the effectiveness of the united states air force
TRANSCRIPT
Aeronautics, Undergraduate Studies - Worldwide College of Aeronautics
2013
The Effectiveness of the United States Air Force Developmental The Effectiveness of the United States Air Force Developmental
Teams Teams
Jason Michael Newcomer Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ww-undergraduate-studies
Part of the Leadership Studies Commons, and the Military and Veterans Studies Commons
Scholarly Commons Citation Scholarly Commons Citation Newcomer, J. M. (2013). The Effectiveness of the United States Air Force Developmental Teams. , (). Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/ww-undergraduate-studies/1
This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Aeronautics at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Aeronautics, Undergraduate Studies - Worldwide by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Walden University
College of Management and Technology
This is to certify that the doctoral study by
Jason Newcomer
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.
Review Committee Dr. Sandra Kolberg, Committee Chairperson, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty
Dr. Jon Corey, Committee Member, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty
Dr. Richard Snyder, University Reviewer, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty
Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University 2013
Abstract
The Effectiveness of the United States Air Force Developmental Teams
by
Jason Michael Newcomer
MAS, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2008
BSPA, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2004
AAS, Community College of the Air Force, 2003
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
Walden University
November 2013
Abstract
The Results-Based Leadership Group surveyed 470 companies and discovered that the top 25
companies with effective leadership practices dedicated twice as much effort to leadership
development as did other companies, indicating a strong relationship between success and
leadership development. The problem explored in the current study was the lack of qualitative
analyses of the U.S. Air Force Development Team processes. The purpose of the case study was
to survey Development Teams at the U.S. Air Force in Washington, DC to explore how
effectively the teams’ processes resulted in identification, selection, and/or development of
leaders who meet strategic needs of the service. Elements of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational
leadership theory, Fayol's theory of management, Friedman’s theory of differentiated leadership,
and Lewin's change theories were combined with Cohen’s leadership development framework to
drive the investigation. Fourteen teams completed anonymous online questionnaires during
purposefully and snowball sampled data collection. Qualitative data were analyzed, coded, and
grouped into themes. The Development Teams’ processes produced leaders to meet strategic
needs of the service, and the program’s objectives aligned with national strategy. Other findings
led to specific recommendations, specifically, that teams needed reevaluate their ability to assess
past decisions, and that teams’ developmental processes needed more standardization among all
career fields. The implications for social change are enhanced leadership development for the
service and the development of a leadership assessment model that can be used by any
organization in the private or public sector. Improved leadership can allow the service to be
postured better to protect the United States and to conduct humanitarian relief efforts.
The Effectiveness of the United States Air Force Developmental Teams
by
Jason Michael Newcomer
MAS, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2008
BSPA, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2004
AAS, Community College of the Air Force, 2003
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
Walden University
November 2013
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3602504Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3602504
Dedication
I dedicate this milestone of my academic career to significant individuals and
organizations from my past, present, and future. To the past, I dedicate this project to Jeffrey
Craig, a dear friend who fell to cancer long before his time. He left behind three wonderful sons,
Jeffrey, Bradley, and Mitchell, and a lovely wife, Lisa. He shared with me the same love and
compassion he shared with his family and, for that, I can never thank him enough. Jeff helped
strengthen my spirit, aided in my transition from a boy to a man, and demonstrated the
importance of putting those one cares about above all else.
To the present, I dedicate this effort to the United States Air Force (USAF) as it currently
stands—strong, resolved, and manned by a force of the world's finest Airmen, who continually
work toward excellence while maintaining integrity and putting the needs of the United States
before their own. May the study help educate USAF leaders, improve development processes,
and strengthen the national security of the United States of America through a more effective
officer corps.
Finally, to the future, I dedicate this achievement to my baby cousin, Deryk Morales.
Since his infancy, Deryk has been there for all of my military and academic achievements. May
this project challenge him to strive for excellence, understand the importance and power of
education, and achieve the highest level of scholarship so that he might one day contribute to
positive social change.
Acknowledgments
I thank the many personal, professional, and spiritual entities who helped make this
academic and professional milestone possible. It was through strong faith, learned values, shared
experiences, and seasoned mentorship I was able to come this far. I will never forget those who
have played such critical roles.
The love and support I have received gave me strength throughout every hurdle of this
project. For all of this, I thank God and praise Him for the strength He has given me, the cries
for help He has answered, and the unconditional love He has provided to me all of my life. I
thank my mother for the love, motivation, and financial support she provided me throughout my
life and this program. Finally, I am grateful to my friends and family who stood by my side and
granted to me pardon for the many events and quality time I missed in pursuit of this degree.
I thank my committee, Dr. Sandy Kolberg, my project chair and source of inspiration; Dr.
Jon Corey, my mentor and friend; and Dr. Richard Snyder, for their guidance throughout this
process. I would also like to acknowledge all of my college and grade school instructors for
mentoring (and not suspending) me as the "class clown" who matured into who and what I am
today.
Finally, I owe thanks to the many warriors of the Armed Forces who served as my
followers, supervisors, and commanders while I worked on the study. Of particular mention is
Mr. Steven Pennington, who supported me at every turn; Brigadier General Tom Sharpy, who
helped me select a topic; and Colonel Elisabeth Auld and Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Paul
Valenzuela, who both fought to get my permission letter approved.
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Section 1: Foundation of the Study ......................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ...........................................................................................2
Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4
Purpose Statement ..........................................................................................................5
Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................5
Research Question .........................................................................................................6
Questionnaire Questions ......................................................................................... 6
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................8
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ..............................................................10
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 10
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 11
Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................12
Reduction of Gaps................................................................................................. 12
Implications for Social Change ............................................................................. 12
A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature ..............................................13
Leadership Theories .............................................................................................. 14
Strategy ................................................................................................................. 18
i
Developing and Alignment Objectives ................................................................. 24
Talent Management .............................................................................................. 28
Performance Management .................................................................................... 34
Program Assessment ............................................................................................. 36
Organizational Behavior and the Development Teams ........................................ 41
Transition and Summary ..............................................................................................44
Section 2: The Project ........................................................................................................46
Purpose Statement ........................................................................................................46
Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................47
Participants ...................................................................................................................48
Research Method and Design ......................................................................................51
Research Method .................................................................................................. 51
Research Design.................................................................................................... 53
Population and Sampling .............................................................................................55
Ethical Research...........................................................................................................58
The Consent Process ............................................................................................. 59
Participant Protection ............................................................................................ 60
Project Transparency ............................................................................................ 61
Incentives .............................................................................................................. 61
Data Collection ............................................................................................................61
Instruments ............................................................................................................ 62
Data Collection Technique ................................................................................... 63
ii
The Pilot Case Study ............................................................................................. 65
Data Organization Techniques .............................................................................. 66
Data Analysis Techniques............................................................................................67
Questionnaire Questions ....................................................................................... 67
Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................70
Reliability .............................................................................................................. 70
Validity ................................................................................................................. 71
Transition and Summary ..............................................................................................73
Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change ..................75
Overview of Study .......................................................................................................75
Presentation of the Findings.........................................................................................76
Theme 1: Strategy ................................................................................................. 79
Theme 2: Objective Alignment ............................................................................. 80
Theme 3: Talent Management .............................................................................. 81
Theme 4: Performance .......................................................................................... 82
Theme 5: Assessment ........................................................................................... 83
Theme 6: Impact to Organizational Environment ................................................ 84
Theme 7: Effect on Organizational Balance ......................................................... 85
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 87
Applications to Professional Practice ..........................................................................88
Implications for Social Change ....................................................................................91
Recommendations for Action ......................................................................................91
iii
Recommendations for Theme 5: Assessment ...................................................... 92
Recommendations for Theme 7: Effect on Organizational Balance ................... 93
Recommendations for Further Study ...........................................................................94
Reflections ...................................................................................................................96
Summary and Study Conclusions ................................................................................96
References ..........................................................................................................................98
Appendix A: Reduction in Gaps Verification .................................................................121
Appendix B: Permission to Conduct Research ...............................................................122
Appendix C: Consent Form ............................................................................................124
Appendix D: Permission to Use Table 2.........................................................................125
Appendix E: Case Study Protocol...................................................................................126
Appendix F: USAF DT Survey.......................................................................................127
Appendix G: Invitation E-Mail ........................................................................................130
Appendix H: IRB Exemption and Approval Letter .........................................................131
Appendix I: USAF Research Oversight Approval...........................................................132
Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................133
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample Objectives ............................................................................................. 25
Table 2. Five Questions to Select the Color to Paint a Qualitative Design ..................... 55
Table 3. Comparable Qualitative Leadership Studies and Their Sample Size ................ 57
Table 4. Qualitative Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................................... 63
Table 5. Sample Qualitative and Quantitative Data Layout and Organization ................ 69
Table 6. Themes and Responses Received ...................................................................... 78
Table 7. Investigative Questions to Support the LIFE Model ......................................... 90
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Depiction of United States federal spending in fiscal year 2010 ....................... 4
Figure 2. The literature review map ................................................................................. 14
Figure 3. A side by side comparison of Fayol and Porter’s theories. .............................. 16
Figure 4. A cross-reference of the Harvard (2005) and Chu (2010) strategy models ..... 19
Figure 5. CFMs vs. Air Staff personnel ........................................................................... 43
Figure 6. The data collection process flow chart. ............................................................ 65
Figure 7. Sample bar graph visual representation for exploring qualitative data ............ 70
Figure 8. Frequencies of positive and negative responses for each theme. ..................... 79
Figure 9. The leader-input framework for evaluation (LIFE) model ............................... 89
vi
1
Section 1: Foundation of the Study
Brigadier General Thomas Sharpy identified the need for an assessment of the United
States Air Force’s (USAF) leadership development process, also known as the Developmental
Team, to determine the effectiveness of the process to create excellent leaders to meet current
and future challenges (T. Sharpy, personal communication, April 7, 2011). The Development
Teams are part of the USAF’s overarching Force Development program, a mission-driven
initiative to train and to educate USAF active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel through a
purposeful, career-long process of personal and professional development (USAF, 2008a). The
USAF leaders use Force Development to engender organizational and occupational
competencies through education, skills training, and practical experience. According to the
USAF (2010), Development Teams are the conduit within the USAF that aligns Force
Development systems with frameworks, and organization policy and the USAF Force
Developers use them to generate career paths for personnel. Development Team membership
includes a general officer (i.e., chair), a career field manager (CFM), an assignments team
representative, and other senior officer (or civilian equivalent) stakeholders from the Air Staff or
major command (MAJCOM) headquarters.
The USAF Development Teams that guide the development of officers to meet strategic
objectives were the target of exploration in the study. The exploration involved a review of
literature, coupled with online questionnaires completed by members of the Development
Teams. Findings were cross-referenced with the USAF 2011 Development Team survey to
validate both studies and also to provide USAF leadership a comprehensive study on the status
of their leadership development program. The big picture provided by the study might enable
2
USAF leaders to make adjustments to the program where required to produce more effective
officers and ultimately a more competent and effective military force.
Background of the Problem
Some previous authors of leadership studies focused on studies of traits and skills that
measured leadership effectiveness (Yukl, George, & Jones, 2009). Yukl et al. (2009) identified
assertiveness, persistence, self-confidence, and decisiveness as leadership traits perceived to be
necessary. Though traits are more personality focused, skills represent the ability to successfully
perform a task or act. These skills range among interpersonal, technical, and conceptual
attributes. Interpersonal skills reflect a leader’s ability to understand human behavior and
interactions and to communicate effectively (Yukl et al., 2009). Technical skills reflect leaders’
understanding of procedures, techniques, and processes. Conceptual skills reflect a leader’s
ability to logically analyze a situation or problem and to creatively develop a solution (Yukl et
al., 2009). Examples of interpersonal skills are cleverness, creativeness, speaking ability, tact,
and social ability.
Many researchers believe traits and skills are developed through a combination of
learning and natural ability (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990; Rath &
Conchie, 2008). The Results-Based Leadership Group (2011) surveyed 470 companies to
determine effective leadership practices; leaders of the top 25 companies with effective
leadership practices dedicated twice as much effort to leadership development as other
companies, indicating a strong relationship between effective leadership practices and leadership
development. USAF leadership development programs focus on each of these areas to build
organizational and occupational competence through education, skills training, and practical
3
experience (USAF, 2010). The Development Teams are part of the process.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) budget makes up 23% of the U.S. federal budget
(see Figure 1). The DoD has been criticized by some as inflated due to poor financial controls
and unnecessary spending (Congressional Budget Office, 2011). The USAF convenes 32
Development Teams, twice a year, to vector officers and civilians (Air Force Personnel Center,
2011b). The average cost of a temporary duty (TDY) to the Development Team averages $1,400
per person (Defense Travel System [DTS], 2011). With each Development Team consisting of
15–20 personnel, the associated travel costs range from $1.3 to $1.8 million annually and salaries
specific to the Development Team range from $1.1 to $1.5 million annually (Defense Finance
and Accounting Service [DFAS], 2011). Total expenses associated with the development team
process range from $2.4 to $3.2 million dollars a year, and yet no thorough research has been
conducted on the effectiveness of the program (DFAS, 2011; DTS, 2011). The previous expense
calculation does not include policy development, program administration, or intangible costs
associated with maintaining the Development Team program.
Brigadier General Thomas Sharpy, the former director of the Air Force Senior Matters
Office, identified the research gap regarding the effectiveness of the Development Teams. An
important part of strategy, military or corporate, is performance measurement (Parnell, 2010); to
date, there have been no significant studies on the effectiveness of the Development Team on
leader development.
4
Figure 1. Depiction of United States federal spending in fiscal year 2010. Adapted from Congressional Budget Office report Budget and Economic Outlook: Historical Budget Data (2011, pp. 9–10).
Problem Statement
Graduates from poor or inadequate leadership development programs (LDPs) negatively
impact many organizations and are often accompanied with greater operating costs (Clevette &
Cohen, 2007; Kaminsky, 2012). Effective leaders are typically a key foundation for
organizational success and growth, making the need for mature LDPs a general business problem
that both the private and public sectors must address aggressively (Amagoh, 2009; Hotho &
Dowling, 2010). A major finding from a United States Army survey indicated 39% of leaders
rated developing others as the lowest rated core competency (Hinds & Steele, 2012). In 2007
and 2010, the USAF conducted baseline and follow-up studies on the Development Teams. The
authors of these studies focused on the service members' understanding of the program, not the
program's ability to develop leaders that meet strategic objectives. The specific business
problem is the a lack of analysis of the USAF LDP as to how effective the program is meeting
6%
12%
23%
16%
20%
23%
Net Interest Other Mandatory Medicare & Medicaid
Discretionary Social Security Defense
5
current and future leadership needs of the service (Guerci & Vinante, 2011).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the qualitative case study was to explore the influence of the
Development Teams’ processes on USAF field-grade officers worldwide to determine the
efficacy of the Development Teams' processes for identifying, selecting, and/or developing
leaders who meet current and future needs of the service. The USAF (2008a) defined the
development team processes as the conduits between USAF policy, force development systems,
and organizational frameworks used to generate career paths for personnel. A total of 14
Development Team representatives, in the form of general officers or their delegates, completed
questionnaires to contribute feedback to the study. The knowledge gathered through the study
might allow current business theories and practices, as they pertain to leadership development, to
be applied to the USAF leadership development problem. An improved leadership development
program might help the U.S. military protect the American people and maintain regional
stability (Korb, Singer, Hurlburt, & Hunter, 2010). As an added benefit, the results of the study
might not only help the USAF, but other business as well due the generalizability of many LDP
analysis results (Preece & Iles, 2009).
Nature of the Study
Case study research is a research design that researchers use when attempting to explore a
problem using a case as the focus (Bansal & Corley, 2012; Yin, 2009). Data collection,
interviews, observations, audiovisual material, and documents or reports can comprise the
analysis for developing findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Bansal and Corley (2012)
noted that case study design is efficacious in the fields of law, social sciences, medicine, and
6
psychology. When researchers use case studies as a research design for organizational
leadership, qualitative research can provide a detailed description about the atmosphere of the
organization and the myriad of relationships that affected it (Yukl et al., 2009). A qualitative
case study was the most appropriate method for the study because it provided an in-depth
analysis of the USAF officer-development process to determine its effectiveness. Both
McCaslin (2003) and Yin (2009) indicated answering the how of a particular lived event is most
effectively accomplished by a case study. Because the purpose for the research was to explore
the Development Team process and attempt to answer how the Development Teams develop
leaders, the qualitative method was selected.
Research Question
One of the most difficult aspects of a case study design is creating the appropriate
research question (Vissak, 2010; Yin, 2009). In qualitative research, researchers use a broad
central question as the basis for data collection. An overarching question replaces the
quantitative hypothesis of the study. Where quantitative research data are derived from specific
questions that typically answer yes or no, qualitative research data originate from a broad central
research question so as not to limit the scope of the questioning (Fortune, White, Jugdev, &
Walker, 2011). The central research question for the study was the following: How effective are
the USAF Development Teams at developing leaders to meet current and future needs?
Questionnaire Questions
How do the USAF Development Teams posture (or fail to posture) leaders to meet
national and military strategic objectives?
How do the objectives of the USAF Development Team program align (or fail to
7
align) with the strategic objectives of the USAF?
How do the USAF Development Teams adequately posture (or fail to posture) officer
talent capable of filling talent gaps within the service?
How do the USAF Development Teams measure (or fail to measure) officers’ past
performance when determining assignments, developmental education, and
command?
How effective (or ineffective) are the USAF Development Teams at assessing the
results of boards’ decisions once they have been implemented?
How do the USAF Development Teams' processes affect (or not affect) the overall
organizational environment of the USAF?
How do career-centered Development Teams (rather than a “Big Air Force”
Development Team) impact the overall USAF?
Conceptual Framework
A theoretical framework, sometimes referred to as the conceptual framework or a
paradigm, is the process through which people understand phenomena by applying a set of
concepts that form a systematic construct to explain why things occur (Paranjpe, 2010; Yukl et
al., 2009). For many doctoral leadership studies, a single theory was insufficient to cover the
breadth or depth of the issues, and the integration of various leadership theories became
necessary (Caruthers, 2011; Guilleux, 2011; Hoffschwelle, 2011; Kao, 2011). In some cases, the
authors synthesized the theories into concise narratives (Guilleux, 2011; Hoffschwelle, 2011); in
other cases, the authors discussed each theory individually, distinguishing clear lines among
them and explaining how each applied to the authors’ particular studies (Caruthers, 2011; Kao,
8
2011). The four key theories that relate to the study of the evaluation of the USAF Development
Teams include: (a) Hersey and Blanchard’s (2012) situational leadership theory, (b) Fayol’s
(1949) theory of management, (c) Friedman’s (1985) theory of differentiated leadership, and (d)
Lewin’s (1947) change theory.
Each theory connects to Cohen’s (2011) leadership development model that was the
framework for the analysis of the USAF Development Teams. Hersey and Blanchard (2012)
outlined the importance of assessing performance and using the results of that assessment to
properly align and lead subordinates for success. Fayol (1949), having a rich military
background, described the deeply rooted connection between strategy and objective alignment to
organizational success. Lewin (1947) and Friedman (1985) both described the relationships
between organizational dynamics, change, and successful leaders, a subject of significant
importance to the organizational balance section of the current study. Cohen’s framework and
each supporting theory are further developed in the review of professional and academic
literature.
Definition of Terms
Air Staff: Headquarters USAF staff members assigned to the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force to develop policy and to interact with congressional and other DoD services (USAF,
2009).
Assignment: A duty position/location for military members (USAF, 2011b).
Brigadier General: The first pay grade (O-7) of a military executive assigned to the
USAF, Army, or Marine Corps, often referred to as general or a one star (Air Education &
Training Command, 1995).
9
Collectivism: The concept surrounding behaviors that focus on the entire organization,
such as providing ideas to benefit the organization (de León & Finkelstein, 2011).
Developmental Team: USAF leadership development teams that guide officer and
civilian careers to develop organizational and occupational competence through education, skills
training, and practical experience (USAF, 2008a).
Doctrine: A declaration of fundamental principles and beliefs that military forces use to
guide their actions in support of national objectives (USAF, 2011e).
Individualism: The concept surrounding behaviors that focus on specific individuals or
groups within an organization (e.g., providing ideas to benefit one person or group of persons
within an organization; de León & Finkelstein, 2011).
Major Commands (MAJCOMs): Functional units that are subordinate to the Air Staff
(USAF, 2011a).
Military (or desired) End State: A set of conditions that result in the achievement of all
military objectives (CJCS, 2001a).
