Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention
(USC Thesis Other)
The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Spouse Factor: How a Partner’s Career Impacts U.S. Navy Officer Retention
Timothy A. Cushanick
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
August 2024
© Copyright by Timothy A. Cushanick 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Timothy A. Cushanick certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Maddox
Marcus Pritchard
Fred Freking, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This study applied an ecological systems model and a conceptual model of military career and
family life course events to understand the impact of a partner’s civilian career on the decision
for a surface warfare officer (SWO) to remain on active duty. The purpose of the study was to
determine the factors a dual-career couple weighs in the SWO retention decision and what
potential changes to policy the U.S. Navy could make to improve the retention of SWOs with an
employed civilian partner. The methodological design for the study was qualitative, specifically
through the use of phenomenological analysis. Eight couples were interviewed together. Each
had one SWO partner who was departing or had recently departed active duty and the other
partner was an employed civilian. Instrumentation involved a semi-structured interview protocol.
Ten findings were revealed by the study with selected highlights including: (a) each SWO made
their retention decision in genuine partnership with their spouse, and they made the career
decision from a holistic multisystem approach; (b) the concept of stability was a significant
factor in each decision with the two most significant being geographic stability and spouse
professional stability; (c) professional career satisfaction acted like a counterbalance to the
significant stressors and sacrifices each couple experienced, as higher SWO professional
satisfaction meant the couple was willing to endure greater sacrifice; (d) well-being was at the
center of each decision with family outcomes and spouse career life course the two most
important of the discussion; (e) shocks and triggers are important to the retention decision, but
positive leadership and a sense that leaders are addressing the shocks can make a difference; (f)
SWOs want to feel like PERS is taking their personal concerns, including spouse employment,
and performance on the job into genuine consideration when making placement decisions. This
study begins to explain the multisystem factors a dual-career couple weighs in a decision for
v
SWOs to continue service or depart active duty. Understanding these factors has significant
implications for the retention of talented SWOs, the warfighting effectiveness of the U.S. Navy,
and greater U.S. national security.
vi
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I must recognize the sacrifices and support of my incredible wife,
Rose, who inspired my pursuit of a doctorate. She not only suggested that I pursue this dream
when the pandemic first started, but she has also supported me physically and emotionally during
this journey. You are the rock I rely upon and the inspiration for my hard work and dedication.
Thank you for the encouragement and patience through an overseas deployment and the years
spent in pursuit of this degree. I love you beyond words and hope to repay your sacrifices in
support of your future dreams and ambitions. Our relationship and professional journey were a
significant inspiration for this research, and I am grateful to have you as a partner-for-life.
In addition to my wife, I would like to acknowledge my children, Charlotte and Jonathan,
who have endured countless nights with me occupied in class and writing. You likely do not
remember a time before I was in school, and I look forward to giving you my undivided attention
from now on. I would also like to recognize my mother-in-law Carmella, who has helped support
this goal behind the scenes, in addition to assisting Rose with childcare and endless meals in my
absence. Without you, none of this would have been possible.
Next, I am grateful for the amazing support of my numerous colleagues and mentors in
the U.S. Navy, including Chris Barnes, Dave Hollon, Steve McDowell, Jeff Heames, John
Beach, and the many others who have made an impact on my career and research. My study is
born out of a genuine love for the SWO community and a desire to make it the premier fighting
force and magnet for retention I know it can be.
I also would like to applaud the inspirational professionals in USC OCL Cohorts 19 and
22. I began this program at the height of COVID and took a year-long sabbatical due to a U.S.
Navy Reserve mobilization and deployment. Both cohorts were an amazing kaleidoscope of
vii
individuals who made the classroom a vibrant laboratory for exploration and discussion; I am
forever grateful for you challenging me to be the best. I am also incredibly grateful for the
mentorship and coaching of my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Fred Freking, and members,
Dr. Marcus Pritchard and Dr. Gregory Maddox. Your professionalism and motivational words
have been a constant inspiration for me to continue working and completing my research.
Finally, to all the SWOs and sailors out there in the fleet; you make the U.S. Navy a
premier fighting force. Your professionalism is the greatest deterrent from aggression we have at
our disposal. Stay prepared for conflict so we may enjoy peace!
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions........................................................ 5
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................... 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ........................................ 8
Literature Review.................................................................................................................9
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................... 35
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 41
Research Questions............................................................................................... 41
Overview of Design .............................................................................................. 41
Participants............................................................................................................ 49
Findings..............................................................................................................................54
Holistic Approach to Career Decisions................................................................. 63
Research Question 1: How Does a Dual-Income Couple Factor a Nonmilitary Partner’s Career Into the Retention Decision? ........................................ 69
Research Question 2: What Potential Changes to Navy Policy Could Alter
a Preliminary Decision to Depart Military Service?........................................... 103
Discussion of Findings........................................................................................ 115
Recommendations............................................................................................................118
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................125
References....................................................................................................................................127
Appendix A: The Researcher.......................................................................................................137
ix
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................139
Introduction to the Interview ...........................................................................................139
Conclusion to the Interview.............................................................................................143
Appendix C: Codebook................................................................................................................144
Appendix D: Definitions..............................................................................................................149
Appendix E: Ethics ......................................................................................................................150
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participant Background.............................................................................. 51
Table 2: Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 55
Table 3: Summary of Findings Connections to Framework....................................................... 117
Table B1: Interview Protocol...................................................................................................... 140
Appendix C: Codebook............................................................................................................... 144
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Rank Insignia of Commissioned Unrestricted Line U.S. Navy Officer.......................... 3
Figure 2: Career Progression and Key Duties U.S. Navy SWOs Perform Aboard Ships .............. 4
Figure 3: Themes and Components of Influential Turnover Models ........................................... 11
Figure 4: An Integrated Framework of the Antecedents of Turnover .......................................... 15
Figure 5: An Integrated Framework of the Dynamic Turnover Process ...................................... 16
Figure 6: Study Framework Adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model .......... 37
Figure 7: Military Family Events and Well-Being: A Life Course Model................................... 39
Figure 8: Adaptation of Systems Framework for Work and Home in a Dual-Income Military
Couple ........................................................................................................................................... 72
1
The Spouse Factor: How a Partner’s Career Impacts U.S. Navy Officer Retention
Excessive turnover of employees has consequences for the long-term success of any
organization, and the retention of highly skilled and effective leaders is critical to preventing
excessive turnover across an organization (Goldstein et al., 2017). The U.S. Navy surface
warfare officer (SWO) community has historically experienced periods of challenge in retaining
officers past their initial service commitment at levels commensurate with other communities in
the U.S. Navy (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2021). These challenges
received highlighted attention following the tragic results of two collisions in quick succession in
the Western Pacific Ocean in 2017, resulting in a mandated GAO report about the status of the
SWO community to U.S. congressional committees (GAO, 2021). According to the June 2021
report, 33% of SWOs remained in the community after 10 years of service, while the rate for
offices in other communities was 45% (GAO, 2021).
