University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Attrition of junior military officers within the uniformed military services: a quantitative study

(USC Thesis Other)

Attrition of junior military officers within the uniformed military services: a quantitative study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Attrition of Junior Military Officers Within the Uniformed Military Services:
A Quantitative Study
David Ambrocik
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by David Ambrocik 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for David Ambrocik certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Eric Canny
Michael O’Neill
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The United States Department of Defense is failing to retain its qualified junior military officers
after completion of their mandatory service obligations to more competitive and flexible non–
military career options that better suit their personal and professional goals. The most accurate
explanation for this trend is the progressively fickle nature of how current generations view
workplace loyalty, the shifting values regarding compensation and benefits, and the increased
desire to exercise greater agency over career choice and progression. Previous research was
limited and the data did not address the target population expressly making disentanglement of
the motivating factors difficult to discern drawing from a broader population sample. A
quantitative survey was used based on the tenets of rational choice theory around family factors,
resource allocation, and personal value of how junior military officers exercise decision–making
calculus when departing active-duty service. Similar to the research results demonstrated, junior
military officers desired increased career path flexibility, equitable use and access to incentive
programs, greater predictability in assignments and duty stations for family planning
considerations, and more transparent leadership rooted in ethical decision–making with clear
priorities. These findings demonstrate the need for the Department of Defense to reevaluate its
current employment model and service components to provide flexible routes to success and
improved leadership effectiveness.
Keywords: military, officers, retention, career management, talent management,
leadership, choice theory, generational differences, employee satisfaction, employee
engagement, autonomy, quantitative

v
Dedication
To J. W. B., my rock through all of this, and without whom this would not be possible; thank you
for everything
To my family, especially my Mom and Dad; thank you for the never–ending support.

vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation and journey would not have been completed without the extremely
steadfast support of my family and friends. I want to thank my parents, siblings, and nephews for
their understanding. I would also like to thank my friends and work colleagues who helped me
navigate this journey over the last 4 years from living in five different states, six different time
zones, two deployments, and multiple group chats; for listening to my complaints, and ignoring
your requests to hang out when writing was happening.
I would like to recognize my committee: Dr. Patricia Tobey, Dr. Michael O’Neill, & Dr.
Eric Canny, thank you! Mahalo for the feedback and the encouragement to keep moving and
your dedication to reading this. Dr. Tobey, your guiding hand helped me to manage my writing
and keeping me on the path. I would like to also thank Dr. Jennifer Phillips, an original
committee member who was called to military service; thank you for your consistent and
meaningful feedback, and for your service to our country.
I would not have completed this journey over the last 4 years without some of the
members of my cohort. To Louis Schenk and Erick Kelly, thanks for the late night chats, the
deep conversations, and the motivation to just get this done! To my LDT teammates, especially
Courtney Nall, Dave Bushnell, Erich Weldon, and all the others, thanks for the laughs, the inside
jokes, and for always making us feel normal.
Thank you to Fred Christopherson and Dr. Heidi Urben (COL, Ret.) who helped me
begin this journey and encouraged me to accomplish this. And a big thank you to Patrick Koch,
who without you letting me defend my proposal at 2 a.m. from your living room in Canberra, I
wouldn’t have made it! Thank you!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Historical Background of the Problem ............................................................................. 13
Commissioning Sources and Attrition.............................................................................. 14
Generational Priorities...................................................................................................... 28
Work–Value Expectancy .................................................................................................. 33
Institutional Variables....................................................................................................... 38
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ......................................................................... 48
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model as a Theoretical Framework..................... 48
The Individual................................................................................................................... 50
Proximal Processes ........................................................................................................... 55
Rational Choice Theory as a Conceptual Framework ...................................................... 58
Summary........................................................................................................................... 59

viii
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 60
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 61
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 62
Research Design................................................................................................................ 62
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 64
Researcher Positionality.................................................................................................... 65
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 66
Method: Quantitative Exploratory Survey Questions....................................................... 66
Participants........................................................................................................................ 66
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 67
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 69
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 70
Reliability and Validity..................................................................................................... 70
Researcher Ethics.............................................................................................................. 73
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 73
Summary........................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 77
Participants........................................................................................................................ 78
Characteristics and Demographics.................................................................................... 78
Research Question 1: External Factors............................................................................. 84
Institutional Systems......................................................................................................... 88
Leadership......................................................................................................................... 96
Summary of External Factors ........................................................................................... 99
Research Question 2: Family and Non-work Influences................................................ 100
Family Factors ................................................................................................................ 104

ix
Cultural Norms................................................................................................................ 109
Personal Goal Achievement............................................................................................ 110
Summary of Family and Non-work Influences .............................................................. 112
Research Question 3: Personal Value ............................................................................. 113
Organizational Systems .................................................................................................. 116
Goal Alignment............................................................................................................... 119
Ethical and Cultural Sentiments...................................................................................... 120
Summary of Personal Value ........................................................................................... 123
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 126
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 127
Findings .......................................................................................................................... 127
Research Question 1 ....................................................................................................... 127
Research Question 2 ....................................................................................................... 136
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................................... 142
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 146
Implementation of Recommendations............................................................................ 163
Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................... 166
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 167
References................................................................................................................................... 170
Appendix A: Draft Survey.......................................................................................................... 204
Appendix B: Informed Consent Message ................................................................................... 211
Appendix C: Supplemental Tables ............................................................................................. 213

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Target Population by Service 7
Table 2: Comparison of Active-duty Accession Sources 17
Table 3: Active-duty Officer Personnel by Broad Occupational Group and Branch of
Military, March 2021 19
Table 4: Active-duty Officer Separations by Service Component and Type of Separation,
2021 22
Table 5: Data Sources 64
Table 6: Participant Self-Reported Military Service Characteristics (N = 95) 81
Table 7: Participant Self-Reported Sociodemographic Characteristics (N = 95) 82
Table 8: Self-Reported Sociodemographic Data by Military Service Component (N = 95) 83
Table 9: Results From Research Question 1 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95) 86
Table 10: Results From Research Question 1 as a Percentage by Service Component
(N = 95) 87
Table 11: Results From Research Question 2 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95) 102
Table 12: Results From Research Question 2 as a Percentage by Service Component
(N = 95) 103
Table 13: Results From Research Question 3 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95) 114
Table 14: Results From Research Question 3 as a Percentage by Service Component
(N = 95) 115
Table C1: Evaluation Systems Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 213
Table C2: Evaluation Systems Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 214
Table C3: Promotion Systems Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 214
Table C4: Promotion System Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 215
Table C6: Compensation Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 216

xi
Table C7: Incentive Programs Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 216
Table C8: Incentive Programs Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 217
Table C9: Career Autonomy Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 217
Table C10: Career Autonomy Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 218
Table C11: Choice Duty Station Response by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 218
Table C12: Choice Duty Station Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 219
Table C13: Peer Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95) 219
Table C14: Peer Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95) 220
Table C15: Senior Leadership Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 220
Table C16: Senior Leadership Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 221
Table C17: Leadership Priorities Response by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 221
Table C18: Leadership Priorities Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 222
Table C19: Mentorship Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 222
Table C20: Mentorship Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 223
Table C21: Starting a Family Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 223
Table C22: Starting a Family Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 224
Table C23: Finding a Significant Other Responses by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 224

xii
Table C24: Finding a Significant Other Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 225
Table C25: Family Life Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 225
Table C26: Family Life Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 226
Table C27: Time Away From Family–Friends Responses by Gender and Service Component
As Percentages (N = 95) 226
Table C28: Time Away from Family–Friends Response by Gender and Commissioning
Source As Percentages (N = 95) 227
Table C29: Cultural Norm Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 227
Table C30: Cultural Norm Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 228
Table C31: Career Pressure Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 228
Table C32: Career Pressure Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 229
Table C33: Personal Goal Achievement Responses by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 229
Table C34: Personal Goal Achievement Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source
As Percentages (N = 95) 230
Table C35: Time Off Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95) 230
Table C36: Time Off Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 231
Table C37: Broadening Program Responses by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 231
Table C38: Broadening Program Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 232
Table C39: Health Care Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95) 232
Table C40: Health Care Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 233

xiii
Table C41: Personal Goal Flexibility Responses by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 233
Table C42: Personal Goal Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95) 234
Table C43: Ethical Leadership Responses by Gender and Service Component as Percentages
(N = 95) 234
Table C44: Ethical Leadership Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 235
Table C45: Cultural Self–Identity Responses by Gender and Service Component As
Percentages (N = 95) 235
Table C46: Cultural Self–Identity Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95) 236

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Typical Methods of Becoming an officer in the Military 16
Figure 2: Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Army, FY 2000–2008 24
Figure 3: Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Navy, FY 2000–2008 24
Figure 4: Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Marine Corps, FY 2000–2008 25
Figure 5: Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Air Force, FY 2000–2008 26
Figure 6: Military Officer Continuation Rates, 2015 27
Figure 7: Factors Rated by Importance in Decisions to Leave the Military, 2011 30
Figure 8: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model 50
Figure 9: Rational Choice Theory Behavioral Process 59
Figure 10: Burke-Litwin Change Model 165

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The United States military is failing to retain junior officers after their initial military
service obligation (Marrone, 2020; Mathews, 2015; Military Leadership Diversity Council,
2010; Schaefer, 2017; Williams, 2019). Although empirical research exists across different
sectors regarding employee retention and what incentives assist employers with retaining
employees, there is limited research on what factors are the strongest drivers of military retention
for junior military officers (Eskreis–Winkler et al., 2014). Gallus et al. (2017) examined this
topic from a job satisfaction perspective within two military populations. While job satisfaction
can be an evaluative tool to indicate a military member’s intention to remain in the service, much
of the research only provides satisfaction levels on discrete elements of service members’ jobs.
To more efficaciously understand the factors affecting retention of the initial military service
obligation population, an exploration of the causal relationship between internal and external
factors is necessary.
Sminchise (2016) defines retention as the procedures used in the military to remain
voluntarily in the military after their mandatory term of service. Bridging this definition with the
problem of practice, this study identified internal and external factors that led junior military
officers to leave active federal service after their initial term. Additionally, in defining initial
service term across component services, the U.S. Army (2021) provides the most succinct
definition: a Soldier with 36 months or less of active Federal military service. Further refining
the understanding, the term military service obligation (MSO) and active-duty service obligation
(ADSO) is used throughout and interchangeably, interpreted as the period an officer must serve
prior to voluntary separation eligibility. In order to better understand this problem of practice, a
quantitative case study was conducted with a benevolent organization principally formed of

2
former military officers. It included a self–administered survey consisting of multiple questions
with optional open–ended response prompts. The general population of the case study was
former military officers across the United States, with the target population being recently
separated military officers who are defined as officers voluntarily separated after their
MSO/ADSO expired. Given the time constraints of the study, a more longitudinal study cannot
be conducted to determine the effects of retention factors over time for those participants who
fall outside of the target population.
The participants and the case study were intended to be service component agnostic,
defined as being eligible regardless of the branch of service the research participants may be
affiliated with. Further, enlisted personnel were excluded from the case study due to the service
obligation for enlisted personnel being on a contractual basis, where officers receive a
commission and must voluntarily withdraw from the service (Defense officer Personnel
Management Act, 1980). This case study generated the possibility of understanding appreciable
changes in ADSO complete officers’ professional and personal goals. The implications of this
case study are increased cognizance of senior leadership managing junior officers across U.S.
military services.
Contained in Chapter One are the following elements of the case study: background of
the problem of practice, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the overarching
research questions, the impacts of the study on the contributions towards research on the topic,
and the significance of the study. A further explanation of the research study includes specifics
on the research design. This chapter also includes definitions of standard terms related to the
military and those directly related to the case study; including assumptions, limitations, and the
summary of the other cast study elements not discussed explicitly.

3
Background of the Problem
The U.S. military is experiencing one of the most acute transitions in its mission over the
last 20 years: converting from a wartime military to a garrison and strategic deterrent (Lawrence,
2021). This transference produces concerns from senior leaders and cascades to initial–term,
enlisted service members. One of the prevailing issues is the loss of junior officers at or
immediately after their military service obligation (MSO) or active-duty service obligation
(ADSO) term expiration (Mathews, 2015). A lack of purpose resulting from the transitional
climate of the military’s mission yields an exodus of the target population needed to generate
leaders of an effective military force (Blocker, 2009).
One of the most prominent aspects of junior officer retention past the initial MSO/ADSO
term may be a changing of generational priorities, impacting not just the military but all sectors
of the economy (Inglehart, 2020). The generational perspectives on work and what value is
derived from work places a more significant burden on the organizations to engender the value
of work on the workforce (Twenge, 2010). The fluidity by which the millennial generation and
Generation Z move across industries and jobs is unlike previous workplace phenomena
(Vemparala, 2023). Current initial–term junior officers primarily comprise the later millennial
generation and Generation Z (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2020). Given that, the U.S.
military is not excluded from how those shifts in generational priorities, specifically millennials
and Generation Z, affect the population of its forces (Clark & Atkinson, 2022; Zinkula, 2022).
How the prioritized shifts occur are explored in the subsequent paragraphs, discussing in
further detail the issues surrounding the problem of practice and historical contexts on the
attrition of junior military officers at their MSO/ADSO. While not all topics are considered in the
problem statement, the issues highlighted are some of the most researched and developed over

4
time, framed from the context of the current generation of junior military officers. The
population of junior officers attriting from active federal service will create leadership voids if
not adequately addressed (Wojack, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
While exit surveys from the U.S. military often illuminate the causes of attrition for a
large swath of individuals across the entire force, a more discrete problem exists in identifying
why initial–term officers are leaving military service at the rates currently seen. A study from the
Rand Corporation (Sims et al., 2017) generated a data surfeit on the impact of influential
relationships within a Soldier’s periphery to explore attrition rates across the military, not
specifically the target population. Therefore, the focus of this study is contributing knowledge in
a contiguous manner in labeling root–cause genera, recognizing how generational approaches to
work evolve, and how organizations react to changes in their population relative to the target
population.
As the shifts in generational professional priorities remain constantly ebbing, that ebbing
is partly influenced by global trends on working and what holds as acceptable standards for
workplace norms (Dua & Ellingrud, 2022; Zurich, 2022). The context surrounding workplace
norms is defined by Gauche et al. (2017) in which acceptable behaviors and conduct from
organizations toward their employees needs to evolve to meet the demands of the workforce.
From this transformation, the generations seeking work will undoubtedly exhibit influence over
the professional outcomes and environment in which they work. As Urick et al. (2017)
researched, personal and professional goals offer intergenerational disparities that organizations
often fail to acknowledge or accept. The motivational influences may be more temporal or
volatile for the current, younger generations entering the workforce, according to Milker (2022),

5
implying organizations face a challenge of obeisance to the employees over the organization.
These behavioral changes in the workforce presuppose that the U.S. military has an acceptable,
proportionate, willing population to fill those roles.
With the change in behavioral and environmental factors influencing work choice, the
population available to hold the U.S. military’s required positions for force sustainment is
rapidly declining (Mission Readiness Group, 2023). Recent reporting indicates that the share of
the U.S. population eligible to serve in the U.S. military is at its lowest–ever point (Novelly,
2022). Limited opportunities exist in current recruitment models to expand or change how the
U.S. military fills its junior officer population without significant structural changes (McNally et
al., 2023). Compounding the population deficiency in recruitment, diversity, specifically diverse
organizations comprising historically minoritized populations, is a central imperative among the
target population (Miller, 2021). The U.S. military historically struggles to retain minoritized
populations and is often accused of improvidence toward diversity retention efforts (Asch et al.,
2012; Garamone, 2022). Diversity and inclusion among minoritized groups, commonly referring
to people of color, women, and non–heteronormative peoples, is among a target demographic for
US military recruitment (Vergun, 2019).
Finally, private employers often use incentives to encourage retention, and some
governmental agencies are known to offer incentives to targeted populations (Hattiangadi, 2001).
Incentives generally create short-term stop-gap solutions for retention and rarely address longerterm retention issues (Asch et al., 2010). Junior officers are not the subject of tangible retention
incentives such as bonuses or duty station of choice, with a few exceptions across the Services,
and the lack of said incentives is another causal factor in junior officer attrition after their initial
term.

6
Purpose of the Study
This quantitative study aimed to determine the factors surrounding the decision of junior
U.S. military officers to leave active federal service at the end of their military service obligation
(MSO) or active-duty service obligation (ADSO). Complimentary research exists in similar
fields (Moquin et al., 2019), and coupled with that data, the general understanding of attrition for
junior officers can be furthered. Conversely, some of the information is proprietary or not
publicly available, limiting the data apropos specific attritional factors of the target population
currently within their decision-making process.
Surrounding the study was the focus on understanding the relationship between the
individual and their choice to leave active federal service upon completion of their MSO/ADSO
and further understanding of the factors in those choices to leave active federal service. The
study adroitly posited and categorized what factors are most important and did not make
inferential assumptions on how the factors influence decision-making. By limiting the study to
understanding, at a base level, what factors are the most influential, this study was able to
contribute knowledge in the effectiveness of retention and professional development of junior
military officers. Given the purpose of the study, a qualitative case study permitted
comprehensive data collection from the target population (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Finally, the
study contributes to the literature in better understanding the target population’s workplace
expectations, which is vital to creating productive organizations for all generations of employees
(Kapoor & Soloman, 2011).
The total population of junior officers, based on the Department of Defense (DoD)
Manpower office is roughly 131,278 personnel (2020). This includes members of all five
military branches, including the U.S. Coast Guard, who are commissioned officers in the

7
paygrade of O1–O3. The target population data is publicly available information from the DoD,
and its dissemination is not restricted or privileged.
This quantitative study aimed to determine the factors surrounding the decision of junior
U.S. military officers to leave active federal service at the end of their MSO/ADSO. To achieve
this, the study generated the following research question which guided the study:
1. What is the primary resource external to a junior military officer that affects their
choice to leave active-duty service?
2. How do family and community factors most influence the individual junior military
officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
3. What factors around personal value and worth most influence the individual junior
military officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
These research questions directed the study and helped the researcher to develop and form the
most effective analysis based on the instrumentation developed in Chapter Three. Further, the
research questions reflect the theoretical and conceptual frameworks in which the research study
is conducted. See Table 1.
Table 1
Target Population by Service
Branch of service Total personnel in paygrades O1–O3
Army 49,405
Navy 32,798
Air Force 12,573
Marine Corps 36,529
Note. From Defense Manpower Data Center (2020). In the public domain.

8
The study used an online survey of recently separated military officers who left active
federal service upon completing their MSO/ADSO. The survey included Likert scale and openended questions where respondents answered survey questions freely and were unencumbered in
their choice or format of response, generating a richer data set. The study’s survey provided a
data set to categorize and refined through the use of rational choice theory why certain
relationships and actions weigh against a respondent’s decision to leave military service. Data
collected afforded opportunities to generate comparisons against similar industries that require
analogous contractual obligations or fixed-term employment prior to resignation or termination
(Bryson, 2004). The associations and parallels drawn from comparative industries or sectors into
the research also potentially yielded a different set of values or cultural norms by which to
compare the U.S. military against a similar target population.
Significance of the Study
Contributions to the literature this study makes are most impacted in how organizations
understand the individual choices made by personnel in determining their choices as a balance of
professional and personal lives. The balance between personal and professional lives is an everincreasing body of knowledge and a phenomenon (Gragnano et al., 2020). Harmonizing the
dichotomy previous generations inculcated into the greater ethos of current culture, millennials
and Generation Z gregariously pivot from a work-centered life to a more balanced approach to
how work influences decisions in life (Rachmadini & Riyanto, 2020; Waroruntu et al., 2022).
Additionally, the study approached organizational problems from the context of the
individual versus the organization as a person, meaning the organization affirms the individual’s
goals while maintaining the organization’s own stated goals. This type of approach, theorized by

9
Argyis (1990), creates an organizational environment where individuals believe their
contributions, efforts, and personal aspirations nest within the broader organizational end-state.
This study likely assisted in both confirming or negating existing thought on what is essential for
current junior officers and illuminating potential shortfalls in the U.S. military’s ability to
leverage its broader organizational authority in persuading junior military officers to remain in
the service beyond their MSO/ADSO.
Stakeholders for this study are the U.S. military community and peripheral organizations
that exercise influence over the target population, and governmental offices that affect policy on
retention and human resources. Markos and Sridevi (2010) postulated organizations that develop
a better understanding of their personnel’s needs are more likely to retain those individuals.
Further, stakeholders may benefit from an alternate, outside examination of the problem through
a theoretical lens. This was seen in multiple studies (Bucherer et al., 2012; Joslin & Müller,
2016; Murphy & De Vrieze, 2020) where organizations that allowed for independent oversight
could approach their problems with greater success than organizations that did not. This study
contributed, in part, to the literature and knowledge across governmental organizations and
parallel private organizations that may face similar problems of practice.
Definition of Terms
Active federal service refers to the United States Code Title 10 (1956) as “full-time duty
in the active military service of the United States. Such term includes full-time training duty,
annual training duty, and attendance, while on active military service, at a school designated as a
service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. Such term does
not include full-time National Guard duty.”

10
Additional service duty obligation (ADSO), also called military service obligation
(MSO), refers to the time required for members to serve in the U.S. military. Reserve Officer
Training Corp (ROTC) and Service Academy appointments must typically serve at least 8 years
per Department of Defense Instruction 1304.25 (Department of Defense 2021).
Attrition refers to a term “used to describe voluntary and involuntary terminations,
deaths, and employee retirements that result in a reduction to the employer’s physical workforce”
according to the Society for Human Resource Management (n.d.).
Generation refers to a group of people born in the same period of about 20 years who
share a similar phase in life (Strauss & Howe, 1991).
Generation Z refers to, according to Pew Research Center (2019) any person born
between the years of 1997–2012.
Junior officer refers to what is known as company grade officers, who are the initial three
ranks within the military services and serve in the paygrades of O1–03. The U.S. Navy
distinguishes itself by referring to their O4 rank as a junior officer while the other four branches
consider O4 a senior officer. (Sloan, 2023)
Millennial generation refers to according to Pew Research Center (2019) any person born
between the years of 1981–1996.
Military service refers to honorably serving on federal active duty, state active-duty,
or national guard duty, or in the organized reserves of the United States military, (Armed Forces,
1956).
Minoritized groups refers to groups and communities that experience discrimination and
exclusion (social, political, and economic) because of unequal power relationships across

11
economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions (National Collaborating Center for
Determinants of Health, 2023).
Motivation, herein considered work motivation, refers to a set of energetic forces that
originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior,
and to determine its form direction intensity and duration (Prinder, 2008).
Motivational factors refer to any physiological or psychological factor that stimulates,
maintains, and directs behavior (American Psychological Association, n.d.).
Retention refers to the organization’s ability to prevent employee turnover, or the number
of people who leave their job in a certain period, either voluntarily or involuntarily Holliday
(2021),
Values refers to a moral, social, or aesthetic principle accepted by an individual or society
as a guide to what is good, desirable, or important (American Psychological Association, n.d.).
Workplace norms refer to guidelines for how people will interact and communicate.
Norms help to clarify the expected behavior of individuals on the team and prevent unnecessary
conflict, (University of Pennsylvania, 2021)
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of the study introduces a foundational understanding to recognize some of
the challenges in retaining junior officers beyond their MSO/ADSO. The background of the
study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, significance of the study, the
limitations and delimitations of the study, and the definition of terms are made available in this
chapter for clarity in framing the logic of this study. The first two sections of this chapter
demonstrate how a qualitative research design and research question guided the exploration of
the phenomena. The purpose and significance of the study explored how workplace norms and

12
personal and professional goals influence the current generation of junior military officers across
the military. Using a qualitative approach is critical to garnering insight as the context of the
responses can be more fully developed to provide a richer data set.
Chapter Two of this study focuses on the existing literature related to the problem
statement and the overarching inquiries as to the broader retention problem within the junior
officer population of the U.S. military. This literature review also highlights the existing
literature gaps and how those gaps help to inform both theoretical interpretations and practical
applications of theories into practice. In examining the literature surrounding this problem of
practice, identification of the differences between the organization and the individuals can be
clarified and guide the instrument in Chapter Three.

13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In this scholarly investigation, the researcher conducted a comprehensive analysis of the
underlying causal determinants influencing junior military officer retention rates who already left
employment with the Department of Defense (DoD). The phenomenon of junior military officers
departing immediately after their active-duty service obligation (ADSO) or their military service
obligation (MSO) prematurely creates consequential challenges in terms of future leadership
resource adequacy within the military services, resulting in an inadequate level of personnel by
which to draw talent resources (Garcia et al., 2019). This research study sought to systematically
examine the extant approaches to addressing this challenge and, correspondingly, to proffer
cogent solutions while identifying potential voids in the existing corpus of scholarly literature
and empirical research. Methodologically, this study employed quantitative descriptive
methodologies to advance a set of solutions substantiated by the presentation of empirical data.
The examination of this issue is theoretically framed within Uri Bronfenbrenner’s socialecological systems model of human development, further elucidated by a conceptual
underpinning in rational choice theory. The quantitative research methodology is primarily
concerned with illuminating the complex interplay between the individual and their immediate
social milieu, as delineated within Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical model, and its influence on the
factors motivating the target population’s attrition from military service.
Historical Background of the Problem
Understanding the antecedents and incentives underlying the voluntary departure of
junior military officers from active-duty federal service assumes paramount significance in this
study, as it constitutes a foundational tenet for examining multifarious causal determinants
within this literature review. A heightened emphasis on the retention and professional growth of

14
junior military officers allows future researchers to tender informed estimations and frame robust
talent-management systems tailored to the unique needs and dynamics of junior military officers.
Within the confines of this literature review, an exhaustive exploration is conducted,
encompassing an explication of the historical context of military commissioning and an in-depth
scrutiny of the multifaceted factors discerned in extant scholarly literature that bear relevance to
the retention of junior military officers.
Commissioning Sources and Attrition
It is critical to understand the accession process concerning officers within the United
States military to cultivate a nuanced understanding of the perspectives held by these officers
regarding their service. Officers’ subjective viewpoints and attitudes are inevitably influenced by
their unique individual experiences and backgrounds. What assumes particular significance is the
nuanced interplay between the commissioning method and the phenomenon of attrition from
active military service (Baglini, 2021; Karakurumer, 2010). This intricate linkage, explicitly
explaining the collective attrition patterns among officers departing active-duty service, affords
valuable insights into the officers’ perceptions of their prospects beyond military service and the
determinative factors precipitating their departure from active-duty service. While it is plausible
that attrition rates may bear some correlation with the source of commissioning, it is essential to
note that this study refrains from positing or presuming such correlations, as the present chapter
confines itself to an in-depth exploration of attrition within the broader context of the officer
corps, spanning all service components, and endeavors to present the most contemporary
empirical data on this subject.
Commissioning Source

15
Empirical evidence demonstrates the pivotal role of the commissioning source in shaping
the influence and career longevity of officers within the U.S. military (Doganca, 2006).
Accession into the U.S. military as a commissioned officer takes place through three principal
pathways: attendance at a service academy (such as the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, or U.S. Coast Guard Academy), enrollment in a
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, or participation in Officer Candidate/Training
school (OCS/OTS) (Military One Source, 2021). After commissioning, military officers embark
on specialized training programs geared towards job-specific proficiencies, tasks, and leadership
competencies requisite for their designated roles within their respective service components.
Figure 1, as illustrated by Thirtle (2001), visually delineates the diverse entry pathways into
military service as a commissioned officer.

16
Figure 1
Typical Methods of Becoming an Officer in the Military
Note: From Educational benefits and officer–commissioning opportunities available to U.S.
Military service members, (p. 13), by M. R Thirtle, 2001, RAND Publications,
(http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR981/index.html). Copyright 2001 by RAND
Corporation.
Each commissioning source is intricately governed by the stipulations delineated within
U.S. Code Title 10 legislation, which prescribes a distinct military service obligation contingent
per commissioning source (Armed Forces, 1956). Table 2 shows a graphical representation of
the requisite duration of service obligations for distinct commissioning sources; the associated
ranks upon graduation, programmatic benefits, and the duration of requisite training. The service
obligation rendered in the table assumes profound relevance within the context of the present
study for comprehending the attrition patterns among junior military officers upon fulfillment of
their service obligations. Furthermore, Table 2 provides critical information that has the potential

17
to exert a significant influence on the influences leading to the voluntary departure of junior
military officers from active-duty service (Department of Defense, n.d.).
Table 2
Comparison of Active-duty Accession Sources
Category Service academy ROTC OCS/OTS Direct
commissioning
Duration 4 years; full time
status
1-4 years
depending on
scholarship;
part-time status
10-16 weeks, full-
time
3-5 weeks, full-
time
Benefits All educational
expenses paid
Depend on
scholarship type
Paid training Paid training
Commissioned as
an officer
Commissioned as
an officer
Commissioned as
an officer
Commissioned as
an officer
Service
obligation
8 years total (at
least 5 years
active-duty)
8 years total (at
least 4 years
active-duty if
scholarship; 2–3
years if non–
scholarship)
8 years total (at
least 4 years
active-duty;
unless prior
enlisted and
surpassed 8
years of
service)
Depends on
specific
program
Rank upon
graduation
Second
Lieutenant/
Ensign (Navy)
Second
Lieutenant/
Ensign (Navy)
Second
Lieutenant/
Ensign (Navy)
Depends on
occupational
specialty
Note: From Educational benefits and officer–commissioning opportunities available to U.S.
Military service members (p. 13), by M. R Thirtle, 2001, RAND Publications,
(http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR981/index.html). Copyright 2001 by RAND
Corporation.

18
Military occupational specialties (MOS), jobs within the military, are systematically
categorized based on the unique functions they fulfill within each distinct military component
(Recruit Military, 2023). Upon their commissioning, officers may be awarded their desired
MOS, or if unable, it is common practice for the respective service component to instate an
active-duty service obligation (ADSO) in order to be awarded the MOS of their choosing (Rand
Corporation, 2023). This ADSO facilitates the integration of newly commissioned officers into
their preferred MOS or career field, although adding years of service commitment in addition to
their extant military service obligation (MSO). Table 3 provides an illustrative framework
outlining the overarching categories of active-duty officer roles across the various service
components (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). Notably, some service components, such as the
U.S. Army, administer programs designed to accommodate newly commissioned officers who
have not been assigned their initial MOS preference. These programs entail service in a different
MOS until the officer achieves a designated rank, at which juncture they are automatically
transferred to their originally aspired MOS (Hunsinger, 2013). This study endeavored to consider
the intricacies of such programs when constructing the research instrument.

19
Table 3
Active-duty Officer Personnel by Broad Occupational Group and Branch of Military, March
2021
Occupational
group
Army Air Force Space Force Marine
Corps
Navy
Combat
specialty
22,081 3,692 45 4,643 6,303
Engineering,
science, and
technical
24,750 13,773 2,653 5,113 11,315
Executive,
managerial
13,601 6,942 757 2,684 6,732
Healthcare 10,828 9,333 – – 7,690
Human
resource
development
3,104 1,655 – 812 3,436
Media and
public
affairs
341 353 – 335 259
Protective
service
3,273 1,104 – 385 1,232
Support
service
1,749 828 – 39 1,040
Transportation 10,576 23,032 21 7,085 10,079
Non–
occupation or
unspecified
2,427 221 8 966 7,608
Note. From Occupational outlook handbook: Military careers, by Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2022. (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military–careers.htm). In the public domain.
Commissioning sources emerge as a pivotal determinant in shaping the career trajectory
of junior military officers (Bailey, 2021). As an illustrative example, junior officers
commissioned through the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) within the U.S. Army

20
exhibit a higher likelihood of attrition than their counterparts in other service branches (Mattock
et al., 2014). In contrast, officers commissioned through the Officer Candidate School/Officer
Training School (OCS/OTS) demonstrated a notably higher rate of continuance in service,
underpinned by incorporating their previous service tenure into their officer retirement trajectory
(2014). Although the commissioning source is not the principal variable under investigation in
this study, it is acknowledged that it may exert an ancillary influence on survey respondents, thus
warranting consideration as a potential extraneous variable within the research framework.
Attrition
Empirical research, along with publicly accessible data sources, offers comprehensive
insights into the effects and influences associated with the voluntary departure of officers from
active-duty military (Military One Source, 2022). Nevertheless, gaps persist in these datasets,
particularly in their ability to produce attrition trends concerning officers when disaggregated by
pay grade. The Department of Defense (DoD) routinely disseminates comprehensive
demographic information annually, rendering a significant portion of such data accessible to
researchers through the auspices of the Defense Manpower Data Center (Department of Defense,
2021). For this study, attrition was operationally defined as the departure of personnel from
active-duty federal service (Human Resources Glossary, n.d.). It is essential to underscore that
this investigation exclusively focused on attrition within the domain of officers departing from
active-duty federal service, omitting any analysis about the National Guard or Reserve Forces.
Upon scrutinizing the data produced by the United States Department of Defense (DoD),
it becomes apparent that commissioned officers, across all service components, exhibit a notably
equitable distribution among the three principal types of separation: voluntary prior to
retirement, involuntary separation prior to retirement, and retirement (United States Department

21
of Defense, 2021). A detailed breakdown of these separations per service component, is
displayed in Table 4, and is based on the DoD’s publicly available data. It is noteworthy that this
dataset lacks the granularity required to discern separations among officers and Enlisted
personnel when segmented by pay grade. For the specific scope of this study, the focus remained
solely on the attrition patterns of junior military officers, which necessitated a more granular
analysis of such departures. Exploring attrition demographics assumes a pivotal role in delving
deeper into the fundamental influences driving the exodus of personnel from organizations
(Schulker et al., 2018). No other research or existing scholarship was widely or publicly
available for review of studies specifically dedicated to the retention or attrition trends of junior
military officers from the DoD over the past decade. As Table 4 conveys, although numerous
separation modalities exist for officers in the active-duty military, the most prevalent types are
retirement, upon attaining eligibility, and voluntary separations. It is imperative to clarify that the
latter two are separations occurring prior to the completion of retirement eligibility, as governed
by the regulatory framework of DoD compensation regulations (Department of Defense, 2021).

22
Table 4
Active-duty Officer Separations by Service Component and Type of Separation, 2021
Type of
separation
Army Navy Air Force Marine Corps
ETS, voluntary,
early release
2,844 1,378 2,308 730
Personal, family 1 11 39 –
Military
requirement,
behavior,
performance
263 87 30 38
Death – 24 16 10
Legal issues,
standards of
conduct
38 8 6 5
Non-selection
for promotion
129 95 22 75
Non-disability
retirement
2,630 857 1,411 633
Medical,
disability
821 125 178 42
Other 61 117 56 –
Note. From 2021 Demographics, profile of the military community, by Military One Source.
(2022). The U.S. Army no longer counts death as a form of separation. In the public domain.
The issue of attrition among junior military officers has been known for nearly a decade,
with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates characterizing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as
the “Captains’ Wars” in 2011 (Shanker, 2011). Furthermore, the prominence of junior officer
retention concerns was underscored through the Military Leadership Diversity Commission
(MLDC), a program that concluded its activities in 2011 (Military Leadership Diversity
Commission, 2011). The MLDC’s comprehensive report, spanning the years 2000 to 2008,

23
provides a detailed account of military officer attrition within the Department of Defense, with
Figures 2 through 5 portraying these attrition trends across all service components and
ethnicities, thereby reinforcing the findings gleaned from DoD and other available data on this
matter. Notably, these graphical representations reveal a substantial decline in attrition rates
between the 3rd and 8th years of service. This pattern broadly corresponds with military service
obligation (MSO) and active-duty service obligation (ADSO) requirements.
Furthermore, Falk and Rogers (2011) led a research study at Harvard University’s Kennedy
School of Government to investigate the retention challenges experienced by junior military
officers. This study concluded that the departure of junior officers from the U.S. military was
attributable to a perceived lack of autonomy and control over the trajectory of their careers,
coupled with organizational inflexibility. The report by Falk and Rogers assumes particular
significance and will be subject to further exploration in subsequent sections of this chapter, with
particular emphasis on the dimensions of perceived autonomy.

24
Figure 2
Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Army, FY 2000–2008
Note. From From representation to inclusion: Diversity leadership for the 21st century military
(pp. 5–6), by Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011, (https://mldc.whs.mil/). In the
public domain.