Objectives (application): Accomplishments required declaring a project successful
(Phillips & Phillips, 2010).
Objectives (impact): The result of actions on operations measures, to include time,
quality, cost, and productivity (Phillips & Phillips, 2010).
Purposive Sampling: Participants with specific expertise are deliberately recruited to
guarantee their familiarity with the subject (Leahy, 2013).
Questionnaire: An instrument researchers use to collect information from participants
through a series of questions (Tonkovic & Vranic, 2011).
10
Regional Stability: The state of geographically co-located nations when economic and
military power is balanced (Russell, 2009).
Snowball Sampling: A sampling method where a smaller sample of participants lead a
researcher to a larger group of participants, usually through referral. He and Li (2011) used
snowball sampling when they e-mailed a questionnaire to 10 participants who further distributed
the e-mail to other qualified participants. The total participation for the study went from 10 to
268 respondents (He & Li, 2011).
Strategy: Managing resources within a nation or organization to promote and secure vital
interests (Nandakumar, Ghobadian, & O’Regan, 2010).
Temporary Duty (TDY): A military-funded business endeavor where members perform
duties in a location other than their normal work location. During this effort, military members
accrue allowances or entitlements (USAF, 2011c).
Think Tank: A group of experts who convene to solve a single problem, or set of
problems, in a given sector (Brodeski, Beall, & Larson, 2012).
Vectors: A career path recommendation for officers and civilians based on past
experience and potential to develop in a future position (USAF, 2008a).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Assumptions
The following assumptions underlay the research design:
1. Due to the anonymity afforded by the online questionnaire process and protection of
participants required by the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB), participants
provided honest answers when they completed the questionnaire.
11
2. Participants, being board members, understood their roles in the process, possessed a
strategic view of a Development Team's intent, and had seen the impacts Development Teams
have had on the officers affected by them.
3. Prior knowledge and USAF affiliation of the researcher did not bias the results of the
completed study.
Limitations
Given the size of the USAF, the number of officers, and the single investigator
conducting the research, the study only included feedback provided by 14 participants of the
larger pool of officers. The study was limited to those individuals who are recent or present
Development Team chairs and accessible to complete the online questionnaire. The data
collected represented the results of a sample of USAF field-grade officers, all of whom are
responsible for overseeing their individual portion of the Development Team program, and these
data might not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the entire USAF officer population
opinion.
Delimitations
The limited scope of the study included senior leaders who serve as Development Team
panel members, thus excluding more junior company grade officers. Other protected classes
could not be entirely excluded due to the anonymous data collection technique, so the entire
research process was low risk to protect participants. The measures are explained in detail in
Section 2.
12
Significance of the Study
Reduction of Gaps
It was important for the USAF leaders to obtain an outside objective view on the
effectiveness of the Development Team process to address any shortcomings or flaws that might
be inherent to it (J. Knight, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Within the education and
development community, managers use assessments to evaluate a program's effectiveness and to
identify areas for program improvement (Stassen, Doherty, & Poe, 2012). Similarly, leadership
development program assessors within profit and not-for-profit industries attempt to assess
effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, examine customer relations, improve decision
making, and examine internal process (Hannum & Martineau, 2008). In 2007, the RAND
Corporation conducted a quantitative study to examine officer awareness of the Development
Team and how it functioned, but a thorough examination of program objectives versus outcomes
was missing (Moore & Brauner, 2007). The USAF Chief of Force Development Policy and
Integration identified the need for such an examination and said the current study would be both
needed and valuable (see Appendix A). By following the value chain model presented by Cohen
(2011), the method used in the current study can be adopted by administrators of any
organization wishing to conduct a leadership development assessment (S. Cohen, personal
communication, July 24, 2011).
Implications for Social Change
The U.S. military is responsible for numerous initiatives and acts that have inspired
positive social change, not only among American forces, but also around the world in a myriad
of venues. These changes range in type and intensity based on locations, scenarios, and available
13
resources but, typically, they involve humanitarian relief efforts, political reforms, and the
liberation of nations from oppression (Brookshire, 2009; East, 2010; Hadley & Podesta, 2012).
The importance of the armed forces’ influence over a nation’s economy, political practices,
social orders, and cultural values cannot be denied (Lynn, 2008). Yukl et al. (2009) stressed the
importance of leadership, especially good leadership, because leaders can promote the prosperity
and survival of an organization. Section 3 contains recommendations to help the USAF refine its
program and enhance the quality of the leaders it produces. The future stability of the United
States depends upon the development and thorough education of an intelligent military that will
help to ensure regional stability and quality of life (Korb, Singer, Hurlburt, & Hunter, 2010).
A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature
Leadership has a variety of influences on an organization’s strategy, ethical behavior,
organizational culture, transformations, and productivity (Yukl et al., 2009). For this reason,
training management (TM) or leadership development (LD) programs (TMPs/LDPs) have
become a core part of executive strategies (DeFilippo & Arneson, 2011). Cohen (2011)
confirmed, “The most effective leader development requires an organizational commitment to
giving leaders the tools for success and ensuring alignment with business goals” (p. 54). A
challenge of any LDP is ensuring the program is part of the strategic guidance, aligns with that
strategy, develops necessary talent, and ensures leader performance meets organizational needs
(Cohen, 2011). Assessment programs exist to ensure the improvement and effectiveness of the
LDP (Clevette & Cohen, 2007; Gabel, Harker, & Sanders, 2011). The literature review for the
study covers a detailed exploration of the leadership theories surrounding the study, then focuses
on the areas critical to LDPs. Finally, per the request of the USAF (P. J. Valenzuela, personal
14
communication, August 28, 2011) and to strengthen the credibility of the literature review, the
literature review contains content regarding organizational behavior and how it relates to the
areas above. The literature review contains references in the form of (a) books, (b) journals, (c)
websites, and (d) peer-reviewed government regulations from the USAF publication website and
the Walden University library.
Figure 2. The literature review map. The map serves as a visual representation of the literature review section and it is intended to portray the relationships among the professional and academic literature and how these tenets tie into the study.
Leadership Theories
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory. To understand the assessment
portion of the research and traditional USAF training practices, it is necessary to review Hersey
and Blanchard’s (2012) situational leadership theory. Developed in the 1970s, the theory divides
leadership tasks into two categories: directive task-oriented and supportive relationship-oriented
(Caruthers, 2011). The situational leadership theory’s corresponding model, the situational
leadership II model, is used by the USAF during professional military education (PME) courses
as part of its leadership development training (USAF, 2011d). Based on a quantitative study
conducted by Thompson and Vecchio (2009), three versions of the theory exist, with each
varying slightly based on leadership/employee interactions. Regardless of the version, the
general concept of the situational leadership theory model is that for each employee’s readiness
Leadership Development
Leadership Theories
Alignment Talent Management Strategy Performance
Assessment
Organizational Behavior
Organizational Behavior
15
and behavior level, there is an associated and prescribed leadership behavior to best support
productivity (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). The situational leadership theory suggests four
styles of leadership based on the directive/supportive matrix: telling, coaching, supporting, and
delegating (Fisher, 2009). The style selected by the leader is based on employee willingness and
ability (Fisher, 2009). Situational leadership theory is an excellent model to understand one-on-
one leader/follower relationships within the USAF. To understand and to examine the USAF
leadership style on a more macro level, Fayol's (1949) theory of management will follow.
Fayol’s theory of management. Fayol, one of the most authoritative management
theorists of the 20th century, developed the theory based on the belief management should be
approached as a system (Anderson, 2012; Gonzalez-Serna, 2012). Fayol’s (1949) systematic
theory was key to management being established as its own discipline, but, perhaps more
importantly, it inspired management education (Pryor & Taneja, 2010). Pryor and Taneja (2010)
compared Fayol’s principles and Porter’s 5Ps, a popular strategic leadership model, and found
them to be strikingly similar. Fayol’s theory assigned six functions to management. Those six
functions were forecasting, planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling and
Fayol combined these functions with equity, morality, and courage (Pryor & Taneja, 2010).
Pryor and Taneja described Porter’s 5Ps as purpose, principles, processes, people, and
performance. Figure 3 depicts the similarity between Fayol and Porter’s theories. Because of its
strong relationship to strategic leadership, and the study’s focus on strategy as a subcompartment
of leadership development, understanding Fayol’s theory is fundamental to understand the scope
of the research.
16
Figure 3. An original, side by side comparison of Fayol and Porter’s theories.
Friedman’s theory of differentiated leadership. Directly tying into the research study,
Friedman's (1985) work was focused on making leaders more effective. The mechanism for the
theory is regulation of one’s own emotions, such as anxiety (Robinson, 2002). Differentiated
leadership, unlike quick-fix leadership, does not focus on data and technique (Stone, 2008). As
with Fayol’s (1949) theory, Friedman’s theory is a systems perspective on leadership
(Hauschildt, 2012). Friedman's theory is better understood by comparing a human to a
biological cell. Each cell is differentiated, in that it knows its own distinctive function but it still
works as part of a larger group (Robinson, 2002). Humans are also part of a larger group, be it
an organization, a family, or a social gathering. Like cells in the body, a differentiated leader can
stay connected to the organization, without losing his or her identity (Robinson, 2002).
Differentiated leaders can be unbiased when they make decisions because they do not take on the
emotional anxiety of the group. Robinson (2002) also discussed poorly differentiated individuals
and compared them to viruses that destroy a community by contaminating the rest of the
organization with their anxiety. Examining the theory was important due to the importance of
military leadership to remain above the fray.
Lewin’s Change Theory. To create a leadership development program capable of
training critical thinkers, the curriculum planners must understand how to effectively educate
17
students on change management. One of the most popular change theories to date is Lewin’s
(1947) change theory (Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2009). Lewin’s change theory is centered on
the concept of doing away with past processes to allow for new processes to become the norm.
The process of change occurs in three stages (Maon et al., 2009). First, an organization
undergoing change must forget the status quo and allow old processes to be viewed from fresh
standpoints. The unfreeze stage affords employees the opportunity to confront the unchallenged
practices of the past (Burke, 2011; Maon et al., 2009). Second is the move stage, which
describes the phase in a given point in time where an organization is receptive to fresh ideas and
is able to transition from old processes to new practices (Burke, 2011; Moan et al., 2009).
Finally, when new cultural norms are established, management must refreeze those norms into
place. During the refreeze stage, organizations might be required to develop or restructure
internal functions to support the new mode of thinking. Once the change process is complete, an
organization would have gone through an unfreeze, a move, and a refreeze stage as it
transitioned from one organizational structure to the next (Burke, 2011; Moan et al., 2009).
Burke (2011) claimed that these stages occur in every organization that undergoes change;
however, the length of each stage varies depending on the organization.
U.S. national defense budget cuts continually force military services to undergo change
by streamlining processes, reducing manpower, and eliminating nonessential functions
(Levesque, 2011; Scales, 2012). In some cases, military leaders are forced to restructure their
organization to support 30% reductions in personnel (Levesque, 2011). With such drastic force
reductions, and no foreseeable stability within the U.S. budget, understanding Lewin's change
theory could become increasingly more important to develop military leaders.
18
Strategy
Strategy, in the business sense, is an analogy the business world adopted from the
military description, the process of managing and using the resources of a country, or group of
countries, including its military, to promote and secure its vital interests (Sedysheva, 2012).
Although most businesses do not possess a nation, or coalition of nations, the concept of
controlling resources to meet an objective remains the same (Sedysheva, 2012). Developing and
executing strategy is both an art and science (Rueschhoff & Dunne, 2011). There are strategy
diagrams in both Eastern and Western traditions that include five elements (or areas) for success
(Chu, 2010; Harvard Business Press, 2005). Among the elements of Western strategy are
mission, goals, strategy creation, implementation, and performance measurement (Montana &
Charnov, 2008). An Eastern strategy model identifies five elements: ethics, timing, resources,
leadership, and management (Chu, 2010). Although they might seem quite different, a cross-
reference of both theories as seen in Figure 4 reveals how intertwined these models really are
Mission
GoalsEthics driven
StrategyDeveloped by leadership
Based on available resources
ImplementationExecuted by leadership
Based on timing
MeasurementA function of management
19
Figure 4. An original figure - designed to cross-reference the Harvard (2005) and Chu (2010) strategy models. Strategy has a proven importance to an organization and it is not under the same scrutiny
strategic leadership is, which is still an area of controversy among authors (Yukl et al., 2009).
Yukl et al. (2009) insisted strategic leadership is necessary even though the importance of
specific top executives as strategic leaders is dependent on their situations. Some authors
emphasize the importance of top executives (McGee, 2006), while others insist top executives
have minimal impact on employee performance (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). In either
case, the development of the skills necessary to be a strategic leader below the executive level
will ensure the skills are present at the appropriate time.
National Security Strategy. If one is to understand DoD strategy, it is necessary to
review the overarching guidance that drives it, the National Security Strategy. Further
supporting the need for leadership research within the U.S. government is the number one
priority of the National Security Strategy, which is renewing American leadership (The White
House, 2010). The White House (2010) used the catch phrase “building at home, shaping
abroad” to explain the president’s commitment to develop a more robust foundation for
American leadership within the United States, thus improving the nation’s effectiveness on an
international level (p. 2).
White House leaders identified American interests that leaders must focus on to ensure
the national security of the United States. The first interest identified was U.S. security.
Particularly, the White House (2010) was referencing the physical and economic security of the
United States and allied nations. Second was the importance of a strong, innovative, and
growing U.S. economy that promotes opportunity and prosperity. Third was to establish respect
20
for universal values at home and around the world. The fourth was to develop an international
order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes security, peace, and opportunity for citizens
through relationships that enable them to meet global challenges.
National Military Strategy. The National Military Strategy (also referred to as the joint
strategy) is provided by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and it bridges to the
National Security Strategy by the national defense strategy, joint strategic capabilities plan, and
contingency planning guidance (CJCS, 2008, 2011b). The National Military Strategy is
responsible for aiding the president and the Secretary of Defense by delivering strategic direction
to the Armed Forces. The National Military Strategy also translates into implementable direction
for operational activities and it gives military commanders strategic and operational guidance
based upon current military capabilities, personnel being one of those capabilities (Gregg, 2011).
Admiral Mullen (2011), former Chairman, described the National Military Strategy vision as
maintaining a Joint military presence capable of defending the United States and U.S. allies and
promoting peace, national security, and prosperity in line with the expectations of the American
people.
U.S. Air Force strategy. In the words of General of the Air Force Henry H. Arnold,
“We must think in terms of tomorrow” (as cited in Air University, 2011, para. 1) Though
Arnold's quote might seem relatively straightforward, it actually refers to long-term strategic
planning, usually with a focus of 5 years or more (Montana & Charnov, 2008). A simple way to
understand the concept of strategic planning is by using an Alice in Wonderland excerpt:
Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I should go from here?
Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to go.
21
Alice: I don’t care where.
Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn’t matter which way you go. (Montana & Charnov, 2008,
p. 119)
Unlike Alice, the DoD knows where it needs to go because the National Security Strategy
provides such guidance. Based on National Security Strategy guidance, the CJCS (2011a)
determined military leaders should understand America’s national and military strategy and how
to utilize that understanding to meet military end-states and objectives. These end-states include
achieving military objectives abroad instead of waiting for the enemy to bring a conflict to the
United States (Borer, 2011). The USAF is key to the National Security Strategy because of its
ability to provide the United States with global mobility, reach, and power (Mosser, 2009). To
align with the National Security Strategy and help meet USAF strategic goals, Air University
created a number of schools and centers for development and education (USAF, 2010): The
Center for Strategy and Technology, the Carl A. Spaatz Center for Officer Education, the Curtis
E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, and the Ira C. Eaker Center for
Professional Development
Center for Strategy and Technology (CSAT). Holtzman (2011) argued that businesses
should maintain a robust research and development department to meet short term goals and
secure long-term survival. The CSAT was created in 1996 by the USAF Air War College to
conduct strategic research and critical analyses of the long-term implications of technology on
United States national security (USAF, 2010). It is an academic support organization that
specializes in strategic research, education, and publications that integrate technology with
national strategy. CSAT’s primary customers are think tanks, educational institutions, and
22
political and military executives (USAF, 2010). The alignment between the recommendations of
Holtzman (2011) and the USAF's implementation of CSAT represents another similarity
between corporate and military strategic similarities.
Carl A. Spaatz Center for Officer Education. Corporate leaders have an important need
for professional development due to the relationship between leader professional development
and organizational success (Davis & Callahan, 2012; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The Carl A.
Spaatz Center for Officer Education serves as the USAF consolidated education institution for
providing professional military education to commissioned officers. Four schools within the
center educate officers on strategy, history, and the profession of arms: Air War College, Air
Command and Staff College, Squadron Officer College, and International Officer School
(USAF, 2010). An understanding of each of the following schools reveals different levels of
development where officers are provided education on national and military strategy.
Air War College: The USAF’s senior school annually provides strategic-level education
to over 250 colonels, foreign senior officers, and equivalent government civilians.
Air Command and Staff College: The USAF’s intermediate level school awards a
master’s degree in military operational art and science to entry-level field grade officers and
equivalent grade foreign officers and government civilians.
Squadron Officer College: The USAF’s entry-level school focuses on junior officers on
military history, teamwork, accountability, and leadership.
Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education. An organization's
vision is typically translated into some form of doctrine, or publication of the company's values
and beliefs (Rahimnia, Moghadasian, & Mashreghi, 2011). The Curtis E. LeMay Center for
23
Doctrine and Development and Education creates, publishes, and educates leaders on USAF
doctrine (USAF, 2011e). McRitchie (2011) has written about the quality of USAF doctrine, and
he emphasized the strong presence of USAF language in joint doctrine. “The Air Force has a
good doctrine system down. A great deal of joint doctrine has an Air Force flavor because many
Air Force officers are dedicated to writing joint doctrine” (McRitchie, 2011, p. 4). The intent of
McRitchie's comment was to identify how the various branches of the armed forces all turn to
USAF style doctrine, because the LeMay Center does it so well.
Ira C. Eaker College for Professional Development (CPD). The mission of the CPD is
to provide professional, multidiscipline, high-quality education and technical training to USAF,
DoD, and foreign students (USAF, 2010). The CPD was founded in 1986 and renamed in 1993
to honor General Eaker’s significant contributions to the USAF, professional development, and
the advancement of aviation. The CPD consists of five schools that focus on leadership
development in special fields across the USAF: Defense Financial Management and
Comptroller School, National Security Space Institute, Air Force Human Resource Management
School, USAF Chaplain Corps College, and Commander’s Professional Development School
(USAF, 2010).
Be it on the battlefield or in a business’s conference room, the development of strategic
processes, proper plans, and well-founded vision are important to organizational success
(Robinson, 2012). The president of the United States provides strategic vision in the form of the
National Security Strategy, which feeds into the National Military Strategy and USAF strategy.
To provide strategic leadership, training, and development, Air University’s president operates a
number of colleges and centers, each focusing on different elements or dynamics required by
24
USAF personnel.
Developing and Alignment Objectives
Educating future leaders on strategy exclusively is not sufficient for the creation of an
effective leadership development program (Cohen, 2011). A robust leadership program must
develop learning objectives and align them with an organization’s strategy to produce leaders
with competencies that enable them to satisfy strategic goals and produce desired results (Cohen,
2011). An empirical study conducted by Oltra and Flor (2010) further supported claims by
Cohen (2011) by demonstrating a positive relationship among factors such as operations,
strategy, performance, cost priorities, and quality. In contrast, Oltra and Flor noted a negative
relationship among operations strategy and flexibility and delivery. Because of the observed
imbalance resulting from aligning strategy to meet organizational objectives, a deeper review of
the related literature was appropriate and required. Additional studies demonstrated positive
relationships between aligning objectives with an effective strategy and results (Carman, 2010;
Tehrani, 2008). Carman (2010) urged developers to prioritize the alignment of learning and
development objectives with organizations’ business objectives. With so many scholarly sources
proving the need for learning objective/strategy alignment, the next step became a focus on how
to create objectives.
Developing learning objectives. Aligning learning objectives with corporate strategy
requires leadership development program administrators to develop suitable objectives for
alignment. Development projects and programs in today’s highly competitive environment
require sufficiently designed impact and application objectives (Phillips & Phillips, 2010;
Towns, 2010). The development process requires strict criteria and a fundamental understanding
25
of benefits, returns on investment (ROI), and the importance of objectives under development
(Phillips & Phillips, 2010). It is important to explore objective development criteria to fully
understand how the critical development process can make or break and entire program or even
an organization.
