Revising the Leadership Supplement

To create the revised items, we relied on multiple sources so as to avoid bias that
could result from adopting the perspective of leadership from a single author or theorist.
Once draft items were created, an iterative revision process was conducted with the
Leadership Directorate, ARI, and HumRRO staff. As a result, deletions, additions, and
enhancements were made to the items.

We also replaced the previous scale (i.e., poor to excellent) with a frequency scale
(ie., requesting the rate of a given leadership behavior), since the latter is behavioral in
nature and better assesses performance, whereas the former requires a more subjective
judgement. For a more detailed discussion of the literature review, see Giacalone and
Naughton (1995), "Recommendations for Administration of the Army Career Transitions

Survey."

Therefore, the final draft version of the revised Leadership Supplement contains
items requesting ratings about leadership performance dimensions or competencies and
six items addressing the supervisor’s background and characteristics, including the
respondent’s level of interaction with the supervisor. The revised ACTS, in its entirety, is
presented in Appendix B. Items 13-18 comprise the Leadership Supplement.

Pilot Administration of the ACTS

Next, we pretested the revised instrument to determine what improvements to
make, if any, before large-scale implementation will begin.

Site Selection

Several criteria were used to select the pilot sites. These included: 1) the
monthly average number of separations as suggested by data from the final quarter of
1994; 2) geographic location, and 3) the predominant MOS category associated with the
installation. The goal was to select sites where the number of separations would enable
us to gather the necessary data quickly and which were geographically and occupationally
diverse.

Considering only the number of soldiers transitioning out per month, 18 potential
locations were identified. After taking into account all of the selection factors, the
following 12 locations were chosen as ACTS pretest sites (shown in Table 1).

11



As an alternative to factor analysis, a measure of reliability for each of the
competencies was calculated. The results are summarized in Table 7. The results show
that the items which comprise the competencies are highly reliable. Because these
competencies were not distinguishable in the factor analysis, we attempted to ascertain if
the competencies were correlated by using a Pearson correlation. As Table 8 clearly
shows, the competencies or composite measures are all highly and significantly
intercorrelated.

There are numerous reasons why we are unable to clearly distinguish the various
factors. For one, the original competencies, as they were derived in 1976 by the U.S.
Army Administration Center, were not factor analyzed. By contrast, they were derived
from an “interpretive analysis of a significant portion of the leadership and management
literature" (Clement & Ayres, 1976, p. 13). This "interpretive analysis" was not
statistically derived, but essentially involved reading the literature and synthesizing the
skill and behavioral categories of leadership and management. It is within this context
that one can understand why there is such ambiguity surrounding the factor structure.

It is reasonable to assume that the nine concepts are not mutually exclusive. For
example, supervision and planning are arguably intricately related, with the former
competency being broader and subsuming the latter. In this case, planning can easily be
considered one facet of the larger and more inclusive supervision category.

The competencies themselves are broadly conceptualized and loosely defined; and
as such, they overlap considerably with other competencies. For example, in teaching and
counseling, it is clear from the definition that this competency refers to "improving
performance by overcoming problems, increasing knowledge, or gaining new perspectives
and skills" (Military Leadership, 1990, p. 67). Yet, training and counseling is also
inextricably connected to another competency, namely technical and tactical proficiency.
Specifically,

"Teaching your soldiers is the only way ...[to] truly prepare them to succeed
and survive in combat. You must be able to train your soldiers, maintain
and employ your equipment, and provide combat power to help win
battles. You have to know your job so that you can train your soldiers,
employ your weapons systems and help your leader employ your unit" (see
Military Leadership, 1990, p. 67).

It is not difficult to see how the training and counseling competency substantively overlaps
with technical and tactical proficiency.

32



(panunuog)

sjeod w1s9}-3u0] Sion ay) poynuapy

uw

ve

we

sjeod

SQtun Bansryoe premo] woHIe aaNI01I09 YOO], *

se

6s

syeo3
sarin Burrorgoe premo} ssaidoid posoywow,

cA

sjeod
SJTuN aaaTqoe 0} papsau ssomosaz poureny

speod saron
yoour 0} 94k} JsNUI JUN 94} SUOHOR paynuepy

Buraueld ut ssapea] ayeurpsogns pepnpuy

Sayoud

we

SUOISDap J9y/SIY 10j SUOsea1 oy) poure|dxy

[19% wonemojar poynasoig

eb)

we

S19qJO WOI YeQPsay 1YsNOS

te

Aes 0) pey siayjo yeqM 0} pauaisry

dnos8 94} 103 uoneMoyuI poprnoig

uoneumoysar jou papuoig

wonemsoya ayemooe papaosg

8°

gol am op 0} uonemuoyn] aeridoiddy popuoig

suoneorunurm0;

| § YOLOVA

¥ YOLOVA

€ OLA | 7 YOLOVA

|

TYOLOVA

SW4LI

ADNALaAdWOOD

667 “< S8urpeoy
sBuypeoy 103984 xuepy Aouajedwi0_ :g9 a1qeL,

28



what will be an acceptable percent of satisfied soldiers? Unless target goals are
determined, either for the Army as a whole or for specific Army units, the ACTS data
will yield frustration more than useful indications.

Provide Sponsors with Feedback

In our interview with USAREC, their main request was to change ACTS
reporting, not the instrument itself. Specifically, USAREC would like to receive trend
data: data which show changes over longer time frames and are not as suspectable to
volatility associated with particular time periods. We believe that this request is not only
reasonable, but fundamental for the proper interpretation of ACTS data. Data from this
revised instrument should not be interpreted based on quarterly changes. Instead, future
projections should be made in comparison to baseline data, that will have to be
developed. It is inappropriate to react to short-term changes in satisfaction levels by
respondents, especially if response rates are low. Only when a standard of comparison
(baseline) is used should any action legitimately be taken in response to changes in
satisfaction profiles.

Another recommendation is to provide prospective sponsors and other users with
readily accessible ACTS quarterly data reports. Specifically, a topical report could be
produced and disseminated (see Topics example in Appendix E). This topical report
could be written in a newsletter format, include minimal technical detail, and rotate
between interesting data findings and particular topics of interest, including those topics
which are specifically requested. These reports could highlight the practical value of the
ACTS data, and moreover ARI research, by providing important data in a clear and
concise manner.

Take a Long-Term Look at the Revised ACTS

It is important to remember that the pilot test of the revised ACTS does not
guarantee its efficacy. The effectiveness of the instrument must be gauged over a longer
period of time and considered against an array of different variables which follow:

e Sponsor Satisfaction. Sponsors should be solicited for their feedback, on an
ongoing basis, specifically regarding their satisfaction with the ACTS data,
any changes they wish to make, and the extent that they desire statistical
and survey changes. As the purpose of the ACTS is to feedback
information to the sponsor, we need to ensure that their needs are being
met. ARI should be responsive to the sponsors’ varied needs whenever
possible and maintain documentation of problems and necessary changes so
that the ACTS can be later reviewed fully.

° Response Rate. The low response rate of the original ACTS, coupled with
the difficulty collecting data during the pilot of the revised ACTS, may
indicate administration pitfalls, especially over time. Unless the
recommended administrative changes are made, it is unlikely that the
response rate will increase in the long term. We would also argue that

37



Changes Made to the ACTS. The needs of the Retirement Service Office were
incompatible with the intent of exit surveys, rather an evaluation research approach may
be warranted to meet their needs. As a result, items regarding this issue were not added

to the survey.

Army Housing

The meeting with Army Housing generated a number of specific questions of
interest to them:

1) Are soldiers leaving because of housing?;
2) What is the level of satisfaction with overseas living conditions?;
3) What is the quality and availability of government housing?;

4) What is the future of government housing? To whom should it be
made available? How much should be available?;

5) What is the relationship of housing to readiness and retention?;

6) How much are housing costs?;

7) What is the importance of housing in relation to morale/retention; and
8) What is Army Housing’s impact on the quality of life?

Changes Made to the ACTS. With the exception of a few policy-oriented issues
(ie., What is the future of government housing?, To whom should it be made available?,
How much should there be available?), the Army Housing Office was interested in the
soldier’s perception of housing, which fits within the context of an exit survey. As such,
the Army Housing Office streamlined their questions and generated a smaller set of draft
items. These questions have been incorporated into the revised ACTS (see Questions 8-
10).

Community and Family Support Center

Because of their time constraints, a personal interview with the Plans and Policy
Directorate Division from the Community and Family Support Center was not possible.
However, a phone interview with this group revealed specific information needs
pertaining to satisfaction with particular programs and family life issues. These are listed
in the subsequent section.

Changes Made to the ACTS. The items to be considered were compatible with

the intent of exit surveys and with the format of the ACTS. The Directorate provided us
with specific questions they wished to include in the satisfaction measures. These items

5



Data from the LROC survey suggest that the
costs of forcing disproportionate numbers of
female and minority officers into non-desired
branches for the sake of equally distributing
them throughout the officer corps might
outweigh the benefits. Minority and female
junior officer retention and satisfaction with
promotions are adversely affected by failure to
receive a desired branch assignment. The
findings regarding retention propensity and
subsequent retention are particularly strong.

To the extent that forced branching increases
separation rates for minorities and females,
fewer officers from these special groups will
be available to be promoted into the higher
echelons of Army leadership. Army needs,
which may override individual considerations,
temper these results. The LROC data just
presented are therefore of special interest to
Amny policy makers charged with meeting:
individual and institutional.n needs: through.
branch assignment.

a

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE FINDINGS FROM THIS.
REPORT OR ON THE LROC SURVEY IN GENERAL,
PLEASE CONTACT

OR, Gur Siesoto
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

SOO! E1sennowen AVENUE

ALEANORIA, VA 22333-5600

OSN: 284-9708

Commercial: (703) 274-9708

FAX: (703) 274-8578

OON/AWTERNET: SIEBOLO@ALExanORtA-EMH 2 ARMY. MIL,

PREPARED BY HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
66 Canan CENTER PLAZA, SUITE 400

ALmunoRA, VA 22314-1591

PRrovect DIRECTOR: OR. ROONEY A. McCLoY

(703) 706-5653 (a)

(703) 548-5574 ()

E-6

duly 14, 1995



The

Army Career
Transitions
Survey

Your sincere responses to the following questions are needed to
help improve decisions affecting Army personnel.

Use a number two pencil only
Fill circle completely

Make no stray marks

Erase changes completely

This notification is to inform you of who is conducting this survey and what use will be made of the
information being collected, in accordance with Public Law 93-573 and the Privacy Act of 1974. This
‘research is authorized by Acts of Congress which authorize recruitment and maintenance of military forces
and authorize research to accomplish this goal. This authority is in 10 United States Code, Section 137, 503,
and 2358. The use of Social Security Numbers is authorized by Executive Order 9397. Information on
individuals is confidential and will not be used by nor released to anyone. Information on groups of soldiers
will be used only for research and policy analyses.

Le! SURVEY METWCRKTM an 88 8 2

B-3



0€S0-9r (20S)

voor ‘6 ANAL

OaUVSN ‘SUlVdIV OIIENdGNV
ONISILYAACV JO ALVAOLOAUIG

SYAdAW NHOf “TOO

9sep-Sze (€0L)

vO6l ‘SI UAGWALIAS

NOISIAIC SNV Id ALVYOLOA MIG
ADITOd GNV SNV 1d YALNAD
LaOddNS ATINVA GNV ALINNWWOO

Vvavadvsa GUVHO UN

ALVYOLOAUIG
0668-L69 (€0L) voor ‘SI AINE diHSYaaqva NASNVILSIMHO AYUVH OLT
pBEs-SSe (€0L) voor ‘6c ANNE ONISNOH AWAY NaANANY NEMO
(vadW) Naqund “109
(OdW) ONINNAH “109
9860-569 (€0L) y6ol ‘6¢ ANNE (vdW ‘OdW ‘adW) adv (adW) ANVHS TAVHOIN “109
L69z-SZE (EOL) ool ‘8 ANNE AOlddO ANAUAS LNAWAALLAY SHALLVLNASAUdaa
SbLb-Sze (€0L) Wvuoodd AAAUVH NWSNS
T6se-sze (€0L) 661 ‘8 ANNE INWATV CNV aaaavo AWNUY OTHALOG ANIINVd
auoyd unas Jo jeg vary uosiag 39e1U0D.

UOHeULIOJU] aIINOg MaAJajU] PuBUITOD

A-3



16. About how long did you serve under your 17. Which of the following best describes how frequently
immediate supervisor on your last assignment? you interacted with your immediate supervisor?

