- b

Technical R.eport [47 LEV ELVO O

CORRELATES OF MILITARY SATISFACTION

AND ATTRITION AMONG ARMY PERSONNEL

John 'P. Allen and D. Bruce Bell DTIC

ELECTr _

SAN 11~

ARI FIELD UNIT AT

FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, INDIANA

aaxo 7iO86IzReproduced From

Best Available Copy

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

...... .... July 1 980 -

• / Ju1 82 01 1. 40

A9oreweG for oubilt rWOM: dilt;u•til•t 0o ueWMit•".

S. I1. .. II . .i i i iiiii ii ii i
//

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Aencv u~nder the Jurisdiction of the.

Leput-'Chiet ot Statt tor Personnel

L NEALE COSBY

1OSEPH ZEIDNER C.'onei. IN

Te:hrnicji t~mtrekr COMMAnc.iei

- ........ .. .... * " " . n I IIIN.n.n
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whien Dot& EntoetcO

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE OPEFGOR

1.REPORT NUMBER 2z. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S IATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (Md Subaeui.) S. TYPE Of REPORT & PEKIOD COVERED

CORRELATES OF MILITARY SATISFACTION

AND ATTRITION AMONG ARMY PERSONNEL a. PERFORMING ORG. REP-ORT NUMBER

7. AUTwOR(a) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

John P. Allen and D. Bruce Bell

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences 2Q162722A791

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OATE

July 1980

-- 13. kIUMBE OF PACE%

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 6 ADORESS(ti different he Contreliftht Office) I%. SECURITY CLASS. (of this repost)

Unclassified

Ire. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thsa Report)

Approved for public release; distrihuti-n unlim-ited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ahetreac eatered is Block"2. If different hem Report)

IL. SUPPL EMENTARY "OTC~

1t. K EY WORDS (Cenhw a"s~ nwrrs teseide if neceawF m ad Idowinlib IV Weekh numbef)

All1-volunteer fo ce

Attrition',

Soldier satisfac ion

Battalion effect vseness

Army I Life-.78.stuiy

2116 AWTNAC? (rC40400n ~isiipBM.A he

'~The purpose of this study was to determine relationships between Army

orgniztioal riables and levels of soldier satisfaction, as well as to

assess crlaeof attrition and battalion effectiveness ratings. The

study wa bsed n a secondary analysis of data collected in the Army Life-78

Study; subjcts ere 8,140 personnel assigned to'60 different battalions. -in

addition to the Army Life-78'survey a variety of administrative data were

considered. .Th most striking finding of the project is that three types

of satisfaction (job satiufaction. sense of equity from the Army, and_ ra No M0- 414 is 00STI

JI£v SUjmla'Y CLSFAiO FTIeA u. aet
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGr(IMba DabM Entee)

20Qt_ (continued

SSverall satisfaction with the Army) are extremely closely related to variables of organizational climate (e.g., motivation and communication) and

also very highly associated with several job ch.aracteristics. To a lesser,

but still significant extent, satisfaction is a function of several types of

endogenous Army life problems (e.g., salary, time off, etc.). This study

suggests that at least three dimensions of satisfaction among military per- sonnel are a function of organizational variables over Which the Army likely

exerts some influence. It may well be that modification of these organizational variables would effect levels of attrition as well. The study also

includes recommendations for methodological changes in future research in

the area.

UnclaSsifited

"cus SUNTV CL A"FqICATIu or THSIS A""GruM. Do&

"" ,.- -
Technical Report 478

CORRELATES OF MILITARY SATISFACTION,

AND ATTRITION AMONG ARMY PERSONNEL

Accession For

John P. Allen and D. Bruce Bell NTIS BI

DTCTAB

Unannouicc!.

DituAvai lability Cddes

Submitted by: :Avail and/or

Ralph R. Canter, Chief List jSpecial

ARI FIELD UNIT AT

FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, INDIANA

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek. Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office. Deauty Chief of Staff for Person nel.

Department of the Army

July 1960

Army Project Number Manpower. Personnel

2016272A791and Training

Aseermal for Dow*l 0"M.r oemtuge. uWoomiU

iii
ARI Research Rer'urts and Technical Re'ports are intended for spohsors of

R&D tasks and for 6ther research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completiorn of a malor phase of the task, formal recomnienidations for official action normally are conveyed to appropri-at military

alercies by hriefing nt Dispositien Forin.

iv

-,I-
FOREWORD

One of the negative effects of the All Volunteer Force (AVF) has been the

large number of soldiers who do not complete their first enlistment. Although

the 38% attrition rate of those entering in FY 75 has abated somewhat, the

problem of i•.rst term attrition Continues to be of concern to the services and

to Congress. Somewhat surprisingly, most of the losses occur during the posttraining period (6-36 months into service). This is unusual since these soldiers were previously screened at time of entry into service and also by the

very process of basic and advanced training, which included methods of eliminating those who are not adequately adjusting to service life.

ARI began an intensive investigation of this post-,trainirg attrition via a

contractual effort (DAHC 19-77-C-0041) in 1977 with Advanced Research Resources

Organization (ARRO). That effort included three phases: (1) an examination of

the processes underlying attrition, (2) a report on the state-of-the-art in attrition, and (3) an examination of the relationship of intra-unit phenomena to

adjustment and attrition.

The current report was prepared by the ARI Field Unit at Fort Harrison and

by elements of ARI Headquarters building on the third phase of the ARRO work.

It was conducted under the attrition research thrust of Army Project 2Q162722A791.

We would like to thank Drs. Cooper,' Goodstadt, and Kane of ARRO for their initial

work in the analyses of the data and Dr. O'Mara of ARI, Headquarters for his role

in conducting the main research which led to the present report.

JOEP H Z'NER

\jTchnical Director

V
/

CORRELATES OF MILITARY SATISFACTION AND ATTRITION

A•MNG ARMY PERSONNEL

bRIEF

Requirement:

To determine relationships between Army organizational variables and levels

of soldier satisfaction as well as to assess correlates of attrition and battalion effectiveness ratings.

Procedure:

This study is based on a secondary analysis of data collected in the Army

Life-78 Study. Subjects were 8140 personnel assigned to 60. (Combat Arms, Combat Support, or Combat Service Support) battalions stationed within the United

States or Europe. In addition to the Army Life-78 survey a variety of administrative data (e.g., Unit Readiness Reports, Annual General Inspection Ratings,

incidence of triminal activities, and measures of attrition) were considered.

Hypotheses tested were primarily suggested'by Goodstadt; Yedlin, and

Romanczuk (1978). Statistical analyses included simple Pearson Product-moment

correlations, multiple correlations, and-analyses of moderator variables.

Findings:

The most strikinq tinding of the project' is that thrge types of satisfaction (job satisfaction, sense of equity from the Army, and, overall satisfaction

with the Army) are extremely closely related to variables, of organizational

climat( (u.q., motivation and communication) and also very highly associated

with several job characteristics. To a lesser, but stilt significant extentw

satisfaction is a function of several types of endogenous Army life problems

(e.g., salary, time off, etc.).

Consideration of :-he potentially moderating variables of soldier copinq

r,,,;ources and presence of spouse with the servicemember contributed little to

an unde.rstanding of. the relationship of predictors to satisfaction.

Unit a~trition rates were not found to be related to measures of unit effectiveness, although several methodoloqical reasons were suggested to account

for this unusual finding.

I *vii
Utilization of Find ings:

This study sue'jests that at least three dimensions of satisfaction among

military personnei are a function of organizational variables over which the

Army likely exerts some influence. It may well be that modification of these

organizational variables would effect levels of attrition as well.