Objective criteria. Developing objective criteria is an important aspect of developing
learning objectives and is an art that largely rests in the hands of classroom teachers, not
technicians or businesspersons (Watson, 2010). It is important objectives are specific and they
clearly quantify goals (Carman, 2010; Phillips & Phillips, 2010). To provide clarity, Table 1
depicts some examples of specific objectives and it also provides examples of possible objectives
with clear, measurable outcomes.
Table 1
Sample Objectives
Sample measurable objective Type
Increase customer volume by 7% in three months. Marketing
Review 100 claims within 8 hours, error free. Performance
Make 100% contact with the population. Publicity
Destroy 90% of planned targets. Military
Pass a written exam with an 80% or better in less than one hour. Education With most leadership development programs, objectives will be based on performance or
learning outcomes. In the case of performance, Phillips and Phillips (2010) recommended
criteria be performance or time-based. For learning objectives, the objective criteria should be
concrete and accurately reflect a student’s understanding of the material (Rochelle, Umans, &
McCarter, 2010). Phillips and Phillips (2010) argued most objectives (of all types) tend to be
26
time-based. Developers can represent time-based criteria in performance objectives by setting
deadlines as demonstrated in the performance example in Table 1. Developers can apply time-
based criteria to learning objectives through timed performance measurements or via timed
exams that test knowledge and speed at which students can recall information as demonstrated in
the education example within Table 1. According to Phillips and Phillips (2010), failure to
develop clear criteria is caused by a number of issues. These issues include incomplete
development, unclear objectives that leave goals open to interpretation, lack of specificity on
certain details, and missing objectives.
Stokes, Rosetti, and King (2010) concluded there are various techniques developers can
use to create effective objectives. A common mistake, is designing the objectives for the wrong
purposes. Well-developed objectives are written to facilitate and enhance student learning, not
to assist faculty with the presentation of the information (Stokes et al., 2010). Action verbs are
used to describe objectives; however, well written objectives do not include words that are
difficult to quantify, such as appreciate, learn, and understand (Stokes et al., 2010). It is
important for learning practitioners to focus on desired knowledge, attitude, and skill outcomes
instead of simply presenting topics. Finally, Stokes et al. (2010) emphasized the importance of
ensuring course objectives are aligned with activities, to preclude inadvertently training students
on the wrong skills.
The importance of developing precise objectives. Leadership program developers need
to understand the importance of the objectives they develop if they are to be successful (Phillips
& Phillips, 2010). Properly developed objectives provide a number of benefits. One obvious
benefit of properly developed objectives is the strong relationship between materials developed
27
and intended learning outcomes (Stokes et al., 2010). A second benefit of properly developed
objectives is the guidance they provide to program administrators and faculty to keep their
actions aligned with intended learning outcomes (Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Finally, well
developed objectives provide an exact measurement for both student outcomes and program
impacts on organizations (Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Poor objective development cannot
guarantee these benefits and doing so will likely result in opposite effects or outcomes.
Return on investment (ROI) to the organization. Determining the actual value of a
leadership development program is both extremely difficult and extremely important (Peters,
Baum, & Stephens, 2011). Some claim that billions of dollars are spent on programs that
provide little return (Miller, 2005), while others claim their leadership programs are worth the
investment (Mansor, 2010). A survey of business executives, including chief financial officers,
revealed the number of U.S. organizations that know the ROI for their human capital programs is
less than 20% (Lawler, 2008). Peters, Baum, and Stephens (2011) urged the application of a
financial construct for ROI calculation for leadership development programs. The
recommendation to use a financial construct was echoed by Mansor (2010) and Phillips and
Phillips (2010), who agreed on the following formula for ROI calculation:
ROI = [(return – investment) ÷ investment] x 100
Under the above financial ROI construct, (Peters et al., 2010) insisted developers assume
development programs must have direct, positive economic impacts. Program results must
mature during the time frames analysts’ measure such economic outcomes (Peters et al., 2010).
Outcomes must have statistical reliability and this reliability must include isolation from other
organizational factors that could have had confounding effects on outcomes (Peters et al., 2010).
28
Finally, developers must assume the graduates of leadership development programs must be
employed with the same organizations, in the same positions, long enough to affect measured
outcomes (Peters et al., 2011). If all above assumptions are correct, with regard to a given
leadership development program, then ROI calculations will be relevant.
With human capital development costs high and continuing to rise, executives continue to
ask for evidence their expenditures are worth the ROI (Peters et al., 2011). The development of
effective objectives produces results that enable companies to adequately measure the impacts
their programs have on their corporations (Phillips & Phillips, 2010). Leaders at all levels of an
organization need to be involved with organizations’ human capital investment activities (Peters
et al., 2011).
Talent Management
Once organizational objectives are developed and aligned with business strategies,
development programs need to focus on filling personnel gaps within organizations with those
with appropriate skills sets (Cohen, 2011). Highly competitive organizations can only remain
competitive when they have superior talent to fill those gaps (Lawler, 2008). Talent
management, more recently referred to as workforce planning, is the art of aligning personnel
who possess the necessary skills sets in positions critical to their organizations (Shen, 2011).
Talent management was defined by Tansley (2011) as employing the appropriate number of
adequately qualified personnel necessary to effectively run an organization. Several experts
even hypothesized talent management will become a key factor for success, more important than
what are considered the more traditional elements for success, such as capital and technology
(Lawler, 2008; Srinivasan, 2011). To achieve a desired level of aptitude adequately, Lawler
29
(2008) recommended leaders spend 30 to 50 percent of their time on talent management.
Business executives' foci on human capital are even more important than those on their financial
capital (Lawler, 2008). With little variance, related literature on talent management agreed
senior leadership should place equal, if not higher, emphases on talent management than on
financial management.
Most of the reviewed talent management literature was centered on manifest talent, or
talent that already exists within an organization (Lawler, 2008; Merlino, 2011). Little research
has been devoted to unmanifest talent, or talent that remains hidden within average employees
(Srinivasan, 2011). In the case of the USAF Development Teams, it is entirely concerned with
the more traditional focus, the redistribution (or vectoring) of military personnel who already
possess talent (USAF, 2010).
A shift in focus of talent management has led many human resources (HR) specialists to
lean toward developing long-term, high-performance human capital models, much like those in
engineering, supply-chain management, and finance (Agrawal, 2010; Grobler & Zock, 2010;
Shen, 2011). Prior to the current model, many organizations used short-term workforce planning
techniques that produced less satisfactory results (Grobler & Zock, 2010; Shen, 2011). Other
talent management models integrated talent management and technology innovation models due
to their close relationships and emerging innovative trends on both fronts (Merlino, 2011).
Integrated models such as this would allow government and corporate policy makers to more
effectively understand and manage talent and technology to maximize their competitive
advantages (Merlino, 2011).
Capabilities and competencies. Whatever model is implemented, the best talent
30
management systems empower personnel with experiences that positively impact key
capabilities and (in the case of the USAF) core competencies of the organization (Lawler, 2008).
The USAF focuses its mission on dominance in air, space, and cyberspace, as reflected by the
competencies and capabilities noted below (USAF, 2011). The USAF’s core competencies are
developing Airmen, bringing technology to war fighting, and integrating operations (USAF,
2011). Because the Development Teams are an essential part of the USAF’s development
program, the study was used to explore whether or not the Development Teams’ produces the
talent necessary to meet these competencies.
The USAF’s core competencies enable the USAF to execute six distinctive capabilities
(USAF, 2011): (a) air and space superiority, (b) global attack, (c) rapid global mobility, (d)
precision engagement, (e) information superiority, and (f) agile combat support. Air and space
superiority allows joint forces to maintain control of friendly and hostile airspace, thus protecting
allied land, sea, and air forces. Global attack capabilities represent the USAF’s ability to engage
a target anywhere, anytime, through the use of resources and technology. The ability to mobilize
anywhere in the world within a matter of hours or days demonstrates the USAF’s rapid global
mobility. A well-known characteristic of the USAF is its ability to employ specific force against
selected targets to achieve desired effects, with minimal collateral damage. Precision
engagement was extremely useful during the Gulf War. The ability to leverage information
superiority in a combat environment enables commanders to maintain situational awareness,
command, and control over a battle area. Finally, agile combat support allows deployed units to
remain sustainable and flexible, whether they are temporary or permanent locations.
31
Obtaining talent. Obtaining the right talent for an organization is critical. Organizations
are constantly competing to obtain the talent they need (Lawler, 2008). The USAF Deputy Chief
of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services published the importance of accessing highly
qualified Airmen who can, in turn, train others that can be provided to field commanders without
diminishing the quality of support or adding further stress to careers that are already
undermanned to compensate for talent gaps (USAF, 2008).
The particular type of high-performance talent, which many development programs hope
to produce, is not a resource that loses its demand during a recession (Lawler, 2008). Although
the USAF bases its accessions on the service's needs (USAF, 2008), it does not limit the
percentage of highly qualified personnel it takes in. In fact, professional military education
programs exist for all development levels of Airmen (USAF, 2010).
Obtaining talent is difficult, and when done improperly, it can be costly (Bottger &
Barsoux, 2012). Personnel, especially leaders, must be placed where they fit. Bottger and
Barsoux (2012) have explained the four dimensions of fit as: fitting with the position, fitting with
the team, fitting with the leader, and fitting with the organization. The concept of fitting the right
leadership into the right circumstance coincides with the conceptual framework for the study,
because it is nearly an exact modeling of Blanchard’s and Hersey’s situational leadership theory.
In order to make these fits, organizations develop hiring criteria (Bottger & Barsoux,
2012; USAF, 2008b). Within the USAF, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
(ASVAB) scores measure aptitude for enlisted personnel and Air Force Officer Qualify Test
(AFOQT) scores fulfill the same requirement for officers (USAF, 2008b). The USAF requires
some accessions to possess specific degrees to be hired into a field, such as nurses, physicians,
32
lawyers, meteorologists, and several others. Once accessed, USAF Airmen are sent to various
technical and professional development schools throughout their careers to acquire necessary
talent for their career field and rank (USAF, 2010; USAF, 2008b). Because of the job placement
function of the USAF Development Teams, it is important to note Bottger and Barsoux’s (2012)
recommended three steps for senior leaders to ensure proper fit. First was the need to identify
high performance individuals who are in need or ready for a position change. Second was the
recommendation for leaders to investigate candidates’ team potential, assessing how easy or
difficult they are to work with or work for. Third, Bottger and Barsoux encouraged leaders to
develop interview criteria that dived into the essence of the ideal candidate.
Retaining talent. Little attention has been given to talent retention, and more
importantly, its relationship to performance (Kontoghiorghes & Frangou, 2009). Kane (2011)
argued the U.S. Armed Forces create the most entrepreneurial and innovative leaders, but then
they waste the talent in bureaucracies that are overly risk-adverse. According to Kane, the Army
War College’s Strategic Studies Institute conducted a 2010 retention survey that revealed
declining retention rates for company grade officers in the military, many of them high-
performance officers. Claims by Kontoghiorghes and Frangou (2009) that autonomy is an
important factor in retaining talented employees are consistent with Kane’s conclusions, and they
added additional factors that help retain talented entrepreneurs, such as tolerating subordinates'
mistakes and allowing them to take risks.
Leaders need to invest in their human capital to develop employee commitment
(Kontoghiorghes & Frangou, 2009). Enhanced employee commitment not only helps retention,
but it also positively affects performance (Elmadag, Ellinger, & Franke, 2008). Kontoghiorghes
33
and Frangou (2009) described three types of organizational commitment: affective, normative,
and continuance. Affective commitment refers to the kind of commitment powered by emotional
attachment to an organization. Normative commitment is used to describe an employee’s
obligation to maintain membership in the organization. Continuance commitment refers to
commitment measured by the perceived costs of leaving an organization. According to
Kontoghiorghes and Frangou, understanding the different types of commitment and how to
instill them into employees helps managers more effectively retain talent.
USAF talent retention and promotion. Within the USAF, a number of measures are
employed to retain talent. One measure, the force shaping board, aims to minimize the force to
the appropriate number of officers by selecting the best qualified officers for retention on active
duty (AFPC, 2011a). Similarly, USAF officers are selected for promotion based on their
potential to succeed in higher grades on a “best qualified” basis (USAF, 2009a, p. 18). For
enlisted Airmen, talent and promotion potential area measured through the weighted airman
promotion system (WAPS), which assigns points to an Airman's score based on the following
factors (USAF, 2009b): (a) time at current grade/rank, (b) time in uniformed military service, (c)
performance report ratings, (d) scores from skills knowledge tests that measure job knowledge,
(e) scores from professional development guide tests that measure military knowledge, and (f)
the number and type of decorations awarded.
A consistent pattern throughout the review of talent management literature was the lack
of attention this area receives from the professional fields. Companies where management has
well employed talent management practices succeed, while those that have not struggle to assess
the reasons for their failures (Bottger & Barsoux, 2012; Kontoghiorghes & Frangou, 2009).
34
More and more organizational leaders are beginning to value human capital and the benefits that
come with effectively managing talent; however, managing talent is not enough (Montana &
Charnov, 2008). Employers are determining the need to have a metric in place to measure the
performance of their leadership development program graduates to ensure program effectiveness
(Montana & Charnov, 2008).
Performance Management
To develop a metric for program management, it is first necessary to understand what
performance management is. When discussing the goals of leadership development programs,
the performance management aspect is intended to develop leaders who produce goods and/or
services capable of meeting or exceeding the needs of organizations’ customers (Cohen, 2011).
If the ultimate customer of the U.S. military is the American people, and the service it provides is
national defense, then the objective of a military leadership development program should be to
produce leaders who are able to meet or to exceed the requirements necessary to effectively and
efficiently defend the citizens of the United States.
One of the factors used to measure the effectiveness of leaders’ performance is the
performance of their teams. Houldsworth and Machin (2008) claimed the ability to manage
teams effectively set employees’ experience, which later translated into improved business
climates and higher performance levels for entire teams. Once higher performance standards
have been reached, it is the role of leaders and managers to maintain the momentum within their
teams (Vasilaki & O’Regan, 2008). Establishing and maintaining a high performance
atmosphere is not the only measure of leader performance, as Vasilaki and O’Regan (2008)
identified a number of objectives to be met for a leader’s performance to be acceptable.
35
One of these objectives is the ability to effectively lead organizational change (Vasilaki
& O’Regan, 2008). One of the earliest theorists of organizational change was Kurt Lewin (Maon
et al., 2009). When developing the theory, Lewin was primarily concerned with abolishing
former processes and implementing new processes (Maon et al., 2009). Yukl et al. (2009)
deemed task delegation, follower motivation, positively affected organizational culture,
organizational change, diversity management, and behavior as the responsibility of leadership
and management. Of those responsibilities identified, leading organizational change was said to
be the most challenging of all to accomplish successfully (Yukl et al., 2009). Organizations that
fail to adapt to dynamic environments do not survive (Kotter, 2007). Lucey (2008) described an
early organizational change study that found “leading practitioners of corporate re-engineering
report that success rates in Fortune 1000 companies are well below 50%; some say they are as
low as 20%” (p. 11).” Several years afterward, another change study claimed 75% of
organizational transformations would fail (Lucey, 2008). Developing a vision to promote change
and inspiring, motivating, and enlisting employees to see that change through is the
responsibility of leaders (Vasilaki & O’Regan, 2008).
Strategic performance management is similar to change management. Ultimately, the
management of an organization is important because it directly relates to the competitive
advantage of that organization (Chau, 2008). Chau (2008) defined strategic performance
management as “the steering of the organization through the systematic definition of mission,
strategy and objectives in order to be able to take corrective actions to keep the organization on
track” (p. 115). Strategic performance management is present at all levels of an organization;
operational managers up to top executives and strategic leaders are required to oversee strategic
36
performance management of a company (Chau, 2008).
Through the study, there are inquiries into the methods by which Development Team
members assess the performance of the officers they develop. The inquiry, as it relates to the
topic, focused on how the Development Teams identify and develop high-performance,
transformational, and strategic leaders capable of taking the USAF to the next level and meeting
the current and future needs of the American people.
Program Assessment
A number of important factors were addressed in the preceding literature review. Among
them were the importance of understanding several elements, including what well designed
leadership development programs entail, the benefits of strategic leaders, the increased
performance that comes with properly aligned objectives, the capital gains of effective talent
management, and the role of performance management. Of equal importance is the ability to
assess a program and its graduates, a cornerstone to rendering a complete analysis (Bunker &
Cohen, 1978). Proper program assessment provides feedback to determine if programs are
meeting organizational needs, if organizations are meeting the educational needs of their
programs and if they are identifying areas for improving the costs-benefits of their development
programs (Bunker & Cohen, 1978).
The following section explores the importance of program assessment at macro- and
micro-levels. A broad view of program assessment will describe the importance of the
assessment, the actions the USAF has recently taken to assess the Development Team program,
and the role the study plays in validating the USAF study. Subsequently, a more in-depth look at
assessment, with regard to each of the areas highlighted in the literature review will follow.
37
The program. Leadership is not a position, a job, or a task, it is a personal journey, and
reflection and evaluation are necessary to ensure growth (DeRue, Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, &
Workman, 2012). Refining the process requires 360-degree feedback to ensure leaders achieve a
comprehensive, honest look at where they stand and what they have achieved, and still need to
achieve (Jantti & Greenhalgh, 2012). As of 2006, many organizations, including 90% of Fortune
500 firms, had adopted 360-degree feedback system to improve the performance of their leaders,
achieve strategic goals, and ultimately improve the quality of their human capital (Rehbine
Zentis, 2007). The highly effective process involves supplying leaders with anonymous
feedback gleaned and compiled from peers, subordinates, superiors, and customers. The results
yielded highlight strengths and weaknesses in the areas of leadership skills, knowledge, and
behaviors (Rehbine Zentis, 2007). While this comprehensive, 360-degree examination works
well for individuals, the technique is not limited to that use alone.
Massingham, Nguyen, and Massingham (2011) also emphasized the importance of 360-
degree peer review as a means of validating the findings of leadership studies. In 2011, the
USAF conducted a quantitative survey to assess its Development Team program (Valenzuela,
2012). The survey yielded both quantitative and qualitative feedback and opinions of the USAF
officer respondents who were part of the program. To complement the 2011 USAF
Development Team study, the foci of the doctoral study were centered on the administrators of
the Development Team program, the Development Team members, rather than customers of the
program. By doing so, the study not only provided additional data for 360-degree peer review
theory development, it also served as a method for validating 2011 USAF Development Team
survey results (Massingham et al., 2011). It is important for the USAF to understand this 360-
38
degree feedback, by itself, is not sufficient for refining the program. Feedback from 360-degree
programs needs to be combined with other critical leadership development elements and
measures, such as education, training, performance feedback, and coaching to maximize the
effectiveness of programs being evaluated and refined (Rehbine Zentis, 2007).
Assessments are key elements for growth and success (Jantti & Greenhalgh, 2012). The
preceding section explained the overarching importance of assessment and how 360-degree
feedback plays a role. The following sections will describe how to assess each of the four areas
that Cohen (2011) deemed critical to leadership development programs (i.e., strategy, alignment,
talent, and performance).
Assessing strategy. One of the ways Allio and Fahey (2012) insisted leaders can assess
their understanding of strategy is by going back to the basics. Revisiting the teachings of
Michael Porter is where leaders need to start (Allio & Fahey, 2012). Interestingly enough, one
of the ways of assessing strategy (at the organizational level) is also one of the recommendations
for developing it. Parnell (2010) encouraged those in the strategy development phase to include
operational-level managers in the strategic planning process. Inclusion educates managers on the
strategy, thus developing and encouraging them to think on a more strategic level, while using
their expertise to quality-check the sanity and efficacy of a proposed strategy. Cross-referencing
a strategic plan also allows senior managers to assess a level of understanding that lower level
managers have of an organization’s strategy (Parnell, 2010).
Assessing objectives and alignment. As made evident in the literature review, many of
these concepts are interrelated. The same cross-referencing method used to assess strategy, is
also used as a means of assessing alignment. There is a positive relationship between
39
performance and aligning learning objectives to organizational strategy (Cohen, 2011; Flor,
2010). Given that proven relationship, senior managers and lower-level organizational leaders
are encouraged to discuss strategy with each other as a way of verifying everyone’s idea of the
corporate strategy is aligned with organizational objectives. In the military environment, it is
important to align objectives from which strategy is developed and education programs because
both are the beginning and the end of a six-step development cycle. Borer (2011) emphasized
the importance of aligning education, tasks, and strategy with the objectives set forth by a
commander. The fifth part of the six-step process is to assess those objectives, that might or
might not have been met, to ensure results meet objectives set forth in step one (Borer, 2010).