” Less than 4 months at least once a day
4-6 months at least once a week
‘7-12 months at least once a month
13-18 months less than once a month
19-24 months

25 or more months

18. Each of the statements below describes ways that supervisors may or may not behave. For each of the
following statements, indicate to what extent the statement describes your most recent direct supervisor in
the Army. Mark a response for each statement. My

Always Usually My Supervisor Useally Dig. ever

Diath = Did TA Did,

Provided appropriate information to do my job

Provided accurate information

Provided timely information

Provided information for the group . .
Listened to what others ‘had to say ~ wees
‘Sought feedback from others
Explained the reasons for his/her decisions

Included subordinate leaders in planning

Identified actions the unit must take to meet unit's goals
Attained resources needed to achieve unit's goals
Monitored progress toward achieving unit's goals

Took corrective action toward achieving unit's goals
Identified the unit's long-term goals
Provided advice and direction

Praised in public

Criticized in private wee
‘Treated others with faimess and dignity
Instructed on how to complete tasks
Provided feedback on my performance
Encouraged training and development
Served as a positive role model

Passed appropriate information from superiors to subordinates ~~
Used professional network to gather information and get things done
Set high ethical standards for the unit

Rewarded ethical behavior

rem me pap ge

res pupep got

Nem gece

sme “Tee 72 ae SURVEY METWICRX "a me 8

B-7



31. Are you...

Commissioned Officer?
‘Warrant Officer?
Enlisted?

37. Is your spouse...(Mark all that apply)
Employed in a civilian job?

In School?

Active Duty Military?

Is hedshe taking VSUSSB?
No
‘Yes, Voluntary Separation Incentive
‘Yes, Special Separation Benefit

32. What is your current Army transition status?
ETS (enlisted)
Retirement
Voluntary separation before ETS (enlisted) or with
remaining obligated period (officer)
Voluntary separation before retirement for officers without
remaining obligated period
Involuntary separation
Other (please specify)

Does not apply, not married

38. Please enter the zip code/APO of your most
recent duty station.

33.

34. What race do you consider yourself to be?
(Mark only one)
White

Black or
African American
‘Other

(specify).

Eskimo or Aleut
Asian or Pacific Islander
Indian (American)

35. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin?
(Mark only one)

No

Yes; Mexican American, Mexican, Chicano

Yes; Puerto Rican

39.What is your Social

IT} (L-

Security Number?

ann

‘Yes; Other Spanish/Hispanic
36. What is your current marital status?
(Mark only one)

Single and never married

Married for the first time

Remarried; Was divorced or widowed

Separated due to marital problems but no legal action taken
Legally separated or filing for divorce

Divorced

Widowed

WCHOIANAKHAWNHS

a SURVEY NETWORKTM

so1m Numer 95020-5-72

B-11



Sherwood, A. (1983). Exit interviews: Don’t just say goodbye. Personnel Journal, 62,
744-750. .

Uleman, J.S. (1991). Leadership ratings: Toward focusing more on specific behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 175-187.

Woods, R. H., & Macauley, J. F. (1987). Exit interviews: How to turn a file filler into a
management tool. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28, (3),
39-46.

Zaradona, J.L., & Camuso, M.A. (1985). A study of exit interviews: Does the last word
count? Personnel.

44



(panunu03)

sue01g

SODIAJOS YINOA pue 91eD PIG -

Buaye1qg uonesedasaid jo Aen

‘28

oS

sueiZo1g ao1sag AunuM0D Kury

“pe

es

sume8o1g (YANN)
uoneandey pure ‘areyjany O]esOW,

2B

£9"

syyouoq euoneonpa jo junomYy

“qe

gof aera &
393 0) papuoid uonesedaad [ye120Q

ee

£9

sasnods 10y smoys Auiry joadsoy *

so

SOW 103

Bururen jo janowe pue Aujpend *

oreo yeuap pue

[eotpam juspuadep jo Amgqepeay *

drqssopeay

Jo aouajadmioo feonoeyfeomyoay, *

wonenyeas

gournnoyiad Aur ut ssaustey jo joao] *

squaurudisse

gof Aur 1940 oNUOD jo yunowy *

sgof dryssopesj 0) Juauusissy *

sp2ou yeuossod 104 au Jo junoury *

Ww

sgof uo Sumren pue sprys Aur jo asc) *

8 YOLOVA

L¢YOLOvVA

9 AOLOVA

S¥YOLOVA | b YOLOVA

€uYuOLovVA

TYOLOVA

TYOLIVA

(quop) sduney uonoeysnes 105 sduipeoy 103984 37

aad,

15



Table 7: Leadership Supplement Reliability Coefficients

Competency Cronbach .
Coefficient
Alpha

Communication
Competency
(Items A-H) 94

Planning
Competency
(Items I-N) 93

Teaching/

Counseling

Competency

(Items O-V) 93

Use of Available

Systems
Competency
(Items W-X) 89

Professional

Ethics

Competency

(Items Y-AD) 90

Decision Making
Competency
(Items AE-AL) 88

Soldier Team

Development

Competency

(Items AN-AS) 93

Technical/

Tactical

Proficiency

Competency

(Items AT-AW) 92

Supervision
Competency
(Items AX--BK) 97

33



promotions but decreased satisfaction with the
work (see Figure 3). To the extent that the
higher quality officers are more likely to
receive their choice of branch, this would
suggest that the very best officers require more
challenging duties to increase their work
satisfaction.

scree
(ernsen Cosine

f Tegan
Minorities, Sat w/ Promerions

‘Whites, Sat. w/ Promotions

Minorities, Sat. w/ Week

+ Whi, Sat. Werk

Figure 3. Trends Across Branch Choice in
Satisfaction with Promotions and with Work for
Minority and White Officers

Counter to the typical findings, minority
officers reported slightly lower levels:of
retention propensity than whites in the LROC
sample. The retention rates reflect this:..26
percent of minority officers separated,
compared to 21 percent of white officers. The
trends across branch choice suggest that a
greater proportion of minorities than whites
who did not receive their first or second choice
of branch separated (38 percent and 18
percent, respectively). Hence, forced-
branching could be eroding minority officers’
propensity for Army service, resulting in
higher separation rates.

Female Officers. Female officers generally

have lower retention propensity than their male
counterparts. Thus, forced branching could be
particularly detrimental to retaining females in
the officer corps. For the LROC survey
sample, 74 percent of male officers received

their most desired branch assignment. By
comparison, only 60 percent of female officers
were assigned as desired. Similarly, whereas
only 15 percent of male officers did not get
either their first or second choice, this was so
for 26 percent of female officers. Again, it is
unclear how much of this disparity between
males and females in receiving their desired
branches was due to forced-branching, but
females (like minorities) were more often
assigned to branches they did not seek.

Males and females responding to the LROC
survey were equally satisfied with the work
and with promotions. Similar to the
minority/white comparisons given above, both
groups of officers displayed increased
satisfaction with promotions but decreased
satisfaction with the work as their branch
preference increased.

For the LROC sample, retention propensity for
female officers was lower than for males (as
expected). The lower propensity ‘for females
translated into slightly higher separation rates
(25 percent of females and 21 percent of males
separate). Similar to the minority/white
comparisons, the trends across branch choice
indicated that females who did not receive one
of their first two branch choices exhibited
much higher separation rates than males who
were likewise assigned (37 percent vs. 15
percent).

Implications: tt micht Be EFFECTIVE To BEGIN THIS
SECTION WITH A QUOTATION FROM AN UPPER-LEVEL
OFFICER GIVING HIS OR HER OPINION OF THE FINDINGS.
FOR EXAMPLE: COL LEAHY (CHIEF, FUNCTIONAL AREA
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, TOTAL ARMY
PERSONNEL COMMAND) STATED, "CLEARLY, WE MUST NOT
BE TOO OVERZEALOUS IN OUR ASSIGNMENT OF
MINORITIES AND WOMEN ACROSS BRANCHES, IT IS MORE
IMPORTANT TO RETAIN THOSE OFFICERS SO THAT THE
BEST PERFORMERS CAN BE PROMOTED TO THE HIGHER
RANKS, AT THE EXPENSE OF EQUIVALENT DISTRIBUTIONS,
THAN TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR DISTRIBUTIONS AT THE COST
OF LOSING THOSE OFFICERS FROM THE ARMY." SUCH A
QUOTATION WILL EMPHASIZE THE POLICY IMPACT OF THE
LROC.

LS
duly 14, 1995



FOREWORD

The revision of the Army Career Transitions Survey (ACTS) was initiated by the Human
Resources Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel (ODCSPER,
HRD) and carried out by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
via a contract to the Human Resources Research Organization. The objective was to develop a
technically sound exit instrument yielding candid and reliable results to better inform personnel
policy. The revised ACTS should take into account the requirements of various Army
Commands. In addition, a redesigned ACTS could facilitate responses from exiting soldiers by
allowing them to more accurately state their problems and concerns. In sum, the revised survey
should generate higher quality data, which in turn, will improve the monitoring of trends and
cycles involved with soldier turnover.

ZITA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Deputy Director Director
(Science and Technology)



(panunuoa)

LL uoneradoos urea} passang ‘se
SL Seapt pue uOneMOsa! jo Buseys pasemooug “3e
suig0009
68° ssnosip 0} auoKsaa9 405 Aanqsoddo ay) poposg ‘be
89° wea} ay} 10} speos payresy ‘de
w duryel ysis juopnid podemooug ‘oe
6L soveuIpsogns wosy sayeystu jsauoYy paydsooy “ue
yoourdojanaq
OL’ weal 10; sanuoUg onsTees padojaaoq “we wea], J21pjos
SuOIsDep
Ly ayem 0} voneMOsa ayeridosdde poureiqQ ‘ye
woIsbep
99° ® Buryeur a10J9q SaaNeUsaIe JUOIOIIP poyeneag “ye
iS cS SUOISDap 10 sanriqisuodsas yoo], ‘fe
SUOISHAP UT MASHUOARY pamoys ‘Te
SUOHENIIS JePUNS Ul SUOISIep Ja)sISUOD apEW "Ye
Sy SUOISDOp Jeo} ape “Be
Jaa] apqissod
uw ysamo] oy] Je Buryeu uOIsDap pasemooug ‘ye
sjeod sian
Ju 2/qneduioo 210m yoy suOIsSDep apey ‘ae | Zaryey UOIsSHOG
SUYOLOVA | » HOLOVA | € YOLOVA | 7 AOLOVA | TI WOLOVA SWALI ADNALAdWOD

(qu0D) ssarpeoy s0jovq xuyeyy Aouajadu0D :y9 a1qe,

26



Table 1: Sites Selected and Criteria

Avg. Enlisted

Installation Region Primary MOS Avg. Officer
Separations Separations

Benning South. Infantry 51 404
Bliss Southwest Artillery 75 268
Bragg South ABN/SF 123 533
Campbell Midwest Airborne 88 421
Dix East Training 44 523
Drum East Mountain Div. 14 129
Gordon South Signal Corps 51 117
Hood Southwest Armor 174 991
Knox Midwest Armor 63 361
Leonard-Wood Midwest Engineer 49 175
Rucker South Aviation 28 144
Stewart South Infantry 65 331

Pilot Administration

After sites were selected, ARI provided Points of Contact (POC) names and
phone numbers for all twelve sites.* Prior to the survey mailout, we contacted each
POC by telephone to explain the purpose of the project, the POC’s role in the pilot
testing, the contents and arrival date of the pilot materials, and the name and telephone
number of a HumRRO contact in the event of problems. This ten minute briefing was
intended to provide POCs with project-related information and also to secure their

cooperation.

A majority of the POCs agreed to cooperate. There were a few problems making
initial contact, however. For instance, several POCs failed to return calls despite
numerous telephone messages. In addition, communication difficulties (i.e., busy and
disconnected telephone lines) hindered our efforts to contact several POCs. Ultimately,
we contacted all twelve POCs and secured their involvement, although this required 7
business days (from February 15-23) to do so.

‘ This list was combined with updated information (e.g., new POC names and telephone numbers, etc.)
obtained from phone logs of the initial interviews with transition point personnel.

12



us

sgof dryssopeay 0} juauruBissy ~

“

spsou yeuossod soy awn jo junoury *

1s

sqgof uo Suraren pure sy[rys Aca jo osy)

is

yuowdoyaaap

[euorssajosd/qeoraysa} Batsayo sgof jo ywourndissy *l

£9"

sanrunjioddo juawaourape/aonowmoisg

axeo [lap pue yeorpaur Areyjrar yo Aaend)

Ls

(sosnuog se yons) ded jewads jo mouy *

ed o1seq jo yunoury *

8¢°

sjoogos/saniioey wopusdeq

oL

‘oreo [eJUap pue yeotpow Aprurey jo AwyenD *

8

suonedsojas SOd JO JoquNN

Ainp seasi9a0 jo yunoury *

seasi2A0 SUONIpUOD BUTT “1

Ly

ssostasodns jo aouajaduioo jo Joao] *

eb}

cL

gol jo uoneoo] amqdesBoan *

99°

syuourysydurosoe Aw jo uonrZo0s01 siouadng «

8L

jusuradeaeu pue diyssopeay jo AiqenO

hw

qof Au 8utop iwauXolus [fern *

18

uosiod e se aur 103 jadsai ssouedng

Le

aduayeyopuswyymny gof [es2ACQ

’ YOLIVA

€ YOLOVA

TuYOLOVA

T wOLOVA

sduney aourjiodmy 105 sduipeoy s0j9e4 2¢ aqQuy

18



Ls

yaoudoyarap yeuorssayoid/feormysay
Butzayo sgof 0) uawusissy “b

sonranjioddo yuawasueapenonomoig -d

is

S

oe yeyuop
pue yeorpou Arey jo Aen “oO

(sosnaoq
se yons) Sed jepads jo yanoury ‘u

Aed o1seq jo nowy “Ww

vS

sjooyas/sanmsey juspusdag ‘}

18

oreo yeluap
pur feorpour Aprurey jo AenD “¥

suones0[a1 Sod Jo roqumy Tf

os

Aynp seassaao jo Junoury “1

SBaSIJOAO SUOTIpUOD Bary “|

69

ssosiasadns jo soua}adu09 jo joao] “3.