25
Figure 3
Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Navy, FY 2000–2008
Figure 4
Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Marine Corps, FY 2000–2008

26
Figure 5
Cumulative Continuation Rates in the U.S. Air Force, FY 2000–2008
Figures 2–5 cover fiscal years 2000 through 2008, a period marked by the U.S. military’s
transition from a non–wartime footing to active engagement on two fronts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It is undeniable that these conflicts exerted a notable influence on military officer
retention dynamics (Falk & Rogers, 2011). It becomes evident that the substantial attrition
observed at the junctures of active-duty service obligation (ADSO) and military service
obligation (MSO) fulfillment for junior military officers had precedents that extended beyond the
wartime context. Further corroboration of this trend is presented in Figure 6, from 2015, which
displays that attrition rates exhibit their most pronounced decline during the 2nd to 7th years of
service, excluding the retirement phase at the 20-year mark (U.S. Department of Defense, 2015).
Notably, this trend appears consistent across all service branches, except the U.S. Air Force,
where a unique requirement stipulates a 10-year service commitment for pilots upon the
conclusion of their pilot training (Hadley, 2023).

27
Figure 6
Military Officer Continuation Rates
Note. From Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Committee (p.
21), by U.S. Department of Defense, 2015, (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA625626.pdf). In
the public domain.
This study acknowledges the notable dearth of comprehensive data explicitly around the
affective factors underpinning junior military officers. While recognizing the existence of service
component-specific research endeavors and data sets that shed partial light on the causal factors
contributing to attrition, a notable lack of uniformity in information dissemination across service
components and the absence of centralized, publicly accessible data sources present an enduring
challenge. This prevailing opacity within the DoD regarding the divergence in available
information perpetuates the obfuscation surrounding the attrition patterns of junior military

28
officers and the underlying rationales driving their departures from active-duty service.
Consequently, the comprehension and synthesis of data and literature about this phenomenon
remain fraught with ambiguity and complexity.
Generational Priorities
An ongoing transformation of generational preferences is exerting influence on the
military sector and across various segments of the global economy (Ingelhart, 2020). This
shifting landscape of occupational priorities represents a multifaceted element within the
complex tapestry that envelops the challenge of addressing attrition among junior military
officers in the context of their military service obligation (MSO) and active duty service
obligation (ADSO). While this problem statement does not encompass the entirety of causal
factors contributing to this issue, it underscores specific salient concerns that have evolved and
gained prominence over time, firmly rooted in the contemporary paradigm of junior military
officers.
Lack Of Autonomy
Flexibility across organizations and autonomy are often related to how organizations treat
their personnel (Reisinger & Fetterer, 2021). Autonomy, an integral aspect of the selfdetermination theory, initially conceptualized by Ryan and Deci (1985), serves as a
counterposition to the conventional belief that rewards are the primary impetus for motivating
human behavior. According to Ryan and Deci’s, human motivation is inherently intrinsic, with
autonomous motivation emerging as the pivotal catalyst for individual accomplishment and selfrealization. Their theory identifies three fundamental components constituting selfdetermination: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Nevertheless, it is imperative to

29
acknowledge that while comprehensive, Ryan and Deci’s theory does not offer a universal
solution for explicating the entirety of human motivation.
Albert Bandura (1977) developed an alternative motivational framework in juxtaposition
to the self-determination theory. In Bandura’s framework, humans commence their motivational
journey with extrinsic incentives, often relying on external rewards for motivation. Over time,
individuals, through the exercise of choice, persistence, and mental effort, can undergo a
transformative process in which extrinsic motivation is internalized, ultimately culminating in
intrinsic motivation. This evolution enables individuals to perform tasks in a manner that is
intrinsically driven, where they perceive that their inherent abilities significantly contribute to
favorable task outcomes.
Falk and Rogers (2011) conducted a study that delved into the complexities surrounding
the retention of junior military officers. Noteworthy was the temporal backdrop of their research,
as it transpired during a period marked by the height of significant military engagements in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Through a qualitative approach involving interviews with former service
members, 2 principal causative factors came to the fore: (a) issues about organizational
flexibility, particularly within the personnel system, and (b) a noticeable deficit in fostering
innovation within the military environment.
Of particular significance within Falk and Rogers’ (2011) investigation was the salient
observation that career control emerged as the paramount influence in the decision-making
process of departing U.S. military personnel, as evidenced in Figure 7. The perceived absence of
autonomy in career-related decisions was similarly identified as a motivating factor prompting
the exodus of junior U.S. Army officers from active-duty service, according to a distinct,
informal survey conducted in 2023 (Gabow, 2023). Given the paucity of empirical data

30
corroborating or substantiating these findings, the research focus remains ensconced with gaps,
necessitating further inquiry and analysis. Nevertheless, the insights gleaned from this study
serve as valuable signposts, potentially aiding in the pursuit of answers to the underlying
research questions.
Figure 7
Factors Rated by Importance in Decisions to Leave the Military, 2011
Note. From Junior military officer retention: Challenges & opportunities (p. 3), by S. Falk, and
S. Rogers, 2011, (https://officercandidatesschool.com/wp–content/uploads/2019/03/Junior–
Military–Officer–Retention–Challenges–and–Opportunities–by–Sayce–Falk–Sasha–Rogers–
John–F.–Kennedy–School–of–Government–Harvard–University.pdf).

31
Military Authoritative Recalcitrance
In 2021, the American Military University posited an intriguing perspective, suggesting
that Generation Z (Gen Z) tends to perceive the military as a bastion of conservative values
(O’Donnell, 2021). Generation Z, demarcated as those individuals born between 1997 and 2012,
constitutes a pivotal demographic for military recruitment, as their moral values strongly
influence the potential candidate pool from which the military draws (Dimock, 2019). Gen Z,
whose formative years coincided with the epoch of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), a period
marked by the significant military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been uniquely
shaped by this historical backdrop (Malley, 2023; McNair, 2022).
Furthermore, research underscores the millennial generation as one of the most socially
conscious, a phenomenon attributed to the pervasive influence of mass media, the advent of
social media, and the distinction of being the first generation to experience a life thoroughly
intertwined with the internet (Rideout & Watkins, 2019). Some scholars posit that this
interconnectedness has imbued millennials with a propensity to scrutinize underlying motives,
rationale, and structures of authority (Lovely, 2012). These proclivities appear to clash with the
tenets of military culture, wherein perceptions of hierarchical leadership and subordination, often
characterized by an absence of autonomy among subordinates, may present a substantial
impediment to millennial engagement within the military. Consequently, the perception of
military culture is notably influenced, at least in part, by the media landscape that shaped the
millennial generation (Le, 2016). This phenomenon permits an in-depth examination to unravel
the intricacies of generational attitudes and their implications for the military’s recruitment and
retention strategies.

32
Military culture is frequently perceived as possessing a degree of homogeneity in relation
to broader societal norms, with a pronounced emphasis on the central and core values that each
service imparts upon its members (Redmond et al., 2013). However, it is important to
acknowledge contrasting perspectives that underscore a degree of heterogeneity within the
military. This organization has historically been characterized as predominantly White and malecentric, and in which the prevailing culture is primarily shaped by the norms and shared
experiences associated with this demographic (Moore, 2021). For millennials, this conventional
view of military culture may exhibit a less discordant juxtaposition due to their exposure to
increasing diversity and heightened tolerance for organizations beyond the military sphere
(Colford & Sugarman, 2016).
On the contrary, the military is often positioned and described as the “great equalizer” in
the context of employment and social mobility, owing to the structured rank hierarchy, pay parity
across genders, and the potential for individuals to transcend social strata, a compelling attraction
for historically marginalized groups aiming to build generational wealth (Conde, 2021;
Luxenberg, 2015). Nevertheless, the overarching premise is that there appears to be a sense of
atrophy among millennials who have consistently grappled with the omnipresence of the military
in their lives, compounded by the rapid proliferation of information-sharing mechanisms. While
this study does not offer an exhaustive exploration of how media may influence the broader
perception of the military, it does, however, acknowledge the existence of a discernible
correlation between the two phenomena. This underscores the need for further research to delve
deeper into the nuanced dynamics at play in shaping the perceptions of military culture among
the millennial generation.

33
Work–Value Expectancy
As previously expressed, it is essential to recognize that the preponderance of the junior
military officer demographic falls within the millennial generation. With this generational
cohort, the perceptions about work and the significance derived from one’s professional
endeavors have placed a distinctive onus on organizations to imbue work with intrinsic meaning
for the employee (Twenge, 2010). As highlighted in a study by Dua and Ellingrud (2022), the
globalization of the contemporary workforce has facilitated a shared understanding of acceptable
workplace practices and standards of professional conduct. Consequently, the challenge
confronting the military lies in its capacity to acknowledge and comprehend the multifaceted
needs of the populations it relies upon to fulfill the essential roles required for the maintenance
and sustainability of recruitment and retention.
Work-value expectancy within this context draws upon the foundational tenets of the
expectancy-value theory, initially formulated by John William Atkinson as a framework to
clarify individual achievement motivation (Atkinson, 1964). This theoretical paradigm is
inherently underpinned by two core elements: expectancy, denoting an individual’s belief in their
capacity to succeed in a given task, and value, signifying the extent to which an individual
perceives the endeavor as valuable or meaningful. For the specific aims of this study, Atkinson’s
theory serves as an invaluable tool for comprehending the intricate interplay of professional and
personal goal misalignment, the influence of leadership variables, and the impact of peer
dynamics and the promotion/evaluation system on the decision-making processes of junior
military officers in their choice to depart from active-duty service.
Personal and Professional Goal Misalignment

34
The difference between personal and professional goals can often be shrouded in
ambiguity for individuals in the nascent phases of their careers, primarily due to their relative
lack of experiential knowledge, rendering the differentiation process a formidable task
(Buddeberg-Fischer et al., 2008). The motivational factors underpinning personal objectives may
exert a noteworthy influence on the formulation of professional goals, a dynamic driven in part
by the transient nature of personal aspirations and the inherent volatility characterizing the labor
market as individuals transition from youth to adulthood (Kanfer et al., 2012). For junior military
officers, it is imperative to acknowledge that the alignment of their personal and professional
goals has the potential to deviate from the prescribed benchmarks for a successful career
trajectory within their military sphere, as outlined by the organization itself. In recognition of this
intricate interplay, it becomes evident that the military, as an entity, is not impervious to the
evolving landscape of generational priorities, with a distinct emphasis on the millennial and
Generation Z cohorts (Clark & Atkinson, 2022; Zinkula, 2022). Junior military officers face
several salient issues, as underscored by extant research, which encompasses the impact of duty
assignments on their individual goals, the determinative role of incentive programs and
broadening programs in shaping their future professional trajectories, and the complex interplay
of family dynamics and personal objectives, which cumulatively engender significant challenges
in influencing the decisions of junior military officers concerning their continuation of activeduty service.
Given the global dispersion of military personnel, encompassing six service components,
it becomes imperative for the military establishment to meticulously allocate its personnel
resources across the world in accordance with the demands of the service components
(Department of Defense, 2019). This alignment of personnel resources with the staffing

35
requirements of the military often compels junior military officers into duty stations that may be
deemed undesirable or without the element of choice. The research underscores a discernible
correlation between the selection of duty stations and the subsequent performance and retention
rates of military personnel (Krause, 2010; White, 2021). Notably, empirical evidence from
studies conducted within the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy substantiates how
performance and job satisfaction substantially augment in concordance with duty location
preferences, thereby positively influencing the overall retention rates of high-performing
officers.
Importantly, this issue is not a recent phenomenon, as historical research findings from
the Office of Naval Research underscore how the initial assignment and duty station placement
wield considerable influence on military personnel, encompassing not solely junior officers but
the broader military population (Sinaiko et al., 1981). This facet, which figures prominently in
the attrition of junior military officers from active-duty service, represents a pivotal element in
comprehending the retention intentions of these junior officers. Simultaneously, the military
establishment is confronted with the challenge of harmonizing its organizational imperatives
with the developmental requirements of junior officers.
Development
The military provides development opportunities for junior military officers outside of
the military, fully funded by the military, after completing career milestones deemed successful
by their respective military service component (Koh, 2018). These developmental opportunities
are often known as broadening opportunity programs and provide the junior military officer an
opportunity to further education, work in non-standard military roles, or a fellowship outside of
the traditional means of military service (MacGregor & Montgomery, 2017). Timing plays an

36
essential role in the use of broadening programs by junior military officers due to the realization
that their agency over their future path within the military may be dictated by their evaluations
and ability to compete for promotion relative to their peers, limiting their options to more
developmental positions, even high-performing officers (Fust, 2020; Orsi, 2017). This forces the
junior military officer, who may not elect to continue active-duty service for 2 or 3 more years in
order to meet service component promotion criteria, to decide to leave the active service
component in pursuit of those goals individually, rather than organizationally from the military,
presupposing a personal and professional goal misalignment.
In its endeavor to foster the professional development of junior military officers, the
military offers a spectrum of fully funded, non-military developmental opportunities upon the
successful completion of designated career milestones, as determined by the respective military
service components (Koh, 2018). These initiatives, commonly referred to as broadening
opportunity programs, grant junior military officers access to a diverse array of prospects,
including the pursuit of advanced education, engagement in non-standard military roles, or
participation in fellowships situated beyond the conventional contours of military service
(MacGregor & Montgomery, 2017). However, career timing emerges as the paramount
consideration in utilizing these broadening programs by junior military officers. This temporal
factor arises from the recognition that their agency over future career trajectories within the
military is contingent upon their performance evaluations and the ability to compete for
promotion in relation to their peers (Fust, 2020; Orsi, 2017). These dynamics, despite potentially
exceptional performance of these officers, effectively circumscribe their options, restricting their
access to more developmental positions.

37
This conundrum places junior military officers in the predicament of making a pivotal
decision: they must weigh the prospect of continuing active-duty service for an extended period,
typically spanning 2 to 3 years, to satisfy the promotion criteria stipulated by their respective
service components against the alternative course of action, leaving the active service component
to pursue their individual career aspirations independently. In this context, the decision hinges on
the presumption of a misalignment between personal and professional goals, ultimately reflecting
the tension at the interplay of individual aspirations and the military’s organizational
imperatives.
The choice confronting junior military officers, which entails achieving the same
overarching objective of broadening through academic pursuits or fellowships, often necessitates
a complex decision-making process influenced by various extraneous factors, with familial
considerations (Orthner, 1990). A substantial demographic within the junior military officer
population, comprising 48%, is characterized by individuals who are single and without children;
additionally, a subset of 6% represents dual military couples without children (Military One
Source, 2021). Researchers have articulated that the present generation of junior military officers
displays a tendency to delay commitments to marriage and parenthood while also factoring in
considerations relating to spousal career choices, or the absence thereof, as determinants of their
decision to transition out of active-duty service (Department of the Army, 2021; Eckhart, 2023;
King et al., 2020). It is worth noting that although publicly accessible exit survey data is either
scarce or unavailable, informal and prior research findings have underscored the pertinence of
family dynamics in influencing the career decisions of junior military officers (Department of the
Army, 2021; Falk & Rogers, 2011; Gabow, 2023).

38
The integration of women into traditionally male-dominated professions within the
military further complicates the landscape, as it engenders unique challenges for junior military
officers striving to remain in active-duty service. A study conducted within the U.S. Navy
revealed that this shift had early and adverse ramifications for both male and female service
members, with data indicating that personnel depart from the Navy due to the ramifications on
family life and the limited career progression opportunities for women in nontraditional
professions (Smith & Rosenstein, 2017). Furthermore, the influence of duty station placements
transcends the geographic realm, as it significantly affects the decision of junior military officers
to continue their active-duty service. Consequently, family considerations wield a direct and
pronounced impact on the overarching life choices made by junior military officers beyond the
scope of their careers (Burke & Miller, 2016). Familial factors, in conjunction with professional
and personal goal misalignment, emerge as integral causal elements that inform the choices of
these individuals – another significant facet pertains to the impact of leadership on the decisions
of junior military officers to leave active-duty service (Britzky, 2021).
Institutional Variables
The concept of leadership is complex and is characterized by varying definitions across
diverse organizations spanning different industries and fields of study (Dua & Ellingrud, 2022).
The intricacies in comprehending the underlying reasons for the attrition of junior military
officers from active-duty service may, in part, stem from the existence of decentralized and
divergent definitions of leadership among the various military service components. Thomas
(n.d.) characterizes these divergent leadership philosophies as “borrowed paradigms” originating
from diverse sources, and this construct of how the service components delineate their respective
interpretations of leadership is designed to facilitate the integration of their independent

39
requisites. However, the decentralization of leadership definitions can engender a dilution of the
value inherent in the guidance offered by leaders in terms of their intentions for developing their
subordinates (Levenson, 2020). For junior military officers, this decentralization gives rise to a
myriad of leadership challenges, which the service components may struggle to rectify as these
challenges manifest in many forms: indistinct leadership priorities, an absence of effective
mentorship, and a perceived lack of ethically grounded leaders within the military hierarchy.
Leadership Understood
The effectiveness of leadership within organizations is when leaders create and
disseminate clear, specific, achievable goals; organizations succeed relative to leadership, which
consistently alters and revises those goals (Andrews, 2022). In the context of the development of
junior military officers, exposure to leaders adept at articulating well-defined goals to their
subordinates plays a critical role in affording these junior officers the latitude to formulate their
own distinct leadership principles and ethos. A seminal contribution in this realm is the Battalion
Commander Effect, an empirical framework introduced by Spain et al. (2021) for the United
States Military Academy at West Point. Spain’s research posits that the first senior leader in a
junior military officer’s career exerts the most profound impact on their decision to either
continue in active-duty service or opt for military exit. This immediate influence of senior
leaders during the formative phase of a junior military officer’s career holds true across the
diverse service components (Athey, 2021; Doty & Fenlason, 2013; Williams, 2019). Moreover,
gaining insight into a leader’s priorities assumes a decisive role for junior military officers as
they navigate the complex interplay between the needs of their own subordinates and the
demands of their superiors. The absence of clearly defined leadership priorities can give rise to

40
defective leadership philosophies, which, in turn, contribute to the attrition of personnel who
cannot align with the expectations of their superiors.
One of the most salient and ubiquitous dimensions of leadership priorities within the
military context pertains to utilizing the term “servant leadership,” which is employed across a
broad spectrum to encompass a markedly divergent set of core competencies (Ryckman, 2017).
The concept of servant leadership is rooted in the notion of a leader initially driven by the desire
to serve and subsequently evolving to an ambition to lead (Greenleaf, 1977). According to
Coetzer et al. (2017), among the four core competencies inherent to servant leadership, the
competencies of compelling vision and stewardship emerge as the most imperative in furnishing
direction for junior military officers during the nascent phase of their careers. This paradigm of
servant leadership, coupled with the nearly immediate influence of senior leaders on junior
military officers, may engender intricacies in how junior military officers develop within their
professional ecosystem, particularly in the absence of adequate mentorship.
Mentorship
In the military, mentorship assumes the form of a relational construct wherein an
experienced individual, typically occupying a superior role, extends guidance and serves as a
role model for another person, drawing upon their accumulated experiences (Johnson &
Andersen, 2015). The military offers mentorship opportunities, which can manifest through
structured mentorship programs, such as the U.S. Army’s ATHENA Program and the U.S.
Marine Corps’ Marine Corps Mentoring Program, as well as informal relationships that
materialize organically based on mutual interests or non-programmatic interactions (Spain, 2023;
United States Navy, 2006). As Carter et al. (2016) explain, mentorship constitutes a component

41
in illuminating the influence of leadership on the trajectories of junior military officers
throughout their careers.
The ramifications of mentorship on junior military officers, irrespective of their active
engagement in mentorship initiatives, yield valuable insights into the individual’s autonomy in
shaping their professional journey. Eby et al. (2004) highlights the dualistic nature of
mentorship, wherein it typically yields positive outcomes but can, under certain circumstances,
negatively impact the mentee. These adverse mentorship outcomes may transpire in situations
characterized by the absence of mentor support, interpersonal conflicts, and incongruent values.
Furthermore, the efficacy of mentorship is contingent on the motivation and job satisfaction of
the mentee, with mentorship alone unlikely to ameliorate overall retention in cases where
motivation and job satisfaction are lacking, potentially leading to unfavorable mentorship
outcomes (Eby et al., 2004). Crucially, while the mentor exerts an influence on the junior
military officer, an additional dimension emerges concerning the ethical dimensions of the leader
or mentor, which function as supplementary factors shaping decisions related to career
progression.
Leadership
Trust represents a cornerstone in the foundations of military organizations, furnishing the
bedrock upon which unit cohesion, discipline, and the overarching cultural framework for
mission execution are predicated (Ahronson et al., 2007). In their research on organizational
trust, Miligan (2003) discerns a statistically significant correlation between trust and motivation
and retention among junior U.S. Air Force officers, concomitant with an inversely proportionate
relationship between trust and retention. Distinctly, Tepper (2000), in another study, posits that
abusive and toxic supervisors yield deleterious consequences for job retention and satisfaction.

42
Junior military officers, characterized by their relative inexperience in a military setting, may
inadvertently internalize such dysfunctional behaviors as a norm inherent to military culture,
thereby circumscribing their perceptions of the potential pathways for shaping their future
careers. Building on this theme, Zellars et al. (2002) explored analogous manifestations of
abusive leadership, culminating in the observation that those subjected to such maltreatment
from their leaders are inclined to withdraw from otherwise constructive workplace dynamics. An
additional feature of significance is the role of ethical leadership as a valuable organizational
resource, mitigating the emotional exhaustion experienced by subordinates adversely affected by
subpar leadership (Hobfoll, 2001). How leaders respond and interact with their subordinates
inherently shapes trust dynamics and perceptions surrounding trust and unit cohesion, whereas,
conversely, transactional leaders may inadvertently corrode these foundational concepts.
Transactional leaders typically flourish within environments characterized by structural
order, uniformity, and organizational rigor (Western Governors University, 2021). However, the
predilection of transactional leaders to administer punitive measures in response to deviations
from prescribed procedures introduces a climate in which any form of failure, even during the
nascent stages of a junior military officer’s career, is sternly censured, thereby obstructing
developmental progress (McCandless, 2022). A comprehensive study conducted within the
Canadian Armed Forces by Ivey and Kline (2010) has drawn empirical conclusions that senior
military officers did not ascribe transactional leadership as emblematic of effective leadership. In
contradistinction, a study executed by Tremblay (2010) has shed light on the effects of
transactional leadership wielded by military commanders over their subordinates. Their study
concluded that trust and equitable treatment, founded on transactional processes, may have a
statistically significant impact on the subordinate. Particularly, the study resolves that the

43
transformational leadership style embraced by the military commander exerts a more profound
influence on subordinates than the transactional counterpart. Job satisfaction, linked with
retention, also influences the junior military officer’s view of their future, as determined by selfproclaimed meritocracy promotion systems (King et al., 2020). Cumulatively, the amalgamation
of findings from these studies leads to the inference that the leadership style embraced by a
junior military officer’s commander can substantively influence the officer’s job satisfaction, an
aspect discussed in antecedent research as closely tied to job retention.
Promotion System
The Department of Defense, operating under the purview of the Defense officer
Personnel Management Act, allocates and delegates the number of commissioned officers across
the various military service components and the mechanisms governing the timing and criteria
for officer promotions (McKenzie, 2011). Within this framework, each service component is
afforded the latitude to effectively manage its officer corps in accordance with the unique
exigencies of its mission, thereby determining the cadence at which officers are promoted upon
the successful attainment of career milestones (Military Defense Leadership Commission, 2010).
It is noteworthy that the evaluation systems in place across the various service components
exhibit divergent rates of change, with each service consistently updating and scrutinizing the
protocols governing promotions and the methodologies employed in assessing officers (Harkins,
2018). In their study on U.S. Marine Corps officer retention and promotions, Marx (2014)
remakes on the number of premature departures from the Corps and suggests two substantive
reforms imperative to the U.S. Marine Corps promotion system. Marx contends that the U.S.
Army and U.S. Air Force have long implemented these structural reforms, in stark contrast to the
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, which appear to prioritize seniority as a primary criterion for

44
promotion rather than identifying and advancing high–performing officers. This assertion is
reinforced by Cicero (2015), who delves into the deleterious impact of a culture that perpetuates
mediocrity and ultimately stifles the progression of the most competent and proficient officers,
leading to the untimely departure of such officers from the military.
Contemporary promotion systems are emblematic of an officer’s progression hinging on
positional achievement, guided by alignment with specific career attributes and service in roles
deemed valuable by the respective service component based on its organizational culture (Hill,
2015). This adherence to established conventions underscores the perceived lack of autonomy
experienced by junior officers, particularly those belonging to the millennial generation when
navigating their career trajectories and maneuvering within an organization that places
paramount importance on shared values (Manski et al., 2020). When coupled with the
repercussions of transactional leadership on junior military officers, their limited capacity to
independently orchestrate their careers, and decisions related to geographic location and duty
assignments, junior officers may increasingly find it challenging to envision a future in the
context of active-duty service. A study by Lohela-Karlsson et al. (2022) found that job
satisfaction and motivation exhibit a conspicuous decline when the employee perceives no
intrinsic value in their professional endeavors. This diminution in motivation and satisfaction
carries the potential to manifest in a junior military officer’s evaluation, particularly when their
superior adheres to a leadership style that diverges from the junior officer’s own approach.
officer evaluations frequently necessitate the stratification and enumeration of junior military
officers, comparing them to peers holding similar positions or serving within the same unit, thus
significantly influencing these peer comparisons in determining junior military officers’
professional standing and progression (Lyle & Smith, 2014).

45
Peers
The influence of peers within a military framework emerges as one of the most robust
indicators of institutional and emotional support when scrutinizing the complexities of retention
(Vasterling et al., 2015). In the case of junior military officers, peers play a pivotal role in
shaping the contours of the environment and the support systems that these officers cultivate.
Smith and Rosenstein (2017) found that male and female peers wield substantial influence in
determining the intended duration of an officer’s tenure in the military. Their study reveals a
noteworthy gender-based dichotomy among peers concerning the length of service for male and
female officers. A further study conducted by Segal et al. (2016) centers, in part, on the
multifaceted interplay between leadership and peer dynamics, shedding light on how these
factors can either exacerbate or ameliorate challenges faced by military personnel. Their findings
underscore the considerable impact of peers, in conjunction with leadership, on the career
trajectories of junior military officers. These observations underscore the significance of how
peers perceive and, conversely, regard their fellow peers who may have been recognized through
the lens of the military’s officer rewards and promotion systems (Hill, 2015). This complex
interplay is stressed by the relative scarcity of observed instances where officers face the
prospect of promotion ahead of their peer cohort, as articulated by Marx (2014).
Within the context of peer groups, the influence of military culture assumes a pivotal role
in shaping how junior military officers perceive and align themselves with the shared values
espoused by both the organization and their peers (Birkinbine et al., 2020). Central drivers of
military culture encompass identity formation and how individuals perceive themselves as
integral components of a cohesive team or members of a collective endeavor, a dynamic
frequently contingent on the unit with which they are affiliated (Siebold & Britt, 2018).

46
Peer groups, whether in the military or civilian realm, often coalesce around the common bonds
of friendship and shared experiences. In the military, the formation of such peer groups closely
mirrors patterns observed in civilian life, engendering divisions among junior military officers
who are part of the same peer/socioethnic/social groups, with conspicuous demarcations
observed, notably along the lines of gender and ethnicity (Hong et al., 2008). Analogous to their
civilian counterparts, junior military officers are inclined to gravitate toward individuals who
share congruent personal and professional aspirations, common interests, and comparable
backgrounds. Conversely, the influence of peers also wields a discernible impact on the diversity
of junior military officers and, by extension, their inclination for remaining within the military
organization (Davis & Klahr, 2019).
Diversity
A central imperative for the Department of Defense centers on recruiting and retaining
military personnel, including officers hailing from historically underrepresented and minoritized
populations (Miller, 2021). In tandem with the compounding influences exerted by peers on the
retention of junior military officers, the research conducted by Burk and Espinoza (2012)
highlights the dynamics surrounding race relations within the military, which often align with
existing literature emphasizing the role of racial bias and institutional racism as determinants of
officer retention. Asch et al. (2012) expound upon the historical challenges faced by the military
in retaining individuals from minoritized groups, a category encompassing both people of color
and women. These retention efforts are frequently perceived as fraught with oversight and
management deficiencies (Garamone, 2022). Moreover, within the contemporary context of
diminishing national eligibility among individuals capable of active-duty military service,

47
deliberate efforts aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion within minoritized groups represent a
pivotal focal point of recruitment initiatives within the U.S. military (Vergun, 2019).
Present recruitment paradigms, possibly unintendedly, tend to channel individuals from
minoritized groups into non–combat positions that do not necessitate a college degree and offer
limited avenues for upward career progression, consequently constraining their representation
within the officer Corps (Johnson et al., 2017). Recruiting individuals from minoritized groups
into the military, with an eye toward their future prospects for success, presents an intricate
challenge. Similarly, the efforts to retain these service members are also beset by formidable
obstacles (Gamble, 2020). Culturally, individuals from minoritized groups grapple with issues of
underrepresentation when juxtaposed with their non–ethnic minority counterparts, a predicament
compounded by the burden of stereotype threats related to their identity (Perez & Strizhko,
2018). Among the factors compelling military members from minoritized backgrounds to exit
the military is a cultural dimension: as overall service members progress in their careers, they
tend to converge and share increasingly similar experiences and look the same, thereby
perpetuating homogeneity (Richard & Molloy, 2020). This homogenization process among
junior military officers engenders a void in the realm of senior-level leadership roles that could
potentially serve as mentors – a conundrum that resonates with the challenges elucidated in the
context of mentorship. The attrition of the individual junior military officer’s distinct identity
effectively erodes the sense of individualism and, in the process, compels the exodus of specific
intellectual capacities, relevance, and facets of self-identity from active-duty service (Cendales &
Gomez, 2019).

48
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
In this study, the researcher examined the causal factors surrounding junior military
officer retention rates within the Department of Defense (DoD). The phenomena of junior
military officers leaving the military service at their active-duty service obligation (ADSO) or
their military service obligation (MSO) creates future leadership problems for the military
services and ultimately relies on a more limited talent base to fill future leadership roles (Garcia
et al., 2019). Within this study, the researcher will assess how the problem is addressed and
develop solutions to understand where gaps in literature or empirical research exist. The research
in this study sought to posit solutions using qualitative methods and present those results through
new, empirical data. The scrutiny of the problem through a theoretical framework of Uri
Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological systems model on human development is underlined with a
conceptual framework of rational choice theory. This quantitative research will focus on what
interactions between the individual and their immediate periphery in Bronfenbrenner’s model
have on the reasons the target population leaves military service.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model as a Theoretical Framework
Uri Bronfenbrenner’s 1977 ecological systems model is a seminal work on childhood
development. In the framework, Bronfenbrenner (1977) nests an arrangement of structures, each
layer contained within the previous, based on the impact he posited the portion of the ecological
system had on the child. Bronfenbrenner named each of the structures the microsystem, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem, with the individual at the
center of the entire system. Bronfenbrenner’s framework acts as a system of systems where the
individual exists within systems of relationships, environments, activities, and time (Shelton,
2018). The individual and the systems affecting that individual are an interdependent network

49
where both the individual and the systems change the other, and that change generates a complex
interrelatedness difficult to unpack within the individual’s choices (Wrobel & Neil, 2009).
For this study, the researcher will focus on the individual and the microsystem and the bidirectional interactions between those structures. Underlined with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems model, rational choice theory will serve to ground how some of the interactions between
the individual and the microsystem engage through individual choice and influences. The main
concepts of rational choice theory stem from economists; however, it can be applied to the
problem of practice based on the idea that individuals use rational calculations to engage in
rational choice, achieving outcomes aligned with the individual’s best interests (Ganti, 2022).
The concepts from this theory will help elucidate why junior officers leave the military at their
ADSO or MSO.