Secondly, the study includes recommendations for methodological changes in

future research in the area.

viii
CORRELATES OF MILITARY SATISFACTION AND ATTRITION

AMONG ENLISTED ARMY PERSONNEL

CONTENTS

Page

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

METHOD ...... ............................ ................. 4

RLSULTS ..... . .... ............................. ............. 6

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables . ... .................. 6

Statistical Analyses . . ................... ................. .... 6

Findings for Hypotheses ...................... ....................... 6

Moderators of Satisfaction .I.......................................10

Additional Analyses ............... . ...... ............ .......... 12

DISCUSSION ........................................... ............. 13

Unit Lxpeditious Discharges ............... ................ ..... 14

Recommetidations ..... ............... . ...... ........ ........ 15

RLTFERENCES ................... .......... ..... ....... 17

APPLNDIX A . . . ........ .... .... . ............ . ....... ... 21

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

LIST O TABLES

Tabl," I. Means and standard deviations of major variables

in the study ........... .................. ...... 7

Multiple correlations of sevecal predictors with

'..ach of three measures of satisfaction ................. 8

3. Satisfaction as a function of a set of predictors

with and without Army life problems included as a

predictor . ....................... ................. .......... 9

4. Differeinces in the predictability ,of satisfaction

when available external copinq resources are considered . . . 11

5. Diffc~rences in the predictability of satisfaction when

internal coping resources of respondents are considered . . . . 11

6. Differences in the predictability of satisfaction

when presence of spouse is considered ...... ........ .... 12

-ix
CORRELATES CIP MILITARY SATISFACTION AND ATTRITION

AYONG ENLISTED ARMY PERSONNEL

INTRODUCTION

Since the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, both the Armed

Services and Congress have devoted much attention to the operational problems

and costs associated with attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of qualified personnel to mai. and maintain the force. In large measure, this concern

has been prompted by awareness of critically high rates of attrition. Recent

Army data, for example, indicate that nearly 40% of entering recruits are discharged prior to the end of their obligated service. Elevated rates of loss

are costly from at least two pers'ectives: (1) Failure to fulfill the contract

of service results in unrequited organizational investments in training, recruiting, and ultimately in veterans' benefits (Comptroller General, 1980) and

(2) High attrition rates increase accession requirements, since the Army must

replace manpower losses through more intensive recruiting efforts. Granted that

the civilian manpower pool from which to draw new servicemembers will continue

to diminish and that needed personnel strengths or qualification standards are

unlikely to be reduced, recruiting in the 1980's will probably produce even

greater numbers of personnel at high attrition-risk, thus further complicating

the Army's already severe retention problems.

The services have for some time attempted to control the extent and/or the

timing of attrition through the development of screening devices and through

"ý'marginal performer" programs (Comptroller General, 1975; Department of Defense,

.1978). These latter programs permit unit commanders considerable disdretion in

discharging early many individuals who adapt poorly to service life.

Another strategy the services have adopted to alleviate the attrition

problem has been to research the correlates and potential sources of attrition.

The body of literature reflecting this effort, along with nonmilitary research

on turnover, is extensive.

Among the variables studied, several are typically related to low rates of

voluntary turnover in non-,military jobs:' age (Downs, 1967; Ley, 1966; Roach &

Waters, 1976); congruence between vocational interests and job content (Boyd,

1961; Ferguson, 1958; Mayeske, 1964); limited family size and family responsibilities (Guest, 1955; Knowles, 1964; Minor, 1958; Robinson, 1972); overall

satisfaction with the content of the job (Koch & Steers, 1978; Draut, 1975;

Waters, Roach, & Wate:s, 1976); intentions to stay in the qrganization (Newman,

1974); and feelings )f loyalty to the organization (Porter, Crampon, & Steers;

Steers, 1977).

In contrasting military and civilian research on attrition, two points

should be kept in i.wind. First, tur'nover research has focused almost exclusively on voluntary departures thereby minimizing the role of the organization in the

attrition process. More than in civilian employment, Army manaqerial prerogatives are a crucial'component of turnover-. So~diers, unlike their civilian

[1
counterparts, cannot just quit their job. The Army largely decides whether the

soldier is allowed to leave and the conditions under which, ne or she ma' leave.l

Not only does turnover entail somewhat dissimilar processes in the two

settings, analyses of it in the military and non-military workplace have ty,'ically been characterized by quite different emphases. The military has focused

primarily on individual-level variables as precursors of attrition while the

civilian literature has tended to explore organizational Faramters (e.q., job

characteristics and organizational climate) as well as personal characteri-stics

of attritinq employees. Nevertheless, research findings in the two sectors reveal some -agreement. For .example, in both cases, familF obligations (Mobley,

Hand, & Logan, 1977) ; expectations of staying in the job (..obley et al., 1977);

intentions to stay on the job (Landau, Somer, & Lau, 197&); organizational commitment (Landau, 1979); and satisfaction (Landau, 1979) seem to 1e salient variables in attrition.

A recent report by Motowidlo, Dunnette, and Rosse (16J&O) suggests that

variety, meaningfulness, and satisfaction ma:! also be related to soldiers' intentions to reenlist.

While manpower researchers have identified, several significant correlates

of attrition, there are clearly methodological shortcomings in their efforts.

Porter and Steers (1973), in an extensive review of past studies on attrition,

concluded that the research generally.has relied too heavily on. close-ended

questionnaires which elelimit full consideration of the'factors contributinc to

the decision to leave a job. Porter and Steers also found that most studies

collcted attitudinal data after termination, thereby possibly confusinq the

variables causing attrition and those 're? 'lting from it. The absence of control groups is another common problem.. 'inally, an issue may be raised with

the tendency of researchers to investigate isolated variables as they relate

to attrition. This app;roach has yieldedi a conglomerate of findings on attrition which are difficult to integrate. .Moreover the various studies have each

explained only a very limited amount of variance. For example, measures of

overall satisfaction rarely account for more than 16% of the var~iance in attrition; behavioral intenrions generaily explain less than 24,, of tihe variance and

satisfaction with job content tends to predict less than 14% of the turnover

variance. Interview.• with first-term enlisted pers9nnel, including soldiers

undergoinq discharge, nc.ncommissioned officers, and company and battalion commanders at two Army installations, led these researchers to, propose a progression of stages, behaviors, and decisions involved in the attrition process'.

The description is summarized by -them as follows:

TheŽ data reveal that the process 2eadinq up to.a discharge decision

begins when an individual enlisted person experiences or manifests

"problems." In this context, "problems" may involve personal difficulties (e.g., financial problems,,. family or marital. problems), work

related difficulties (e.g., inability to perform satisfactoriLy,

problems within working relationships and with supervisors), or discrepancies in values between the individual and the organization

1Nevertheless th(ire is evidence that some "marginal performer" discharge!, are

in reality initiated by the individual's own desire to leave (Departmenr of Defense, 1978 and";oodstadt et a]., 1978).

2

° . .
(e.g., the individual expresses opinions or manifests behaviors that

arc viewed negatively by superiors in the unit)

To the extent that such experiences cannot be successfully managed by

the individual, one or both of the following reactions are elicited:

I) the individual requests an early discharge from his superiors; and

2) the individual's performance degrades and disciplinary infractions are in evidence.

There is no fixed sequence of these reactions. Since requests for

discharges are typically rejected, individuals often engaged in casebuildinq--infractions of various sorts or other behaviors that call

attention to their plight and impel the chain of command to take discharge action. Frequently, requests for discharges follow performance

decrements and disciplinary problems as the individual comes to perceive that hb/she cannot or will not be able to cope with continued

life in the Army. How)ever, not all enlisted personnel overtly make

requests for early discharges.

. recognitic i of the individual's problem by the chain of command occurs in three ways. The command may learn of an individual, by'

virtue of his making a direct request for discharge or by virtue of

its own "sensing" mechanisms. That is, NCO's may bring the individual and his/her situation to the attention of command as they seek

advice in attempting to deal with the problem.. In addition, command

may learn of an individual's problems through information and requests

from outside agencies (e.g., police, local merchants, credit bureaus).

Once the chain of command becomes aware of the fact that a problem

exists, preliminary diagnosis or problem definition takes 'place. This

problem usually involves gathering of data concerning the individual

through interviews, discussions with peers, review of records or other

acti,'ities in an effort to determine the cause of th-e problem.

(Goodstadt, Yedlin, & Romanczuk, 1978, p. 17-19).

Thus these researchers conceptualize attrition as a complex process involving

several distinct activities by both leaders and subordinates who will attrit.

The current study is-designed to explore the relation of post-trainina attrition to soldier satisfaction and to organizar ona'l'variables, The model of

attrition studies is basically that suggested by Goodstadt et al. (1978). Thisfocus was selected to pr6vide a more comprehensive and practical look at the

problem than most other approaches which have considered -only attrition during

training (despite the fact that approximately 60t of the attrition of first

term personnel occurs after training) and have looked at relatively static,

intra-individual predisposing factors such as education. The relationship between organizational climate and soldier satisfaction as well as their respective relationships to attrition have been little researched despite the fact

that these classes of variables are more likely fluid and subject to modification than are traditional intra-individual characteristics such as education,

race; etc. Awareness that the manpower pool from which the Army must draw in

3
the future will decline substantially suggests that it will not be feasible to

re3ect many candidates despite their personal characteristics which make them

at high risk for attiition. Hence, research on preservice stable precursors of

attrition has limited application to resolving the attrition problems. Action

to correct attrition problems must concentrate primarily on organizationally

modifiable variables such as services provided to soldiers, job satisfaction,

entitlements, etc. This study is an early effort to evaluate the relationship

of some of the' variables which may decrease attrition rates and which are under

orqanizational control.