65

sgol jo uonesoy orydeoon +}

8L

sywaurystdimos.e
Aw jo uonmfove1 ssouadng *3

8L

yuawedeuew pue dryssopesy jo AyenO “p

6s

gol Aur 3utop quowXolua [je1aaQ “9

£9

uossad e se out 10y wodso1 ssoladng “q

19

aBuaqeys/mamymy gol [fexa0Q “e

8 YOLIVA

LuoOLovd

9 YOLOVA

§ YOLOVA

vb YOLOVA

€ YOLOVA

ZYOLIVA

TYOLOVA

|

sduney uonoesspes 4103 sdurpecy 107984 27 31qeL

14



ran suajqoid pue sjurejdmos quim Ajney yeoq “xq
OL” yun ur susjqoid payedonuy “{q
OL’ asneo sadosd 10) pouydnsiq Iq
TL gyeioul poo pajomorg “4q
6L wonenys 94) 0} Ajaye1sdoidde ssapso aaeQ “3q
ss Ajayemnsoe aoueunojiod pasreiddy -3q
7 Bumurey 40J sanranyioddo passyO “aq
yan oq)
OL 4oJ osaqdsoune aanioddns e popuoig ‘pq
OL S}TON JOqIO YIM S¥Se) Poyearps00D *9q
OL Apayeudosdde Quoyine payedsjaq qq
1 Ajeyetdosdde sannp pue syse) snotsea poudissy “eq
Ww TON aq) UNpIMA Syse} JUaIAYIP payeurpsooD “ze ,
SL SIOIPJOS payeanour yeqi fem e UI pay “Ae
SL Ajpanoayja sy¥se) pozaedic “xe uorswsedng
aon ut
1g aBpaynouy peonoes/feommyoa} 1soq oy) PEE “Me
spoyiouw
6s Jeonoe) puke yeoruyss) wo somape oIqQeIJoI poroO “Av
€s sonoe} puke sanbiuqos} aanesouut pasc) “ne
Aouapyoig
Teonoe L
0s" sampao0id pue spoqjou yeormyoa} pooysrapuy) “We ffeoruyoay,
$YOLOVA | pYOLOVA | CE UNOLOVA | ZT AOLOVA | T YOLOVA SW4LI XDNALAMWOS

(quod) s8arpeoy 103984 xEney AouajaduroD :yv9 aque,

27



lowered response rates, unrepresentative responses (i.¢., answers only from those willing
to put forth a good deal of effort and energy), as well as haphazard responses. However,
perhaps most importantly, this item was eliminated because more useful information can
bey captured through the appropriate weighting of items in the revised survey (7a-ak).

Specifically, we recommend devising an index to weight item importance by
satisfaction. This, in effect, would essentially provide information as to reasons why the
individual has decided to leave the Army and not rely solely on one listed reason. For
instance, if an aspect of Army life was considered very unimportant and very unsatisfying
to the respondent, we can surmise that this factor probably had little impact on the
soldier’s decision to leave. Conversely, if an aspect of Army life was considered very
important, but was also very unsatisfying, this factor most likely played a major role in
the individual’s decision to leave. However, the original item can be reintroduced to the
revised survey (preceding item 8) if the sponsor deems it necessary. Responses to this
item could then be compared to the weighted satisfaction/importance responses as a
check on the validity and appropriateness of the "most important" item.

Finally, demographic questions were moved from the beginning to the end of the
survey. Literature has shown that response patterns can be different (€.g., less candid,
more positive or negative) when the individual’s identity is known (see Giacalone, Elig,
Ginexi, & Bright, 1995). Thus, if the request for identity is not as salient, it may help to
ameliorate response bias.

Revising the Leadership Supplement: Literature Review

The Leadership Supplement of the ACTS, Section III, also required revision.
Specifically, ARI analyses indicated that the Supplement failed to discriminate between
soldiers who were satisfied with Army leadership, versus those who were not.
Furthermore, it was impossible to determine the reasons (and scope) associated with the
satisfaction ratings, and how the different aspects of leadership had been rated. As a
result, both civilian and military literature were reviewed to identify the appropriate
leadership measures for the revised Supplement. In addition, an interview was conducted
with the Army Leadership Directorate to discuss their needs and expectations for the
Leadership Supplement?

Reviewing the Relevant Literature in Leadership

The Army Leadership Directorate and the relevant literature suggested that the
revised Supplement should assess the specific technical and interpersonal leadership
competencies related to Army life, as well as the general leadership behaviors and skills
related to those competencies.

> Although the interviews and discussions with the Leadership Directorate led to the creation of a new
Leadership Supplement, no changes were requested for leadership supervision related items within the

context of the satisfaction items.
.

9



19. To which major command, agency, or field
operating agency are/were you assigned?
US Anmy Europe and Seventh Army (USAREUR)

US Ammy Pacific (USARPAC)

Sth US Army, Korea (EUSA)

US Army South (USARSO)

US Army Materiel Command (AMC)

Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC)

US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CIDC)
US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM)

US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
US Army Health Services Command (HSC)

US Army Information Systems Command (USAISC)
US Army Military District of Washington (MDW)
Secretary of Defense or Joint Activity (JSC, DIA, and
Other Defense Agencies)

US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)
US Military Academy (USMA)

US Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)

US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC)
‘Army Staff or Field Operating Agencies

Other

20. To which specific type of unit are/were you
assigned?
. Does not apply; I am assigned to Corps, MACOM,
HQDA. JCS, or DoD office.
‘Adjutant General
‘Air Defense Antillery
Airborne/Air Assault
‘Armor
_ Aviation
‘Chemical
Civil Affairs
Engineer
Field Artillery
Finance
Infantry
Legal
- Medical
_- Military Intelligence .
Military Police
Ordnance
(Quartermaster
Signal
Special Forces or Ranger
‘Staff; Installation/Garriton
‘Training, including staff or faculty at Army schoo!
‘Transportation
Other

21. What is your rank?
PVI SSG wo
PV2 SFC CW
PFC MSG = CW3
spc 1sG cwa
CPL SGM = MW4
SGT CSM = MWS = COLorhigher

iEQaS

B-9



REVISION OF THE ARMY CAREER TRANSITIONS SURVEY :
FINAL STUDY REPORT

Introduction

From 1990-1995, the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) administered an
experimental exit survey to separating soldiers. This instrument was known as the Army
Career Transitions Survey (ACTS). The ACTS was designed for use among separating
Active Duty Army personnel to measure: satisfaction levels, perceptions of Army
leadership, advice for potential recruits, and the reasons for leaving the Army.

The initial version of the ACTS consisted of 104 items, each with multiple
response options. These can be broadly grouped into four areas: 1) background
information and demographics; 2) satisfaction with various aspects of the Army
environment; 3) satisfaction with Army leadership (Army Leadership Supplement), and
4) questions related to occupational training and duties. The instrument typically
required 15 to 25 minutes to complete.

In a recent evaluation of the ACTS, Giacalone (1993) raised a number of
methodological and administrative issues, including the lack of demonstratable utility and
inconsistent survey administration and data tracking procedures. There were also
problems with the data. For instance, survey response rates were typically low and
representation has been skewed. In addition, response patterns were different for
unidentified and identified respondents (i.e., by social security number), as well as for
involuntary and voluntary separatees. Thus, Giacalone proposed four primary
recommendations: 1) determine whether the collected data will address the needs of a
range of potential users; 2) update and revise the satisfaction measures; 3) standardize
the administration procedures, and 4) measure the impact of respondent identification on
the resulting data.

The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) was awarded a
contract to develop standardized administration procedures and to review and revise the
items on the ACTS. To meet the goals of this research, the approach primarily involved:
gathering information through semi-structured interviews with pertinent commands and
transition site personnel; reviewing the literature on leadership; and pilot testing the
revised survey instrument. These steps are addressed individually in the following
sections.

Revising the Administration Procedures

Giacalone (1993) postulated that the ACTS administration procedures (e.g., how
the survey was administered, to whom the survey was administered) were implemented
differently across transition sites. Such inconsistency raised the question of possible bias
in the data; and thus, plans were also made to develop standard administration and
monitoring procedures.



(penunuo5)

07 sfeod w4a}-Bu0] sjrun oy) poynuspy “u
sfeod
09 Sgt Bauotyoe premo) woNe 2ANd9I109 YOO], "wa
sjeod
6S sgian Zumargoe psemo} ssas8oid paoim0yy |]
sjeo3
ran SAM aAaTGoe 0} paposu ssomosal poureNy “y
sjeod sam
+ JaauE 0} 9¥B) JsNa JM oy) SUOMOe paynuopy =f
09° Buraued ut siapes] aleurpsoqns pepnpuy ‘1 Sarauryg
ivy SUOISDOp JOY4/STY 10; suOsea1 ay) poure;dxy “Yy
bl [eM uONeULOsU! payuesoig “3
99° SsaMIO WIOIy YORQp22j WYSNOS J
sx Aes 0} pey Siaqjo JeyM 0} pousysryT “a
06 dnos8 94) 10) donewMOsUI popuoig ‘Pp
8s" uoneauoyar Aju papwoig “o
ica dOHeaLOsUI JeMIOR PaplAoig ‘q
3" gof aq) op 0) uoneuoyuy ajetdoiddy popuoig ‘e | suoneormnumod
S¥uOLOVa | bYOLOVA | € YOLOVA | 7TAOLOVA | JT YOLOVA SWALI AONALAIWOD
Sp < sdurpeoy

sSuypeoy] 107984 xuQeP AdaajadmI0D :v9 21qeL,

24



Survey Receipt Log

—
Received Surveys
Site POC Telephone (approx) | Completed

Bragg MSG Raney 910-396-2118 3-16 51 |
Campbell Mr. Weddington 502-798-2712/3310 3-15 49
Dix Maj. Makowsky 609-562-3373/2174 3-14 49
Drum SFC Morales 316-772-6856/3493 3-24 41
Stewart Mr. Wallace 912-767-5602 3-24 49
Gordon Sgt. Anderson 706-791-4774 3-24 50
Hood Mr. Alverson 817-287-3382 3-27 29
Rucker Ms. Escalfujri 334-255-2605/2700 3-31 43
Leonard-Wood | Ms. Runge 314-596-0977 4-12 3
Knox Mr. Hertz 502-624-3114 4-25 35
Bliss Mr. Hernandez 915-568-5903/7237 5-3 38
Benning Ms. Childress 706-545-1162/6858 5-8 43



Army Officer Retention and Branch Assignment

Background: In addition to their
identification with the Army as an overall
institution, officers are affiliated with a
particular branch (e.g., Infantry, Aviation,
Signal Corps, Military Intelligence, Ordnance
Corps). Several branches have been

designated as special branches (e.g., the Judge ....
~* Source: Data from the Longitudinal Research

Advocate General Corps and the Medical
Corps).

Branch assignments are made early in-an
officer's career. Although branch preference is:
considered, not all officers are assigned to their
desired branch. Promotion opportunities and
retention vary across the branches. Of
particular interest to members of the personnel
and leadership development communities is
the relationship between branch assignment
and subsequent retention.

Issue: What is the relationship between
branch assignment and retention? More
specifically, does assigning officers to a non-
selected branch lead to lower job satisfaction,
lower retention propensity, and eventual
separation from the Army?

This issue is of particular concern with regard
to minority and female officers, because
women and racial minorities are frequently
"forced-branched" (i.e., placed into a branch in
which they did not express an interest; this
typically occurs so that women and minorities
are distributed throughout the branches of the
officer corps).

The recent downsizing of the force may result
in an increased need to force-branch more
officers overall as the Army has to do more
with fewer personnel. Information is desired
on the potential ramifications of this action on
officer retention.

on Officer Careers (LROC) survey were used
to address the issue of the relationship between
branch match and retention. The LROC
survey was.administered annually from 1988-
1990 and in 1992. The survey assesses the
attitudes and perceptions of junior officers
overtime. By monitoring changes in officers’
attitudes and perceptions, the LROC provides

"a prime vehicle for better understanding the

impact of policy changes and other external
influences on the satisfaction and career
intentions/decisions of the Army officer corps.

Information was provided by 928 junior
officers, commissioned between 1980 and
1987, who responded to the LROC in each of
the four years the survey was administered.
The sample comprised 775 whites and 153
minorities; 684 were male, 244 female.