50
Figure 8
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model
Note. Adapted from “Toward an experimental ecology of human development,” by U.
Bronfenbrenner, 1977, American Psychologist, 32(7), p. 513–531. (https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.32.7.513). Copyright 1977 by American Psychological Association.
The Individual
At the center of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model is the individual or the
person (1977). While centrally based on the development of the individual, it is possible to
analogously apply the principles of the ecological systems model to formative development
across time phases of life (Smith et al., 2017). This context allows researchers to advance
recognition of how lived experiences by the individual apply to the functional realities of the
settings in which the individual occupies. Individuals engage in adapting to their peripheral

51
ecosystems through development and generate cognitive changes in the individual’s
interpretation of the world, altering the individual’s behavior and social cognition (Shettleworth,
2009). This approach to understanding and development in the world around the individual is a
constructivist theory. Piaget’s (Blake & Pope, 2008) influential work describes this
epistemological approach as the learner using prior experience to create meaning from
interactions between the lived experiences and the individual’s ideas. For this study, the junior
military officer exists within their development phase in a constructivist plane through their
gradual change in understanding the ecosystems in which they experience the world, in this
instance, their military service (Shelton, 2018).
The U.S. military’s size, scope, and mission necessitates a common framework for junior
military officers to adhere to and conform to as their development takes place while serving in
the military (Wellins et al., 1980). The inherent challenge in this is the conformity of
development as a corps of personnel rather than the individual. The Department of Defense
(DoD) and each component service have leadership and developmental programs for junior
military officers intended to assist in the unique development of the individual officer (United
States Government Accountability Office, 1993). More about these programs will follow in
subsequent sections of this chapter. While these programs aim to indoctrinate junior military
officers on the expectations of those officers while serving, it is practically impossible through a
constructivist viewpoint to understand the individual’s development within a particular
ecosystem without knowing their experiences over time, that is to say, prior knowledge and
experiences (Shelton, 2018). This means that for the individual whose development the DoD is
interested in, the paradigm must pivot to understanding the perspective of the individual

52
developing within their respective ecosystem through their experiences versus an environment
external and objective to the individual.
Bronfenbrenner, from a developmental perspective, has overlapping themes with
Vygotsky’s social constructivism in understanding individuals’ development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Further, Bronfenbrenner uses transactional interactions within ecosystems as mechanisms by
which the individual undergoes biological change (Tudge, 2016). Examples for this study
include mentorship and leadership development opportunities, which, while not exhaustive
examples, provide researchers a baseline with which to understand the individual’s experiences.
Conversely, an individual without those transactions may not develop the same within a similar
environment, altering their own ecosystem, which, in turn, further alters the nature of the
individual’s perspective and future participation within a set ecosystem (Baltes, 1987). The
biological and psychological changes to the individual over time, coupled with their lived
experiences, will determine the individual’s participation within their ecosystem and their
perception of said ecosystem (Shelton, 2018). This constructivist position frames how junior
military officers perceive their own experiences and the environmental reflections that influence
the characteristics defining the individual.
Finally, development of the individual is aided when the individual’s perception of their
interactions with the world through their ecosystem, is validated and individualized (Magnusson,
2015). Understanding this, the individual may act in a more motivated manner, precipitating a
change in how the individual manages their environment (Brick et al., 2021). This development
molds into how Bronfenbrenner (1977) defined development as becoming “more motivated and
more able to investigate, explore, manipulate, take care of, and change the ecosystem one
experiences.” The junior military officer may experience similar changes in their development,

53
yielding a more confident leader capable of adapting to the ecosystem or how the junior military
officer best adapts the ecosystem to the individual. Ultimately, Bronfenbrenner uses
development as the result of transactions with the individual’s ecosystem and how the adaptation
results in changes to the individual in the ecosystem or changes to the ecosystem from the
individual (Paquette & Ryan, 2001).
The Microsystem
The microsystem, as Bronfenbrenner (1977) defines it, is the “pattern of activities, roles,
and interpersonal relations experienced by the person in a given setting” (p. 227). This definition
refers to one of the critical elements of the microsystem: it is a pattern of components. As
described earlier, the interrelatedness of the systems is a group of interacting and interdependent
elements for a microsystem of systems. The fundamental components of this microsystem are the
people associated with the microsystem, the activities that take place, and the relationships
between the components (Shelton, 2018). Shelton furthered this in respecting this aspect of the
microsystem that observable actions are required to understand how the process is organized as a
complex whole.
The activities, roles, and interpersonal relationships within the context of the study can be
defined as the junior officer’s daily tasks, their career field within the military, and the
relationships they form on a personal and professional level, although not a complete list.
According to Vélez-Agosto et al. (2017), a case is made for shifting the element of culture from
the macrosystem to the microsystem. Moving culture also redefines the sociocultural perspective
of the individual, especially given the military’s unique culture. In their study, the researchers
used Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective to redefine culture as occupying a space in the
proximal development process (2017). Junior military officers experience organizational culture

54
at every stage of their development within the context of junior leader development and inculcate
military culture within their own service-specific ecosystem. Akkuş et al. (2017) describe culture
here as the practices of social communities and the interpretation of the interaction of those
communities through language and actions. This component of the microsystem assists in
developing a foundational understanding of the attrition of junior military officers from active
service. The subsequent paragraphs contain a further analysis of how those interactions evolve.
Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem models directly the aspects of lived experiences by the
individual as the individual develops (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The patterns of experience, part of
the aforementioned microsystem of systems, are essential to gaining perspective on how the
individual perceives importance. Within this context, researchers Neal and Neal (2013)
determined that importance placed on a pattern or experience within the microsystem is only
valued when the individual has a focused experience across ecosystems, regardless of whether
objective observers place value on the experience. Referentially, the Department of Defense and
component military services have objective measures to determine the importance of factors
within the microsystem. However, implementing Bronfenbrenner’s model, organizational
importance is only as valuable as the individual deems it, creating an incongruity between the
individual and an influencing actor in the microsystem. In this instance, the bi-directional
relationships between the individual and the elements of the microsystem expose how the
individual develops based on the lived experience (Lau & Ng, 2014).
The third characteristic in the definition of the microsystem is the setting in which the
experiences and the individual interact (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Paramount in the foundational
conception of the setting is the postulation that the setting must achieve a practical limit in an
observable manner to distinguish the relationships, interactions, and activities within the setting

55
(Shelton, 2018). It is impossible to describe or assign attributional qualities to the interactions,
relationships, and activities within the microsystem; however, a defined and purposeful setting is
needed to examine how the bi-directional relationships process (Hayes et al., 2022). In the
context of the study, a setting for the microsystem can be, but not limited to, the formative
assignments, duty locations, and cultural environments in which the individual resides.
The microsystem is arguably the most pivotal and critical ecosystem influencing the
individual (MacBlain, 2018). The specificity of the setting, the interactions, relationships, and
behaviors within the setting, as well as the patterns of those components as they relate to the
individual, including culturally, are driving factors for this outer limit for the study. Lastly, the
lived experiences of the individual directly influence the microsystem, and those direct
experiences are the patterns of the components in the setting; with the interdependence of all the
elements, the microsystem has the most impact on the individual in this study.
Proximal Processes
Bronfenbrenner uses the phase proximal processes to describe “enduring forms of
interaction in the immediate environment” (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). In his ecological systems
model, Bronfenbrenner deliberately distinguishes proximal from distal processes in the
respective individual’s ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Distal is understood to be
distant or far, whereas in the case of Bronfenbrenner’s model, are processes where the individual
is not directly engaged (Shelton, 2018). Proximal processes are facilitated when the individual
engages in activities where application of knowledge in new situations and ideas spurn the
interrelatedness of settings within a microsystem (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020). Therefore, the
individual creates activities and engagements that are more robust for the individual occupying
the setting in which those actions are taking place. For junior military officers, an analogous

56
example is an assignment where the officer is unable to execute the job they are trained for.
Here, the potential for development is entirely presupposed by the activities the individual can
engage in as an individual or with others (Shelton, 2018).
Not all settings are created equally within each microsystem; individual differences are
inherent functions of heterogeneous settings (Dall et al., 2004). Although junior military officers
reside in similar microsystems by nature of their rank, the differences among the settings of
officers in their assignments, duty location, and other demographical factors do not illuminate
what the experiences of those officers are. Bronfenbrenner posits development through proximal
processes as active participation, which results from the transactions in the microsystem and the
individuals present (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). While understanding how proximal
processes influence the development of the individual across settings, those same proximal
processes need to be examined within the microsystem.
According to Tomé et al. (2012), peer groups are often the strongest influences on others,
with more substantial impact coming from those who identify themselves with those who are
influencing. Bronfenbrenner’s development model of how individuals interact with others in
different settings across different microsystems is no different (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The
relationship between the individual is reciprocal, and changes in both will ultimately influence
change in others, similarly to how individuals influence change in each other. The patterns and
elements of the microsystem involved in change results in the individual adapting to and
engaging in the change within their ecosystem (Navarro & Tudge, 2020). Change is inevitable
across the microsystems because, according to Bronfenbrenner (1986), development will only
occur when settings change based on external influences on the ecosystem. For junior military

57
officers, this change is often temporal through leadership turnover or a change of duty station,
resulting in a change to their microsystem or a change to their setting.
These changes to the microsystems and settings for the individual often allow a
developmental assessment on the individual entering a new microsystem (Shelton, 2018). Within
the Bronfenbrenner framework, this developmental perspective is necessary to understand how
an individual adapts to or performs in the new setting, or settings, and ultimately, into a new
microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Junior military officers may often find this similar
scenario within their personal military context, stemming back to the constructivist ideal that
each officer brings with them the knowledge and experiences gained prior to entry into the new
microsystem and setting. Piaget (Kitchener, 2004) suggested that the sum of an individual’s
knowledge influences their behavior in a particular setting, and if previous experiences change
how the individual adapts, the results can be either positive or negative as the individual enters
the new environment.
The proximal processes are integral to how the individual and the microsystem interact
within the Bronfenbrenner framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Individuals will also create
expectations through which entering new microsystems and settings are perceived based on their
past experiences and knowledge; junior military officers are no different in this respect. This
portion of the ecological systems model is where the connections between the systems, patterns,
and experiences relate to the individual’s activities, relationships, and adaption (Shelton, 2018).
The study must understand these interactions as they are viewed through the experiences of
junior military officers and how their development is a result of the bi-directional interactions of
the individual and the microsystems.

58
Rational Choice Theory as a Conceptual Framework
Rational choice theory is rooted in economics with the basis of understanding and
modeling social and economic behaviors (Ganti, 2022). Nested in how Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems model reacts to actions and interactions with and between the individual and
microsystem, rational choice theory lays the assumption that individuals make decisions as they
are presupposed to (Zey, 2001). Further, the rational choices the individual makes may also
assume risk calculations using another theory on the expected utility of their decision-making
(Ulen, 1999). Junior military officers must weigh decisions they are to make regarding personal
and professional goals across a spectrum of incomplete information and risk-taking, ultimately
determining the most rational course of action to maximize their interests.
As a result of the development of the individual in Bronfenbrenner’s model, rational
choice theory also posits that individuals have imperfect cognitive abilities or bounded
rationality (Jones, 1999). According to Shannon et al. (2019), this rationality limits the
individual’s cognitive processes and ability to decisively engage in decision-making. Ultimately,
the individual may only be able to focus on one decision-making dimension in a stable manner,
resulting in disequilibrium and limited capacity to perform more complex trade-offs. These
decisions are often seen during a military officer’s formative years in determining whether to
continue military service in an unknown assignment, an unguaranteed developmental position, or
other factors where control and risk-taking influence behavior. Cha et al. (2016), developed a
concept of rational choice theory as seen in Figure 9.

59
Figure 9
Rational Choice Theory Behavioral Process
Note. From “Understanding how overweight and obese emerging adults make lifestyle choices,”
by E. S. Cha, J. M. Crowe, B. J. Braxter, and B. M. Jennings, 2016, Journal of Pediatric
Nursing, 31(6), p. e325–e332 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2016.07.001). Copyright 2016 by
Elsevier Inc.
Summary
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model as a theoretical framework and the use of
rational choice theory as a conceptual framework ground and frame the study to comprehend
better the decisions made by junior military officers in leaving active federal service. Although
Bronfenbrenner initially developed his model for childhood development, the implications of
development do not stop; individuals continuously move between settings that will force
adaptation and development. The lived experiences of the individual inform their preferences

60
and, ultimately, how their behavior forms. These theories and frameworks assist in developing
the instrument to conduct the quantitative analysis on said decision-making and what influences
are the most important for junior military officers.
Conclusion
Chapter Two explores the existing research and empirical data to bridge how and why
junior military officers leave active-duty federal service after their initial military service
obligation. Through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model, underlined with
rational choice theory to frame the use of Bronfenbrenner, the literature demonstrates the
multiple institutional, social, and personal factors that exacerbate the problem of practice. While
current examinations of this phenomenon do focus on the outcome, the research rarely focuses
on the individual’s decision; instead, the literature focuses on the effect on the organization.
The next chapter, Chapter Three, includes the description of the methodology and the
data collection plan for the study to frame the problem of practice from the individual decision’s
choice to leave active-duty military service. Also, in Chapter Three, the methodology opens the
chapter, followed by the sampling and rationale for sampling, the data collection instrument, the
analysis, and a summary of the research.

61
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three is a research roadmap that guides the analysis of the problem of practice
for this study. As outlined in Chapter One, the attrition of junior military officers from the
military service at their military service obligation or active-duty service obligation continues to
experience empirical shortfalls in research and inquiry. While the Department of Defense is
researched across broad swathes of pay grades, and with each uniformed service examining the
problem of practice in their own manner, little exists as a consistent system whole to address the
underlying factors of junior military officer attrition. The locus of this research explored why
junior military officers choose to leave active military service; however, the research and the
focus are on the individual and the individual’s choice rather than the military service the junior
officer exited from.
The theoretical and conceptual frameworks explored in Chapter Two alluded to how the
research will unfold, using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory underlined with a
conceptual framework around rational choice theory. These theories are essential to
understanding how the research instrumentation was developed. In this case, the study used the
two most inner systems of Bronfenbrenner’s model (a) the individual, from which all other
systems radiate, and (b) the microsystem, which houses the most immediate influences of the
individual (1977). The bi-directional relationship between the individual and the microsystem is
underlying those two layers in Bronfenbrenner’s system. Rational choice theory uses three areas
of influence on the individual: (a) family and societal norms, (b) resource allocation, and (c)
personal value/competences (Cha et al., 2016). These principles guided the questions as they
focus on the needs of the individual from the individual’s perspective of the organization in
which they work, in this research study being the military.

62
Chapter Three reinforces how the exercise of information in Chapters One and Two
generates a developed direction in the methodological approach to answer the research questions
and how the theories guide the instrumentation. This chapter also discusses the research design,
the research setting, data sources, data collection, and data analysis. Further considered are the
researcher’s positionality and ethical approaches to better align the research goals while
reflecting on the presupposition of my position. Lastly, Chapter Three will address the reliability
and validity of the study, as well as the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this overall study were developed with the problem of
practice and both theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The research questions are:
1. What is the primary resource external to a junior military officer that affects their
choice to leave active-duty service?
2. How do family and community factors most influence the individual junior military
officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
3. What factors around personal value and worth most influence the individual junior
military officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
Research Design
This research study used a quantitative descriptive survey for data collection by
respondents within the eligible target population. For this research design, the survey was
disseminated using an anonymous link online through benevolent organizations primarily
composed of military veterans whose population fits within the target population. The target
population is discussed further in later sections of this chapter. The survey allowed participants
to answer questions and rate their agreement with specific criteria as to why they left active-duty

63
military service. Given that, the survey contained mostly closed-ended, ordinal questions. At the
end of each survey section were some open-ended questions used to capture any factors the
survey may not have covered in the closed-ended questions or used to reinforce certain factors
listed the participants wanted to emphasize. The purpose of a quantitative descriptive survey is to
reach the largest number of participants possible who can provide the richest data set within a set
period. Participants were not chosen based on gender, age, race, ethnicity, or other
demographical factors related to their person. The participants were chosen based on their
affiliation and time served within a military service, the number of years they served, and the pay
grade at which they exited the military.
Further, limiting the participants to having completed and left active-duty service within
the last 10 years allowed for a sample size where organizational factors and generational
differences may not be as acute when analyzing the results (Lakens, 2022). Because of the large
size of the target population, the voluntary nature of the survey, and the exploratory focus of the
research study, the sample population requires a minimum confidence level of 80% with a
margin of error of 5%. These statistical measurements drove the research design as the best
approach, providing ample data to answer the research questions. Table 5 describes the data
collection methods used for this study.

64
Table 5
Data Sources
Research questions Method
RQ1: What is the primary resource external to a junior
military officer that affects their choice to leave active-duty
service?
Survey
RQ2: How do family and community factors most influence
the individual junior military officer’s choice to leave
active-duty service?
Survey
RQ3: What factors around personal value and worth most
influence the individual junior military officer’s choice to
leave active-duty service?
Survey
Research Setting
The setting of this research case was not physically located in a single location or
geography; rather, the setting was geographically dispersed across the United States and
potentially across multiple countries. The target population roughly consisted of 131,000 junior
military officers across the military services (Military One Source, 2021), which used the data
listed in Chapter Two and calculated the number of junior military officers exiting the services
components each year to achieve the target population size over the course of 10 years. The
target sample population for this survey was those who left active-duty military service as a
junior military officer. This sample population is appropriate due to the research questions and
the ability of this population to describe why their service did not continue on active-duty, a
direct response to the research questions. The data from the survey will assist leaders and other
stakeholders in understanding the causal factors in why junior military officers leave active-duty
military service at their military service obligation or active-duty service obligation.

65
Researcher Positionality
I am currently an active-duty junior officer in the United States Army who has direct
engagement with some members of the target population. Further, I have completed my activeduty service obligation and was a prior enlisted United States Army Soldier, completing my
military service obligation earlier in my career. Given the large portion of the population the
study intends to reach, as well as the geographic disparity between the participants, the reduction
of confirmation bias as well as improper influence based on my position and membership within
the target population by virtue of my pay grade, I will be using benevolent organizations
composed primarily of former members of the military who are not affiliated directly with
myself or with whom I have associations. Additionally, I do not have direct oversight or
influence in the organizations or the personnel on their decisions to leave active-duty military
service. There is no compensation or incentives for participants to complete this study.
Positionality, as Villaverede defines it, is where one’s “intersection of power and the
politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors”
converge (2008, p. 10). As a researcher, I must also acknowledge the privileges I am afforded
within the realms of academic inquiry. Kwan (2010) researched that White men have the ability
to navigate workplaces, academia, financial organizations, and a plethora of environments with
dignity and respect relative to all other societal groups. Within the context of the study, why
people chose to leave the profession, specifically those people at their military service obligation,
my positionality must be reflected as a researcher relative to the respondents. In my career field
exists a structure in which current leadership will always select future leaders based on potential
success. From an epistemological view, knowledge of problems and causal factors can be found
in being part of the system perpetuating it, something I, as a researcher, must acknowledge.

66
Data Sources
The primary data source for this study was a quantitative survey. The target population
remained consistent as the Department of Defense is required to fulfill manpower requirements,
as previously stated in Chapter Two (Department of Defense, 2019). The survey was distributed
virtually through an online, anonymous link available to anyone with the organization who has
access to it, as the geographic disparity necessitated using electronic means to gather the
information.
Method: Quantitative Exploratory Survey Questions
The quantitative descriptive survey sought to identify and validate the causes of junior
military officers leaving active-duty service. Conducting a quantitative descriptive survey
approach permitted the study participants to select the answer that most correlates to the cause of
their leaving active-duty federal service (Robinson & Firth, 2019). Closed-ended questions
allowed the researcher to examine and analyze the data collected from the participants to
understand statistically the causal factors around the research questions. Using the quantitative
descriptive perspective additionally allowed the researcher to facilitate and understand the
behavioral perspectives aligned to rational choice theory, almost similar to how qualitative
perspective surveys are conducted using open-ended questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
This study used purposive and snowball sampling to access the target population, with
each participant having an equal opportunity to respond (Simkus, 2023). The recruitment of the
individuals in the target population occurred through electronic communication through
individuals associated with benevolent organizations or other members of the target population.
With the relative scale of the military across all service components and the time span of 10

67
years, approximately 131,000 potential participants exist. The participants have already left
active-duty service, preventing sampling of junior military officers who are not currently
separated. This reduced the influence of the survey on junior military officers who may or may
not have chosen to leave but could attribute certain factors within the survey as a cause to leave.
Additionally, given that the participants have already left active-duty service, the greater the
potential to yield meaningful and rich data sets as the participants’ motivation and incentives
who participated in the survey can influence future junior military officers or senior leaders on
the changes needed (Kulmala, 2017).
Inclusion criteria were simplified to gain potential participants’ attention and streamlined
into four simple categories. The criteria was (a) the participants were over 18 years old, (b) were
not currently on active-duty status, (c) served on active-duty status from 2012–2023, and (d)
exited the military as an active-duty, commissioned officer in a paygrade of O1–O3 with a caveat
that the transition to National Guard or Reserves, for the purposes of this study, constitutes the
end of active-duty service, regardless if you transitioned to active Guard/Reserve status. This
overly broad inclusion criterion to met the sample size goal assisted the researcher in capturing
as much data as possible within the time frame. No restriction on age, gender, sexual orientation,
or other personal characteristics was included in the inclusion criteria.
Instrumentation
The survey resulted from the main drivers from the literature research surrounding the
problem of practice and framed within both Bronfenbrenner as a theoretical framework and
rational choice theory as a conceptual framework. The survey was not adopted from an existing
instrument or adapted from previous research within the contexts of both frameworks. Gabow
(2023) granted permission to model certain portions of the survey from her research. Falk and

68
Rogers (2011), while not explicitly adapted from their survey, was determined to be the last
research instrument publicly available, which was service component agnostic and covered the
specific target population. Both of those surveys provided a basis for the survey within this
research study, given their proximity to the subject of study; however, did not require explicit
adaptation for this survey.
The instrument developed for this research study used rational choice theory from Cha et
al. (2016) to segment how the influence of societal/family norms, resource allocation, and
personal values all influenced the decision of the junior military officer to leave active-duty
service. Additionally, within each of the influences of rational choice theory were organized
influences around the individual and the microsystem of Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) framework. A
pilot study was conducted in early 2023 as part of the dissertation coursework. The pilot study
was developed in conjunction with the needs of this dissertation and feedback provided based on
the research questions and theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
A Likert scale was used for the section of the conceptual framework, with each of the
questions associated with the theoretical framework nested within the section. The beginning of
the survey ensured the participants met the qualifications to take the survey, and if they did not
meet the inclusion criteria as self-reported, the survey ended. The data collected at the beginning
of the survey was not demographical data; it was primer questions for the participants. The data
sets collected will be used as part of data analysis. The final portion of the survey was the
demographical data. The location of the demographic questions is purposeful in avoiding the
stereotype threat from potential survey participants who may answer based on what the
participants believe the researchers assume about their identity (Steele & Aronson, 1995). This

69
data is used as part of the data analysis in Chapter Four. Appendix A contains the survey
instrument.
Data Collection
The target population received an e-mail or an invitation to take the online survey from a
link via social media through benevolent organizations’ webpages. USC Qualtrics hosted the
survey, and all responses were recorded electronically and aggregated online. Contained with the
survey was a request for informed consent to take the survey, the purpose of the survey, and the
general survey instructions. The data collected was anonymized to not easily identify the survey
participants and ensure the validity of the data collection. The time to complete the survey was
roughly 9-20 minutes on average via a desktop computer or a personal mobile device. According
to (Sinclair et al., 2012), electronic survey response rates are much higher than email or paper
responses. The data collection window was open for approximately 42 days and remained open
until the 80% confidence interval was achieved with a 5% margin of error. For the relative size
of the target population, this sample size is almost equivalent to 164 survey responses from
individual participants. Distributing the survey via benevolent organizations and through this
social media reached the target population more efficiently and helped to achieve the richest data
sets collected for the size of the target population. Throughout the distribution, 161 responses
were collected. Of those responses (N = 161), 12 of the respondents started the survey and selfidentified as not meeting the inclusion criteria at the beginning of the survey, ending data collection
automatically for those potential participants, reinforcing the validity and reliability of the survey.
Their conscientious exclusion from the dataset significantly bolsters the reliability and aligns the
data collection with the research’s overarching objectives pertaining to the target population. In
total, 95 surveys were completed with all the required survey items complete, 84 were partially
complete, and the remaining 12 were eliminated.

70
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using the Qualtrics software available on the Qualtrics
platform and Microsoft Excel. The statistical analysis of the collected survey data was completed
using the Likert-scale answers from the participants as well as the demographical data,
commissioning data, and service component data, which provided insight based on gender, age,
service component, and commissioning source. The data exploration was layered with an
understanding of how the conceptual framework of rational choice theory influences the bidirectional relationship of the individual and the microsystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems model. General data analysis focused on how participants responded to descriptive
questions, yielding descriptive statistics. The data analysis focused on understanding how
important the causal factors are for junior military officers and validating said causes.
Reliability and Validity
Internal consistency reliability is a measure of the extent to which items within a test or
scale are interrelated or consistent in measuring the same construct or attribute (Tang et al.,
2014). This form of reliability also assesses whether different items on the same test or scale are
measuring the same underlying concept or dimension; in this research study, it covers multiple
areas around decision-making of junior military officers to leave active-duty service.
Additionally in quantitative research, the test-retest method is a reliability assessment technique
used to determine the stability and consistency of a measuring instrument or test over time
(Basham et al., 2009). The test-retest portion of this study is addressed further in this section.
For quantitative studies, reliability and validity are most often described using the terms
internal and external (Roberts & Priest, 2006). Validity is often a measurement of how the
instrument accomplishes its stated purpose, with reliability measuring how the researcher

71
collects, analyzes, and can replicate the test and data (Salkind, 2012). While not using preexisting instruments for this research study, the survey instrument was generated from the best
practices around quantitative descriptive surveys and the interpretation of the data from earlier
instruments. The pilot testing as a part of the dissertation coursework also played a role in the
internal reliability of the survey instrument by validating the types of questions and the format of
the survey in relation to the literature. The instrument for this study consisted of 43 questions to
examine the three areas of rational choice theory, as well as some basic demographic and
commissioning source data (Appendix A). Six questions focused on the rational choice theory
realm of personal and family factors around careers. 10 considered resource allocation within the
realm of rational choice theory. Six speculated on the personal values section of rational choice
theory. Each section asked the participants to select a four-point Likert scale based on each
subtopic where the section resides. At the end of each section was an open-ended question asking
the participants if any factors related to the section were not covered in the predetermined survey
questions.
Various statistical methods are employed to assess internal consistency reliability
(Osburn, 2000). One such approach involves scrutinizing inter-item correlations, wherein
researchers analyze the relationships between individual items within the scale. The significance
of internal consistency reliability lies in its capacity to indicate the extent to which items within a
scale effectively capture a common construct with reliability (Osburn, 2000). Researchers
commonly assess internal consistency reliability during the development and validation of a new
research measurement instrument to ensure that it produces reliable and consistent results
(Beyeara et al., 2020). In this study, the use of rational choice theory, coupled with the
incorporation of analogous survey items across the survey’s three sections, contributed to

72
bolstering the internal consistency reliability. Furthermore, the evaluation of additional internal
consistency reliability, such as juxtaposing against the findings of the Falk and Rogers (2011)
study, served to gauge the reliability of the research instrument. This paralleled the earlierdiscussed concept of test-retest reliability.
Quantitative research often describes internal reliability as the stability or consistency of
the results or test scores (McCrae et al., 2011). For the purposes of this study, the strength of the
internal reliability results from similar studies conducted over a decade ago regarding the same
topic. The Falk and Rogers (2011) study presents an opportunity to provide an internal reliability
sample by comparing the two results over time and potentially reaching similar conclusions.
External reliability is also strengthened with researchers being able to reproduce the study and
obtain results similar to the results obtained in this study, even across different workspaces. After
the survey, multiple methods were used to ensure reliability, such as validity percentage
responses and simple statistical correlations (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).
The results from the Falk and Rogers (2011) study helped to evaluate this study as a
reliability assessment technique used to determine the stability and consistency of a measuring
instrument or test over time: test-retest (Basham et al., 2009). While the test-retest concept
typically entails administering the identical assessment to the same cohort of participants on two
separate occasions with a time-gap between administrations, this study used more stringent target
population criteria with analogous areas of inquiry. The basic assumption for the test-retest in
this study is that if the measuring instrument is reliable, the participants responses on the current
research instrument remain relatively consistent across different administrations (Matheson,
2019). The outcomes derived from the two administrations revealed a positive correlation

73
indicative of the current research instrument’s reliability and consistency for the purposes of this
study, which are exhibited in Chapters Four and Five.
Researcher Ethics
The research study maintained neutrality and protected the human subjects’ identities
during the research. Creswell and Creswell (2018) identified the protection of research subjects
and the neutrality of the researcher as paramount to ensuring ethical standards and conduct are
met. The anonymity of the survey and the consent of the participants ensured that the research
study protected the individuals taking the survey. Further, there was no obligation to take the
survey; participation was entirely voluntary for the participants. Because Qualtrics was used, the
data was set to be automatically anonymized, and no prompts were given for subjects to identify
themselves by name. Informed consent was prompted at the beginning of the survey, with
participants agreeing to have their answers recorded and stored for research purposes. The
benevolent organizations who helped distribute the survey did not receive compensation in any
form or compensate their members for their participation in the survey, limiting the
membership’s power dynamics to organizational leadership. The data collection protocols and
analysis adhered to the Institutional Revie Board process for the University of Southern
California and all other applicable bodies.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are potential threats to the internal validity of a study, according to Köhler et
al (2022), which the study cannot control. Limitations for this study included sampling, data
collection, and statistical regression of the mean. The researcher has access to individuals who
meet the criterion for the target population through a professional network comprised of activeduty and former active-duty U.S. military officers. The sampling relied on the individuals to self-

74
identify as former active-duty officers, and the convenience sampling instead of purposeful
sampling posed a threat to internal validity by potential distortions to the data. Data collection
threats included the length of the instrument in how the data was collected, and the limitation of
only recently separated junior officers limited the depth of data from junior officers who may
have separated at an earlier time. Another limitation was the statistical regression of the mean in
selecting those who chose to depart, which may have only reached participants with a negative
view of their military service.
External validity was also strengthened through the generalizability of the survey
(Cuncic, 2022). Cuncic describes this as being able to conduct the research across different
settings and times to achieve similar results. In addition to replicability, factors increasing the
external validity of the survey are the inclusion and exclusion criteria. By using explicit
participation requirements for data collection, the research was able to control better the
extraneous variables that can alter or influence the data collection and analysis. By doing so, the
control of extraneous variables avoided threats to external validity by selection bias (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The membership of potential participants in specific organizations may result in
biased answers given the collective nature of the organization or if participants were to influence
others unwillingly.
Further, selection bias may also be a threat based on the platform through which the
participants access the survey (Choi et al., 2017). Strengths of internal validity included the
randomization of the sample (Zwarenstein et al., 2021). Although there are inclusion and
exclusion criteria, the relative size of the population aided in the strengthening of internal
validity. A threat to the internal validity for the purposes of this study would be historical events
across time that influenced the causes of the junior military officers leaving active-duty service.

75
Over the 10 years from 2013 to 2023, the United States left two war zones, drastically reduced
the number of personnel, and had a period of sequestration (Peters, 2021).
The delimitations of a study are defined as the direct choices a researcher elects, which
remain in the researcher’s control (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). Delimiting the sampling to
junior officers who recently separated from the military created a feasibility delimitation by not
including those potential participants who are actively separating from the U.S. military but have
not fully exited the service. Compounding that, delimiting to only non-active-duty participants,
the study was able to expeditiously capture the data needed to answer the research question by
removing the need for additional authorizations for data collection of active-duty service
members. The study also chose to explore the experiences of junior military officers and not
enlisted personnel at the end of their contractual period, delimiting the study to a specific
population who share similar experiences relative to their population size within the U.S.
military.
The success of the limitations and delimitations for this study was the strength of the
delimitation of the target population to personnel who have already exited active-duty service.
This helped to limit the time for approvals in data collection and expedited the sampling process.
The pre-screening criteria on the survey instrumentation also limited the participants to former
junior military officers and not enlisted personnel. This helped to ensure the validity of the data
collected. Sampling was also a success as more participants were available directly through
organizations or other forms of convenience sampling, leading to snowball sampling. The time
the survey instrumentation was active also benefited the sampling limitations due to the ability of
potential candidates to share the anonymous link with other potential participants in the target
population.

76
Summary
Chapter Three focuses on the methodology for understanding and exploring the research
questions and collecting the data most expeditiously and richly possible within a set time. The
data collected in this chapter will be used to analyze and form the results in the subsequent
chapters. The data collected will also be used for analysis based on the conceptual framework
and theoretical frameworks for understanding the ecosystems of the participants. The results in
Chapter Four will provide the foundations for the recommendations in Chapter Five.

77
Chapter Four: Results
The primary objective of this research study was to provide insight into the multifaceted
causes influencing the decisions of junior U.S. military officers to discontinue their active federal
service. This chapter is the comprehensive examination and interpretation of the data from the
quantitative exploratory survey instrument. It encompasses a discussion of data collection
procedures, analysis techniques, participant demographics, and the presentation of research outcomes
closely aligned with the overarching research questions.
The data collection process predominantly relied on an online survey instrument, described in
Appendix A and further expounded upon in Chapter Three. The survey content was structured
strategically around the theoretical framework of rational choice theory, partitioned into three
principal categories. These encompassed an evaluation of the military’s resource allocation
regarding junior military officers, an exploration of the personal values underpinning junior
military officers, and a thorough investigation of the family and personal factors shaping those
decisions. The survey instrument was composed of Likert scale questions, complemented by
three open-ended inquiries designed to delve deeper into the areas probed by the Likert scale
sections. Additionally, participants provided demographic information. The data collection was
securely performed in accordance with the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board approval via the Qualtrics platform. To avoid misrepresenting the data, it is
crucial to acknowledge that some participants still need to complete the survey. The data analysis
documented these partial responses, and no mean substitution was employed to address
incomplete surveys. Subsequently, only complete data sets were used for factor analysis and
comparative analysis concerning the outcome variables.
The data manipulation and statistical analyses were performed employing the JMP 17.0
software, an analytical tool provided by USC. Furthermore, the research availed itself of

78
qualitative data obtained from three open-ended questions in the survey, employing AtlasTI
software for qualitative analysis. A priori coding techniques and established conceptual and
theoretical frameworks were employed to guide the coding process. Open coding was selectively
applied to identify emergent variables within the responses, thereby ensuring a comprehensive
analysis. A summation of the analysis and direct quotations were applied to the overall results of
this research study.
Participants
The sample population for the research study was former junior military officers who left
active-duty service within the last 10 years; this roughly equates to roughly 113,000 individuals
across the United States. From this target population, 161 respondents attempted the survey. Of
those, 95 completed the entire survey, one completed 75% of the survey, two completed 30% of
the survey, 27 completed 20%, and 18 did not complete the entire survey. No identifiable
information was requested from the participants; demographic data was asked at the end of the
survey. 95 respondents of the 96 who completed the survey chose to provide sociodemographic
data.
Characteristics and Demographics
Tables 6 and 7 provide an overall summation of the basic characteristics of the
participants in the research study, including the incomplete surveys. The data for the
characteristics of the participants is delineated into two tables, Table 6 being the characteristics
of their military service and Table 7 being the sociodemographic characteristics, which were
asked at the end of the survey. Items labeled as missing are shown in the overall percentage and
removed for the valid percentage of those who did respond to the entirety of the survey.

79
The respondent breakdown by service component accurately reflects the ratio of service
component responses to actual comparisons of current active duty service members, providing
increased validity to the study. 27.9% of participants were Army, 22.1% served in the Navy,
15.6% in the Marine Corps, 30.3% in the Navy, and 3.3% in the Space Force. Of note was one
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) response, comprising just 0.8% of the valid responses. This is also an
outlier because only during wartime is the USCG a component of the Department of Defense
(DoD); however, for this study the USCG is included because they form one of the uniformed
services of the United States. Commissioning sources also reflected accurately compared to the
current ratio of commissioning sources to active-duty officers. Service academies (West Point,
Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy) accounted for 11.5% of
respondents, with Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) comprising 49.2%, Officer
Candidate/Technical School (OCS/OTS) making up 26.2%, and Other (direct commissioning
specialties) being the lowest at 5.7%.
The results from the characterization of how the participants left service indicated the
target population, with 89.1% voluntarily separating before retirement, 6.7% being involuntarily
retired, and 4.2% retiring at eligible retirement. Active duty service obligation (ADSO) is a
means to ensure some officers serve a fixed term of service, with 58.5% incurring and 41.2% not
having an ADSO. Importantly, the last data point captured in Table 6 is the time elapsed since
the participants left active-duty service. 59% left within the last 2 years, 31.1% within 3–6 years,
and 9.8 between 7–10 years. Some fields are missing because of incomplete surveys or the data
not being provided by the participants.
The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are listed in Tables 6 and 7. In
this data of the participants, there are ethnic, gender, and age breakdowns for those participants

80
who responded to the optional data sets requested in the survey. The preponderance of
respondents self-identified as White/Caucasian (84.2%), with participants self-reporting multiple
ethnicities at 6.3%. Historically marginalized populations were a much smaller percentage at
5.3% for Asian/Pacific Islanders, 3.2% for Hispanic, and 1.1% for Black or African American.
One participant stated they identified as a different race while on active-duty vice once they left
active-duty service.
78.9% of respondents identified as male and 21.1% as female. One respondent stated that
their gender identity changed after leaving active-duty military service. This is noteworthy that
66 of the respondents declined to provide this information, accounting for 41% of the total from
the 161 participants. The participants were asked their age upon leaving active-duty service, and
the majority of respondents (52.1%) fell within the 27–30 year old group, while seconnd were
the 31–34 years olds at 26.2%. Further, 23–26 year olds were 14.9%, and 35 and older were
6.4% of that population. The 33–36 and 27–54 age ranges remained relatively constant at 27.7%
and 9.6%, respectively. The 25–28 year old age range was 25.3%, and 29–32 years old was
37.2%.

81
Table 6
Participant Self-Reported Military Service Characteristics (N = 95)
Military service characteristics n Total % Valid %
Service component
Army 34 21.1 27.9
Navy 27 16.8 22.1
Marine Corps 19 11.8 15.6
Air Force 37 23.0 30.3
Space Force 4 2.5 3.3
Coast Guard 1 0.5 0.8
Missing 39 24.2
Commissioning source
Service academy 14 8.7 11.5
ROTC 60 37.3 49.2
OCS/OTC 32 19.9 26.2
Other 7 4.3 5.7
Missing 48 29.8
Characterization of service exit
Retirement 5 3.1 4.2
Voluntary separation before retirement 106 65.8 89.1
Involuntary retirement 8 5.0 6.7
Missing 49 30.4
Active-duty service obligation
Yes 70 43.5 58.8
No 49 30.4 41.2
Missing 42 26.1
Time elapsed since exited active-duty
0–2 years 72 44.7 59
3–6 years 38 23.6 31.1
7–10 years 12 7.5 9.8
Missing 39 24.3
Note. Some of the data were not mandatory to complete the survey.