METHOD

Data analyzed in the project were collected as part of the Army Life-78

Sttudy (O'Mara, 1979) which considered the relationships of organizational climate and unit effectiveness. The current study is a secondary analysis of many

of variables assessed by O'Mara in that project. While the major goal of the

Sstudy was to explore research hypctheses suggested by Goodstadt et al. (1978),

data were gathered with a survey instrument not designed for this purpose. Cer-,

tain variables of interest were thus measured only indirectly.,

* Subjects for the research were 8140 military personnel assic,-ned to 60 bat-

"talions statipned in either the continental United States or Europe and serving

Sin combat Arms, Combat Support, or Combat Service Support units. Each company

in each battalion was tasked with providing 20 El to E4 personnel and 10 non-'

comunissioned officers, and 5 commissioned officers to serve as survey participants. Five additional officers were also furnished by each battalion as subJects. Battalions also provided the following administrative information based

on the five quarters jreceding the survey:

1. percentage of "satisfactory" ratings on the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP), reflecting combat readiness;'

2. Unit Readiness Reports dealing with overall, personnel, equipment,

equipment serviceability, and training readiness;

3. percent of satisfactoribs on the Annual General Inspection (AGI);

'4. rate of expeditious discharqe--calculated by summing numbers of expeditiolis discharges for each of' the five preceding quarters divided by

five and divided by the fi've-quarterly average unit enlisted strength;

5. rates 'of griminal actions including court martial., absence without leave t.AWOL'), desertion, Article 15,.viOlent Crime, crime against

property, and hard drug/marijuana conviction.

6. ratings of effectiveness of battalions made by. the Commanding General,

-the Assistant Division Commander, and the Brigade Commander. Independent judgments were made-on a 13-point rating scheme. Standard score

equivalents of the three were then combined into a single score.

The survey items themselves were of a close-ended multiple choice nature.

In most cases responses involved 5-point assumed Likert scales.

4 .
The survey variables analyzed were (Appendix A):

I. Satisfaction--Responses to questions: "All in all, I am satisfied

with my lob"; "In jeneral, I feel that I have gotten a fair deal from

the Army"; and "All i:n all, I am satisfied with the Army."

2. Character ist ics of the Job--Three conceptually important characteristics were studied--variety, meaninqfulness, and the degree to which

the person has control over when ,and how his work is accomplished.

Each was measured independently by summing three survey items. (it

should 'be noted, however, that scores on the' threo job characteristics

proved highly correlated--the median correlates between scales beiine;

approximately .53.)

3. Organizational Climat_--O'Mara (1979) derived four factor-analytically

based dimensions of climate. Scores on these factors were comp)uted

for each subject. These are defined as:

a) the communication scale, which deals with the adequacy and op6nness of the information in the unit. The highest loading 'item on

this scale is'"Decisions are made in this unit at those levels

where the most adequate information is available";

H) the motivation scale measiurinq the degree to which the individual

has a sense of accomplishment in hLs work. A typical item from

the scale is "I look forward to coming to work every day";

C) the unit -tandards c'ale estimating the degree to which the person

perceives the unit as emphasizing high standards. .'My unit is. res;ected on thi; jlost" is an item in this scale; and

d) the dedication scale, consisting of a sinqle item--"I want to contribute my bhst effort to the unit'.-' mission and my assigned

t a!

4. 'Traininq Lxjc-jta tiorls--The suivey instrument contained three items

which appearod to tap servicemembers' anticipations of the Army prior

to entry. These questions estimate the congruence between earlier

training and current Jlob. The three questions are: "Is your curre!t

duty MOS the s:am, as your primary or alternative MOS?"; "Were you.

trained in the specialty you asked for when you enlisted?"; and "I enlisted in the Army to receive special training or obtain a skill.".

'. Armx_ Lif clroblhms--Several types of situational problems were identifit.d in the questionnaire such as safety for oneself, possýssions, and

family; ability to Live within one's salary;'availability of adequate

health care' for dependents, etc.

" ". Co )inq Resources--Two scales were constructed to assess the respondent's ability to handle the problems he faced., The first scale, containinq eight items, concerns.perceived extent of available external

resources to augment one's adjustment. These resources included in-'

terested, friendly NCOs, and officers. The second scale has four items

and measures th, egree to which the individual possei;s internal or

5_,
jersonal resources for handlinq troblems and tends to confroret rather

than avoid problems. An example of an item in thi% scale is "I enlisted in the Army to get away from money or finarzial problems." F:espondeits were dichotomously scored on each of tei- scales. as above or

below the median.

RESULTS

I'indinqs of this study will be reported under a series of research questions, most of which were posed by the Goodstadt research, team, (1)71).

D~escritiv__Statistics for the Variables

Table I presents the means and standard deviations for the major independent and dependent vAriables in this study. In reviewinq these finudinqs it is

well to keep ii mind that no direct significance can be ascribed to them since

norms for a comparable group (civilian or military) have not been calculated to

I-ermit a contrast.

Mean scores on job characteristics seeii to sugqest that the average soldier in this sample finds his job fairly interesting, affording some degree of

autonomy, and rather meaningful. Means on climate scores are generally moderate as well, with the excý-I-tion that the score on dedication is substantial!y

above the hypothetical scale mean of 2.5 on these 5 point scales. Ag;ain, the

mean ratings on the measures of 'Army life problems and satisfaction are within

an expected neutral range. Subjects, on the whole, appeared to be neither extremely distresstd nor extremely pleased.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses for the project include Pearson product-moment correlations and stepwis- multiple correlvtions (R). Since the latter statistic may

be unfamiliair to some raders of this report, an introduction to its rationale

is I••ovided in Appendix B.

Find rigs for Hylotheses

If yithesis I. Satisfaction with one's job, satisfaction with'the Army in

genv al, 'and one's sense of fair play from the Army are functions of the character istics of one's job, the orqanizati6nal climate of one's unit, and the ab-

: •-nct of problems associated withArmy'life.

Relationships between these predictors and criteria are- suarized on

* Tablt 2. In this table predictors are ordered on the basis of successive increases in R with job satisfaction.

6

j. -
Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of

Ma)or Variables in the Study

Descrij,tive statistics

Variable Mean Standard deviation

JoLb -haracteristics:

Cuntrol 3.07 1.02

Var..ety 3.08 1.03

Meaninqtfule ss 3.68 .99

Climate:

Motivation 2.63. 1.04

Communicat ion 2.70 .92

Dedication 3.96 1.18

Unit standards 3.39 .84

Army life problems:

Timel of f -48 1.34

Salary 2.7') .99

Safety on p)st 3.05 1.38

Family is safe 2.97 1.27

Possessions are safe 3.47 1.30

Saf tty it-, livinq quarters 3.47 1.30

Hiealth cart, 3.33 1.22

Satisfaction-'

Job sati ;faction 2.71 1.43

Fair deal in Army 2.83 1.40

Satisfied with Army 2.64 1.30

Expeditious discharqes:

Nate .75- .58.

7 - -

\ -V -,,,---.---~*.. ~ - - - - - **-~~-.-.---- . -- a
, - . • . , , .

Table 2

Multiple Correlations of Several Predictors with

Each of Three Measures of Satisfaction

Satisfaction

Job Fair deal Satisfied

Predictors satisfaction in Ar-ny with Army

Job 'characteristics

Control .44 (.44) .39 (.394 .32 (.32)

Variety .49 (.36) .43 (.30) .38 (.29)

Meanrinqf ulness .51 (.35) .42 f.29) .37 (.25)

Orglanizational -Iiimate

Motivation .63 (.63) .52 (.52) .50 (.50)

Communication .64 (.45) .53 (.34) .52 (.41)

Dedicatidh .64 (.32) .55 (.40) .53 (.33)

Unit standards .64 (.33) .55 (.33) .53 (.31)

Army life Froblems

Time off .28 (.28) .2C (.30) .27 (.27)

Salary .32 (.20) .38 (.27) .38 (.22)

Saf ,ty on [kst .34 (.16) .43 (.19) .34 (.24)

S Safety Of dik[s .3A (.19) .45 (.21) .42 (.20)

Dep health car- .37 (.11) .41 (_16) .40 (.15)

Safety in qtrs .38 (-.19) .45 (.21) .42 (.13)

Note: All multiple and. simple correlations ;-e significant at -_ .01. Each

predictive variable is followed by the multiple correlation of it and

preceding predictors in the class with the criterion. Figures in parentheses are the simple correlations of the particular predactive variable with the criterion. The order of the variables within a class in

the multiple predictive correlation may be determined by ranking them on

the basis of increases in the multiple correlation coefficient.

This multifaceted hypothesis received substantial support. As indicated

by the R's, however. increa3ing the number of variables within a predictor class

did little to further strengthen the ,relatiunship between the two sides of the

equation. This is likely due to strong relationships amonq varidbles within.

the three superordinate predictor classes. Nevertheless the simple and multiple

correlation coefficients are substantial.

Hypothesis 2. Army life problems further exacerbate the negative effects

of job characteristics, organizational climate, and job expectations on

sat isfact ion.