Findings: Total Group. Regarding branch
assignment, just over 70 percent of Army
officers received their first choice, and 82
percent received either their first or second
choice (see Figure 1). In terms of separation,
nearly 22 percent of the LROC respondents
separated from the Army. Twenty-eight
percent of the officers remaining in the Army

duly 14, 1995



did not receive their desired branch
assignment, whereas 35 percent of the officers
leaving the Army failed to receive their desired
branch. Nearly 17 percent of the officers who
remained in the Army received neither of their
first two choices, whereas nearly 22 percent of
those leaving the Army failed to receive their
first or second choice. Thus, officers who
were not assigned to their desired branch had a
separation rate approximately 30 percent
higher than the rate for officers assigned to
their desired branch.

Figure 1. Distribution of Branch Choice Across
Officers

Regarding satisfaction with promotions,
officers who separated were significantly less
satisfied than officers who stayed. Work
satisfaction displayed the opposite pattern,
with separating officers reporting significantly
greater work satisfaction than staying officers
(see Figure 2).

Comparing Branches. Officers in the

following branches were least likely to obtain
their desired choice: Ordnance Corps (39
percent), Quartermaster Corps (48 percent),
and Chemical Corps (50 percent). Over 25
percent of the officers in Aviation, Signal
Corps, Military Intelligence, Chemical Corps,
Transportation Corps, Ordnance Corps, and

Figure 2. Scores on Retention Propensity,
Satisfaction with Promotions, and Satisfaction with
Work for Officers Who Stayed in and Separated
from the Army

‘Quartermaster Corps left the Army. Branches

showing the lowest separation rates were

.. Adjutant General (15 percent), Corps of
_ Engineers (16 percent), and Infantry (17
percent). aa

Minority Officers. Minority officers typically
have higher retention propensity than white
officers. Even so, forced branching could
‘result in increased dissatisfaction and rates of
retention. Whereas 73 percent of white
officers received their most desired branch
assignment, this was true for only 56 percent
of minority officers (see Figure 1). Similarly,
whereas only 15 percent of white officers did
not get either their first or second choice, this
was so for 33 percent of minority officers. It is
unclear how much of this disparity between
whites and minorities in receiving their desired
branches was due to forced-branching, but
minorities were more often assigned to
branches they did not seek.

Whites and minorities responding to the
LROC survey were equally satisfied with
promotions and the work. For both groups of
officers, being assigned to one's desired branch

* translates into increased satisfaction with

ETT!

E-4

July 14, 1995



Table 5: Leadership Supplement Items Factor Loadings

FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2
Provided appropriate information to do my job 77
Provided accurate information 16
Provided timely information 8
Provided information for the group 78
Listened to what others had to say 64
Sought feedback from others 56 61
Presented information well 71
Explained the reasons for his/her decisions 52 57
i, Included subordinate leaders in planning 64
j. Identified actions the unit must take to meet unit’s goals 78
k. Attained resources needed to achieve unit’s goals 78
1. Monitored progress toward achieving unit’s goals 81
m. Took corrective action toward achieving unit’s goals 82
n. Identified the unit’s long-term goals 8
0. Provided advice and direction 71
p. Praised in public 53 59
q. Criticized in private
r. Treated others with fairness and dignity 63 58
s. Instructed on how to complete tasks -70
t. Provided feedback on my performance 54 64
u. Encouraged training and development 52 66
v. Served as a positive role model 58 69
w. Passed appropriate information from superiors to 74
subordinates
x. Used professional network to gather information and get 50 73
things done
y. Set high ethical standards for the units 52 66
z. Rewarded ethical behavior 58 61
21 (Continued)



REVISION OF THE ARMY CAREER TRANSITION SURVEY: FINAL STUDY
REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirements:

From 1990-1995, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
administered an experimental exit survey to separating soldiers. This instrument was known as
the Army Career Transitions Survey (ACTS). The ACTS was designed for use among separating
Active Duty Army personnel to measure: satisfaction levels, perceptions of Army leadership,
advice for potential recruits, and the reasons for leaving the Army. The Human Resources
Research Organization was awarded a contract to develop standardized administration procedures
and to review and revise the items on the ACTS.

Procedure:

To meet the goals of this contract, the approach primarily involved: gathering
information through semi-structured interviews with pertinent commands and transition site
personnel; reviewing the literature on leadership; pilot testing the revised survey instrument;
and analyzing the results. These steps are addressed individually in this report.

Findings:

ACTS items were refined in accordance with the recommendations of the Army Career
and Alumni program, the Retirement Service Office, Army Housing, Community and Family
Support Center, Army Recruiting Command, as well as the offices within the Department of
Army Personnel (DAPE). From the pilot test, interpretable factors were discernible based
upon the satisfaction and importance ratings. Further, the leadership competencies deemed
necessary for inclusion in the ACTS leadership supplement were found reliable.

Utilization of Findings:

The ACTS has been revised to include updated and reliable Satisfaction and
Leadership Supplement Items. Recommendations for administration include making the
ACTS mandatory and disseminating it during the pre-separation briefing. This exit survey is
now ready for operational implementation.

vil



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the helpful cooperation from various
individuals involved in this project. We would like to thank Dr. Ronald Tiggle, who served
as the Technical Monitor of this delivery order; Dr. Morris Peterson, for his guidance in
transitioning this project toward operational implementation; and we are certainly indebted to
those individuals who provided critical information and insight at the interviews. In addition,
we would like to thank Dolores Carson and Dolores Miller for their administrative efforts
over the course of the delivery order, including the final documentation.

vi



Unfortunately, much of the leadership literature was inadequate or inappropriate
for identifying feasible Army leadership measures. For instance, the literature discussed
measures which required expert assessments from policy makers, leadership theorists, or
measurement specialists, and not subordinates. An additional complication was the lack
of consensus about what defined "leadership" and the competencies it should include.

Ultimately, deciding what constitutes "leadership" and what to measure required a
judgment call. Some of the literature described the optimal definition of leadership as
one which is functional: driven by the requisite purpose at hand (see Campbell, 1977;
Karmel, 1978; Uleman, 1991). We decided that the Army Leadership Directorate could
provide the best definition of Army leadership.

Addressing the Specific Needs of the Army

The Army Leadership Directorate identified the following competencies as
(1) germane to Army leadership and (2) those that could be evaluated by subordinates:

communication

planning

teaching and counseling

use of available systems
professional ethics

decision - making

soldier team development
technical/tactical proficiency
supervision (similar to KSA).

ec ee

These nine competencies paralleled four key aspects of the Leadership Model proposed
by Locke (1991): 1) motives and traits (MT); 2) knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA); 3)
vision (V); and 4) implementation of the vision (IV).

The Leadership Directorate also stressed that soldier evaluations should be
considered within the context of the soldier’s experience (rank and branch), as well as
within the leader’s context (rank, length of time as the respondent’s supervisor, frequency
of contact with the respondent). As such, items addressing these variables were also
included.

3 In addition to the listed competencies, the Leadership Directorate identified others (i.e., clarifying
ambiguity, negotiation, development, assessment, consensus building, and evaluation). These additional
competencies were not incorporated into the revised Leadership Supplement because they were less
important and also because they could not be properly evaluated by separating personnel.

10



CONTENTS (Continued)

Conclusions: Considerations and Cautions
The Impact of Identification of ACTS Responses Is Yet Unknown
The Impact of Type of Separation of ACTS Responses Is Yet Unknown
The Utility of the ACTS Has Not Yet Been Established
Establish a Computerized ACTS
The Comparative Efficacy of the Revised A'

Conclusions.
References ........cecccecseceecsessessecsessecscesesecsucsuesusevssuceecsesanesecsesseseneseseesaesasseeseneussesseseeceieeeeseeeeeene 43
Appendix A. Command Interview Source Information. ..............:cc:ccsccseeseseeseseseesesteeeeteseeeeeeeee A-l

B. The Army Career Transitions Survey ...

C. Administration Instructions .................cccccesecscese esses cesses eeeeeseeensereeteeeeeneeteetseeees C-1

D. Receipt Log... cccceccccscsesesesessssessesnsvesssneseseseseeneseeneseenesesesieeesiseusneeesneeeeees .D-1

E. Topical Report .......c.ccceccccceccsssssscsessesnssesesnseesceesnsnesesueseseeaesnsnesneneeesusseeneneeeenees E-1
List of Tables

Table Sites Selected and Criteria 2.0.0... ccccccccceccesesessesesesseseeseseeneseseeseseetesesteseeneasensneensees
Factor Loadings for Satisfaction Ratings .

1
2
3. Factor Loadings for Importance Ratings..
4
5.

Reliability Coefficients for Satisfaction Factor:

. Leadership Supplement Items Factor Loadings

6A. Competency Matrix Factor Loadings

6B. Competency Matrix Factor Loadings

7. Leadership Supplement Reliability Coefficients
8. Leadership Supplement Intercorrelations

9. Leadership Supplement (Item 18) Suggested Revisions



so

papnjour ou axe ¢ mojaq SBupeoy :210N

spusLy pue Aprurey 10 ou jo jnoury “ye

Afmurey Auary,
ue Suraq 0} Apmmey jo jaaunsnipy ‘fe

Ww

syuamapnue pur
siyouaq uonsuey jo uoneueldxg “ie

tL

Ayrurey 10y moys:
srapeay Aury susaouos pue yoddng ‘qe

OL

wedoig mumpy poe
429183 Ary Aq sourisisse jo Aen “Be

8 YOLOVA

LYOLoVA

9YOLOVA | S YOLOVA
1

b YOLOVA

€ YOLOVA

TYuOLOVA

TYy¥OLovA

(quod) s8aney uonoessnes 4103 sdupeoy s0j0e4 +7 31qUL

16



Revision of the Army Career Transition Survey:
Final Study Report

Robert A. Giacalone, Jennifer A. Naughton,
Janice H. Laurence, and Ani S. DiFazio
Human Resources Research Organization

United States Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1996

19970123 082

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited



It is important that we remember all of the recommendations. We must still
consider the issues that have not been resolved:

The Impact of Identification of ACTS Responses Is Yet Unknown

The impact of identifying the respondents, and the resulting lack of confidentiality,
(Giacalone & Knouse, 1989; Jablonski, 1975; Woods & Macaulay, 1987; Zaradona &
Camuso, 1985) pervades exit survey literature. Great amounts of data suggest that when
an exit survey respondent is identified, the individual’s responses can be distorted.
Giacalone, Elig, Ginexi and Bright (1995) compared respondents who included their
curity number on the ACTS to those who did not; this research revealed a
significant difference in how the two groups responded to many of the satisfaction items.
Because similar satisfaction items were used in the revised ACTS, this concern remains.
Although we have moved the identifying demographic questions to the end of the survey,
which may reduce the potential for distortion, we have yet to conclude how much. As
the initial critique pointed out, it is still important to determine: 1) the extent to which
this distortion exists, 2) the items on which it exists, and 3) the statistical adjustments that
might be necessary to overcome this problem.

The Impact of Type of Separation on ACTS Responses Is Yet Unknown

Giacalone (1993) also noted that employees who separate involuntarily may view
their separation (and their previous employment) very negatively, which may result in the
intentional distortion of their evaluation. Great discrepancies have been found between
responses at the time of separation and later on during the follow-up evaluation
(Lefkowitz & Katz, 1969).

Giacalone, Elig, Ginexi, and Bright (1995) also found that voluntary and
involuntary groups respond very differently. Some researchers even advocate eliminating
those who have involuntarily separated from the data collection altogether (Goodale,
1982; Garrison & Ferguson, 1977; Sherwood, 1983). Given these findings, it appears that
the impact of this variable on responses should be investigated, perhaps by analyzing the
two groups separately.

The Utility of the ACTS Has Not Yet Been Established

One important aspect of the Giacalone (1993) critique was that the literature on
exit surveys was replete with questions regarding the reliability and validity of the exit
interview and survey process; and therefore, that the ACTS itself was subject to the same
reliability and validity problems. Essentially, the question surrounding any exit survey
process is whether the data collected accurately represents the feelings, satisfactions, and
perceptions of separating personnel. Studies by Hinrichs (1971), as well as Zaradona and
Camuso (1985), showed that separating personnel do not always give their actual reasons
for leaving; often times, the more significant factors involved in the decision to separate
are often underreported (Woods & Macauley, 1987). While the revisions may have
addressed some of the problems, the scope of the contract did not allow for a large scale,

39



. Make certain that forms are returned to ARI and not sent to a different
location.

. Require transition points to account for low response rates.
. Establish quarterly deadlines for the return of the completed ACTS.

: Provide transition point personnel with quarterly feedback regarding
their response rates and related problems.

The following recommendations were considered of secondary importance:

. Provide more administration information for transitioning personnel.

. Provide support for overburdened transition points to handle large
groups of separating personnel, taking monthly fluctuations into
account.

For a more detailed discussion of the administration procedures, see Giacalone and
Naughton (1995).

Revising the Items in the ACTS

Giacalone (1993) noted several deficiencies in the ACTS survey items: 1) there
was no evidence to suggest that important Army issues had been addressed by the
survey; 2) some items were unclear and subject to multiple interpretations; and 3) the
satisfaction items were not based on any known Army data needs, and this led
underutilized results.