The completed study, coupled with the 2011 USAF Development Team survey, will provide
sufficient data to USAF commanders to determine if their program objectives were met, and if
the product (its graduates) is properly developed to meet higher-level strategic objectives.
Assessing talent. Possessing the means to accurately assess talent, especially during a
weak economy, is one of the most vital tools an organization can have at its disposal (Stam,
2010). With the downturn of today’s economy, both businesses and government organizations
are downsizing due to budget constraints (Cupps & Olmosk, 2008; de Bruin, Bekker, van
Zanten, & Koole, 2010). High-end talent is in very limited supply, both within companies and in
hiring pools (Stam, 2010). As the economy becomes healthier, talent pools are unlikely to shift
very quickly, so companies that are effective at assessing talent will benefit the most from
improved organizational performance (Stam, 2010).
To successfully assess which talent to hire and which talent to retain, organizations’
leaders must ensure their assessment processes meet fundamental guidelines. First, an
40
organization must be utilizing an appropriate competency framework that highlights the skills
and behaviors an employee needs to be effective in a given job (Bottger & Barsoux, 2012).
Second, a hiring process needs to be put in place that assesses a person’s talent respective to the
position sought, as well as to his or her fit within the organization (Williams, 2010). Finally,
Williams (2010) encouraged organizations to incorporate assessment tools into their hiring
processes to ensure they receive thorough, objective assessments of potential candidates. When
it comes to assessing the right talent for retention and hiring, organizations must not
underestimate the importance of effectively accomplishing this task.
Assessing performance. Assessing talent and assessing performance have many aspects
in common. One of the similarities is the direct relationship on business outcomes when
assessing performance (Cohen, 2011). Earlier, objective alignment was discussed in great detail.
Cohen (2011) emphasized the importance of considering alignment along with strategy, talent,
and leaders’ performance when measuring the effectiveness of leadership development
programs. In order to achieve desired business outcomes, standards (objectives) must be set
(Montana & Charnov, 2008). Until standards of performance are developed, it is impossible to
adequately assess performance. Montana and Charnov described performance standards as
statements of the results that will exist when a task is completed satisfactorily. Performance
standards must meet four basic criteria to be measurable. First, performance standards must
apply to the job's responsibilities (Montana & Charnov, 2008). It is poor practice to measure
employees' performance based on something outside of their assigned duties. Second, standards
must be specific (Long, Bendersky, & Morrill, 2011; Montana & Charnov, 2008). As with the
objective writing mentioned previous, ambiguous performance standards are difficult for
41
employers to measure and difficult for employees to follow. Just as a performance standard must
be specific, it must also contain a realistic suspense (Appelbaum et al., 2004; Montana &
Charnov, 2008). Finally, performance standards must be achievable (Montana & Charnov,
2008). Failure to set realistic deadlines and achievable tasks might result in a mass exodus of
talent that cannot be easily replaced within a company (Appelbaum et al., 2004).
Routine performance reporting is a common method used by organizations to measure
and to report the performance of their employees (Dogarawa, 2011; USAF, 2009b). Within the
USAF, reporting is conducted annually in the form of officer performance reports (OPRs),
enlisted performance reports (EPRs), and performance management plans (PMPs) for civilians
(USAF, 2009b). The system works well, except when it is highly inflated, like that of the USAF
system, or when an employee transfers or switches among multiple supervisors during the same
evaluation period (Dogarawa, 2011). To address the issue, Dogarawa (2011) designed a
performance measurement system that utilizes a tool called the public service performance
measurement model (PSPM Model). The design of the PSPM model accounts for inconsistent
supervision and provides monthly updates on an employee’s projects, challenges, and
accomplishments (Dogarawa, 2011). A tool such as the PSPM Model, if implemented within the
USAF, might help supervisors ascertain a more accurate record of employee activities, bring
balance to an inflated system, and allow for fair performance assessments across the board.
Organizational Behavior and the Development Teams
Empirical studies of organizational behavior have proven repeatedly that organicism, the
theory that components in an organization work in a system to function as a whole, has practical
application in many organizational environments (Barton, Stephens, & Haslett, 2009). USAF
42
officials at The Pentagon have expressed concerns of organizational behavior concepts
surrounding the Development Teams as they currently function, and how these interactions
might have a negative impact on the organization as a whole (P. J. Valenzuela, personal
communication, August 28, 2011). To examine the relationship more closely and to develop any
recommendations from these concepts, it is necessary to examine briefly the literature
concerning organicism, group dynamics, individualism, and collectivism.
In a discussion about the project, Lieutenant Colonel Valenzuela expressed a concern
about the systematic threats generated by the Development Teams being administered by specific
career fields, rather than the USAF as a whole (P. J. Valenzuela, personal communication,
August 28, 2011). To explore the concern, a review of collectivism vs. individualism is
necessary. In a collectivist culture, a member of an organization will generally act in a manner
that benefits the entire organization due to that member’s identification with the organization (de
León & Finklestein, 2011; Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). Empirical research demonstrated a
relationship among the economic downturn, organizational downsizing, and members being
more prone to act in an individualistic manner for job security and because of their increased
workload (de León & Finklestein, 2011). Since the 1990s, all branches of the United States
Armed Forces have been experiencing mandatory downsizing to achieve target budgets (Moser
& Bailey, 1997). These cuts have resulted in an ever-shrinking group on the Air Staff at The
Pentagon to oversee the Development Teams (P. J. Valenzuela, personal communication, August
28, 2011). Figure 5 depicts the effects of Air Staff downsizing on the staff, responsibilities,
program input, control, and oversight of the Development Teams. The continual HQ-level cuts
put the program administration largely in the hands of the career field managers.
43
Figure 5. The original image above depicts the disproportionate number of CFMs vs. Air Staff personnel to oversee the Development Team program creates a situation where the Development Teams are largely career-field run. Houston, Edge, and Anderson (2012) developed a similar relationship in their research.
In a study comparing competition and individualism-collectivism, Houston et al. (2012)
discovered a positive relationship between competition and collectivism when the competition
was healthy and balanced. When the competition was either unbalanced or unhealthy, it had a
negative impact on collectivism (Houston et al., 2012). Because the intent of Development
Teams is to develop their respective officers and make them competitive for command, there is a
concern individualistic efforts of the Development Teams, not considering the USAF as a whole,
have a negative impact on the USAF (Valenzuela, 2012). When surveyed in the 2011 USAF
Development Team survey, officers responded with both positive and negative comments in
response to the issue. According to Valenzuela (2012), the negative comments described a lack
of consistency across career fields, indicated there were more aggressive Career Field Managers
garnering more benefits for their respective field, and Development Team functionality was
career-focused, thus lacking what is best for the USAF in its entirety. Positive comments about
the individualist design of the Development Teams included mentions of newsletter summary
CFMs AF/A1D Staff
Staff Responsibility Input Control Program
oversight
44
updates on their respective career fields; one respondent even felt Development Teams’ efforts
were in the best interest of the USAF, contrary to most opinions (Valenzuela, 2012). The overall
comments about the career-field-focused Development Teams were not balanced, with the
negative comments tripling the positive comments. In general, Houston, Edge, and Anderson
(2012) found Americans are more inclined to partake in unhealthy competitiveness than other
cultures, and the results of the USAF 2011 Development Team survey appear to validate their
findings with regard to the USAF personnel.
Scholarly literature surrounding organizational behavior is consistent with the findings of
the USAF 2011 Development Team survey. The downsizing of the USAF is generating a
cultural movement from collectivist to individualist, and continually shifting the administration
of the Development Team process from headquarters to individual career fields (de León &
Finklestein, 2011; P. J. Valenzuela, personal communication, August 28, 2011). USAF
leadership should be cognizant of the implications that surround downsizing of the Air Staff and
decentralization of the Development Team administration to individual career fields. If left
unbalanced, the decentralization could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the
Development Teams with regard to USAF-level benefits to the service.
Transition and Summary
There is a great deal of research available on leadership development theory and practice.
The combined conceptual frameworks supported both the literature review and the work of
Cohen (2011), Bunker and Cohen (1978), and Gabel et al. (2011).
Ultimately, a sound leadership development program relies heavily on the support of top
executives to emphasize the importance of the program, ensuring the program aligns with
45
organizational strategy, develops the appropriate set of skills for leaders to be productive, and
improves performance to meet leadership objectives. Administration must assess leadership
development programs continually to ensure compliance with each of the literature review
topics.
Section 2 re-introduces the purpose of the study and describes my role in the data
collection process and in relation to the topic. Participant descriptions include (a) the population,
(b) sampling method, and (c) sample size. Finally, a more detailed description of the research
methodology, design, data collection and analysis information, and a means of how reliability
and validity are preserved during the study is presented.
46
Section 2: The Project
Section 2 describes the method and design of the study. More specifically, Section 2
recapitulates the purpose of the research, identifies the research methodology, explains the
processes for completing the study, describes the role of the researcher, and illuminates the
strategy used to select participants and population sample size. Finally, a thorough step-by-step
description of the data collection, analysis, processes, and organization to ensure valid and
reliable data is developed.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the qualitative case study was to explore the influence of the
Development Teams’ processes on USAF field-grade officers worldwide to determine the
efficacy of the Development Teams' process for identifying, selecting, and/or developing leaders
who meet current and future needs of the service. The USAF defined the development team
process as the conduit between USAF policy, force development systems, and organizational
frameworks used to generate career paths for personnel (USAF, 2008a). A total of 14
Development Team representatives, in the form of general officers or their delegates, completed
questionnaires to contribute feedback to the study. The knowledge gathered through the study
might allow current business theories and practices, as they pertain to leadership development, to
be applied to the USAF leadership development problem. An improved leadership development
program might help the U.S. military protect the American people and maintain regional
stability (Korb et al., 2010). As an added benefit, the results of the study might not only help the
USAF, but other business as well due the generalizability of many LDP analysis results (Preece
& Iles, 2009).
47
A considerable amount of money is spent each year to conduct the boards for the USAF
Development Teams. Board members travel to Texas and spend several days reviewing
paperwork and records that have to be prepared ahead of time. Board membership (usually 10 or
more individuals) consists primarily of officers who are full colonels (pay grade O-6) or civilians
in the pay grade of general schedule (GS) - 15. According to the DFAS (2012), a colonel’s
annual salary averages around $132K before taxes. With each Development Team Board
convocation, U.S. taxpayers pay these colonels to participate in a program that has yet-to-be
proven effectiveness.
The completed research could be valuable to the USAF. No one has conducted a case
study on the question or concept prior to the research study (T. Sharpy, personal communication,
April 7, 2011). The 2011 USAF Development Team Survey was a quantitative, USAF-wide
study that did not encompass the perceived target audience or have the depth of a qualitative case
study; thus, the dynamics of these studies will complement each other (P. J. Valenzuela, personal
communication, August 28, 2011). Several authors recommended in professional and academic
literature that managers rigorously evaluate leadership programs to determine their effectiveness
(Atwood & Mora, 2010; Cohen, 2011; Gowing, Morris, Adler, & Gold, 2008). The combination
of practical and theoretical justifications further validated the need for the study.
Role of the Researcher
Having served in the USAF since 1998, I have a solid foundation of the rules,
regulations, protocols, and staff processes for ensuring ethical and legal execution and safeguards
of the study. As a company-grade officer, I have not yet personally experienced the full
Development Team process, although I have been familiarized with it. The mix of moderate
48
understanding and minimal personal experience with regard to the Development Teams'
processes affords me an optimum, yet nonbiased, basis to conduct the research. I am able to
understand fully the processes taking place, but had no preconceptions or opinions of the
Development Team’s program effectiveness. Finally, to gain a better fundamental understanding
of Development Team board inputs, outputs, and processes, I attended the May 28 - June 1, 2012
USAF Airfield Operations Officer Development Team board at Randolph Air Force Base, TX as
a student observer.
My first role in conducting the study was to determine participant selection and sample
size. Once I identified the participants, I conducted a pilot study to test and confirm the
questionnaire and data collection techniques. After a successful pilot study, I made necessary
question corrections and distributed the questionnaire to gather data, organize the retrieved data
into themes, code the data, and present an analysis of the findings. My final role in the study was
to translate the findings into constructive recommendations to the USAF, and to recommend
areas for future research. I have presented these findings and recommendations in Section 3 of
the project.
Participants
When conducting research, it is important to understand participants are critical elements
of the research process whose collective protection must be a top priority (Juritzen, Grimen, &
Heggen, 2011; Largent, Grady, Miller, & Wertheimer, 2012). Recruiting the appropriate
participants for a research study is as important and impactful as the failure to do so, as both
dynamics open possibly vulnerable research to threats of internal and external issues of validity
(Gul & Ali, 2010). Section 2 outlines the strategy for selecting and recruiting participants,
49
determining the appropriate sample method and size, and planning measures to ensure
participant protection.
As agreed by the USAF cooperation memorandum (see Appendix B), I limited the
sample population for the study to chairpersons of the USAF Development Teams (Sitterly &
Auld, 2012). It is important researchers select appropriate participants to provide opinions from
qualified experts; otherwise, an audience might dismiss their testimonies (Sapire, 2007).
According to the USAF (2010), Development Team chairpersons are general officers, but many
of these general officers often delegate these positions to career field managers (CFMs). The
USAF (2010) affirmed CFMs are senior members in their respective fields and they are
responsible for the development of personnel within their scopes of operation. Expertise,
coupled with their Development Team board experience, made them qualified candidates for the
participant sample.
There are multiple methods for sampling available to researchers. For the study, I
selected a combination of purposive and snowball sampling strategy. Patton (1990)
recommended a number of situations for purposive sampling. Maximum variation is a
justification for using purposeful sampling when researchers aim to select varied ranges of
dimensions of interest, and stratified purposeful sampling is a method researchers use to
facilitate comparisons (Patton, 1990). Employing a purposive sampling method enables
researchers to identify information-rich cases that afford the most opportunity to gain a
meaningful comprehension of an issue (Korns, 2009). Because the study is an opportunity to
compare a wide range of career-field managed Development Teams, a purposeful sampling
method was deemed necessary. At the end of the questionnaire, I provided participants with the
50
option to forward the questionnaire hyperlink to other Development Team members that may not
have seen the original message I sent with the questionnaire link. Coupling the purposive and
snowball sampling methods gained at least two additional respondents as verified by e-mail
feedback from participants.
Determining the correct sample size is critical when calculating cost and feasibility of a
study (Ye, 2010). For the study, the minimum selected participants sample size was 10
individuals, 20 preferred. Multiple sources justify smaller sample sizes in qualitative research.
These sources include Boyd (2001), who recommended a minimum of 10, and Moustakas
(1994), who argued a set criteria for qualitative study participants does not exist. More recent
authors even recommended as few as six, or as many as 30, participants (Bangerter, 2012; May,
2009).
With the total number of functional Development Teams averaging 20 at any given time,
I aimed to sample as many of the different functional areas as possible. I distributed the
questionnaire link to all known possible participants with the goal of receiving between 10 and
20 responses and actually received 14 responses.
To ensure the anonymity of all participants, an ordinal number (e.g., “Participant 1”)
replaced each participant’s name if the participant divulged such information in his or her
questionnaire responses. Due to the purposive sampling method and existence of only one CFM
per career field, professional details of each participant—such as which career field the
participant discussed—could have inadvertently revealed his or her identity. Therefore, I
replaced each functional career field with a letter (e.g., “Career Field A”). Censoring participant
details ensured compliance with the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the
51
aforementioned USAF cooperation memorandum. Prior to the start of each questionnaire, I
presented information to all participants to inform them of the measures for protecting their
privacy and their opting out of the study cannot affect their job statuses or security clearances.
An online consent form contained this information (see Appendix C). Once reviewed, members
clicked a “next” button to confirm they have read and understand the consent form.
During the study, no procedures existed that threatened participant safety or health, but
the possibility existed for participants to become stressed, fatigued, or upset during the data
collection process. To protect participants as much as possible from emotional distress, and to
protect potential pregnant participants, I provided participants with sufficient information about
the research benefits and risks so they could determine if they were willing to participate. The
consent form (see Appendix C) outlined the potential risks and benefits, and the participants. In
the event that a participant did not wish to consent to the research, or if he or she wished to
withdraw during the data collection process, I thanked them for their time and excused them
from the research.
Research Method and Design
Research Method
When studying organizational leadership, qualitative research is most appropriate if an
in-depth, information-rich understanding of a subject is desired (Yukl et al., 2009). In addition
to depth, qualitative researchers bring an immersed experience to the study, illustrate context,
and allow readers to view the world through an author’s eyes (Bansal & Corley, 2011, 2012;
Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Nalbone (2012) posited the same intimate involvement that proves
so beneficial to qualitative research is also the method’s largest flaw in that an author’s
52
interpretation or clarification of a subject could misrepresent what the participants actually meant
when they provided their individual or collective feedback for transcription. Scholars and
practitioners accept qualitative research as being rigorous enough for acceptance into scholarly
and professional publications (Leitner & Hayes, 2011). Quantitative research is less subjective,
but it often lacks the contextual detail of qualitative research, which, in some studies, is essential
(Neil, 2007).
Because I conducted the study to address how the USAF Development Teams' processes
develops leaders to meet current and future needs, an in-depth understanding was desired; thus,
qualitative research was the most appropriate method for the study. The nature of the problem
researched was not the exclusive reason or rationale for selecting a particular approach. In
qualitative research, researchers play unique, personal roles (Bansal & Corley, 2011). Because
of the intimate relationship among research and researchers, researchers’ cultural histories,
education levels, economic statuses, and political views can play significant roles in the outcome
of their research (Bansal & Corley, 2012; Koltko-Rivera, 2004). The circumstances surrounding
researchers’ perspectives on the way things are is termed a worldview or a paradigm (Cassell,
Buehring, Symon, & Johnson, 2006). My worldview falls most in line with that of social
constructivism. Creswell (2009) described the constructivism worldview as pertaining to people
who desire a deeper understanding of the environments in which they exist. Researchers of these
worldviews see many possibilities within each meaning; thus, they often search for complex
explanations, rather than simple, narrow meanings (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Friends, family, and
colleagues have always criticized me for being too analytical. I often seek complex, in-depth
understanding of things that many people around me care little about. I wonder why people ask
53
certain questions, where certain figures of speech originated, how the elements of the universe
formed in their current proportions. My insatiable curiosity, far more than just a proven or
disproven quantitative answer, aligns my worldview with qualitative methods.
Research Design
When selecting a research design, the researcher must select the most effective design to
support a research question and appropriately fit a methodology. Within the qualitative method,
several experts consider five research designs as typical (Bansal & Corley, 2012; VanderStoep &
Johnson, 2009): (a) case study, (b) ethnography, (c) grounded theory, (d) narrative, and (e)
phenomenology. Bansal and Corley (2012) identified a number of similarities among these
methods that include: (a) researcher immersion, (b) codification of data, (c) an inquiry approach,
and (d) an approach more subjective in nature. There are also distinct differences among the
designs. Researchers conduct case study research to answer the question of how and it focuses
on the qualitative examination of a case (Vissak, 2010; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009). Researchers
conduct ethnographic research to study the lived experiences of multiple participants, focusing
on language, patterns of behavior, and beliefs (Willig, 2008). Unlike any of the other qualitative
methods, researchers use grounded theory research to create or to discover a theory (Cahill,
Turner, & Barefoot, 2010; Willig, 2008). Narrative research is a means for researchers to
explore experiences and stories as expressed by one or two individuals and psychology
researchers accepted it in their field as early as 1926 (VanderStoep & Johnson, 2009; Leitner &
Hayes, 2011). Most closely related to case study research is phenomenology research in which
researchers explore the experiences of multiple participants in reference to particular events or
phenomena (Willig, 2008). One major difference between a case study and phenomenological
54
research is the additional sources of data from which a case study researcher gathers data to
examine the case or system (McCaslin & Scott, 2003). Another major difference is that case
studies encompass one or more bounded units, from which the case is, or cases are, drawn,
whereas researchers use phenomenology to focus on the lived experience of interviewees with a
particular phenomenon. These differences were the primary criteria for selecting the appropriate
qualitative design for the study.
For my research, I chose a case study research design. A case study design was selected
over a phenomenological study for several reasons, but the final methodology paradigm was
primarily based on the number of sources of information beyond lived experiences and selection
questions proposed by McCaslin and Scott (2003). Vissak (2010) and Yin (2009) recommended
using case studies when research questions require explanations in order to be answered. The
answers stem from questions that begin with how and why, as opposed to who, what, and where.