8 \
Job characteristics, organizational climate measures, and the measures of

training expectations wcr. entered into each multiple correlation equation using

the stepwise procedure. After. all significantly correlating predictor variables

were entered into the equation, a second equation was derived simultaneously

using these predictors and Aýrmy life problems (e.g., time off, pay). The hypotheses can bc evaluated by the degree that these Army life problems predict

each measure of satisfaction beyond the significant correlation already achieved

by the earlier one. In other words, 16es knowing about one's Army life problems

predict level of satisfaction significantly better than simply knowing his job

characteristics, organizational climate, training expectations?

Tabl> 3 contains the multiple correlations for the two eqg.ations and the

difference R between them. Inclusion of Army life problems increased the prediction of two of the three satisfaction measures. However, the improvements

in the multiple correlation coefficients were small indeed and of little applied value.

Table 3

Satisfaction as a Function of a Set of Predictors

with and without Army Life Problems Included as a Predictor

Satisfaction

Job Fair deal Satisfied

Predictors satisfaction from Army with Army

Job characteristics,

organizational climate,

and expectations .67 .57 .55

Jcb characteristics,

organizational climate,

expecta*ions, and

Army life protlems .67 .60 .57

Differences in R .00 -. 03* -. 02*

*R significant at p < .05.

Note: Simple r's of job expectations with the three types of satisfaction are

all *.22.

9

-. - - -_
°

This hypothesis, therefore, was very weakly supported'. Army life problems, although significant predictors of satisfaction in their own right, do not

predict satisfaction to any useful extent beyond that already predicted by job

characteristics and organizational climate.

While results of the analyses argue strongly for hypothesis 1 and at least

weakly for hyp'othesis 2, it should be remembered the first hypothesis suggests

causality whereas the statistical analyses only demonstrate correlation. Nevertheless it is quite plausible to assume the direction of the statistical association is as Good'stadt posits.

Moderators of Satisfaction

The next two hypotheses concern the possible role of moderator variables.

Such variables further modify the relationship between predictor and criterion

variables.

Hypothesis 3. Coping resources moderate the relationship between problemengendering conditions and satisfaction.

Goodstadt et al. (1978) suggests that soldiers with higher levels of internal and external resources would be more likely to. cope effectively with

iproblems and thus be less adversely affected by them. Therefore, the multiple

correlations between overall problem-engendering atmospheres (i.e., dysfunctional'.organization climate, poor working conditions, Army life problems, and

disconfirmed training expectations) and types of satisfaction would be expected

to be lower for individuals with high levels of these internal and external resources than for individuals with lower levels of these resource.; since such

resources would be expected to act as a buffer to these adversities.

To test this hypothesis, separate regression equations were derived for

individuals above th- median and below. the median on each copinci scale. Tables 4 and 5 respectively display the correlations between 'prob'em engendering

atmospheres aid typeo of satisfaction for those high and low on the coping

scales.

Amazingly the results are precisely in the opposite direction predicted!

The, association between dysfunctional conditions and types of.military satisfaction is stronqgr among those who are high in copinq, resources, be they external or internal. -Thus the hypothesis it; not, resulved in favor of Goodstadt's

contentions. While the differences in RPs are-small they are significant and

provide some stimulus for further investigation of the moderating jole of cop-;

in, resources in the relationship of prublem-enqenderinq atmosphere and

at isfaction.

* vpoei: 4. Poor lob conditions, dysfunctional organizational climate,

disconfirmed training expectati6ns, and Army life problems have differinq im-

-acts on the satisfaction of single: and married enlisted personnel.

10

.............................................
Table 4

Differencesin the Predictability of Satisfaction

when Available External Coping Resources are Considered

Satisfaction

Job Fair deal Satisfied

Subgroup satisfaction from Army with Army

Below the median on the

external coping scale .57 .52 .48

Above the median on the

external coping scale .65 .57 .55

Differences in R -. 08* -. 05* -. 07*

*R significant at p .05.

Table 5

Differences in the Predictability of Satisfaction

when Internal Coping Resources of-Respondents are Considered'

Satisfactiun

Job Fair de'. Satisfied

Subgroup satisfaction from Army with Army

Below tht median on the

internal coping scale .62 .55 .53

Above the median on the

internal copinq scale .72 .64 .;60

Differences in R -. 10' -. 09* -. 07*

*R significant at ' .05.

It was hypothesized that poor living and 'workinq conditions would exert a

particularly adverse effect on soldiers who were married and living with their

spouses, since the family would also be affected by these conditions. Thus,

the correlation between the predictors and satisfaction snould be higher for

married soldiers than for soldiers who were either unmarrie;d, divorced, widowed,

or separated.

t 'A . .,w.. . • *- *•:2 q -- _ • . .. -.*.. IIIL_ -I-.., mil.
To test this hypothesis, separate multiple correlation coefficients were

derived for the two groups. The results are presented in Table 6. As predicted, the satisfaction of soldiers with families is more a function of

problem-engendering conditions than is the satisfaction of those without families. Nevertheless the differences in R are small.

Table. 6

Differences in the Predictability of Satisfaction

when Presence of Spouse is Considered

/

Satisfaction

Job Fair deal Satisfied

Subgroup satisfaction from Army with Army

With spouses present .78 .75 .72

No spouses or no spouse present .70 .61 .59

Differences in R .08* .14* .13*

*R significant at £ < .05.

In considering the role of coping resources as a moderator, it is important to bear in mind that this study has not shown that servicemembers with

more or less coping skills are necessarily more or less satisfied but that the

role of coping skills may be different in moderating the relationship between

satisfaction and problem-engendering conditions. Thus those servicemembers

with good general problem-solving skills are perhaps more frustrated by inequities in the Army th~an those who are less self-reliant.

Additional Analyses

In an attempt to understand the factors correlated with unit expeditious

.discharges, two other minor analyses, not specified by Goodstadt et al.,

,follow:

Unit effectiveness ratings. The cumulative ratings of battalion effectiveness given by the Commanding Generals, Assistant Division Commanders, and

Brigade Commanders were correlated'with expeditious dischargesý, None of the • correlations was statistically significant.

Unit means of the itadividual-level variables. To determine whether there

were additional significant correlates of attrition, battalion means for all

variables previously studied were correlated with the expeditious discharge

rates. Only one correlation, was significant (r - .25)--the rate of criminal

actions in the unit. (Other correlations ranged from .00 to .19.) Such a

12

Z.
finding is clearly reasonable and has been reported in the past. Some of therelationship is likely due to soldiers involved in criminal actions themselves

being separated prior to normal discharge. Both criminal actions and attrition

are perhaps both related to a common underlying factor.

DISCUSSION

The first section of tOis discussion presents an overview of the descriptive analysis of the variables used in the'research. Next hypotheses generated

by Goodstadt on satisfaction are evaluated in light of the results of the data

analysis. Lastly some recommendations for future research are presented.

Even in cursorily reviewing the mean ratings presented in Table 1, one is

struck by the absence of any clear focus of problems for this sample of soldiers. No. single set *of problems or aspect of Army life assessed by this instrument was especially disconcerting to the average soldier. Considering the

diyersity of the 5ample; this finding may not be surprising. Analysis of specific subgroups, e.g., individuals with different backgrounds or those with

different military jobs, might have revealed specific problems for each subgroup but the present heterogeneous group does not.

The component of the Goodstadt mojel best supported by the data and by

prior research conc'erns variables correlated with satisfaction (cf. Locke,

1976, for a review of the satisfaction literature). Satisfaction with t!.e Army

in general, satisfaction with one's job, and satisfaction with the equity of

Army treatment were highly related to organizational climate, job characteristics, Army life problems, and di'sconfirmed training expectations.

Multiple correlations of all these predictive variables with the three

types of satisfaction are as follows:

R Predictors, job satisfaction - .67

R

predictors, fair deal frodi Army = .60

'predictors, satisfied with Army = .57

These variables together account for between one-third and almost one-half

(from 32% to 45`) of the variance in the satisfaction measures. Considering

the fact that the survey instrument used in this research was not developed

expressly for this purpose, the identification of a number of important predictors of satisfaction is noteworthy.

In comparing the multiple correlations between these predictor variables

and the satisfaction measures (cf. Table 2), it ia apparent that the climate

measures yielded the highest correlations with satisfaction. The second most

important set of, predictors was job characteristics. The finding that climate

and job characteristics were more predictive of Army satisfaction than were

Army life problems or expectations may to some extent be a function of the measures used. The measures of climate were factor scores. The measures of job

characteristics were the mean scores on sets of only three items each. Army

13

........ - :- -- - --

. .. *, . , -.
life problems were measured using a series of single items, which were less reliable than the other two types of measures. The greater reliability of the

climate and job characteristic scales may account for their high correlations

with satisfaction. Neverineless this research -highlights a very strong corrŽspondence of three types of satisfaction with both organizational climate and

salient job characteristics.

