0'

Technical Report 597

An Assessment of Job Satisfaction

of Combat Arms Personnel

During REALTRAIN Training Tr

00 Patrick J. Whitmarsh

I'r

ARI Field Unit at Presidio of Monterey, California Training Research Laboratory Q

_____ 4i

CU. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

November 1983

A4pproved for oublic release; distribution unlim-ted.

20 8
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel. IN

Technical Director Contnander

Technical review by

D. Bruce Bell

Roland J. Hart -- -i

NOTICES

DISTRIBUT!ON: Primary distribution of this 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:

PERI-POT, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL UISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no lonqer

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

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army posItion. unless so designated by other authorized

docume-ts.
Unc lass if ied

S' 1,131' LASFICATION OF THIS PAGE (*h-, Pl.,. IIrr,

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COSMRLETIORM

I RPC)T UMBR OVT ACCESSION NO ECIPI[INT$5 CATALOG NUMBER

4. 11 T E -d Sbtl t.)5 TYPE OF REP(R.T IS PERIOD COVERED

Anl A.;.srnent of Job Satisfaction ,f Combat Arms Technical Report

Ferjonnel During REALTRAIN Training Jan 78 - Dec 82

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

r~~.J. Whitmarsh

IT EIFDHM:NG ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS1' PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK

u..Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AE OKINTHM3R

a'.'l 3oial Sciences 2Q763743A775

0..1 Ei:;enhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333

C0)UTROLLINC. ')FFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT GATE

13. NUMBER OF PAGES

15 'o 4MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(II differnt fr-n Contfrolling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this. report)

Unclassified

15-. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

V F _k, ;-IN S-ATEMENT (of fhI. Report)

.' pprov>..' for public rele-Ase; distribution unlimited

7 'ISTRIBL.'ION STA7EMENT (of th,. *baI,sci ent.ed In Block 20, It dtfferent from Report)

1 8 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

9 KEY WZRDS (ConeinuO on reverse. sie If necoes*W) wnd idenify~ by block number)

.t S3:it.;taction Conventional .Training

RHALTRAIN Career Intentions

Work 3tf-conTraining Expecations

U!J :t 2.i'e r 3 Leadership

20 AUIS R ACT (Coar.tu 1w. -reorse stft ifnv =W I dwndify by block nuuber)

'This; study isolated dimensions of Job satisfaction and determined the relarInhijp between job s9atisfaction and tactical performance in a REALTRAIN versus

-)nventional tactical training e-nvironment. A job satisfaction questionnaire wa lJminls3tered before and after training to 187 male soldiers assigned to the

';Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado. The design Was the pretest- tt-sr .,)ntrol group design with matched assignment to either REALTRAIN o~r

(continued)

DD ',"" N 14 DITION OF I NOV 95 S 08"BVt f 18

D OP N 17 Unclasstt'ied

SUCURITY CLASSIFICATION Or THIS PAGE (When Deis ftntu,.dl
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Mien Data Entered)

20. ABSTRACT (continued)

conventional training. Factor analysis on 24 questionnaire items indicated four

* dimensions of job satisfaction: Unit Cohesiveness, Training Expectations, Work

Satisfaction, and Career Intentions. In addition, a Leadership scale was

constructed from four questionnaire items. Multivariate analysis of covariance

and subsequent univariate analyses indicated that REALTRAIN was significantly kt

better than conventional training on Unit Cohesiveness and Training Expectations, whereas conventional training was significantly better than REALTRAIN on

Work Satisfaction and Career Intentions.' The amount of variance accounted for, 2

W2, indicated the first difference to be of moderate strength and the latter three

to be of high strength. , In addition, univariate analysis of covariance indicated

that type of training did not significantly affect Leadership..-, Overall,

REALTRAIN significantly improved tactical performance, attitudes toward training, and unit cohesion. However, REALTRAIN did not significantly improve

attitudes toward career or work and therefore does not, in itself, appear to

provide a basis for reducing combat arms personnel turnover.