Because I focused the research question for the study focused on how the USAF Development
Team process develops leaders, I deemed a case study was best suited to address the problem.
Given that the Development Team is a bounded unit, and that is the focus of a case study, a case
study design was more appropriate. Table 2 lists a series of questions a researcher can consider
when deciding upon the appropriate qualitative method for his or her problem.
55
Table 2
Five Questions to Select the Color to Paint a Qualitative Design
Question to ask to discover the preferred approach Associated tradition
1. If I could discover the meaning of one person’s lived experience, I would ask _________ (individual) about _______.
Biography (Narrative)
2. If I could discover the shared lived experiences of one quality or phenomenon in others, I would want to know about _______. Phenomenology
3. If I could experience a different culture by living/observing it, I would choose to experience ________. Ethnography
4. If I could discover what actually occurred and was experience in a single lived event, that event would be ________. Case Study
5. If I could discover a theory for a single phenomenon of living as shared by others, I would choose to the theory of ________.
Grounded Theory
Note. Table 2 identifies the number of ways a particular study can be “colored” to fit a specific
research design. Adapted from “The Five-Question Method for Framing a Qualitative Research
Study” by M. L. McCaslin and K. W. Scott, 2003, The Qualitative Report, 8, p. 450. Reprinted
with permission (see Appendix D).
Population and Sampling
I used a combination of purposeful and snowball sampling methods as a means of
producing new knowledge on the field of leadership, and included a thorough literature review,
an observation, and a seven-question questionnaire. As Suri (2011) recommended, I conducted
the data collection and sampling in the same manner as the literature review: (a) purposefully
selected, (b) thoroughly reviewed, (c) properly analyzed, and (d) fully synthesized. It is often
recommended a smaller, purposefully selected sample is more desirable than a larger sample that
56
might or might not contribute to the purpose of the study (Suri, 2011). Vissak (2010) elaborated
on the sample selection dynamics more than Suri and further explained small, purposefully
selected samples are best for case studies because the benefits of information-rich feedback
outweigh the abstract, thin, and superficial responses often derived from widely disseminated
questionnaires. Zhang and Shaw (2012) encouraged the use of snowball sampling to gain
additional participants in a single wave of data collection. I added snowball sampling to my
method by providing participants with the option to forward the questionnaire link to other
qualified Development Team members in order to gain as many participants as possible from the
limited sample.
Researchers require access to expert informants in appropriate fields to underscore and to
clarify research problems, as well as to validate findings when employing purposeful sampling
(Suri, 2011; Vissak, 2010; Willig, 2008). I selected Chairpersons/members of the USAF
Development Teams as the sample for the study, because they must be qualified members in
their fields of expertise, senior officers with experience necessary to make management
decisions and to be familiar with the inner workings of the Development Teams' processes
(USAF, 2010).
Between six and 30 participants are the norm for conducting qualitative research
(Morrow, 2011), with 20 participants comprising a very large sample (Nalbone, 2012). To
further establish a justifiable sample size, I compared six recently published (within the last 5
years) qualitative dissertations concerning leadership, along with professional texts, such as
those of Cassell, Buehring, Symon, and Johnson (2006), VanderStoep and Johnson (2009),
Morrow (2011), Vissak (2010) and Yin (2009). Table 3 lists the authors, dates of publication,
57
titles, and sample sizes used in comparable, published doctoral dissertations. The average
sample size among the six related studies is what I used to select the minimum sample size for
the study. As seen in Table 3, that average is 10 participants, which is 50% of the possible
participants for the study.
Table 3
Comparable Qualitative Leadership Studies and their Sample Size
Author Date Title of dissertation Sample
size
Aminzadeh, B. 2010 An exploratory qualitative case study of leadership practices within Iranian private companies.
10
May, W. P. 2009 Student governance: A qualitative study of leadership in a student government association.
6
Miramontes, G. 2008 A qualitative study examining leadership characteristics of Mexican leaders.
13
Senko, K. A. 2010 Qualitative phenomenological study of leadership perspectives in commercial airlines.
15
Thornhill, K. L. 2011 Authenticity and female leaders: A qualitative study exploring the leadership practices of female university administrators.
7
Williams, V. E. 2009
Organizational change and leadership within a small nonprofit organization: A qualitative study of servant-leadership and resistance to change.
10
Note. The average sample size for the six comparable doctoral studies is 10 participants.
As determined by the USAF (2010) and by Sitterly and Auld (2012), study participants
were to be (a) members of a USAF Development Team, (b) senior officers (general officer or
selected delegate), and (c) responsible for the development of officers within their fields. The
58
USAF Directorate of Force Development (AF/A1D) maintained a list of current USAF
Development Team chairs. I only selected candidates on the list or a previous list as participants.
The USAF Force Development office distributed the online questionnaire hyperlink to
Development Team members to keep their identities anonymous from the research team.
To minimize complications with research approval, the protected research classes
outlined by the National Institute of Health (2011), such as diminished autonomy, children, and
prisoners, were excluded from the study as participants. The only protected class that I sampled
was active duty military members. I complied with Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulation
and USAF regulations when conducting the research. See the Participant Protection section for
more detail on how I assured the protection of the study participants.
Due to the geographical dispersion of the participants, online questionnaires were
paramount to the data collection. The USAF Research Oversight Office encouraged online
questionnaires versus personal interviews to protect the identity of the participants. Because the
USAF Survey Office prohibited surveys or interviews that are solely for degree requirements to
be conducted during participant duty time, the consent form I distributed with the online
questionnaire encouraged participants to complete the questionnaire during their lunch break or
off-duty time.
Ethical Research
Some authors believed the approval processes set forth by ethical research/ institutional
review board requirements constrain social scientists (Sikes & Piper, 2010; Tracy & Carmichael,
2010; Whitemarsh, 2009). However, there were many who believed the value of research ethics
outweighs the burdens of the review process, and they advocate on behalf of increased ethics
59
education for scholars (Perez & Treadwell, 2009; Regmi, 2011; Willig, 2008). Willig (2008)
highlighted the importance of researchers understanding they cannot solve all ethical issues
related to their proposed studies during their planning stages, as many such concerns surface
during the execution of a study that will have to be resolved as they emerge. An overarching
goal while conducting the study was to address the research question while simultaneously
maintaining integrity within the process, and proceeding in a manner that would reflect credit
upon Walden University and the U.S. Air Force.
The Consent Process
Prior to the start of each questionnaire, participants were provided with an electronic
copy of the IRB-approved consent form. As Willig (2008) suggested, the consent form, located
in Appendix C, addressed the following key consent requirements:
Provided the identity of the researcher
Provided the identity of Walden University as the research institution
Explained the participant selection process
Explained the purpose of the research study
Explained the benefits for participating
Outlined participant involvement
Identified participant risks
Identified measures taken to protect participant confidentiality
Informed participants they may freely withdraw from the study at any time
Provided contact information for both the researcher and IRB contact
60
Participant Protection
Stakeholders of corporate and educational institutions worldwide recognize the
importance of protecting human research subjects and participants and they see these practices
both practically and ethically necessary in every type of research in which humans serve as a
source of data collection (McDonald & Cox, 2009). Willig (2008) more clearly expressed a
concern for protecting participants during and after data collection.
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 40-402, paragraph 3.2.1, identified Active Duty Personnel as
Human Subjects a protected class as well as additional instructions for conducting research
within the USAF (USAF, 2011f). To remain in compliance with the requirements of AFI 40-
402, I ensured each subject was provided a detailed list of risks within the online consent form to
determine if their participation in the study will affect their ability to (a) mobilize, (b) perform
duties, or (c) be available for duty. Because Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulation part
219.101(b) and DoDI 3216.06 paragraph 2.b.1 exempt research designed to study/evaluate
possible changes or alternatives to nonmedical programs, an Assurance of Compliance was not
required and there were no additional federal, DoD, or Air Force requirements to consider for
IRB approval (USAF, 2011f).
To ensure participant protection, I put the following measures in place: (a) all data
collected were stored on my password-protected hard drive or placed in a combination safe under
my exclusive control and access; (b) questionnaire responses, analyses, findings, and
recommendations that mentioned participants referred to them only by their coded names (e.g.,
Participant 1, Participant 2, etc.); (c) references to actual career fields managed by participants
when related to collected data were coded (e.g., Career Field A, Career Field B, etc), and (d) all
61
collected data were stored on a password-protected hard drive and I will not release it outside of
the research team. For the purpose of the study, the research team consisted of the researcher
and the members of the researcher's committee. Any data that contained personally identifiable
information (PII) was omitted in the actual doctoral study. Finally, all data concerning the study
will be maintained in the manner described above for a minimum of 5 years to protect the rights
and privacy of the participants.
Project Transparency
To establish and to maintain relationships of trust among myself as the researcher, the
USAF, Walden University, and participants, project transparency was one of the primary foci
during the course of the study. Establishing rapport with the participants; keeping them
informed of the research purposes, and clearly outlying the purposes, processes, and measures to
protect them was critical to establish this transparency (Willig, 2008; Saunders & Thornhill,
2011). Sitterly and Auld (2012) identified the requirement for me to submit quarterly updates to
AF/A1D. The update process promoted communication, ensured transparency, and afforded the
research team and the USAF an opportunity to clarify any concerns about the study.
Incentives
No compensation in the form of recognition, currency, goods, or services were offered or
rendered to participants for their participation in the study.
Data Collection
The goal of the data collection process was to gather sufficient information to generate
findings that contributed to development of a response to the research question. I used Yin
(2009) as the primary methodology source for collecting qualitative data during the study.
62
Walden University recommended Yin to its Doctorate in Business Administration students and
this source contained a wealth of information on case study design, data collection, analyses, and
reporting. Finally, I used recommendations from Vissak (2010), Stake (1995), and Yin to
support the data collection process.
Yin (2009) identified six sources of evidence for data collection for qualitative case
studies: (a) documentation, (b) archival records, (c) participant feedback such as interviews or
questionnaires, (d) direct observation, (e) participant observation, and (f) physical artifacts. Both
Vissak (2010) and Yin (2009) recommended collecting data from multiple sources, then cross-
checking to validate the data. The aforementioned method of data collection is known as
triangulation and I used this technique to cross-reference questionnaire responses, scholarly and
professional literature, previous Development Team studies, and regulatory documentation
during the current study.
Instruments
I created a case study protocol (see Appendix E) to guide the data collection process
(Vissak, 2010; Yin, 2009). During qualitative research, researchers are immersed within their
studies and immersion presents a number of advantages and disadvantages that are important to
note. Table 4 lists the advantages and disadvantages that relate to the methodology/instrument
combination.
63
Table 4
Qualitative Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages Participants are able to supply the researcher with historical data.
Coding is time consuming and often extend the research timeline.
Participants are able to explain why or how a phenomenon exists.
Responses are subject to bias, poor recall, and flawed articulation.
The researcher is able to gain detailed information from the participant.
The process or setting of the may affect the participants’ responses.
Note. The comparative advantages/disadvantages table provides an effective comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of qualitative case studies. Adapted from narrative information in
Yin (2009).
Ultimately, the benefits of an in-depth understanding, problem immersion, and detailed
participant responses afforded by qualitative case studies determined the final decision to choose
the research method, design, and data collection techniques. As suggested by Yin (2009),
questions began with how instead of why to prevent the participant from growing defensive.
Data Collection Technique
During an empirical study to test a questionnaire as a means of measuring leadership
development, Patterson et al. (2013) determined that questionnaires provided a systematic
method for measuring the development of leadership skills. Similarly, Popper and Amit (2009)
employed a qualitative questionnaire to query leadership development based on experiences and
found that the design allowed them to highlight core traits that affected leaders' development.
64
Muller and Turner (2010) used a leadership development questionnaire to explore the
competency profiles of managers that oversaw successful projects and programs and produced
results that were generalizable throughout business organizations. A leadership development
questionnaire was the best choice to explore the effectiveness of the USAF Development Teams
in order to have results that are generalizable.
Figure 6 illustrates the process by which data collection took place. To minimize risk to
the participants, the AF/A1DI office distributed the www.surveymonkey.com questionnaire link
to the possible participants on the most current USAF Officer Stakeholder List. If the participant
candidates clicked the link, they were sent to the online consent form where they could review
the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study prior to agreeing to participant. Those that chose to
participate were directed to the seven question questionnaire where they completed the
questions. I avoided partial response data by encoding the questionnaire to only allow the
participant to submit the questionnaire once all of the fields were completed. Following
completion of the questionnaire, the participant was invited to share the link to other known
current or recent Development Team chairs. Zhang and Shaw (2012) reported that additional
participants were the primary advantage of such snowball sampling. Once the minimum 10
responses was surpassed, I organized the data into themes and coded prior to analysis (Vissak,
2010; Yin, 2009). Figure 6 is a visual representation of the process and was designed to assist
me in the tasks and conditions necessary to conduct data collection.
65
Figure 6. The study’s data collection process flow chart.
The Pilot Case Study
Pilot studies help researchers distill protocols, refine processes, and improve questions,
and are considered by many investigators to be essential in developing valid research (Schmader,
2011; Yin, 2009). Schmader (2011) urged researchers to keep pilot studies small with regard to
budget, scope, duration, and overall size. Yin (2009) identified two distinct and opposite reasons
for selecting a particular pilot study. The first option is a pilot study that is convenient, which
would allow the study to be conducted quickly and efficiently while examining all processes
supporting the study. The second option is conducting a pilot study that is complicated, beyond
66
the expected complication of the real study, to present all possible challenges.
The pilot study for the research project was small in scope because it (a) supported the
short time constraints of a dissertation, (b) was significantly less costly than a large scale study,
and most importantly, (c) still provided adequate testing of the data collection plan. In a
similarly designed dissertation, Pomponio (2008) was able to sufficiently test the reliability of a
data collection plan with a small-scope pilot study using two participants who represented the
real sample. I selected five purposefully selected field- grade officers in the Washington, DC
area who were not part of the limited study sample, but were familiar with the USAF
Development Teams' processes to allow for all portions of the data collection plan to be tested
with the most realistic sample possible. I then used feedback from pilot study participants to
refine the questionnaire, data collection process, and data collection decision flow chart shown in
Figure 6. The pilot participant recommended modifications were to add examples that help
clarify each question in the questionnaire. Four out of five pilot study participants stated that this
modification was necessary if the open-ended questions were to be understood clearly by the
participants of the main study. I therefore added to the online questionnaire to provide question
clarity. No other recommendations were made regarding the questions, process, or flow chart.
Data Organization Techniques
I stored data in accordance with best practices proposed by Yin (2009). Yin
recommended maintaining two separate storage locations for qualitative case study data: the
actual coded data and the narrative data. Both Pomponio (2008) and Hoffschwelle (2011) used
electronic databases to store data using a similar methodology. Hoffschwelle, a Walden
University graduate, organized her data into themes that aligned with the main headings in the
67
literature review. Her method added a logical base to her analysis and reinforced the legitimacy
of a thorough literature review.
I stored the data for the study in a similar manner as those noted above. Narrative data
were stored using the Microsoft Windows 7 filing system. All files were stored under a master
“DSP” (for Doctoral Study Project) folder, with the raw data stored in my private
www.surveymonkey.com user account. Because Survey Monkey was used as the collection
interface, data were automatically backed up on the www.surveymonkey.com password
protected webserver. The electronic data will be maintained for 5 years. As suggested by
Bansal and Corley (2012), all collected data, study drafts, references, and related files are
backed-up on separate, secure drives in different locations. The research data were backed up
every day at 4:00am (EST) to a file storage folder located at www.godaddy.com.
Finally, I maintained a chain of case study evidence to increase case study reliability
(Yin, 2009). The chain of evidence included the actual report, related database(s), references,
the case study protocol, and the list of questions (Yin, 2009). I backed up the chain of evidence
daily in accordance with the previously noted back-up strategy.
Data Analysis Techniques
Questionnaire Questions
How do the USAF Development Teams posture (or fail to posture) leaders to meet
national and military strategic objectives?
How do the objectives of the USAF Development Team program align (or fail to
align) with the strategic objectives of the USAF?
How do the USAF Development Teams adequately posture (or fail to posture) officer
68
talent capable of filling talent gaps within the service?
How do the USAF Development Teams measure (or fail to measure) officers’ past
performance when determining assignments, developmental education, and
command?
How effective (or ineffective) are the USAF Development Teams at assessing the
results of boards’ decisions once they have been implemented?
How do the USAF Development Teams' processes affect (or not affect) the overall
organizational environment of the USAF?
How do career-centered Development Teams (rather than a “Big Air Force”
Development Team) impact the overall USAF?
Unlike statistical data for quantitative studies, a rigorous qualitative study requires data to
be coded and organized into themes that then require researchers to use their own analytical
talents to translate the data into meaningful and applicable knowledge for an audience (Vissak,
2010; Yin, 2009). Bansal and Corley (2012) argued the first step of data analysis is to describe,
in rich detail, the setting of the case study due to the significance it will have on interpreting the
results. Yin (2009) recommended the following steps, which were utilized in the study to
analyze the respective data: (a) data was organized into themes or categories; (b) the study
contained graphical displays, such as flowcharts, to examine the data; (c) frequency tables listed
recurring codes and themes; (d) calculated, complex data was displayed to show means and
variances, and; (e) triangulated coded data results were cross-referenced with scholarly and
professional sources.
Hoffschwelle (2011) used NVivo software because of NVivo’s superior capability to
69
code, theme, organize, and analyze qualitative data (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012). The NVivo
software program automatically generated the raw database for the study. I used Hoffschwelle’s
study process for the Nvivo software program and broke the data into themes to match the
logical organization referenced in the literature review and to resonate with the mixture of
conceptual frameworks tied together during the development of the study. The themes I used to
organize the data were strategy, objective alignment, talent areas, performance, assessment, and
organizational behavior.
Yin (2009) recommended using both quantitative and qualitative data to support findings
as being a robust analytic strategy. Given the foregoing, I compared data collected from the
questionnaires within each theme and recorded the frequencies of codes or recurring opinions
among the participants as qualitative statements and quantitative numbers (see Table 5 and
Figure 7). Those data were compared across each category using Predictive Analytics Software
(PASW) to generate descriptive statistics and graphs that provide a visual representation to
support the findings (Drummond, Paterson, McLoughlin, & McGarth, 2011; Golafshani, 2003;
Yin, 2009).
Table 5
Sample Qualitative and Quantitative Data Layout and Organization
Qualitative Data Strategy Alignment Talent
Positive comment Negative comment Positive comment Positive comment
Negative comment Positive comment Negative comment Positive comment
Negative comment Negative comment Negative comment Negative comment
70
Figure 7. Sample bar graph visual representation for exploring qualitative data responses and their relative frequencies. A general strategy for analyzing the data is important to avoid delays in qualitative case
studies (Yin, 2009). Once properly coded and analyzed as described above, I compared the data
with and contrasted to general themes in the literature review (Bansal & Corley, 2012). I then
used the data analysis to address the central research question (Yin, 2009).
Reliability and Validity
Reliable and valid instruments are necessary for rigorous, credible case study research
(Vissak, 2010; Yin, 2009). Reliable instruments will yield similar results with each use and valid
instruments will measure intended objectives (Golafshani, 2003). One of the objectives for the
study was to make it both reliable and valid by (a) identifying threats to reliability and validity,
(b) taking proven measures to minimize those threats, and (c) ensuring threats, controllable or
not, are transparent to the readers in this section and when presenting the findings.
Reliability
To ensure the data were reliable: First, and most importantly, I tested the data collection
plan using a pilot (or feasibility) study (Schmader, 2011). I then used feedback from the pilot
study to refine the protocol and steps within the data collection plan to ensure they are sufficient
1
2
4
Stra
tegy
Alig
nmen
t
Tale
nt
Positive Responses
Negative Responses
71
to support the real study. Yin (2009) asserted by maintaining case study databases, researchers
increase their case studies’ reliability. I created a case study database within NVivo 10 to
catalog coded data under each of the themes discussed in the literature review.
Validity
Internal validity. Several authors have described internal validity as the overall quality
of the study (VanderStoep & Johnson, 2009; Thomas & Magilvy, 2011; University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New Jersey [UMDNJ], 2012; Yin, 2009). Internal validity is affected by the
research design, variables measures, and by the level of confidence one can deduct or determine
the findings were accurate. To improve validity, I used triangulation to cross-reference
questionnaire responses, scholarly and professional literature, previous Development Team
studies, and regulatory documentation (Vissak, 2010; Yin, 2009). UMDNJ (2012) identified
eight factors that can affect internal validity: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation,
statistical regression, selection, mortality/attrition, selection interactions.