82
Table 7
Participant Self-Reported Sociodemographic Characteristics (N = 95)
Sociodemographic characteristics n Total % Valid %
Ethnicity while on active-duty
American Indian – – –
Asian/Pacific Islander 5 3.1 5.3
Black or African American 1 0.6 1.1
Hispanic 3 1.9 3.2
White/Caucasian 80 49.7 84.2
Multiple ethnicities 6 3.7 6.3
Missing 66 41.0
Ethnic self-identification change after
active-duty
1 1
Gender identity while on active-duty
Male 75 46.6 78.9
Female 20 12.4 21.1
Missing 66 41.0
Gender identity change after active-duty 1 1
Age when left active-duty service
23–26 years old 14 8.7 14.9
27–30 years old 49 30.4 52.1
31–34 years old 25 15.5 26.6
35–and older 6 3.7 6.4
Missing 67 41.6
Current Age
25–28 years old 24 14.9 25.3
29–32 years old 35 21.7 37.2
33–36 years old 26 16.1 27.7
37–and older 9 5.6 9.6
Missing 67 41.6
Note. Some of the data were not mandatory to complete the survey.
Noteworthy in Table 8 is the prevalence of white respondents who participated in the
survey. This was evident across the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. Participants who

83
responded to having multiple ethnicities comprised more responses in some service components
than minority groups of a single ethnicity, specifically in the Air Force. Regarding gendered
responses, participants who selected Air Force had a nearly equal ratio of women to men (15:19
respectively), while all other service components mainly were male-dominated responses.
Table 8
Self-Reported Sociodemographic Data by Military Service Component (N = 95)
Characteristics Army Navy Air
Force
Marine
Corps
Space
Force
Coast
Guard
Ethnicity on active-duty
American Indian – – – – – –
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 1 1 1 – –
Black or African
American
1 – – – 1 –
Hispanic 3 2 1 – – –
White/Caucasian 22 14 30 12 1 1
Multiple ethnicities 2 1 2 1 – –
Gender identity on
active-duty
Male 24 17 19 13 2 –
Female 2 1 15 1 – 1
Note. N = 95 represents participants who volunteered this data with the ‘–’ as data not reported or
obtained.
The demographic data featured in the survey result was contingent upon self-reporting by
the participants. It is imperative to acknowledge that such a methodology introduces potential
concerns regarding the reliability of the data. Nevertheless, a meticulous analysis of the dataset
provides substantial indications that the data’s reliability and validity were adequately addressed.

84
This confidence in the data’s credibility primarily stems from the robustness of the inclusion
criteria and the self-screening mechanisms integrated into the survey instrument.
Moreover, it is noteworthy that the distribution of responses across the various service
components demonstrates a parallel with the proportional representation of active-duty service
components within the Department of Defense (DoD). This alignment enhances the validity of
the data, ensuring that it accurately reflects the service component ratios within the active-duty
military landscape. However, it is vital to acknowledge potential sources of bias, particularly in
the context of sociodemographic data distributions. The overrepresentation of participants
identifying as White/Caucasian and the preponderance of male respondents in the dataset may
introduce selection bias into the survey responses.
Research Question 1: External Factors
The primary focus of this research question centered on examining external factors
influencing the departure of junior military officers from active-duty federal service.
Fundamentally, this research question was anchored within the two innermost layers of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) social ecological systems model, conjoined with the conceptual
framework of rational choice theory. This research question directed the investigation towards
comprehending how individual junior military officers make decisions predicated on the impact
exerted by the military within the innermost sphere of Bronfenbrenner’s model, specifically
focusing on the allocation of resources tailored to junior military officers. More precisely, the
research probed into the role played by organizational resources in domains such as professional
development, leadership development, educational advancement, compensation, career
progression, and related areas in influencing the decision of junior military officers to remain
within or leave active-duty service. Furthermore, an optional open-ended query allowed

85
participants to provide insights into additional resource allocation facets not covered in the
preceding question. Table 9 provides an overview of the responses to this research question,
categorized by gender, reflecting the proportion of responses relating to individual factors. Table
10 provides the data by service component.

Table 9
Results From Research Question 1 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95)
Influencing factor Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Male Female % Total Male Female % Total Male Female % Total Male Female % Total
Compensation 21.05 1.05 21.88 10.53 6.32 16.67 36.84 8.42 45.38 10.53 5.26 15.63
Autonomy in my
career plans
42.11 12.63 54.17 21.05 6.32 27.08 10.53 – 11.46 5.26 2.11 7.29
Officer
evaluations
24.74 3.16 18.75 22.11 2.11 23.96 34.74 9.47 43.75 7.37 6.32 13.54
Promotion system 20.00 2.11 21.88 18.95 3.16 22.92 31.58 6.32 37.50 8.42 9.47 17.71
Peers 11.58 1.05 13.54 22.11 6.32 28.13 30.53 5.26 35.42 14.74 8.42 22.92
Senior and direct
leadership
32.63 9.47 41.67 20.00 2.11 22.92 20.00 6.32 26.04 6.32 3.16 9.38
Leadership
priorities
27.37 7.37 34.38 31.58 6.32 38.54 16.84 5.26 21.88 3.16 2.11 5.21
Mentorship 16.84 2.11 19.79 17.89 4.21 21.88 35.79 8.42 43.75 8.42 6.32 14.58
Lack of incentive
programs
25.26 2.11 27.08 18.95 5.26 25.00 26.32 7.37 33.33 8.42 6.32 14.58
Duty station of
choice
25.26 4.21 29.17 20.0 3.16 23.96 22.11 8.42 30.21 11.58 5.26 16.67
Note. Male, n = 75; female, n = 20.
8
6

87
Table 10
Results From Research Question 1 as a Percentage by Service Component (N = 95)
Service component Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Compensation
Army 25.93 14.81 44.44 14.81
Navy 11.11 16.67 55.56 16.67
Air Force 20.59 20.59 41.18 17.65
Marine Corps 35.71 7.14 50.00 7.14
Autonomy in career plans
Army 55.56 37.04 7.41 –
Navy 50.00 22.22 11.11 16.67
Air Force 47.06 26.47 14.71 11.76
Marine Corps 71.43 21.43 7.14 –
Officer evaluations
Army 18.52 33.33 37.04 11.11
Navy 11.11 33.33 38.89 16.67
Air Force 17.65 17.65 47.06 17.65
Marine Corps 21.43 14.29 57.14 7.14
Promotion system
Army 22.22 40.74 29.63 7.41
Navy 22.22 5.56 55.56 16.67
Air Force 17.65 26.47 29.41 26.47
Marine Corps 21.43 7.14 57.14 14.29
Peers
Army 18.52 29.63 33.33 18.52
Navy 16.67 33.33 38.89 11.11
Air Force 8.82 23.53 35.29 32.35
Marine Corps 7.14 35.71 35.71 21.43
Senior and direct leadership
Army 48.15 25.93 22.22 3.70
Navy 44.44 33.33 16.67 5.56
Air Force 35.29 14.71 32.35 17.65
Marine Corps 35.71 28.57 35.71 –
Leadership priorities
Army 33.33 44.44 18.52 3.70
Navy 44.44 38.89 11.11 5.56
Air Force 26.47 41.18 23.53 8.82
Marine Corps 35.71 28.57 35.71 –
Mentorship
Army 25.93 18.52 44.44 11.11
Navy 16.67 33.33 27.78 22.22

88
Service component Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Air Force 20.59 14.71 50.00 14.71
Marine Corps 7.14 28.57 57.14 7.14
Lack of incentive programs
Army 29.63 22.22 40.74 7.41
Navy 16.67 27.78 22.22 33.33
Air Force 23.53 32.35 32.35 11.76
Marine Corps 50.00 7.14 35.71 7.14
Duty station of choice
Army 29.63 33.33 29.63 7.41
Navy 16.67 22.22 22.22 38.89
Air Force 29.41 17.65 38.24 14.71
Marine Corps 28.57 28.57 28.57 14.29
Note. U.S. Coast Guard (n = 1) and U.S. Space Force (n = 2) were excluded due to the limited
responses from participants self-identifying said affiliation; Army, n = 27; Navy, n = 18; Air
Force, n = 34; Marine Corps, n = 14.
Institutional Systems
Bounding the institutional systems to strict definitions for this research study facilitated a
more focused exploration of how external forces inherent in these influences posed challenges to
junior military officers when making decisions based on their individual choices. The systems
that serve as the institutional guidelines for junior military officers’ careers and growth pertinent
to this research study are the promotion and evaluation systems, compensation structures,
incentive programs, career development paradigms, and geographical constraints. The findings
are categorized into three distinct datasets; each centered around relational concepts, for
example, promotion and evaluation systems. This organizational alignment of datasets aids in a
deeper examination of the organization’s resources’ impact on the choices made by the
participants.

89
During the research study, participants conveyed a strong inclination toward
individualism as the driving force behind their personal career decisions. Further influencing
factors, on the other hand, appeared to have less pronounced effects on the decision-making of
junior military officers. The primary dataset for investigating institutional frameworks was
compiled from survey items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9, and 2.10. Overall, there was a notable
gender bias in the influence of these factors on the decision to exit active-duty service.
Conversely, a more substantial correlation was observed among participants who responded with
agree and disagree, as opposed to those who opted for strongly agree/disagree. For those
respondents who chose to answer the open-ended questions at the end of each section in the
survey, valuable insights and data were unveiled, shedding light on the root causes of their
decisions.
Evaluation and Promotion Systems
Evaluation and promotion are displayed jointly in this section due to the inherent nature
of their relationship and the importance of the synchronicity of both evaluation and promotion
potential impact on junior military officers’ future career timelines. Responses to the Promotion
and Evaluation systems were nuanced across gender lines, with both males and females
expressing varying levels of agreement and disagreement regarding the role of compensation in
their decision to exit active-duty service, as expressed in Tables C1 and C3. For survey item 2.3,
males (n = 75) exhibited a split between agreement (36.85%) and disagreement (42.11%), with
females (n = 20), in contrast, tended to express a higher degree of disagreement (15.79%) against
agreement (5.27%). Notably, male participants identified evaluations as a more substantial
influencer, with a majority indicating agreement and strong agreement (n = 35). However, this
cumulative agreement did not surpass the combined disagreement responses (n = 40).

90
Further segmenting the data by service components, each of the six service components,
irrespective of gender, predominantly chose both disagree at a rate of 45% (n = 42) and strongly
disagree 13% (n = 14) over the total response (n = 95). An exception was observed in the
response of a solitary participant from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) (n = 1), who strongly
attested to the pivotal role of evaluations in their decision. When cross-referencing the data, a
distinctive pattern emerged with male responses from the U.S. Army (USA; n = 27) and Navy
(USN; n = 18), displaying an equitable distribution of agreement at 50% for the USA, 45% for
the USN, and disagreement at 42% for the USA, and 50% for the USN. Conversely, males in the
U.S. Air Force (USAF; n =34) and Marine Corps (USMC; n = 14) leaned towards disagreement
at 32.35% for the USAF and 57.14% for the USMC concerning the role of evaluations, a
sentiment mirrored by USAF females (73% disagreement) who constituted the largest gendered
responses among the service components.
The promotion system, surveyed in item 2.4 and expressed in Table C5, explored in the
literature in Chapter Two, emerges as a salient influence on how junior military officers commit
to personal and professional growth within an organizational framework. Predominantly, male
respondents across all service components were evenly split between agreement at 51% (agree (n
= 18) or strongly agree (n = 19)) and disagreement at 49% (disagree (n = 30) and strongly
disagree (n = 8)) regarding the role of the promotion system in their decision-making process.
Female respondents, on the other hand, predominantly voiced dissent (75%), with a notable
prevalence of strong disagreement (n = 9) over disagreement responses (n = 6). When assessed
by service components, 72% of USN and 71% of USMC participants, irrespective of gender,
disagreed regarding the influence of the promotion system on their decision to leave active-duty.
44% of USAF and 62% of USA participants responded strongly towards agreement, yet for

91
USAF, 56% disagreed with the survey item. A notable deviation was evident among respondents
from the USA, with a majority indicating agreement (41%) and strong agreement (22%), in
contrast to the other service components.
In the open-ended questions in this section of the survey instrument, a USAF participant
conveyed they “deployed too much…and didn’t get a lot of time to pad my OPRs.” A more indepth analysis of the results revealed congruence between the evaluation and promotion systems
when parsed by the commissioning source, with an overall prevalence of disagreement. Other
demographic variables, such as ethnicity, yielded similar patterns of disagreement. These
findings suggest that there may not be macro-management issues related to service components
or demographics regarding these themes; rather, the influences on the decision to leave activeduty service may be predominantly individualistic.
Compensation and Incentive Programs
Compensation and incentive programs, within the context of this research study, pertain
explicitly to remuneration and benefits packages, encompassing specialized programs, for
example, aviation and submarine, as well as other distinct incentive programs within the
Department of Defense (DoD). Analysis of compensation as a factor influencing the decision to
leave active-duty federal service, in survey 2.1 and Table C5, revealed a consistent trend of
disagreement (63%), prevalent among both male (60%) and female (65%) respondents.
However, it is noteworthy that males (n = 75) exhibited a more pronounced disagreement (60%)
regarding the influence of compensation over agreement (40%). Female (n = 20) responses
regarding compensation displayed a similar pattern to their male counterparts, with 65% (n = 13)
disagreeing and 35% (n = 7) towards compensation not being a dominant influence. This trend
persisted when aggregating responses by service component. The USA (n = 27) was the only

92
service component wherein participants expressed strong agreement (41%) with compensation
playing a major role, although not exceeding those who disagreed (59%). Regarding ethnicity,
individuals self-identifying as Asian/Pacific Islanders generally concurred, with both agreement
and strong agreement responses (80%), regarding compensation as an influential factor.
However, it is important to note that the sample size for this self-identified population was
relatively small (n = 5). One USA participant emphasized the paramount role of pay and nontaxable compensation in influencing decisions, remarking that “base pay does not commensurate
with the work.” Further, a response from another USA participant stated “base pay does not
match the work load expected, especially for that of the few competent and high preforming
junior officers that often carry the rest of the unit.”
Conversely, participants’ responses to the influence of a lack of incentive programs
(survey item 2.9) on their decision to leave active-duty service produced the most disparate
responses within the dataset in Table C7. When gender was considered, male and female
participants diverged notably in their views regarding the lack of incentive programs as an
influencing factor. Males (n = 75), when aggregated, expressed a propensity towards agreement
(24%) and strong agreement (32%), slightly outstripping those who disagreed (44%). In contrast,
female (n = 20) participants collectively expressed disagreement (65%) regarding the role of
incentive programs in their decision-making process. This discrepancy was most prominent
within USAF (n = 34) responses, where female participants (n = 15) constituted the largest
segment among female respondents. Interestingly, male participants from the USAF (n = 19)
were in concurrence with their female counterparts, acknowledging that the lack of incentive
programs played a role in their decision to depart from active-duty federal service.

93
Male participants from the USA exhibited a nearly equal distribution between agreement
(52%) and disagreement (47%) on the lack of incentive programs. A similar pattern emerged in
the responses from USMC participants, where an overwhelming majority agreed (57%) that the
lack of incentive programs was indeed an influential factor. Notably, the USN was the sole
service component where male participants leaned toward disagreement (55%) concerning the
influence of incentive programs, a deviation from the trends observed in other service
components. Further disaggregating the data by ethnicity revealed no discernible patterns
indicating a positive or negative impact of ethnic or racial identity on participants’ perceptions of
the influence of the lack of incentive programs on their decision to leave active-duty service.
Personal Choice and Social Structures
For this research question, personal choice and social structures were defined within the
survey as encompassing autonomy in participants’ career plans, their interactions with peers, and
their preferred duty station. These categories were classified as personal choices due to their
intrinsic interconnections within the broader military organizational framework. For instance,
personal choice was exemplified in decisions pertaining to autonomy in career management and
duty station of choice. Conversely, peers and duty station choices were categorized as social
structures owing to their potential to influence one another. In survey item 2.2 and Table C9 on
autonomy, agreement prevailed in both options (agree and strongly agree) for both males (63%)
and females (90%) as an influential factor in their decisions to depart from active-duty service.
Within this overarching agreement on the significance of autonomy, 92% from the USA, 93%
from the USMC, and 73% from the USAF exhibited the most pronounced response towards
agreement concerning autonomy. In contrast, the USN (72%), while also displaying a substantial
number of responses in agreement regarding autonomy, featured a noteworthy share of

94
disagreement (28%), primarily driven by male dissenting respondents (n = 5). There was no
overall noticeable disagreement among any of the sociodemographic categories or service
components, with overall respondents (n = 95) selecting strongly agree and agree (82%) versus
strongly disagree and disagree (18%).
Several recurrent themes emerged among participants who chose to respond to the openended section of this portion of the survey. The notion of a “rigid career progression” was
frequently cited as a contributing factor. Participants also expressed misalignment sentiments
where they “could not develop professionally in their designator/specialty.” A USAF participant
emphasized “fewer leadership opportunities” within their career field at their location. Similarly,
USMC participants underscored a lack of “opportunities to lateral move into a specialty of my
choosing/enter pipelines for more selective communities due to career timing.”
Both autonomy as a facet of personal choice and the notion of duty station of choice
elicited a divergent spectrum of responses from the participants, presenting a mixed pattern
across all four available response options from survey item 2.10 and Table C11. Gender-based
analysis of duty station location indicated that female participants (n = 20), on the whole, tended
to disagree (65%) over agree (35%) in comparison to their male (n = 75) counterparts who
exhibited a proclivity towards agreement (58%) against disagree (42%). Most male participants
agreed, with many strongly agreeing (n = 24) that the duty station of choice significantly
influenced their decision-making process. Service component analysis, however, unveiled
distinctive trends. USMC (n = 14) responses, irrespective of gender, displayed a relatively even
distribution of responses: strong agreement (28%), agreement (28%), disagreement (28%), and
strong disagreement (14%). In contrast, USN (n = 18) responses exhibited a predominance of
strongly disagree (389%) responses, manifesting a declining trend across all four response

95
options, with strongly agree (17%) being the least frequently selected. Participants from the USA
(n = 27) generally leaned towards agreement (63%) over disagreement (37%) in acknowledging
the influence of the duty station of choice on their decision-making process. In contrast, USAF
(n = 34) responses generated a mixed pattern, with response options distributed relatively evenly
between agreement (47%) and disagreement (53%) regarding the influence of their duty station.
Due to the limited number of participants from minority groups (n = 12) and the substantial
representation of the largest ethnic group (n = 63), no significant outliers or patterns emerged
concerning personal choice, encompassing both autonomy and the selection of duty station, as
influential factors. The open-ended responses from the participants indicated that “having to
move” and “the cost of living not being reflective of the actual housing markets” were the
themes of the open-ended responses. One participant bemoaned that their follow-on duty-station
assignment “was a punishment for telling their branch manager they wanted to get out [of the
military].”
Peers are influential across industries and social structures, as revealed in the literature in
Chapter Two, survey item 2.4, and Table C13. An overarching observation within the research
data indicated that both male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) participants, on the whole, disagreed
(58%) with the notion that peers held significant sway over their decisions to depart from activeduty service, expressed in Table 16. While present, the distribution between agreement (42%)
and disagreement (58%) was not conspicuously substantial. Service component analysis revealed
a confluence with gender-based findings; when viewed collectively, each service component
espoused disagreement regarding peers’ influence on individual decisions. The USN (n = 18)
had an equal number of responses in agreement (50%) and disagreement (50%) on the influence
of peers. The USA (n = 27) exhibited a similar trend, with 48% agreeing that peers influence the

96
junior military and 52% disagreeing. The USMC and USAF disagreed on larger distributions,
with the USMC disagreeing at 57% and the USAF at 68%. Notwithstanding, an examination of
the data by ethnicity unearthed a few notable exceptions, including Black/African American
respondents (n = 1) who strongly concurred with the impact of peers, alongside participants
identifying as Asian/Pacific Islanders (n = 5) who exhibited agreement. One USAF participant
stated in the open-ended portion that they felt “a lack of competitiveness against their peers”
because of their constant deployments.
Leadership
The literature presented in Chapter Two underscored the pivotal and often paramount role
that leadership assumes in the context of junior military officers’ careers. Participants responded
to survey items about their agreement or disagreement levels regarding the influence of leaders,
senior leadership figures, leadership priorities, and mentorship. The data in this section was
systematically collated and analyzed from survey items 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 in the datasets. An
exception was the limited impact of mentorship as an influential factor, irrespective of gender or
service components. In the open-ended segment of this research study, participants elaborated on
specific instances wherein their leadership experiences diverged from what junior military
officers perceived as conducive to their personal career choices.
Leadership Priorities and Personalities
Both leadership priorities and personalities are intrinsically linked to the leader and how
the leadership interactions with their subordinates necessitating the reporting of these two survey
items together. Research participants, representing both genders and various service components,
demonstrated collective agreement on the pronounced influence of senior and direct leadership in
shaping their decisions to leave active-duty service. Notably, for senior leadership and direct

97
leadership responses from survey item 2.6 and seen in C15, female (n = 20) respondents
exhibited a higher rate of agreement (55%) compared to their male (n = 75) counterparts (53%),
with the majority of both genders opting for the strongly agree response; females at 45%, and
males at 41%. Intriguingly, the 2nd most frequently selected response was disagree, for both
male (25%) and female (30%) responses; however, the cumulative total of both agree (n = 21)
and strongly agree (n = 40) responses substantially outweighed those in the disagree (n = 25)
and strongly disagree (n = 9) categories.
Analyzing the service component responses, all participants across the various service
components displayed agreement on the subject, with a singular exception. Respondents
identifying as former USAF (n = 34) junior military officers were the only service component
who did not have agreement on the influence of senior and direct leaders. A detailed breakdown
of responses within the USAF revealed an even split between agreement (n = 17) and
disagreement (n = 17), and gender-specific analysis mirrored this 50-50 distribution, with both
males and females within the USAF expressing divergent views on this matter. Conversely,
USA, USN, and USMC participants overwhelmingly voiced agreement regarding the impact of
senior and direct leadership on their decision to depart from active-duty service. The USA
responses were 74% in agreement, the USN 77% in agreement, and the USMC 64% in
agreement. One respondent from the USA stated that they “lost faith in elected officials
commanding the US military” as a “strong influence on their decision to separate.”
Subsequently, survey item 2.7, examining the influence of leadership priorities emanating
from senior and direct leadership, asked participants how this affected their decision-making
process (see Table C17). Once again, both male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) respondents
collectively exhibited a resounding agreement at 72% in agreement (n = 69), surpassing the level

98
of response witnessed in the preceding survey item. This phenomenon is subjected to in-depth
exploration in Chapter Five. No service component overall disagreed with leadership priorities
influencing their decision, with only 27% of all respondents disagreeing (n = 26). Notably, the
USN, USA, and USAF were among the service components that demonstrated the most
substantial levels of agreement: USA at 77% (n = 21), USN at 83% (n = 15), and USMC at 64%
(n = 9). USMC responses (n = 14), while generally concurring, exhibited a relatively even
distribution of responses across three categories, with strongly agree at 36%, agree at 29%, and
disagree at 35%. No significant deviations were observed for USCG and USSF response from
the prevailing trend observed in the four largest service components. In the open-ended
responses, some participants answered that leadership was failing in how “manning/human
resource [management] or the lack of played a significant role” in their decision to leave by
constantly being asked “to do more with less.” These open-ended responses greatly enhanced the
understanding of the influences on the participants.
Leadership Advocacy
Participants in this research study overwhelmingly conveyed a prevailing sentiment from
survey item 2.9 that mentorship wielded minimal influence over their decision to leave activeduty service (see Table C19). Disagreement was observed among male (56%) and female (70%)
respondents, transcending gender distinctions for the influence of mentorship. A congruence of
trends emerged when the dataset was stratified by service component. USA (n = 27), USAF (n =
34), and USMC (n = 14) participants uniformly concurred that mentorship bore no significant
sway on their decisions, with 55% of USA, 64% of USAF, and 64% of USMC acknowledging
the theme. Notably, the USN (n = 18) constituted an exception, with the highest percentage of
respondents agreeing (51%) that mentorship did play a role in shaping their decision-making.

99
Nonetheless, it is imperative to underscore that, overall, the responses collectively
stressed the somewhat limited influence of mentorship on the decisions of junior military
officers. One USN response was that “leadership inside or outside of my command was not
helpful in helping me achieve the things I needed to advance my career.” A USAF participant
further stated that “my mentors were able to explain that there are options outside the military.”
Again, the open-ended responses from the participants assisted the study by reinforcing and
illuminating how important these topics are for the target population.
Summary of External Factors
This research question focused on examining the impact of external influences through
resource allocation to understand how junior military officers were deciding to leave active-duty
service. Participants in the research displayed a strong inclination towards individualism rather
than what the organization wants for them as the driving force behind their career decisions.
Promotion and evaluation systems had nuanced responses across genders and service
components, with variations in the importance attributed to them. Compensation and incentive
programs were also examined, with a consistent disagreement trend among male and female
respondents, indicating that compensation did not significantly influence their decision to leave
active-duty service. However, there were exceptions, such as USA responses, where participants
strongly agreed with the role of compensation. The impact of incentive programs showed
disparate responses, with gender and service component variations, highlighting the complexity
of these factors in understanding decision-making.
Personal choice and social structures, which encompassed autonomy in career plans,
interactions with peers, and preferred duty stations, were explored. Autonomy was generally
considered necessary by both genders. Duty station evoked mixed responses, with male

100
participants more inclined to agree than females. Peers were generally not seen as significant
influencers, with most participants disagreeing, though some exceptions were observed based on
ethnicity. Leadership emerged as a central determinant in the decision to leave active-duty
service, with strong agreement among participants. Participants highlighted the influence of
leaders, senior leadership figures, leadership priorities, and mentorship in their decision-making
processes. While mentorship played a minor role, leadership, primarily from senior and direct
leaders, substantially impacted participants’ career choices. The open-ended responses shed light
on specific instances where leadership experiences deviated from what junior military officers
considered conducive to their personal career decisions.
Research Question 2: Family and Non-work Influences
Similar to the preceding research question, the central tenet of this research question
revolves around family and community factors, specifically their predominant influence on the
decision-making processes of individual junior military officers departing from active-duty
service. This research question illuminated the extent to which these factors influence junior
military officers’ decision-making dynamics. Essentially, it ventures into the sphere of influence
manifested within the initial layer of Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological systems model,
examining the unidirectional effects of this layer upon the individual positioned at its core.
Concurrently, the conceptual framework of rational choice theory is employed to establish a
comprehensive categorization of these factors, differentiating them into the domains of family
and non-work-related influences.
In more explicit terms, this research question delved into the multifaceted roles played by
family and other non-work-related elements within various dimensions, encompassing family
planning, the pursuit of personal non-work-related goals, the impact of protracted periods of

101
separation from family, and related thematic elements that collectively shape the decisions of
junior military officers. Furthermore, an optional open-ended query was incorporated to allow
participants to furnish additional insights about resource allocation aspects that may not have
been included in the survey items. Table 11 provides an overview of the responses garnered
through this research question categorized by gender, with Table 12 by service component.

102
Table 11
Results From Research Question 2 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95)
Influencing factor Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Male Female % Total Male Female % Total Male Female % Total Male Female % Total
Family life 23.95 8.33 34.74 28.42 9.47 37.89 14.74 1.05 15.79 9.47 2.11 11.58
Time away from
family–friends
30.21 8.33 38.54 28.13 8.33 36.46 17.71 2.08 19.79 2.08 2.08 4.17
Starting a family 19.79 8.33 28.13 20.83 2.08 22.92 30.21 2.08 32.29 7.29 8.33 15.63
Find significant
other
21.88 2.08 23.96 11.46 2.08 13.54 27.08 3.13 30.21 17.71 13.54 31.25
Cultural norms 20.83 5.21 26.04 19.79 3.13 22.92 23.96 10.42 34.38 13.54 2.08 15.63
Pressure for a
military career
6.25 1.04 7.29 11.46 9.38 20.83 45.83 4.17 50.00 14.58 6.25 20.83
Personal goal
achievement
30.21 7.29 37.50 23.96 5.21 29.17 18.75 5.21 23.96 5.21 3.13 8.33
Note. Male, n = 75; female, n = 20.
10
2

103
Table 12
Results From Research Question 2 as a Percentage by Service Component (N = 95)
Service component Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Family life
Army 48.15 33.33 11.11 7.41
Navy 16.67 33.33 27.78 22.22
Air Force 31.43 48.57 11.43 8.57
Marine Corps 40.00 33.33 20.00 6.67
Time away from family/friends
Army 51.85 29.63 18.52 –
Navy 33.33 33.33 22.22 11.11
Air Force 37.14 42.86 14.29 5.71
Marine Corps 33.33 40.00 26.67 –
Starting a family
Army 44.44 29.63 25.93 –
Navy 22.22 22.22 33.33 22.22
Air Force 34.29 11.43 37.41 17.14
Marine Corps 6.67 40.00 33.33 20.00
Finding significant other
Army 37.04 18.52 25.93 18.52
Navy 33.33 11.11 44.44 11.11
Air Force 14.29 8.57 28.57 48.57
Marine Corps 26.67 6.67 33.33 33.33
Cultural norms
Army 37.04 22.22 25.93 14.81
Navy 22.22 27.78 33.33 16.67
Air Force 25.71 14.29 48.57 11.43
Marine Corps 20.00 33.33 26.67 20.00
Pressure for military career
Army 14.81 14.81 59.62 11.11
Navy – 27.78 44.44 27.78
Air Force 11.14 25.71 34.29 28.57
Marine Corps – 13.33 73.33 13.33
Personal goal achievement
Army 37.04 26.63 25.93 7.41
Navy 20.00 33.33 16.67 –
Air Force 28.57 25.71 28.57 17.41
Marine Corps 53.33 26.67 20.00 –

104
Note. U.S. Coast Guard (n = 1) and U.S. Space Force (n = 2) were excluded due to the limited
responses from participants self-identifying with those service components; Army, n = 27; Navy,
n = 18; Air Force, n = 34; Marine Corps, n = 14.
Family Factors
Examining family factors within the horizon of this research study served as a
methodological tool to enable a more focused and intricate exploration of how external forces
inherent in familial influences presented significant challenges to junior military officers when
navigating their decision-making processes. Central to this investigation was examining the
support systems available to junior military officers before and during their military careers. This
focus on support systems was deemed pertinent due to their influential role in shaping the innerdirected decisions of individuals. The framework of this inquiry predominantly revolved around
the intricate interplay of family life, extended periods of separation from family and friends, and
the amalgam of familial pressures intertwined with career and family planning. The findings
extracted from the data of research question two were meticulously categorized into two distinct
datasets, each revolving around interconnected concepts. This congruent alignment of datasets
enabled a more comprehensive and detailed examination of the pivotal role played by familyrelated influences in shaping the decisions undertaken by the participants.
Throughout the research study, participants distinctly expressed a profound proclivity
towards family-related factors, primarily the desire and capacity to initiate or manage family
planning as the principal driving forces informing their career-related decisions. Moreover, the
influence of these family-related factors exhibited noteworthy disparities, particularly when
viewed through the lens of service components. The primary dataset underpinning the

105
investigation of family factors was systematically compiled from responses to survey items 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. Notably, the data revealed conspicuous gender biases for select survey items
and pronounced trends in responses when disaggregated by service component. Additionally, a
substantial number of responses were garnered through an open-ended inquiry, thoughtfully
coded and thematically aligned to enrich the depth and context of the findings.
Family Life
Responses to survey items 1.1 and 1.2 were primarily centered on how family life,
encompassing both traditional and non-traditional family configurations such as friendships and
the duration of time spent away from family and friends, influenced the decision-making
processes of former junior military officers. A comprehensive analysis of these responses
revealed an agreement among male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) participants, indicating their
concurrence and strong concurrence regarding the impact of family life on their career-related
decisions. Specifically for survey item 1.1 (see Table C25), male respondents exhibited a 69%
agreement rate, while female participants demonstrated an even higher agreement rate of 85%; it
became evident that female participants attributed a greater degree of influence to family life as a
decisive factor in their decision to depart from active-duty service in comparison to their male
counterparts. When the data was stratified based on the service component, discernible variations
emerged. The USN (n = 18) was the sole service component to exhibit a balanced division of
opinion, with 50% strongly agreeing or agreeing and the remaining 50% strongly disagreeing or
disagreeing. In contrast, the USA (n = 27), USAF (n =34), and USMC (n = 14) displayed a
strong consensus, with agreement or strong agreement rates exceeding 73%. Particularly
significant was the USA, where 82% of respondents exhibited agreement, indicating the highest
agreement percentage among service components.

106
In the analysis of open-ended responses, distinct themes emerged concerning how family
life influences the decision to leave active-duty service. A respondent from the USSF highlighted
the significance of proximity to family, citing the “distance from family and the ability to live
close to family” as a driving factor in their decision to depart from active-duty service.
Additional viewpoints emphasized the military’s perceived shortcomings in supporting spousal
employment for both civilian spouses and dual-military families. For instance, a male respondent
from the United States Air Force (USAF) articulated that his spouse had “a high-paying job
locally” and he was “very employable.” A female respondent from the USAF conveyed that
“active-duty married to active-duty military did not support a good family life.” Another USAF
female declared the numerous dual-military challenges from “balancing deployments, career
prospects, and kids.” In summation, the prevailing sentiment among open-ended respondents
underscored their prioritization of family and family life over their careers in the active-duty
military.
Furthermore, the research participants, regardless of gender, indicated from survey item
1.2 (see Table C27) that time spent away from family and friends was pivotal in their decision to
exit active-duty federal service. This sentiment was particularly pronounced among males (n =
75), with 75% in agreement and strong agreement, and females (n = 20), with 80% in agreement.
It is worth noting that the divergence in perspectives among males who disagreed with the
significance of time spent away from family and friends as an influential factor was relatively
modest: a mere 3% strongly disagreed, while 27% registered their disagreement. On the contrary,
female respondents exhibited a more balanced distribution of responses of those who disagreed,
with 50% in disagreement and 50% in strong disagreement.

107
The data was examined by service components; it showcased a unanimous agreement
regarding the impact of time spent away from family and friends on junior military officers’
decisions to depart from active-duty service, with all service components in concurrence, except
for the USSF (n = 2), where responses were equally divided between agreement and
disagreement. The USA displayed the highest agreement rate at 81% in total agreement,
followed by the USAF, where total agreement reached 80%, and the USMC at 77%. The USN
reported the lowest agreement rate, at 66%, with the USN male population (n = 6)
predominantly influencing the responses in the disagreement and strong disagreement categories.
Family Planning
Two survey items aimed to gauge the perceptions of former junior military officers
regarding the significance of family-related factors in their decisions to exit active-duty service.
These subsequent survey items focused on family planning aspects, starting families, and finding
significant others. A gender-based analysis of survey item 1.3 (see Table C21) revealed that
female respondents were evenly split in their perspectives, with 50% of females (n = 10) both
agreeing and disagreeing on the significance of starting a family as a contributing factor to their
departure from active-duty service; notable was the responses for strongly disagree and strongly
agree being the same at 40%. Male responses exhibited a comparable equipoise, with 52% of
males (n = 39) agreeing that the prospect of starting a family played a role in their decisions and
48% (n = 36) disagreeing. The data by service components unveiled divisions in terms of the
concurrence regarding the influence of family planning. The USA (n = 27) was the sole service
component, where a majority (74%) agreed, surpassing those who disagreed (26%). This
agreement was further characterized by 44% of the respondents strongly agreeing.

108
Conversely, the USAF (n = 34) exhibited a differential response pattern, with the highest
disagreement rate at 37%, while strong agreement constituted the 2nd most prevalent response at
34%. Furthermore, the USAF, USN, and USMC all indicated disagreement at a rate of 55%
across these three service components, respectively. An intriguing observation emerged from the
responses of USN (n = 18) participants, who offered nearly equivalent proportions of agreement
and disagreement, with disagreement edging out by 2 responses. A female USA participant
stated in the open response that maternity was a driving factor, specifying she “went on
maternity leave after having [her] first child” where her “husband was deployed before and after”
and 2 days after she returned her leadership degraded her for her lapse in medical readiness postpregnancy, stating “this was the singular incident that pushed me out.”
In response to survey item 1.4 (see Table C23) inquiring into the significance of finding a
significant other, female respondents (n = 20) exhibited a pronounced predilection toward strong
disagreement (65%) or disagreement (15%). At the same time, male respondents (n = 75) also
expressed dissent, albeit at a lower rate, with 23% strongly disagreeing and 35% disagreeing.
Strikingly, male respondents who exhibited agreement (43%) demonstrated a skewed
distribution, predominantly leaning toward strong agreement (28%) as opposed to agreement
(15%). Substantial variations were discerned between service components concerning the
concurrence regarding the influence of finding a significant other. The USAF (n = 34) exhibited
the most pronounced dissent, with 49% strongly disagreeing and 29% disagreeing. Similarly, the
USMC (n = 14) registered parallel disagreement rates, with 33% strongly disagreeing and 33%
disagreeing. Contrarily, the USN (n = 18) showed the highest rate of strong disagreement at
11%, with 44% expressing disagreement. The USA (n = 27) stood as the sole service component
characterized by a majority in agreement regarding the influence of finding a significant other.