Understanding the myriad factors affecting the decision to continue service or depart
active duty is critical to addressing the lower retention rates. Admittedly, some aspects are
difficult or impossible for the U.S. Navy to change or influence, but others are within
policymakers’ power to adjust. One significant factor in the decision for SWOs and service
members of all branches to stay on active duty is spousal or family support for service (Blue Star
Families, 2023). This study addressed the growing challenges of dual-income households and the
impact of a non-military spouse’s career on SWO retention as a significant factor requiring
further examination.
Context and Background of the Problem
As of June 2022, the U.S. Navy had 344,022 active-duty personnel (Congressional
Research Service [CRS], 2022). Among them, approximately 9,000 are SWOs (GAO, 2021).
2
Within this community are individuals at various levels of rank and responsibility. Figure 1
displays the rank structure of U.S. Navy unrestricted line officers, which includes individuals in
front-line warfighting roles such as SWO, pilot, and submariner, including the pay grade and
insignia identifiers used on uniforms (Naval Services FamilyLine, 2021). Junior officers
(paygrade O-1 to O-4) serve as middle managers of ships from division officers with
approximately five to 25 personnel under their direct supervision through department head, with
50 or more personnel under their charge. Junior officers transition to senior officers (pay grade
O-5 and above) at approximately 15 years of service, leading entire units or ships at sea with
hundreds or thousands of personnel. It is important to note that rank and position are
interconnected. Individuals progress through the ranks as they are selected for promotion, largely
based on performance in roles of increasing responsibility, in addition to time in pay grade (Navy
Personnel Command [NPC], 2023).
3
Figure 1
Rank Insignia of Commissioned Unrestricted Line U.S. Navy Officer
Note. From Ranks, Rates and Insignias by Naval Services FamilyLine, 2021.
(https://www.nsfamilyline.org/rate-rank-insignias). In the public domain.
A SWO’s career path begins at college or shortly following graduation. After earning an
undergraduate degree and initial entry training, the individual receives a commission from the
president of the United States and reports to their formative professional schools (NPC, 2023).
The initial service commitment for most SWOs is 5 years, assuming they do not commit to
special programs requiring additional time (RAND Corporation, 2009). At the end of those 5
years, the SWO can resign their commission, resulting in a departure from active duty and
resuming civilian life, or continue serving under various bonus and commitment structures.
4
Figure 2 displays the SWO career progression and briefly explains the roles of each level (GAO,
2021).
Figure 2
Career Progression and Key Duties U.S. Navy SWOs Perform Aboard Ships
Note. From Navy Readiness Actions Needed to Evaluate and Improve Surface Warfare Officer
Career Path by U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2021, p. 9.
(https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-168.pdf). In the public domain.
5
The 5-year commitment is critical to analyzing retention challenges because, at that point,
the individual must make decisions about their career path based on many factors. With most
SWOs beginning their career in their early 20s, the end of the 5-year commitment coincides with
potentially significant personal life changes (i.e., marriage, children, or graduate school) as they
approach the age of 30. In addition, the 5-year commitment typically ends following the division
officer phase of their career, identified as the first section on the left in Figure 2 (GAO, 2021).
Committing to additional time as a SWO after that results in a significant increase in
responsibility as department heads.
Similar to civilian workplace retention, SWOs weigh personal and professional factors,
including family planning, life fulfillment, geographic location, salary expectations,
leadership/job satisfaction, and perceived promotion potential (NPC, 2023). However, some
factors are unique to military service. These include overseas deployment length, zeal for
service, geopolitical instability or potential for armed combat, and overall sentiment about
employability in the civilian sector (GAO, 2021; NPC, 2023). Each individual has specific
circumstances, which makes studying this retention decision difficult. Over the past few decades
an emerging challenge complicating this decision is the rise of significant numbers of dualincome households. As a result, the decision to stay in the Navy affects the careers of an
increasing number of partners in the process (Blue Star Families, 2023).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study aimed to understand better the active duty retention decision from a dualincome couple’s perspective, paying particular attention to how a non-military partner’s career
affects the decision. Military retention has specific challenges to explore, such as frequent
involuntary relocations and the inability to depart the service at any time, that are relatively
6
unique to a servicemember’s decision calculus. This study explored the process and how dualincome couples reached an ultimate decision. This study addressed two overarching research
questions:
1. How does a dual-income couple factor a non-military partner’s career into the
retention decision?
2. What potential changes to Navy policy could alter a preliminary decision to depart
military service?
Importance of the Study
This problem is significant due to the readiness challenges that poor retention may cause
and the cascading resultant effects, such as a loss of talent or waste of resources. The GAO
report referenced earlier shows the U.S. Navy onboards nearly double the number of new SWOs
required to man ships at the junior levels (GAO, 2021). Leaders do this to offset the relatively
stagnant retention rate of more senior levels past 8 years of service and the need to maintain
enough leaders to support operations (GAO, 2021). As a result, the U.S. Navy commissions an
average of 800 extra new officers each year in the SWO community alone (GAO, 2021). An
important caveat to these figures is the fact that this system assumes some of these extra SWOs
will transfer laterally to other Navy officer communities, but the entire amount is not needed for
those other communities.
The total over onboarding of new SWOs represents a considerable investment of tax
money as each SWO costs the U.S. Navy $633,000 by the time they reach 8 years of service
(GAO, 2021). That sum is actually an underrepresentation of the cost to make each officer
because it does not include the accession costs such as ROTC tuition scholarships or U.S. Naval
Academy attendance (GAO, 2021). Therefore, when factoring in the extra ensigns and the
7
investment cost, the U.S. Navy could be spending approximately $500 million in unnecessary
funds every 8 years to meet SWO staffing needs past mid-career.