Increased levels Df satisfaction with the Army are likely to result from

changes in soldiers' j4obs and Army rules and policies, factors more under Army

organizational control than personal and lifest'yle problems. At the present

time, however, methodological artifacts cannot be dismissed since the variables

were likely not all measured equally well. Nonetheless, even if possible methodological artifacts have some merit, the multiple correlation differences on

Table 6 should be considered. A possible inference from these findings is that

if the rates of married enlisted personnel increase in the future, these life

style problems will become more at issue.

Moderating variables. Two variables--coping resources and marital status--

were hypothesized to moderate the relationship between the predictor variables

and satisfaction. Relationships of ccping resources to satisfaction were opposite to the direction of the prediction but are thought-provoking. The marital status hypothesis was supported although somewhat weakly. Even though

better tests of these hypotheses are feasible, further research on the role of

moderators. Is.not recommended. Rather at this time it appears more productive

to strive for conceptualizations and research on measures of adaptation beyond

satisfaction. Research on moderators might better be deferred until the theoretical and empirical relations between attrition and organizational and personal satisfaction parameters have been clearly demonstrated. Research on

moderating variables in general has been hampered by statistical and methodological problems and has resulted in few meaningful findings (Zedeck, 1971).

Unit Expeditious Discharges

The set of variables concerning unit expeditious discharge rates are least

supported in this project. Several reasons are suggested for the lack of association:

1. The measures of unit effectiveness are hightl subjective and correlate

poorly with each other.

2. Rates df attrition tend to 6e unstable across-time Within battalions

(O'Mara, 1979,. Reference Note).

3. Expeditious'discharge rates were based on the past five quarters,

whereas, unit effectiveness measures were currents

4. Instances of expeditious discharge were rare, (cf. Table 1) and it is

difficult to predict infrequent events. Correlations between variables"

may have been diminished due both to restriction of range in this attrition index and differing shapes of frequency distribution curves of,

-attrition and thp other variables under consideration.

14
5. lerhal~ at~trit ion is better meas.ured at the company level> than at the

bat tal ion level since the commonly found qorrelates of it arc, liijh ly

variablv across units within a battalion. (To the authors' knowlpdqe

nc, rusearc~h has been reporte-d relating, for examrc.c, levels of satisfaction Within a 1particular comp~any to that, of the overall parent battalion satisfaction.)

I\QCDozncl.d at icr'S

C-.iven the results of tnis p-reliminary research, it would be premature to.

make concrete recommendations for Arm%, actions to reduce attrition or to influence satisfact io:;. At this stage further research which more full,.. operational-azes the variables is advised.

Satisfaction, job characttristics, organizational climate, anid lifestyl~e

Iroblerms were well measured. ;-.cet!hod~ologicai- revisions are required for those

variabi, s not assessed wt-11--unit attrition and, the attitudes of the chain of

A longitudinal app~roach to this tyvpe of, research is needed. Questxonn~aires

-ýnould Lte given early en~ough in soldiors' tours so th.-at even the most dissa -tisfied, soldie~rs, who are most likely to atte-mpt*Ito leave the Army, as quickly as

j~os!siblv, are included. Attrition rates could he obtained several months after

the questionnaire has beeýn administered. Ono could then determine the specific

effects of soldiers' attitudes; on the~ir owi.r a , tntrion behavior rather than correl at izis; the att itudes an~d behaviorsý of indi-v idualIs in qeneral to overall unit

attrition rates.

A .AcE aratc o;ucst io:nna ir#y_ shoeu Id al sr, he cd.evelop ed on the role of the chain

of ,-onmmand. Army ;;ý.rsornnl involved in makinq decisions about attrition should

ib, lnttervieweci abeut: their evaluation e the*,troops;hiraressote

attrition problem; their views on the, cau ;o of attrition; the perceived availablPit~y of rpae rt;and romed jat ronal recoUrses available to them to manac;e,

iiicomi-p(telt and di ssst isti-d r-cruits.

A rc!nearch irolect jrvctedtd by a r'onsy-ýideration of the description of attr~rion, is ne-ded to comE rchensivc-ly ovaluate, the attrition approach presented.

Such an effort ,. ccmiiin inq; the met hc~ooe qi cal anid concep tualI revisions discussed,

is a must al roi~r late directiori for future invc St iqdt ion. -Results of the curruent endeavor show ir.q thIf irooterice of job and organizational characterist ics

over long lift I. roblt-ms, maritdl stattm;, t-op'ing sk ill, e!tc. should prompt fu-.

t ur e efforts to focu; Irimari ly on orqciz~iational and 'work dimension% rather

ti an individual level1 variables.
REFERENCES

Boyd, J., B. Interests of engineers related to turnover, selection, and management. Journal of AIjIlied Psychology, 1961, 45, 143-149.

Comi•troller General. Urgent need for a Department of Defense marginal performer discharge program. (Report #FPCD-715-152) Washington, D.C.: U.S.

General Accounting Office, 1975.

Coraftroller General. Attrition in the military--an issue needing management

attention. (Report -FPCL-8)-lO) Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, .1980.

Depiartment of 'Defense. _epLort of the joint service administrative discharce

Study group. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1977-1978.

Downs, S. Labor turnover in two public service organizations. Occupational

Psycoloqy, 1967, 41, 137-142.

Ferguson, L. W. -Life insurance interest, ability, and termination of employment. Personnel .Pscholog, '1958, 11, 189-193.

.oodstadt, B. E., Yedlin, N. C., & Romanczuk, A. P. Post-trainin enlisted

attrition jocesses in the U.S. Army. Washington, D.C. : Advanced Research Resources Organization, 1978.

,reenberq, M. G., Murphy, J., & McConeghy, G. Exploratory development research

of U.S. Navy/Marine Cor personnel. Phase 1: Factors affecting attrition. Final Report. Arlinqton, VA: Booz,'Allen, & Hamilton, 1977.

Guest, R. H. A neglected factor in labor turnover. Occupational Psychology,

1955, 29, 217-231.

Knowles, :X:. C. Pexsonal and job factors in labor turnover. Occupational Psycriloq, 1955, 29, 217-231.

Koch, J. L. & Steers, R. M. J6b attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among

public .ector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior', 1978, 11, 119-

125.

Kraut, A. I. Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes.

Orqanizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 233-243.

Landau, S. b. Turnover: The relationship to various attitudinal, demographic

and performance measures. Paper presented at the American Psychological

As-sociotion, New York, Sep~tember, 1979.

Landau, S. G., Somer, E. P., & Lau, A. W. An approach to investigating turnover behavior of Navy personnel., Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Auqust-September, 1978.

L-y; R. Labour turnotcr as a function of worker differences, work environnient,

and authoritari.nisA of foremen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50,

497-500.

17
Locke, E' A. The nature and-causes of job satisfaction. In N!. D. Dunnette

.(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and orqanizational js olog., Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1976.

Mayeske, G. W. The vali'ity of Kuder Preference Record scores in predicting

forester t.. vur and advancement. Pezsonnel Psychoc, 1964, 17, 207-

210,

Miller, H. L., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, D. L. Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner,

and Hollingworth Model of employee turnover. Journal of Ap-plied Psychol-

'cý .1979, 64, 509-517.

Minor, F. J.' The prediction of turnover of clerical employees. Personnel Psycholoqy*, 1958, 11, 393-402.

Mobley, W. If. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psy hologU, 1977, 62, 237-

240.

Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. d., & Meglino, B. M. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin,

1979, 86, 493-522.

Mobley, W. H., [land, H. H., & Logan, J. E. A longitudinal study of enlisted

* personntl attrition in the U.'S. Marine Corps: Preliminary recruiting

training results. In H. Wallace Sinaiko (Ed.) First term enlisted attrition. Leesburg, VA: Smithsonian Institution, April 1977.

Mobley, W. H., Homer, S. P., & Hollingsworth, A. T. An evaluation of precur--

sors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology=, 1978,

l178; 63, 408-414.

Motowidlo,' S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Rosse, R. L. Reenlistment motivations if

first-term enlisted men and women. Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions Research Institute, 1980.

Newman, J. E. Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field comparison of

Fishbein's model and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of ApPlied Psychology, 1974, 59, 610-615.

O'Mara, F. L. The orqanizational climate--organizaticnal performance relationS"shi in Army units. Alexandria, VA:, U.S. Army Research Institute, 1979

(draft).

O'Mara, F.- Personal"Communication, October 1979.

A Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. Organizational commitment and

managerial- turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizatibnal Behavior and

Human Performance,' 1976, 15, 87-98.

Porter,, L. W. & Steers, R. M. Organizational, work, and personal factors in

•employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 151-

176.

18
1(crter, 1- W.,* St~eers, R'. m., mowday, E. r., &Boulian, p. V. Crqanizational

czmritmenlt, job -;atisfa,.tion, and turnover poqjsIht:rcehnia.