109
Among the USA respondents, 37% strongly agreed, and 19% agreed, potentially aligning with
the USA’s response to the duty station of choice survey item. An open-ended response from a
USN participant emphasized that it was “hard to date as a single male junior officer.” Another
male USN participant opined “it’s difficult being a single junior officer who has no kids and may
not be interested in starting a family.” This same respondent expounds upon his sentiment in
subsequent sections of this chapter as they are relevant and interconnected.
Cultural Norms
Survey item 1.5, which focused on cultural norms, aimed to examine the extent to which
individuals perceived cultural norm alignment with their identity and how these norms
influenced their decisions to leave active-duty service. In parallel with the responses to previous
survey items, pronounced gender disparities were discerned among participants. Male
respondents (n = 75) exhibited an overall agreement rate of 51%, while female respondents (n =
20) overwhelmingly expressed disagreement (60%), as indicated in Table C29. The male
participants presented a spectrum of responses encompassing all four options: strongly agree
(26%), agree (25%), disagree (31%), and strongly disagree (17%). Conversely, female responses
were more subdued, characterized by disagreement (50%), strong disagreement (10%),
agreement (15%), and strong agreement (25%).
The data by service components unveiled that USAF (n = 34) was the sole service
component characterized by a majority who disagreed (60%) with the notion that their cultural
norms played a role in their decision to leave active-duty service. In contrast, the USN (n = 18)
was evenly divided between agreement (50%) and disagreement (50%). The USA (n = 27) and
USMC (n = 14) both had a majority of respondents who stated that cultural norms had an
impact, with the USA registering a concurrence rate of 59% and the USMC at 53%. The contrast

110
between the USAF and other service components may be partially attributed to the distribution
of female participants within the USAF group (n = 15) relative to the overall female participant
population (n = 20).
The open-ended responses provided valuable insights and sentiments from participants
spanning all service components. A USAF respondent conveyed a sense of disillusionment,
expressing that they “grew fatigued of the constant barrage of DEI crap.” In comparison, a
participant from the USN highlighted the existence of a “culture of toxic community
environments.” A USMC response shed light on how the introduction of females in combat arms
had altered the culture, resulting in a “lack of enforcement standards and poor senior leaders.”
These sentiments were echoed by a USA respondent who expressed discomfort with their
“personality fit” and the challenges they encountered while navigating bureaucratic structures.
One USN response was similar in theme, “cultural norms in my community consist of being
workaholics. The can do spirit to meet the mission regardless of the cost played a significant
factor.” The male USN respondent who stated some people may not want to have a family also
explained, “having a family of your own accords you a level of respect regardless of rank in the
military, and those without their own family are not seen as respectable, serious adults.” This
strong instance of cultural norms affecting personal choice shows participants’ varied responses.
Personal Goal Achievement
The final aspect of the research question explored personal goal achievement from two
distinct vantage points: the perceived pressure to establish a career within the military and the
feasibility of realizing personal, non-work-related goals while serving on active-duty. In
response to survey item 1.6 (see Table C31) regarding pressure to pursue a military career, male
respondents (n = 75) overwhelmingly expressed disagreement, with 77% opposing the notion. In

111
contrast, female respondents (n = 20) were evenly divided, with 50% in agreement and 50% in
disagreement. Upon analysis of the data by service components, it became evident that each
service component, excluding the USCG, was characterized by participants who disagreed that
pressure to pursue a military career influenced their decision to leave active-duty service.
Notably, the USMC (n = 14) exhibited the highest level of disagreement at 87%, followed by the
USN (n = 18) at 72%, the USA (n = 27) at 70%, and the USAF (n = 34) at 63%. The solitary
participant from the USCG agreed with the notion of military career pressure. This uniform
disagreement across most participants underscores this factor’s salience in their decision-making
processes. An open-ended response from a United States Marine Corps (USMC) participant
further underscored this, saying their “unit had a different idea of what they thought would be
good for [their] career.”
Personal goal achievement elicited an opposing response from participants to survey item
1.7 (see Table C33), regardless of gender or service component. Male respondents (n = 75)
conveyed an overall agreement rate of 69%, signifying that they believed that non-work-related
personal goal achievement played a significant role in their decision to leave. Female
respondents (n = 20) demonstrated more robust dissent, with 60% expressing disagreement, with
a male disagreement rate of 31%. A breakdown of the data by service components revealed that
the USN garnered the strongest agreement, with 83% in agreement. Additionally, the USMC
reported an overall agreement rate of 80%, the USA at 64%, and the USAF at 54%. Notably, the
USAF registered the highest number of participants responding in disagreement, at 46%.
A deeper understanding of these responses, gleaned from the open-ended segment of the
survey, unveiled insights from participants across the four major service components. A
respondent from the USMC stated they “transitioned to the reserves” where they could “achieve

112
my professional goals on the civilian side.” A response from a USAF participant echoes this,
stating there was a “lack of professional and personal development.” One response from a USA
participant reinforced this, stating they left to “start a civilian career and secure considerably
higher pay.” Another USA respondent stated the “time commitment” was extreme, even when
trying “to find a job on the civilian side.”
Summary of Family and Non-work Influences
This research question focused on family factors, cultural norms, and personal goal
achievement as critical elements influencing the attrition of junior military officers. These
influences encompass a range of considerations pertinent to the decision-making process of
former junior military officers. Family dynamics, encompassing familial support systems and the
complexities of managing family life, emerged as significant considerations. Family was
revealed as a pivotal influencer in career decisions, particularly for females. Time spent away
from family and friends was also a salient factor influencing attrition, affecting both genders.
Family planning, including the desire to start a family and find a significant other, exhibited
gender disparities, with females prioritizing these factors more prominently in their decisions to
leave active-duty service. The impact of cultural norms on attrition was influenced by gender,
with males more likely to acknowledge this influence. Service components also exhibited
variations in their responses, with the USAF notably disagreeing on the significance of cultural
norms affecting their choice. Open-ended responses indicated concerns about diversity, equity,
and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as perceptions of toxic community environments and
changes in culture due to the presence of females in combat roles.
Finally, the research question explored personal goal achievement as a factor affecting
attrition. Pressure to pursue a military career was primarily disagreed upon by both genders and

113
across service components. However, personal non-work goal achievement was a strong
influencer, with the USN demonstrating the highest agreement. The open-ended responses
echoed a desire for greater personal and professional development outside of military service,
with concerns about time commitments and pursuing civilian careers as critical themes.
Research Question 3: Personal Value
Research Question 3 delves into the intrinsic values of former junior military officers and
their influence on the decision to leave active-duty military service. This question explores
factors similar to those examined in preceding survey items, such as the significance of
broadening programs, personal goal pursuit, and time off. In this survey item, participants were
asked to express their agreement or disagreement regarding the weight of personal values in
shaping their decision-making processes. These questions and the factors they encompass are
intricately linked to Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) model, focusing on the outer layer’s impact on the
individual and the subsequent effects on the immediate surrounding environment.
Specifically, this research question assesses the personal values assigned by individual former
junior military officers to factors such as time off, the ability to engage in broadening programs,
health care options, the flexibility to pursue personal goals while on active-duty, ethical
leadership, and cultural identity within the military context. Similar to previous research
questions, this inquiry allows participants to offer additional insights regarding aspects of
personal value that may not have been explicitly covered by the survey instrument, which they
can provide through an optional open-ended response. Table 13 presents a comprehensive
overview of the responses collected in response to this research question, categorized by gender,
while Table 14 provides a breakdown by service component.

114
Table 13
Results From Research Question 3 as a Percentage by Gender (N = 95)
Influencing
factor
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Male Female %Total Male Female % Total Male Female % Total Male Female %Total
Time off 22.11 1.05 23.16 17.89 5.26 23.15 35.79 8.42 44.21 3.16 6.32 9.48
Ability to use/
apply to
broadening
assignments
12.36 2.11 14.47 22.11 7.37 29.48 38.95 7.37 46.32 5.26 4.21 9.37
Healthcare
options
7.37 2.11 9.48 4.21 3.16 7.37 46.32 8.42 54.74 21.05 7.37 28.42
Flexibility to
pursue goals
on active–duty
20.00 3.16 23.16 34.74 11.58 46.32 16.48 3.16 19.64 7.37 3.16 10.53
Ethical
leadership
21.05 6.32 27.37 20.00 6.32 26.32 25.26 6.32 31.58 12.63 2.11 14.74
Cultural identity 12.63 3.16 15.79 16.84 3.16 20.00 31.58 9.47 41.05 17.89 5.26 23.15
Note. Male, n = 75; female, n = 20.
114

115
Table 14
Results From Research Question 3 as a Percentage by Service Component (N = 95)
Service component Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Time off
Army 29.63 14.81 51.85 3.70
Navy 44.44 16.67 33.33 5.56
Air Force 11.36 23.53 44.12 20.59
Marine Corps 14.29 42.86 42.86 –
Ability to use/apply to
broadening assignments
Army 22.22 29.63 44.44 3.70
Navy 22.22 33.33 27.78 16.67
Air Force 8.82 29.41 47.06 14.71
Marine Corps 14.29 21.43 64.29 –
Health care options
Army 7.41 18.52 55.56 18.52
Navy 16.67 – 50.00 33.33
Air Force 8.82 8.82 50.00 32.35
Marine Corps 7.14 – 71.43 21.43
Flexibility to pursue goals on
active-duty
Army 33.33 48.15 7.41 11.11
Navy 22.22 38.89 22.22 16.67
Air Force 17.65 52.94 17.65 11.76
Marine Corps 21.43 35.71 42.86 –
Ethical leadership
Army 37.04 29.63 29.63 3.70
Navy 22.22 22.22 33.33 22.22
Air Force 26.47 23.53 35.29 14.71
Marine Corps 21.43 28.57 28.57 21.43
Cultural identity
Army 14.81 25.93 40.74 18.52
Navy 16.67 22.22 33.33 27.78
Air Force 14.71 14.71 47.06 23.53
Marine Corps 14.29 21.43 42.86 21.43
Note. U.S. Coast Guard (n = 1) and U.S. Space Force (n = 2) were excluded due to the limited
responses from participants self-identifying with those service components; Army, n = 27; Navy,
n = 18; Air Force, n = 34; Marine Corps, n = 14.

116
Organizational Systems
Grounded in the literature presented in Chapter Two, this topic underscores the existence
of institutional systems within the broader military organization and at the service component
level, which provide specific advantages to military personnel. These advantages are distinct
from those found in other industries. The survey instrument was purposefully designed to
ascertain the perceptions of the target population regarding the impact of these organizational
systems and associated programs on their decision-making processes. Specifically, survey items
3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 were devised to probe the facets of research question three, focusing explicitly
on the influence of time off, the capacity to engage with broadening programs, and the
availability of healthcare options.
Respondents answering the prompts relating to the role of time off (survey item 3.1;
Table C35) in shaping their decision to depart from active-duty service, a notable imbalance
between male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) responses became apparent. Males exhibited a
spectrum of responses, with a substantial cohort strongly agreeing (28%) and agreeing (23%) on
the significance of time off in their decision-making. At the same time, female respondents
displayed a contrasting trend, with a majority disagreeing (40%) and a significant proportion
strongly disagreeing (30%). Upon disaggregating the data according to service components, a
discernible pattern emerged. The USN (n = 18) and the USMC (n = 14) displayed a general
inclination toward agreement, with the USN recording both agreement and strong agreement
rates at 61% and the USMC at 60%. In contrast, the USA (n = 27) and the USAF (n = 34)
presented a collective disagreement regarding the impact of time off on their decision to depart,
with the USAF registering an overall disagreement rate of 65% and the USA at 56%,
respectively.

117
The data, categorized by service component and gender, revealed notable response
disparities. Specifically, partial female respondents from the USMC and the USAF were the sole
female demographic segments to agree (25%) on the significance of time off influencing their
decisions. Conversely, female respondents from the USN, the USA, and the remaining USAF
predominantly expressed disagreement (35%) or strong disagreement (30%) regarding this
influence. In contrast, male respondents from the USN exhibited a considerable consensus in
their agreement on the influence of time off. There was a nearly even division among male
respondents from the USA, with 45% in agreement and 45% in disagreement. Male respondents
from the USMC presented a similar division, with 49% in agreement and 42% in disagreement
regarding the influence of time off. In both the cases of the USA and the USMC, the female
responses emerged as the pivotal factor in determining whether the service component as a
whole concurred or dissented concerning the impact of this organizational factor on junior
military officers. Notably, an open-ended response from a USAF participant stated that the “time
required to be at work to complete the work/mission played a role in my decision to leave activeduty service,” providing an interesting counterpoint to certain aspects of the collected data while
also supplementing the overall findings.
Broadening programs, administered by the respective service components and aligned
with professional development timelines, often serve as incentives to retain officers upon
achieving specific career milestones. In the context of this study, survey item 3.2 (see Table C37)
was specifically designed to probe how these programs influenced the decision-making
processes of junior military officers. An examination of the data concerning gender revealed a
prevailing sense of disagreement among both male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) respondents
regarding their ability to apply for and benefit from these broadening programs. Male

118
respondents exhibited a disagreement rate of 55%, whereas female respondents recorded a
slightly higher rate of 58%. Although there was a modest disparity in the extent of strong
agreement between genders, with males at 16% and females at 11%, it is noteworthy that both
genders predominantly opted for the disagreement option, reflecting a significant convergence of
opinion.
Service component data analysis revealed distinct patterns in response to the influence of
applying for and utilizing broadening programs. Specifically, the USA (n = 27) and the USN (n
= 18) displayed a predominant consensus, expressing agreement with rates of 52% and 55%,
respectively. In contrast, the USAF (n = 34) and the USMC (n = 14) exhibited an overall
tendency towards disagreement, with the USAF recording a rate of 62% and the USMC at 64%.
Notably, the disagree option emerged as the most prominent response among both genders and
service components, prevailing over the agree option, the 2nsd most selected option, thereby
highlighting the divergence of opinion regarding the impact of broadening programs. One of the
responses in the open-ended portion of the survey from a USA participant stated there was a
“lack of competitive opportunities for O-1 and O-2 in the Army as compared to other branches.”
This information helped the researcher to interpret the data better through comparative
responses.
Survey item 3.3 (see Table C39) examined the potential influence of healthcare options
on the decisions made by junior military officers to depart from active duty. It is important to
note that active-duty military personnel are automatically entitled to government and militaryadministered healthcare; hence, this question pivots on the perceived quality and utility of the
healthcare services they received during their active-duty service. The survey data revealed a
prevailing sentiment of disagreement among both genders, with males (n = 75) registering a

119
disagreement rate of 85%, while females (n = 20) exhibited a slightly lower rate of 74%.
Notably, this survey item garnered the highest proportion of strongly disagree responses, with
males at 26% and females at 32%. An analysis of service component data mirrored the genderbased responses, with all service components displaying a consensus in disagreeing that
healthcare options played a role in their decision to leave active-duty service. The most
substantial divergence between agreement and disagreement emerged within the USMC (n =
14), with 94% disagreeing and only 7% concurring. In contrast, the USAF (n = 34) and the USN
(n = 18) exhibited similar levels of agreement and disagreement, with the USAF recording an
82% disagreement rate and the USN at 83% disagreement. The USA (n = 24) had the largest
share of responses agreeing to the influence of healthcare, with 26% agreeing it played a factor
in their decision to leave active-duty federal service.
Open-ended responses were recorded from multiple different service component
participants. A USAF response to the open-ended portion of the survey stated, “the USAF would
not grant a flight waiver physical and the airline were hiring” as to why they left active-duty
service. Given that, a USA response in the open-ended portion of the query stated he received
“terrible medical care,” which he felt “reduced his personal right.” These statements provided
further insight into the understanding of the data through the lens of the survey constructs.
Goal Alignment
In survey item 3.4, participants were prompted to articulate their perceived ability to
accomplish their personal goals during their active-duty service, an inquiry akin to survey item
1.7, which centered on goal achievement outside the context of active-duty. Notably, the focus
here was on the concurrent pursuit of personal goals while actively serving in the military (see
Table C41). Notably, male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) respondents predominantly indicated

120
agreement regarding the influence of personal goal attainment during active-duty service on their
decision-making processes. Specifically, male respondents demonstrated an agreement rate of
70%, while female respondents exhibited a slightly lower agreement rate of 68%. Conversely,
female respondents displayed an equitable distribution between disagreement (16%) and strong
disagreement (16%), whereas male respondents were more inclined toward disagreement (20%)
as opposed to strong disagreement (10%).
Moreover, the responses from different service components mirrored the gender-based
trends, with the USA (n = 27) recording the highest agreement rate at 81%. The USAF (n = 34)
displayed comparable data, with an agreement rate of 70%. The USN (n = 18) exhibited an
overall agreement rate of 61%, whereas the USMC (n = 14) recorded the lowest agreement rate
at 57%. Notably, the largest proportion of responses from the USMC tended to lean towards
disagreement (43%). However, it is essential to highlight that the cumulative proportion of
strongly agree and agree responses collectively surpassed the proportion of disagreement
responses.
Ethical and Cultural Sentiments
An area of focus for the research was the effects of ethical leadership and cultural identity
and how those affected the junior military officer’s decision-making. These two items, expressed
in Chapter Two, play influential roles in shaping decision-making processes for individuals
regardless of industry. In examining the data from survey item 3.5 (see Table C43) by gender,
both male (n = 75) and female (n = 20) respondents agreed that ethical leadership played a role
in their decision to leave active-duty. Males agreed at 52%, with females agreeing at 58%, with
females agreeing at a rate 6% higher than males. Per service component, the data reflect similar
trends to gendered responses. The USA (n = 27) was the only service to agree (67%) that ethical

121
leadership played a role in influencing their decision to leave, while the USN (n = 18) was the
only service that disagreed (55%) on the influence. The USAF (n = 34) and the USMC (n = 14)
received 50% for both agree and disagree, with the respondents being split evenly. In examining
the data further, females in the USAF and the USMC differed in their responses, with females in
the USMC disagreeing on the influence of ethical leaders and females in the USAF agreeing.
Male USAF and USMC participants did not display the same gendered differences by service
component.
A significant emphasis was placed on investigating the impact of ethical leadership and
cultural identity on junior military officers and how these factors influenced their decisionmaking processes. These components, previously expounded upon in Chapter Two, hold
substantial sway in shaping the decision-making processes of individuals, transcending industryspecific boundaries. Upon a gender-disaggregated data analysis, both male respondents (n = 75)
and female respondents (n = 20) agreed with the role of ethical leadership in influencing their
choice to depart from active duty service. Male respondents agreed at a rate of 52%, while their
female counterparts exhibited a slightly higher agreement rate of 58%, marking a 6% disparity.
Examining the data segmented by service component largely echoed the gender-based trends.
The USA (n = 27) emerged as the sole service component to overwhelmingly agree (67%) that
ethical leadership played a pivotal role in shaping their decision to leave active-duty. In stark
contrast, the USN (n = 18) was the sole service component to express disagreement (55%)
regarding this influence. The USAF (n = 34) and the USMC (n = 14) experienced a virtual
equipoise in responses, with both services recording 50% agreement and 50% disagreement.
Furthermore, upon closer scrutiny, variations were discerned between female respondents in the
USAF and the USMC, with females in the USMC disagreeing regarding the impact of ethical

122
leadership. At the same time, their counterparts in the USAF agreed. In contrast, male USAF and
USMC participants did not exhibit the same gender-specific variations relative to their service
component.
One of the strongest responses in the open-ended portion of this survey was from a
female USAF participant who opined:
I felt as if personal values do not align with the US Air Force anymore. There
are double standards with regulations/standards, especially between officers
and enlisted that I did not agree with. I also did not enjoy the politics associated
with the officer corps. I always felt out of place and disingenuous.
This statement and sentiment reinforce the participant’s feelings as a former junior
military officer and assist in understanding the data more thoroughly.
As expounded upon in Chapter Two, cultural identity continues to undergo
transformation within the contemporary global workforce, and the military is not impervious to
those multifaceted dimensions of cultural issues. In this regard for survey item 3.6 (see Table
C45), in opposition to the literature, male participants (n = 75) predominantly expressed a
collective sense of disagreement (63%) regarding the influence of cultural identity as a
determinant in their decision-making processes. In parallel, female participants (n = 20)
concurrently exhibited a more pronounced disposition toward disagreement (74%), registering a
higher rate of dissent. A scrutiny of the data by service component consistently revealed a
prevailing consensus in terms of disagreement with the proposition that cultural identity played a
pivotal role in the decision-making of junior military officers leaving active-duty service.
Specifically, the USA (n = 27) stood out with the highest agreement rate, with 41% of
respondents concurring on the impact of cultural identity. Conversely, the USAF (n = 34)

123
recorded the lowest agreement rate at 29%, while the USN (n = 18) and the USMC (n = 14)
exhibited rates of 39% and 36% in agreement, respectively. It is pertinent to emphasize that the
analysis of both gender and service component data illuminated that while certain service
components manifested relatively higher levels of agreement, there was an absence of any
discernible trend suggesting that cultural identity wielded significant influence over the decisionmaking processes of junior military officers as they contemplated their departure from activeduty service.
Summary of Personal Value
Research question three in this study examined the impact of organizational systems, goal
alignment, and ethical and cultural sentiments on the decision-making processes of junior
military officers in leaving active-duty service. Within the context of organizational systems, the
survey instrument was designed to assess the influence of these systems on the respondents. In
particular, survey items 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 focused on time off, broadening programs, and health
care options, respectively. It was found that the perception of time off had varying effects, with
male respondents predominantly agreeing that it influenced their decision to leave. In contrast,
female respondents were more likely to disagree. The service component data revealed further
nuances, as the USN and USMC leaned towards agreement, while the USA and USAF showed
overall disagreement regarding the influence of time off. Similarly, broadening programs were
found to have limited influence on decision-making, with both male and female respondents
expressing disagreement. The data indicated that leadership control over the availability and
selection of these programs altered their impact. Both genders expressed overall disagreement
regarding healthcare options, with most respondents strongly disagreeing. The service

124
component data reflected these trends, with the USMC showing the largest gap between
agreement and disagreement.
The research question also explored the role of goal alignment, as achieving personal
goals while on active-duty was identified as a potential influence on the decision to leave. Both
male and female respondents agreed that achieving personal goals impacted their decision,
though gender differences were observed, with male respondents more likely to disagree. Service
component data showed that agreement was highest in the USA and USAF, while the USMC
exhibited the lowest level of agreement. Lastly, the study delved into the effects of ethical
leadership and cultural identity. It was found that ethical leadership played a role in decisionmaking for both male and female respondents, although female respondents tended to agree more
strongly. Service component data revealed variation, with the USA being the only service to
agree on the influence of ethical leadership, while the USN disagreed. On the other hand, cultural
identity was primarily perceived as not influencing the decision-making process, with gender and
service component data showing widespread disagreement. Open-ended responses provided
valuable insights, confirming the complex interplay of personal values, standards, and
experiences in shaping decision-making among junior military officers.
Conclusion
Participants across various subsets consistently conveyed strong agreements and
disagreements, as well as distinct perspectives in response to the research inquiries posed in the
study. The analysis of research question one revealed a unanimous consensus among participants
regarding the importance of autonomy and the influence of leadership priorities on their
individual career choices. Conversely, unanimous disagreement was expressed across all subsets
concerning the impact of compensation and evaluations, both recognized as institutional

125
variables, on their decisions to exit active-duty service. Divergence within subsets became
particularly evident in considerations related to duty station preferences, incentive programs, and
promotion systems. In addressing Research Question 2, analogous patterns emerged across
subsets concerning autonomy and time allocation away from family. However, notable
disparities manifested in responses pertaining to family planning, encompassing the initiation of
a family and the establishment of significant relationships. Intriguingly, unanimity prevailed
among participants in asserting that the pressure to pursue a military career did not factor into
their decision to depart from active-duty service
Research Question 3 served to underscore the salience of flexibility and the impact of
leadership on former junior military officers. Much like the diverse responses observed in the
incentive programs discussed in Research Question 2, the concept of broadening elicited a
spectrum of perspectives among participants. The outcomes derived from the research instrument
yielded invaluable insights from the designated target population and the participating
individuals. These insights, in turn, contribute to the formulation of recommendations and
identify avenues for future research that were not explicitly addressed in the present study.
Additionally, the findings illuminate previously undiscovered relationships between the target
population and the institutional framework. Chapter Five delves more comprehensively into
these thematic elements, providing explicit examples and conducting detailed analyses to further
enrich the understanding of this area of inquiry. The elucidation of these insights contributes to
the scholarly discourse and lays the groundwork for subsequent investigations into the nuanced
dynamics between the target population and the institutional context.

126
Chapter Five: Discussion
Attrition is an inherent part of organizational dynamics, and the military establishment is
no exception. Inevitably, each individual currently in service will, at some juncture, terminate
their military career, typically exercising agency over the timing, circumstances, and
characterization of their departure. Notably, junior military officers exhibit a discernible trend of
premature attrition, prompting this research study. This study sought to contribute valuable
insights by scrutinizing the decision-making calculus of junior military officers and focused on
understanding the officers’ personal motivations for leaving active-duty service. The resultant
findings hold potential significance for decision-makers and policymakers, offering a basis for
recommendations aimed at comprehending military populations more thoroughly and devising
effective measures to mitigate the attrition of junior military officers.
Situated within the theoretical framework of Uri Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological
systems model and underpinned by rational choice theory as the conceptual framework, the
survey used in this study was meticulously designed to address the research questions. The
survey’s structure aligns with the fundamental tenets influencing the two innermost layers of
Bronfenbrenner’s model: the individual and the microsystem. The survey items queried the
impacts and interactions of variables on the individual and the microsystem, reflecting the
study’s theoretical underpinnings. The survey had 162 participants, with 96 subjects considered
for analysis based on their completion of the survey instrument. This chapter’s ensuing
discussion and findings derive from an amalgamation of survey results, pertinent literature, and
information from various outlets linked to the research study.

127
Research Questions
The research questions which guided the study are readdressed as the findings are
presented in the subsequent paragraphs in order to provide a reminder on how the study was
framed. The research questions are as follows:
1. What is the primary resource external to a junior military officer that affects their
choice to leave active-duty service?
2. How do family and community factors most influence the individual junior military
officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
3. What factors around personal value and worth most influence the individual junior
military officer’s choice to leave active-duty service?
Findings
The comprehensive findings of this research study suggest that both male and female
participants in the United States Armed Forces hold that their decisions to depart from activeduty service are predominantly influenced by their experiences, particularly those influenced by
leadership, personal goal attainment, and familial considerations. While deviations in
experiences are discernible among gender, military branch, and commissioning source,
overarching trends persist across the target populations. The significant findings are
systematically categorized according to the specific research questions for this study.
Research Question 1
Examining the data reveals nuanced patterns among the different participant subsets,
shedding light on gender disparities, service component variations, and the impact of
commissioning sources. While some aspects, like evaluations and promotions, demonstrate
gender-based relationships, compensation appears to be a lesser determinant overall.

128
Furthermore, the influence of leadership, both senior and direct, emerges as a critical factor
affecting the decisions of junior military officers.
Evaluation and Promotion Systems
The evaluation system was overall not an influencing factor in the decision of junior
military officers to depart from active-duty. However, notable trends emerged when stratifying
the data by service components and commissioning sources. A gender-based analysis revealed a
robust parallel between evaluations and promotions, primarily among male participants, who
identified these factors as influential in their choice to leave active-duty service more
prominently than their female counterparts. As a cohort, female participants disagreed regarding
the role of the evaluation and promotion systems in shaping their decisions. Interestingly, those
officers who obtained their commissions through the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)
displayed a balanced perspective, suggesting a potential influence from the collegiate/universitybased commissioning route on their evaluation-related viewpoints (Dognaca, 2006;
Karakurumer, 2010). Moreover, participants affiliated with the U.S. Army (USA) exhibited a
disproportionate agreement, particularly in contrast to their counterparts from sister service
components, hinting at distinctive perceptions of senior and direct leadership. This is
underscored by their emphasis on the pivotal roles played by senior leaders and leadership in
informing decisions to depart from active-duty service, thereby implying a consequential
influence of these leaders on officer evaluations and subsequent promotions (Looney et al.,
2004). Evaluations, as standalone entities, do not exert a direct influence on the participants;
nonetheless, the potential compounded psychological ramifications of evaluations may not be
thoroughly investigated as motivational factors influencing the decisions of junior military
officers to persist in active-duty status.

129
The promotion system did not play an influencing factor in the participants’ decision to
leave active-duty service. The responses exhibited a gender-based dichotomy, with male
participants displaying an even division on the influence of the promotion system on their
decisions. In contrast, female participants expressed a markedly strong disagreement. Notably,
respondents commissioned through ROTC displayed agreement in acknowledging the influential
role of the promotion system. The USA emerged as the sole service component with strong
agreement on the influential role of the promotion system, potentially associating with their
parallel acknowledgment of the intense impact of senior and direct leadership on their departure
decisions. This resonates with the established organizational behavioral tenet that employees
frequently depart due to their immediate supervisors rather than the inherent nature of their roles
(Pitts et al., 2001). Furthermore, the positive association between the promotion system’s
influence and the USA participants may be linked to their predominant agreement on the
feasibility of utilizing and applying for broadening programs, another factor influencing their
decision to exit active-duty service. The strategic use of incentives for employee retention is
acknowledged as a functional tool; however, inadequacies in program implementation,
particularly in alignment with performance milestones, may yield adverse consequences (Lytle,
2023). The utilization of metrics by the service components, exemplified by the promotion
system, as an indicator of future potential and a facilitator for incentive and broadening
programs, poses challenges rooted in the inherent structural complexity of the system.
Compensation and Incentive Programs
Compensation emerged as a non-significant influencing factor in the participants’
decisions to leave active-duty military service. Notably, no subset of participants agreed that
compensation played a major role, implying that the remuneration for junior military officers is

130
deemed less pivotal than suggested by extant research (Acheampong, 2021). The observed lack
of emphasis on compensation may be attributed to generational dissimilarities, as evidenced by
the contrast in average ages between the current junior officer cohort (Generation Z) and the
senior leaders guiding these decisions (early Generation X and late baby boomers). Parry and
Urwin (2011) posited that potential generational disparities in the perception of work dynamics
and the corresponding rewards intrinsic to such endeavors may be what is seen in how the
participants view compensation. Moreover, participants’ expressions regarding the influence of
cultural differences on their decision to depart from active-duty service provide additional
insights into their work-related perspectives. This observation may underscore a nuanced shift in
the inherent importance of compensation among the current cohort of junior military officers,
predominantly comprising individuals from Generation Z and later millennials, suggesting a
departure from the prioritization of compensation observed in preceding generations (Schullery,
2013). Compensation is gradually diminishing in significance as a determinant of extrinsic
rewards, and its relevance is poised to further fade, contingent upon the persistence of other
pivotal factors influencing the decision of junior military officers to depart from the organization
without substantive alteration.
Incentive programs did play a role for a number of participants in specific subsets.
Participants identifying with the following subsets agreed on the importance of incentives in
their decision-making: males, ROTC, OCS/OTS, the USA, the USMC, and the USAF. Notably,
individuals with prior-service experience, especially those who commissioned from OCS/OTS,
exhibited agreement, potentially stemming from their prolonged exposure to active-duty service
and underlying motivations (Maxton, 2011). Conversely, female participants expressed
disagreement on the importance of incentive programs. Interestingly, participants from the USN

131
diverged from this trend; they did not agree that incentive programs influenced their decisions,
which appeared at odds with the USN participants’ responses to the ability to use and apply for
broadening programs, whereas USN participants agreed that the ability to use those programs
was an influencing factor. This incongruity between the USA, USAF, and USMC responses, in
contrast to the USN responses, may hinge on differing perspectives within each service
component regarding the nature and administration of incentive programs (Department of
Defense, 2016). This dichotomy in viewpoints extended to service academy graduates, a subset
potentially shaped by the distinctive military environment of their education, where military
faculty and staff may have discussed incentive programs during their education. This stands in
contrast to individuals commissioned via ROTC or OCS/OTS, whose experiences may not be as
deeply embedded in the military milieu (Farrell, 2022). The imperative for the service
component to oversee incentives underscores the requisite organizational adaptability grounded
in diverse professional development models; nevertheless, disparities in the execution of this
mandate perpetuate perceptions of inequity and unequal qualification rigor among recipients.
Personal Choice and Social Structures
Personal choice through autonomy in career planning emerged as a pivotal factor
influencing participants’ decisions to depart from active-duty military service, with unanimity
observed across various demographic subsets. Both male and female participants agreed on the
impact of restricted autonomy during active-duty service, a consensus prevalent across gender,
commissioning source, and service component categories. Remarkably, no subset displayed
disagreement, illustrating overwhelming agreement regarding the importance of individual
agency in career decisions. This aligns with findings articulated by Falk and Rogers (2011) and
resonates throughout responses to other research questions. Noteworthy agreement persisted with

132
other survey items, such as flexibility to pursue personal goals and personal goal achievement
outside the military, with participants overwhelmingly agreeing on the role of these factors in
their decisions to leave active-duty service. This thematic emphasis on personal choice aligns
with broader generational disparities and underscores the evolving nature of the military’s
candidate pool (Dimock, 2019). Pertinently, participant responses regarding the influence of
leadership priorities revealed a prevailing majority across all subsets acknowledging the impact
of leadership on their decisions to leave active-duty. This underscores the influential role of
leadership in fostering an environment where individual success is perceived as attainable when
leaders provide flexibility and organizations empower employees to steer their careers (Reising
& Fetterer, 2021). Furthermore, the influence of duty station choice on career autonomy was
discerned, particularly evident among participants from the USA and USMC, who agreed on the
influence of duty station preferences in their decisions to exit active-duty service. The imperative
to articulate and sustain agency to personal choices within the context of a military career
persists as a constant, and its unaltered state is anticipated to exert adverse repercussions on
junior military officers unless requisite modifications are instituted.
The influence of peers did not emerge as a significant factor in the decision-making
processes of junior military officers’ departure from active-duty military service. A noteworthy
exception to this trend was observed among participants who entered military service through
OCS/OTS, where a majority agreed on the impact of peers on their decision. This particular
subset’s agreement may be attributed to their diverse prior service experiences, supported by
existing literature indicating that individuals with prior experiences may be more inclined to
leave a job if they perceive their peers as inadequately qualified for comparable remuneration
(Card et al., 2012). It is pertinent to note that while most OCS/OTS attendees possess prior

133
service experience, not all participants within this subset share this background (Maxton, 2011).
Another notable observation pertains to the nearly even division of responses within both the
USA and the USN subsets regarding the influence of peers. The sway of peers may manifest
internally or externally, with influences stemming from peers outside the military potentially
motivating junior military officers to depart active-duty service. Alternatively, officers may
perceive their military peers as exerting either positive or negative influences on their decisionmaking calculus (Cooper et al., 2018). For USA participants, the role of peers in decisionmaking may be intertwined with their overall agreement that the duty station of choice or the
absence thereof influenced their decision—resonating with the predetermined nature of duty
assignments for junior military officers, reflecting limited personal choice (Department of
Defense, 2019). Peers may wield an intangible sway over the decision-making processes of
junior military officers regarding their personal career trajectories; nonetheless, the secondary
impact of peer influence ought not to be underestimated.
Duty station of choice was an influencing factor for a number of participants subsets.
Notably, discernible distinctions surfaced between male and female participants, as females
expressed disagreement on the importance of duty station preference, while their male
counterparts agreed on its influential role. Respondents who commissioned through ROTC and
service academies displayed modest agreement that duty station choice played a role in their
decision-making processes. In contrast, those who attended OCS/OTS demonstrated a nuanced
perspective, potentially shaped by prior service experiences that may have tempered their
expectations (Maxton, 2011). For ROTC participants, the decision-making calculus may be
intricately linked to their commissioning at a university, fostering ongoing social connections
with non-military peers and influencing their autonomy relative to their military counterparts