With many extra new SWOs in their formative years, each could potentially receive less
training and practical experience in the profession of ship driving and maritime warfare due to
the relatively fixed number of ships and positions (GAO, 2021; Commander, Naval Surface
Forces [CNSF], 2023). This fact was reflected in focus groups completed as part of the 2021
GAO report and the 2022 survey of SWOs, which highlighted the detrimental effects of too
many non-qualified (i.e., brand new) SWOs on ships, impeding opportunities for professional
development and qualifications (GAO, 2021; CNSF, 2023). If retention were better past midcareer, the Navy could onboard fewer SWOs, invest in more quality training for them, and
enable them to master those skills to increase the force’s preparedness and lethality. With money
saved from fewer new SWOs, the U.S. Navy could invest in other areas, such as enlisted
training, ship maintenance, and innovative technologies.
In addition, the Navy has recently begun to seriously consider the difficult-to-quantify
factor of talent management (CNSF, 2023). The aforementioned 2022 survey of SWOs at most
pay grades revealed there is skepticism that top talent is remaining in the Navy or reaching the
highest ranks (CNSF, 2023). In this study, only 17% of junior officers believed top SWOs are
remaining for department head and beyond (CNSF, 2023). This trend continued into the senior
officer ranks, where only 22% of those surveyed indicated they somewhat or strongly agreed that
top SWOs were remaining to serve as admirals (CNSF, 2023).
Ultimately, retaining sufficient numbers of quality SWOs directly affects national
security. Without knowledgeable, committed, and motivated SWOs on ships, the U.S. Surface
Navy cannot effectively protect U.S. worldwide interests, such as global commerce through sea
8
lines of communication, or provide collective defense of the homeland. Retaining the best SWOs
is imperative for the United States’ long-term success.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study was framed using Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological systems model. The
foundations of this theory frame behavior and development as a result of the features of the
individual and the environment in addition to broader contexts such as time periods and societal
expectations (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s framework provides five system
levels. The microsystem is the immediate environment of the individual. The mesosystem refers
to the individual’s connections and relationships. The exosystem is the indirect environment
outside the immediate proximity of the individual. The macrosystem contains cultural and
societal factors or values. The chronosystem is the time horizon in consideration
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
The model assisted in better understanding the various systems-level factors at home and
work that impact a dual-income couple’s decision for the active-duty SWO to stay in the Navy or
depart the service (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). Applying the ecological systems model to SWOs and
their partners’ decisions concerning career progression provided a holistic perspective to
examine the complex interactions between work and home. Throughout this study, I used the
terms “spouse” and “partner” to attempt to encompass an inclusive representation of the SWO
household. When using spouse or partner, I refer to the individual in a long-term romantic
relationship who is not on active duty and may or may not be legally married.
The key concepts integral for understanding this research problem are the interplay and
interaction between different influences in a couple’s relationship and professional lives, broader
societal factors such as the economy or expected gender/family roles, the couple’s outlook on
9
work/life balance, and the influence of career expectations such as frequent relocations being
necessary for advancement (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). This study employed qualitative interviews
to examine the factors affecting retention decisions. I interviewed dual-income couples where
one person is a recently separated or soon-to-be separated U.S. Navy SWO whose partner holds
employment outside the military. Questions broadly explored the decision factors they
considered and then specifically focused on the role the partner’s career had on their collective
decision to depart from active duty.
Literature Review
This study focused on the variables affecting the retention of active-duty U.S. Navy
SWOs, particularly emphasizing how a partner’s career factors into the decision. The U.S. Navy
is an all-volunteer force with a hierarchical structure based on time in service and performance
(Blue Star Families, 2023; NPC, 2023). “Since 1947, the U.S. military has followed an up-or-out
policy of personnel management, which requires that an officer be promoted within a certain
period of time or leave the service” (Schirmer et al., 2005, p. 1). This system resulted from a
desire in the post-World War II period to reduce the average age of the U.S. military and
encourage meritocracy based on performance (Schirmer et al., 2005). Therefore, the U.S. Navy
is particularly reliant on keeping talent in the ranks to maintain an effective fighting force for
national security.
This literature review begins with the historical context and importance of retention to all
organizations. The review then covers literature on turnover and retention of employees over the
past half-century. The characteristics and challenges of the SWO community follow, in addition
to how those challenges can result in retention problems. The next section covers significant
literature about civilian and military spouse employment and societal shifts occurring over the
10
last few decades important to the retention challenge. Finally, the literature review concludes
with an overview of the U.S. Navy’s past and current strategies to retain SWOs past their initial
service commitment.
Retention as an Organizational Imperative
Retaining employees or members of any organization is vital for many reasons. During
the post-World War II economic boom period, researchers began formally studying the reasons
for employee turnover (Grotto et al., 2017). Business leadership, human resource managers, and
academics sought to explore these reasons due to the significant challenges excessive employee
turnover can cause (Grotto et al., 2017). The potential negative results are wide-ranging and
include financial costs, productivity losses, work climate deterioration, increased accident rates,
and loss of organizational effectiveness (Grotto et al., 2017). Turnover costs alone can range
from 90% to 200% of the previous employee’s salary (Allen et al., 2010). Other effects of
increased employee turnover are disruptions to organizational workplaces (Batt & Colvin, 2011),
the departure of difficult-to-quantify expertise and skills (Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013), the loss of
financial performance (Park & Shaw, 2013), and a decrease in organizational effectiveness (Ton
& Huckman, 2008).
Employee Turnover Literature
Employee turnover can broadly be placed into different categories depending on
perspective: functional or dysfunctional turnover, avoidable or unavoidable turnover, voluntary
or involuntary turnover, and planned or unplanned turnover (Hom et al., 2019). Early researchers
in the field focused on employee turnover as the “voluntary severance” from an organization, at
least partly because leaders believed they had little control over this type of turnover (Hom et al.,
2019, p. 3). At the time, this decision was primarily seen through the lens of rational decision-
11
making (Hom et al., 2019). However, subsequent researchers refined more nuanced
understandings of turnover as a multifaceted phenomenon that organizations deal with in various
ways and to varying degrees (Hom et al., 2019). Figure 3 displays the evolution of turnover
research and the various theories researchers proposed that build on and refine the understanding
of employee and member turnover in organizations (Grotto et al., 2017).
Figure 3
Themes and Components of Influential Turnover Models
Note. From Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention by A. R. Grotto, P. K. Hyland, A.
W. Caputo, & C. Semedo, 2017. In Goldstein, Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp.
443–472). Wiley. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch21). Copyright 2017 by John Wiley
& Sons.