JOr1l1Of u'Psycholtoqyj, i 19)74, 60-69

I,obiii son. I.. I. redit.tion Of C ICr iL7,1 turnover in ba,-nks i'y mcav. (if a we CJhttA d

apljIic:Ltioii bla nk. 10o11 rnat f N Li~ed P sychoioqy, Ic;77L, 5ho, 2

S$teers, 1'. ,M Antoc-deit s and outCOMeS of orqlanizatiozial commitmnent. *Adc~lIiminitrat i-vC cene:ure 1977, 22, 46-56.

_o rs, L. K. ý. Roach , 1). Aob attLitudes as prc!ditoi~s of -to~rfi nat ion and abýn tecci sm: Cons;i stency over t imet did ac~ros;s orqatti~at jona t uni t . 7oeurnal1

of li~ A i'C~e~O~1, I73, ')1, 341- 342.

Waters, L. K. , Io.'c! , D, & Waters, c. W. Est imatc, of future tenure, sat isfaction, and biotiral hic(al var iableý a,, pred ictors of terminlation. Personnel

Ps~ho~o~1,)t7C,, 219, 57-hot.

,,edcck, S. Problems ii~i th,ý use of moderator-;. I~coo clBlei,17

7,295-31o.

19
APPENDIX A

SURVEY ITEMS COMPOSING MULTI-ITEM SCALES

Characteristics of the Job (Variety)

How much variety is there in your job? That is, to what extent does the

job require you to do different things at work, using a variety of your skills

and talents?

My job is quite simple and repetitive'. (Reverse scale)

My job requires a person to use a number of complex or sophisticated

skills.

Characteristics of the Job (Meaningfulness)

In general, how significant or important is your job? That is, are the

results of your work likely to significantly affect the lives or well-being of

other people?

My job itself is not very significant or important in the broader scheme

of things. (Reverse scale)

My job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the

work gets done.

Characteristics of the Job (Degree of Control)

To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go

about doing the work?

My job denies a person any chance to use his or her personal initiative'or

discretidn in carrying out the work.' (Reverse scale)

M y job gives a person considerable opportunity for independence and freedom ii how he or she does the work.

Organ zational Climate (Communication)

ecisions are made in this unit at those levels where the most adequate

infor ation is available.

orkload and time factors are taken into consideration in planning our

"work roup assignments.

ecisions are made in this unit after getting information' from those who

actua ly do the job.

21
Meetings in this unit generally accomplish meaningful objectives.

My unit is willing to try new or improved methods of doing work.

The information I received down throuqh formal channels is generally

accurate.

I yet all the, information I need about what is going or, in other sections

or departments in my unit.

This. unit has a real i.nterest in the welfare of assigned personnel.

Organizational Climate (Motivation)

I get a sense of accomplishment from the work I do.

I look forward to coming to work every day.

My job helps me to achieve my personal goals.

I would like to stay in this unit as lorg as I can.

Organizational Climate (Unit Standards)

Rules in this unit are enforced.

There is enough emphasis on comp(etition in this unit.

This unit places a high emphasis on accomplishing the mission.

My unit is respected on this post.

Training Exj)ectations

Is your current duty MOS the same as your primary or alter tive MOS?

I enlisted in•the Army to receive special training or. obtain a skill.

Were you trained in the specialty you asked for when you e listed?

Internal Coping Resources

What is your level of education?

I enlisted in the Army to obtain a steady job. (Reverse sc ale)

I enlisted in the Army to find out what to do with my life (Reverse

scale)

I enlisted in the Army to get away from money or financial problems. (Reverse scale)

22

i . . . . .
External Coping Resources

To what extent is your supervisor friendly and easy to approach?

The senior NCOs in my unit look out for the welfare of the individual soldier in my unit.

The officers in my unit care about what happens to the individual soldier

in the unit.

±o what extent does your supervisor offer new ideas for solving job-related

problems?

To what 'extent is your supervisor willing to listen to your problems?

When yQu talk with your supervisor, to what extent does ,he pay attention

to what you're saying?

To what extent does your supervisor show you how to improve your

performance?

To what extent does your supervisor provide the help you need so that you

can schedule work ahead of time?

23

. ... .7 . ~~~~~7 .. . . z. .
APPENDIX B

To appreciate the meaning of stepwise multiple correlation (R), it is

helpful to contrast it with a simple Pearson product-moment correlation (r).

Simple r is an index of the degree of linear relatedness between two measures,

whereas R is a measure of the degree of linear relatedness between a set of

variables (called predictors) and a singLe variable (called the criterion).

For each member of this set of predictors a weight is statistically assigned

on the basis of its ability to incrementally improve the prediction of variance

in the criterion beyond the predictive ability of variables already entered

into the equation. All predictor variables have theoretically equal likelihoods of being selected first in the equation and weighted most heavily. Subsequent selections and weightings of predictor variables are influenced by the

presence and weights of all variables already chosen for the predictor equations. In fact, the weights typically diminish at each stage of building a

predictor equation since increasingly larger portions of the criterion variance

have already been accounted for. Stated otherwise the incremental utility of

adding predictor variables declines at each stage of the analysis. While, these

subsequent predictor variables may have enjoyed hign simple correlations with

the criterion, the uniqueness of their specific correlation--and consequently

the weights assigned to later variables--may be quite small since earlier' predictors have already accounted for much of the variance in the criterion.

At each step, the multiple correlation coefficient, R, indicates the total

relationship between all the variables so far entered into the equation and the

criterion. For example, in Table 2, the simple correlation between control and

job satisfaction is .44. The multiple correlation of control and variety with

job satisfaction is .49. The change it) R indicates the extent to which the

last predictor variable has added to the accurate prediction of the criterion.

Using the same example, the effect of variety on job satisfaction, independent

of the effect of control, is indicated by the difference between'.44 and .49.

The square, of the multiple correlation coefficient, R2 , is. the percentage

of variance in the criterion accounted for by the'predictor variables. It is

a measure of the magnitude of the relationship. The multiple correlation of

combined measures of control, variety, and meaningfulness with job satisfaction

is .51l. Thus 26% (i.e., .5i 2 ) of the variance in job satisfaction is predictable from'a linear combination of these three job characteristics. In this and

several later tables simple correlations are placed in parentheses following R

'so that one may not lose sight of' the total relationship between each predictor

and the criterion apart from its incremental value as a practical predictor.

25,

• • -- 7 i i ! I I ] I i i 
DISTRIBUTION

I US AqMY atST~.HN CJMNANO ATuN: AlOPt

I DEPA.IMENT OF T-ift NAVY 1IKAININ~s AliLyblS ANu EVALUATION 6WoOUP

I HIJ.A ATTN: OAAu-v-U

I US5 P..LIFIC kLEtt PIUMAN RtbOUkCt MAhA.St.*I-T LETAGHMENT

I tsQ. iCATA ATTN: 41CAT-UIW-W

I MG. uSD4EPC01@ ATTNg: 04EIFC1

? HQ0A HEStAIRC4 AN) STUUILýý OtC

I MILIIARY OCCUPATI)NAL ULVLLO#'ltNT UIV uAPC-p4SP-*J. M4 um5ZC MOFFMAN dLL06 I

I mQ,)A OFFICE Of 1*if LmItf OF (..APLAINS

A, 0A1) I(tA ANtI LI

I 0400A AT TN: UAIIIJ--IJH

I HQ-JA OUCSPEI4

I r400A ATrN: DAMI1-liI

I USA. mVIAVION bSYIEMS CUMUL AlTTN UqqSAV-jUI

I EQUtAL UPPURTUNiry OWANL" WrN~: Akil`-A-ý,^-

I USA ARWAUCflM A114g: A1Ft~-LU-AL

I HE4EAO.UAliTLRS ub .WARINt CURt'S .0Ih: CJUE ATIMr

I HEAO.wUAWTEIS* U., lAMINt. COHPS AITW: COUU "Pi-1@

P 'IS A~mVl EUROPE AN) SLVEN II ARM Y I IST jkFANTPY UIVISIUN ANtI ýT. 4ILLY 'A1TNI APZN-UPT-1

I CSiIEo,. ATTIIUUt 0 U0PINi(N SUNVEI DIVISIoni ATTN: ATLI-NCII-KAO IOFFwAft dLLJGo 11

I lIS. &NTELLIGENLt $NO StCUNITY CVO4ANU xTTN: IAOPS-Tcj-T

? "-, T..AIOC TECm'JICAL LIPs0414w

I MILIIARY uCCUPhrI:)NAL UtVtLLPP4thi IJIRLLTONATE ATTN: ATZI-N(CR-0MS-, R4 31433 '4(FFmAN BLDG 11,

I 0ATA ANALYSIS uIVISION AUINt AILINC4-l4. 140#F0464 dLfG 11

I USA, ..ILPERCEN alII: 'U*,C-60OO-1

I USA uO4ONANCE * CtiP4ICAL CENIEN ANU SCtUJI ATTN: ATSL-flTC'-P.