134
(Bell, 2022). Furthermore, USA and USMC participants agreed, asserting that duty station
preference played a role in their decision to exit active-duty service. Strikingly parallel responses
were noted across these same service components who agreed on duty station of choice with
items on the ability to start a family and autonomy in career choices. Conversely, the USAF and
the USN diverged in their perspectives on duty station influence. This discrepancy stands out
when juxtaposed with analogous responses from the USA and the USMC on the question of duty
station influence on family planning, potentially signifying a nuanced interplay wherein duty
station preferences positively impact family planning considerations for both the USN and the
USAF in distinctive ways (Burke & Miller, 2016). The geographic variances in military duty
stations across the service components, coupled with the consequential impact of community
dynamics on individuals, relegate the significance of one’s duty station preference to a secondary
manifestation of the influences delineated by the ecological systems model.
Leadership Priorities and Personalities
Senior leadership and direct leadership played a role in influencing the decisions of junior
military officers to leave active-duty service. This finding is across nearly all participant subsets,
with a strong majority exceeding 60% agreement in each subset that agreed. The sole exception
to this trend emerged when participants were identified through service components. USAF
respondents displayed equal responses between agreement and disagreement regarding the
impact of senior and direct leadership on their departure from active-duty service. Conversely,
both the USA and USN participants overwhelmingly agreed on the influential role of senior and
direct leadership, aligning with existing literature positing that the initial leadership experiences
encountered by junior military officers exert an important impact on their subsequent career
decisions (Athey, 2021; Doty & Fenlason, 2013; Spain, 2021; Williams, 2019). Furthermore,

135
subsets of ROTC and service academy graduates also demonstrated agreement regarding the
substantial impact of leadership. At the same time, those who commissioned through OCS/OTS
agreed, albeit with a more evenly distributed disposition, potentially owing to their distinctive
experiences as prior-service individuals (Maxton, 2011). The proclivity of individuals to quit
leaders rather than organizations is anticipated to persist, and the deleterious consequences of
suboptimal senior leadership choices coupled with a deficit in transparency and accountability
mechanisms are poised to exert adverse effects on the developmental trajectory of junior military
officers during their crucial formative years.
Leadership priorities were identified across all subsets of participants as a major factor in
their decision to leave active-duty service. While unanimity characterized the agreement within
the sampled subsets, a more granular analysis revealed that the largest aggregates agreeing on
this topic comprised male participants and those who commissioned through OCS/OTS. As seen
in the literature, organizations that provide clear priorities and guided purpose often succeed and
exceed in empowering people at all levels (Bughin et al., 2019). Notably, the USMC exhibited a
nuanced response to the survey item, with approximately one-third of its participants disagreeing
on the impact of leadership priorities on their decision to prolong their active-duty service. These
outcomes may be germane to the USMC’s distinctive responses on other survey items related to
leadership dynamics, such as evaluations and mentorship, suggesting potential interconnections
in their perspectives.
Leadership Advocacy
Mentorship was not an influencing factor for junior military officers’ decisions to leave
active-duty for the majority of the participants. However, a discernible trend emerged through
commissioning source and service components. Notably, participants who commissioned via

136
service academies and OCS/OTS exhibited marginal agreement that mentorship played an
important role in their decision to depart from active duty. This finding aligns with broader
organizational literature, suggesting that individuals entering new roles with prior experience and
preconceived expectations of their relationships with superiors may be particularly sensitive to
the absence of mentorship or supportive relationships with leaders (Godfrey & Benson, 2023).
For these subsets of OCS/OTS and service academy graduates, the deeply ingrained military
culture prior to assuming a role as a junior military officer may underpin their responses.
Conversely, the USAF presented the largest subset disagreeing on the influence of mentorship,
suggesting either robust mentorship within the USAF or a lack of mentorship, thereby not
exerting a meaningful impact. USN participants demonstrated an even split on the influence of
mentorship, indicative of a potential bifurcation in how mentorship, or its absence, factors into
their decisions to relinquish active-duty service, aligning with pertinent mentorship literature
(Eby et al., 2004). Junior military officers may be disinclined to perceive mentorship as
imperative when confronted with a dearth of autonomy or agency in their career progression
where the circumstance necessitates an adaptation of programs by service components or a
deliberate impartation upon junior military officers regarding the pivotal role that mentorship
may assume in shaping their prospective military careers.
Research Question 2
This research question and the findings comprehensively analyze the factors shaping their
decision to depart from active-duty military service through familial influences. Within this
study, family life surfaces as a pivotal determinant appreciably shaping the departure decisions
of these officers, exhibiting discernible variations among diverse participant subsets. Time away
from family, a crucial aspect of the work-life balance, is unanimously acknowledged as a

137
substantial influence on the decision to leave. Additionally, considerations pertaining to family
planning, cultural norms intrinsic to the military environment, and the impact of personal goal
achievement, both within and beyond the military context, emerge as salient factors contributing
to the nuanced landscape of officers’ decisions. The intricacies of these influences manifested
distinctions across various service components and commissioning sources, further enriching our
understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the decision-making processes of junior
military officers.
Family Life
Family life, as it relates to the junior military officer’s partner, spouse, children, other
relevant family, or chosen family overwhelmingly influenced the decision to leave active-duty
service. Across all participant subsets, excluding the USN participants, agreed on the pivotal role
of family life in shaping their decision-making calculus. The extant literature substantiates this
observation, emphasizing the robust influence of family considerations on the decisions of junior
military officers (Department of the Army, 2021; Falk & Rogers, 2011; Gabow, 2023). Notably,
the most substantial concurrence in viewpoints, as gauged by the relative weight of responses,
emanated from the USAF subset. Most USAF-affiliated participants underscored the paramount
importance of family life in their decision-making processes. Conversely, the USN subset
presented a unique response, featuring an even division between agreement and disagreement.
This divergence might be related to the USN’s distinct response regarding the influence of duty
station preferences on their departure from active-duty service. This incongruence suggests a
potential interplay between duty station dynamics, familial satisfaction, and overall decisionmaking processes within the USN context (Townes Myers, 2022). Junior military officers are
opting for family considerations over career pursuits, irrespective of the initiatives aimed at

138
bolstering such endeavors and interventions to mitigate associated stressors. In the absence of
additional support pertaining to family planning considerations, the attrition of junior officers
within the military is anticipated to persist.
Time away from family, friends, and those important to the junior military officer
affected their decision to leave active-duty service. Unanimous agreement pervaded all
participant subsets, including both genders, the USA, the USAF, ROTC, OCS/OTS, and service
academy graduates, with strong majorities attesting to the influence of time away on their
departure decisions. Research further substantiates this phenomenon, emphasizing the
importance of work-life balance and the imperative to cultivate a symbiotic equilibrium between
professional commitments and familial responsibilities (Waroruntu et al., 2022). Notably, no
subset dissented on this survey item, and the absence of significant findings pertaining to this
aspect underscores the unanimity of views across participant subsets. In consonance with the
shifting priorities inherent in generational work dynamics, the contemporary cohort of junior
military officers places a premium on time considerations and experiential facets, as opposed to
emphasizing compensation and corporate maneuvering. This predilection, in turn, prioritizes
individual and familial needs over organizational imperatives.
Family Planning
The ability to start a family played a factor in the junior military officers’ decision to
leave active-duty service, generated disparate responses across nearly all subsets of participants.
Notably, both male and female cohorts exhibited a division on the impact of starting a family,
highlighting a gender-related disparity that did not conform along gender lines. Additionally,
within distinct service components, the USN and the USMC demonstrated nearly equal division
on the role of family planning in their decisions, while the USAF exhibited a marginal division,

139
potentially linked to a higher representation of USAF female participants relative to other service
components. Contrarily, USA participants displayed pronounced agreement, standing out as the
service component most aligned on this issue. Further variance emerged when considering the
commissioning source, where ROTC and OCS/OTS subsets mirrored the gender-based division.
At the same time, service academy graduates constituted the sole commissioning source subset to
agree on the influence of family planning collectively. This discrepancy within commissioning
sources may be attributed to factors such as the relative age and prior family commitments of
OCS/OTS graduates, the exposure of ROTC graduates to civilian environments during their
university studies, and the unique military environment shaping the perspectives of service
academy graduates (Morgan, 2010). Despite the nuanced relationships, it is important to note
that limited research exists to substantiate the link between service academy experiences and
family planning decisions. Analogous to the previous section, the individual needs of junior
military officers continue to be unfulfilled, notwithstanding the considerable magnitude of the
Department of Defense and the organizational capacity of service components to adaptively
administer their personnel and human resource systems.
The ability to find a significant other also generated disparate responses from the
participants and across all subsets. While the prevailing sentiment leaned toward disagreement,
specific subsets exhibited noteworthy exceptions to this trend. Male and female participants,
along with the USN, USAF, and USMC, disagreed that the role of finding a significant other
influenced their decision to leave active-duty service. Conversely, the USA emerged as the sole
service component where participants collectively agreed on the significance of finding a
significant other, aligning with the USA’s responses to the impact of duty station of choice—an
observation that underscores the potential challenge faced by junior military officers stationed in

140
less desirable locations, particularly in the USA (Beck, 2012). A distinctive pattern emerged
among participants who graduated from service academies, where a majority acknowledged the
role of finding a significant other in their decision-making process. Analogous to the finding of
family planning, this exception within the service academy graduate subset might be attributed to
the unique military environment of their university setting, potentially placing them at a
disadvantage regarding broader social interactions (Smith & Rosenstein, 2017). However, it is
pertinent to note that research on the association between military academy experiences and
relationship-related decisions remains limited.
Cultural Norms
Cultural norms as a factor garnered an even division of responses, with half of the
participants agreeing and the other half disagreeing. Gender-based distinctions surfaced,
revealing that female participants disagreed in attributing their decisions to cultural norms while
their male counterparts agreed. This finding contradicts existing literature, which suggests that
females often perceive a lack of alignment with military culture (Koeszegi et al., 2014). Analysis
by service component unveiled a robust disagreement within the USAF subset regarding the
impact of cultural norms, potentially signaling a cohesive cultural identity within the service. In
contrast, the USA subset demonstrated agreement, hinting at a less favorable perception of the
prevailing cultural environment—a sentiment potentially linked to the influence of senior and
direct leadership on departure decisions within this component (Spain, 2021). The USN and the
USMC displayed near parity, suggesting nuanced cultural distinctions across units within their
respective components, influencing junior military officers either positively or adversely.
Notably, ROTC participants disagreed on the influence of cultural norms, while OCS/OTS
graduates exhibited an even split, and service academy graduates agreed. This divergence among

141
commissioning sources may imply substantial dissimilarities in military education and
commissioning systems, each maintaining a unique curriculum for instruction and indoctrination
(Thirtle, 2001). The intricate nature of cultural norms within an organization of the scale of the
Department of Defense, characterized by “centralized decentralization”, inherently engenders
divergent responses from participants. Nonetheless, a notable uniformity observed across all
service components pertains to the cultural norms surrounding senior leadership and recurrence
underscores the pervasive influence of a demand for robust and transparent processes in the
context of leadership selections.
Personal Goal Achievement
Personal goal achievement for goals outside of the military influenced junior military
officers’ decision to leave active-duty service. This trend was apparent across participant subsets,
including the USMC, USA, USN, both genders, and individuals from ROTC, OCS/OTS, and
service academy backgrounds. Noteworthy unanimity characterized participant perspectives on
the role of personal goal accomplishment in their decision to leave active-duty service. However,
the USAF subset presented a distinctive pattern, with responses displaying a more equitable
distribution between agreement and disagreement. This nuanced response may indicate the
USAF’s institutional flexibility in facilitating goal attainment while on active duty, potentially
mitigating the influence of this factor. Existing literature underscores the organizational benefits
of fostering an environment where employees can realize personal goals beyond the professional
realm, contributing to increased job satisfaction and retention (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). The
findings also illuminate the influence of work-life balance on the present cohort of junior
military officers, as evidenced by a prevalent lack of motivation to commit to a singular

142
employer prior to reaching retirement. This disposition underscores the prioritization of personal
objectives outside the professional realm.
Pressure to pursue a career in the military produced no significant findings. This
unanimity suggests a lack of discernible generational pressures compelling individuals to follow
familial military traditions or other factors that create pressure for a military career.
Alternatively, it could indicate a broader pattern shaped by participants’ generational work-value
expectations, influencing their perceptions of work and the perceived impact of shared values
within the military context (Vemparala, 2023). This result aligns with existing research,
highlighting the evolving nature of generational attitudes and their implications for career
choices in the military domain (Ingelhart, 2020). A considerable segment of the later Millennial
and early Generation Z cohorts either does not perceive comparable pressures or consciously
opts not to partake in said pressures, rendering this aspect a negligible determinant in their
decision-making processes.
Research Question 3
This research questions and the findings provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors
shaping their decision to depart from active-duty military service through factors surrounding
personal value and worth. The impact of time off, access to broadening programs, health care
options, goal alignment, and ethical and cultural sentiments on the decisions of these officers
were surveyed as part of the decision-making process. Health care options, the flexibility to
pursue personal, ethical leadership and decision-making, and cultural identity and community
norms are examined across all participant subsets. This analysis provides a comprehensive
exploration of the intricate organizational systems that shape the career choices of junior military
officers.

143
Organizational Systems
Time off was not a significant factor in a junior military officer’s decision to depart from
active-duty service. However, noteworthy patterns emerged within specific subsets of
participants, shedding light on variations across the service components and commissioning
sources. The responses of the USN, USMC, and OCS/OTS graduates indicated agreement on the
influence of time off, with the USN displaying the strongest agreement, which particularly
aligned with USN sentiments on the survey item addressing time away from family and friends.
Conversely, while the USMC generally agreed, a notable faction expressed disagreement. This
trend may connect with their perspectives on organizational culture and the influence of
leadership priorities on junior military officers (Andrews, 2022). OCS/OTS graduates, in their
agreement of time off as a relevant factor, may draw from their prior service experiences and
demonstrate a preference for increased personal time, as suggested by their responses to family
planning survey items. Existing literature supports the notion that a supportive environment
fosters experienced employees’ ability to manage their time effectively and cultivate a
harmonious work-life balance with family commitments (Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2019). The
munificent leave policy within the military presumably mitigates the influence of this factor;
however, it is imperative to refrain from conflating it with time spent away from family. The
intricate relationship between the latter and the consideration of duty-station preference
necessitates nuanced examination and comprehension of the interplay among these factors.
The ability to use and apply for broadening programs was overall not a factor in the
decision for junior military officers to leave active-duty service. Analysis of participant subsets
revealed a difference of opinions based on the commissioning source and service component.
Despite the overall lack of agreement, the USN exhibited the strongest agreement regarding

144
access to broadening programs, a stance that diverged from their earlier responses on incentive
programs. In contrast, USA participants exhibited a narrower agreement on the relevance of
broadening program access, aligning with their stance on incentive programs. The disparities
between service components may stem from variations in program administration and
availability based on professional development timelines (Jackson et al., 2020). Notably, service
academy graduates constituted the sole commissioning source subset, where a substantial
majority agreed on the impact of broadening program access on their decision to leave activeduty. Existing literature posits that employees’ satisfaction and commitment diminish over time
as incentives move farther into the future, influencing their decision to leave or become
dissatisfied with their prospects (Zeb et al., 2014). Should junior military officers perceive a
disincentive in the implementation of these programs, particularly with regard to the exercise of
agency in career choices, it is anticipated that attrition rates may rise in favor of programs
deemed more accessible.
Health care options as an influencing factor did not produce any significant findings for
this study. Across all participant subsets, there was unanimous disagreement regarding the
influence of healthcare options on their decision to leave active-duty service. This outcome may
be attributed to the distinctive nature of the military healthcare system, wherein service members
receive medical services as an integral part of their military service, incurring no personal costs
and managed by the government. The comprehensive healthcare coverage provided by the
military may have contributed to the uniform dissent among participants, signifying a perceived
absence of alternative healthcare options (Tanielian & Farmer, 2019).
Goal Alignment

145
The flexibility to pursue personal goals while on active duty influenced junior military
officers to leave active-duty. Across participant subsets, agreement and strong agreement
underscored the pivotal role attributed to the flexibility to pursue personal goals. This finding
corroborates participants’ responses to related survey items concerning personal goal
achievement and autonomy in career plans. Such alignment underscores existing literature
emphasizing the importance of granting employees agency over their career path (Bode et al.,
2015). It is noteworthy that USMC participants exhibited a comparatively marginal majority in
agreement, possibly indicative of a context wherein USMC junior military officers can pursue
their goals while maintaining active-duty status. Analogous to considerations of agency and
personal autonomy, junior military officers articulate the paramount importance of work-life
balance in shaping their career preferences and the selection of organizations with which they
align, transcending industry-specific boundaries.
Ethical and Cultural Sentiments
Ethical leadership and decision-making from seniors, peers, and subordinates played a
factor in junior military officers’ decisions to leave active-duty service. The responses elicited
substantial importance, particularly in the variances observed across commissioning sources and
service components. Notably, the USA stood as the sole service component, agreeing on the
impact of ethical leadership on participants’ decisions to exit active-duty service. Conversely, the
USAF and USMC garnered an even distribution of responses, while the USN expressed
disagreement. This incongruence among service components underscores the differences in
defining leadership, subsequently influencing the military’s capacity to cultivate a cohesive ethos
surrounding the foundational principles of ethics (Levenson, 2020). Comparable patterns
emerged in how peers influenced participants’ inclination to leave active-duty service.

146
Agreement on the effects of ethical leadership and decision-making was notable among service
academy graduates and those commissioned through OCS/OTS, whereas ROTC participants did
not agree. This commissioning source disparity may be attributed to the extended exposure that
service academy graduates and OCS/OTS participants experienced within the military
community relative to their ROTC counterparts.
Cultural identity and the community norms which the participants identified were not
factors in their decision to leave active-duty service, and did not produce significant findings
across all subsets. Each subset of participants uniformly expressed disagreement regarding the
impact of cultural identity on their decisions to exit active duty. It is noteworthy that the limited
representation of participants from historically marginalized groups within the study may contribute
to the absence of conclusive findings in this regard.
Recommendations for Practice
The results of this study yield multiple implications for the military. Junior military
officers’ experiences are complex, but share similar experiences and desires are homogenous
across the service components and through commissioning sources. This section contains
recommendations for practice based on the findings and research in order to understand the
phenomenon better. The following recommendations are based on the data and the extant
literature and may be used in part or whole, depending on the needs of the service component.
There is understanding that some of the changes recommended may not be able to work due to
the need for congressional approval on such changes; however, they may form in part the start of
change for future generations of junior military officers. The ensuing recommendations will be
systematically formulated within the framework of the Burke-Litwin change model (1992),
employed as a tool for orchestrating organizational change. This model, elucidated subsequently
in this chapter, serves to deconstruct the intricate dynamics inherent in organizational change

147
processes, delineating the interplay between internal and external forces exerting influence upon
an organization.
Career Choice and Autonomy
Career choice and autonomy produced the most significant findings across the
participants subsets. Three recommendations were formed based on the findings from this
research study and supported by the literature. The recommendations outlined in this section will
address the mitigation of friction points in career choices through the implementation of diverse
pathways to success. Additionally, the incorporation of transparent assignment processes imbued
with accountability mechanisms and intrinsic motivational factors, alongside the enhancement of
accessibility to broadening and incentive programs, stands poised to furnish supplementary tools
for retention, contingent upon effective execution.
Multiple Pathways to Success
Former junior military officers provided responses and open-ended responses aligned
with the ability to have more flexible career choices and a greater sense of agency in the
decisions around their military career. The removal of rigidly defined career milestones upon
attaining the rank of O-3 (after a minimum of 4 years of active-duty service) affords the
opportunity for a more adaptable and personalized career trajectory while concurrently
addressing the service component’s requirements, akin to analogous practices observed in middle
management within other industries (Parris et al., 2008). This research recognizes the imperative
nature of roles and responsibilities within the service components, mandated by Congressional
directives, and acknowledges that specific duties are essential for skill development should
junior military officers elect to persist in a specific career field (Department of Defense, 2019;
Sabol & Wisher, 2001). Nevertheless, a harmonious equilibrium can be achieved at the O-3

148
level, wherein service components can present diverse pathways; for instance, those inclined to
continue within the same career field can opt for a command or a staff/support track, both nested
within the same career field. This approach obviates the necessity for junior military officers to
undertake roles that may not align with their preferences yet may be obligatory for the
continuation of their active-duty service. This bifurcation of paths finds precedent in other
service components such as the USMC and its management of senior enlisted members’
promotions and career paths, while extant literature calls for similar requirements for officers
(Osman, 2006; Wood, 2020). Such flexibility not only augments the professional satisfaction of
junior military officers, but also fulfills the exigencies of the service components, thereby
engendering a mutually beneficial symbiosis.
First, it allows the junior military officer to exercise agency over their career progress,
which was a significant finding in the survey instrumentation results and as backed up by
literature. Strategies for employee retention that account for individual agency and satisfaction in
retention practices appear instrumental in cultivating heightened levels of organizational
commitment among personnel (Gani et al., 2020). Moreover, the reduction of mandatory career
milestones prevents the imposition of inflexible professional developmental timelines, thereby
averting a homogenized approach to the career progression of officers. Other research indicates
that limiting opportunities for employees to pursue internal roles they may desire, correlates with
diminished job satisfaction, elevated turnover rates, and suboptimal retention outcomes
(Aboobaker, 2015; Mumba & Qutieshat, 2023). Furthermore, this paradigmatic shift empowers
junior officers to navigate their career trajectories with more autonomy, mitigating dependency
on senior leaders or other leadership figures for career management. This strategic adjustment is
particularly pertinent in light of contemporary trends observed among successive cohorts of

149
junior military officers, characterized by increased job turnover and a tendency for resisting
authoritative practices (Kapoor & Solomon, 2011; Twenge, 2010). Striking a sensible
equilibrium between the needs of the service components and the desires of junior officers is
evident. The mitigation of the highly centralized and rigid trajectory defined by the military as
emblematic of a successful career necessitates flexibility on the part of the Department of
Defense, not the officers volunteering to serve.
Secondly, for the service components, generating multiple pathways to success helps
build consistent employee satisfaction by meeting the organization’s and the employee’s needs
(Phinithi, 2008). While a structured framework for guiding the professional development of
junior military officers remains necessary, alternate modalities exist for the organization to fulfill
critical roles and assignments throughout its organizational structure. Specifically, while
remaining in their designated career fields, officers may assume roles for extended durations,
reduce duty station transfers, or opt out of key developmental positions without incurring
deleterious consequences to their prospects for promotion or performance evaluations. This
latitude allows junior military officers to identify roles wherein they can excel or contribute
optimally to the organizational objectives without fear of professional ramifications. The
intensification of individual agency is associated with organizational benefits, including
enhanced personnel longevity and heightened intrinsic motivation, which accrue advantages to
the organization and the junior officer (Waroruntu et al., 2022). This paradigm is plausible for
each service component. It holds the potential to foster more cohesive organizational
environments wherein peers can thrive without the apprehension of detracting from the success
of others during annual evaluations. Furthermore, the recommendation mitigates the undue

150
influence of individual evaluations on an officer’s competitiveness for advancement or
participation in broadening/incentive programs (Fust, 2020; Orsi, 2017).
Employing the Burke-Litwin change model (1992) as an analytical lens for scrutinizing
the potential implementation of the aforementioned recommendation reveals multifaceted
intersections within the model. The recommendation, envisaged to introduce multiple pathways
to success for former junior military officers, manifests relevance in several key areas of the
model, encompassing both external and internal factors. For external factors, mission and
strategy, and external environments frame the recommendation. Aligning with mission and
strategy, the recommendation acknowledges the imperative nature of roles and responsibilities
within service components, aligning with the mission and strategy aspect of the model. It
highlights the need to balance individual career preferences with the overarching goals and
requirements of the service components. For external environment, the need for flexibility in
career paths for junior military officers acknowledges external factors such as evolving
workforce trends, changing expectations, and contemporary professional values. Internal factors
related to this recommendation include leadership, systems, and structure.
Internal factors for this recommendation include leadership, systems, and structures
around the DoD and the recommendation. The model addresses the internal factor of leadership
by empowering junior military officers to exercise agency over their career progression. This
resonates with the Burke-Litwin model’s emphasis on leadership as a crucial internal factor
influencing organizational change. The proposed recommendation influences systems by
suggesting changes in the career development framework. It advocates for a reduction in
mandatory career milestones and the creation of alternative pathways, affecting the systems that
govern career progression within the military. Structurally, the introduction of multiple pathways

151
to success challenges the traditional structure of military career progression, introducing
flexibility. This aligns with the internal factor of structure within the Burke-Litwin model.
Transparent Assignment Processes
Enhancing transparency within the duty station assignment processes through clear
criteria for assignments and the junior officer’s relative ranking against other candidates for the
same assignment can potentially mitigate, but not solve, the current attrition among junior
military officers. Transparent communication and expectations engender trust and enable
personnel to make judicious and well-informed decisions on their career trajectories (Zeffane,
2012). The USA launched a similar tool through the implementation of the AIM 2.0 assignment
module, affording officers within a movement cycle the opportunity to view nearly all available
assignments, rank their preferences, and engage in competitive processes with their peers for
these positions (Gnodle et al., n.d.). While the empirical efficacy of this program in influencing
junior officer retention remains unknown currently, its potential applicability across all service
components is feasible. The transparency inherent in this assignment process substantively
addresses three salient findings from the research findings: career choice, duty station
preferences, and family planning considerations.
With multiple career paths available to junior military officers, their ability to exercise
agency and the increased intrinsic motivation to remain on active-duty due to their satisfaction,
will also increase the desirability of jobs or roles, thereby reducing the need of the service
components to offer incentives for junior officers to accept, and reinforcing that multiple
pathways for success are available (Gani et al., 2020; Mumba & Qutieshat, 2023). Moreover,
implementing transparent and predictable assignment processes for junior officers contributes
significantly to mitigating stressors associated with family planning and spousal employment. A

152
more discernible and consistent approach to assignments reduces inadvertent stressors on junior
officers and their significant others, alleviating concerns related to family planning
considerations (Department of the Army, 2021; Eckhart, 2023; King et al., 2020). In order to
alleviate attrition challenges prevalent in the junior officer ranks, other service components are
recommended to emulate the initial approach undertaken by the USA, specifically emphasizing
the development of highly transparent processes assignments and duty preference locations. This
recommendation may potentially mitigate attrition rates within junior officer cohorts across
various military branches.
The recommendation to enhance transparency within duty station assignment processes
aligns with several key elements of the Burke-Litwin change model (1992). Primarily, it
addresses external factors such as the external environment and mission and strategy. The
strategic transparency aligns with the mission and strategy of the organization, fostering an
environment where junior military officers can make informed decisions aligned with
organizational goals. Moreover, the transparency introduced corresponds to the external
environment component by acknowledging and adapting to evolving workforce trends,
contributing to a more dynamic and responsive organizational structure. Internally, the
recommendation is intricately connected to the leadership and systems components of the model.
Leadership is addressed through the provision of clear criteria and communication, empowering
junior military officers to make informed decisions. The adjustment in assignment processes
influences internal systems by introducing a more discernible and consistent approach, aligning
with the Burke-Litwin model’s emphasis on the interplay between leadership and systems.
Therefore, the recommendation integrates with the Burke-Litwin change model by holistically

153
considering both external and internal factors in its approach to mitigate attrition among junior
military officers.
Increase Incentive and Broadening Program Access
Incentive programs frequently prove ineffective when applied belatedly in the career
trajectory of junior military officers. If service components opt to utilize incentive programs as a
strategic tool for junior officer retention, it is imperative to address barriers to entry.
Alternatively, incentive programs may inadvertently function as rewards for those officers who
have already committed to sustained active-duty service beyond their initial obligations (Koh,
2018). The absence of comprehensive incentive programs and barriers to accessing broadening
programs requires redress by the service components. A viable solution involves the elimination
of service commitments connected with each broadening program. This proposition is grounded
in the contention that imposing additional mandatory service commitments subsequent to
program completion becomes superfluous, given that individuals applying to such programs have
inherently committed to continued active-duty service (Walker, 2007). Employees whose
connection to an organization is tethered to an artificial, temporary timeline tend to exhibit lower
productivity levels than those who remain with an organization for reasons beyond their required
constraints (Grund & Thommes, 2017). Furthermore, advancing the timing of decision-making
for acceptance in broadening programs for junior military officers not only confers greater
predictability regarding future assignments but also endows officers with enhanced agency and,
where applicable, facilitates more anticipatory family planning considerations. This strategic
adjustment may assist in cultivating an augmented incentive structure for the retention of junior
officers and concurrently affords them diversified pathways to professional success, as seen in
earlier recommendations.

154
Coupled with those same notions, incentive program access is also recommended to be
expanded. The DoD heavily relies upon contractors and non-military industry professionals to
leverage expertise across a diverse spectrum of professions (Cusumano, 2022). The DoD should
afford junior military officers the opportunity, at government expense, to pursue industry-related
certifications—distinct from academic credentials—pertaining to their specific occupational
specialty. While programs of this nature do exist, the current inflexibility in career pathways
requires that junior officers fulfill roles unrelated to the industry certifications for which the
government has incurred expenses. Junior officers stand to gain significant benefits from
obtaining industry certifications in tandem with their military credentials, particularly when
engaged in roles that align with their intrinsic motivations. Alternatively, the DoD possesses the
potential to increase funding for certification programs, thereby broadening the scope of
offerings available to junior officers. Conversely, certain military services, such as the USN,
offer bonuses to junior officers as a department head, a practice not replicated across other
service components in equivalent positions suck as company commander (USA/USMC), or
flight commander (USAF; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, n.d.). This incongruity,
compounded by the absence of bonuses for junior military officers relative to their enlisted
counterparts or peers in other service components, is a demotivating factor and perpetuates
attritional trends.
This recommendation intersects with various components of the Burke-Litwin change
model (1992), aligning with both external and internal factors. Externally, it resonates with the
mission and strategy aspect by recognizing the crucial need to address barriers to entry in
incentive and broadening programs. The proposed solution of eliminating mandatory service
commitments aligns with the strategic adjustment required for organizational mission and

155
strategy. Moreover, the recommendation is intricately connected to the external environment
component, acknowledging the reliance of the DoD on contractors and non-military industry
professionals to provide certifications, thereby adapting to evolving workforce trends and
external industry practices. Internally, the recommendation intersects with leadership by
suggesting a shift in decision-making timing for acceptance into broadening programs, thereby
empowering junior military officers with enhanced agency. The proposal to expand incentive
program access and provide funding for industry-related certifications corresponds with the
internal systems and structure components, as it involves changes in career pathways and
funding structures. Additionally, the demotivating factor of incongruities in bonuses for junior
military officers relative to their service component counterparts is related to the internal culture
component.
Leadership Influences on Junior Military officers
Leadership and those persons surrounding the junior military officers produced
significant findings across the participant subsets. Two recommendations were formed based on
the findings from this research study and supported by the literature. The first recommendation
pertains to the integration of a comprehensive 360-degree leadership assessment within the
evaluation framework, thereby enhancing accountability measures. Concurrently, the second
recommendation advocates for the establishment of a leadership program effectiveness index,
designed to longitudinally gauge the efficacy of leadership programs by systematically tracking
the evolution and adaptability of leaders over time.
360-Degree Leadership Assessments Incorporated Into Evaluations
Introduction of 360-degree assessments into Office evaluation reports. While certain
Department of Defense (DoD) service components employ 360-degree assessments, no action is

156
taken, and there is a lack absence of meaningful integration of the results into comprehensive
officer leadership assessments. Utilizing 360-degree leadership assessments is not novel, and
non-military industries have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing workplace dynamics (Lafferty,
2022). The incorporation of a comprehensive 360-degree assessment into officer evaluation
reports provides a complex evaluation by soliciting feedback not only from senior leaders but
also from peers and subordinates. This holistic approach facilitates the early identification of
leadership issues or deficiencies, thereby mitigating the deleterious habits or potentially toxic
leadership attributes that may manifest in the later stages of an officer’s career (Khan & Haq,
2022). Elevating the status of the 360-degree leadership assessment to a weighted component
within officer evaluations may reduce the importance of a singular influence, or a leader’s
personal biases on the perceived future potential success of the junior officer. This reduction in
dependency on the subjective perspectives of one or a few individuals provides junior officers
with greater latitude, diminishing the imperative to cater to the preferences of leaders writing
their evaluations (Chen et al., 2022).
Incorporating feedback derived from a 360-degree leadership assessment imparts a
nuanced understanding of the junior officer, affording both the officer and the service component
diverse, evaluative metrics. Primarily, this form of assessment engenders heightened
accountability among leaders at all echelons by soliciting input from seniors, peers, and
subordinates (Ma, 2022). The current evaluation system, which only allows feedback to
individuals outranking the junior military officer, inadvertently excludes a substantial portion of
those with whom the officer interacts regularly. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory (1977), individuals within the junior officer’s immediate environment influence
the officer’s professional conduct. Additionally, the 360-degree feedback establishes objective

157
benchmarks for assessing the leader’s effectiveness longitudinally, thereby furnishing future
mentors and leaders with valuable insights for guiding the junior officer through remedial
measures (Wang, 2022). This leadership assessment has the capacity to track improvements,
potential deteriorations, outliers, and other salient information required by service components
over time, contributing to the cultivation of future senior leaders. Lastly, the impact of the 360-
degree assessment on the junior military officer’s evaluation can accrue increasing weight over
time, akin to a progressive tax scale. This progressive weighting system ascribes lesser weight to
scores from the junior officer’s formative years, while progressively amplifying the weight of
scores for senior leaders. This graduated weighting structure acknowledges the greater
responsibilities and influential capacities inherent in senior leadership roles, thereby aligning
with a nuanced understanding of leadership progression within the military organizational
hierarchy (Es, 2022).
This recommendation aligns adroitly with multiple facets of the Burke-Litwin change
model (1992). Externally, the integration of 360-degree leadership assessments corresponds to
the external environment component by adapting military evaluation practices in alignment with
demonstrated efficacy in non-military industries. It also resonates with the mission and strategy
component, as it addresses the imperative need for a comprehensive evaluation framework to
enhance workplace dynamics. Internally, the incorporation of a nuanced 360-degree assessment
into officer evaluations intersects with several factors. Leadership is addressed through
heightened accountability measures among leaders at all levels, aligning with the leadership
factor in the model. The adjustment in the evaluation system is connected to systems,
considering feedback from seniors, peers, and subordinates to be more inclusive and aligned with
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1977). Structurally, the proposed progressive

158
weighting system for the 360-degree assessment aligns with the structure component of the
Burke-Litwin model by recognizing the evolving responsibilities and influence of senior
leadership roles.
Leadership Program Effectiveness Index
The formation of a leadership program effectiveness index for officers is recommended
in order to establish how effective both junior and senior officers are from a set of parameters,
with one measure being used for the DoD for overall officer efficacy, and the other for service
components to understand the impact leaders are having on their subordinates. Transparency,
alongside unambiguous guidance and organizational priorities, is instrumental in enabling
employees to frame expectations around workplace culture (Powers & Dias, 2023). In this
context, both the DoD and service components are advised to leverage the 360-degree leadership
assessment and empirical approaches similar to Spain’s Battalion Commander Effect formula
(2021). This amalgamation of methodologies would yield effectiveness indices, furnishing senior
leaders with standardized metrics developed by their respective service components. As
underscored in the research findings, leadership priorities have been identified as a salient factor
influencing the attrition of junior military officers. Consequently, the leadership effectiveness
index must sensibly incorporate clear and understandable organizational priorities to reflect the
complex factors of officer effectiveness holistically. Such an indexed approach aligns with
current research methodologies and affords a structured framework for evaluating and improving
the leadership programs within the military ecosystem.
The proposed index holds the potential to include a comprehensive array of data,
combining metrics derived from various areas, including leadership development initiatives,
feedback mechanisms, completion rates of specialized training programs, participation rates in