12
Turnover As Rational Decision
Significant highlights in early turnover research include the consideration of job
satisfaction on turnover and the effect of labor market forces on perceptions of opportunities
outside their current organization (Mobley, 1977; Muchinsky & Morrow, 1980). In addition, the
literature addresses withdrawal steps based on poor job satisfaction and the organizational
characteristics and commitment impacting member attitudes and turnover (Hom & Kinicki,
2001; Price & Mueller, 1981). Subsequent research identified potential limitations of established
research, with the main critique being that turnover is not always a linear rational decision
(Grotto et al., 2017).
Turnover As Unfolding Process
Lee and Mitchell (1994) proposed understanding turnover as an “unfolding process”
recognizing a push and pull effect different employees feel in their employment decisions (as
cited in Grotto et al., 2017, p. 448). This model added the concept of shocks or “jarring events”
to the dynamic turnover process affected by potential shifts in organizational or personal goals or
values resulting from the shock (Grotto et al., 2017, p. 448). These shocks are wide-ranging and
could include work-related changes such as a merger, new leadership, or economic challenges,
and personal changes such as the birth or death of a family member and a new or ending
marriage (Grotto et al., 2017).
Focus on Staying
Around the turn of the millennium, researchers added to the research on shocks and
introduced the concept of embeddedness, or staying in an organization, which takes into account
the context of the situation and the degree to which the member is enmeshed in the organization
(Grotto et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2001). Subsequent researchers have added to the evidence
13
supporting this concept, including the supporting effect in and out of work embeddedness
impacts turnover and how positive embeddedness reduces outside job searching, which leads to
lower turnover (Crossley et al., 2007; Holtom et al., 2012).
Various additional researchers added to Mitchell and colleagues’ (2001) work and
identified three main components of embeddedness, including “links, fit, and sacrifice” (Grotto
et al., 2017, p. 449). These additional findings include the impact of relational ties and
mentoring, satisfaction with coworkers, perceived organizational support, exchange between
leaders and members, transformational leadership, and perceived sacrifice the member would
experience if leaving the organization (Grotto et al., 2017).
Turnover and Control
Complementing the concepts of embeddedness and staying, Maertz and Griffeth (2004,
as cited in Grotto et al., 2017) added to the research with six motivational forces “expected to
shape an individual’s preference to stay or leave an organization and ultimately predict turnover”
(p. 449). These forces can be summarized as (a) affective forces such as emotional responses to
the workplace; (b) calculative forces, such as the rational consideration of attaining future goals;
(c) alternative forces, such as the individual’s belief in attaining a better position at a different
organization; (d) moral/ethical forces, such as the desire to maintain consistency in stated goals;
(e) constituent forces, such as the attachment to the organization or coworkers; and (f) human
resources management forces such as investments in development (Grotto et al., 2017)
Additional researchers refined potential turnover into four categories based on decisional
control within the forces previously discussed (Hom et al., 2012). Enthusiastic stayers have
control over their decision and remain with an organization based on positive forces, while
reluctant stayers have less control over their decision but may desire to depart the organization
14
based on negative forces (Hom et al., 2012). Conversely, enthusiastic leavers also have control
over their decisions and depart an organization based on negative forces, while reluctant leavers
have less control over their decisions and would have desired to stay with the organization
(Grotto et al., 2017; Hom et al., 2012). Ultimately, this research acknowledges that the factors
influencing someone to depart involuntarily are likely very different from those influencing
someone to depart voluntarily (Grotto et al., 2017).
Integrating the Factors Affecting the Turnover Process
Grotto et al. (2107) synthesized the decades of research into two frameworks of turnover.
Figure 4 shows the various multi-level influences and factors identified through research leading
to the individual’s retention decision. It is a complex set of factors that require careful
consideration when exploring organizational turnover (Grotto et al., 2017).
15
Figure 4
An Integrated Framework of the Antecedents of Turnover
Note. From Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention by A. R. Grotto, P. K. Hyland, A.
W. Caputo, & C. Semedo, 2017. In Goldstein, Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp.
443–472). Wiley. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch21). Copyright 2017 by John Wiley
& Sons.
16
With these factors in mind, Grotto et al. (2017) proposed a framework displayed in
Figure 5, showing the path to a retention decision broken into five factors and the ensuing time
or transition between those factors. This framework informed the research in this dissertation and
has been integrated into the conceptual framework in subsequent sections.
Figure 5
An Integrated Framework of the Dynamic Turnover Process
Note. From Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention by A. R. Grotto, P. K. Hyland, A.
W. Caputo, & C. Semedo, 2017. In Goldstein, Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp.
443–472). Wiley. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch21). Copyright 2017 by John Wiley
& Sons.
17
Factor 1: Fit. Fit is a foundational element of embeddedness and includes how well the
individual perceives their individual differences fit with the various characteristics of their
coworkers and organization (Grotto et al., 2017). Researchers have identified this factor as a
critical aspect of the turnover process, potentially resulting in turnover risk (Grotto et al., 2017).
Factor 2: Triggering Events. Considering work or non-work events into the path to
retention is the acknowledgment that these decisions have many potential timelines from days,
months, or even years as events unfold in the workplace (Grotto et al., 2017). Positive events can
inherently lead to a positive fit within the organization and lead to staying, while negative events
may lead to feelings of dissatisfaction, which creates withdrawal behaviors and leads to potential
departure from the organization (Grotto et al., 2017). In addition, some members experience
sudden shocks or triggering events either in or out of the workplace, which lead to an abrupt
departure and is depicted in the framework as Path 2 (Grotto et al., 2017).
Factor 3: Change in Affect or Attitudes. Integrating affective event theory into the
framework, a positive (i.e., promotion) or negative (i.e., toxic new boss) triggering event can
initiate a chain reaction of responses, including behavioral responses (Grotto et al., 2017;
Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004). Those responses can manifest in the workplace, which leads to
elevated or lowered job satisfaction, resulting in the member making retention decisions, whether
positive or negative (Grotto et al., 2017; Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004). This path could be quick,
result in a sudden or significant shock, or be felt over a series of smaller events, resulting in a
longer path toward departure (Grotto et al., 2017). These shocks need not be dramatic but can
ultimately lead to a feeling of misfit with the organization, which aligns with Factor 1 (Grotto et
al., 2017).