Interviews with Commands

In attempts to address these deficiencies, we conducted interviews with major
Army commands. Specifically, the objective was to determine the needs of the sponsors,
how well the ACTS had met these needs, and if it had not, how it could in the future.

Although no specific restrictions prohibit the inclusion of any particular type of
question in an exit survey, the tradition is to avoid topics that are better addressed
elsewhere. Thus, for example, we avoided topics which traditionally, and more
appropriately, fall into the domain of evaluation research. Similarly, although a
particular survey length is not mandated, exit surveys customarily have been relatively
brief yet tend to address a wide spectrum of issues. As such, the revised ACTS should
*pulse’ a variety of topics within the confines of a brief instrument.



Interviews with Transition Site Personnel

Interviews were scheduled with transition center personnel to determine how
exactly the ACTS was implemented at each location, what problems were occurring, and
what improvements should be considered. The interviews were conducted by telephone
with representatives from 42 transition points.

The data were content analyzed for patterns across sites. The results of the
analysis suggested five common problem areas. After careful consideration, we
generated a list of possible solutions to these problems. The problems and possible
solutions follow:

Problem 1 Many sites seem unaware of their own low retum rates and
administration problems.

Problem 2: Because the ACTS is voluntary, it is more likely to be disregarded by
soldiers and by those responsible for its administration.

Problem 3: Administrative support systems to help direct and monitor ACTS
transition site activities are lacking.

Problem 4: An enormous disparity existed between the number of personnel
separating across the various transition points.

Problem 5: Transition sites appear to have slightly more difficulty obtaining
completed ACTS from Officers than from Enlisted personnel.

Although each of the recommendations herein were important, the following were
considered of primary importance:

° Make the ACTS mandatory.

° Require attendance at the pre-separation briefings and inform Officers
of the importance of the ACTS.

. Provide clearer directions to transition sites regarding how and when
the ACTS should be administered.

. Encourage cooperation and compliance by conducting group administration of
the ACTS, prior to day of separation, such as the pre-separation and pre-
retirement briefings at approximately 3 to 6 months before separation, such as
at the pre-separation and pre-retirement briefings at about 3 to 6 months
before separation.

° Provide the name and telephone number of an ACTS contact person
with every shipment of the ACTS. Supplies of the ACTS should be
sent to the sites on a routine basis.

2



18. (Continued)Each of ‘the statements below describes w
each of the following statements,

supervisor in the Army. Mark a response for each statement.

_ Obtained appropriate information to make

SREESPRRRR SEE RP POR ERA RRR ER

Behaved in an ethical manner
‘Applied rules fairly - i
Respected individual rights .
Made decisions that were compatible with the unit's goals
Encouraged decision making at the lowest possible level
Made clear decisions - ane
Made consistent decisions in similar situations _
‘Showed favoritism in decisions
Took responsibility for decisions _

Developed realistic priorities for the team

Clarified goals forthe team
Provided the opportunity for everyone to discuss concerns
Encouraged sharing of information and ideas
‘Stressed team cooperation TTT

(Organized tasks efficiently

Acted in a way that motivated soldiers
Coordinated different tasks within the unit
Assigned various tasks and duties appropriately ”
Delegated authority appropriately

Coordinated tasks with other units 7”
Provided a supportive atmosphere for the unit
Offered opporuities for taining ne
Appraised performance accurately

Gave orders appropriate to the situation
Promoted good morale
Disciplined for proper cause”
Anticipated problems in the unit
Dealt fairly with complaints and problems ”

indicate to what extent the stati

Useaity
‘The

Useare Wether My Seperviser
My Sepervet Umauy Da Never
DidThe Nee Tae Oe The

jays that supervisors may or may not behave. For
it describes your most recent direct

an SURVEY METIS



Modifications to the Revised ACTS

After the pilot test, it was apparent that several survey items needed to be
modified. On item 6 (i.e., Will family members file for unemployment compensation?), a
not applicable response option should be added to accommodate those respondents
without a spouse or dependents. For item 7, the respondent should be given instructions
to refrain from choosing not applicable if it is an inappropriate response (e.g., for
instance, when rating satisfaction and importance of overall job fulfillment/challenge).
For item 8 (During your Army career, how often did you live in (a) government
owned/leased housing or (b) off-post housing), part (a) should be rewritten to reduce
ambiguity; item 8a would be better if not double barrelled and it should refer only to on-
post housing. After item 8, respondents should be given instructions to skip over item 9
(comparing on-post and off-post living arrangements) if they indicated on item 8 that
they had not lived in both on- and off-post housing. After the pilot study, feedback from
the sponsor; as well as a review from HumRRO staff, indicated that some items may
have been ambiguous or redundant with other items on the Leadership Supplement.
These items and the recommendation for each, as well as the impact on reliability (where
needed) is listed. Suggested changes to item 18 of the Leadership Supplement are
included in Table 9.

Data tracking also posed a problem. Currently, respondents are requested to
provide the zipcode of their most recent duty station (item 38), which can ultimately be
linked to individual installations. This proved somewhat problematic because a number
of individuals failed to furnish this information (4.87%). To improve the response rate to
this item, several alternatives can be considered. The first option is to have ARI
personnel check the completed surveys after shipment to insure that a zipcode has been
provided on each. If a survey is missing location data, zipcode information from the
shipment envelope should be entered. The other alternative is to assign each post a
permanent ID code, to have transition site personnel instruct soldiers to record this
number on their surveys, and then have the transition personnel verify the surveys for
zipcode completion. Among the alternatives, the former option (i.e., verification by ARI
personnel) appears to be the best choice, simply because the circumstances are most
preterred (i.e., less time pressure, fewer individuals involved in verification, and less room
for error).

Recommendations

Determine Target Goals

The data derived from the revised ACTS, regardless of its validity and reliability,
will be meaningless until sponsors determine how the data should be used and what
performance standards are acceptable. For example, if a sponsor wishes to ascertain
"problem" areas (e.g., where there is a gap between what is desired and what is actual),
the question remains "what constitutes a problem area?" Furthermore, if changes are to
result, another question remains "what constitutes an improvement?" If 75% of soldiers
are satisfied or highly satisfied with leadership, is the remaining 25% who have neutral or
unfavorable feelings toward leadership a problem? If the Army determines that they are,

.

35



Table 5: Leadership Supplement items Factor Loadings (Cont.)

I

————
FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2
ba. Assigned various tasks and duties appropriately 716
bb. Delegated authority appropriately 19
be. Coordinated tasks with other units 67
bd. Provided a supportive atmosphere for the unit 75
be. Offered opportunities for training .70
bf. Appraised performance accurately .79 52
bg. Gave orders appropriate to the situation 72
bh. Promoted good morale B
bi. Disciplined for proper cause 74
bj. Anticipated problems in the unit 67 52
bk. Dealt fairly with complaints and problems 76

Note: A principle components factor analysis was used with a varimax rotation. The loading of SO was used as a criterion value.

23



longitudinal study of utility. It would be important to consider such a study in the near
future.

Establish a Computerized ACTS

In 1993, an initiative from ARI was to conduct surveys more quickly, and in a less
expensive manner. At the time, it was recommended that the revised ACTS be
computerized. While many advantages to computerizing the ACTS were highlighted
(e.g., increases accuracy of responses, quicker surveying time, more easily and quickly
adapted for special topics, quicker reporting time to sponsors), the branching capability
and the flexibility of computerized surveys, were the primary reasons for computerizing
the ACTS. The branching capabilities (where survey items are selected for inclusion in
the survey based on the respondent’s previous answers) would allow the Army to probe
for specifics from respondents who held negative views of various aspects of Army life.
For example, if a respondent rated Army leadership as unsatisfactory, that respondent
could then be asked additional questions about specific aspects of Army leadership so as
to identify the particular dimensions which caused dissatisfaction; respondents who did
not express dissatisfaction would not be asked these additional questions. Given the
interviews with sponsors, it is reasonable to assume that, if permitted, the Commands
would want more detailed data from respondents. Without a branching capability,
soliciting such detail from respondents would render the ACTS prohibitively long.
Perhaps, more importantly, the revised ACTS currently remains somewhat inflexible; its
inability to quickly assimilate new items arising from a changing Army will no doubt
hamper quick response time and also require numerous costly revisions in the future.
We would urge that computerization of the ACTS be reconsidered.

The Comparative Efficacy of the Revised ACTS is Unknown ,

Because one underlying goal of the ACTS is to gather data that are only available
during periods of separation, the question remains as to whether it provides better (and
more critical) data than other instruments focusing on similar issues (e.g., STAMP or
SSMP). We would argue that this issue goes beyond whether the revised ACTS is an
effective data collection tool. More importantly, the issue is whether the data collected
compares in quality to other surveys currently in use, and the extent to which redundant
questionnaires are providing more or less appropriate or biased data. From the
perspective of cost-savings alone, a future study should determine where overlap exists
with other surveys, the benefits (if any) of that overlap, and the rewards of using the
ACTS in conjunction with (or in replacement of) other instruments.

Conclusions

The merit of exit surveys is based on the comparative advantage an organization
can gain by soliciting feedback from those whose fears (of political retribution or impact
on personal life) have been substantially decreased. The assumption, still untested in the
ACTS, is that the Army can receive more honest feedback from exiting personnel and
can therefore mitigate problem areas and more clearly understand strengths. No exit
survey should be used for the sake of gathering data that can be gathered more

40



Table 5: Leadership Supplement Items Factor Loadings (Cont.)

FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2

aa. Reprimanded unethical behavior
ab. Behaved in an ethical manner 62
ac. Applied rules fairly 74
ad. Respected individual rights 10
ae. Made decisions that were compatible with the unit’s 51 64

goals
af. Encouraged decision making at the lowest possible level 71
ag. Made clear decisions . 61 59
ah, Made consistent decisions in similar situations 61 55
ai. Showed favoritism in decisions
aj. Took responsibility for decisions 67 51
ak. Evaluated different alternatives before making a 72

decision
al. Obtained appropriate information to make decisions 70 54
am. Developed realistic priorities for the team : 72
an. Accepted honest mistakes from subordinates 81
ao. Encouraged prudent risk taking 57
ap. Clarified goals for the team 66 57
aq. Provided the opportunity for everyone to discuss 82

concerns
ar. Encouraged sharing of information and ideas 79
as. Stressed team cooperation 69 50
at. Understood technical methods and procedures 59
au. Used innovative techniques and tactics 63 53
ay. Offered reliable advice on technical and tactical 3

methods
aw. Had the best technical/tactical knowledge in the unit 62 51
ax. Organized tasks efficiently 73 52
ay. Acted in a way that motivated soldiers 716
az. Coordinated different tasks within the unit 60 53

22

(Continued)



APPENDIX D

Receipt Log



REVISION OF THE ARMY CAREER TRANSITION SURVEY
FINAL STUDY REPORT

CONTENTS
Page
Introduction... ee eee 1
Revising the Administration Procedures ........ 2.2.0.0 02020 eee 1
Interviews with Transition Site Personnel... ...............0.0020000005 2
Revising the Items inthe ACTS .......... 00.0000 c eee eee eee 3
Interviews with Commands ..............0 00000 cece 3
Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) ..............0 0000000 cee 4
Retirement Service Office 6.0... eee 4
Army Housing ..................2.-05 beet eee eee eee 5
Community and Family Support Center .... 2.2.2.0... eee ee 5
Directorate of Advertising and Public Affairs, USAREC .................. 6
DAPE (MPO, MPE, MPA) ...........0..0 00000 cece eee eee tee 6
Revising the Leadership Supplement: Literature Review ......................-. 9
Reviewing the Relevant Literature in Leadership
Addressing the Specific Needs of the Army ...........
Revising the Leadership Supplement ...........0..0 200.000.0000 02 eee
Pilot Administration of the ACTS 11
Site Selection... 2.0.0... 0 eee 11
Pilot Administration ............ . 12
Procedure 26... 2. eee eee 13
Data Analysis Results 2... 2.00. 13
Satisfaction Items... 2... eee 13
Leadership Supplement .... 0... 0... eee 20
Modifications to the Revised ACTS ............. 00.0000 000 00200005 35
Recommendations ... 2.2.0... eee 35
Determine Target Goals an 35
Provide Sponsors with Feedback ............0 200.0000 00 000 e eee eee 37
Take a Long-Term Look at the Revised ACTS ................0.2.000. 37



Packages which contained pilot materials were then express mailed to all twelve
sites. Each package contained: 1) a cover letter from General Sikora (Appendix C), 2)
administration directions (also Appendix C), 3) a set of 50 pilot surveys (plus 2 extra per
package), and 4) a postage-paid, Federal Express envelope with return label to
HumRRO.

Procedure*

Transition site personnel were instructed to administer the revised ACTS to
soldiers on-site. The soldiers were allowed to complete the ACTS in an unlimited
amount of time, but were asked to record how much time they needed. The transition
administrators also were told to distribute the ACTS to a variety of separatees who were
representative of their site and to document any problems or comments.