159
developmental programs, and, notably, retention rates. The systematic monitoring of this index
over time serves as a dynamic barometer, offering an assessment of the holistic effectiveness of
leadership programs and the consequential influence that senior leaders exert on the junior
military officer population. Although not exclusively tailored to junior military officers, this
effectiveness tool illuminates trends in the effectiveness of leaders within the DoD in nurturing
successive cohorts of future military senior leaders. It substantiates a mechanism for cultivating a
sense of ownership and accountability among senior officers, particularly in relation to the
discernible impact of their actions on the professional trajectories and retention rates of junior
military officers (Knights, 2022). In essence, this proposed index represents a sophisticated
evaluative instrument for leadership programs and is a pivotal means of instilling a culture of
responsibility and stewardship among senior leaders within the military organizational
framework.
This recommendation aligns comprehensively with various elements of the Burke-Litwin
change model (1992). External factors, including the establishment of a leadership program
effectiveness index resonates with the external environment component by advocating for
transparency, unambiguous guidance, and organizational priorities to shape workplace culture.
Additionally, the incorporation of empirical approaches, akin to Spain’s Battalion Commander
Effect (2021), aligns with the external mission and strategy aspect, introducing standardized
metrics to gauge officer efficacy within the broader DoD. Internally, the proposed index
intersects with leadership and systems components. It addresses leadership by incorporating clear
organizational priorities, emphasizing their influence on officer effectiveness, in alignment with
the leadership factor in the model. The inclusion of a diverse array of data within the index
corresponds with the systems factor, as it combines metrics from various areas, including

160
leadership development initiatives, training programs, and retention rates. Structurally, the
proposed index reflects a structured framework for evaluating and improving leadership
programs, aligning with the structure component of the Burke-Litwin model.
Family Life
Family and family factors influencing junior military officers’ decisions to leave activeduty service produced significant findings across the participant subsets. Two recommendations
were formed based on the findings from this research study and supported by the literature. The
first recommendation proposes the establishment of a more adaptable duty assignment selection
process to accommodate the distinctive circumstances of dual-military couples and junior
military officers with spouses. The second recommendation advocates for the implementation of
enhanced flexibility in leave and work policies, emphasizing a balanced approach to
accommodate the diverse needs of military personnel.
Flexible Duty Assignments for Dual-Military Couples and Spouses
The DoD and its service components currently have regulations and policies governing
dual-military couples. While constituting a relatively small demographic within the junior officer
population, the efficacy of existing programs catering to these couples warrants reassessment
concerning their impact on family planning. The deleterious effects of frequent duty assignment
changes on military spouses and families reveal challenges such as diminished employment
capabilities and prospects for spouses (Burke & Mille, 2016; Eckhart, 2023). The study
recommends that the DoD examine potential enhancements to align duty station preferences
more effectively with familial needs, particularly addressing the dual considerations of spousal
employment and requests for stabilization. This strategic realignment resonates with
recommendations advocating for greater flexibility in career paths, a definitive shift that

161
accommodates junior military officers with employed spouses, assisting both partners’ career
trajectories without necessitating professional compromises. A study by Orellana et al. (2022)
underscores the boundaries between work and family domains, positing that family-to-work
conflict yields resource depletion differentially affecting job and family satisfaction in mothers
and fathers, both individually and within dual-earner couples.
The alignment of duty station preferences with considerations of spousal employment not
only addresses inherent challenges faced by military families but also contributes to the
transparency of the duty station assignment process. By affording personnel increased influence
over duty station assignments, such considerations can potentially engender a positive impact on
overall satisfaction and the decision-making processes associated with duty assignments. This
alignment initiative thus represents a cogent approach toward cultivating a more adaptive and
family-centric organization for the DoD.
This recommendation aligns synergistically with several components of the Burke-Litwin
change model (1992). Externally, it addresses the external environment and mission and strategy
factors by emphasizing the reassessment of existing programs catering to dual-military couples
and their impact on family planning within the DoD. The proposed realignment of duty station
preferences resonates with the external environment by adapting to evolving family dynamics
and aligning with contemporary workforce trends. Internally, the recommendation intersects with
leadership and systems components. Leadership is addressed by advocating for a strategic shift
that accommodates junior military officers with employed spouses, demonstrating a proactive
approach to leadership challenges. The adjustment in duty station assignment processes is
connected to the systems factor, emphasizing the need for greater flexibility and transparency in
career paths. Structurally, the proposed realignment reflects a structured framework for

162
accommodating familial needs, aligning with the structure component of the Burke-Litwin
chnage model.
Implement Flexible Leave and Work Policies
The DoD and its service components are recommended to reevaluate and potentially
recalibrate existing leave policies to introduce greater flexibility in balancing work and personal
life commitments. Some service components have these considerations already or have
implemented policies that align with the current recommendation (Knobloch et al., 2023).
However, it is essential to underscore that existing programs, while ostensibly addressing worklife balance concerns, present formidable barriers to entry and impose an additional active-duty
service obligation (Rand, 2023). This obliges officers to render an equivalent or prolonged
service duration in the military for the length of time the sabbatical is undertaken. Structures like
these inadvertently diminish the program’s attractiveness to the intended demographic,
constituting a fait accompli for junior military officers who may find limited options but to
separate from service due to the onerous commitment imposed by these programs. Where
practicable, a more complete approach is encouraged, where these programs collaborate with
individual junior military officers and their respective service components to formulate a
customized plan. Such an approach ensures that the officer remains competitively positioned and
relevant to their service component while benefiting from flexible leave or sabbatical
arrangements (Khan et al., 2023). The efficacy of these programs should be underpinned by the
formulation of concrete, specific, measurable, and attainable goals, thereby allowing junior
military officers to address their distinct needs while concurrently considering the imperatives of
their respective service components.

163
This recommendation aligns cohesively with various elements of the Burke-Litwin
change model (1992). Externally, the proposal suggests a reassessment and potential
recalibration of leave policies within the DoD and its service components, resonating with the
external environment component. The adaptation of existing leave policies to introduce greater
flexibility aligns with the external mission and strategy factor, emphasizing the need for a
strategic shift in balancing work and personal life commitments. Internally, the recommendation
intersects with leadership and systems components. Leadership is addressed by advocating for a
comprehensive approach that collaborates with individual junior military officers and their
respective service components, reflecting a proactive stance toward leadership challenges. The
adjustment in leave policies is connected to the systems factor, emphasizing the need for
collaboration in formulating customized plans that align with the individual needs of officers
while considering the imperatives of their service components. Structurally, the proposal reflects
a structured framework for implementing flexible leave or sabbatical arrangements, aligning with
the structure component of the Burke-Litwin model.
Implementation of Recommendations
Implementation of the recommendations is necessary through an organizational change
model. Although the DoD uses multiple change models across its complex array of service
components and other organizations, the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model is used for this
research study due to its ability to influence transformational processes and its applicability to
the complexity of the variables within the study.
The Burke-Litwin change model is a framework for understanding organizational change
and the interplay of various factors influencing transformational processes. Originating in the
1990s, this model offers a comprehensive lens through which organizational leaders and change

164
agents can analyze, plan, and navigate the complexities of steering an organization through
change. Built upon Kurt Lewin’s (1999) foundational work on organizational change, the BurkeLitwin model extends beyond the individual and group dynamics to encompass the broader
systemic factors that shape and influence organizational functioning. As a holistic and
multidimensional framework, it emphasizes the interconnectedness of different organizational
elements, ranging from external environmental factors to internal systems, culture, and
leadership dynamics. This introductory exploration seeks to clarify the core tenets of the BurkeLitwin change model, positioning it as an invaluable tool for understanding the dynamics of
organizational change and fostering effective strategies for successful transformation.
The Burke-Litwin change model is a seminal theoretical framework that has become a
cornerstone in the study and implementation of organizational change. This model transcends
traditional change models by offering a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective on the
complexities inherent in organizational transformation. Grounded in a systemic approach, the
model identifies and categorizes various organizational variables that influence change,
providing a roadmap for leaders to navigate the intricate web of factors impacting an
organization’s capacity to adapt and evolve. The Burke-Litwin model underscores the
interdependence of organizational elements, recognizing that changes in one area can reverberate
throughout the entire system. By integrating transactional and transformational factors, this
model equips leaders with a holistic understanding of the forces at play during periods of change,
fostering informed decision-making and facilitating a more strategic and sustainable approach to
organizational transformation.

165
Figure 10
Burke-Litwin Change Model
Note. From “A causal model of organizational performance and change,” by W. W. Burke and
G. H. Litwin, 1992, Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306)
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
RQ3
RQ2
RQ3
RQ3
RQ1
RQ1
RQ1
RQ1
RQ1
RQ1

166
Recommendations for Future Research
This quantitative study aimed to determine the factors surrounding the decision of junior
U.S. military officers to leave active-duty federal service at the end of their military service
obligation (MSO) or active-duty service obligation (ADSO). While the outcomes of this study
yielded significant insights into the perspectives of former junior military officers, it is
imperative to underscore the necessity for future research that delves into the nuanced intricacies
surrounding the decision-making processes guiding their departure from active-duty service.
Should the proposed recommendations be implemented, subsequent research studies would
require the evaluation of the efficacy of the measures undertaken in this study. This is pivotal for
refining our understanding of the complex dynamics influencing the decisions of junior military
officers and gauging the impact of strategic interventions in mitigating attrition challenges within
this demographic.
Further research should systematically investigate the nuanced impact of commissioning
source experiences on junior military officers’ retention rates and overall professional careers
throughout their initial military service obligation (MSO) or active-duty service obligation
(ADSO). The nature of commissioning source variables is seen across the data, from dynamics
among peers to considerations in family planning. Moreover, a discernible interplay exists
between the military environment of service academy graduates and the potential influence
exerted by military faculty and staff on career decisions, distinct from their non-academy
leadership counterparts. Further research could extend to scrutinizing the roles played by nonmilitary peers in influencing junior military officers’ career paths, with particular emphasis on
gender disparities and variations among officers from diverse commissioning sources. A cautious
approach to this study may involve conducting a longitudinal study, specifically targeting

167
cohorts of junior officers to track the evolving dynamics over time systematically. Additional
research can also focus on the model the DoD uses for employment, based on a pension scheme
rather than reflecting current investment trends. This may also impact how future military
officers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization and reflect their attrition rates.
Duty station assignments’ effects on family planning and peer interactions have emerged
as salient future research topics. The survey instrument employed in this study, consisting of
multiple variables simultaneously, helped bring about future research studies by examining the
potential interconnections among these variables. However, a noticeable dearth of equitable
female gender representation across all service components underscores the necessity for further
research studies exploring how gender disparities may manifest within the target population. An
examination of officer evaluations and their impact on junior military officers, particularly
within the framework of Spain’s (2021) Battalion Commander Effect, emerges as a fruitful
avenue for future research, particularly for newly promoted field grade officers. This could entail
exploring how effective leaders conduct evaluations for junior military officers, outlining the
inherent dynamics in that process. This study’s findings for each service component suggest the
viability of conducting service-specific studies to expound upon the unique challenges within
individual military branches. These prospective research studies stand to enrich our
understanding of the interplay between duty station assignments, gender subtleties, leadership
assessments, and service-specific factors, thereby contributing to the scholarly discourse on
military sociology and organizational dynamics.
Conclusion
Junior military officers play a pivotal role as indicators of the challenges stemming from
generational disparities, shedding light on the intricate issues within the DoD’s manpower

168
management. In the course of this research study, respondents accentuate the central importance
of personal factors, including shared values, familial and social ties, and the ability to shape
one’s personal and professional trajectory. These aspects became even more pronounced given
the potential persistence of an ostensibly inflexible and potentially antiquated employment model
within the DoD, overshadowing the significance of compensation and loyalty that are often
associated with the how current generation of junior leaders should find value. It is crucial to
approach these trends through the lens of the target population, considering that these junior
military officers have willingly volunteered their service to the organization.
To effectively confront the identified challenges, a transformative shift within the DoD is
imperative, commencing with the removal of barriers obstructing the flexible career progression
junior military officers, desire within their respective service component. This requires strategic
investments in incentive and broadening programs, coupled with a deep commitment to
enhancing transparency across military formations, spanning from leadership practices to
organizational processes. Central to this transformation is leadership accountability, emphasizing
the establishment of specific, measurable, and attainable goals across the leadership spectrum.
The DoD must acknowledge the urgency precipitated by the current attrition rate and the
diminishing pool of eligible military service members. This acknowledgment must be coupled
with a steadfast commitment to adaptability and transformative change. The consequences of
failure in this regard pose a significant risk—an ongoing exodus of the most qualified officers,
perpetuating a decline in the organization’s overall capability and effectiveness. These
imperatives underscore the exigency for a proactive and flexible approach to navigating the
dynamic landscape of military personnel management.

169
In essence, addressing the challenges illuminated by junior military officers requires a
comprehensive understanding of the complex factors influencing their decisions and perceptions.
It calls for an exceptional strategy that considers the evolving priorities of the current generation,
acknowledging their unique values and the influence of personal connections on their
professional choices. The DoD’s response should not only be reactive but proactive, anticipating
and adapting to the changing dynamics of the military workforce. This necessitates a cultural
shift, strategic investments, and a commitment to transparent and accountable leadership,
ensuring the continued strength and effectiveness of the military’s officer corps.

170
References
Aboobaker, N. (2015). Innovative strategies for talent management: A case study of Enterprise
Rent-a-Car. CLEAR. International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management,
6(10), 84–86. https://ijrcm.org.in/article_info.php?article_id=5951
Acheampong, N. A. A. (2021). Reward preferences of the youngest generation: Attracting,
recruiting, and retaining generation Z into public sector organizations. Compensation and
Benefits Review, 53(2), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368720954803
Ahronson, A., Cameron, J. E., & Laurence, J. H. (2007). The nature and consequences of group
cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19(1), 9–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701323277
Akkuş, B., Postmes, T., & Stroebe, K. (2017). Community collectivism: A social dynamic
approach to conceptualizing culture. PLoS One, 12(9), Article e0185725.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185725
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Motivation. In APA Dictionary of psychology.
Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/
Andrews, S. (2022, April 15). Leadership in a constantly changing world: Three steps to avoid
analysis paralysis. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2022/04/
15/leadership-in-a-constantly-changing-world-three-steps-to-avoid-analysisparalysis/?sh=6ef9340244b0
Argyris, C. (1990). Integrating the individual and the organization. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788417
Armed Forces. 10 U.S.C. § 10 (1956).
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title10&edition=prelim

171
Asch, B., Heaton, P., Hosek, J., Martorell, P., Simon, C., & Warner, J. (2010). Cash incentives
and military enlistment, attrition, and reenlistment. Rand Corporation.
https://doi.org/10.7249/MG950
Asch, B., Miller, T., & Malchiodi, A. (2012). A new look at gender and minority differences in
officer career progression in the military. Rand Corporation.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA562677.pdf
Athey, P. (2021, November 9). Here’s how the Marine Corps plans to oust toxic leaders. Marine
Corps Times. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marinecorps/2021/11/09/heres-how-the-marine-corps-plans-to-oust-toxic-leaders/
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand.
Baglini, D. (2021). Analysis of officer retention and success in the US Army by commissioning
source [Unpublished senior honors project]. University of Rhode Island.
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/875
Bailey, J. M. (2021). Marine Corps military occupational specialty (MOS) assignments: career
impacts of match quality [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Naval Postgraduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1150393.pdf
Baltes, P. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span development psychology: On the
dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 611–626.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.611
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

172
Beck, R. K. (2012). The impact of community satisfaction on retention among Army personnel.
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ohio State University.
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1330363543
Bell, A. (2022). Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the
US military academy and Army ROTC. Journal of Peace Research, 59(2), 180–196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211010861
Beyera, G. K., O’Brien, J., & Campbell, S. (2020). The development and validation of a
measurement instrument to investigate determinants of health care utilisation for low
back pain in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227801
Birkinbine, B. J., Pentzold, C., Toupin, S., & O’Neil, M. (2020). Political economy of peer
production. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119537151.ch3
Blake, B., & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and
Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in
Education, 1(1), 58–67.
https://mxtsch.people.wm.edu/Teaching/JCPE/Volume1/JCPE_2008-01-09.pdf
Blocker, M. D. (2009). Barriers to achieving mentally agile junior leaders.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA494283
Bode, C., Singh, J., & Rogan, M. (2015). Corporate social initiatives and employee retention.
Organization Science, 26(6), 1702–1720. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1006
Brick, C., Bosshard, A., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). Motivation and climate change: A review.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.001

173
Britzky, H. (2021, May 13). “It got stupid” and the many other reasons troops chose to leave the
military. Task and Purpose. https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/why-troops-left-themilitary/
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and
operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment
across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10317-001
Bryson, C. (2004). The consequences for women in the academic profession for the widespread
use of fixed term contracts. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(2), 187–206.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00228.x
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model
innovation: Lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 21(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00637.x

174
Buddeberg-Fischer, B., Stamm, M., Buddeberg, C., & Klaghofer, R. (2008). The new generation
of family physicians – career motivations, life goals, and work-life balance. Swiss
Medical Weekly, 138(21), 305–312. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/10438/
Bughin, J., Deakin, J., & O’Beirne, B. (2019). Digital transformation: Improving the odd of
success. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/
McKinsey%20Digital/Our%20Insights/Digital%20transformation%20Improving%20the
%20odds%20of%20success/Digital-transformation-Improving-the-odds-of-successfinal.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Occupational outlook handbook. Military Careers.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm
Burk, J., & Espinoza, E. (2012). Race relations within the US military. Annual Review of
Sociology, 38(1), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145501
Burke, J., & Miller, A. R. (2016). The effects of military change of station moves on spousal
earnings. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_
papers/WR1100/WR1170/RAND_WR1170.pdf
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries
on job satisfaction. The American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981–3003.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.6.2981

175
Chen, H., Jiang, S., & Wu, M. (2022). How important are political skills for career success? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 33(19), 3942–3968. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1949626
Cusumano, E. (2022). Mobilization constraints and military privatization: The political costeffectiveness of outsourcing security. Springer International Publishing.
Cendales, B. E., & Gómez Ortiz, V. (2019). Cultural values and the job demands-control model
of stress: A moderation analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(3),
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000105
Carter, S. P., Dudley, W., Lyle, D. S., & Smith, J. Z. (2016). The effects of mentor quality,
exposure, and type on junior officer retention in the United States Army. National Bureau
of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22383
Cha, E. S., Crowe, J. M., Braxter, B. J., & Jennings, B. M. (2016). Understanding how
overweight and obese emerging adults make lifestyle choices. Journal of Pediatric
Nursing, 31(6), e325–e332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2016.07.001
Choi, I., Milne, D. N., Glozier, N., Peters, D., Harvey, S. B., & Calvo, R. A. (2017). Using
different Facebook advertisements to recruit men for an online mental health study:
engagement and selection bias. Internal interventions, 8, 27–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2017.02.002
Cicero, S. (2015). The failure of the American volunteer military. ESSAI, 13(1), 12.
http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol13/iss1/12
Clark, I., & Atkinson, K. (2023). Gen-Z will fight: But first, they need to know why. U.S. Naval
Institute, 149(1). https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/gen-z-willfight-first-they-need-know-why

176
Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant leader.
Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 2076–3387. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7010005
Colford, M., & Sugarman, A. J. (2016). Millennials and the military. The Hoover Institution.
https://www.hoover.org/research/millennials-and-military
Conde, A. (2021, November 11). For many Black families, military service is a chance at upward
mobility. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/many-black-familiesmilitary-service-chance-upward-mobility-rcna4865
Cooper, L., Caddick, N., Godier, L., Cooper, A., & Fossey, M. (2018). Transition from the
military into civilian life: An exploration of cultural competence. Armed Forces and
Society, 44(1), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X16675965
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cuncic, A. (2022, October 17). Internal validity vs. external validity in research. VerywellMind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/internal-and-external-validity-4584479
Dall, S. R. X., Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M. (2004). The behavioural ecology of
personality: Consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecology
Letters, 7(8), 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00618.x
Davis, L., & Klahr, A. (2019). 2019 military service gender relations focus groups active duty.
Office of People Analytics, Department of Defense.
https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/15_Annex_1_2019_Military_Service_Gender_Re
lations_Focus_Groups_Overview_Report.pdf
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

177
Defense Manpower Data Center. (2020). 2020 demographics.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographicsreport.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. (2015). Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Committee. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA625626.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. (2016). General bonus authority for officers. DoD Instruction
1304.34.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130434p.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). Defense manpower requirements report. The Department
of Defense Total Force Manpower & Resources Directorate.
https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/MRA_Docs/FINAL%20FY20%20DM
RR%20Cleared%20for%20Open%20Publication.pdf?ver=2019-04-24-114457-517
U.S. Department of Defense. (2021). DoD Instruction 1304.25: Fulfilling the military service
obligation. The Department of Defense Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130425p.pdf
U.S. Department of the Army. (2021). Department of the Army career management survey.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff G-1.
https://talent.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DACES-AnnualReport_JUNE2021.pdf
U.S. Department of the Navy. (2006). Marine Corps Mentoring Program. Headquarters, United
States Marine Corps. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/NAVMC%
20DIR%201500.58.pdf

178
Defense officer Personnel Management Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–513 (1980).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/96/s1918/text
Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2019). Factors affecting employee performance: An
empirical approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
68(1), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z
begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/wheremillennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Doganca, E. (2006). officer career paths and the effects of commissioning sources on the
survival patterns of Army officers [Publication No. ADA457001]. Naval Postgraduate
School. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA457001
Doty, J., & Fenlason, J. (2013). Narcissism and toxic leaders. Military Review.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA576059
Dua, A., & Ellingrud, K. (2022, October 19). How does Gen Z see its place in the working
world? With trepidation. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/sustainableinclusive-growth/future-of-america/how-does-gen-z-see-its-place-in-the-working-worldwith-trepidation
Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative
mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.358
Eckhart, J. (2023). Is spouse employment just a junior officer problem? Military.com.
https://www.military.com/spouse/career-advancement/is-spouse-employment-just-a-jrofficer-problem.html

179
Es, M. (2022). The optimal frequency to perform 360-degree feedback-a cost/benefit analysis
[Unpublished bachelor’s thesis] University of Twente.
https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/91270
Falk, S., & Rogers, S. (2011). Junior military officer retention: Challenges & opportunities
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Harvard University.
https://officercandidatesschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Junior-Military-OfficerRetention-Challenges-and-Opportunities-by-Sayce-Falk-Sasha-Rogers-John-F.-KennedySchool-of-Government-Harvard-University.pdf
Farrell, B. (2022). Military service academies: actions needed to better assess organizational
climate. report to congressional committees [Publication No. GAO-22-105130].
Government Accountability Office. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED624676
Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Fust, G. (2020, October 22). Broadening assignments are the new black. Modern War Institute.
https://mwi.usma.edu/broadening-assignments-are-the-new-black/
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect:
Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036
Gabow, L. (2023, February 24). The Army doesn’t know why junior officers are leaving. The
Army Times. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/02/24/the-army-doesntknow-why-junior-officers-are-leaving/
Gallus, J. A., Walsh, B. M., van Driel, M., Gouge, M. C., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable
cruelty: A multilevel examination of the impact of toxic leadership on U.S. military units

180
and service members. Military Psychology, 25(6), 588–601.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000022
Gamble, D. R. (2020). Toward a racially inclusive military. Parameters, 50(3), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2674
Gani, K., Potgieter, I., & Coetzee, M. (2020). Dispositions of agency as explanatory mechanisms
of employees’ satisfaction with retention practices. Journal of Psychology in Africa,
30(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2020.1744278
Ganti, A. (2022, May 24). Rational choice theory: What is in economics, with examples.
Investopia.com. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-choice-theory.asp
Garcia, J., Mariani, J., & Lane, K. (2019, September 9). Fight for the future: The future demands
a broader, more agile military workforce. Deloitte Insights.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/future-us-militaryworkforce.html
Gauche, C., de Beer, L., & Brink, L. (2017). Exploring demands from the perspective of
employees identified as being at risk of burnout. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies on Health and Well-being, 12(1), Article 1361783.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1361783
Garamone, J. (2022, February 9). Diversity, equity, inclusion are necessities in U.S. military.
Department of Defense News. https://www.defense.gov/News/NewsStories/Article/Article/2929658/diversity-equity-inclusion-are-necessities-in-us-military/
Gnodle, M., Brodka, M., & Hermida, J. (n.d.) Perspectives on the aim 2.0 marketplace — A peek
behind the curtain. Center for Junior officers. https://juniorofficer.army.mil/perspectiveson-the-aim-2-0-marketplace

181
Godfrey, M., & Benson, A. (2023). Seeds of doubt: How the source of mentorship initiation
influences mentoring expectations. Current Psychology, 42(16), 13358–13368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02573-y
Gragnano, A., Simbula, S., & Miglioretti, M. (2020). Work-Life balance: Weighing the
importance of work-family and work-health balance. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 907.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030907
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. Paulist Press.
Grund, C., & Thommes, K. (2017). The role of contract types for employees’ public service
motivation. Schmalenbach Business Review, 18, 377–398.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41464-017-0033-z
Hadley, G. (2023, May 4). How USAF is tackling pilot retention: More money, more stability.
Air and Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-boostpilot-retention/
Harkins, G. (2018, August 2). The military’s officer promotion systems may see a major shakeup. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/08/02/militarys-officerpromotion-system-may-see-major-shake.html
Hattiangadi, A. (2001). Private-sector benefits offerings in the competition for high-skills
recruits. Center for Naval Analyses.
https://www.cna.org/archive/CNA_Files/pdf/d0003563.a2.pdf

182
Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2022). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for
practitioners and study in early years education. Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247760
Hill, A. (2015). Military innovation and military culture. Parameters, 45(1), 85–98.
https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2809
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress
process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–
421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Holliday, M. (2021, March 8). What is employee retention? Benefits, tips & metrics.
Netsuite.com. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/humanresources/employee-retention.shtml
Hong, S. Y., Karaca-Mandic, P., & Maestas, N. (2008). Peer groups and employment outcomes:
evidence based on conditional random assignment in the US Army. University of
Minnesota, RAND Corporation.
Human Resources Glossary. (n.d.). Attrition. In Human Resources Glossary. Retrieved April 5,
2023, from https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/glossary/attrition
Hunsinger, N. B. (2013). How can the US Army better manage and empower its talented officers
for retention after they meet their initial active-duty service obligation? [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. U.S. Army War College. https://cttp.sanford.duke.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/2015/09/COLHunsingerCivilianResearchPaperClassof2013.pdf
Inglehart, R. (2020). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political
change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10vm2ns

183
Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Transformational and active transactional leadership in the
Canadian military. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 246–262.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011039352
Jackson, K., Kidder, K. L., Mann, S., Waggy, W. H., Lander, N., & Zimmerman, S. R. (2020).
Raising the flag: Implications of U.S. military approaches to general and flag officer
development. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR4347
Johnson, J. F., Trent, J. D., & Barron, L. G. (2017). Gender, racial, and ethnic differences in job
context and work-activity preferences. Military Psychology, 29(6), 542–559.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000191
Johnson, W. B., & Andersen, G. R. (2015). Formal mentoring in the U.S. Military: Research
evidence, lingering questions, and recommendations. Naval War College Review, 68(2),
113–126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26397105
Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(2), 297–321.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.297
Joslin, R., & Müller, B. (2016). The relationship between project governance and project
success. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 613–626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.008
Kanfer, R., Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2012). Goals and motivation related to work in
later adulthood: An organizing framework. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 253–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.734298

184
Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational differences in the
workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4), 308–318.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17554211111162435
Karakurumer, C. (2010). An analysis of the effect of commissioning source on the retention and
promotion of US Air Force officers [Publication No. ADA518531]. Naval Postgraduate
School. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA518531
Khan, A., Khan, A., Shah, T. A., Nisar Khattak, M., & Abukhait, R. (2023). Management’s
internal governance policies on flexible work practices and the mediating lens of work
life enrichment-Outcome for employee work engagement and organizational
attractiveness. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2023-0059
Khan, S. A., & Haq, M. A. U. (2022). Toxic leadership and knowledge hiding behaviour:
Examining a serial mediation mechanism. International Journal of Knowledge and
Learning, 15(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2022.126269
King, E. L., DiNitto, D., Salas-Wright, C., & Snowden, D. (2020). Retaining women air force
officers: Work, family, career satisfaction, and intentions. Armed Forces and Society,
46(4), 677–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X19845024
Kitchener, R. F. (2004). Piaget’s social epistemology. Psychology Press.
Knights, J. (2022). Transpersonal leadership in action. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003150626-5
Knobloch, L. K., Monk, J. K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2023). Relationship
maintenance among military couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
40(3), 734–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221105025

185
Koeszegi, S. T., Zedlacher, E., & Hudribusch, R. (2014). The war against the female soldier?
The effects of masculine culture on workplace aggression. Armed Forces and Society,
40(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X12460019
Koh, T. D. (2018). Army officer retention: How to retain the best and brightest. [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. Johns Hopkins University.
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/59905/Koh%2c%20Thomas.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins,
limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 183–210.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211060710
Krause, K. L. (2010). An analysis of first duty station placement and new graduate transition
education on retention in the Navy Nurse Corps. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Naval
Post Graduate School. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA518528
Kumala, L. (2017). Social capital and self-leadership for personal, organizational and social
change [Unpublished bachelor’s thesis] Linneuniversitetet. https://www.diva
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1114563/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Kwan, S. (2010). Navigating public spaces: Gender, race, and body privilege in everyday life.
Feminist Formations, 22(2), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2010.0002
Lafferty, D. (2022). The 360-Degree Assessment. In J. Klinedinst (Ed.), The handbook of
continuing professional development for the health informatics professional (pp. 117–
125). Productivity Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429398377-17
Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra. Psychology, 8(1), Article 33267.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267

186
Lau, J., & Ng, K. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the counseling training environment using
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counseling, 36, 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-014-9220-5
Lawrence, J. P. (2021, September 8). The U.S. military changed for the war on terror. Now, it
has to change again, experts say. Stars and Stripes. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/
2021-09-08/military-afghanistan-iraq-china-russia-gwot-2800715.html
Le, S. (2016). The relationship between the media and the military [Unpublished master’s
thesis]. Harvard University. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33797376/LEDOCUMENT-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Levenson, A. (2020, October 2). Decentralizing your operating and talent models the right way.
MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/decentralizing-youroperating-and-talent-models-the-right-way/
Lewin, K., & Gold, M. (1999). The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader (1st ed.).
American Psychological Association.
Lohela-Karlsson, M., Jensen, I., & Björklund, C. (2022). Do attitudes towards work or work
motivation affect productivity loss among academic employees? International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), Article 934.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020934
Looney, J., Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Lucart, L. (2004). Military leadership evaluations:
Effects of evaluator sex, leader sex, and gender role attitudes. Consulting Psychology
Journal, 56(2), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.56.2.104
Lovely, S. (2012). Boomers and millennials: Vive la difference. The Learning Professional,
33(5), 56–59. https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/lovely335.pdf

187
Luxenberg, B. (2015, January 6). If inequality is our problem, military service is the answer. The
Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-luxenberg-military-service-asasset-20150107-story.html
Lyle, D. S., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). The effects of high-performing mentors on junior officer
promotions in the US Army. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(2), 229–258.
https://doi.org/10.1086/673372
Lytle, T. (2023) When employee incentives go wrong. SHRM.org. https://www.shrm.org/hrtoday/news/all-things-work/pages/when-employee-incentives-go-wrong.aspx
Ma, Y. (2022, July 15–17). Performance management appraisal: Approaches in the private and
public sectors [Paper presentation]. 6th International Seminar on Education, Management
and Social Sciences. Chongqing, China.
MacBlain, S. (2018, September 1). Bronfenbrenner: children’s learning in a wider context.
Parenta.com. https://www.parenta.com/2018/09/01/bronfenbrenner-childrens-learningin-a-wider-context/
MacGregor, K. M., & Montgomery, C. L. (2017). Talent management: Right officer, right place,
right time. Army Logistics University.
https://alu.army.mil/alog/2017/JanFeb17/PDF/179947.pdf
Magnusson, D. (2015). Individual development from an interactional perspective (psychological
revivals): A longitudinal study. Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722221
Malley, B. (2023, March 20). Forget the shot and chaser, Gen Z got the Iraq war hangover.
Responsible Statecraft. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/20/forget-the-shot-andchaser-gen-z-got-the-iraq-war-hangover/

188
Manski, B., Lazar, H., & Moodliar, S. (2020). The millennial turns and the new period: An
introduction. Socialism and Democracy, 34(1), 1–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2019.1841711
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89–96.
https://www.academia.edu/download/77045834/6332.pdf
Marrone, J. V. (2020). Predicting 26-month attrition in the U.S. military.
https://doi.org/10.7249/RR4258
Marx, A. (2014). Rethinking Marine Corps officer promotion and retention. Center for 21st
Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/Rethinking-Marine-Corps-Officer-Promotion-73014x2.pdf
Matheson G. J. (2019). We need to talk about reliability: making better use of test-retest studies
for study design and interpretation. PeerJ, 7, e6918. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6918
Mathews, T. (2015, November 17). Reframing the military’s junior officer retention problem.
Task and Purpose. https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/reframing-the-militarysjunior-officer-retention-problem/
Mattock, M. G., Asch, B. J., Hosek, J., Whaley, C., & Panis, C. (2014). Toward improved
management of officer retention: a new capability for assessing policy options. Rand
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/
RR764/RAND_RR764.pdf
Maxton, G. C. (2011). The effect of increasing OCS commissions on our senior leader branch.
[Unpublished research paper]. Army War College.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA560333

189
McCandless, K. (2022, August 5). Pros and cons of transactional Leadership. The Ascent.
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/small-business/human-resources/articles/transactionalleadership/
McKinsey & Company. (2022, August 17). What is leadership?
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-leadership
McKenzie, T. C. (2011). Defense officer personnel management act – The Army’s challenge to
contemporary officer management. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Army Command and
General Staff College Fort Leavenworth. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA545125
McNair, J. (2022, March 26). Opinion: Gen Z is seeing what war looks like. Let’s help them. The
Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/26/opinion-this-is-the-first-timegen-z-is-seeing-what-war-looks-like-lets-help-them/
McNally, B., Melendez, M., & Wolff, J. (2023, January 19). Now is time to save the allvolunteer force. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fromchaos/2023/01/19/now-is-the-time-to-save-the-all-volunteer-force/
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest
reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal
processes: What Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn’t mean, and what he should have
meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321–334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12373
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and
implementation. Jossey Bass.