18
Factor 4: Withdrawal States. After a sudden shock or series of smaller changes, an
organizational member may begin to experience shifts in perceptions and attitudes, which can
lead to intentional or unintentional withdrawal from the organization (Grotto et al., 2017). This
withdrawal may manifest as absenteeism or interruptions with work, counterproductive
behaviors, or even increased job searching for the individual to find a different organization
(Grotto et al., 2017). All of these can result in a loss of productivity for the organization or have
cascading effects on other members, leading to potential retention contagion where a significant
spike in departures damages the organization (Grotto et al., 2017).
Factor 5: The Decision to Stay or Leave. The culmination of these factors is the
individual’s ultimate decision to stay or leave the organization (Grotto et al., 2017). Significant
evidence exists in research that members exhibiting negative withdrawal behaviors discussed in
Factor 4 have a high potential for departure from the organization (Grotto et al., 2017).
Conversely, research also confirms that engaged members exhibiting positive workplace
behaviors are likely to remain with the organization (Grotto et al., 2017). Ultimately, all of these
factors are influenced or even determined by the overarching perceived control of the individual
on their own decision in addition to the outside environmental influences, such as the strength of
the economy presenting greater or fewer opportunities (Grotto et al., 2017).
Increasing Employee Retention
In conclusion to the summary of retention literature, research has demonstrated four
significant strategies organizations can use to increase retention based on decades of research.
First, creating a positive work climate is one of the most important factors in healthy retention
(Grotto et al., 2017). This involves a commitment to values such as integrity, respect, and
19
equality for everyone in the organization. Perceptions of support from leadership are also
important in creating this climate (Grotto et al., 2017).
Second, promoting fit by integrating employees into organizational systems is important
to create the embeddedness needed for high employee satisfaction and retention (Grotto et al.,
2017). This process begins before onboarding in the recruitment and hiring process, where
expectations of the climate should be intentionally explained or demonstrated (Peterson, 2004).
Once brought into the team, a member should be mentored and assisted in their transition to
include fostering positive interactions with leadership and other employees (Peterson, 2004).
Ultimately, promoting fit creates a sense of belonging in the organization (Peterson, 2004).
Third, having supportive leaders in an organization is highly predictive of positive
retention (Grotto et al., 2017). Supportive leaders ultimately engage with members, which
enhances job satisfaction and leads to improved retention (Grotto et al., 2017). Some research
has also shown that supportive direct managers can make up for negative larger organizational
factors, potentially reducing turnover (Grotto et al., 2017). This research is particularly important
to this study as the direct managers on ships are the junior officers at issue.
Fourth, helping members manage inevitable shocks is important to interrupt the potential
pathways to turnover identified above (Grotto et al., 2017). Managing change or negative events
by providing support helps smooth shocks and builds connectedness to the organization.
Research has demonstrated that mentorship, training, coaching, and career development can all
positively influence retention (Allen et al., 2010). Finally, leaders can encourage retention by
providing members with emotional support and accommodations when they experience shocks
outside the workplace (Grotto et al., 2017).
20
Historical Context of the U.S. Military Retention Problem
An online keyword search will yield hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes from various
U.S. leaders and researchers on military retention’s direct connection with national security.
President Ronald Reagan (1983) included the importance of “quality recruitment and retention”
in a national address in 1983, and in 2019, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper emphasized the
need to retain quality servicemembers with a particular emphasis on emerging fields such as
cyber and space. More recently, the military recruitment and retention challenge has been
amplified in comments from various military and government leaders, such as U.S. Secretary of
the Army Christine Wormuth (Thomas, 2022). With an all-volunteer force, the U.S. military
must convince its service members to join and stay to fulfill its role in national defense.
Numerous academic articles, dissertations, and theses have addressed the issue of
military retention (Marsh, 1989; Snodgrass, 2014). Specifically, U.S. Navy officer retention
received significant interest in the post-Vietnam War era when the draft ended, and significant
external and internal shifts in the military and U.S. institutions occurred in the 1980s and 1990s
(Marsh, 1989; Snodgrass, 2014). Comprehensively predicting, correcting, or anticipating
officers’ retention trends is difficult due to the myriad factors to consider. These factors are both
external and internal to the Navy, as the following sections discuss.
Factors Affecting U.S. Navy Retention
Some external factors historically affecting U.S. Navy retention include the strength of
economic opportunities in civilian employment, continuing international conflict, home and
quality of life concerns, spouse employment or support, and shifts in societal factors (Marsh,
1989; Quester & Thomason, 1984; Snodgrass, 2014; Woodall et al., 2023). Internal factors
include operational tempo (OPTEMPO), the length and frequency of deployments away from
21
home, financial bonus and retention incentives, pay relative to civilian counterparts, belief or
support of a mission, changes in command structures and responsibilities, and trust in senior
leaders (Marsh, 1989; Quester & Thomason, 1984; Snodgrass, 2014). Taking all these factors
into account to implement policy changes to improve retention is an obvious challenge.
Contemporary Factors and Considerations
More recently, significant attention to retention concerns grew as the United States was
involved in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Navy experienced major fleet accidents
in 2017 (GAO, 2021; Snodgrass, 2014). During the previous 2 decades, OPTEMPO remained
elevated due to continuous armed conflict and resource constraints following the challenges of
the late-2000s recession (GAO, 2021; Snodgrass, 2014). In addition, trust in leadership eroded as
the Navy dealt with serious materiel, personnel, and training challenges (GAO, 2021; Snodgrass,
2014). The ship collisions in 2017 had far-reaching effects on the SWO career path training
initiatives and are now seen as directly and indirectly contributing to current retention challenges
(CNSF 2023, GAO 2021).
The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 mandated
that the GAO and CNSF study the SWO career path, survey SWOs, and provide
recommendations for improvements to the career path and training (GAO, 2021). The GAO
report (2021) and subsequent CNSF (2023) survey revealed the important connections between
manning and retention challenges. Historically, the SWO community has onboarded new officers
based on the need for enough department heads to man ships at sea (GAO, 2021). In practice,
serving as a department head gets a SWO past 10–12 years of service, which translates to less
than 10 years before reaching the point of retirement from active duty, and a pension for life,
which occurs at 20 years (GAO, 2021; NPC, 2023). These milestones and the potential for
22
significant benefits are often cited as important to the decision-making process of SWOs (GAO,
2021; NPC, 2023).