Historians refer to the impact of circumstances on participants among periods where
measurements are taken, or in this case, questionnaires distributed. UMDNJ (2012) warned that
longer studies are more susceptible to the threat more than shorter studies. The short sampling
period of 30 days for the study mitigated the threat to validity.
Maturation is the threat against internal validity that results from participants changing
over time (UMDNJ, 2012). Maturation generally applies to long-term experiments where
participants are observed or sampled repeatedly. The one-time data collection with each
participant mitigates this threat.
Testing is a threat to validity when a pretest can contaminate a study. The pilot study for
72
the project did not sample the same participants as the real study. Additionally, the location
where the pretest was conducted was not at the same location where the main study took place.
Instrumentation refers to collection methods that might lack objectivity and contaminate
the results with biased information (UMDNJ, 2012). Qualitative studies are often affected by
this threat because researchers are immersed in their studies to gain understanding and they are
also the collection instruments (Vissak, 2010; Neil, 2007; Yin, 2009). To minimize the impact
of bias in the study, I: (a) used a pilot study to test the data collection process, (b) compared
findings with peer-reviewed publications for consistency, (c) clarified the potential for researcher
bias early in the study, and (d) provided rich descriptions of the collected data to allow readers to
make decisions with reference to transferability (Bansal & Corley, 2012).
Statistical regression, selection, and mortality/ attrition largely pertain to quantitative
studies and they do not impact the current study. Statistical regression refers to the impact of
retesting samples, which, in turn generates an unwanted change in the mean. Selection is the
negative impact on a study due to the imbalance between the control group and the experiment.
Mortality/ attrition is a threat when multiple groups are compared for research and members of
one group withdraw from a study and upset the experiment (UMDNJ, 2012). These threats do
not exist to qualitative studies, and since I only sampled participants once.
Finally, selection interaction refers to the impact the selection method has on maturation,
history, and instrumentation to bias the findings of a study. I selected participants for the study
using a combination purposeful and snowball sampling from current and past lists of USAF
Development Team members. I informed participants of the criteria used to select them during
the online consent process. I selected all participants using the same process.
73
External validity. External validity refers to the ability for one to generalize the findings
of the study to other people or settings (Golafshani, 2003; VanderStoep & Johnson, 2009).
Many of the four threats to external validity do not apply to the research. Pretests did not
interfere for reasons previously noted; questionnaires were only distributed one time per
participant; and Development Team observations were not part of the official data collection
process. Vissak (2010) urged qualitative researchers to provide rich, descriptive explanations of
collected data to allow external readers to interpret findings and to apply them to individuals and
settings outside of the studies. The data participants provided within the study were rich with
content.
Transition and Summary
Section 2 covered the key components necessary to understand, recreate, and validate the
study. Opening with a restatement of the project’s purpose properly positioned readers as they
examined the details of the study. My role as the researcher was described to familiarize readers
with my perceived roles and responsibilities within the data collection process, my worldview,
and relationship to the study topic. I described participants by identifying the population,
sampling method, sample size, and consent process. Section 2 continued with my identification
and justification of the selected qualitative research method and case study design. After a
review of ethical considerations, I provided a detailed overview of the data collection instrument,
processes, storage, and organization was addressed, followed by an analysis of the techniques.
Finally, I explained the various threats to internal and external validity, as well as the steps taken
to mitigate those threats.
Section 3 continues with a presentation of the findings, a description of how the collected
74
data can benefit professional practice, and implications for social change. Recommended areas
for future study are provided based on what was learned during the research process and gaps
observed in the reviewed literature. I conclude the study with a reflection on the researcher’s
experiences and closing comments.
75
Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change
Overview of Study
The purpose of the qualitative case study was to explore the influence of the
Development Teams’ processes on USAF field-grade officers worldwide to determine the
efficacy of the Development Teams' process for identifying, selecting, and/or developing leaders
who meet current and future needs of the service. The USAF defined the development team
process as the conduit between USAF policy, force development systems, and organizational
frameworks used to generate career paths for personnel (USAF, 2008a). A total of 14
Development Team representatives, in the form of general officers or their delegates, completed
questionnaires to contribute feedback to the study. The knowledge gathered through the study
might allow current business theories and practices, as they pertain to leadership development, to
be applied to the USAF leadership development problem. An improved leadership development
program might help the U.S. military protect the American people and maintain regional
stability (Korb et al., 2010). As an added benefit, the results of the study might not only help the
USAF, but other business as well due the generalizability of many LDP analysis results (Preece
& Iles, 2009).
To achieve the goal described in the purpose statement, I conducted the study to explore
how effective the USAF Development Team process is at developing leaders that meet current
and future needs. The analysis yielded results that indicated the Development Team executors
were satisfied with the process’s ability to produce strategic leaders, align with higher level
objectives, create transferrable talent, measure officer performance, and positively affect the
organizational environment. The Development Teams’ ability to assess the results of past
76
decisions emerged as a major area of concern. Many participants attributed the reason for the
lack of sufficient assessment to the rotating membership of the Development Team from one
session to another. The second area of concern was the impact of the career field-centered model
of the development teams on the larger Air Force.
Presentation of the Findings
The central research question for the study was:
How effective are the USAF Development Teams at developing leaders to meet current
and future needs?
I investigated the effectiveness of the Development Team processes by asking the
members of the Development Teams to self-assess their own program by comparing their
program with the framework used to establish the literature review. I placed the following
subquestions into the online questionnaire to collect feedback concerning each of the framework
elements:
How do the USAF Development Teams posture (or fail to posture) leaders to meet
national and military strategic objectives?
How do the objectives of the USAF Development Team program align (or fail to
align) with the strategic objectives of the USAF?
How do the USAF Development Teams adequately posture (or fail to posture) officer
talent capable of filling talent gaps within the service?
How do the USAF Development Teams measure (or fail to measure) officers’ past
performance when determining assignments, developmental education, and
command?
77
How effective (or ineffective) are the USAF Development Teams at assessing the
results of boards’ decisions once they have been implemented?
How do the USAF Development Teams' processes affect (or not affect) the overall
organizational environment of the USAF?
How do career-centered Development Teams (rather than a “Big Air Force”
Development Team) impact the overall USAF?
I employed a qualitative case study approach to gather data from the Development Team
members. Of the 20 Development Team chairs consisting of 30 functional groups, 14
Development Team representatives responded with feedback concerning their respective team.
The 47% response rate more than quadrupled the expected 10.5% percent average response rate
for questionnaires (Connon, 2008). The unusually high response rate, coupled with the rich
detail provided by the respondents, yielded a large amount of qualitative data for analysis and led
to a point of data saturation. Siegle (2002) described data saturation or a hermeneutic circle as a
point where participants no longer provide new information.
I imported the raw data from the questionnaires into NVivo 10 for qualitative analysis.
The analysis resulted in the emergence of seven themes that aligned with the literature review,
conceptual framework, and subquestions: (a) strategy, (b) objective alignment, (c) talent
management, (d) performance measurement, (e) assessment, (f) impact to organizational
environmental impact, and (g) effect on organizational balance. Table 6 displays these themes
and which respondents provided data that aligned with each theme. Responses that were positive
and described how the USAF Development Team achieved success in a certain themed area were
marked with a “+” symbol. Responses that were negative and described how the USAF
78
Development Teams failed to achieve success in a certain themed area were marked with a “–”
symbol. Presented in Table 6 are detailed explanations for each theme.
Table 6
Themes and Responses Received
Participant Themes and Positive/Negative Responses Received Strategy Align Talent Perform Assess Envir Balance
1 + + + + + + + 2 + + + + + + + 3 + + + + + + + 4 + + + + – + + 5 + + + + + + – 6 + + + – + + – 7 + + + + – + – 8 + + + + – – – 9 + – – + – + – 10 – – – – – – – 11 – – – – + + – 12 + + + + – + +
13 + + + + – + – 14 + + + + + + +
Direct quotes from respondent are provided beneath each theme summary to substantiate
the findings. The quotes were unchanged and contain some jargon and abbreviations to retain
the integrity of the original data. All references to DT(s) refer to the Development Team(s) and
all references to AF refer to Air Force in the following data. Figure 8 provides a quick visual
indicator to areas where the respondents thought the Development Team process succeeds and
where it fails.
79
Figure 8. Frequencies of positive and negative responses for each theme.
Theme 1: Strategy
Strategic significance is the most important finding in the study, and foundational to the
rest of the program (Cohen, 2011; Rueschhoff & Dunne, 2011). Fayol’s (1949) management
theory, deeply rooted in strategy, was well developed due to Henri Fayol’s military experience
and understanding of the connection between strategy and organizational success (Peaucelle &
Guthrie, 2012). There was a strong consensus amongst most participants that the Development
Teams developed leaders to meet current and future needs of the USAF. The most frequently
mentioned conduit for strategic development was assignment selection, mentioned by all
participants, followed by developmental education. Three of the participants also mentioned the
use of command selection as a means of developing leaders to meet strategic needs of the
service. Eighty-six percent of the participants, as experts in the developmental process,
responded that their vectors produce well-rounded officers that mature into leaders who are
1211 11 11
7
12
6
23 3 3
7
2
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Strategy Alignment Talent Performance Assessment Environment Balance
Positive Negative
80
capable of meeting military and national strategic requirements. One of the participants
specifically described how those vectors do/do not meet strategic objectives through deliberate
placement, but that participant thought that the Development Teams were not vectoring officers
to the most critical places to align with national strategic requirements. Some specific comments
by the participants to note were:
Through vectoring and development, school selection, and command selection.
(Participant 3)
Based on guidance received, the DT adjusts vectoring to meet overall strategic needs.
(Participant 5)
Vectors are designed to mature individuals to be future Air Force leaders vice experts in a
given career field. (Participant 7)
I don't believe the DT's are very good at reacting to national strategic objectives. The
department recently determined that cyber is a priority in the national security strategy,
yet the USAF is staffing U.S. Cyber Command below requirements. (Participant 10)
Theme 2: Objective Alignment
Participants presented mixed responses on how the Development Team objectives
aligned with USAF objectives, but all agreed that they were aligned. Official documentation
articulates the objectives of the USAF Development Teams as maximizing capabilities of all
Airmen so the USAF can provide air, space, and cyberspace power to support U.S. national
security interests (USAF, 2008a). In 79% of the responses, the participants felt that the
objectives of their specific Development Team aligned with their career field objectives first, and
in doing so, automatically somehow aligned with bigger USAF objectives. Participant 8 was
81
very clear on how a career field-specific focus meets larger USAF objectives. Participant 10
expressed a grave concern for the lack of standardization between the different career fields.
Sending officers to multiple commands in some career fields, in contrast to others that only send
officers to one command, was a major concern mentioned due to the imbalance it creates in the
officers’ records as they compete for promotion. The following comments are particularly
relevant for the analysis:
The DT objectives align with the career field first and the greater USAF strategic
objectives second. (Participant 1)
I feel the DTs meet the [big AF] intent. Their requirements flow down as readiness
taskings or as the Chief’s priorities and we ensure we meet/fill those requirements.
(Participant 6)
I believe our DT is pretty effective at developing officers that have the breadth and depth
to maximize their capability as a senior officer. (Participant 8)
Theme 3: Talent Management
A review of data collected with regard to the talent management theme yielded a 79%
positive indication the program effectively developed officers with talent to fill gaps throughout
the organization should they need to be moved around. The high response rate indicates that the
USAF is on-track with their initiative to broaden senior officer qualifications by adding
secondary skills to field-grade officers (Moore & Brauner, 2007). Some participants clearly
described how their respective Developmental Teams produce well-rounded leaders through a
mixture of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments within and outside of their field, while
a few participants specifically responded that their teams developed officers to support primarily
82
their career field. The remaining participants indicated that their career field Development Team
developed internally also provided career broadening opportunities to select officers to make
them better-rounded. In one instance, a participant described how the personal bias built into the
Development Team process has interfered with the development of qualified candidates. Some
comments of note are as follows:
The DT will meet the career field objectives first while broadening officers for other
USAF strategic priorities. (Participant 1)
Our officers are pretty universal. We often transition between operations, training, and
support assignments as we develop through the ranks. (Participant 8)
On the negative side, personal knowledge of individuals has on occasion interfered with
the progress and advancement of otherwise qualified individuals. (Participant 9)
The DT has been able to release officers for leadership opportunities to create a well
officer to be able to fill USAF gaps. (Participant 14)
Theme 4: Performance
The performance measurement question was included to explore whether each
Development Team measured performance, and if so, what steps the teams used to measure
performance. Hersey and Blanchard’s (2012) situational leadership theory is used extensively
throughout the USAF in education and practice (USAF, 2011d). The measurement of officer
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) is integral to properly employing Hersey and Blanchard’s
(2012) situational leadership theory because the outcome determines how Development Teams
posture the evaluated officer for success (Duff, 2013). All 79% of participants who responded
positively to the performance measurement question described the same process for performance
83
measurement of officers' past performance and potential to serve in more demanding positions.
Within each response was a discussion about a complete records review consisting of
performance evaluations, assignment history, awards and decorations, and discussion amongst
group members that may have personal experience working with a particular officer. Every
participant felt the performance measurement process employed by the Development Teams was
sufficient to achieve the Teams’ objectives. In a few cases, participants representing a smaller
career field were less convinced that their recommendations to command selection boards held
much weight since they had their own cross-functional boards to choose from before going to the
Development Team for input. Two participants expressed a need for the performance of officers
who are working outside of their comfort zone in career-broadening positions to hold more
weight toward their potential to be a future leader and not be resented by the Development Team
functional reviewers. Some excerpts from the participants of note are:
In-depth review of officer records by all DT voting participants. Factors like previous
assignments, OPRs, decorations, senior officer recommendations, and timing are
considered in the decision process. (Participant 4)
This is a pretty basic process that occurs at almost every type of USAF board.
(Participant 8)
The boards where I was able to attend and/or lead always measured the complete records
of candidates for advancement. (Participant 9)
Contempt for those performing outside of their functional area. (Participant 11)
Theme 5: Assessment
Only 50% of participants agreed that, though not perfect, the USAF Development Team
84
semi-annual meetings afford them adequate opportunity to track the progress of the previously
vectored officers to assess their decisions. The smaller Development Teams appear to have
fewer problems with assessment due to the more easily manageable size of their career fields
than do the larger teams. The remaining participants believed Development Teams do not
adequately assess progress due to the shifting composition of the team membership from session
to session, and two participants directly stated that Development Teams do not conduct an
assessment on past decisions. Participant feedback is consistent with the 2007 RAND study
which also noted that the USAF should better track force development, assess effectiveness, and
skill pairing (Moore & Brauner, 2007). The following comments are excerpts of note:
We have a small career field so we are better able to track the individual. (Participant 6)
I do not know of any deliberate process used to backward assess. (Participant 8)
The boards are not always suited to reassess the success or failures of the decisions
previously made. Most of the times the members have been switched out and previous
recommendations and their basis are unknown. (Participant 9)
Probably the weakest area in the design of the DT process. (Participant 12)
This is a limiting factor. Measures (internal to the career field) are now being put in
place to reassess progress. (Participant 13)
Theme 6: Impact to Organizational Environment
Only 14% of the participants felt the Development Teams had a negative impact on the
USAF as an organization, while the remaining 86% expressed opposite opinions. In one case, a
participant indicated an initial concern about the potential negative impact the Development
Teams would have over the senior leadership of an officer. The same participant continued to
85
express his alignment toward the Development Teams once he was able to witness the positive
impact they had on the USAF. Many of the participants felt that, as senior officers in that field
of practice, the Development Teams were the most suited leaders to make recommendations on
the future path of a more junior officer. Several participants also claimed the Development
Teams, Command Screening Boards, and Senior Raters all worked well together to create an
atmosphere suitable for positive mentorship of the officer being evaluated. Some typical theme-
related comments from the participants were:
DT officers should be in the best position to direct the path of the officers in their career
field. (Participant 1)
I initially worried about the power the DT would have over the Senior Raters at each
wing and Major Command but I am now a believer of the DT system. (Participant 2)
Air Force Personnel Center relies on DTs to make sound decisions and influence
processes and their determinations are generally taken as gospel. (Participant 4)
The DT's feedback should allow mentorship to be more focused. By giving an honest
assessment and actionable goals, members should know where they stand relative to their
peers. This should stimulate performance across the larger Air Force. (Participant 13)
Theme 7: Effect on Organizational Balance
A clear lack of standardization across the various Development Teams was evident
through the responses to the question concerning organizational balance. Friedman’s (1985)
theory on differentiated leadership encourages distinctive functions, but requires a connection
between functions that allow them to function properly as part of the larger group (Robinson,
2012). In the case of the Development Teams, the lack of standardization has led to the
86
existence of independent teams as well as processes that are independent from the rest of the
teams. The fact that 57% of the respondents commented that there was a lack of balance
amongst how the Development Teams functioned is an important note for USAF leadership to
recognize. The divided results coincide with quantitative archival data provided to the USAF in
a 2011 study (Valenzuela, 2012). Only two respondents responded that there was a check and
balance system, the rest were either unsure of a checks and balance system or said it was
dysfunctional. General Ronal R. Fogleman, former USAF Chief of Staff, expressed the
importance of standards being uniformly known, consistently applied, and nonselectively
enforced (Kohn, 2001); however, the Development Teams do not appear to meet those criteria.
Specific theme related comments from participants include:
The checks and balance is there as the DT only looks at Career Field 1, then Senior
Raters select commanders from Command Lists developed during Commander's
Boards held at Air Force Personnel Center. Senior raters still determine who gets DPs
for promotion so all of these processes complement each other. (Participant 2)
The DT shouldn’t be a training experience for the leader and the lack of more senior
leadership (General Officer or civilian equivalent) can be a detriment as well. I
remember attending one DT where our DT chair was a GS-15 while the DT across
the hall was a two-star general. I think you can appreciate the inequality. (Participant
4)
There do not appear to be checks and balances. (Participant 5)
Don’t know. (Participant 7)
I don't know that there is a check and balance at the Air Force Pentagon level.
87
(Participant 8)
Summary of Findings
Based on the results of the management level review of the Development Team process,
the USAF Development Teams meet strategic objectives and are aligned with the strategic needs
of the service, Department of Defense, and United States. The objectives for the Development
Teams are also aligned with higher level strategic needs as clarified in Air Force Instruction 36-
2640. Development Team chairs, career field managers, panel members, and assignments
officers work cooperatively to posture officers throughout their careers to gain the experience,
both breadth and depth, necessary to be senior leaders capable of filling talent gaps across the
organization. A thorough review of officer performance reports, past positions, awards,
decorations, and senior leader recommendations is integral to the success of the Development
Team process and is standardized among the Development Teams. The positive impact of the
current Development Team process on the USAF organizational environment far exceeds any
negative impact. The processes have gained the confidence of the majority of those who oversee
the program and many agree that, as the experts in their field, the Development Teams are the
appropriate entity to have the influence they possess over the careers of the more junior officers
they develop.
The USAF Development Teams do not currently have a standardized or effective way of
assessing the results of the decisions they implement. The inability to adequately assess the
teams’ decisions might prove detrimental to the future of the program if the poor choices of the
past are not recognized to prevent (a) repeating the same decisions in the future and/or (b) the
correcting previous decisions. The small size of the USAF Force Development section might
88
play a role in the lack of standardization across the Development Teams. The 57% negative
response rate regarding balance and standardization across the Development Teams indicates a
clear problem. Both problems are consistent with the projections the RAND Corporation made
to the USAF in a previous study (Moore & Brauner, 2007). (I present some recommendations
for addressing these problems later in the section.
Applications to Professional Practice
The top 5% of companies with effective leadership practices dedicate twice as much
effort to leadership development as do the lower 95%, a clear indication that leadership
development has a positive relationship toward organizational success (Results-Based
Leadership Group, 2011). Within the current study on the effectiveness of the USAF
Development Teams I examined the processes of a leadership development program within the
USAF. The problem, findings, and methods upon which the findings were discovered led to a
transferable leadership development business model. The self-assessment model emerged that
could be utilized by leader of other private or public organizations to examine their leadership
development programs. Figure 9 and Table 7 depict and describe how administrators may
conceptualize and utilize the model to conduct a self-assessments on their respective leadership
development programs.
89
Figure 9. The Leader-Input Framework for Evaluation (LIFE) model for management self-assessment of their development programs.