190
Milker, V. S. (2022). Career motivation in millennials and generation Z as predictors of
turnover intention and organizational commitment. (Publication No. 29211798)
[Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Miller, J. (2021, February 18). For younger job seekers, diversity and inclusion in the workplace
aren’t a preference. They’re a requirement. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/18/millennial-genz-workplacediversity-equity-inclusion/
Milligan, P. K. (2003). The impact of trust in leadership on officer commitment and intention to
leave military service in the U.S. Air Force. (Publication No. 3123495) [Doctoral
dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global.
Military Diversity Research Council. (2010). Officer retention rates across the services by
gender and race/ethnicity. https://mldc.whs.mil/
Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). From representation to inclusion: diversity
leadership for the 21-st century military.
https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Special%20Feature/MLDC_Final_Re
port.pdf
Military One Source. (2021, November 4). Becoming an officer in the military after college.
https://www.militaryonesource.mil/military-basics/new-to-the-military/becoming-amilitary-officer-after-college/
Military One Source. (2022). 2021 Demographics, profile of the military community. U.S.
Department of Defense. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/
Reports/2021-demographics-report.pdf

191
Mission Readiness Group. (2023). 77 percent of American youth can’t qualify for military
service. Council for a Strong America. https://www.strongnation.org/articles/2006-77-
percent-of-american-youth-can-t-qualify-for-military-service
Moore, D. L. (2021). (Race/ethnicity + gender) Perceptions of social equality: A preliminary
analysis of the US active duty force. Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1123598.pdf
Moquin, R., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Wakefield, R. L. (2019). Psychological contract and
turnover intention in the information technology profession. Information Systems
Management, 36(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2019.1587574
Morgan, M. T. (2010). Predictors of success at the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School
[Unpublished master’s thesis] Naval Postgraduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA524130
Mumba, K., & Qutieshat, A. (2023) The strategic dilemma of internal and external recruitment: a
systematic literature review. International Journal of Research in Engineering &
Management, 6(4), 19–24.
Murphy, J., & De Vrieze, F. (2020). Parliaments and independent oversight institutions.
Westminster Foundation for Democracy. https://www.agoraparl.org/sites/default/
files/agora-documents/Parliaments%20and%20Independent%20Oversight%20
Institutions.pdf
National Collaborating Center for Determinants of Health. (n.d.). Glossary of essential health
equity terms. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://nccdh.ca/glossary/
Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2020). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological
theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3

192
Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems
theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018
Novelly, T. (2022, September 28). Even more young Americans are unfit to serve, a new study
finds. Here’s why. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/newpentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. (n.d.). Department head retention bonus
(NAVADMIN046/23). U.S. Department of the Navy.
https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Detailing/officer/Pers-41-
SWO/Pay-Incentives/SWO-DH-Retention/
O’Donnell, W. (2021, October 19). Why don’t America’s young people want to join the
military? American Military University EDGE. https://amuedge.com/why-dont-americasyoung-people-want-to-join-the-military/
Orellana, L., Schnettler, B., Miranda-Zapata, E., Saracostti, M., Poblete, H., Lobos, G., AdasmeBerrios, C., Lapo, M., & Concha-Salgado, A. (2023). Job satisfaction as a mediator
between family-to-work conflict and satisfaction with family life: A dyadic analysis in
dual-earner parents. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 18(1), 491–520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10082-8
Orsi, D. (2017). Military education and broadening assignments: A model for the future. Joint
Force Quarterly, 86, 41–48. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq86/jfq-86_41-48_Orsi.pdf
Orthner, D. K. (1990). Family impacts on the retention of military personnel. U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA225084 https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA225084

193
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace.
International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1).
https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04
Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients.
Psychological methods, 5(3), 343. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-
989X.5.3.343
Osman, H. P. (2006, May 11). Marine Corps promotion manual, volume 2, enlisted promotions
[Memorandum]. U.S. Department of Defense.
https://www.newriver.marines.mil/Portals/17/Documents/MCO%20P1400.32D.pdf
Paquette, D., & Ryan, J. (2001). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. National-Louis
University. https://dropoutprevention.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/paquetteryan
webquest_20091110.pdf
Parris, M. A., Vickers, M. H., & Wilkes, L. (2008). Caught in the middle: Organizational
impediments to middle managers’ work-life balance. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 20, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9069-z
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
Perez, A. L. U., & Strizhko, T. V. (2018). Minority representation, tokenism, and well-being in
Army units. Military Psychology, 30(5), 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2018.1482184
Peters, H. M. (2021). Department of defense contractor and troop levels in Afghanistan and
Iraq: 2007–2020. Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/

194
Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011), So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among
U.S. federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71, 751–760.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02414.x R44116.pdf
Prinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press.
Phinithi, I. K. (2008). The impact of career progression on employee retention [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. North-West University.
https://repository.nwu.ac.za/handle/10394/2629
Powers, K. W., & Diaz, J. B. (2023). What employees want most in uncertain times. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 64(2), 30–34. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-employeeswant-most-in-uncertain-times/
Rachmadini, F., & Riyanto, S. (2020). The impact of work-life balance on employee engagement
in generation Z. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 25(5), 62–66.
https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2025%20Issue5/Series10/I2505106266.pdf
Rand Corporation. (2023). Military service obligation. Rand Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/dopma-ropma/military service obligation.html
Recruit Military. (2023). Understanding military skillsets: Part II.
https://recruitmilitary.com/employers/resource/389-understanding-military-skillsets-partii
Redmond, S. A., Wilcox, S. L., Campbell, S., Kim, A., Finney, K., Barr, K., & Hasson, A. M.
(2013). A brief introduction to the military workplace culture. Center for Innovation and
Research on Veterans and Military Families. https://cir.usc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Brief-Introduction-to-Military-Workplace-Culture.pdf

195
Reising, H., & Fetterer, D. (2021, October 29). Forget flexibility. Your employees want
autonomy. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/forget-flexibility-youremployees-want-autonomy
Richard, K., & Molloy, S. (2020). An examination of emerging adult military men: Masculinity
and U.S. military climate. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 21(4), 686–698.
https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000303
Rideout, V., & Watkins, S. C. (2019). Millennials, social media and politics. The University of
Texas. https://moody.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/Millennials-Social-Media-Politics.pdf
Roberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44),
41–45. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.07.20.44.41.c6560
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–
258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022
Ryckman, O. J. (2017). Retention, mentorship, and servant leadership: An analysis for retaining
2050’s generals in today’s Army [Unpublished master’s thesis] University of San Diego.
https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=solesmalscap
Sabol, M. A., & Wisher, R. A. (2001). Retention and reacquisition of military skills. Military
Operations Research, 6(1), 59–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43943665
https://doi.org/10.5711/morj.6.1.59
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research. Pearson Publications.
Schaefer, C. D. (2017). Factors contributing to millennial turnover in department of defense
(DoD) organizations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Florida Institute of
Technology. https://repository.fit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=etd

196
Schulker, D., Yeung, D., Keller, K. M., Payne, L. A., Saum-Manning, L., Curry Hall, K., &
Zavislan, S. (2018). Understanding demographic differences in undergraduate pilot
training attrition. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1936
Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace engagement and generational differences in values. Business
Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913476543
Segal, M. W., Smith, D. G., Segal, D. R., & Canuso, A. A. (2016). The role of leadership and
peer behaviors in the performance and well-bring of women in combat: Historical
perspectives, unit integration, and family issues. Military Medicine, 181(S1), 28–39.
https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00342
Shanker, T. (2011, February 25). Warning against wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html
Shannon, B. N., McGee, Z. A., & Jones, B. D. (2019, June 25). Bounded rationality and
cognitive limits in political decision making. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Politics. Retrieved 3 April 2023 from
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.961
Shelton, L. (2018). The Bronfenbrenner primer. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315136066
Shettleworth, S. J. (2009). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195319842.001.0001
Siebold, G. L., & Britt, T. W. (2018). American military life in the 21st Century: Social, cultural,
and economic issues and trends. ABC-CLIO.

197
Sims, C., Trail, T., Chen, E., & Miller, L. (2017). Today’s soldier: Assessing the needs of
Soldiers and their families. The Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/
rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1893/RAND_RR1893.pdf
Simkus, J. (2023, March 6). Snowball sampling method: Definition, method, & examples.
SimplePsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/snowball-sampling.html
Sinaiko, H. W., Chatelier, P. R., Cook, C. A., Hosek, J. R., & Sicilia, C. T. (1981). Military
personnel attrition and retention: Research in progress. Office of Naval Research.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA107892.pdf
Sinclair, M., O’Toole, J., Malawaraarachchi, M., & Leder, K. (2012). Comparison of response
rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: Postal, internet, and
telephone modes with generic or personalized recruitment approaches. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 12, Article 132. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-132
Sloan, M. (2023). Military officer rank structure. Military.com. https://www.military.com/hiringveterans/resources/military-officer-rank-structure.html
Sminchise, V. (2016). Military retention. A comparative outlook. Journal of Defense Resources
Management, 7(1), 85–98.
Smith, D. G., & Rosenstein, J. E. (2017). Gender and the military profession: Early career
influences, attitudes, and intentions. Armed Forces and Society, 43(2), 260–279.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X15626722
Smith, P. S., Hayes, M. L., & Lyons, K. M. (2017). The ecology of instructional teacher
leadership. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 267–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.005

198
Society of Human Resource Management. (n.d.) Human resource glossary. Retrieved February
20, 2023, from https://shrm.org/
Spain, E. (2023, April 4). Athena has arrived. U.S. Army.
https://www.army.mil/article/265405/athena_has_arrived
Spain, E., Mukunda, G., & Bates, A. (2021). The battalion commander effect. Parameters, 51(3).
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.3083
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations. Harper Perennia.
Tang, W., Cui, Y., & Babenko, O. (2014). Internal consistency: Do we really know what it is and
how to assess it. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 2(2), 205–220.
Tanielian, T., & Farmer, C. (2019). The US military health system: Promoting readiness and
providing health care. Health Affairs, 38(8), 1259–1267.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00239
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.255202

199
Thirtle, M. R. (2001). Educational benefits and officer-commissioning opportunities available to
U.S. Military service members. RAND Publications.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR981/index.html
Thomas, J. J. (n.d.) Leader development in the US Department of Defense: A brief historical
review and assessment for the future. U.S. Naval Academy.
https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/Leader%20Development%20History%20
Thomas.pdf
Tomé, G., Matos, M., Simões, C., Diniz, J. A., & Camacho, I. (2012). How can peer group
influence the behavior of adolescents: Explanatory model. Global Journal of Health
Science, 4(2), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p26
Townes Mayers, B. (2022). Qualitative case study of relocation experiences of active-duty
military families. (Publication No. 29398647) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global.
Tremblay, M. A. (2010). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators on the relationship between
leadership style, unit commitment, and turnover intention of Canadian Forces Personnel.
Military Psychology, 22(4), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2010.513271
Tudge, J. R. H. (2016). Implicit versus explicit ways of using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological
theory. Human Development, 59(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449453
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work
attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 201–210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6
Ulen, T. S. (1999). Rational choice theory in law and economics. Encyclopedia of Law and
Economics, 1, 790–818.

200
University of Pennsylvania. (2021). Tools for developing effective teams. Penn Medicine
Academy. https://www.med.upenn.edu/uphscovid19education/assets/usercontent/documents/leading/guide-to-establishing-team-norms-final.pdf
Urick, M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., Masterson, S. S., & Lyons, S. T. (2017). Understanding and
managing intergenerational conflict: An examination of influences and strategies. Work,
Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw009
U.S. Department of Defense. (2021, November 10). Department of Defense releases annual
demographics report – modest increase of women in the active duty force [Press release].
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2841124/department-ofdefense-releases-annual-demographics-report-modest-increase-of-wo/
U.S. Department of the Army. (2021). Army retention program: Army regulation 601–280.
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31058-AR_601-280-000-WEB1.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (1993). Military education. Information on service
academies and schools. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD93-264BR/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-93-264BR.pdf
Vasterling, J. J., Proctor, S. P., Aslan, M., Ko, J., Jakupcak, M., Harte, C. B., Marx, B. P., &
Concato, J. (2015). Military, demographic, and psychosocial predictors of military
retention in enlisted army soldiers 12 months after deployment to Iraq. Military Medicine,
180(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00468
Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., &
García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture
from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the

201
Association for Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617704397
Vemparala, T. (2023, January 23). Solving the mystery of millennial and gen Z job hoppers.
Business News Daily. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7012-millennial-jobhopping.html
Vergun, D. (2019, December 10). Service personnel chiefs discuss diversity in the military.
Department of Defense News. https://www.defense.gov/News/NewsStories/Article/Article/2037103/service-personnel-chiefs-discuss-diversity-in-themilitary/
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education primer. P. Lang.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Walker, S. D. (2007). The effects of career broadening on leadership development [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. Air Force Institute of Technology. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/3054
Wang, H. (2022). Research on human resource management performance evaluation method
based on chaos optimization algorithm. Security and Communication Networks, 2022, 1–
8. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9201618
Waroruntu, E., Kainde, S. J. R., & Mandagi, D. W. (2022). Work-Like balance, job satisfaction
and performance among millennial and gen Z employees: A systematic review. Society,
10(2), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.33019/society.v10i2.464
Wellins, R. S., Rumsey, M. G., & Gilbert, A. C. F. (1980). Analysis of junior officer training
needs. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA096034.pdf https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA096034

202
Western Governors University. (2021, March 10). Defining transactional leadership [Blog post].
WGU Washington. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/transactional-leadership2103.html#close
White, A. (2021). Effects of preferred duty station assignment on the performance and retention
of USCM personnel [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Naval Post Graduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1150825
Williams, B. M. (2019). Bureaucracy, the profession, and retention of Captains in the U.S. Army
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Kansas. http://hdl.handle.net/2097/39474
Williams, K. R. (2019). The cost of tolerating toxic behaviors in the Department of Defense
workplace. Military Review, 99(4), 54–67. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/
Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2019/Williams-Toxic-Behavior/
Wojack, A. (2014). Is experience the missing link in junior officer development? Military
Review, 94(2), 33–41. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/militaryreview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20140430_art009.pdf
Wood, N. (2020). Time for a staff officer career track. U.S. Naval Institute.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/december/time-staff-officer-careertrack
Wrobel, G. M., & Neil, E. (2009). International advances in adoption research for practice.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470741276
Zeb, A., Rehman, S., Saeed, G., & Ullah, H. (2014). A study of the relationship between reward
and recognition and employees job satisfaction: A literature review. Abasyn Journal of
Social Sciences, 7(2), 278–291. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326356368_A
_Study_of_the_Relationship_between_Reward_and_Recognition_and_employees_Job_S
atisfaction_A_Literature_Review

203
Zeffane, R. (2012). Does employee satisfaction with communication affect trust? Longitudinal
evidence from an Australian study. International Journal of Business Performance
Management, 13(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2012.044865
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–
1076. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068
Zey, M. (2001). Rational choice and organization theory. International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences, 12751–12755. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-
7/04212-1
Zinkula, J. (2022, October 5). The US Army is struggling to recruit as most of the gen Z is
ineligible to serve due to factors like obesity, drug use, and tattoos. Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-recruiting-shortage-gen-z-eligible-drugstattoos-obesity-2022-10
Zurich. (2022). How is gen Z changing the workplace?
https://www.zurich.com/en/media/magazine/2022/how-will-gen-z-change-the-future-ofwork
Zwarenstein, M., Al-Jaishi, A., & Garg, A. X. (2021). Promoting both internal and external
validity: Designing the trail to match the intention. National Institute of Health, Health
Care System Research Collaboratory.
https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/Promoting%20Internal%20and%20Ext
ernal%20Validity.pdf

204
Appendix A: Draft Survey
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
[Informed consent
message] (See
Appendix B)
Do you consent to
taking this survey?
Closed Nominal Yes
No
Did you serve on
active-duty in the
military in a NATO
pay grades of O1–
O3 between 2012–
2023? (This includes
National Guard and
Reservists on activeduty orders)
Closed Nominal Yes
No
[If no]
Did you exit active
military service as a
junior military
officer in a NATO
pay grade of O1–
O3?
[Skip to end of survey
if no is selected]
Closed Nominal Yes
No
How long ago did you
serve in the
military?
Open Ratio N–A
In what military
branch did you
serve?
Closed Nominal US Army
US Navy
US Marine
Corps
US Air Force

205
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
[Skip to end of survey
if 7 is selected]
US Coast Guard
US Space Force
Other
[If other selected]
Because you selected
‘other’ for military
branch, what
military service did
you serve? If
another country,
please be specific.
Open
Which way did you
leave active-duty
service?
Closed Nominal Retirement
Involuntary
retirement
Voluntary
separation
before
retirement
N–A
Did you incur an
active-duty service
obligation?
Closed Nominal Yes
No
Please rate the
following statements
based on how you
feel family and
personal factors
most affected your
military service:
1.1 Family life
(partner, spouse,
children, etc.)
played a role in my
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Microsystem

206
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
decision to leave
active-duty service.
1.2 Time away from
family, friends, or
those important to
me played a role in
my decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Microsystem
1.3 The ability to start
a family played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Individual
1.4 The ability to find
a significant other
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Individual
1.5 Cultural norms of
the military service
in which I served
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Microsystem
1.6 Pressure to pursue
a career in the
military played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual/
microsystem
1.7 Personal goal
achievement played
a role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual
Please list any factors
not stated above as it
relates to family and
personal issues.
Open

207
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
Please rate the
following statements
based on how you
feel resource
allocation most
affected your
military service:
This includes organizational resources in
professional development, leadership
development, furthering education,
compensation, career progression, and other
areas in which the organization focuses its
resources.
2.1 Compensation
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Microsystem
2.2 Autonomy in my
career plans played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Microsystem
2.3 officer evaluations
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Macrosystem
into
microsystem
2.4 The promotion
system played a role
in my decision to
leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Macrosystem
into
microsystem
2.5 Peers played a role
in my decision to
leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Microsystem
2.6 My senior
leadership and direct
leadership played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Microsystem
2.7 Leadership
priorities, as related
to work, played a
role in my decision
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Microsystem

208
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
to leave active-duty
service.
2.8 Mentorship played
a role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Individual/
microsystem
2.9 Incentive programs
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Macrosystem
into
microsystem
2.10 Duty station of
choice played a role
in my decision to
leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Macrosystem
into
microsystem
Please list any factors
not stated above as it
relates to this area of
inquiry.
Open
Please rate the
following statements
based on how you
personally value the
following topics and
how they affected
your military
service:
3.1 Time off played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual
3.2 Ability to use/
apply for broadening
programs played a
role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Macrosystem
into
microsystem
3.3 Health care options
played a role in my
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
1 Macrosystem
into
microsystem

209
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Strongly agree
3.4 Flexibility to
pursue personal
goals while serving
on active-duty
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual/
microsystem
3.5 Ethical leadership,
to include senior,
peer, and
subordinate, played
a role in my decision
to leave active-duty
service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual
3.6 Cultural norms of
the community to
which I feel I belong
played a role in my
decision to leave
active-duty service.
Closed Ordinal Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
3 Individual/
microsystem
Please list any factors
not stated above as it
relates to this area of
inquiry.
Open
The following is
questions are related
solely to
demographic
information.
How old are you
currently?
Open Ratio
How old were you
when you left
active-duty service?
Open Ratio
What race do you
currently identify
as? (if multiple
ethnicities, please
Closed Nominal American Indian
or Alaskan
Native

210
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from emerging
conceptual
framework)—
Bronfenbrenner
select more than one
response)
Asian / Pacific
Islander
Black or African
American
Hispanic
White / Caucasian
Did you identify with a
different race while
on active-duty?
Closed Nominal Yes
No
[If yes selected]
What race did you
identify as while on
active-duty? (if
multiple ethnicities,
please select more
than one response)
Closed Nominal American Indian
or Alaskan
Native
Asian / Pacific
Islander
Black or African
American
Hispanic
White/Caucasian
What gender marker
did your military
service record as
your gender while
on active-duty?
Closed Nominal Male
Female
Has your gender
identity changed
since you left activeduty?
Closed Nominal Male
Female
How likely are you to
recommend military
service to someone
else?
Closed Ordinal Not at all likely
Not likely
Likely
Very Likely
N–A
Thank you for your time in taking this survey. Your answers are recorded and anonymized. If
you have any further questions or would like to contact the researcher, please e-mail:
ambrocik@usc.edu

211
Appendix B: Informed Consent Message
Thank you for your interest in this survey!
My name is David Ambrocik, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California. I am also an active-duty military officer in the United States Army.
I am conducting a research study on the attrition of active-duty junior military officers in
the uniformed services of the United States at their military service obligation window or their
active-duty service obligation date. The name of this research study is “Attrition of Junior
Military officers within the Uniformed Military Services.” I am seeking your participation in this
study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
• You are over 18 years old.
• You are not currently on active-duty status.
• You served on active-duty status from 2012–2023.
• You exited the military as an active-duty, commissioned officer in a paygrade of O1–
O3.
Note: transition to National Guard or Reserves, for the purposes of this study, constitutes
the end of active-duty service, regardless if you transitioned to active Guard/Reserve status.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activity:
complete an online survey which will take around 15–20 minutes.
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. All responses will be anonymized and no personal information will be collected. You

212
will not be able to view other participants’ responses. All data will be de-identified prior to any
publication or presentations. I may share the data, de-identified, with other researchers in the
future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: ambrocik@usc.edu or
(323) 389–5197. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442–0114 or
email hrpp@usc.edu.
By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is
voluntary, you are 18 years of age or older, and that you are aware that you may choose to
terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason.
Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some
features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.

213
Appendix C: Supplemental Tables
Table C1
Evaluation Systems Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 34.62 34.62 5.88 – – 3.85 3.85
Navy 11.11 33.33 33.33 16.67 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 11.76 11.76 26.74 5.88 5.88 5.88 20.59 11.76
Marine
Corps
21.43 14.29 57.14 – – – – 7.14
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –
Note. Army, n = 27; Navy, n = 18; Air Force, n = 34; Marine Corps, n = 14; Space Force, n = 2;
Coast Guard, n = 2.

214
Table C2
Evaluation Systems Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
academy
– – 50.00 10.00 – – 30.00 10.00
ROTC 17.65 25.49 27.45 5.88 3.92 3.92 7.84 7.84
OCS/OTS 16.67 25.00 41.67 12.50 – – 4.17 –
Other – – 50.00 10.00 – – 30.00 10.00
Note. Service Academy, n = 12; ROTC, n = 59; OCS/OTC, n = 36; Other, n = 7.
Table C3
Promotion Systems Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 23.08 34.62 30.77 3.85 – 3.85 – 3.85
Navy 22.22 5.56 50.00 16.67 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 14.71 20.59 14.71 5.88 2.94 5.88 14.71 20.59
Marine
Corps
21.43 7.14 57.14 7.14 – – – 7.14
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

215
Table C4
Promotion System Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– 10.00 40.00 10.00 – 10.00 – 30.00
ROTC 23.53 23.53 25.49 3.92 1.96 3.92 7.84 9.80
OCS/OTS 20.83 12.50 45.83 16.67 – – 4.17 –
Other 14.29 28.57 28.57 – – – 14.29 14.29
Table C5
Compensation Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 26.92 11.54 38.64 15.38 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 11.11 11.11 55.56 16.67 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 17.65 11.76 23.53 2.94 2.94 8.82 17.65 14.71
Marine
Corps
35.71 – 50.00 7.14 – 7.14 – –
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – 100 –

216
Table C6
Compensation Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
10.00 – 40.00 10.00 – 20.00 10.00 10.00
ROTC 21.57 11.76 35.29 7.84 1.96 5.88 7.84 7.84
OCS/OTS 29.17 12.50 41.67 12.50 – – 4.17 –
Other 14.29 – 42.86 14.29 – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C7
Incentive Programs Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 19.23 38.46 3.85 – – 3.85 3.85
Navy 11.11 22.78 22.22 33.33 5.56 – – –
Air Force 20.59 17.65 17.65 – 2.94 14.71 14.71 11.76
Marine
Corps
50.00 7.14 35.71 – – – – 7.14
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – 100 –

217
Table C8
Incentive Programs Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
academy
20.00 – 30.00 10.00 – – 20.00 20.00
ROTC 25.49 19.61 28.57 14.29 1.96 9.80 5.88 5.88
OCS/OTS 33.33 25.00 29.17 8.33 – – 4.17
Other 14.29 14.29 28.57 14.29 14.29 – – 14.29
Table C9
Career Autonomy Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 53.85 34.62 3.85 – 3.85 3.85 – –
Navy 44.44 22.22 11.11 16.67 5.56 – – –
Air Force 23.53 11.76 14.71 5.88 23.53 14.71 – 5.88
Marine
Corps
64.29 23.43 7.14 – 7.14 – – –
Space
Force
50.00 – 50.00 – – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

218
Table C10
Career Autonomy Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
30.00 20.00 10.00 – 20.00 20.00 – –
ROTC 39.22 19.61 11.76 5.88 11.76 7.84 – 3.92
OCS/OTS 54.17 33.33 4.17 4.17 4.17 – – –
Other 42.86 – 14.29 14.29 28.57 – – –
Table C11
Choice Duty Station Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 30.77 23.08 7.69 – – 7.69 –
Navy 16.67 16.67 22.22 38.89 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 20.59 11.76 20.59 2.94 8.82 5.88 17.65 11.76
Marine
Corps
28.57 28.57 28.57 38.89 – 5.56 – –
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

219
Table C12
Choice Duty Station Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– 40.00 – 20.00 – – 20.00 20.00
ROTC 27.45 19.61 21.57 7.84 5.88 3.92 7.84 5.88
OCS/OTS 25.00 20.83 37.50 12.50 – – 4.17 –
Other 28.57 – 14.29 28.57 – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C13
Peer Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 26.92 30.77 19.23 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 16.67 22.22 38.89 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 5.88 11.76 26.47 11.76 2.94 11.76 8.82 20.59
Marine
Corps
7.14 35.71 35.71 14.29 – – – 7.14
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – 100 –

220
Table C14
Peer Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– 20.00 20.00 20.00 – 10.00 – 30.00
ROTC 11.76 15.69 33.33 15.69 1.96 5.88 5.88 9.80
OCS/OTS 16.67 41.67 25.00 12.50 – 4.17 – –
Other – 14.29 57.14 – – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C15
Senior Leadership Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 42.31 23.08 23.08 3.85 7.69 – – –
Navy 44.44 33.33 11.11 5.56 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 17.65 8.82 20.59 8.82 17.65 5.88 11.76 8.82
Marine
Corps
35.71 28.57 28.57 – – – 7.14 –
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

221
Table C16
Senior Leadership Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 10.00 30.00 – 20.00 – 10.00 10.00
ROTC 33.33 19.61 15.69 7.84 9.80 3.92 5.88 3.92
OCS/OTS 33.33 29.17 29.17 4.17 – – 4.17 –
Other 42.86 14.29 14.29 – 14.29 – 14.29 –
Table C17
Leadership Priorities Response by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 42.31 15.38 3.85 3.85 – 3.85 –
Navy 38.89 38.89 11.11 5.56 5.56 – – –
Air Force 14.71 23.53 14.71 2.94 11.76 17.65 8.82 5.88
Marine
Corps
35.71 28.57 28.57 – – – 7.14 –
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

222
Table C18
Leadership Priorities Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 – 40.00 – 30.00 10.00 – –
ROTC 27.45 33.33 11.76 3.92 3.92 7.84 7.84 3.92
OCS/OTS 33.33 45.83 12.50 4.17 – 4.17 – –
Other 14.29 28.57 28.57 – 14.29 – 14.29 –
Table C19
Mentorship Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 26.92 30.77 19.23 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 27.78 27.78 22.22 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 14.71 8.82 32.35 – 5.88 5.88 17.65 14.71
Marine
Corps
7.14 28.57 57.14 – – – – 7.14
Space
Force
50.00 – – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

223
Table C20
Mentorship Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 – 30.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 –
ROTC 17.65 15.69 35.29 7.84 1.96 – 9.80 11.76
OCS/OTS 12.50 37.50 37.50 8.33 – 4.17 – –
Other 14.29 – 57.14 – – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C21
Starting a Family Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 26.92 30.77 19.23 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 27.78 27.78 22.22 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 14.71 8.82 32.35 – 17.65 2.94 5.88 17.65
Marine
Corps
7.14 28.57 57.14 – – – – 7.14
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – – 100

224
Table C22
Starting a Family Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 40.00 – – –
ROTC 23.53 21.57 29.41 1.96 3.92 1.96 3.92 13.73
OCS/OTS 20.83 29.17 37.50 8.33 4.17 – – –
Other – – 42.86 28.57 14.29 14.29 – –
Table C23
Finding a Significant Other Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N =
95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 34.62 19.23 23.08 15.38 – – 3.85 3.85
Navy 33.33 5.56 44.44 11.11 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 5.88 8.82 23.53 17.65 5.88 – 5.88 32.35
Marine
Corps
23.57 7.14 28.57 28.57 – – – 7.14
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

225
Table C24
Finding a Significant Other Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
30.00 30.00 – – – – 20.00 20.00
ROTC 23.53 3.92 29.41 19.61 3.92 – 1.96 17.65
OCS/OTS 25.00 16.67 37.50 16.67 – – – 4.17
Other – 14.29 28.57 28.57 – 14.29 – 14.29
Table C25
Family Life Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 42.31 30.77 11.54 7.69 3.85 3.85 – –
Navy 16.67 27.78 27.78 22.22 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 11.76 32.35 5.88 5.88 20.59 17.65 2.94 2.94
Marine
Corps
42.86 21.43 21.43 7.14 – 7.14 – –
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – – 100

226
Table C26
Family Life Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
academy
20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 – –
ROTC 27.45 25.49 17.65 5.88 9.80 9.80 1.96 1.96
OCS/OTS 29.17 41.67 8.33 16.67 4.17 – – –
Other 14.29 28.57 14.29 14.29 – 28.57 – –
Table C27
Time Away From Family–Friends Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 46.15 30.77 15.38 – 3.85 – 3.85 –
Navy 33.33 28.57 22.22 11.11 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 14.71 29.41 11.76 – 20.59 14.71 2.94 5.88
Marine
Corps
35.71 28.57 28.57 – – 7.14 – –
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

227
Table C28
Time Away from Family–Friends Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As
Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
30.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 – –
ROTC 31.37 23.53 19.61 1.96 11.76 5.88 1.96 3.92
OCS/OTS 37.50 41.67 16.67 – – 4.17 – –
Other – 57.41 14.29 – – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C29
Cultural Norm Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 34.62 19.23 23.08 15.38 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 22.22 22.22 33.33 16.67 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 11.76 11.76 23.53 8.82 11.76 2.94 26.47 2.94
Marine
Corps
21.43 35.71 21.43 14.29 – – – 7.14
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

228
Table C30
Cultural Norm Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 20.00 – 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 –
ROTC 23.53 15.69 25.49 11.76 3.92 1.96 13.73 3.92
OCS/OTS 25.00 25.00 33.33 12.50 – – 4.17 –
Other – 28.57 28.57 14.29 – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C31
Career Pressure Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 11.54 15.38 57.69 7.69 – – 3.85 3.85
Navy – 22.22 44.44 27.78 – 5.56 – –
Air Force 8.82 5.88 29.41 11.76 2.94 20.59 5.88 14.71
Marine
Corps
– 7.14 71.43 14.29 – – 7.14 –
Space
Force
– – 50.00 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

229
Table C32
Career Pressure Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– – 50.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 – 10.00
ROTC 7.84 11.76 41.18 15.69 – 9.80 3.92 9.80
OCS/OTS 8.33 12.50 62.50 12.50 – – 4.17 –
Other – 28.57 28.57 14.29 – 14.29 – 14.29
Table C33
Personal Goal Achievement Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 34.62 26.92 23.08 7.69 3.85 3.85 – –
Navy 44.44 33.33 16.67 – 5.56 – – –
Air Force 14.71 14.71 17.65 8.82 11.76 11.76 11.76 8.82
Marine
Corps
50.00 28.57 14.29 – 7.14 – – –
Space
Force
– 50.00 50.00 – – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – 100 –

230
Table C34
Personal Goal Achievement Responses by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages
(N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 –
ROTC 29.41 19.61 21.57 5.88 5.88 7.84 3.92 5.88
OCS/OTS 37.50 37.50 16.67 4.17 4.17 – – 4.17
Other 42.86 14.29 14.29 – 28.57 – – –
Table C35
Time Off Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 15.38 42.13 3.85 – – 7.69 –
Navy 44.44 16.67 27.78 5.56 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 8.82 14.71 29.41 2.94 2.94 8.82 14.71 17.65
Marine
Corps
14.29 35.71 42.86 – – 7.14 – –
Space
Force
– – 100 – – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

231
Table C36
Time Off Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– 10.00 50.00 – 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
ROTC 25.49 15.69 31.37 3.92 – 5.88 9.80 7.84
OCS/OTS 29.17 33.33 29.17 4.17 – – – 4.17
Other 14.29 – 57.14 – – – 28.57 –
Table C37
Broadening Program Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 30.77 42.31 3.85 3.85 – 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 33.33 27.78 16.67 5.56 – – –
Air Force 8.82 14.71 29.41 2.94 – 14.71 17.65 11.76
Marine
Corps
14.29 14.29 64.29 – – 7.14 – –
Space
Force
– – 100 – – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

232
Table C38
Broadening Program Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– 30.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 – 10.00
ROTC 17.65 25.49 29.41 3.92 – 7.84 9.80 5.88
OCS/OTS 12.50 12.50 62.50 8.33 – – 4.17 –
Other – 28.57 42.86 – 14.29 – 14.29 –
Table C39
Health Care Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 7.69 11.54 53.85 19.23 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 – 44.44 33.33 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 2.94 2.94 35.29 14.71 5.88 5.88 14.71 17.65
Marine
Corps
7.14 – 64.29 21.43 – – 7.14 –
Space
Force
– – 50.00 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – – – 100

233
Table C40
Health Care Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
– – 50.00 10.00 – 10.00 10.00 20.00
ROTC 5.88 3.92 45.10 21.57 3.92 – 11.76 7.84
OCS/OTS 12.50 8.33 45.83 29.17 – 4.17 – –
Other 14.29 – 57.14 – – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C41
Personal Goal Flexibility Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages
(N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 46.15 3.85 11.54 – 3.85 3.85 –
Navy 16.67 38.89 22.22 16.67 5.56 – – –
Air Force 14.71 26.47 11.76 2.94 2.94 26.47 5.88 5.88
Marine
Corps
14.29 35.71 42.86 – 7.14 – – –
Space
Force
50.00 – 50.00 – – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – – 100 – –

234
Table C42
Personal Goal Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 30.0 – 10.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 –
ROTC 19.61 37.25 11.76 7.84 1.96 11.96 3.92 5.88
OCS/OTS 20.83 37.50 29.17 8.33 – 4.17 – –
Other 14.29 28.57 28.57 – 14.29 14.29 – –
Table C43
Ethical Leadership Responses by Gender and Service Component as Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 30.77 26.92 30.77 3.85 3.85 3.85 – –
Navy 22.22 22.22 27.78 22.22 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 14.71 8.82 20.59 11.76 11.76 14.71 14.71 2.94
Marine
Corps
21.43 28.57 28.57 14.29 – – – 7.14–
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

235
Table C44
Ethical Leadership Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
10.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 – –
ROTC 15.69 15.69 29.41 15.69 5.88 3.92 9.80 3.92
OCS/OTS 37.50 29.17 25.00 4.17 – 4.17 – –
Other 28.57 14.29 14.29 14.29 – 14.29 14.29 –
Table C45
Cultural Self–Identity Responses by Gender and Service Component As Percentages (N = 95)
Service
component
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Army 15.38 23.08 34.62 19.23 – – 7.69 –
Navy 16.67 22.22 27.78 27.78 – – 5.56 –
Air Force 8.82 5.88 29.41 11.76 5.88 8.82 17.65 11.76
Marine
Corps
14.29 21.43 42.86 14.29 – – – 7.14
Space
Force
– 50.00 – 50.00 – – – –
Coast
Guard
– – – – 100 – – –

236
Table C46
Cultural Self–Identity Response by Gender and Commissioning Source As Percentages (N = 95)
Accession
source
Male Female
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Service
Academy
20.00 – 30.00 10.00 – 10.00 20.00 10.00
ROTC 9.80 13.37 33.33 19.61 3.92 3.92 7.84 7.84
OCS/OTS 20.83 20.83 37.50 16.67 – – 4.17 –
Other – 42.86 14.29 14.29 – – 28.57 –

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

African American officer's experiences as leaders navigating the United States Armed Service

PDF

Influence of mentorship on career development for underrepresented minoritized students in STEM undergraduate research experiences

PDF

Minding the gender gap: self-efficacy and women senior leadership roles in banking

PDF

Women Chief Information Officers (CIOs): how did they make it?

PDF

Deckplate leadership: a promising practice study of chief petty officer development

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

High rates of suicides among active-duty military population: how exposure to a suicide event affects behaviors

PDF

Identifying diversity solutions for the cybersecurity workforce shortage: a phenomenological qualitative study

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Ambrocik, David (author)

Core Title Attrition of junior military officers within the uniformed military services: a quantitative study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 03/07/2024

Defense Date 12/05/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag autonomy,career management,choice theory,employee engagement,employee satisfaction,generational differences,leadership,Military,OAI-PMH Harvest,officers,quantitative,retention,talent management

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), O'Neill, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email ambrocik@usc.edu,dambrocik@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113848715

Unique identifier UC113848715

Identifier etd-AmbrocikDa-12688.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AmbrocikDa-12688

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Ambrocik, David

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240311-usctheses-batch-1128 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu