analysis, research has also indicated that work-family

conflict is related to higher levels of continuance commitment (Casper, Martin, Buffardi, &

24
Erdwins, 2002), demonstrating a moderate correlation (p=.24, Meyer et al. 2002; r = .30, p < .05,

Lyness & Thompson, 1997). This indicates that employees who report higher levels of conflict

between work and family also report a greater sense that they need to stay in an organization.

Payne, Huffman, & Tremble (2002) reported that the more family responsibilities Army officers

had, the greater their continuance commitment to the Army.

SAlternatives I

Work I [k IInvestments i•

Work

Context• Deployents } Transferability ofm '

"* Deployments Sil otnac "* Home station, Commitment

activities

"* War/peace

Transferability o

Education

Work-Family .

Conflict

Figure 5. Model of the Antecedents to Continuance Commitment

Continuance Commitment in the Services

With respect to the services, the retirement system creates a very marked relationship between the

number of years a service member has invested and their decision to remain in the service. Army

retention data indicates that the percent of Soldiers who continue with Army service after four

years is around 70% (Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), 2003). After 10 years it

increases to around 90%, and at 18 years it is around 99%. At 20 years, the mark of retirement

vestment, retention drops to 55%. This demonstrates the strong draw of the retirement vestment at

20 years. Accordingly, Payne et al. (2002) did find that officers with more time in service

reported a higher level of continuance commitment. This type of system directly influences an

employee's perceived need to stay in the organization.

As the services are well aware of this relationship, they offer reenlistment bonuses to maintain a

high level of reenlistment among Soldiers with fewer years in the service. Bonuses are also

offered to maintain reenlistments in specialty areas in which service members have a high level of

perceived alternatives, such as pilots and special operations.

With respect to transfer of education and skills, there is evidence that those who perceive a lower

likelihood of obtaining a good civilian job, or believe their skills will not be highly marketable in

the civilian sector are more likely to stay in the military (Cakmak, 2004). However, a Soldier's

perception of the transferability of his or her education and skills is likely to differ by military

occupational specialty. While some of the specialized training Soldiers receive is specific to the

25
Army, other skills could be transferred to a civilian equivalent, such as those of medical

personnel, truck drivers, or firefighters. In addition, the attacks of 9/11 and GWOT brought

security issues to the forefront for many organizations, both in government and in the private

sector, so there is higher demand for personnel knowledgeable about security issues, such as

special operations personnel (Burgess, 2004; Schmitt & Shanker, 2004).

The Effect of Deployments

The strength of the relationship between years-in-service and continuing in the service suggests

that deployments would have a diminishing impact on Soldier turnover as the Soldier has a

greater number of years invested toward retirement. Once Soldiers are eligible for retirement,

however, it is logical that deployments would again have an impact.

With respect to perceived transferability of skills or education, deployments may have some

impact. For Soldiers who are focused on achieving higher education goals while in the service, a

high level of deployments may make this goal difficult or impossible to achieve; this would serve

to decrease their continuance commitment. In addition, the activities in which they engage on the

deployment could provide new skills or experiences that could be transferred to the civilian

world. This would serve to increase their perceived alternatives and also decrease their

continuance commitment.-

The effect of deployments on perceived alternatives may be a primary avenue of impact of

deployments on continuance commitment. Particularly for certain specialty areas, deployment

skills acquired and experiences may make Soldiers more marketable to security or contract

organizations. Contract salaries have been reported to exceed $100,000 a year for Soldiers with

special operations experience (Crawley, 2004a; Schmitt & Shanker, 2004). This would increase

their perceived alternatives and decrease their continuance commitment. Importantly, however,

for less specialized personnel, the additional combat duty pays and tax benefits of deployments

may reduce the number of alternatives outside the military that provide equivalent or greater

monetary compensation. For these Soldiers, deployments could serve to increase the Soldier's

level of continuance commitment.

As mentioned previously, the current deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq provide a number of

additional pays to which Soldiers may be entitled. Based on anecdotal information from Iraq, the

additional pay is providing financial gain that the Soldiers view as a positive factor (Boyd &

Burgess, 2003). It is important to note that salary and bonuses not only affect the Soldier's

continuance commitment, but can also affect their affective commitment, through perceived

organizational support and fairness.

In addition to the higher salaries outside the services that could increase members' perceived

alternatives, the level of casualties on deployments could also make other alternatives more

attractive, decreasing continuance commitment. Thus, deployments during war could have a

stronger effect on continuance commitment than deployments during peacetime, if the potential

cost of staying in is viewed as holding an extremely high likelihood of death or disability.

To summarize, some aspects of the military, such as the retirement system, reenlistment bonuses,

and specialized training may serve to increase a Soldier's sense that he or she needs to stay in the

service. With respect to deployments, deployment pays may function in this way as well. This is a

positive factor from the standpoint that the Soldier's commitment to the organization is high and

he or she is retained. On the other hand, if the deployments are associated with high levels of

expected casualties, this could decrease continuance commitment.

26
Importantly, high levels of continuance commitment should be considered cautiously, however;

some research has associated high levels of continuance commitment with negative impacts in

other areas such as lower performance (Meyer & Allen, 1997). This suggests the importance of

maintaining high levels of affective commitment in addition to continuance commitment, since

high performance is important in addition to retention. Thus, while high continuance

commitment will likely motivate Soldiers nearing retirement to stay in regardless of deployments,

developing affective commitment through fair policies and decisions, job conditions, and other

means of support is still highly critical to overall health of the force.

Predicting Normative Commitment

Normative commitment refers to an individual's feeling that he or she has an obligation to stay in

an organization; that staying in is the "right and moral" thing to do (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Of the

three types of organizational commitment, the least research has been conducted on normative

commitment. The correlation between normative commitment and affective commitment in the

meta-analysis is high (p = .63), and the same variables in the meta-analysis that predicted

affective commitment also predicted normative commitment. The correlations are lower in

magnitude, however, and based on the pattern of results, Meyer et al. (2002) conclude that the

constructs do represent distinct dimensions of commitment.

Meyer et al. suggest that the positive experiences that contribute to affective commitment may

also contribute to a sense of obligation to the organization to reciprocate. Meyer and Allen (2002)

suggest that investments by the organization can create a feeling of indebtedness, which creates

higher normative commitment. We reflect these hypotheses by showing perceived organizational

support predicting perceived indebtedness, which in turn predicts normative commitment (see

Figure 6).

Wiener (1982) has suggested that normative commitment is based on "socialization" - both from

family and culture as well as one's socialization into a given organization. "Socialization" refers

to a series of experiences that provide messages about the appropriateness of particular attitudes

and behaviors. Through these experiences, individuals internalize a sense of what is valued and

what is expected of them (Meyer & Allen, 2002). Little to no research has investigated predictors

specifically relevant to the development of normative commitment such as certain individual

characteristics or the impact of parental values or behaviors (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

One final variable that could logically function as a predictor of normative commitment is an

individual's commitment to the mission of the organization. This would be particularly salient in

organizations that serve the public or have a "cause," such as nonprofit organizations. In these

organizations, a sense of obligation to the "cause" or to the greater good of the general public

could create a sense of obligation to the organization, which is the vehicle for the cause or

mission. Normative commitment may be particularly strong if there are either few or no other

organizations that fulfill that mission or if there are relatively few people willing or able to do the

job. Organizations that might fit within this classification include the military services, civil

service professions such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations or Central Intelligence Agency,

the Peace Corps, environmental groups, the Red Cross, and religious groups. These types of

service organizations may also attract individuals who are predisposed to have a high level of

normative commitment, although individual differences that predict normative commitment have

not been identified (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). This and the other hypothesized predictors can be

seen in Figure 6.

27
Individual

Characteristics

"* Sense of duty or

responsibility

"• Commitment to

organization's

mission

Work

Context Job Experiences

" Deployments Usefulness ofjob

activities Normative "* Home station Commitment

activities

"* War/peace Socialization Process

* Values of the

organization

* Organization or unit

history

e Charismatic Leader

Perceived Perceived

Organizational Support Indebtedness

Figure 6. Model of the Antecedents to Normative Commitment

Normative Commitment in the Services

The military provides a strong setting for high levels of normative commitment, particularly

through a commitment to the organization's mission. The mission of the military is clearly for the

benefit of the general public, and there is a choice of only a few services, all under one

government agency. A large percentage of individuals who join the Army report a desire to serve

their country, espousing a commitment to a higher cause. Data from the SSMP in the spring of

2002 indicate that the desire to serve their country is one of the top three reasons why both

officers and enlisted Soldiers joined the Army (Sample Survey of Military Personnel, 2002).

Comparisons with SSMP data from 1996 to 1999 suggest this finding is stable over time. On the

other hand, data from recent recruits suggests that commitment to the country and the military

mission may be affected by patriotism and public support for the troops. For example, when

incoming recruits were asked for reasons why they joined the Army in FY99, 49% cited "Serve

country," while 68% indicated this as a reason in FY03 (Legree, 2004), possibly due to a surge in

patriotism post 9/11. Empirical research in industry has suggested that the values of the society

around an organization affect normative commitment in the organization (Vardi, Wiener, &

Popper, 1989).

The military socialization process provides further emphasis on a sense of duty and obligation.

For example, the Army promotes seven values as "Army Values" - loyalty, duty, respect, selfless

28
service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Three of these reflect the theme of duty and

obligation: loyalty, duty, and selfless service. In addition, individual units often promote

reverence for the unit history, ensuring that service members have a sense of pride in the unit's

involvement in past conflicts and a commitment to honoring the unit's reputation. This could

develop a sense of obligation to the unit, which could in turn increase their sense of obligation to

the organization. The role of leaders in the socialization process is critical, and charismatic or

transformational leaders can engender feelings of obligation to the unit as well.

Perceived indebtedness would not seem to be an important predictor of normative commitment in

the services. While the military provides educational and training investments in service members

as well as benefits such as reenlistment bonuses, these benefits that are provided on a case-bycase basis are typically provided as part of a contract that obligates the Soldier to provide a

certain number of years of service. Presumably this creates a sense of repayment of the

investment rather than indebtedness. As Meyer et al. (2002) suggest, however, positive

experiences may contribute to a general sense of obligation to the organization to reciprocate.

These would operate in a similar manner to that described in the section Predicting Affective

Commitment.

Effects of Deployments

Deployments are hypothesized to affect normative commitment primarily through two of these

predictors, perceived organizational support and commitment to the organization's mission. With

respect to perceived organizational support and indebtedness, the effects of deployments would

be the same as those discussed with respect to affective commitment. The fairness of decisions

and policies with regard to deployments, supportiveness of leadership, and job conditions could

all impact the Soldier's perception of organizational support and therefore sense of obligation to

the organization.

With respect to their commitment to the organization's mission, if an individual has a high level

of commitment to the cause of the Army, and he or she views the deployment as furthering this

cause, then the deployment could have a positive impact on normative commitment and turnover.

On the other hand, if the individual views the deployment as a waste of time or not a worthwhile

cause, the deployment could have a negative impact on normative commitment, since the

organization is no longer enabling the Soldier to meet their sense of duty and obligation.

Individuals who are not particularly committed to the cause of the Army may not be affected

either way. Because no research has been conducted in this area, these ideas are concepts that

have not been supported by empirical research.

Along these lines, however, Foley and Steinberg (1998) reported that Soldiers deployed for one

year for Operation Joint Endeavor (OJE) overwhelmingly indicated that the length of their

deployment to Bosnia was too long. There were a number of reasons listed, including the belief

that Soldiers should not be deployed for longer than 6 months for a mission other than war, and

that they should be allowed to return home when their mission was completed. They felt that their

mission was completed when it changed to a force protection and training mission. In addition,

about half of the AC enlisted (51%) and a third of AC officers (35%) said they often or very often

spent their time waiting around. Foley and Steinberg (1998) suggest that negative views of the

mission and deployment length contributed to concern in these Soldiers about future

deployments, and that about one-quarter of the Soldiers said they would leave the Army sooner

than planned due to their deployment in Bosnia.

29
While negative publicity regarding a deployment - such as negative press reports and protests -

could decrease normative commitment, personal experiences that suggest the importance of the

mission could potentially counteract those. Finally, individuals may have a strong sense of

obligation to their unit, and a feeling that they do not want to let their friends and unit down when

they are needed most. As mentioned previously, transformational leaders may engender a sense

of duty and obligation in Soldiers to remain in the Army, thereby increasing normative

commitment and decreasing turnover.

Summary and Conclusions

Our review of the literature on deployment consequences found that deployments impact Soldiers

across a range of important personnel areas, including retention, families, health, finances, and

readiness. Understanding the specific nature of the effects, however, has been somewhat elusive.

The effects of deployments seem to depend largely on the circumstances of the deployment and

the expectations of the deploying Soldiers and their families. Number and length of deployments

have been found to have varying effects on retention, with a moderate level of deployment

activity showing the most positive effect on retention. Research indicates that other

characteristics of a deployment, such as the perceived fairness of decisions, conditions during the

deployment, and the predictability of redeployment may play an even more important role in

Soldier and family reactions to deployments. This suggests that while the number and length of

deployments are important factors to consider when making decisions about deployments, they

are not the only factors to consider, and may not be the most important factors to consider.

Predicting the effect of deployments on retention requires that we develop an understanding of

how reenlistment decisions are made. Research in the area of retention indicates that there are a

variety of factors that combine to determine an individual's decision to stay in or leave an

organization. This includes their experiences on the job and commitment to the organization,

commitments to family and hobbies, their ties to the surrounding community, and unanticipated

events that may occur, such as an unsolicited job offer.

Many of these factors are largely outside the control of the organization (e.g., commitment to

family or hobbies, unanticipated events). An individual's job experiences and commitment to the

organization, however, are greatly affected by the actions of the organization and therefore

present an opportunity to motivate members to stay.

With respect to the Army, there are a number of factors that can either strengthen or weaken a

Soldier's emotional commitment to the Army. Through their experiences, Soldiers develop

beliefs about the fairness of Army policies and decisions. They also develop opinions about the

job conditions, the supportiveness of their chain of command, and the level of conflict they

experience between their work and family responsibilities. These beliefs are likely to be created

in part by deployment experiences and in part by experiences while the Soldier is at home station

or in training or other activities. We predict that all of these experiences combine to create an

overall sense of the supportiveness of the Army toward them, which, in turn, creates a certain

level of emotional commitment to the organization (affective commitment). Because the decision

to reenlist is based on many factors, any one experience, such as deployments, would provide

only part of the motivation for the Soldier to either reenlist or leave the service.

In addition to this emotional commitment, there are two other sources of commitment toward the

organization. One is an employee's sense that he or she needs to stay in the organization, either

due to lack of other alternatives, or to a significant investment in the organization, such as time

earned in the retirement system (continuance commitment). The military retirement system makes

30
this form of commitment highly relevant to Soldiers. The other source of commitment is a sense

of obligation to stay that the employee may have to their organization, the organization's mission,

and to his or her work unit - that he or she should stay (normative commitment). Due to the

nature of the Armed Service's mission and culture, this type of commitment is also highly

predicted to be highly relevant for the Army.

Taken together, these three types of commitment combine to form a Soldier's overall level of

commitment to the Army. Understanding what creates each of these three types of commitment

can provide leaders with insight that can be used to inform decisions, develop policies, and shape

leader actions. The most important next step is to use empirical data to inform and modify the

models suggested here. In the interim, however, Army leaders who are interested in mitigating

the effects of deployments on retention can consider the extent to which current deployments are

having an impact on each type of commitment and work to minimize any negative impact.

Possible suggestions for how to do this based on our current understanding of each type of

commitment follow.

Monitoring Affective Commitment

Research suggests that the fairness of policies and decisions is paramount to the Soldier's sense

that the Army is supportive of them as employees, whether these policies and decisions are

related to a deployment or other aspects of their job or career. Importance should be given to

Soldiers' perceptions of fairness during the development of new policies and when decisions are

being made. While some policies might make sense from a financial or efficiency standpoint,

they strike an immediate chord of discontent among Soldiers due to perceived inequities. It would

be useful for policy makers to have a process in place that enabled them to obtain a "fairness

reality check" by conducting a number of focus groups with boots-on-the-ground Soldiers. This

would enable them to test reactions to policies before they are approved and implemented. Even

if a policy must be implemented that will be perceived as unfair, the focus groups would provide

a forum to determine the level of negative reaction and investigate possible ways to better

manage implementation of the policy. A structured set of questions could be developed for these

focus groups, designed to obtain reactions regarding fairness. For example: "Who do you think

benefits from this policy?" "Is there anyone who 'loses' from this policy?" "Does the policy seem

fair to you?" "Who might think this policy is not fair?"

A case in point would be the decisions that are being made regarding separation pay and other

deployment-related pays (e.g. Maze, 2004; Army Times, 2004; Tice, 2004; Crawley, 2004c). The

general concept of providing additional money to Soldiers who are deployed to dangerous areas

and are away from their family for an extended period of time gives Soldiers a sense of support

and appreciation for their sacrifices. Questions are currently being considered to determine the

best structure for the compensation pays: for example, whether the compensation should

emphasize participation in a combat zone or separation from family (e.g., Army Times, 2004;

Crawley, 2005). A number of different approaches could be taken to divide the additional money,

and doing so in a way that is perceived as fair to the majority of Soldiers is extremely important.

Holding a number of focus groups on the topic could not only provide feedback regarding current

proposals that are being considered, but could also generate new ideas and approaches. While it is

possible that this approach would generate rumors among the Soldiers regarding the decisions

that were being made, direct communication sources such as the Army Times could be used to

ensure that Soldiers are aware that multiple options are being considered and decisions have not

yet been made.

31
While focus groups would probably only be feasible when major policy decisions were being

made, any leader could make an effort to do a "fairness check" when making decisions. If time

permitted, a leader could simply consider the question of fairness (e.g., "Who might think this

decision is not fair?" "Is there anyone who will think they lose from this decision?"). While it

may not necessarily change the decision he or she makes, it could alert them to problems that will

lead to lower morale and could direct the way in which they convey the message. Optimally the

importance of fairness in decision-making would be integrated into the formal training officers

receive through military schools or correspondence courses.

Managing Soldier expectations is another theme that was repeated throughout the research on

deployments. Having expectations is inevitable. Expectations are tools we use to make the world

around us seem more organized and predictable, and expectations about deployments are no

exception. Even in the absence of direct information about some aspect of deployments, Soldiers

will have formed an expectation based on previous experience, experiences of other Soldiers,

information from newspapers, or hearsay. The problem comes when reality does not match up

with expectations - this generates negative reactions.

Expectations about redeployment and tour length surface as sources of discontent when dates and

times are changed, particularly when they are lengthened considerably. Redeployment

expectations are useful because they give Soldiers a goal on which to focus, and represent a light

at the end of the tunnel. Moving the date back by an appreciable amount shatters expectations and

produces highly negative reactions. On the other hand, withholding redeployment information is

not a useful solution to this either, since having that goal to work toward is highly functional for

Soldiers and families. While the best solution may be to honor redeployment commitments, in

situations in which this is not possible, some type of compensation (although not necessarily

monetary) could be offered to try to re-balance perceptions of fairness. This is the essence of the

additional $1,000 a month earned by service members extended in Iraq beyond their 12-month

tour (Crawley, 2004b). These service members also had the option to forfeit $800 of that money

in exchange for a guaranteed stabilized tour at their home station once they return home.

Keeping Soldiers well informed of changes that are likely is a valuable way to make the changes

less shocking. Although it would be imprecise, a system similar to weather predictions could even

be used with leaders providing a periodic forecast such as, "There's about a 70% chance right

now that you will be going home on time." This would enable Soldiers to moderate their

expectations and not become unrealistically hopeful. While weather forecasts are often wrong,

they still give people a sense of comfort to have a prediction.

In addition to expectations about redeployment, Soldiers have expectations regarding deployment

length. While there is some evidence that longer deployments are related to lower retention, there

is also evidence that the service member's expectations for deployment or tour length affect

retention intentions. After years of 6-month rotations to the Balkans, Soldiers may have

developed an expectation that typical deployments are 6 months, at the most. This is supported by

the fact that the 5-6 month mark was highlighted as a focal point in a number of research studies.

If this is true, deployments longer than 6 months would tend to have a negative impact unless or

until a new expectation could be established.

Soldiers also have expectations regarding many other aspects of the deployment, such as living

conditions, work activities while deployed, amenities available, and the availability of

communication with home. Everything leaders can do to create realistic expectations prior to

deployment is beneficial for preventing negative reactions by troops and families. It also appears

important that leaders work to reduce ambiguity in Soldier's day-to-day lives on deployments.

32
While some individuals tolerate ambiguity well or are trained to manage it,9 most individuals

prefer some degree of predictability and control in their lives. With the missions in Iraq and

Afghanistan fluctuating from peacekeeping and rebuilding activities to war activities (e.g., see

Lowe, 2004), service members can be faced with a situation one hour that requires a wholly

different approach for success than the situation he or she faced the previous hour. This role

conflict can create uncertainty regarding how to act in different situations. It is important that

leaders address changing circumstances with service members and provide knowledge and

practice with knowing how to handle them. Toward this end it could be useful to have a brief

field handbook for leaders that provides tips on potential problems that can arise from these

changing situations, and how to help troops learn how to tolerate them and perform effectively.

Leaders can also manage daily ambiguity by ensuring that service members have a clear vision of

what they need to accomplish while deployed and by listening to and communicating with troops.

Even if nothing has changed about a situation or condition, it can be useful to communicate this

with troops to reduce uncertainty and questions about whether things have changed.

Paying attention to troop morale can provide a surface indicator of problems that need to be

addressed. While some morale problems could be due to fluctuating situations like poor weather

conditions, others could be indicators of underlying systemic problems a leader needs to address.

It is important for leaders to take opportunities to gain information from lower level leaders and

even some of the lowest ranking Soldiers regarding morale, perceptions of resources, family

concerns, and other reactions to the current mission. While some leaders are very adept at reading

subordinates, Soldiers may not show their concerns to leaders very readily. One illustration of a

creative approach to communicating with subordinates was a Battalion commander during

Operation Desert Storm who opened up a "barbershop" to talk with Soldiers while providing

haircuts.

A leader who is able to demonstrate a genuine interest in his or her subordinate's views is likely

to become more aware of the problems that they perceive and will also be viewed as more

supportive, a benefit in and of itself. Toward this end, a self-assessment tool could be developed

that would assist leaders in reflecting on and improving the extent to which their actions create a

supportive environment. An example of a self-assessment tool is provided in Appendix A.' 0

Finally, with respect to work-family conflict, there are a number of actions Army and local

leaders can take to minimize the negative effects of deployments on the family (see Bell et al.,

1996; Orthner & Rose, 2003). These include ensuring that spouses have knowledge of Army

systems and how to deal with Army agencies (e.g. medical, other agencies, emergency contact

procedures), have realistic expectations for the deployment, and have a personal and social

network for support, including strong support from the rear detachment and Family Readiness

Group (FRG).

Bell et al. (1996) provide a series of recommendations for ways that the Army and local leaders

can provide support to families while a service member is deployed. One key to improve coping

with deployments may be to improve communication between the command and the service

member and his/her family, and ensure that they have realistic expectations for the deployment

(Segal et al., 1999). Unit leaders and FRGs can serve to provide information and assistance, as

9 Special operations selection and training programs tend to require a certain level of tolerance for

ambiguity and flexibility.

10 Note that the intention of the assessment tool in Appendix A is to provide a preliminary example only; a

thorough development procedure would be required prior to fielding an actual instrument for this purpose.