The LIFE model in Figure 9 stems from conceptualizing and integrating elements of
leadership development from Cohen (2011), Gabel, Harker, and Sanders (2011). Additional
elements of the USAF on organizational development were integrated to develop the model.
When combined with the descriptions of each theme, as presented in Table 7, program
developers, assessors, and executives can easily understand and adapt the model.
Program Assessment
Objective Alignment
Strategic Relevance
Measure Performance
Develop Talent
Assessment Results
Organizational
Impact
90
Table 7
Investigative Questions to Support the LIFE Model
Theme Investigative Question
Strategy How does (development program) posture (or fail to posture) leaders to meet organizational objectives?
Objective Alignment
How do the objectives of (development program) align (or fail to align) with the organization’s strategic objectives?
Talent Management
How does (development program) adequately posture (or fail to posture) officer talent capable of filling talent gaps within the organization?
Performance Measurement
How does (development program) measure (or fail to measure) leaders' past performance when determining internal moves, developmental education, and leadership positions?
Assessment How effective (or ineffective) is (development program) at assessing the results of its graduates to ensure they meet organizational objectives?
Impact on Environment
How does the (development program) affect (or not affect) the overall organizational environment?
The emergent LIFE model can contribute to business practice by providing leaders of
public and private organizations with a framework that they can use to conduct an internal self-
assessment on their leadership development program. The model links directly to the review of
professional and academic literature, and is grounded by the current study to provide a practical
self-assessment. The LIFE model could help leaders of a company determine: (a) if their
leadership development program is aligned with the organization’s strategy, (b) develops leaders
that become transferrable across the company as they become more senior, (c) adequately
measures and assesses performance of students and graduates, and (d) does not negatively impact
the organization. Such a tool provides an inexpensive alternative to hiring consultants,
especially during a period where rising audit fees are causing more auditors to be dismissed
91
(Farag & Elias, 2011).
Implications for Social Change
In an empirical study, Korb et al. (2010) determined that the future security of the United
States relies on a smarter military that is developed through education. The determination is
largely due to the important role the U.S. military plays in the nation’s economic, political,
social, and cultural prosperity (Lynn, 2008). Similarly, Yukl et al. (2009) emphasized how
important organizational leaders are to the survival and prosperity of their organization. As a
primary component of national defense, the U.S. ability to maintain air superiority over
adversaries also depends on educated leaders to ensure the survival and prosperity of the USAF
and contribute to the future stability of the United States and international allies. The USAF
could use the findings and recommendations from the study to improve the quality of their force
development program resulting in better educated leaders to guide the organization.
Recommendations for Action
Based on the findings of the study, I recommend the following to address the areas of the
Development Team process that require the most attention. These recommendations are specific
to the USAF Development Teams, and might, or might not, be transferrable to other
organizations with leadership development process deficiencies in similar areas. As the
oversight entity for the Development Teams, these recommendations are provided to the USAF
Force Development Integration office for consideration. If approved, I recommend the
information be shared with the Development Team Chairs or Career Field Managers at the next
career field meeting.
92
Recommendations for Theme 5: Assessment
Since the 1900s, program assessment has been a cornerstone to achieving organizational
success (Bunker & Cohen, 1978). Assessment is the linkage that connects what leaders of an
organization set out to achieve with what they actually accomplished. The USAF must develop a
better way for Development Teams, especially larger teams, to assess the actions taken to
determine if the teams achieved their goals and what goals they failed to achieve (DeRue,
Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, & Workman, 2012; Jantii & Greenhalgh, 2012). Moore and Brauner
(2007) emphasized the importance of properly tracking and assessing Development Team
decisions due to the resultant disaster to the program if officers developed for specific leadership
jobs are not later placed into those positions.
One option for assessment is to duplicate the program used by Air Education and
Training Command to assess technical training graduates. The process involves submitting brief
surveys to gaining supervisors that contain questions about the quality of the graduate. In this
case, gaining commanders would receive a short survey that contains questions about the
commander’s level of satisfaction with the qualifications and leadership ability of the officer
vectored to them by the Development Team.
A second, or complementary option to the first, would be a self-assessment questionnaire
given to the officer vectored by the Development Team. Both options could be anonymous or
confidential to protect the career of the officer, while still providing feedback to the
Development Teams on their decision. If done in tandem, the two methods of feedback could
provide a 360-degree feedback mechanism for USAF leadership on the effectiveness of the
Development Teams and indicate areas for improvement if applicable. Survey distribution could
93
be easily managed and less costly than internal tracking or hiring outside auditors/contractors to
conduct assessments on behalf of the USAF.
A third option would be a more deliberate, internal tracking of officer progress through
comprehensive evaluation of performance during an officers vectored assignment to immediately
identify placement errors and possible reasons for such errors. Option three would be more
taxing on a program that has already been downsized and is less likely to be implemented due to
current government budget cuts. Some career fields plan to develop an internal assessment
method such as the one described. If successful, the transferability of the method could be
compared to large and small teams for implementation consideration.
Recommendations for Theme 7: Effect on Organizational Balance
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Paul Valenzuela expressed concern that the career-field focused
Development Teams might have a negative impact on the larger Air Force due to lack of
standardization and balance across the teams (personal communication, August 28, 2011). There
is historical evidence connecting downsizing to economic failure due to persons or sections
within an organization acting in more of an individualistic manner to protect their own interests
(de León & Finklestein, 2011). To investigate the concern, I introduced a final subquestion to
the questionnaire to explore the standardization among the various Development Teams and how
those teams impact organizational balance.
Because the results reflected a lack of standardization among the various Development
Teams, the USAF Force Development Integration Division could benefit by focusing attention
toward resolving the standardization issue. Langfeldt, Stensaker, Harvey, Huisman, and
Esterheijden (2010) recommended peer review in the form of observers as a method of quality
94
assurance to help identify shortfalls and standardize processes. According to Langfeldt et al.
(2010), most processes are an interrelated mixture of professional judgments and standardized
guidelines. In some cases, elements left to the judgment of the executors could have instead
been made into standardized processes. Because the USAF Development Teams might have the
same problem, force development observers that frequent the various Development Teams might
improve standardization amongst the teams. Such an option would require increased manpower
to the force development section of the Air Staff and additional travel funds to support the
observation efforts. Organizational change that drives an increase in manpower and funding is
not consistent with current U.S. fiscal trends; however, as noted by Eastman (2012), the
fundamental principles of Lewin’s (1947) change theory, particularly as it relates to change that
has a positive social impact, is more likely to be beneficial for the organization than top-down
driven change simply for the purpose of downsizing.
Recommendations for Further Study
During the study, I identified several areas of future interest for the USAF to consider.
Of most relevance to the study is the need for a 360-degree component to the study that
investigates the same elements with the product (i.e., officers developed) of the Development
Teams as the sample rather than the Development Team implementers. The results of such a
study could then be cross-referenced with other Development Team studies to discover other
possible findings and validate current findings.
Several participants commented on the relationship of the Development Team with other
force development programs, promotion boards, command selection boards, and mentoring. A
comprehensive exploration of the relationship among these programs might validate the
95
participants’ comments and reveal critical or missing linkages among the programs that the
USAF leadership can focus on establishing, improving, and/or maintaining. Such a study might
also reveal areas for optimization by removing redundancies or processes with little or no
impact.
A correlation study between the small size of the Pentagon oversight element for the
Development Teams and the lack of standardization amongst the teams might help officials
identify an area where increased manpower and funding are necessary. Additional funding
toward leadership development would be a worthy investment and has proven positive results for
other organizations (Results-Based Leadership Group, 2011). The 2013 force development
study currently being conducted by the RAND Corporation may also yield results that fill the
aforementioned knowledge gap.
As a cost savings measure, and opportunity for development of internal talent, the USAF
could assign these topics to one of their many doctoral candidates that are enrolled in a USAF
funded program, and/or offer the topic to USAF doctoral candidates that are in non-funded
graduate programs. Such actions could (a) save costs by reducing or eliminating the need for
outsourcing such research, (b) provide the USAF with doctoral-level recommendations to real-
world issues, and (c) allow the doctoral candidates an opportunity to directly connect their
doctoral capstone project with their duties. Doctoral students in the Chief of Staff’s Captain’s
Ph.D. Program, Air Force Institute of Technology doctoral programs, and unfunded business,
education, and psychology leadership programs would be prime candidates for such an
opportunity.
96
Reflections
Completing the current study was much more difficult than I expected. Having only my
brief graduate degree thesis as research experience, I underestimated the challenges of advanced
research. Finding literature related to the subject was simple once I developed the literature
review map to use as a guide (see Figure 2). The resources afforded by the Walden University
residencies, Writing Center, and Walden library were extremely helpful in that regard.
Researching a protected class proved most challenging. The personnel at the USAF Research
Oversight Office do an outstanding job protecting active duty military personnel and ensured (a)
my study was properly vetted; (b) the participants were well protected; and (c) the processes for
conducting the research were legal, logical, and achievable.
Another minor challenge worth noting was my connection to the research. I was required
to immerse myself in the research to gain a rich understanding of the process (Yin, 2009). As a
senior Captain, I received my first USAF Development Team vector during the final stages of
completing the study. As I analyzed the data, it was necessary to revisit the data multiple times
to ensure my own bias was not interfering with the intent of the information submitted by the
participants. All data in Section 3 are factual and based on direct comments that support the
interpretations. Those comments were included as representing justification for each finding to
ensure validity of the research.
Summary and Study Conclusions
Through an in-depth qualitative case study, I identified seven themes that examined the
effectiveness of USAF Development Teams process from a program implementer perspective.
The themes identified were (a) the ability of the process to produce strategic leaders, (b) the
97
alignment of Development Team objectives with higher level objectives, (c) the ability to
produce leaders with talent necessary to fill talent gaps in the organization, (d) the ability of the
Development Teams to measure performance, (e) the ability of the Development Teams to assess
past decisions, (f) the effects of the Development Teams on the USAF, and (g) the impact the
career field-centered teams have on the organization.
The findings from the analysis of the data within each theme can help the USAF
leadership identify, diagnose, and address the Development Team program shortfalls. Changes
to the program would require additional funds and/or manpower to be appropriated to the USAF
headquarters Force Development Integration division. Through correction of the identified
shortfalls, the USAF Development Team process can produce more effective leaders that are
capable of leading the U.S. military, ensuring economic prosperity, and maintaining regional
stability.
98
References
Agrawal, S. (2010). Talent management model for business schools: Factor analysis. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, 481–491. Retrieved from www.srcirhr.com/ijir.php
Air Education and Training Command. (1995). Command policy: Protocol primer. Washington,
DC: Defense Publishing.
Air Force Personnel Center. (2011a). Air Force personnel center instruction 36-110:
Force shaping board. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
Air Force Personnel Center. (2011b). Air Force personnel statistics. Retrieved from
http://w11.afpc.randolph.af.mil/demographics/
Air University. (2011). Air University: The intellectual and leadership center of the Air Force.
Retrieved from www.au.af.mil/au
Allio, R., & Fahey, L. (2012). Joan Magretta: What executives can learn from revisiting Michael
Porter. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 5–10. doi:10.1108/10878571211209297
Amagoh, F. (2009). Leadership development and leadership effectiveness. Management
Decision, 47, 989–999. doi:10.1108/00251740910966695
Aminzadeh, B. (2010). An exploratory qualitative case study of leadership practices within
Iranian private companies (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3417234)
Anderson, W. H. (2012). The relationship between the employees' perception of effectiveness of
direct manager and overall employee satisfaction in a community hospital (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3515309)
99
Appelbaum, S. H. et al. (2004). Internal communication issues in an IT engineering department:
A case study. Corporate Communications, 9, 6–24. doi:10.1108/13563280410516465
Atwood, M. A., & Mora, J. W. (2010). Learning to lead: Evaluating leadership and
organizational learning. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 576–595.
doi:10.1108/01437731011079637
Bangerter, L. R. (2012). Turning points and trajectories within long distance grandparent-
grandchild relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 1508619)
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). From the editors—The coming of age for qualitative
research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 233–237. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.60262792
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). What's different about qualitative research? Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 509–513. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4003
Barton, J., Stephens, J., & Haslett, T. (2009). Action research: Its foundations in the open
systems thinking and relationship to the scientific method. Systematic Practice and
Action Research, 22, 475–488. doi:10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6
Bottger, P., & Barsoux, J. L. (2012). Masters of fit: How leaders enhance hiring. Strategy &
Leadership, 40(1), 33–39. doi:10.1108/10878571211191684
Bouchard, T., Lykken, D. T., McGue, A., Segal, N., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human
psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science,
250, 223–228. doi:10.1126/science.2218526
Boyd, C. O. (2001). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA:
100
Jones and Bartlett.
Brodeski, B. R., Beall, G. M., & Larson, A. W. (2012). Tactical think tank: A fundamental
answer for tactical asset allocation. Journal of Financial Planning, 25(9), 40-47.
Retrieved from www.FPAnet.org/Journal
Brookshire, J. (2009). Keeping an eye on al-Quaeda in Iraq. Georgetown Journal of
International Affairs, 10(2), 59–66. Retrieved from http://journal.georgetown.edu/wp-
content/uploads/10.2-Brookshire.pdf
Bunker, K. A., & Cohen, S. L. (1978). Evaluating organizational training efforts: Is ignorance
really bliss? T + D, 32(8), 4–11. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/
Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cahill, J., Turner, J., & Barefoot, H. (2010). Enhancing the student learning experience: The
perspective of academic staff. Educational Research, 52, 283–295.
doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.504063
Carman, M. (2010). Four ways to use learning and development to support business strategy.
Training and Development in Australia, 37(3), 8–9. Retrieved from
www.tdagroup.com.au/
Caruthers, R. A. (2011). Effective leadership in a 21st century federal agency (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
345690)
Cassell, C., Buehring, A., Symon, G., & Johnson, P. (2006). Qualitative methods in management
research: An introduction to the themed issue. Management Decision, 44, 161–166.
101
doi:10.1108/00251740610650166
Chau, V. S. (2008). The relationship of strategic performance management to team strategy,
company performance and organizational effectiveness. Team Performance
Management, 14(3), 113–117. doi:10.1108/13527590810883398
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2008). CJCSI 3110.01B: Joint strategic planning system.
Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2011a). Joint publication 5.0: Joint operational planning.
Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2011b). National military strategy of the United States of
America. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
Clevette, R. D., & Cohen, S. L. (2007). Selling and implementing leadership development:
Chapter, verse, and lessons learned from Carlson’s story. Performance Improvement,
46(6), 14–24. doi:10.1002/pfi.137
Cohen, S. (2011). The leader development value chain. T + D, 65(3), 54–57. doi:2293973461
Congressional Budget Office. (2011). Budget and economic outlook: Historical budget data.
Retrieved from
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-
26_fy2011outlook.pdf
Connon, N. G. (2008). Improving postal questionnaire response rates. The Marketing Review, 8,
113–124. doi:10.1362/146934708X314109
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102
Cupps, S., & Olmosk, K. E. (2008). Developing effective internships within public sector
organizations. Public Personnel Management, 37, 303–312. Retrieved from
http://www.ipma-hr.org/
Davis, P. J., & Callahan, W. (2012). Professional development for company directors - a
strategic leadership opportunity for HR? The case of Air Astana. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 44, 268-272. doi:10.1108/00197851211245013
De Bruin, A. M., Bekker, R., van Zanten, L., & Koole, G. M. (2010). Dimensioning hospital
wards using the Erlang loss model. Annals of Operations Research, 178(1), 23–43.
doi:10.1007/s10479-009-0647-8
de León, M. C. D., & Finkelstein, M. A. (2011). Individualism/collectivism and organizational
citizenship behavior. Psicothema, 23, 401–406. Retrieved from
http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3901.pdf
Defense Travel System. (2011). Balance reports. Retrieved from
https://dtsproweb.defensetravel.osd.mil/budget/BudgetAdmin/Reports
DeFilippo, D., & Arneson, S. (2011). Building leadership development programs. Leadership
Excellence, 28(8), 18–19. Retrieved from http://www.leaderexcel.com/
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental
study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 997–105. doi:10.1037/a0028244
DFAS. (2012). Military pay table 2012. Retrieved from
www.dfas.mil/dms/dfas/militarymembers/pdf/MilPayTable2012.pdf
Dogarawa, L. B. (2011). A new model for performance measurement in the Nigerian public
103
service. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 212–223.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p212
Drummond, G. B., Paterson, D. J., McLoughlin, P., & McGrath, J. C. (2011). Statistics: All
together now, one step at a time. Experimental Physiology, 96, 481–482.
doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2011.057513
Duff, A. J. (2013). Performance management coaching: Servant leadership and gender
implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 204-221.
doi:10.1108/01437731311326657
East, B. (2010). Relief efforts resonate in West Africa. Foreign Service Journal, 87(4), 21–23.
Retrieved from http://www.afsa.org/foreign_service_journal.aspx
Eastman, C. A. (2012). Working with Toshiba, Lewin and Dewey: A journey into the heard of
change. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 2, 132-140.
doi:10.1108/20423891211224612
Elmadag, A. B., Ellinger, A. E., & Franke, G. R. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of
frontline service employee commitment to service quality. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 16, 95–110. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679160201
Farag, M., & Elias, R. (2011). Relative audit fees and client loyalty in the audit market.
Accounting Research Journal, 24, 79–93. doi:10.1108/10309611111148788
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London, England: Pitman.
Fisher, E. A. (2009). Motivation and leadership in social work management: A review of theories
and related studies. Administration in Social Work, 33, 347–367.
doi:10.1080/03643100902769160
104
Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K., & Walker, D. (2011). Looking again at current practice in
project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4, 553–
572. doi:10.1108/17538371111164010
Friedman, E. H. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gabel, L., Harker, K., & Sanders, E. S. (2011). Leadership development: What’s evaluation got
to do with it? T + D, 65(3), 58–60. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/
Geis, J. P., Kinnan, C. J., Hailes, T., Foster, H. A., & Blanks, D. (2009). Blue horizons II: Future
capabilities and technologies for the Air Force in 2030 (Occasional Paper No.
65). Retrieved from http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/paper/op_0065
_geis_et_al_blue_horizons_ii.pdf
Georgetown University. (2012). Validity and reliability. Retrieved from
http://psychology.georgetown.edu/resources/researchmethods/research/8304.html
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607. Retrieved from www.nova.edu/sss/QR
Gonzalez-Serna, G. (2012). Leadership and management in second generation medium-size
family business: A comparative case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3498104)
Gowing, M. K., Morris, D. M., Adler, S., & Gold, M. (2008). The next generation of
leadership assessments: Some case studies. Public Personnel Management, 37, 435–455.
Retrieved from http://www.ipma-hr.org/
Gregg Jr, C. R. (2011, December). Adaptive planning and execution system (apex). Presented at
105
the Joint Operational Fires and Effects Course, Ft. George Meade, MD
Grobler, A., & Zock, A. (2010). Supporting long-term workforce planning with a dynamic aging
chain model: A case study from the service industry. Human Resource Management, 49,
829–848. doi:10.1002/hrm.20382
Guerci, M., & Vinante, M. (2011). Training evaluation: An analysis of the stakeholders'
evaluation needs. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 385–410.
doi:10.1108/03090591111128342
Guilleux, F. (2011). A developmental perspective on leadership education of aspiring principals
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3471901)
Gul, R. B., & Ali, P. A. (2010). Clinical trials: The challenge of recruitment and retention
of participants. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 227-233. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2009.03041.x
Hadley, S., & Podesta, J. (2012). The right way out of Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 41-
53. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/
Hannum, K., & Martineau, J. W. (2008). Evaluating the impact of leadership development.
Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer.
Harvard Business School Press. (2005). Strategy: Create and implement the best strategy for
your business. Boston: Author.
Hauschildt, K. (2012). Self-leadership and team members' work role performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 27, 497–517. doi:10.1108/02683941211235409
He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and
106
moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 673-688.
doi:10/1007/s10551-010-0703-y
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (2012). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (10th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hinds, R. M., & Steele, J. P. (2012). Army leader development and leadership: Views from the
field. Military Review, 92(1), 39–44. Retrieved from http://usacac.army.mil/
Hoffschwelle, P. L. (2011). Exploring corporate adaptations for a sustainable future (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No.