I' HU0A ARMY FORCt. 4Ut,LRNti-lIUNt L.U4NUI'4ATIJN OFFICE

I 54JJA ATTNZ UAbu-2Td

1 1230 USANCOM b4ESEWVt CEN41E1

I 09S AmMY SOLDIE14 bJPID0NT ILNTEW

I uSa o-URCES CU#4o4A?*) AIPI4 - It-Iv CMIt! OF STAFF FO.4 PERSONNEI.

I O)INE..TOWAE OF TMAININ(, mithI AIZW.-T

I OI-4jE..TOWAIE OF CU4NAI LEVtLOI-4thl15 AT TN: ATjW-0

I $I~uA.4COm maklt IEcoks'S LIMLISU14 OIc

a OEPAuTMENT OF T-4E ARMY US AMORY INTELLI(3EICE 4 SECURITY COOMANOU

I AN'MIUIN ARMY .JEI)T ONIJANILATIINAL t!ftCTIVLENSS

I US AwMY CLCOM AJIN: UmbLL-AIIJ

I USA ~oUCLS C04m.%N)

1 6014 TmA~t I

I US MILIIARY u151141CT of- wAboNIN,iIUN Oft o EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

I NAVA@ CIVILIAN PE4SONNEt. LUND SOUIInE-I FLO UZV

2??A94 LIAISON MilICE

a 7?.T ^040Y IWAItEI%b COMMlAft

I toU)Ak. OCb STUVY 3FFICL

O lEt3AdTmtNT UP ONEl NAVY MUMAN wbVUNCE 1MANAGtMENI DIVISION1 (OP-1b)

I oi.)E~Aum~ENT 0f frtI NAVY nu-AN WES9USOCE AGT AND Pt.R5UNAL AFFAINS DET--

*I OE.OAmTMENT OF 1IoI NAVY NouAN at.SOURCE m6T Aku PERS5ONAL AFFAIRS UE.PT

I NAVAt. MI1LITANY PL~bONNtL UUNM1ANU IN-62)

I NAVAL MILITARY PL.4$0NNLL WMMANA. (N-611

I NAVAL. MILITAl4Y VItE%OfNNEL LMNMANW (N-4)

I #4U4Am~ RESOURCE "A'NAbtp4tI LENItM

I Pi4A..-4 RtESORCE aA4dAbtMtNI LENTI-k

I U.S. NAVY TRAIN1442 ANALYSIS tV^LUATI314 6.NOoP

.1 LISACuEC ATTN: AIEC-tx-E. hUMAN tACTOWS

I ATYNI SH-ALC/D'CU

*I IN4tEoqUNIV SkmINA4t UN &OI&LU V;UO,;t~b 0 SOC

I OASA 4RUA) UEPsJIY FUR b4.INCE1C AhUI)tEChNOLOGY

I OFC OF NAVAL RNESAkCh

I AF"RfL/LWI

I AfHRL/LMLII

27

......... ....
I AIip ri.kCt IJ41 ~S'JUWU LAb AliJN: AI'MOL/Tbri

I N~MvY PtkW'S'4i'.L 41,f) 1) LLtmitkN

I 11-AvY JI"'ýW 4tN'L 1, AU L 'iltk UlIkLCTJ1e nt- Pi%(RAefi

-'Aod1 PEftiL)NNLL ii .&N1? U i..L,4ltvr4

OP o*L 14~ AVAL. ,1tLSHL~~L vtmN)Utvw*L ANt) 1141ANl4IUt I4EbFWLH P~o4(,HAMS

I N.&vlli *)tHSO.N~L m * U LrNILR

I MWC jl* NAVAL W3()& Owwa a I/.#aIIt .,AL LlFLLrlvEm.:ý nl.

;1Aoo A'r4.tk.,NAY C -4 Av ICmA1.-);pi....t.'

I 'A ~gA~NSIAC 4I)ILAL "-'Lt1 LMok.. o~ nutiEtt RSFAiWCr

I ~ .U1, NA II)11'44L o-tt*E'.ý.L U~tPI'4L ANJ CIVIL ltdSllUIF uF FNViIH P4

3 I'dw,A* AtwLJSaLL 'q-IOI'CAL h.'Lk.1 L.~o AL-qJ!3,tjaE §o-NCMo(MLUIY PEOW1 14t'*

I Oh-k 164.D4aU~.. AI'ALYSJ.ý1 A1.11I, Il AFT:.: ATAA-TCA I ~t"uAWItiQ%o Liis.,SI uum t.'ii-1`9 1IbYCfl%)1~ip 4L 14SCM 04-

I p*DS.. 4EW IIIk vo1u-,(011AgPtjL Lu"S A I I N: t IL-lIl)-b

1 I ,#()uIL 17Y 0i~~,1 -vU 1 , k.M Allir: UHUMt.-Tw iSCIPWUL)

I I I' ~A I t A IF L S T 'S M AN' ~LJ I b, LI IiiI f tTftf: UkAbY-C

I :v,4 P k. 0'Jfr.-AP, t "4 -14g NotHI I I tA'iff AN ,

I 'iAII#LLL-L0LLU9tUJ L4uUUM.IUrlt.1L IMLIJI.AI- 1EL'NIC4L UI!ýC

I U3~ .hCII( tSI LZN AIINo AMýg,L-tL-Tzo

I I'S 4)L ) 01-. 1 Tt sI L L" 'o All : lt -hJS %(I,1"CtV*'1S 10aN1.VLY "o -jL A~ I. I-*,: LAi -. tp-

-9 04 10t4i iIwV -.4 '4LI)nu#-, Lr iIAi -1

I II'vI-C4.GUa AFIN: ATZL-LAL-A

1II oS c-i,(I.II1C L %A4im~t. L-40 Lt'ILro lJILLI IGt4L K. TE P*r Vl- ft SLIIP1 UrF , uS- tbC-4 UicVtL * %1A-'4wDkhiuItA vw.s Uoo%.

I luauC% ~:~*9.C $~PN~ -IL~q mII.f! (CUOJIE Jog)fl

I -Obt tttLSLMNCI A@%-j -)L'vtLkP-*"L- L..LDb O-LLI * hre1.&V bC~rCIW_54 UIV, t;(UJU SCI LArj

41'S~kAql- L Itfliwa&W I . I~.IJ

- I Nh a,.. N".SUkRILftb "SLolU61"P

1''.io4AUOL v~~I MAlfilAiYa IIi All..: AlAA-SL CYFC,1 LlbNAPCIY)

I11 4111%omHi4t) $t,4vI,'3 LS*eAlUr 11 Ttir FIcLALI bCI' U)&A#4ImtiYd OF ,'SYLPILATRY

ilurs'. %.UI4Pu1.f. ýiYS ,-S Lvn---- "IIN: C4'.a)TICCO'"ICL LIrie4A.Y HI-'-

I 4AIt eL Lt RLPfiu".I LIl3N,.'4

1 -la, utJ4IU

I kil III' LfNIf1JU0Ar1U ý1lN: LL.,.4A-v u

I NAIL%. Limvft4P$4T ,~u

(;4)4aK i 11PQ4m.;I A11,-.: Aj--3-L 1L '1LJU '1 41-4

*I NA-iAl ME~ALTH-4b(ti Lr'j t1UhAM1

1*4-J. .IUACmUIL m . OIli: ILLro m r L'LV

Iislk ...L;:&,LMY UP -C AL li bh.g.i. SI I4mbJ-1 A 114NodfT (.)()CumFk4Tb)

I '%,C''ItuL 01P SYNIL .*) unui L..JtjiA)II~t.,

I t'It.) 6O1X.SD- 55 "a'4li Kf-t~c#',CL 1 Al. JUIrSt r1US I L T fSI4 A~ft

I opo3⁄4mImttN1 or bIg. fvIAVY 1#4#4jNj$.t ANALYSbIS AMUL EVALeJATIAnk 6.

I NA.IfuPAL .LtNIIf +')k MALLIfI SNl..ISiubtl /

I I'S -0 Ug.PFI Of- 0 u1v1UNAL bL1 h. is LL1t~e&i.t4IP

I 11!.. tLU%,f4NiNu %NUJ Um;'*fAL b4.'rn9 L.JLLLIDL AlIIN LIBOIA84Y

I IISA4 104ANSW4toIP*JA I j \oli Su 'uL US.. lfAlrnb lt(tit 1INU Ar4U) OS~t (,wh

I ee.. e(, Ii C CNIt.,AL N A..n iANL.1I141A4

I IgS-% P ItL u A64l Y1) 

I N.A L.LEAWINj(.IIC)U-t ýVoe *'tNIAL Pit-mLIP, 1,41-o PAhF.LAON mLIIC,

IIi rIt.~ UF C Lit. P NjP t -C.U.'iU t'.A MII.v

I u,..i~a...1fsuWU.'I~I- Lt..',lt. A~ I it: AlI I C-,%-

It
I PIIil)CAL UNIV btPI1 UF PSYKrULUViCAL SCUtNCIS

I WS-& m~rJ1LITY FUJI21tNT H 4NUrd u %..UNMANJ AlTTN: UHUaML-Z1i

I tHlI) '.jsA P0W AlI YN.: ANIPL-L

t~ O A iJa AHM~Y RtTHalJIqv HULL WthtAH4L1 * LV~t-UAIION DIVISION

I I)Ai4v&LLL kýSkAKM~f AS5iULlIlLS* INI...