33'
well as to create realistic expectations regarding the deployment and re-deployment. Schumm,

Bell, Segal, and Milan (2000) developed a handbook for FRG leaders that provides information to

help families cope with deployments."

Importantly, some recent data from the GWOT suggests that these support elements could be

improved; 55% of married Soldiers surveyed from Operation Iraqi Freedom were not satisfied

with the rear-detachment support, and 54% were not satisfied with the Family Readiness Group

(FRG) support (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2003).

Monitoring Continuance Commitment

Due to the investment of their time in the retirement system, it appears that service members

would become less likely to leave due to deployments as they have a greater number of years in

the service, until they reach retirement eligibility. Even if eligible for retirement, service members

who are promoted may be more likely to stay in, given that the increase in pension is typically

viewed as worth the additional time. The promotion can also serve as a motivational statement

from the organization, identifying the service member as a top performer.

The additional pays that service members receive on deployments provide an incentive to remain

in the service, assuming service members view them as fair. For many, these additional pays may

serve to reduce the number of alternatives outside the military that could provide equivalent or

greater monetary compensation.

The exception to this may be the special operations and other special skill Soldiers. With the high

demand for the experience and skills of these Soldiers, additional incentive programs may be

required to retain them. Again, existing data suggest that service members who are close to

retirement would be unlikely to leave prior to retirement vestment. Those at the greatest risk for

leaving to join a contracting firm would be service members with either many years before

retirement or those who are already eligible for retirement.

Buddin, Levy, Hanley, and Waldman (1992) reported that promotions are a useful incentive to

retain Soldiers. There is some evidence from Air Force pilots, however, that personnel with skills

in high demand in the civilian market will turn down promotions to pursue attractive civilian

career options once they are eligible for retirement (Hoppe, 1988).

Additional bonuses and incentives can send a message of respect and appreciation for the high

level of skill, responsibility and performance of special skill Soldiers in the Army. With salaries

available from contractors reportedly ranging from $100-200K, however, bonuses may not be

able to retain personnel who are intent on gaining the money. Leaders of these service members

could potentially appeal to other aspects of their commitment to encourage them to stay, such as

the importance of their mission, sense of duty and honor, and camaraderie among a group of topnotch performers.

Developing Normative Commitment

It is likely that most Soldiers hold some sense of obligation to the mission of the Army and needs

of the country. It is therefore likely to be important that they view their deployments as

worthwhile in furthering the mission of the Army and the needs of the country. Logic would

suggest that their personal experiences and the experiences of their unit on the deployment would

i The Schumm et al. (2000) handbook is available through the Defense Technical Information Center.

34
have the greatest impact on their views in this area, but media coverage and public opinion could

have an impact as well. The practice of embedding journalists with troops is probably very useful

from this perspective because it increases the likelihood that news stories will capture the events

from the perspectives of the service members involved. Troops are remarkably heroic and

hardworking so enabling this element of the story to be included is likely to be highly valuable.

In circumstances in which news media seem to be emphasizing negative stories and extreme

views, it could be useful at least internally to provide balance to the negative extremism. For

example, ensuring that leaders share information reflecting positive outcomes and positive public

support with the Soldiers. The goal would be to ensure that Soldiers view what they are doing as

important. Both the Soldier and his or her family are making significant sacrifices; these need to

be viewed as sacrifices that are worthwhile.

Leaders can also emphasize the importance of their unit's work and show them how their mission

fits in with what others are doing on the deployment. They can remind troops how their work

provides direct benefits for their country and emphasize the value and uniqueness of choosing to

serve your country in the military. Out of a population of close to 300 million people in the U.S.

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004), only 1% serve their country in either AC service or the reserves

(U.S. Census Bureau Facts and Figures, 2003). History invariably reads as an account of the

causes and consequences of war and its subsequent resolution, which means that today's service

members are creating the history books for tomorrow's generation - something that not many

people can say.

Conclusions

None of the ideas described here is necessarily new to Army leaders. What is new is having a

comprehensive process for considering how deployments are likely to affect retention decisions.

The models presented here provide a systematic approach that increases the likelihood of

including all relevant factors. They also provide an organized way of considering strategies to

minimize negative effects of deployments in different situations.

Limiting deployment length and number are often discussed as important to maintaining an

appropriate level of reenlistment in the services. This approach to minimizing attrition from the

force could be useful, particularly if it creates stability and predictability for Soldiers and their

families. Importantly, however, models of retention suggest that limiting deployments, alone,

would not ensure that Soldiers would remain in the service. In addition, creating expectations for

limits or for benefits that cannot be met could be particularly detrimental.

Turnover models suggest that retaining Soldiers requires creating a situation in which the Soldiers

develop a sense of commitment to the Army, most importantly through perceptions of fairness

and support. This necessitates the constant vigilance of leaders to make the Army, as an

organization, demonstrate to its Soldiers the very values it espouses - loyalty, duty, respect,

selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

Future Research

Finally, the need for additional research was particularly noticeable in a number of areas. First,

little research describes how organizational commitment combines with other commitments to

determine the individual's action to remain in or leave the organization. While we focused on

organizational commitment because it is something over which the organization has a high degree

35
of control, understanding the process of how it combines with other commitment forces is

important to understanding retention. One element that has potential importance in this process is

called person-organization fit. Person-organization fit is the degree of compatibility between an

individual and an organization based on the similarity of the characteristics of the organization

and individual, and the extent to which the organization fulfills the individual's needs (Verquer,

Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). A meta-analysis by Verquer et al. (2003) indicated that personorganization fit does have an influence on both organizational commitment (p = .31) and turnover

intentions (p= -.21).

Related to this, there is evidence that, in addition to the commitment of the service member, the

commitment of the military spouse directly affects retention decisions as well (Gade, Tiggle, &

Schumm, 2003). Identifying antecedents of spouse commitment and determining how spouse

commitment combines or interacts with the service member's commitment would be highly

informative. Further, recent research has suggested gender differences in organizational

commitment for service members returning from a deployment, with women reporting lower

organizational commitment than men (Sthultz, 2004). Possible gender differences within the

model could be useful to pursue as well (e.g., see Sinclair, 2004).

Next, regarding organizational commitment, research has found some interactions among the

three types of commitment (affective, continuance, normative) in predicting retention. This means

that if the level of one is particularly high or low, the other two types of commitment may have

little impact on retention. An example would be someone who has fulfilled 19 years out of 20

required to be eligible for the military retirement program, so has a very high level of continuance

commitment. If this individual had extremely low affective and/or normative commitment, it is

still most likely that they would remain in the service for that last year due to their very high level

of continuance commitment. This is supported by the 99% continuance rate cited previously for

Soldiers with 18 years in the Army (DMDC, 2003). Despite the intuitive nature of this argument

and previous suggestions to investigate it (e.g., Meyer et al., 2000), little research has been done

and no theories exist regarding the nature of the interactions among the three types of

commitment.

Third, due to the purpose of military organizations and the nature of their mission, normative

commitment seems particularly important to the military services. While improvements have

been made over time to the definition and measurement of this construct (eg., Meyer & Allen,

1997), little to no research has focused on demonstrating construct validity or identifying and

measuring antecedents and consequences specific to this dimension of organizational

commitment. Given the potentially high degree of relevance to the military, it would be

particularly useful to research this.

Finally, it is important to note that, while the models and concepts presented here apply to the

reserves, the retention situation for the reserves is more complicated. For service members in the

reserves, one of the competing commitments they are likely to have is their commitment to their

civilian organization and civilian life (see Figure 2). Hansen et al. (2004) found that for personnel

in the Guard and Reserve, retention varied with the strength of the service members' civilian

earning opportunities, such that personnel with high opportunities for earnings had lower

retention. For individuals in the reserves, their reserve job and civilian job represent two sets of

potentially competing commitments. Additional research is needed to determine the implications

of this and the way in which these competing commitments are resolved.

36
References

Adler, A.B., & Castro, C.A. (2001). US. Soldiers and Peacekeeping Deployments (Report

20010727 056). Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command.

Adler, A.B., & Golembe, E.H. (1998). The Impact of Optempo on Soldiers and Families.

(Research Report 25). Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command.

Alderks, K. E. (1998). PERSTEMPO: Its Effects on Soldiers' Attitudes (Study Report 98-02).

Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,

and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-

18.

Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with

work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.

Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., & Griffeth, R.W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support

and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29,

99-118.

Army Times (March 29, 2004). Dither now, pay the price. Army Times, p. 44.

Badger, K.M. (2004). Officer Attrition: Impact of Combat Deployments and Compensation on

Retention. (USAWC Strategy Research Project). Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and

Company.

Bell, D. B., Bartone, J., Bartone, P. T., Schumm, W. R. & Gade, P. A. (1997a). USAREURfamily

support during Operation Joint Endeavor: Summary report (Special Report 34). Alexandria,

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

Bell, D. B., Bartone, J., Bartone, P. T., Schumm, W. R. Rice, R. E. & Hinson, C. (1997b,

October). Helping U S. Army families cope with the stresses of troop deployment in BosniaHerzegovina. Paper presented at the 1997 Inter-University Seminar on Armed forces and

society Biennial International Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Bell, D.B., & Schumm, W.R. (in press). Balancing work and family demands in the military:

What happens when your employer tells you to go to war? In D. Halpern, R. Riggio, & S.

Murphy (Eds.). Tilting the Scales on Work-Family Balance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum

Associates, Inc.

Bell, D. B., Schumm, W. R. & Martin, J. A. (2001, October). How family separations affect

spouse support for a military career: A preliminary view from the U S. Army. A paper

presented at the Biennial Convention of the Inter University Seminar on Armed Forces and

society, Baltimore, MD.

37
Bell, D.B., Stevens, M.L., & Segal, M.W. (1996). How to support families during overseas

deployments: A sourcebook for service providers (Research report 1687). Alexandria, VA:

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

Boyd, T. (2003, October 20). Rethinking re-enlistment. Stars and Stripes, p. 3-4,6.

Boyd, T. & Burgess, L. (2003, October 20). The silver lining: Combat pay. Stars and Stripes, p.

5.

Burgess, L. (2004, March 16). DOD trying to retain its special operators. Stars and Stripes.

Cakmak, Y. (2004). The Value of the 1999 USMC Retention Survey in Explaining the Factors

That Influence Marines' Subsequent Stay/Leave Behavior. Masters thesis, Naval Post

Graduate School, Monterey, CA.

Casper, W.J., Martin, J.A., Buffardi, L.C., & Erdwins, C.J. (2002). Work-family conflict,

perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99-108.

Castro, C.A. (1998). The Impact of Deployment Length on Soldier Morale, Cohesion, and Mental

Health. (Report 19990708 095) Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel

Command.

Castro, C.A., & Adler, A.B. (1999). Military Deployments and Soldier Readiness. (Report

19990708 145). Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command.

Castro, C.A., Bienvenu, R.V., Huffman, A.H., & Adler, A.B. (2001). Soldier Dimensions and

Operational Readiness in US. Army Forces Deployed to Kosovo. (Report 20010410 200)

Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command.

Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P.E. (2001). The role ofjustice in organizations: A meta-analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

Cooke, T., Marcus, A., & Quester, A. (1992). Personnel tempo of operations and Navy enlisted

retention (CRM 91-150). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analysis.

Crawley, V. (2005, August 29). A simpler pay plan? Army Times.

Crawley, V. (2004a, April 5). Getting, keeping Green Berets proves difficult after 9/11. Army

Times.

Crawley, V. (2004b, May 3). Forced to stay means extra pay. Army Times, p. 10.

Crawley, V. (2004c, June 7). House, Senate agree: Keep those combat pays permanent. Army

Times, p. 18.

Defense Manpower Data Center (2003, October). Active Duty MPP Enlisted Continuation Report

- Percent Continuation. Rosslyn, VA: Information Delivery Center.

Devlin, T.E. (2003). Recruiting and Retention, A Force Planning Dilemma. (USAWC Strategy

Research Project). Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College.

38
Diana, M. (1998). Work environment, career, and family influences on the reenlistment intentions

of Army soldiers. (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 1998). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 59(1-B), 0446.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F.,Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

Fetter, J.M. (2004). Sustaining AMEDD Professional Strength in the Reserve Components.

(USAWC Strategy Research Project). Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College.

Foley, D. M., & Steinberg, A. G. (1998). Operation Joint Endeavor: Research Project Final

Report (Special Report No. 38). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Fricker, R.D. (2002) The Effects of Perstempo on Officer Retention in the US. Military. (Report

MR-1556-OSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Gade, P.A., Tiggle, R.B., & Schumm, W.R. (2003). The measurement and consequences of

military organizational commitment in soldiers and spouses. Military Psychology, 15, 191-

207.

GAO (2001, June). Military Personnel: Perceptions of Retention-Critical Personnel are Similar

to Those of Other Enlisted Personnel. (GAO-01-785). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Accountability Office.

GAO (2000, March). Military Personnel: Preliminary Results ofDOD's 1999 Survey ofActive

Duty Members (NSIAD/T-GAO-00-1 10, Mar. 8, 2000). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Accountability Office.

GAO (1999, August). Military Personnel: Perspectives of Surveyed Service Members in

Retention Critical Specialties (NSIAD-99-197BR, August 1999). Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Accountability Office.

GAO (1999, May). Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Service

Varies (NSIAD-99-69, May 1999) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability

Office.

GAO (1997, May). Special Operations Forces: Opportunities to Preclude Overuse and Misuse.

(GAO/NSIAD-97-85, May 1997). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability

Office.

Golding, H.L.W. & Griffis, H.S. (2003). Increased PERSTEMPO, Retention, and Navy Policy.

(Final Report CAB D0008040.A2). Washington, DC: Center for Naval Analyses.

Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.

Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.

39
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for workfamily conflict. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76, 560-568.

Hansen, M.L., MacLeod, I.D. & Gregory, D. (2004). Retention in the Reserve and Guard

Components. (Document CRM D0009534.A4/1REV). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval

Analyses.

Harrell, M.C. (1997). New Opportunities for Military Women.' Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion,

and Morale. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Heffner, T.S., & Gade, P.A. (2003). Commitment to nested collectives in special operations

forces. Military Psychology, 15, 209-224.

Hoppe, B.J. (1988). A 'Gray'Issue? The Impact ofAirline Hiring of Retirement Eligible Pilots on

Air Force Leadership. (Report Number ACSC-88-1280) Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Hosek, J.R., & Totten, M. (2002). Serving away from home.: How deployments influence

reenlistment. (Document MR-1594-OSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Hosek, J.R., & Totten, M. (1998). Does Perstempo hurt reenlistment?.: The effect of long or

hostile perstempo on reenlistment. (Document MR-990-OSD) Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Huffman, A.H., Adler, A.B., & Castro, C.A. (1999). The Impact of Deployment History on the

Well-Being of Military Personnel. (Report 19990325 047). Frederick, MD: U.S. Army

Medical Research & Materiel Command.

Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. New York:

Wiley.

Josar, D. (2003, October 15). Voices on the ground. Stars and Stripes, p. 3,6.

Kelley, M.L., Hock, E., Bonney, J.F., Jarvis, M.S., Smith, K.M., & Gaffney, M.A. (2001). Navy

mothers experiencing and not experiencing deployment: Reasons for staying in or leaving the

military. Military Psychology, 13, 55-71.

Kirmeyer, S.L., & Dougherty, T.W. (1988). Work load, tension, and coping: Moderating

effects of supervisor support. Personnel Psychology, 41, 125-139.

Kristoff, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Lee, T.W., & Mitchell, T.R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary

employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89.

Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., McDaniel, L., & Hill, J.W. (1999). Theoretical

development and extension of the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Academy of

Management Journal, 42, 450-462.

Legree, P. (2004, March). Trends in Influences on Attrition in Initial Entry Training. [ARI

Briefing]. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

40
Liefooghe, A., Jonsson, H., Conway, N., Morgan, S., & Dewe, P. (2003, March). The Definition

and Measurement of Morale. (Report PTC/CB/00677 for the Royal Airforce). London:

Birbeck College, University of London.

Lowe, C. (2004, May 3). War & peace: Shifting roles in Afghanistan. Army Times, p. 14.

Lyness, K.S. & Thompson, D.E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched

samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 3 59-375.

Maze, R. (2004, April 5). DoD official proposed $125 separation pay. Army Times, p. 10.

McGee, G.W. & Ford, R.C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:

Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72(4), 63 8-642.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal ofApplied Psychology,

78, 538-551.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay:

Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

1102-1121.

Orthner, D.K., & Rose, R. (2003). Dealing with the effects of absence: Deployment and

adjustment to separation among military families. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences,

95, 33-37.

Parker, C.W. (1998). An examination of the interrelationships between perceptions of support,

job attitudes, and work outcomes of enlisted Army soldiers. (Doctoral dissertation, George

Mason University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(1-B), 0449.

Payne, S.C., Huffman, A.H., Tremble, T.R. (2002). The Influence of Organizational Commitment

on Officer Retention: A 12-Year Study of US. Army Officers. (Human Capital Grant Report).

Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for The Business of Government.

Phelps, R. H. & Farr, B. J. (Eds.) (1996). Reserve component soldiers aspeacekeepers.

Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Proctor, S.P. (2004). Health Status of Current National Guard Members. (Annual report under

DAMD17-00-1-0064). Fort Detrick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel

Command.

Ramsberger, P., & Wetzel, E. (1998). Personnel tempo impact study (Report FR-WATSD-98-5 1).

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

41
Reed, B.J., & Segal, D.R. (2000). The impact of multiple deployments on Soldiers' peacekeeping

attitudes, morale, and retention. Armed Forces & Society, 27, 57-78.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:

The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

825-836.

Ricks, T.E. (2004, March 28). Personnel crisis looming, Army spouses say. Washington Post, p.

A01.