SWO Retention and Onboarding Cycle
The balancing cycle of onboarding new SWOs can be seen as a valve on a hose. If more
new officers are needed, open the valve a little to allow more personnel to enter the community.
If there are too many new SWOs, reduce the onboarding quantity. The challenge in managing
this process is the previously discussed up-or-out all-volunteer system, which means changes or
trends in later career personnel numbers are the result of decisions made years prior. This process
typically involves accepting more or fewer personnel to officer candidate school (OCS) due to
their relatively inexpensive average cost of onboarding and formative schooling: $28,000 per
SWO at OCS, compared to ROTC at $175,000 and the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) at
$280,000 (GAO, 2021). In addition, OCS is a program officers attend after they have already
earned an undergraduate degree and has a considerably shorter training period compared to
USNA and ROTC.
Therefore, a lagging indicator heavily influences the current model, and current
department head staffing trends are impacting new officer onboarding (GAO, 2021). It is a
significant challenge for NPC to properly gauge the SWO community’s needs based on current
and forecast trends, especially considering the myriad factors involved in each SWO’s decision
calculus and the relatively slow process of making changes from year to year.
Household Formation and Employment Literature
Military household formation and spouse employment literature covers many topics, with
multiple angles receiving significant attention over the last few decades. This research includes
the effect military service has on the employment opportunities of spouses, the financial
23
implications of military spouse employment or unemployment, education, and career
opportunities based on geographic location, in addition to reforms on state licensing
requirements. While most of this research focuses on improving military spouse employment
opportunities or easing the burden of their partner’s service, more recent research explores the
effect spouse employment has on active-duty retention decisions.
Societal Shifts in Household Partnerships
Over the past 5 to 6 decades, a significant shift in employment for key demographics
important to military spouse employment has occurred (Kamarck et al., 2020). Up to and through
the 1950s, the U.S. military was overwhelmingly composed of young single men due to the
effects of the mandatory draft and significant restrictions on women’s participation in military
service (Kamarck et al., 2020). In the second half of the 20th century, significant societal shifts
in women’s civilian workforce participation, the creation of the all-volunteer military force, and
the opening of many military occupations to women contributed to significant changes in the
make-up of military partnerships and households (Kamarck et al., 2020; U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2018).
U.S. Trends Reflecting in the Military
Recent shifts in U.S. society impacted the military family similarly to peer civilian
families. Women’s employment outside the home went from 39% in 1965 to above 56%,
resulting in a significant increase in the likelihood of a dual-career household (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2018). In 1975, 43% of married families with children had both parents working
outside the home (Hayghe, 1990). By 2019, that number had risen to 64% of married households
with children having both parents working outside the home (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2020). In 2020, the U.S. military was 83% men, and until 2011, the policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t
24
Tell barred openly gay people from the military (Defense Manpower Data Center [DMDC],
2020; NBC News, 2011). Both of these facts significantly affect the current composition of the
military family which is most predominantly a male service member married to a female spouse
(DMDC, 2020; NBC News, 2011).
As a result of these various factors, in 2018, the U.S. Navy reported that over 90% of
active-duty spouses were female, and that number has remained steady through 2023 (DMDC,
2018; Blue Star Families, 2023). Taken together, decades of societal, demographic, and policy
changes resulted in the current significant likelihood that a military household will be a young
couple where the male is the service member and the female spouse works outside the home in a
civilian occupation, especially if children are present (DMDC, 2018; Blue Star Families, 2023;
Kamarck et al., 2020).
Trends in Assortative Mating
Assortative mating, or assortative matching, is the concept that individuals select a
partner through a framework that sorts individuals by various characteristics or desires with the
ultimate goal of finding the most ideal mate (Schwartz, 2013). The search for a partner has
similarities with the search for a job, where a person uses a list of qualifications or minimums to
evaluate potential employment (Schwartz, 2013). In the marriage market, individuals will search
for a partner who meets as many of the criteria they determine important; some of these include
social and economic status or potential, lifestyle preferences, attractiveness, religion, and
educational attainment (Schwartz, 2013). These factors influence the household that will
eventually grow from courtship (Schwartz, 2013). These factors also have significant relevance
to the retention problem in this study.
25
Educational Attainment in Partnering
A potential mate’s education level, or future desire for educational attainment, is an
important factor in assortative mating because education is an indicator of other factors, such as
earning potential, in addition to being a predictor of health outcomes (Schwartz, 2013). Data
consistently show a changing trend in educational attainment in married couples; as women have
increased and surpassed men in educational attainment over the last 50 years, the number of
couples where the wife has more education than the husband has also increased (Schwartz &
Han, 2014). In the mid-1980s, the ratio of education attainment between husbands and wives
flipped (Schwartz & Han, 2014). In all couples where the partners had unequal amounts of
education, before 1985, it was more likely for the man to have greater education; after 1985, the
woman was more likely to have greater education (Schwartz & Han, 2014).
In the marriage cohort from 2005 to 2009, 60% of the couples where the partners have
different levels of education saw the wife with more education (Schwartz & Han, 2014). Overall,
in the same marriage cohort, more than 30% of married couples have a wife with more education
than the husband (Schwartz & Han, 2014). This trend continues even as the number of equaleducation couples increases where both partners have an undergraduate degree or higher (Smock
& Schwartz, 2020).
Implications for SWO Retention
The trend in educational attainment reflected in marriage is essential to exploring the
impact of a partner’s career on Navy officer retention because it shows how the characteristics of
the officers impact the partners they will likely choose. Approximately 78% of SWOs are men,
who earned undergraduate degrees, as doing so is a requirement of entry (GAO, 2021). Those
men are much more likely to remain in the Navy for a longer period than their female colleagues
26
and are also more likely to partner with a woman (GAO, 2021; DMDC, 2018). As a result of
trends in women’s educational attainment and somewhat stagnant new female SWO onboarding,
the probability of male active-duty SWOs with wives who have more education than their
husbands and a demanding civilian career is increasing (GAO, 2021; Schwartz & Han, 2014). In
addition, this increasing likelihood of dual-career households also increases the instances of
work-family conflict and the potential negative outcomes of that conflict (Molina, 2021).
Dual-Career Household Challenges
The rise of dual-career households over the last half-century has produced a wide variety
of research on the challenges of dual-career couples and potential strategies for addressing those
challenges. In the early 2000s an increasing interest from therapists focused on the rise of dualcareer couples and the demands causing relationship strife (Neault & Pickerell, 2007). Levner
(2000) coined the term “three-career families” to represent the often-overlooked work in the
home that still needs to be done and acts as an additional career the couple must manage
together.