5.j

Unclassified

ECIIV CL ASIFICA'fOl NO F 'I% PAGrqMVlhe* Dera ritfrd)
Technical Report 597

An Assessment of Job Satisfaction

of Combat Arms Personnel

During REALTRAIN Training

Patrick J. Whitmarsh

Submitted by

Jack H. Hiller, Chief

ARI Field Unit at Presidio of Monterey, California

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Training Research Laboratory

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

November 1983

Army Project Number Human Performance in Field Assessment

20763743A775

Approved for public rlese; distrbution unlimited.

iii
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

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

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv
FOREWORD

The Presidio of Monterey Field Unit traditionally has solved a range of Army

Training Systems Problems. The Engagement Simulation Systems Team of this unit

performs research and development on the effectiveness of simulations for

improving Combat Arms Training. In 1977 this team found the REALTRAIN method of

Tactical Engagement Simulation, developed by ARI, to significantly improve

Tactical Performance with rifle squads.

Although REALTRAIN significantly improves tactical performance within the

Combat Arms, the retention rates for the Combat Arms personnel is significantly

less than the U.S. Army as a whole. One possible reason for the poor retention of

Combat Arms may be their failure to achieve job satisfaction.

This report uses ARI developed measures to compare the job satisfaction of

Combat Arms Personnel participating in either REALTRAIN or conventional training

in standard Army field exercises. The results indicated REALTRAIN to significantly improve attitudes on Unit Cohesiveness and Training Expectations but not

on Work Satisfaction and Career Intentions. The research implies factors outside

the workplace contribute to job dissatisfaction.

This research was conducted in conjunction with an experiment to validate

REALTRAIN with the Combat Arms at the Platoon level conducted at Fort Carson, CO,

June through March 1978 by the ARI Field Unit, Presidio of Monterey, CA,

Engagement Simulation Team. The research program is responsive to the requirements of Army Projects 2Q763743A773 and 2Q763743A780 and the TRADOC TSM-TES of

the U.S. Army Training Support Center, Fort Eustis, VA. The research reported

here was conducted as part of Army Project 2Q763743A775.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Technical Director
AN ASSESSMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION OF COMBAT ARMS PERSONNEL DURING REALTRAIN

TRAINING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

To indicate dimensions of job satisfaction among Combat Arms personnel and to

determine the relationship between job satisfaction and tactical performance in a

REALTRAIN vs. conventional training environment.

Procedure:

One hundred eighty-seven combat arms personnel attached to Fort Carson, CO,

were administered a pretraining posttraining job satisfaction questionnaire

designed to measure Unit Cohesiveness, Training Expectations, Work Satisfaction,

Career Intentions, and Leadership.

It was predicted that the REALTRAIN Training Group would indicate significantly greater increases in job satisfaction across all dimensions when compared

to the conventional training group.

Findings:

Overall, REALTRAIN significantly improved Tactical Performance, job satisfaction, attitudes on Unit Cohesiveness, and Training Expectations. However,

REALTRAIN did not significantly improve attitudes on Work Satisfaction and Career

Intentions and therefore does not, in iteself, provide a solution to the Combat

Arms retention problem.

Utilization of Findings:

This research implies there are factors outside the training arena that

affect satisfaction and attrition. Models have been studied in industry and the

military which indicate factors outside the workplace have effects on satisfaction and attrition.

These data support the idea that research with a comprehensive model of

satisfaction studied under experimental conditions be continued within the Army,

and in particular with the Combat Arms.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

METHOD ............... ................................ .

Subjects ............. .............................. 3

Instrumentation ........... .......................... J

Procedure ............ ................................

Design .............. ............................... 4

RESULTS ................ ................................ 4

DISCUSSION ............... .............................. 6

REFERENCES ............... ............................... 9

APPENDIXES .............. ............................... 11

Appendix A - DESCRIPTION OF COMBAT ARMS JOB SATISFACTION

DIMENSIONS ......... ...................... .11

Appendix B - DESCRIPTION OF COMBAT ARMS LEADERSHIP

DIMENSIONS .......... ...................... 14

ix
INTRODUCTION

Today's volunteer Army is facing a challenge in attempting to maintain

prescribed manning levels within their combat arms divisions. The relevance of

studying retention in the combat arms is reflected in the 1st term reenlistment

rates.

Figure 1.

First Term Reenlistment Rates

for the U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Combat Arms

70--

U.S. ARMY1 " 59.4 61.1

50- -U.S. ARMY COMBAT ARMS2 . 52.4

4_ j 40- 4 34. 1 39 8.-"

F 32.1-32.6 -3.