In mid-March, we made follow-up calls to sites that had not returned their
surveys. These sites included: Fts. Benning, Bliss, Hood, Knox, Leonard-Wood, and
Rucker. On April 6, 7, and 10, we made a second set of follow-up calls to Fts. Benning,
Bliss, and Knox, for the same reason. In addition, calls were made to Fts. Hood and
Leonard-Wood to urge them to send us additional completed surveys in order to reduce
their low response rates (58% for Ft. Hood and 4% for Ft. Leonard-Wood). One POC
explained that low turnover was causing the delay.

As of May 4, we had received 315 surveys from all but three sites: Fts. Bliss, Knox,
and Benning. After informing ARI about this problem, ARI contacted the remaining
POCs who had surveys outstanding and instructed them to expedite returning them.
Ultimately, the remaining surveys from Fts. Bliss and Benning were sent to HumRRO for
processing. In all, 480 surveys were returned (although 472 were included in the data
base because 8 surveys were later found to be blank.)® Appendix D contains
information about the POCs, as well as number of surveys returned and return dates for
each site.

Data Analysis Results
Satisfaction Items

The ratings of 37 satisfaction items were evaluated using a principle components
factor analysis with a varimax rotation. Using the loading of .50 as a criterion value for
inclusion in the interpretation of the factor, the factor analysis revealed 8 distinct factors
that had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Table 2 summarizes the factor loadings for the
satisfaction ratings.

5 The administration procedures attempted to incorporate administration recommendations outlined in
Giacalone and Naughton (1995). Those recommendations that were feasible for the pilot test were
adopted.

§ In all, 600 surveys were mailed. Therefore, the response rate was approximately 80%.

13



. °
9. In your experience, how do on-post and off-post living arrangements compare in the following aspects?
a oe Omran OF pe ope
inal 7 setae lame P——
—" cer —
@ Availability
b. Cost
Security
ad Environment .
©. Recreational access
f.  Convenience/location
Privacy
h. Quality of housing
i. Readiness to deploy
10. All things considered did/would you: bef er Mave tne eter preter
ctpon Roca; Sopa adansy, Mele trace Sete eft pver
11. How important was non-availability of on- 14, Indicate the rank of your immediate military supervisor

Post housing to your decision to leave the Army? | on your last assignment.

Definitely not important Does not apply, my supervisor was civilian
Probably not important CSM/SGM  WOl = 2LT.
Probably very important ISGMSG = CW2_—sALT.
Definitely very important SFC cw3 CPT
SSG cws MAJ
12. Which ONE phrase best describes the kind SGT Mwa/s LTC
of people you worked with on a daily basis CPL COL or higher

in your last assignment?
15. Indicate the leadership position of your immediate

All military military supervisor on your last assignment.
Most were military, some were civilian employees
About half were military and half civilian employees Does not apply, my supervisor was civilian
Most were civilian employees, some were military Leadership position higher than brigade level (e.g., division, corps)
All civilian employees Brigade Commander
Brigade Staff Officer
13. Indicate the grade of your immediate civilian Brigade Command Sergeant Major
supervisor on your last assignment. Battalion Commander
Battalion Staff Otficer
Does not apply. my supervisor was military. Battalion Command Sergeant Major
GS 10 (or equivalent) or lower ‘Company or Battery Commander
GS 11-12 (or equivalent) Company or Battery Staff Officer
GSIGM 13 (or equivalent) First Sergeant
GSIGM 14 (or equivalent) Platoon/Section Leader (officers)
GS/GM 15 (or equivalent) or higher Platoon Sergeant
Section Leader (enlisted)
‘Squad Leader
Other leadership position
re = >|
. .
ae an ee 8 J



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL
300 ARMY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20310-0300

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

97 FEB 1995

Dear Army Colleague,

I need your help in administering the Army Career Transitions Survey (ACTS).
The population for this survey is all enlisted and officer personnel who are voluntarily
leaving the Army, including retirees. As you can see by reviewing the ACTS, we are
interested in obtaining the opinions of those separating from the Army on a whole range
of issues, including family programs, job training and assignment, and quality of leader-
ship. No one is in a better position to provide this information than those who are
completing their tour of duty, and thus have experienced the whole range of Army life.

We realize that you have many responsibilities, and we would not impose yet
another if it were not of the utmost importance. The data provided by separatees will
allow us to improve our policies and programs to the benefit of the entire Army family.

In order to avoid problems associated with trying to administer a survey at the
time of outprocessing, please arrange time for each separatee (individually or in
groups) to complete the ACTS during pre-separation counseling. Although participation
is voluntary, please stress to each individual that their input will be used to improve
Army life for all of those who follow in their footsteps. The survey is relatively short, and
should take only 15-20 minutes to complete.

Please take a moment to review the instructions printed in the survey itself so that
you will be prepared to answer any questions respondents may have. Labels are
enclosed with the surveys so that you can return the completed forms to the correct
location.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the
ACTS, feel free to contact Dr. Ronald B. Tiggle at the U.S-Army Research Institute for
the Behavioral Sciences. He can be reached at (703) 274-8295 or DSN 284-8295 from
8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern) weekdays. He will answer any inquiries you may have.

incerely,
Thofnas F. Sikora

Major General, U.S. Army
Director of Military
Personnel Management

rrnnton (IB) races Pom
Cc-3



(panunaog)

LL wonesadoos ures) possang “se
SL Seapl puke uONeMOsU! jo Bulseys pademooug “se
suI90000
6s" ssnosip 0} ou0Ksana 303 Ayranysoddo ay) paprorg “be
89° urea} 9q} 10j speos poyise]D de
iT Buryel ysu Juapnid pademooug ‘or
6L Sa}eUIpsOgns WO. SaxPIsTar sau0Y paidoooy “ue
yooudojanoq
OL wea], J0j samuog onsyees padojanog “we ureay, Jo1pjos
suorsipap
“Ly ayew 0} uonemosar ajeuidoidde poureiqQ ‘ye
doIspop
99° & Surge a10jaq Soaneusaye yUoIayIp poyenyeag “ye
so ss SuoIspap 403 santqruodsar yoo, “fe
8 SUOISIAP Ul MISNOARJ PoMOgs “Te
1 se SUONENIS Ie[TUMNS UI SUOISHap JUd}sISUOD opEYy “Ye
Sr SUOTSDap Ieap ope “Be
yeaa] axqQrssod
lr Jsamo] 9y) Je BuryeM UOIsSDep pasemMooug ‘ye
sjeod sarun
“ Te wm ajqnedpoo sam yor suoIsDap ope ‘se | Bure] UOIsHaq
S$¥YOLOVA | bP HOLOVA | €UNOLOVA | 7 AOLOVA | I YOLOVA SWALI XINALAGWOD

(1U0D) sBuppeoy 10984 xENQep Aduajadm0; :g9 ajqey,

30



sora{qoid pue sjarejdwoo qi Aprey yeoq “xq

OL yun ut suxajqoid payedpnuy ‘fq
on asneo sadosd 40j pougdnsiq "1q
Uw ajeiom poos pajomosg “qq
6L" uonenys ay) 0) Ajajeudoidde ssaps0 ane “3q
ox Ajayemaoe sournmojiod pasieiddy ‘jq
ww Burren 10} sanranyioddo pasayjO “2q
yon oy}
on Joy asaydsoune aanioddns e papuoig ‘pq
OL" s}fan 4910 YIM Syse} pa}earp100D “oq
OL Ajavetdoidde Auopne paresojaq “qq
16 Appyendosdde sannp pur syse} snoisea pausissy “eq
iw }ON 9q) UII S¥se} WWIIyIp payeuIps0oD “ze
SL SJoIpjOS payeanour yey) Aem e Ul poyoy “Ae
SL Apparoaya syse) pazraedign “xe uorstasadng
yun ur
ica aBpaymouy peonoey/feormyoay 3Soq oy) PEF] “Me
spoyiour
68" Teonoe} pur jeommyoay wo so1ape a]gelas pasayjO “ae
es" sonoe) pue sonbmysa) aaneaount pasy) ‘ne
Auapyorg
eon,
0g" sampadoid pue spoyjom feoruysa} pooyssapayy “we Aeotuypa
$ UOLOVA | bP YOLOVA | € YOLOVA | 7 YOLOVA | IT YOLOVA SWALI AONALAIWOD

(quoD) sdumpeoy 10}984 xENeP Aouajadw0D :g9 a1qe 1,

31



APPENDIX B

The Army Career Transitions Survey



“papnyour 10u axe ¢ mojaq sBuIpeoy

:210N,

09" € spuaty pue spares Joy 20m jo Junoury “ye
6 eS Afrorey Aurry, we 8u1oq 0} Aprmey jo jwaunsnipy ‘fe
6S sjuswapnus pue sjyousq uonisuey jo uoneurdxy “1

oS oo Ajrarey 10) Moys siapea] Auary Susaou09 pue yoddng ‘ye

wemBolg

Ly muumyy pue is9se> Auary Aq aourjsisse jo AyeND “Be

oO sumex801g S9dIAJag YINOA pur sIeD py ye

so Buyatq uonesedasaid jo Aqend ‘ae

ww suredo1g sotseg Amuro Ausry ‘pe

8s sure801g (YMW) FONeeDeyY pure ‘oueyay ‘afesop “Oe

80 syyouaq feuoneonpa jo junoury ‘qe

is gol uemap b 108 0) popiaoid uonesedaid jjeraaQ “ee

os sasnods 10j smoys Amy padsay -z

€9° SOW 10; Zarmen jo yonowre pue Ayend “A

OL oreo Jeywap pue jeorpom yuapuadap jo Aiyiqeireay “x

risa diqssapea jo sousjodutos eonsen/jesmysay ‘M
8s uonenpeaa aouewojiod Au ut ssousmey JO Janay “A

sjusumudisse qof Aur s9a0 JonUOD Jo JNOUTY “Nn

b YOLOVA € YOLOVA 7YuOLIVA 1 YOLOvVA

sSuney aourjsoduy 105 SSurpeoy s0j9e4 2¢ BIGeL,

19



° _-
7. Listed below are different aspects of Army life. Please review the list and rate how IMPORTANT each =
{isiwas to you by marking a circle on the left (1 = very important through 5 = not at all important), -
Indicate how SATISFIED you are/were with each element by marking a circle in the column on the right. =
eet ae me Pant =

i a ee i to2 3 4 =

a. Overall job fulfillment/challenge -
b. —Superiors’ respect for me as a person -
©. Overall enjoyment doing my job -
d. Quality of leadership and management -
€. — Superiors’ recognition of my sccomplishments -
f. Geographic jocation of jobs -
&. Level of competence of supervisors -
h. Living conditions overseas -
i. Amount of overseas duty -
j. Number of PCS relocations -
k. Quality of family medical and dental care -
1. Dependent facilities/schools a _ -
m. Amount of basic pay -
n. Amount of special pay (such as bonuses) -
©. Quality of military medical and dental care =
P.  Promotion/advancement opportunities -
q Assignment to jobs offering technical/ -
Professional development -

*. Use of my skills and training on jobs -
3. Amount of time for personal needs 7 7 7 _ -
{Assignment to leadership jobs -
¥. Amount of contro! over my job assignments 7 -
¥. Level of faimess in my performance evaluation -
w.  Technical/tsctical competence of leadership -
Xx, Availability of dependent medical and dental care -
Y. Quality and amount of training for MOS . -
2. Respect Army shows for spouses -
32, Overall preparation provided to get a civilian job -
‘ab. Amount of educational benefits -
ac. Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs 7 -
ad. Army Community Service Programs . -
2¢. Quality of preseparation briefing oo -
af. Child Care and Youth Services Programs -
ag. Quality of assistance by Army Career and Alumni Program -
‘ah. Support and concems Army leaders show for family -
ai, Explanation of transition benefits and entitlements -
aj. Adjustment of family to being an “Army family” -
ak. Amount of time for family and friends 7 -
8 During your Army career, how never once «twice, =the, = more =
often did you... . . times than three times -

a. ...live in government owned/leased housing? -
b. ...Jive in off-post housing? =
-

I =

° _-:
gn - an HE 8 =



ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS

Thank you for your assistance in administering the newly-revised Army Career Transitions
Survey (ACTS). There are several things that we are interested in finding out in this pretest,

including:

On average, how long does it take respondents to fill out the ACTS?

Are there confusing or difficult-to-answer items that need to be reworked or
deleted?

Are the options all inclusive? That is, do the alternatives cover the entire range
of answers that someone might give?

To answer these questions, we are going to need your help as you distribute the 50 copies of the
ACTS that are included in this package. Following the instructions below will ensure that we
get the needed information.

Although we are not assuming that the persons you select to complete the ACTS
will be representative of all of those who separate at your site, we would
appreciate it if you could try to distribute the surveys to a variety of people;
include both males and females (with more of the former), a range of ranks, and
different racial/ethnic groups. Please include retirees, but not individuals who are
experiencing "adverse" separations (i.c., those who are being "kicked out.")

Please have the respondent complete the survey on-site, rather than taking it with
them. This reduces the risk that it will get lost in the shuffle.

In order to determine how long it takes to complete the survey, please ask
respondents to write the start and finish time in the upper right hand corner of the
cover page.

Finally, we need to know if individuals had any problems completing the ACTS.
You can determine this in whatever way is most convenient for you. If
administered individually, you may opt to simply ask each respondent as he/she
returns the survey if they were confused by any items of instructions or had any
other problems completing the ACTS. (Please keep a record of any comments
made.) If group administered, you could ask group members to take a moment
after completing the instrument and jot down any comments they may have on a
separate piece of paper (not on the survey itself, however). Use whatever method
is best for you, but please try to have respondents make comments after the
survey has been filled out so that the time taken to do so is not included in the
time-to-complete.

When all 50 of the Army Career Transition Surveys have been completed, please return them in
the preaddressed Federal Express envelope included in this package. If you don’t have regular
FEDEX pickups at your site, you can call 1-800-238-5355 to have an agent get it or drop it at
a FEDEX office. If you have any questions about these procedures, feel free to call Dr. Ron
Tiggle at (703) 274-8295 (DSN 284-8295) or Dr. Janice Laurence at 1-800-716-6520. Thanks
again for your cooperation in this effort.



Study Report 96-08

Revision of the Army Career Transition Survey:
Final Study Report

Robert A. Giacalone, Jennifer A. Naughton,
Janice H. Laurence, and Ani S. DiFazio

Human Resources Research Organization

Organization and Personnel Resources Research Unit
Paul A. Gade, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Department of the Army

July 1996

aE" SnE seer
Amny Project Number Personnel and Training
20465803D730 Analysis Activities



without a greater representation from exiting soldiers, the ACTS will not
provide valid data and will be essentially useless as a diagnostic or
predictive instrument.

As a result, we recommend that the administrative changes be implemented
in full force and reconsidered within one year. If a significant increase in
the response rate is not evident, we would recommend that the ACTS be
abolished and the necessary data be collected using other methods. If the
response rate increases, we urge that a full review take place, such that all
the sponsors provide ARI with written comments regarding the utility of
the data and how the data have been used, as well as reasons why the
survey should be continued. If such support for the instrument does not
exist, and the instrument is not deemed cost effective or worthwhile, we
would also suggest that the ACTS be abolished.

. Leadership Supplement: Determine Functional Utility to Pinpoint Specific
Leaders and Units. The revised Leadership Supplement presents the

opportunity to determine whether certain measured competencies deemed
important by the Leadership Directorate can be used to appropriately
pinpoint dysfunctional leadership by individual leaders or within units.
Ultimately, future analyses will need to segment responses by rater and
ratee, as well as by unit, in order to gather useful longitudinal data about
the performance measures provided by the Leadership Supplement.

The ability of the Leadership Supplement (as opposed to other instruments) to
assess competencies in the Army is the essential question. Ultimately, the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the ACTS in comparison to other specifically tailored
instruments must be weighed.

Conclusions: Considerations and Cautions

Giacalone (1993) prescribed four primary and three secondary recommendations
for establishing the ACTS as an effective exit survey instrument. The primary
recommendations were to: 1) update and revise the satisfaction measures, 2) mandate
consistent administration procedures, 3) measure the impact of respondent identification,
and 4) establish the utility. Secondary recommendations were to: 1) eliminate the
Leadership Supplement and replace it with more reliable measures, 2) establish a
computerized version of the ACTS, and 3) measure the comparative efficacy of the
ACTS to other instruments currently used by the Army. The current revisions addressed
two of the primary recommendations: revision of the satisfaction items and
administration procedures, and one of the secondary recommendations, the creation of
an entirely new Leadership Supplement.

38



Table 9: Leadership Supplement (Item 18) Suggested Revisions

——
ITEM ITEM RECOMMENDATION | IMPACT ON
LETTER REGARDING ITEM RELIABILITY
A. Provided REVISE: Provided UNKNOWN: NO

appropriate relevant information PILOT DATA
information to do required to do my job
my job
B. Provided accurate REVISE: Provided UNKNOWN: NO
information accurate information for | PILOT DATA
the job I did
Cc. Provided timely REVISE: Provided timely | UNKNOWN: NO
information information for the job I | PILOT DATA
did
Dz. Provided REVISE: Provided UNKNOWN: NO
information for the | relevant information for PILOT DATA
group group tasks
P. Praised in public DELETE RELIABILITY
COEFFICIENT
ALPHA GOES
FROM .93 TO .94
Q. Criticized in private | DELETE RELIABILITY
COEFFICIENT
ALPHA GOES
FROM .93 TO .94
Al. Showed favoritism | DELETE RELIABILITY
in decisions COEFFICIENT
ALPHA GOES

FROM .88 TO .94

36



APPENDIX E

Topical Report



are now part of question 7 and include: 1) Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
Programs; 2) Army Community Service Programs; 3) Child Care and Youth Services
Programs; 4) Support and Concern Army leaders show for your family; 5) How well your
family adjusted to being an Army family; 6) Amount of time for family and friends; 7)
Amount of time for personal needs; and 8) Respect the Army shows spouses.

Directorate of Advertising and Public Affairs, USAREC

The interview with USAREC indicated that no changes were necessary. However,
they added that future ARI reports concerning the ACTS would be most useful if they
include longitudinal trends, as well as current information. Although no changes were
made to the ACTS as a result of our interview, several recommendations were added to
the Recommendations list in this report.

DAPE O, MPE, MPA)

The interview with the Department of Army Personnel (DAPE) generated a
number of requests for new items and for the deletion of old items. Because DAPE
representatives were relatively specific about their needs, it was possible for them to
clearly identify those items that should be retained, as well as items which should be
added or deleted. Their requests are summarized in the following section.

Changes Made to the ACTS. The issues which DAPE representatives highlighted
were congruent with the intent of the ACTS, as well as with the format of the satisfaction
items. As a result of the interview, the following items were retained:

Leadership/Supervisory Items

Technical/tactical competence of leadership
Superiors’ respect for me as a person
Superiors’ recognition of my accomplishments
Level of fairness in my performance evaluation
Level of competence of supervisors

Personal Job Satisfaction Items

Overall job fulfillment and challenge

Overall enjoyment doing my job

Assignment to jobs offering technical/professional development
Use of my skills and training on jobs

Assignment to leadership jobs

Amount of control over my job assignments



1, What is the current month and year?

L

2. How many years of active duty
service have you completed
(including enlisted, warrant officer,
and commissioned officer time)?

y
i)

OBNONARWN =O

3. Have you found civilian employment?
Yes
No

4. Will you seek employment
immediately after separation?

Yes
No
$. Will you file for unemployment
compensation?
Yes
No
6. Will family members file for

unemployment compensation?

Yes
No

B-4



22. What was your Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) (IF ENLISTED OR WARRANT
OFFICER) or your primary Area of Concentration
(AOC) (IF COMMISSIONED OFFICER)?

MyLI. OIC

‘Warrant Enlisted|
MOS, MOS or|
Officer}

AOC}

23, Have you been working in your
Primary MOS/AOC for the past year?
Yes :

No (fNO, please skip to 26)

24, When was the last time you performed
critical tasks in your primary MOS/AOC?

within the past month

1 to 2 months ago

3 to 4 months ago

5 to 6 months ago

more than 6 months ago (Please skip to 26)

25. How frequently, in the past 6 months, did

26. For each point listed below, rate your ability to
perform the tasks that are critical to your MOS/AOC
Sasi
In the past: eA
a. At the end of your Initial Training
b. Later, at the peak of your ability
At_present:
¢. Now, with no refresher training
d. Now, if you were given two weeks of refre.
‘training
Inthe future:
¢. One year from now, with no retraining
£. One year from now, after two weeks of
refresher training

27, Would you be interested in being recalled
sometime during the next 3 years for a paid, two week
training exercise as a member of the Individual Ready
Reserve?

Tam not interested

T might be interested, depending on other things

(school, job, etc.)

Tam very interested

28. Would you be interested in volunteering for an
overseas mission, such as peacekeeping, for up to
one year, as a member of the Individual Ready
Reserve?

Tam not interested

I might be interested, depending on other things

(school, job, etc.)

Tam very interested

29, After separation, do you plan to look for a job
that is similar to your primary MOS/AOC?

Ne
you perform tasks critical to your MOS/AOC? Ye

I performed them on a weekly basis Thave not decided

I performed them monthly

I performed them only a few times 30. What is your highest level of education

I didn't perform them at all Less than High School Bachelor's Degree
GEDJEquivalent Master's Degree
High School Diploma Doctorate
Other

° .
ao SURVEY META an neo r

B-10



Additional Changes

Three other significant changes were made to the satisfaction items. First, items
that failed to load on any factor during a previous factor analysis (see Giacalone, Elig,
Ginexi, & Bright, 1995), that were not of interest to any command, were deleted. These
included:

Item Number Ttem
6 Number of quick response tasks
13 Level of competence of co-workers
14 Quality and amount of equipment
16 Living conditions stateside
19 Spouse’s career/work opportunities
26 Retirement benefits
27 Level of educational benefits
28 Fairness of married versus single pay
30 Compensation for PCS moves
31 Amount of job security
34 Overall quality of Army life
37 Amount of family separation
40 Access to education/training

Second, an importance rating was added to the satisfaction rating scale. This new
rating indicates how critical different items (and different aspects of the Army) are
viewed by the soldiers. Thus, it more closely approximates an actual exit interview where
the interviewer can make these assessments usually by reading non-verbal
communications or asking follow-up questions. In sum, the inclusion of importance
ratings is expected to increase data quality. Note that the importance and satisfaction
scales now have 5- and 4-points, respectively.’

Additionally, an item in the original ACTS, which asked the respondent to indicate
the most important reason why s/he left the Army (item C), was not included in the
revised survey. This item was eliminated for several reasons. One reason was
methodological in nature; the question forced the respondent to choose from reasons
listed only in the survey. In actuality, the individual may have based his/her decision on a
reason that was not listed; therefore, the respondent would be prevented from answering
accurately. In addition, the item was burdensome to the respondent (i.e., it required the
respondent to reread an already lengthy list of items (7a-ak)). When the burden of
answering a question is great, it can jeopardize the data. For example, it can result in

1 An even-numbered scale was chosen for the satisfaction items as it forces the respondent to take a
position (i.e., satisfied vs. dissatisfied). Further, a 4-point scale was used for the satisfaction items in the
previous ACTS. A "forced choice" scale helps to prevent a neutral response, increases variability, and
therefore positively affects data quality. For the importance items, neutral response sets were deemed to
be less likely, and a 5-point scale was considered appropriate. However, the scales can be revised should
the sponsor deem it necessary.



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1, REPORT DATE
1996, July

2. REPORT TYPE
Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
April 1994-September 1995

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Revision of the Army Career Transition Survey: Final Study Report

Sa. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
MDA903-93-D-0032 (DO 0015)

Sb. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
0605803A

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert A. Giacalone, Jennifer A. Naughton, Janice H. Laurence, and
Ani S. DiFazio

5c. PROJECT NUMBER
D730

Sd. TASK NUMBER
1131

Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER
C20

7, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Human Resources Research Organization

66 Canal Center Plaza

Suite 400

Alexandria, VA 22314

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
FR-WATSD-95-06

9, SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: PERI-RP

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM
ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Study Report 96-08

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
COR: Ronald B. Tiggle

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

From 1990-1995, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences administered an experimental exit
survey to separating soldiers. This instrument was known as the Army Career Transitions Survey (ACTS). The ACTS was designed
for use among separating Active Duty Army personnel to measure: satisfaction levels, perceptions of Army leadership, advice for
potential recruits, and the reasons for leaving the Army. The Human Resources Research Organization was awarded a contract to
develop standardized administration procedures and to review and revise the items on the ACTS. To meet the goals of this research,
the approach primarily involved: gathering information through semistructured interviews with pertinent commands and transition
site personnel; reviewing the literature on leadership; pilot testing the revised survey instrument; and analyzing the results. Each of

these efforts is addressed individually in this report.

15, SUBJECT TERMS

Army Career Transitions Survey CTS Leadership
Satisfaction Exit survey
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 49. LIMITATION OF | 20. NUMBER | 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)
16. REPORT | 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE
Unclassified | Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited m4



(ponunuoD)

siqiz jenpurpur parradsay ‘pe

Ayey soma pagddy ‘ov

ee

JoUUeO [OTIS Ue Ot paaeyag “qe

eo

soMEyaq [eoyJoun papueuniday “ee

TOMRYAG eOIpJe popremay,

Z

yon oq2 Joy sprepaeis feoma yBIy 19S

som
[euorssajorg

wo

‘ouop sdurq} 303 pue
wOHeMLOsA! 194)e3 0} YOMION [eUOIsSajo1d pas~)

so

sayeurpioqgns 0}

ssoradns wo conewuoyar ajeudoidde passeg

suna1shg
aqqerreay Jo 287)

9

PPpow aor aanisod e se paasag

we

yaoudojaaep pue Suraren posemooug

ee

sourmojsod Aur uo yoRqpsey popuoig

69

Sysey o}0/dwWos 0} Moy UO pojonAsuy

Ayrudip pue ssousrey quia siglo payor,

ayeaud ur pozDAyD

sy

ongnd ut pasierg

bv

wONnSeNp pue so1Ape paprolg

Burjasun0D,
Auryosesy

§ YOLOVA

b YOLOVA

€ YOLOVA

@YOLOVA

TaOLOVA

SWALI

AONALAANOD

(qu0D) sduspeoy 103984 xENeWh AduajaduI0D :g9 21qRL,

29



Factor 1 was a leadership/supervision factor and was characterized by items such
as superiors’ respect for me as a person and level of competence of supervisors. Factor 2
was a benefits/support services factor and was characterized by items such as the amount
of educational benefits and child care and youth services programs. Factor 3 focused more
generally upon training and was best characterized by items such as use of my skills and
training on jobs and quality and amount of training for MOS. Factor 4 focused on family
issues and was characterized by items such as respect Army shows for spouses and amount
of time for family and friends. Factor 5 was a personal benefits factor and included items
such as amount of basic pay. Similarly, Factor 6 was a family benefits factor and was
characterized best by the items quality of family medical and dental care and availability of
dependent medical and dental care. Factor 7 was a PERSTEMPO factor and was
characterized by two items, amount of overseas duty and number of PCS relocations.
Finally, Factor 8 was difficult to interpret, with three seemingly unrelated items loading
on this factor: overall job fulfillment/challenge, overall enjoyment doing my job, and
dependent facilities/schools. However, these are major issues that may be reflective of
overall quality of life.