Another researcher connected these challenges to the organizational context, saying, “As
leaders and managers, we need to devise ways to make it possible for two advancing career
professionals to thrive at work without sacrificing their personal relationships or their health”
(Ginac, 2002, p. 6). The desire for equality in marriage between two workplaces’ demands has
persisted for many years, but research has shown, even in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that
women are twice as likely to restrict workplace responsibilities (Catalyst, Inc. & Philip Morris
Incorporated, 1998; Lang, 2000; Neault & Pickerell, 2007). Those women also reported in
various studies that they were often in an arrangement where the man’s career was seen as
primary, and the expectation was that they would make accommodations for emergent household
27
issues (Catalyst, Inc. & Philip Morris Incorporated, 1998; Lang, 2000; Neault & Pickerell, 2007).
More recently the concept of work-family conflict is almost ubiquitous in the literature. Used as
a shorthand for the challenges of balancing work and home factors in a household, unmanaged
work-family conflict is associated with significant negative outcomes on a micro and macro
scale (Molina, 2021). Some of those negative outcomes include mental and physical health
challenges in the household, relationship and spousal satisfaction, and potential financial growth
challenges of a larger population such as a country (Molina, 2021).
Military Spouse Employment
Broadly speaking, military spouse employment literature shows a wide array of outcomes
for the spouse and the service member. These outcomes can be positive or negative, depending
on the perspective of the research and the characteristics of those involved. A 2022 survey of
active-duty members and their spouses found that the spouse’s employment was the top concern
among spouses for the sixth consecutive year in the annual poll and remained a top-five concern
for the active-duty members (Blue Star Families, 2023). This survey also frames the challenges
of military households through the lens of financial and non-financial costs relating to the known
sacrifices a military family inevitably endures throughout service and the holistic impact service
has on the household (Blue Star Families, 2023). These frames are important because the
retention decision is about more than financial costs and benefits. For example, the survey found
a statistically significant difference in relationship/marriage satisfaction between employed and
unemployed civilian spouses, with employed spouses reporting higher relationship satisfaction
(Blue Star Families, 2023).
A significant distinction in the military spouse employment literature is the effect of age
and rank of the partners within the household. For example, in 2017, 37% of enlisted spouses
28
were not in the labor force, while 43% of officer spouses were not in the labor force (CRS,
2020). In addition, while both officer and enlisted spouses have higher unemployment rates than
peer civilian households, a more significant portion of officer spouses are not in the workforce,
likely due to the higher pay of the officer allowing the spouse to remain at home (CRS, 2020).
However, these differences are also caused by the types of jobs military spouses desire
depending on their educational attainment and age, which are heavily correlated with their
service member spouse’s educational attainment and age (Blue Star Families, 2023). For
example, an officer spouse may report higher unemployment due to their desire for a
professional position, which may have fewer opportunities or greater barriers to entry, while an
enlisted spouse may report less unemployment due to their work in a field with greater
opportunities or fewer barriers to entry.
Military spouses often experience an earnings penalty compared to their civilian
household peers due to frequent relocations and the inability to grow seniority over a sustained
period (CRS, 2020; Meadows et al., 2016). In addition, their frequent relocations often result in
the inability to take advantage of long-term benefits such as vesting in a 401k or accruing greater
paid time off (CRS, 2020; Meadows et al., 2016). These penalties are inconsistent across age and
rank, with some studies showing junior military members’ spouses reporting no adverse effects
from their spouse’s service on their employment opportunities (CRS, 2020). Conversely, studies
show that as a service member becomes more senior, the spouse perceives significantly more
impacts on their employment opportunities and success (CRS, 2020; Castaneda & Harrell, 2008).
The spouse employment literature displays the significant difference between enlisted
and officer spouse employment challenges and the interconnectedness between education, age,
and rank (CRS, 2020; Castaneda & Harrell, 2008). In some cases, spouse employment is positive
29
for the household due to the increased earnings from the spouse’s job, while in others, the lack of
available employment for a spouse can cause relationship challenges or strife, which can lead to
negative outcomes (CRS, 2020). These interrelated multi-factor considerations and challenges
display the significant difficulty in understanding military spouse employment and how to best
support dual-income couples in the military (CRS, 2020). Implementing positive policy within
the Navy to improve this situation is a significant challenge for leadership looking to improve
retention (CRS, 2020).
Employment of College Educated Military Spouses
Military spouses with a college degree are a growing cohort (Kamarck et al., 2020; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). These individuals experience many of the same challenges to
employment that all military spouses experience, such as frequent relocation or the inability to
grow seniority in the workplace (DaLomba et al., 2021). However, they report experiencing
higher instances of unemployment throughout their spouse’s military career than their less
educated peers (Hiring Our Heroes, 2017). With the previously addressed significantly higher
probability of an officer spouse having a college degree and an intent to pursue a professional
career, this problem is critical to SWO retention (GAO, 2021; DaLomba et al., 2021; Schwartz &
Han, 2014).
As a cohort, SWOs have significant general similarities that interrelate with the previous
distinctions concerning spouse employment, education, rank, and age. One of the initial entry
requirements for SWOs is a bachelor’s degree, and as of 2018, SWOs must attain an in-residence
graduate degree before assuming major command at the O-6/CAPT level, providing an incentive
for junior officers to earn a graduate degree (Chief of Naval Operations, 2018). In addition,
standard verbiage in the selection and promotion board precepts emphasizes graduate education
30
in determining which SWOs should be advanced (Chief of Naval Operations, 2018). Connecting
to previous research on assortative matching in personal relationships, the effect of education
requirements in SWO career advancement means there is a high likelihood that a SWO will
pursue graduate education and partner with someone with a similar educational attainment or
aspirations (Schwartz, 2013).
The connection between educational attainment and career aspiration with employment
affecting retention decisions is critical to understanding the problem. Recent surveys have
consistently shown a correlation between educational attainment and unemployment or
underemployment of military spouses (Blue Star Families, 2023; Castaneda & Harrell, 2008;
DaLomba et al., 2021; Hiring Our Heroes, 2017). One survey found that 67% of spouses with a
college degree and 70% with an advanced or terminal degree reported experiencing
unemployment during their military spouse’s service (Hiring Our Heroes, 2017). This compares
to 51% of spouses with a high school diploma or less (Hiring Our Heroes, 2017).