Rumsey, M.G. (2002). What we know about rotation policies in the Army. (Information Paper).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Sample Survey of Military personnel (2002, Spring). Reasons for Joining the Army. Spring 2002

Sample Survey of Military Personnel. (ARI Survey Report 2003-02). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute.

Sample Survey of Military Personnel (2005a, Jan). Career Intent Among AC Soldiers. Fall 2004

Sample Survey of Military Personnel. (ARI Survey Report 2005-04). Arlington, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute.

Sample Survey of Military Personnel (2005b, Jan). Reasons for Leaving the AC Army Before

Retirement. Fall 2004 Sample Survey of Military Personnel. (ARI Survey Report 2005-03).

Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Saxton, M.J., Phillips, J.S., & Blakeney, R.N. (1991). Antecedents and consequences of

emotional exhaustion in the airlines reservations service sector. Human Relations, 44, 583-

595.

Schmitt, E., & Shanker, T. (2004, March 30). Big pay luring military's elite to private jobs. New

York Times, p. 1.

Schumm, W.R., Bell, D.B., Segal, M.W., & Milan, L.M. (2000). The Family Support Group

(FSG) Leaders'Handbook. (ARI Study Report 2000-02). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Segal, D.R., Rohall, D., Jones, J., & Manos, A.M. (1999). Meeting the missions of the 1990s with

a downsized force: Human resource management lessons from the deployment of PATRIOT

missile units to Korea. Military Psychology, 11, 149-167.

Sinclair, C.S. (2004). Effects of Military/Family Conflict on Female Naval Officer Retention.

(Master's Thesis). Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Steinberg, A. G., & Foley, D. M. (1998). Leaders 'guide for contingency operations: The

human dimension (Special Report No. 36). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Sthultz, T.T. (2004). Military Deployments as a Respite From Burnout: An Analysis of Gender

and Family. (Masters thesis) Wright-Peterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Institute of

Technology.

42
Sticha, P. J., Sadacca, R., DiFazio, A.S., Knerr, C. M., Hogan, P. F. and Diana, M. (1999).

Personnel Tempo: Definition, measurement, and effects on retention, readiness, and quality

of life (Contractor Report 99-04). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences

Survey of Army Families IV (2001, Spring). Highlights: Survey of Army Families IV. (ARI

Information Paper, 02-25-2002). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Teplitzky, M.L. (1991, Jul). Junior Army Officer Retention Intentions: A Path Analytic Model.

(ADA 242094). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Tice, J. (2004, April 12). Soldiers could see "field pay" similar to what sailors earn. Army Times,

p. 34.

Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract

violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 25-42.

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2004). Survey Report:

Personal and Unit Morale (Report 2004-02). Alexandria, VA.

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2002). Survey Report:

Reasons for leaving the Army before retirement (Report 2002-13). Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Surgeon General (2003). Operation Iraqi Freedom (01F) Mental Health Advisory

Team (MHAT). (Report, 16 December 2003). Available at www.armymedicine.army.mil.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Information retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau Facts and Figures. (2003). Retrieved May 18, 2004, from

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cbO3-ff04se.html.

Vardi, Y., Wiener, Y., & Popper, M. (1989). The value content of organizational mission as a

factor in the commitment of members. Psychological Reports, 65, 27-34.

Vemez, G., & Zellman, G. (1987). Families and Mission: A Review of the Effects of Family

Factors on Army Attrition, Retention, and Readiness (Report N-2624-A). Santa Monica, CA:

Rand.

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between

person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.

Wardynski, C. (2003, December). Is" Impressions, Analysis of Stress on the Army. West Point,

NY: U.S. Military Academy.

Whitlow, J.L. (1990). A method for collectively measuring the operating tempo of individuals in

the Marine Corps: Why and how? Maxwell Air Force Base: Air War College (ADA241099).

43
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management

Review, 7, 418-428.

Wilcove, G.L., Schwerin, M.J., & Wolosin, D.G. (2003). An exploratory model of quality of life

in the U.S. Navy. Military Psychology, 15, 133-152.

Wright, K.M., Huffman, A.H., Adler, A.B., & Castro, C.A. (2002). Psychological Screening

Program Overview. (Report 20020520 192) Frederick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research &

Materiel Command.

Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Zazanis, M. M., Sanders, M.G., & Carpenter, T.D. (2001). Special Forces 2000: A report from the

field (ARI Research Report 1765). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

44
Appendix A:

Self-Assessment of Supportive Leadership Skills

A-1
Self-Assessment of Supportive Leadership Skills

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the extent to which employees feel supported by

their organization and, specifically, by their leader can predict whether the employee will

choose to stay with the organization or search for other opportunities. Therefore, engaging in Rating Scale:

actions that foster a supportive climate in your unit can have a high pay-off for both your unit 1- I never do this

and for the Army as a whole. This tool provides a way for you to assess some of your actions 2- I hardly ever do this

and how they may or may not impact perceived supportiveness in your unit. 3- I do this to a moderate extent

DIRECTIONS: Read each statement carefully and give yourself a score of 1-5 using the 4- I do this to a great extent

rating scale provided. Please be honest. You may want to think of specific examples of action 5- 1 do this to a very great extent

you have taken to help determine how to rate yourself. After completing the assessment, go

back and write down any ideas you have for ways you could improve in each area.

Statements Rating (1-5) Ideas to Improve

I ask my Soldiers for input when making decisions.

I encourage Soldiers to ask questions or voice concerns.

I encourage Soldiers in my unit to seek help when they need it.

I consider the ideas of others as viable options.

I emphasize the importance of my soldiers' efforts to the

accomplishment of our mission.

I emphasize the importance of our mission to the Soldiers in my

unit.

I do my best to make decisions or policies that support the wellbeing of my Soldiers.

I take actions to improve the job conditions of Soldiers in my

unit.

I make sure that Soldiers in my unit clearly understand their

mission and how to accomplish it.

I encourage my soldiers to support one another.

I watch for Soldiers in my unit who are having family problems.

I offer positive feedback as well as negative feedback to my

Soldiers.

I reward the extra efforts of my Soldiers.

A-2