The 37 importance ratings were also evaluated using a principle components
factor analysis with a varimax rotation. Using the loading of .50 as a criterion value for
inclusion in the interpretation of the factor, the factor analysis revealed 4 distinct factors
that had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Table 3 summarizes the factor loadings for the
importance ratings.

Factor 1 was a personal/family needs factor, characterized by the importance of
items such as quality of family medical and dental care, dependent facilities/schools,
and amount of time for personal‘needs. Factor 2 focused on the support of job duties and
family life, and was characterized by items such as quality and amount of training for MOS
and support and concerns Army leaders show for family. Factor 3 was a job satisfaction
factor, characterized best by the item overall job fulfillment/challenge. Finally, Factor 4
was a job location factor and was characterized by items such as geographic location of
jobs and amount of overseas duty.

Because DAPE was interested in keeping items from the original ACTS which
loaded on five factors (leadership/supervision, job satisfaction, organizational
incentives/rewards, medical benefits, moving factors), we analyzed the reliability of these
factors. Table 4 summarizes the reliability coefficients. Finally, a measure of reliability
for the items requested by Army Housing was conducted and demonstrated excellent
reliability (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha = .86).’

7 Reliability measures were calculated for the Army Housing items because the items added were new.
Reliability was calculated for the DAPE items since many of the original items had changed.

17



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

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director

Research accomplished under contract
for the Department of the Army

Human Resources Research Organization

Technical review by

Morris Peterson
Ronald B. Tiggle

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: 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-STP, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia
22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not
return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army
position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.



effectively in other ways. Similarly, unless there is an a priori reason to believe that the
responses of exiting soldiers can be used as a useful comparison sample (e.g., comparing
leaving soldiers to those who choose to stay), the ACTS would appear to be unjustified.
Only when comparing its merit can the continued use of the ACTS be fully defended.
We would urge the Army to make this assessment in the near future so that a reasonable
judgment can be made about the utility and cost effectiveness of continuing to use the
ACTS.

41



(penunuo)

(1009) s8uppeoy s0jaeq xEQey AduajaduI0D v9 aqeL

saysi fenpiatput poyadsay “pe
or" Karey sana poyddy ‘oe
JouUe [eOTIO Ue UI paaeqag “qu
€> JOWRYyaq feomaun popueuniday “ve
JOWRYaG [orga papremay “2
somaya]
qn 294) JJ Spsepurys feos yBry eg “A [euorssajoig
: guop s8ump 103 pue
Ww wONeUIOsUT 194 }e3 0} ysOMJaU JeUOISsajoid pas~)
sayeurpsogns 0} suaisk¢
so ssouedns woy uogemoyai aelidoidde posseg ‘am | o1qQeTTeAY JO as—)
19° J9pour jos aanisod e se paarag “A
7S yooudojaasp pure Bumren pesemoouq “n
95 souemuojiad Au wo yoeqpaay poptoig *}
69 $¥se) a}9]dmI09 0} MOY UO pr|onnsuy “Ss
8 Ajrosip pue ssousrey qyua sioyjO payeary, “I
ayeaud ut pazpnug “b
Sv onqnd ur pasrerg “d
Surjesunod,
+L WoNIaNp pue so1ape papiaoig “Oo Burges},
SUYOLOVA | py NOLOVA | € YOLOVA | TUYOLOVA | I YOLOVA SW4LI XONALAAWOD

25



Table 8: Leadership Supplement Intercorrelations

cert PLANCPT THOS ANAILSY FROFETH orISK THO TRIC SUPERVS
comceT: 1,00000 0.82560 0.88116 0.85145 0.80284 0.81404 0.79555 0.74615 0.81621
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCY 0.0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 6.0001
PLANCPT: 0.82580 1.00000 0.81684 0.78318 0.758! 0.78434 0.71635 0.72701 0.77697
PLANNING COMPETENCY 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 6.0001
TEACHES: 0.88116 0.81684 1.00000 0.85957 0.85441 0.84040 0.82835 0.77468 0.86694
TEACHING COUNSELING 0.0001 9.0001 0.0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 6.0001
AVATLSY: 0.85145 0.78318 0.85957 1.00000 0.78822 0.80868 0.75573 0.71508 0.80617
USE OF AVAILABLE SYSTEMS 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 9.0002 ‘0.0001 0.0001 6.0001
PROFETH: 0.80284 0.75855 0.85441 0.78822 1,00000 0.86404 0.85070 0.76626 0.86982
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 6.0001
DECISHK: 0.81404 0.78434 0.84040 0.80868 0.86404 1.00000 0.85750 0.82044 0.90048
DECTSION MAKING 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 00001 0.0001 0.0 9.0001, 6.0001 6.0001
TEAEV: 0.79555 0.71635 0.82835 0.75573 0.85070 0.85750 1.00000 0.81570 0.91956
‘SOLDIER TEAM DEVELOPMENT ‘0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 6.0001
TPROFIC: 0.74615 0.72701 0.77468 0.71508 0.76626 0.82044 0.81570 1.00000 0.85358
TECHNICAL/TACTICAL PROFICIENCY 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 6.0001
SUPERVS: 0.81621 0.77697 0.86694 0.80617 0.86982 0.90048 0.91956 0.85358 1.00000
‘SUPERVISION 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0

This overlap has been noted since the competencies were first established in 1976.
In fact, Clement and Ayres (1976) cautioned that "a certain amount of redundancy exists
in the treatment of each dimension because of the considerable overlap between them"

(p. 21).

Here, too, the issue first surfaced by those who originally defined the
competencies. As they noted:

"A definition serves the purpose of a map. Any attempt to completely
explain a complex term (e.g., leadership’) can only result in a map so
detailed [that it is] the equivalent of the ’territory’ it is intended to
represent. Thus, the map loses its functional value. For this reasons, the
reader will note ..a number of terms which are described rather than
specifically defined. It will be left up to the reader to construct an
appropriate definition of each dimension" (Clement & Ayres, 1976, p. 5).

However, it is important to recognize, that despite the lack of discernable factors,
the current revision of the Leadership Supplement is a substantial improvement over the
original. Inasmuch as the original made no a priori attempt to base itself on Army
Leadership competencies, and because of its lack of factor structure, its utility was highly
questionable. The revised Leadership Supplement, on the other hand, is based on
competencies that were deemed necessary by the Leadership Directorate and by the
literature to a lesser extent, and provides measures that are reliable.

34



Table 4: Reliability Coefficients for Satisfaction Factors

(From Old ACTS)
Factor Cronbach
Coefficient
Alpha
Leadership/
Supervisory
(Items B,D,E,G,V) 84

Job Satisfaction
(Items A,C,Q,R,T,U) 82

Organizational
Incentives/Rewards

(Items M,N,P) 66
Medical Benefits

(Items K,O,X) 84

Moving Factors
(Items F,H,I,J) 68

Leadership Supplement

The ratings of 63 Leadership Supplement items were also evaluated using a
principle components factor analysis with a varimax rotation. Using the loading of .50 as
a criterion value for inclusion in the interpretation of the factor, the factor analysis
revealed only two factors that had eigenvalues of greater than 1.0. Table 5 summarizes
the factor loadings. The factor analysis did not reveal a factor structure to mirror the
nine competencies requested by the Leadership Directorate (communication, planning,
teaching and counseling, use of available systems, professional ethics, decision making,
soldier team development, technical/tactical proficiency, and supervision) for which items
had been written. There was no clear interpretation of the factors, as 22 of the 63 items
(35%) loaded on both factors and the remaining items did not present a clear picture.
Additional factor analyses were performed by the ARI project monitor to determine if
interpretation could be improved. Even with the alternative oblique solution,
interpretation remained problematic (see Tables 6a and 6b).

20



In accordance with directives from ARI and from developed leads, the following
groups were interviewed and/or surveyed:

Army Career and Alumni Program

Retirement Service Office

Army Housing Office

Community and Family Support Center

US. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)

Department of the Army, Personnel (DAPE)

Leadership Directorate (see Leadership Supplement section)

Cr er ry

The interview results are described in the following sections by group. Appendix A
contains the names of individuals who were contacted and their affiliation.

Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP)

ACAP informed us that the original eight satisfaction factors on the ACTS (ie.,
Leadership/Supervisory, Job satisfaction, Organizational Incentives/Rewards, Housing,
Office Policies and Staffing, Medical Benefits, Moving Factors, and Support Services)
were not useful to them. Rather, their interests were as follows:

1) the efficacy of ACAP counseling (i.e., Did ACAP help to get soldier a job?
How effective were specific and general aspects of the counseling
Pprocess?);

2) the employment prospects and status of the soldier as separation
approached; and

3) the differences in experiences across transition points.

Changes Made to the ACTS. We determined that the evaluation of ACAP
counseling was unsuitable for an exit survey, thus items were not added for this particular
topic. However, more general questions regarding the quality of ACAP assistance, as
well as the quality of the pre-separation briefing and the explanation of Army benefits,
were included in the satisfaction measures (Question 7). ACAP questions regarding
employment status and unemployment compensation (which ACAP suggested and
constructed) were also added (Questions 3-6).

Retirement Service Office

As with ACAP, the Retirement Service Office informed us that the eight
satisfaction factors were not useful to them. However, they identified one major issue
that they wanted us to consider. Specifically, they wanted to know whether exiting
soldiers had been properly informed about their choices upon retirement, especially
about the survivor benefit plan.



APPENDIX C

Administration Instructions



References

Campbell, J.P. (1977). The cutting edge of leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt
and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.

Clement, S.D., & Ayres, D.B. (1976). A matrix of organizational leadership dimensions.
(1976).Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Administration Center.

Department of the Army (1990). Military Leadership (Report FM22-100). Washington,
DC: Author, p. 67.

Garrison, L., & Ferguson, J. (1977). Separation interviews. Personnel Journal, 56, 438-
442,

Giacalone, R.A. (1993). .A critical evaluation of the Army Career Transitions Survey: A
suggested approach for reformulation. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute.

Giacalone, R.A., & Knouse, S.B. (1989). Farewell to fruitless exit interviews. Personnel,
66, 60-62.

Giacalone, R.A., & Naughton, J.A. (1995). Recommendations for Administration of the
Army Career Transitions Survey. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Giacalone, R. A., Elig, T., Ginexi, E., & Bright, A. (1995, In press). The impact of
identification and type of separation on measures of satisfaction and missing data
in the exit survey process. Military Psychology.

Goodale, J.G. (1982). The fine art of interviewing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hinrichs, J.R. (1971). Employees coming and going: The exit interview. Personnel, 48
(1), 30-35.

Jablonski, W.A. (1975). How useful are exit interviews? Supervisory Management, 20
(5), 8-14.

Karmel, B. (1978). Leadership: A challenge to traditional research methods and
assumptions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 475-482.

Leftowitz, J., & Katz, M.L. (1969). Validity of exit interviews. Personnel Psychology, 22,
445-455.

Locke, E.A. (1991). The essence of leadership. New York: Lexington.

43



APPENDIX A

Command Interview Source Information

A-1



Incentives and Rewards

Amount of basic pay
Amount of special pay (such as bonuses)
Promotion/advancement opportunities

Living Arrangements
Dependent facilities/schools
Medical Benefits
Quality of family medical and dental care

Quality of military medical and dental care
Availability of dependent medical and dental care

Moving Issues

Geographic location of jobs
Living conditions overseas
Amount of overseas duty
Number of PCS relocations

DAPE representatives asked that the following issues be added to the satisfaction
items:

Quality and amount of training for MOS
Overall preparation provided to get a civilian job
Amount of educational benefits

DAPE representatives also requested that the following items be deleted from the
original satisfaction items:

Item Number Item
4 Amount of regulations and discipline
8 Length of working hours
10 Amount of paperwork
11 Amount of personnel available to do work
23 Quality of family service centers
32 Quality of commissary exchanges
33 Support and recreational services