2 30 30.3

C _ 29.0 28.5 26.2

20 19.5

12.8

76 77 78 79 80 81 82*

FISCAL YEAR

1. Data provided by U.S. DOD Manpower Management Information Division of the

Washington Headquarters Services.

2. Data provided by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).

0 Data for U.S. Army Combat Arms unavailable at this time.

Figure 1 indicates the 1st term reenlistment rates for the U.S. Army and the

U.S. Army Combat Arms for the fiscal year 1976 to 1981. On average the percent of

1st term reenlistment of the combat arms is 45.1% of the Ist term reenlistment of

the Army!
One reason that combat arms personnel are not being retained may be their

failure to achieve job satisfaction given the kind of tactical training they are

receiving. A review of the literature indicates that turnover in industria)

settings consistently and unequivocally has been related to job satisfaction

(Hulin, 1968; Taylor & Weiss, 1972; Waters & Roach, 1971).

In an effort to improve tactical training, Shriver, Mathers, Griffin,

Jones, Word, Root, and Hayes (1975) developed a tactical training procedure

called REALTRAIN I. This procedure was subsequently evaluated by Banks, Hardy,

Scott, and Kress (1977), who demonstrated empirically that REALTRAIN I was more

effective in terms of tactical performance than conventional training for combat

arms units at the rifle squad level.

in conjunction with the Banks et al. study, Sulzen and Bleda (1979)

administered an instrument designed to assess morale to these same combat arms

personnel. Morale was considered to consist of dimensions that would reflect

motivation and satisfaction. The results indicated that RAIN significantly improved attitudes on four of six dimensions of mote con/satisfaction.

Only one additional study has dealt directly with th relptionship between

REALTRAIN and job satisfaction. Bleda and Hayes (1978) adm --' red an instrument designed to assess morale components to 1200 combat arms personnel participating on either REALTRAIN training or conventional training. Morale was

considered to consist of motivation, job satisfaction, and unit cohesiveness.

The results revealed that REALTRAIN was significantly better than conventional

training on the four dimensions of motivation, on two of the three dimensions of

job satisfaction and on one of the two dimensions of unit cohesiveness.

The results of the two studies were open to question. Specifically,

history and selection differences may have accounted for the significant effects

attributed to REALTRAIN training. Thus, the Bleda and Hayes (1978) and the

Sulzen and Bleda (1979) studies represented inconclusive evidence that

REALTRAIN produced increased job satisfaction.

The purpose of the present study was to isolate dimensions of job satisfaction among combat arms personnel and to determine the relationship between job

satisfaction and tactical performance in a REALTRAIN vs. conventional training

environment using more rigorous experimental and statistical controls than were

used in the previous studies.

The present study examined job satisfaction through a paper-and-pencil

instrument. The instrument was designed to describe job satisfaction in terms

of environmental determinants previously shown to correlate with satisfaction

in industrial and military settings (Borman & Bleda, 1978; Motowidlo, Dowell,

Hopp, Borman, .;ohnson & Dunnette, 1976; Woelfel & Savell, 1978). Examining jobrelated satisfaction by focusing on the environment as potential causes of

feelings about the job situation was considered appropriate given the training

context. The items of the instrument were subjected to a factor analysis to

yield the dependent variables used in the analysis. These dimensions differ

from the previous two studies in that they specifically describe job satisfaction as opposed to being part of a larger set of dimensions thought to describe

morale.

2
It was predicted that those individuals in the REALTRAIN train:-.g gr' F woild indicate significantly greater increases in job satisfactin across a!-

selected dimensions of job satisfaction when compared to tne conventior]

training group.

METHOD

Subjects. The individuals who participated in this study were 19' mae

soldiers assigned to the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort,

Colorado. The data were collected during January-March of 1978. The awe of toe

participants ranged from 17 to 39 years with 63% between 20 and 25. Sever

percent had some high school education, 61% were either high school gradlates or

had the GED equivalent, 25% had some college experience, and 7% were ollee

graduates. Seventy-six percent had been with their unit for more than Six

months.

Instrumentation. The job satisfaction questionnaire contained 2 t

written to describe the dimensions of: unit cohesiveness, training expe:tations, work satisfaction, career intentions, and leadership. The items Jdesigne

to represent each dimension were grouped together to facilitate administration

to this sample of soldiers. Five items described the soldier's attitude twarlS

his work (Work Satisfaction); seven items described the soldier's attitude

toqard the cohesiveness of his unit (Unit Cohesiveness); three items descrite'

the soldier's attitude towards his career in the Army (Career Intentions'i; nln

items described the soldier's attitude towards the current training exer2is :

(Training Expectations); and four items described supervisor's leadership attitudes (Leadership). In addition, the questionnaire contained 10 demographio %'2

six Army training experience items.

The respondents rated the questionnaire items on a five-point s '.

which values ranged from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" 'Work S

tion, Unit Cohesiveness, and Training Expectations), "Very likely" "

Unlikely" (Career Intentions), or "Extremely Well Trained" to "Extremely

Trained" (one item of Training Expectation).

The questionnaire was constructed in a pretraining and posttraining fcr"-

which differed only in tense. A pilot test was conducted with a sample f

enlisted combat arms soldiers from Staff Sergeant to Private First Claass

sample that was part of the intended test population but was not part of the tost

sample. In addition, administration procedures and instructions were trie "

and modified.

In summary, job satisfaction for all Army combat arms personnel consists1

of four dimensions: Unit Cohesiveness, Training Expection,Work Satisfa7' ,-.,

and Career Intentions; and a Leadership scale was included for personnel

leadership positions.

Procedure. The training was conducted in a field environment at F,-,

Carson, Colorado, under the scheduling guidelines provided by the Army Tes"

Schedule and Review Committee.

3
Prior to training, each combat arms unit received the pretraining job

satisfaction questionnaire. Each combat arms unit consisted of 27 individuals.

Administration consisted of seating the individuals, distributing the questionnaires and pencils, reading the standardized instructions, and collecting the

completed questionnaires. Subsequently, the eight combat arms units were

pretested to establish their tactical performance level and on the basis of

their pretest scores assigned to either REALTRAIN training or conventional

training. Upon completion of training each combat arms unit received a posttest

to determine their tactical performance level. The day after the tactical

performance posttest all individuals in each combat arms unit received the

posttraining job satisfaction questionnaire. The administration was performed

by the author and an additional researcher and the administration procedures

were the same as utilized with the pretraining questionnaire administration.

Design. The design, as described by Campbell and Stanley (1963), was the

pretest-posttest control group design with matched assignment to either

REALTRAIN training or conventional training. The combat arms units were matched

on the basis of pretest scores on tactical performance and then one unit of each

matched pair was assigned to either REALTRAIN training or conventional training.

The independent variable was type of training: REALTRAIN versus conventional.

The dependent variables were four factors and a scale, described in the rnxt

section, which were obtained from a factor analysis and a scale construction of

the job satisfaction items.

RESULTS

To isolate the dimensions of job satisfaction, a principal factor analysis

with rotation to orthogonal simple structure according to Kaiser's Varimax

criterion was applied to the correlation matrix of the pretraining responses to

the 24 job satisfaction questionnaire items for the entire sample (N=187). The

last four items were answered only by Army personnel in leadership positions

(N=59) and therefore were not included in the factor analytic procedure.

On the basis of the initial factor analysis procedure three items were

removed. The subsequent factor analysis procedure on the remaining 21 items

supported the questionnaire construction representing the factors of: Unit

Cohesiveness (the soldier's attitude toward his unit), Training Expectations

(the soldier's attitude toward the similarity of the training to actual combat

conditions), Work Satisfaction (the soldier's attitude toward his daily work

activities), and Career Intentions (the soldier's attitude toward his Army

future). The job satisfaction dimensions, the relevant questionnaire items for

each dimension and the dimension definitions are described in Appendix A.

Factor score coefficients were obtained for the rotated solution. The factor

score coefficients, when applied to the standardized scores on the pretraining

and posttraining responses produced a factor score for each factor. Therefore,

each individual had four factor scores for the pretaining questionnaire responses, and four factor scores for the posttraining questionnaire responses.

A multivariate analysis of covariance was applied to the factor scores to

test for the hypothesized significant effects of REALTRAIN training compared to

conventional training on the four dimension of job satisfaction (Unit Cohesiveness, Training Expectations, Work Satisfaction, and Career Intentions) adjusting the posttest scores for any differences between the groups on the pretest

scores.

Hotelling's trace criterion computed on the factor scores indicated an

overall multivariate effect of training on the criterion variables adjusted for

.4
the covariates, F(16,706) z 39.96, p < .001. Subsequent univariate analysis on

the adjusted criterion variabi.s indicated a significant effect of REALTRAIN

which increased Unit Cohesiveness, F(4,181) = 27.69, p < .001 and Training Expectations, F(4,181) = 19.73, P < .001 and a significant effect of conventional

training which increased Work Satisfaction, F(4,181) = 40.52, P < .001 and Career Intentions, F(4,181) = 45.93, £ < .001. Table 1 indicates the adjusted

means for each dimension across the training conditions and indicates the

direction of the training effect.

Table 1

Dimension Means Adjusted for Covariates

Across the Training Conditions

Adjusted X Training

Dimension REALTRAIN Conventional Effect

Unit Cohesiveness -.049 .068 RT

Training Expectations -.197 .268 RT

Work Satisfaction .077 -.106 CT

Career Intentions .019 -.037 CT

Note. Lower values indicate more favorable response;

RT = REALTRAIN CT = conventional training.

An estimate of the strength of association between training and the

adjusted criterion variables was computed. The estimated w2 indicated that

training accounted for about 9.10% of the variance in Training Expectations;

about 12.59% of the variance in Unit Cohesiveness; about 17.45% of the variance

in Work Satisfaction; and about 19.37% of the variance in Career Intentions.

The job satisfaction questionnaire provided a Leadership scale, consisting

of four items that was responded to only by soldiers in leadership positions

(N=59). The Leadership dimension, the relevant questionnaire items and the

dimension definition are described in Appendix B. A reliability test applied to

the Leadership Scale indicated an alpha coefficient of .94 on the pretest

responses and an alpha coefficient of .95 on the posttest responses.

A univariate analysis of covariance was applied to the posttest leadership

scores taking into account the effect of the pretest leadership scores to assess

the effects of REALTRAIN training when compared to conventional training.

The univariate analysis of covariance indicated no significant main effect

between the REALTRAIN and conventional training groups on the dimension of

Leadership, F(1,56) = 1.143, p > .05. The Leadership means adjusted for the

covariate were 1.694 for the REALTRAIN group and 1.404 for the conventional

group. The analysis of covariance simmary Table is presented in Table 2.

5
Table 2

Analysis of Covariance Summary Table

for the Factor Training and the Covariate Leadership

Sources SS DF MS F 2

Covariate 19.775 1 19.775 19.096 <.001

Main Effects 1.184 1 1.184 1.143 >.05

Explained 20.959 2 10.479 10.120 <.001

Residual 57.990 56 1.036

Total 78.949 58

DISCUSSION

The results indicated that REALTRAIN significantly affected soldier's

satisfaction with Unit Cohesiveness and Training when compared to conventional

training and that conventional training significantly affected soldier's Work

Satisfaction and Career Intentions when compared to REALTRAIN. Also, as

indicated by the values of w the differences between the groups were of moderate strength for the dimension of Training Expectations and of strong

strength for the dimensions of Unit Cohesiveness, Work Satisfaction, and Career

Intentions. There was no significant effect of training on the satisfaction

dimension of Leadership.

One reason that those in REALTRAIN reported higher unit cohesiveness than

those in conventional training may be found in the manner in which the training

exercises were reviewed. Conventional training provides a subjective critique

of unit performance by senior military personnel well after the conclusion of

training. On the other hand, REALTRAIN provides for an objective review of

unit performance by all participants immediately following the training.

One reason for the significant effect of REALTRAIN on attitudes toward the

dimension of Training Expectations may be that REALTRAIN procedures provide

individuals with direct, ongoing results of their actions whereas conventional

training provides minimum feedback to individual actions.

Finally, the significant effects of REALTRAIN compared to conventional

training was supported by the tactical performance data. Scott, Meliza, Hardy,

Banks,and Word (1979) reported REALTRAIN units accomplished significantly more

missions, inflicted significantly more casualties, and sustained significantly

fewer casualties after training compared to conventionally trained units.

6
The results indicated that REALTRAIN did not have a significant positive

effect on Work Satisfaction. Although some studies have reported significant

correlations between job satisfaction and performance, Motowidlo, Dowell,

Hopp, Borman, Johnson, and Dunnette (1976) have reported that a review of

twenty industrial studies indicated a median correlation of .l between job

satisfaction and measures of performance and suggested this had little or no

theoretical or practical value. It is generally agreed that the relationship

between job satisfaction and performance is a complex one and is influenced by

other factors, many of which are outside the workplace, and are not consistently dealt with in previous research. Nevertheless, within the Army, there

is widespread agreement by commanders that training in the field environment

represents the work environment for combat arms personnel. In the context of

this study, given the significant positive results of REALTRAIN on the dimensions of Unit Cohesiveness and Training, and on tactical performance, one would

have thought that REALTRAIN would have a significant positive effect on Work

Satisfaction.

These data may indicate that work encompasses more than the idea of field

training for the combat arms soldier. The items relating to Work Satisfaction

were asked in terms of the first person singular and the items relating to Unit

Cohesiveness were asked in terms of the men in the unit. The indication is that

training is a subset of work, not totally unlike industrial settings, and unit

combat arms personnel, while satisfied with REALTRAIN, are not satisfied with

their overall work, again not totally unlike industry.

The results indicated that REALTRAIN did not have a significant positive

effect on attitudes toward the individual's Career Intentions. It may be that

attitudes toward career are the direct result of attitudes toward work satisfaction as opposed to type of training received. This view is supported by the

previously cited research and by a comprehensive review of the industrial

literature conducted by Motowidlo et al. (1976) that indicated turnover to be

consistently and unequivocally related to job satisfaction.

The results indicated no significant effect of training on the dimension

of Leadership. One would have expected that preferred training, as reflected

in tactical performance, would have led to differential attitudes on leadership, especially since the items were asked in terms of training. It may be

simply that soldiers in supervisory positions perceived themselves as highly

motivated and well trained in terms of their leadership roles and, as such,

types of training have no effect.

Overall, REALTRAIN significantly improved tactical performance, attitudes

toward training, and unit cohesion. However, REALTRAIN did not indicate a

significant positive effect on attitudes toward career or work and therefore

does not, in itself, appear to provide a basis for reducing combat arms

personnel turnover.

This study implies there are factors outside the workplace that affect

satisfaction and turnover. Indeed models have been proposed and studied in

industry, e.g., Waters, Roach, & Waters, 1976, and the Army, e.g., Allen &

Bell, 1980, which indicate factors outside the workplace have effects on

satisfaction and turnover. In one well designed study, a general model of

Army turnover indicated factors outside the workplace indirectly affected

turnover through job satisfaction with job satisfaction directly effecting

turnover (Bluedorn, 1979).

7
While turnover is a topic which has been studied for a long time,

including work by Pitirim Sorokin (Sorokin and Anderson, 1932), no model of

turnover has been developed for the U.S. Army Combat Arms.

Given the previous work with general models of turnover and the low

retention rates of the combat arms relative to the Army, it is reasonable that

research into the turnover issue be continued not only within the Army but

more importantly within the combat arms.

-- l , , , , . . '. . . .m .. .. . . . .8
REFERENCES

Allen, J. P., & Bell, B. D. Correlates of Military satisfaction and attrition

among Army personnel. (ARI Technical Report 478). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute, July 1980.

Banks, J. H., Hardy, G. D., Jr., Scott, T. S., & Kress, G. REALTRAIN validation

for rifle squads: Mission accomplishment (ARI Research Report 1191).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute, October 1977.

Bleda, P. R., & Hayes, J. F. Impact of REALTRAIN and conventional combined

arms exercises on participant morale. U.S. Army Research Institute Technical

Paper 308, August 1978.

Bluedorn, A. C. Structure, environment, and satisfaction: Toward a causal

model of turnover from military organizations. Journal of Political and

Military Sociology, 1979, 1 (Fall), 181-207.

Borman, W. C., & Bleda, P. R. Measuring motivation and job satisfaction in

a military context. U.S. Army Research Institute Technical Paper 309,

September 1978.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Hulin, C. L. Effects of changes in job satisfaction levels on employee turnover.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 122-126.

Motowidlo, S. J., Dowell, B. E., Hopp, M. A., Borman, W. C., Johnson, P. D., &

Dunnette, M. D. Motivation, satisfaction, and morale in army careers:

A review of theory and measurement. ARI Technical Report TR-76-A7, December

1976.

Scott, T. D., Meliza, L. L., Hardy, G. D., Jr., Banks, J. H., & Word, L. REALTRAIN

validation for armor/anti-armor teams. ARI Research Report 1204, March

1979.

Shriver, E. L., Mathers, B. L., Griffin, G. F., Jones, D. R., Word, L. E., Root,

R. T., & Hayes, J. F. REALTRAIN: A new method for tactical training of

small units. ARI Technical Report -4, December 1975.

Sorokin, P. A., & Anderson, C. A. Metabolism of different strata of social

institutions and institutional continuity. Metron, 1932, 10, 319-348.

Sulzen, R. H., & Bleda, P. R. Effects of combat simulation on the work-related

motivation/satisfaction of 2articipants. U.S. Army Research Institute

Technical Paper 351, March 1979.

Taylor, K. E., & Weiss, D. J. Prediction of individual job termination from

measured job satisfaction and biographical data. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 1972, 2, 123-132.

9
Tremble, T. R., Jr., Kerner-Hoeg, S., & Bell, D. B. Results of the New

Manning System evaluation survey: First semi-annual report. (ARI Working

Paper.) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute, July 1983.

Waters, T. K., & Roach, D. Relationahips between job attitudes and two forms

of withdrawal from the work situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971,

55, 92-94.

Waters, T. K., Roach, D., & Waters, C. W. Estimate of future tenure, satisfaction,

and biographical variables as predictors of termination. Personnel Psychology,

1976, 29, 57-60.

Woelfel, J. C., & Savell, J. M. Marital and job satisfaction and retention

in the Army. U.S. Army Research Institute Memorandum 78-27, December 1978.

10
APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF COMBAT ARMS JOB SATISFACTION DIMENSIONS

11
43D

'-40 Q0 m m A) L V .i -4 a Gon z m

40) 0 96 !0 -,2 c .0 06

o0 b 0 

H 0 V)0C 1cv 0 1 A

C -4 02 41 .0 -,q-4 c0 4 0 V 4.-4 m o ' Go -4 V ) '-4 4'0 w -4 OC.)c> C

02') 400 ai 4.0) L -44) 0 :3 9) C 0 C

r.4 - XC0 4 0 V - >L0 0- 4. 4)ci r_ 0' 4. 4) 1 -

C 0 O m 0 - 0 V 0 c , -V 4 C - 4 b- 4- 4

0 V -40 4)>,L40 0 (o-q 42.-c - 2 I f

0 4 . 0 0 = Cm - ( *-4 0 .1-4O e _Ile-.4' r_ Q V S.02 L.Ul 0 0 we- u > .L' 0 .- L. (D W0O~ L. C a 0 0 0 2 c 0) co 

a. 4 0 .)L L' 0 

m'. 0T 0 V0f- > 6L -4C)C

MO M: ,04 C ' :9I 0r 1 C 1

r- ~L L 

4., w

0 r_ 0 2 20 .0' L 

I Q 0 0 as ' )

X' 4' 0 co 0 :- Q 0. '-4~ 02*L0 0 0 0 > >

1 4') L 0 L .x X 42 E xC '~

W ' 4L 0 0) 0 a)0 L C 0 Q)L L (V o C_ 0 L C 0 bo 0) .- C E Ia. 

Q e2 1 0 0 4 3c =3 b 0 to L. t c t- L cc 0 C to aC 0 0 C r_ a CO C

C o 4') > C_ -4 -40m d 0 .E-.-4. C0 0o d) .C 4 0 C LVC2 0 3 *o C 0i - H - >1 ' .- 40 ,4 0 4V. (3 0 0 0o -4 CJ 0 -4 'L m0 4 A.) A- 4' Q)- 0m cis L LO 0 L VII

0 LC -4 03 . 02 D ) 0) L 4

0 o L 0)4 m cu04 4> = -4 .Z C 33 -4 04' 0 0 O '' rC 0 T L 

4'4 4 0 Vcc C)Q

C 0 V- V 06~~ CO)C i

0 H -4 V00 Q 4. O r- L c WC 0_ C C (. 00 m 00 0) EO 0 8 0 0 :3 06 C6.0 06 3 60 02r

C C ) x X0 4C x X :

00

C 4

07ti -'4. 0) w

= M 0 00~

o. 0 - Lx t-- I 1

12
0 -

4) :3I 0 >4J4)

0 0 i4- -" 0I

-C 0) o0 -- 'e0.1 4 Ho r- Q2. .- o 00020)t

'~H )O UC -t CC

0) 'H'-iH0 m'H1 H a QC C W )'4-) 0)C4 C a) 4 r-4 0O-H0)L.5-o

4. VC) Tl C V) 0 0) (jL l o 'o

'o (1) co2 COC V

M L.) t. 4HJ 4-) 0 4.) r= Q)C 1- 0)-H )HQ -' r.~0 Cc . 4

4" 4') C) CLI aH C')" CtU 

C

LI)

C

0 -a 4-' I) 0L) (1. 

C.)) C. -S, 4 a0 z 0~ *H 4U 0 (U C

'H ~'0 m 0 a) .

4ZU a) QI C4-

0 .4 H-4 41) 0

S 54-) CU 2= co C 2g

o 0 r- 4-) ' ~ 4 - 4 L) C,

IS r-I a)C c H ca LI) ca I - ' I a ) Q)~ =1C 2l El 'HVI P-4 CW a LI) I) LX 5-. IC.. 1 H I C) 2 a) 2 ') co

.,q 4- CU * H

o.~~ r.4- Y a

C-) C 4---,4 4.)ca r L a 4

0 rA 0 -4 0 -44 cIa!

C co - co(10 4. a)0CXS, -3 (

4-3 4.) 0-4

0 C 4-) 44'0) J-.0 m-C 0 e> -- C o1 El 02 .,4 - 0 0 V) m- 0 0) - 4.)-H r- r- 0) 0) -,1H 0a 3 C) m

a4) C 4-0) Q)C 0) 4-) C 1 -4 t. 4 tA 0c . -4 H 0 2b v-I H

In"~ w .14 Q)m a)4 -H 'H0>) (V0 ul- C- H0. 0.- H' 02-i:z :

C) 

00!C24 

C ) C a0 

0 0 0 riH2 4.)0 -O Er4 0)02) 0-%

4) 4.)C CU5 'HV

cd (d r_.

1 3
APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF COMBAT ARMS LEADERSHIP DIMENSION

14
co0

0 b0

0 > 4-44 C

CO (1) mO*-4 Ca

C- :-'C "-0

4) ,-C ( cis m

Im 06 c- .0 -C'

o -,q 0 ) 2COC

-4 -4 4.3

C 0-0 0 xL

im t 4-4L )Q

cz

'-44

'-4-

0..Co

L. -2 S-40) X:) *,- "1 o) 'H Q- .-4

0) c2 W02 ) 0 1 Q) -4

E-0 0) 0)0 0)-1*rW4 b

~z <2 -4 C022C 02 02. c2- "- 0 ) r-4 >r- 0, 4) eO

0> 4-) 1 0 L r_ 4 0 if) 4.. .A X*- rj 0

cy~ 0) a 0 L.C m L )- c CO a). 4-) 0 a 4 Q) 4- 0

C 0) Db - a) 0 ) 6D a) a)

C 0 ) C. CU ) 4)(

'c C4 02 =- = -4 0 C L.

o- 4) "-4 4. *-4 3 0 *43M A)c

3:2 4.3 0J 4-12~- 4.i9c 

L)O r') i-0

00)W-4 ) 0 C) co C 0 00 a)mZ 0220 0>,4 2C"- m 02 c a, 1)-. 004 0)*-W4m 06)0)

a)-Q ).) 4. .I62CO4 a) -- 02 a)-'C

CO 0 COC - 3: .14 3:

00 C

0)0))>-4 0)2 0C A.0l . . . 2 00 XLO --.TL. XL