3460339)
Holtzman, Y. (2011). Strategic research and development: It is more than just getting the next
product to the market. Journal of Management Development, 30, 126–133.
doi:10.1108/02621711111098424
Hotho, S., & Dowling, M. (2010). Revisiting leadership development: The participant
perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 609–629.
doi:10.1108/01437731011079655
Houldsworth, E., & Machin, S. (2008). Leadership team performance management: the case of
BELRON. Team Performance Management, 14, 118–133.
doi:10.1108/13527590810883406
Houston, J. M., Edge, H., & Anderson, L. E. (2012). Competitiveness and individualism-
collectivism in Bali and the United States. North American Journal of Psychology, 14,
163–174. Retrieved from http://www.najp.8m.com
Jantti, M., & Greenhalgh, N. (2012). Leadership competencies: A reference point for
107
development and evaluation. Library Management, 33, 421–428.
doi:10.1108/01435121211266249
Juritzen, T. I., Grimen, H., & Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research
participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees. Nursing Ethics, 18, 640-
650. doi:10.1177/0969733011403807
Kaminsky, J. B. (2012). Impact of nontechnical leadership practices on it project success.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 30-49. doi:10.1002/jls.21226
Kane, T. (2011, February). Why our best officers are leaving. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-
leaving/8346/
Kao, P. (2011). A mixed methods analysis of effective leadership in virtual communities of
worldwide nonprofit organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No. 3469903)
Kohn, R. H. (2001, April). The early retirement of Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force. The Air and Space Power Journal, 6–23. Retrieved from
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8,
3–58. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3
Kontoghiorghes, C. & Frangou, K. (2009). The association between talent retention, antecedent
factors, and consequent organizational performance. S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal, 74, 29–37. Retrieved from http://www.cob.tamucc.edu/sam/amj/Default.htm
Korb, L., Singer, P.W., Hurlburt, H., & Hunter, R. (2010). America 2021: The military and the
108
world. Democracy Journal, 17, 10–26. Retrieved from
http://www.democracyjournal.org/17/6763.php
Korns, M. T. (2009). Organizational change, restructuring and downsizing: The experience of
employees in the electric utility industry (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3352428)
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96–103. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Largent, E. A., Grady, C., Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2012). Money, coercion, and
undue inducement: Attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB: Ethics &
Human Research, 34(1), 1–8. Retrieved from
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/IRB/
Langfeldt, L., Stensaker, B., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2010). The role of
peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: Potential consequences for excellence and
diversity. Higher Education, 59, 391–405. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9255-4
Lawler, E. E., III. (2008). Talent: Making people your competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ:
Jossey-Bass.
Leahy, J. (2013). Targeted consumer involvement. Research Technology Management, 56(4),
52-58. doi:10.5437/08956308X5603102
Leitner, L. M., & Hayes, K. J. (2011). Rigorous qualitative research. PsycCRITIQUES, 56(3),
97–100. doi:10.1037/a0024989
Levesque, W. R. (2011, February 09). Military reorganization will lead to some job cuts at
MacDill. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from
109
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1150620.ece
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Channels of group life; social planning and
action research. Human Relations, 1, 143-153. Retrieved from http://hum.sagepub.com/
Long, C., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls
and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1045–
1068. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0008
Lucey, J. J. (2008). Why is the failure rate for organization change so high? Management
Services, 52(4), 10–18. Retrieved from http://www.ims-productivity.com/
Lynn, J. A. (2008). Breaching the walls of academy: The purposes, problems, and prospects of
military history. Academic Questions, 21, 18–36. doi:10.1007/s12129-008-9044-z
Mansor, N. A. (2010). Return-on investment approach to a management leadership-development
programme. Training & Management Development Methods, 24, 225–234. Retrieved
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate
social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal
of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9804-2
Massingham, P., Nguyen, T. N. Q., & Massingham, R. (2011). Using 360-degree peer review to
validate self-reporting in human capital measurement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12,
43–74. doi:10.1108/14691931111097917
May, W. P. (2009). Student governance: A qualitative study of leadership in a student
government association (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3401608)
110
McCaslin, M. L., & Scott, K. W. (2003). The five-question method for framing a qualitative
research study. The Qualitative Report, 8, 447–461. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
McDonald, M., & Cox, S. (2009). Moving toward evidence-based human participant protection.
Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s10805-009-9082-3
McGee, L. (2006). CEOs’ influence on talent management. Strategic HR Review, 6, 3.
doi:10.1108/14754390680000927
McLeod, J., & Elliott, R. (2011). Systematic case study research: A practice-oriented
introduction to building an evidence base for counselling and psychotherapy. Counselling
& Psychotherapy Research, 11, 1–10. doi:10.1080/14733145.2011.548954
McRitchie, D. G. (2011, December). Joint doctrine and strategy. Presented at the Joint
Operational Fires and Effects Course, Ft. George Meade, MD
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. doi:10.2307/2392813
Merlino, M. (2011). Talents and technology: A model for policy makers. Journal of Business
and Management, 4, 15–20. Retrieved from http://www.chapman.edu/asbe/academics-
and-research/journals-and-essays/jbm-online.aspx
Miramontes, G. (2008). A qualitative study examining leadership characteristics of Mexican
leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3311373)
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. (2008). Management (4th ed.). Hauppauge, New York:
Barron’s .
111
Moore, S. C., & Brauner, M. K. (2007). Advancing the U.S. Air Force development initiative
(Report No. 0704-0188). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Moser, S., & Bailey, T. L. (1997). Total quality management in the US Air Force: A study of
application and attitudes. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 14, 482–490. doi:10.1108/02656719710170701
Mosser, G. (2009). Why great powers rise and fall: History lessons for the United States
(Master’s thesis). Available from Air University database.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mullen, M. G. (2011, February). Forward. In CJCS (Eds.), National military strategy of the
United States of America (p. i). Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
Muller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers.
International Journal of Project Management, 28, 437–448.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.003
Nalbone, D. P. (2012). A quantitative look at a new qualitative methodology. PsycCRITIQUES,
57, 329–335. doi:10.1037/a0026557
Nandakumar, M. K., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2010). Business-level strategy and
performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure. Management
Decision, 48, 907–939. doi:10.1108/00251741011053460
National Institute of Health. (2011). Protecting human research participants. Retrieved from
http://phrp.nihtraining.com/index.php
Neil, J. (2007). Qualitative versus quantitative research: Key points in a classic debate.
Retrieved from
112
http://wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.html
Oltra, M. J., & Flor, M. L. (2010). The moderating effect of business strategy on the relationship
between operations strategy and firms’ results. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 30, 612–638. doi:10.1108/01443571011046049
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., Slate, John, R., Stark, M., Sharma, B., Frels, R., Harris, K., &
Combs, J. P. (2012). An exemplar for teaching and learning qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 17, 16–77. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
Paranjpe, A. C. (2010). Theories of self and cognition: Indian psychological perspectives.
Psychology and Developing Societies, 22, 5–48. doi:10.1177/097133360902200102
Parnell, J. A. (2010). Strategic clarity, business strategy and performance. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 3, 304–324. doi:10.1108/17554251011092683
Patterson, B. J., Chang, E. H., Witry, M. J., Garza, O. W., & Trewet, C. B. (2013). Pilot
evaluation of a continuing professional development tool for developing leadership skills.
The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 222–229. doi:10.1016j.sapharm.2012.04.006
Peaucelle, J. L., & Guthrie, C. (2012). The private life of Henri Fayol and his motivation to build
a management science. Journal of Management History, 18, 469-487.
doi:10.1108/17511341211258774
Peters, L., Baum, J., & Stephens, G. (2011). Creating ROI in leadership development.
Organizational Dynamics, 40, 104–109. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.01.004
Perez, L. M., & Treadwell, H. M. (2009). Determining what we stand for will guide what we do:
Community priorities, ethical research paradigms, and research with vulnerable
populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 201–204.
113
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.125617
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2010). The power of objectives: Moving beyond learning
objectives. Performance Improvement, 49(6), 17–24. doi:10.1002/pfi.20155
Pomponio, D. (2008). The human effects and experience with corporate downsizing: The
individual experience of losing a job (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3320360)
Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader's development via experiences. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 749–763. doi10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.005
Preece, D., & Iles, P. (2009). Executive development: Assuaging uncertainties through joining a
leadership academy. Personnel Review, 38, 286–306. doi:10.1108/00483480910943340
Pryor, M. G., & Taneja, S. (2010). Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician - revered and
reviled. Journal of Management History, 16, 489–503. doi:10.1108/17511341011073960
Rahimnia, F., Moghadasian, M., & Mashreghi, E. (2011). Application of grey theory approach to
evaluation of organizational vision. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 1, 33–46.
doi:10.1108/20439371111106713
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Regmi, K. (2011). Ethical and legal issues in publication and dissemination of scholarly
knowledge: A summary of the published evidence. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 71–81.
doi:10.1007/s10805-011-9133-4
Rehbine Zentis, N. L. (2007). The impact of 360-degree feedback on leadership development
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
114
(UMI No. 3249898)
Results-Based Leadership Group. (2011). 2011 top companies for leaders study. Retrieved from
http://rbl.net/index.php/tcfl
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. The International Journal of Educational Management,
25, 701–713. doi:10.1108/09513541111172108
Robinson, D. J. (2012). A comparative, holistic, multiple-case study of the implementation of the
strategic thinking protocol and traditional strategic planning processes at Southeastern
University (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3519991)
Robinson, G. S. (2002). A leadership paradox: Managing others by defining yourself (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3059869)
Rueschhoff, J. L., & Dunne, J. P. (2011). Centers of gravity from the “inside out.” Joint Forces
Quarterly, 60, 120–126. Retrieved from http://www.ndu.edu/
Russell, J. A. (2009). Environmental security and regional stability in the Persian Gulf. Middle
East Policy, 16(4), 90-101. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.2009.00417.x
Sapire, G. I. (2007, January). Qualifying the expert witness: A practical voir dire.
Forensic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forensicmag.com/article/qualifying-
expert-witness-practical-voir-dire
Saunders, M. N., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Researching sensitively without sensitizing: Using a
card sort in a concurrent mixed methods design to research trust and distrust.
115
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5, 334–350.
doi:10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.334
Scales, R. H. (2012, January 5). Repeating a mistake by downsizing the Army again. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/repeating-a-
mistake-by-downsizing-the-army-again/2012/01/05/gIQA8fHfdP_story.html
Schmader, K. E. (2011, January). Essentials of pilot study design. Presented at the Duke
University Pilot Studies Workshop, Durham, NC
Sedysheva, M. (2012). Strategic management system and methods of controlling as key elements
of military expenditure policy-making process. Journal of Strategy and Management, 5,
353–368. doi:10.1108/17554251211247607
Senko, K. A. (2010). Qualitative phenomenological study of leadership perspectives in
commercial airlines (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3425619)
Shen, K. F. (2011). The analytics of critical talent management. People & Strategy, 34(2), 50–
56. Retrieved from http://www.hrps.org
Sikes, P., & Piper, H. (2010). Ethical research, academic freedom, and the role of ethics
committees and review procedures in educational research. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 33, 205–213. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2010.511838
Sitterly, D. R., & Auld, E. S. (2012, January 17). Permission to conduct research. [Letter
to the author]. Located in Appendix B.
Srinivasan, M. S. (2011). An integral approach to talent management. Vilakshan: The XIMB
Journal of Management, 8(2), 81–90. Retrieved from
116
http://www.ximb.ac.in/ximb_journal/
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stam, J. A. (2010). Book review on China’s emerging technological edge: Assessing the role of
high-end talent. Asian Business & Management, 9, 453–455. doi:10.1057/abm.2010.16
Stassen, M. L., Doherty, K., & Poe, M. (2012). Program-based review and assessment: Tools
and techniques for program improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/online_handbooks/program_based.pdf
Stokes, L., Rosetti, J. L., & King. M. (2010). Form over substance: Learning objectives in the
business core. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(11), 11–20. Retrieved from
http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/CIER/
Stone, S. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Cultivating an ethos of spiritual germination
for fruitful discipleship (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3308653)
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research
Journal, 11(2), 63–75. doi:10.3316/QRJ1102063
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term "talent" in talent management? Industrial and
Commercial Training, 43, 266–274. doi:10.1108/00197851111145853
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences:
A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439. doi:10.1037/a0020939
Tehrani, M. N. (2008). Achieving superior results from the mature market through e-marketing
planning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
117
database. (UMI No. 3301458)
The White House. (2010). National security strategy. Washington, DC: White House Publishing.
Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative
research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16, 151–155. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6155.2011.00283.x
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837–848. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014.
Thornhill, K. L. (2011). Authenticity and female leaders: A qualitative study exploring the
leadership practices of female university administrators (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3454645)
Tonkovic, M., & Vranic, A. (2011). Self-evaluation of memory systems: Development of the
questionnaire. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 830–837. doi:10.1080/13607863.2011.569483
Towns, M. H. (2010). Developing learning objectives and assessment plans at a variety of
instructions: Examples and case studies. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 91–96.
doi:10.1021/ed8000039
Tractenberg, R. E., Umans, J. G., & McCarter, R. J. (2010). A mastery rubric: Guiding
curriculum design, admissions and development of course objectives. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 15–32. doi:10.1080/02602930802474169
Tracy, F., & Carmichael, P. (2010). Research ethics and participatory research in an
interdisciplinary technology-enhanced learning project. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 33, 205–213. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2010.511716
United States Air Force. (2008a). Air Force instruction 36-2640: Executing total force
118
development. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2008b). Air Force policy directive 36-20: Accession of Air Force
military personnel. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2009a). Air Force instruction 36-2501: Officer promotions and
selective continuation. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2009b). Air Force instruction 36-2502: Airman promotion/demotion
programs. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2009c). Air Force mission directive 1-4: Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2010). Air Force instruction 36-2301: Developmental education.
Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011a). Air Force mission directive 1: Headquarters Air Force.
Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011b). Air Force instruction 51-802: Management of the judge
advocate general’s corps reserve. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011c). Air Force instruction 36-2111: The logistics career
broadening program. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011d). Air Force doctrine document 1-1: Leadership and force
development. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011e). Air Force basic doctrine, organization, and command.
Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
United States Air Force. (2011f). Protection of human subjects in biomedical and behavioral
119
research. Washington, DC: Defense Publishing.
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey. (2012). Internal and external validity.
Retrieved from http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/shared/internal_external_validty.htm
Valenzuela, P. (2012, January). 2011 development team officer experience and satisfaction
survey. Presented at the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Van de Stoep, S. W., & Johnson, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life: Blending
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Vasilaki, A., & O’Regan, N. (2008). Enhancing post-acquisition organizational performance:
The role of the top management team. Team Performance Management, 14, 118–133.
doi:10.1108/13527590810883415
Vissak, T. (2010). Recommendations for using the case study method in international business
research. The Qualitative Report, 15, 370–388. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
Watson, J. (2010). A case study: Developing learning objectives with an explicit learning design.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8, 41–50. Retrieved from
http://www.ejel.org/volume8/issue1/p41
Whitemarsh, J. (2009). Developing ethical literacy in postgraduate research. International
Journal of Learning, 16, 207–217. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/
Williams, C. (2010). Building stronger teams in the life insurance industry: A qualitative study
of the use of personality assessments in selection and hiring process (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3423177)
120
Williams, V. E. (2009). Organizational change and leadership within a small nonprofit
organization: A qualitative study of servant-leadership and resistance to change
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3387854)
Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Berkshire, GBR:
McGraw-Hill.
Ye, W. (2010). Power and sample size calculations for nested case-control studies (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3418213)
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yukl, G., George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2009). Leadership: Building sustainable organizations
(Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). New York, NY: Custom Publishing.
Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2012). From the editors: Publishing in amj–part 5: Crafting the
methods and results. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 8–12.
doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4001
121
Appendix A: Reduction in Gaps Verification
122
Appendix B: Permission to Conduct Research
123
124
Appendix C: Consent Form
125
Appendix D: Permission to Use Table 2
126
Appendix E: Case Study Protocol
127
Appendix F: USAF DT Survey
United States Air Force Development Teams 2011 Officer Experience and Satisfaction Survey
Statement of Purpose
The United States Air Force is conducting an evaluation to gain insights into officer corps’ knowledge, perceptions, and views on how Development Teams operate and provide officers career guidance. The purpose of this survey is to assess your level of experience and satisfaction with Development Teams. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Failure to provide all or any part of the information will not affect you. Your responses will be kept confidential. Generally, this survey should take approximately 5 -10 minutes to complete. A Comments section is provided at the end of the survey to allow you to expand on any of your previous answers to an individual question or to further discuss related items not fully covered by the survey. AF/A1DI has contracted with LMI Government Consulting to conduct the survey. The information collected will be managed in accordance with AFMAN 23-110 records retention requirements. The A1DI point of contact for this survey is Lieutenant Colonel Paul Valenzuela, 703-697-4721 or [email protected]. For technical questions about the operability of the online survey, the point of contact is Chris Near, Contractor, LMI Government Consulting, 571-633-8094 or [email protected].
128
Q-1 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Development Teams (DTs) ? Select one answer for each statement.
Statement Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree/ Somewh
at Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q1a. My DT helps me plan my career path 1 2 3 4 5
Q1b. I know when my DT meets 1 2 3 4 5
Q1c. I know what information the DT reviews when it meets 1 2 3 4 5
Q1d. I know who comprises my DT 1 2 3 4 5
Q1e. The DT considers appropriate information 1 2 3 4 5
Q1f. DT vectoring process is fair and equitable 1 2 3 4 5
Q1g. I understand the role of a DT vector in the assignment process 1 2 3 4 5
Q1h. The DT process is transparent 1 2 3 4 5
Q1i. My leadership discusses the DT process with me 1 2 3 4 5
Q1j. I know where to find my DT vector 1 2 3 4 5
Q1k. My DT communicates directly with me 1 2 3 4 5
Q1l. I have an adequate opportunity to present information to my DT 1 2 3 4 5
Q1m. I know where to find MyODP 1 2 3 4 5
129
Q1n. I use MyODP for career planning 1 2 3 4 5
Q1o. DT vectors help me achieve short-term career development goals
1 2 3 4 5
Q1p. DT vectors help me achieve long-term career development goals
1 2 3 4 5
Q1q. I agree with my most recent DT vector 1 2 3 4 5
Open-ended Comments Q2. What is the DT program’s greatest strength? Please explain below Q3. What is the DT program’s greatest weakness? Please explain below Q4. How would you improve the DT vectoring process? Please explain below Q5. Please use the space below to expand on any of your above answers to individual questions
or to discuss related items not fully covered by this survey. Please expound below
130
Appendix G: Invitation E-Mail
131
Appendix H: IRB Exemption and Approval Letter
132
Appendix I: USAF Research Oversight Approval
133
Curriculum Vitae
JASON MICHAEL NEWCOMER
EDUCATION Doctor of Business Administration (DBA), Leadership Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, November 2013 Dissertation: The Effectiveness of the USAF Development Teams Committee: Sandra Kolberg, PhD; Jon Corey, PhD; Richard Snyder, PhD Master of Aeronautical Science (MAS), Space Studies and Aviation Operations Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, February 2008 Thesis: The Effects of Age on Initial Air Traffic Control Training Committee: Carl Nehlig, PhD; Donald Manser, MAS Bachelor of Science in Professional Aeronautics (BSPA), Business / Aviation Safety Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, January 2004 Associate of Applied Science (AAS), Aircraft Maintenance Technology Community College of the Air Force, Maxwell AFB, AL, May 2003 RESEARCH INTERESTS Leadership Development, Organizational Behavior, Aviation Studies, Change Management, Strategy, Qualitative Research, Education PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Owner and President, Professional Coaching Group LLC Oklahoma City, OK, 2013 – Present Chief of Airfield Operations Strategic Planning, Air Force Flight Standards Agency Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City, OK, 2013 – Present Adjunct Instructor, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide Campuses, 2008 – Present Chief of Offensive Cyber Operations, United States Cyber Command Fort George Meade, MD, 2011 – 2013 Executive Officer, Air Staff, Pentagon Washington, DC, 2009 – 2011 Commander, Command and Control Training Fight Keesler Air Force Base, MS, 2008 – 2009
134
Master Instructor, Airfield Operations Officer Course Keesler Air Force Base, MS, 2007 – 2008 Director of Operations and Systems Officer, Airfield Operations Dover Air Force Base, DE, 2004 – 2007 Airfield Operations Student Moody Air Force Base, GA, 2003 – 2004 Aircraft Mechanic, Presidential 747s Offutt Air Force Base, NE, 1998 – 2001 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Vine Institute of Arts and Science Board of Directors Member, 2013 – Present Council of Undergraduate Research Social Sciences Division Member, 2013 – Present International Leadership Association Leadership Development Member Interest Group Member, 2012 – Present