I Wioi "EROfL4M.LIAL sqý.StANCL1 LAt4 S,~LtNIIFiC IN4FUI4P'A11N CFNILkr

I t4UlA'. RL~uuPCE_ vAvA~ctMtNI I.LN9 bAN Uib

I IJbAUM m A P OF iPT It- SLI # LLAU~whMfIP

I US '4iLIrA.nY A:CAt).'IY UL61Ilo OP' "IS1L1Y9 IlLiG bill

I Wi-j aNTLLLIt~NLF ^LNi AloI) zLri mi~lIN !sv~rU0. LIU4A'4Y

I MA(ij..L -CORPS INosI Flk.u

I 41S CuAST LL ARI) 1N3 CLP4 m#IlN: IIULATIJINAL SVCS O~itfýC

I lUS'Avt'JC AMd) Fir. 14JLKL AI IN: -AI u-ts

I )l% .IR1 l)LIFNbL s-HOUL AIIN: AISA-Ul

I JlS -%A vl4C AT TN: Al lJu-I

I l15 '4aLLIAHY AC4Ajtiwl UloitiIfJP )r INSTIIluri*aAL Wl~

i 115. MIn vkFt1?6L !5CmOUL AIIN: & I:),-CU-fPtS

IuSA'.dH LLFENSL ti)AKW 41 1I: f TLL.S eRE2US~lrHf

I 11S% _1kEA~ 1`4.J.)$ iCAOLM'4 ATINv: LtANNa'jG HIsouRcS CFte1E~v

1 'is. ip1TELLIGt14LL ý-IN ANU s~tl fIIN: AIbl-l)T-SFL

i lli %*HUovANCE Ct-, A'NU bCH' MT N: 0&1bL-IU-r'.C

I NA4Ao PUSI(6PAUW)Ued S(, AIIN: -)UULLY IVU% LId#4ARV. (CUI L4?P*I

I luS- lgf4A'SPC0lWlA1TU- ýjMUUL uL"'liT ASSI. g(10MIANUANvT tLUOICA. TtCHiNOLUIuYY

I *)5i jLLkvNAL SLIIU-IL jaft) It. oUNUji~l).I -%1`14: Alpi-Ctr

I lit) %...ILITAwY PuLIl.L ýoCHUUL All"v: LIH'4Auiy

*I tj.. *H1v400l CkNIL-4 to I. KNUA u4.1111L OF t~.i0P4 hJPLE '4UT * bTANUA..W)IAlIUN

I U soaI OkN~AL S4.mUtL # I* UJMIJUUV tlUCAIIU.,.AL It.CHNIOLUUY OL)VIlbUN,

1 tiSt :N5ri1ICT P'inr ,ILIIAWT AsttIblANCt .1 t4lr: ArsLJ-r,-7A

I tUS AKMY Ammtoev (.ir~.Lw urfi: i&All-IL,-I4u

.1 Us" wUAfif1Lf~qASlbNm SCMUUL uILoCtIVAIAL op. rpAjaINrv OhkVFLO MPNI~

kI 0bS,(;,i&ST (4AHU gt..AL~t.1V

P I1 jh o4N5IPPwIaaIIu~v SChvIL ulp-t.P!101AT-L jf r#4AININ(, *~ijoCFWINt

1 I is'a 0NFAN,1IFI SLiu:JL LrAY

I ojSA ahuFAfITW.Y SL*'U:)L Allbd A1Iiti-V

I tjS AN04Y INFA'iI'Y '.CH1"0L 41 114: A I bl-C.)

i 15.4 iNF,4NIWY ',L-iu)L A I IN: ^ Ib-uUjI -L 4u

I iS.1 &NIýANl.41 SL-iJJL ATTNe: Albi-,V

it 4 P910 #~- LtitM 4zo / r N/rj L LN o Pr r '4LCLk.LLA#K ATTN: ATUN-P4S

I I)S 'iw. +a~ L'tit !)(:"/ INV Ltf4 v PI. '4%.LLk.LL6La ulpt. CC)mIAr 0t-VLLulPMkNr

I oS,. .- * Lptok.- btfl/INV UNv # t'. HiLL A Olt#, TRAINING LUhVkLOPMk.Nr

IJ5 us d * 10tltt bpt1f/ INV 14N 9 1'I. P CfLtr.LAv AITre: ArzNsi.4p-ACt

I 05m aNSrUIflt. Ur al'PINIZlOeFI.ej AT IN: *qpSIuLNr I4AININ6 MANAVEt*Nr

I i)S.& PULLd AWIILI.t4V !CIUI)L MU-k"I 54611l LIONANY

I 15,ti *AR CULLtLbt. 4.fN: LiaiwANY

I tS.. ~llt& L.UL LPHH AULAv.1 &St. LE5 NTt,4

.1 IS &e~ NIU04 SCHUD,. (Uhsol4inno) 'AIT i L I twAs.v

* I uS coAST tYL;AmUI &,C~lfr.MY' Llo~iuni

I i95' &HmNSoI'IWIliv4. '.Lr4U.iL TWAt b?"(TA I U*,. S11-MUOL LItIARY

I).4tA.,,I1ATI0NAL -ýt-CI14tNtb!) Lr'. * SLC4 "ITN: LjdkAWIAN4

I iPS AmvMY iNTt.LLI'.t'CL Ct,.ILN to %iLnUL ArIll: ArsjI-TP

1 (15 AnMkY IrLh.vFCtLdTLN * %LfltJUL ATTeJa 'AISI-TI)-10m

I ()$. AmMY' lllfFLLI-l.IvCP Ct -41t # ,tASUUL 'AFT-#: AISI-Eb

I 0)Pi$AedTrftNT 09' 14t 1m MI ()Wt. m~li UNIviP'SIjY LIW4AIy £ATC)

1. IgI. t~r1AlL^IN LL414k * bt'tlu.jL n 1m A I hCIJ-tju

I lls.i .hA4PLAPI C L-al 1. E w 0 L"UL 1-1114 AfbC.lfl-tUý

I llbA *t.tAIOLAIN Ct',l~n *. tIuUI. -I043 AlSC-1OMS9

I l.SA LIIAPLAIN CL,4I1 *k bCflVlL k I N *.AlSC-o#Ob-LLC II ittpjA.hI MNl 0I tI it. N AVY. tiU'AN WLbtUQWLL '4&',#A~stftNl S0.4001

-, 29
I NAVAL. POST GRAUJATE SCHOOL

I Hij TK.ADOC TkAiNI'46 1EVELUP~MLNT INSTITUTE

? BRITtSH E:MBASSY 3kITlSII LItFtNCL SlAFF

P CArjAuIAN JOINT STAFF

I COLS (w) LINNA91Y

I FRENiJI ARMY ATImCi.

I AUSTgiIAN EMBASSY UEFENhL# MILITARY A'41 AIR ATTACHE

3 CAqJAulAN UFFL.NLe LIAISON bIAFF ATTN: COU-NSELLOR9 UEFENCE R 4NO u

IROYAL NETHEPLANUS EMUASSY MILIIA,41 AITACHE

I CA1IAuIAN FORCES HASE CuWNwALLIS ATTN: PFwSQNNEL SELECTION

CANAuJAN FORCES IPERSUNNLL APPL hSCh u'41T

I ARAY PERSONNEL wESLAWCH t~lAbLIbl1MLNl

f6 1IHR4IkY OF1 CUNtONESS EXCHANGL ANU b71F- DIV

) D)EFEivbSE Tk.CHNICAL INFOH14AIlON CLN ATTN: UTIC-ODA-2

ý146 LIiHMaRY OF CONbsitSS UNIT UOCLUmtNTS, EKXtOITING PROJECT

i US GuvERNMENT FkI'JTIN(i OFL LleIOAkY* PUedLIC L)OCU'4

ENJS DEPARTMENT

I US GuVERNMENT PWI'eING OEL- LIjiRAWY AW4 STATUTORY, LIH DIV (SLL)

I THE ^M~fY LI#4I4AkY ATTN: ANMY sruuIt.S StC

NIJMRER. uF AIJURESSELS 2u5

TOTAL N~uMbER OF COP17-5 J8*

3o