In addition, this survey reported a significant number of underemployed spouses saying
they are in a job requiring less experience than they have (69%) and are in a position where they
have more formal education than they need (71%; Hiring Our Heroes, 2017). Ultimately, these
spouses with a college education were most pessimistic about their future career opportunities,
with 63% of respondents in the survey disagreeing with the statement, “A military lifestyle
supports career opportunities for both spouses” (Castaneda & Harrell, 2008; Hiring Our Heroes,
2017).
Strategies for Addressing Challenges of Military Spouse Employment
Significant positive progress has occurred in the past decade toward addressing the
challenges of overall military spouse employment; however, many of these initiatives are aimed
31
at entry-level and younger spouses (DaLomba et al., 2021). The Spouse Education and Career
Opportunities program began in 2007 to assist with employment opportunities and education
programs, including interview, career, and resume counseling (DaLomba et al., 2021; Friedman
et al., 2015). In addition, recent legislation, such as the 2018 and 2019 National Defense
Authorization Acts had specific provisions addressing military spouse employment (DaLomba et
al., 2021). These initiatives included a $500 reimbursement for spouses to cover license or
credential costs from relocation and hiring changes to expedite the onboarding of military
spouses for federal jobs, in addition to funding for expanded research on these issues to inform
future legislation (DaLomba et al., 2021).
Recent studies have found that approximately 50% of military spouses work in careers
fields that require a state credential or license creating a challenge for moves across U.S. state
borders (DaLomba et al., 2021). In 2012, then-First Lady Michelle Obama and then-Second
Lady Jill Biden announced the challenge of license portability as a key issue they wanted to
solve (Ballard & Borden, 2020). In coordination with other leaders, their emphasis on this issue
has resulted in many states enacting legislation to streamline license and certification reciprocity
or renewal caused by out-of-state moves (Ballard & Borden, 2020; DaLomba et al., 2021).
While increased visibility on the problem has helped, and significant changes have
addressed key issues, many problems persist in some fields (CRS, 2020; DaLomba et al., 2021;).
Research shows these initiatives skew toward the lower end of the employment and education
ladder and for those younger spouses early in their careers (DaLomba et al., 2021). Spouses with
advanced degrees report frustration with many of these services and initiatives because they do
not address their concerns or lead to job opportunities where they are overqualified or
underemployed (DaLomba et al., 2021). Continuing to address these concerns is important
32
because multiple recent surveys show a significant correlation between military spouse
employment and the decision for the family to continue military service (Blue Star Families,
2023; DaLomba et al., 2021; Hiring Our Heroes, 2017).
Change in Gender Career Equity
An important aspect of the retention decision is the perspective applied from the macro
level, specifically the perspective of policymakers at senior leadership levels within the military.
The societal shifts discussed in the previous sections point to changes that have occurred at a
relatively rapid rate, and U.S. Navy SWO human resources policy has potentially lagged in the
face of such change.
When looking at the retention decision of SWOs in the U.S. Navy, it is important to
remember that some of the most significant changes in the U.S. Navy and U.S. military have
occurred within current senior leaders’ career timelines. For example, the class of 1980 at the
USNA was the first to graduate with women, and it was not until 1993 that women were allowed
to serve aboard combat vessels (Daniels et al., 2016; Yeager, 2023). As a point of reference, the
current leader of the U.S. Navy, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, began her career in 1985, is the first
woman chief of naval operations, the first woman on the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and only the
second woman to be a 4-star admiral (Shelbourne, 2023).
As a result of this societal shift, reflected in both servicemember and civilian professional
demographics, the retention decision has changed significantly in the career span of just one
generation. It points to a form of spousal and gender equity, which is not readily at the forefront
of policy decisions. Ultimately, women have more career choices than ever and contribute
economically to the household just as much, if not more, which significantly changes the
33
discussion between a SWO and their spouse concerning retention on active duty compared to
previous generations of SWOs.
Existing Strategies for Solving the SWO Retention Problem
Many of the current strategies for SWO retention follow a financial incentive model
(Browning & Burr, 2009; Stancy, 2023). Following declining retention within the SWO
community during the 1990s, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy instituted a bonus structure in 2000,
referred to as SWO continuation pay (SWOCP), which awarded $50,000 for an officer to commit
to and complete two department head tours equivalent to a 3-year period (Browning & Burr,
2009). After a brief period of improvement, SWO retention again stagnated, and the fiscal year
2006 Defense Appropriation Act instituted an additional $25,000 referred to as the critical skills
retention bonus (CSRB), making the total bonus $75,000 for 3 years of service on top of other
pay and benefits (Browning & Burr, 2009).
These incentives remained in various forms and approximately the same amounts with
adjustments to names and terms until 2022 when various changes to the bonus structure were
implemented (Stancy, 2023). These changes created an incentive of up to $105,000 for a junior
officer to commit to department head as early as possible after their selection to the position
(Stancy, 2023). In addition, a lieutenant commander who continues to serve after department
head can earn a bonus of up to $46,000 for 3 additional years past 11 years of service (Stancy,
2023).
There is considerable discussion and disagreement about the effectiveness of monetary
incentives and their impact on SWO retention. After the implementation of SWOCP and CSRB,
Naval Postgraduate School students conducted various surveys and research projects on the
impact of these programs (Browning & Burr, 2009; Denmond et al., 2007; Graham, 2006). The
34
results confirmed that while monetary incentives positively affected decisions to remain in the
SWO community, they indicated that money could only go so far (Browning & Burr, 2009). One
SWO’s succinct quote derived from a focus group summed up the problem: “They could take
SWOCP and double it. It wouldn’t keep me around. It’s not the money. It’s the job satisfaction”
(Graham, 2006, p. 56).
These bonuses are now part of the larger effort to make service as a SWO as attractive for
continuation as possible (NPC, 2023). Various initiatives include individualized mentorship and
career management, special boards for talent management and selection to desirable and
competitive career-enhancing programs or positions, and opportunities to pursue advanced
education and training such as the graduate education voucher, Naval Postgraduate School and
various other prestigious opportunities and scholarship (NPC, 2023). These incentives and
programs address many aspects important to SWOs in the process of deciding their future but are
often inward, looking at the work environment, versus outward, looking at the home
environment. Some potential modest changes could present opportunities for Navy leaders to
keep more top SWOs.
Literature Review Summary
In summary, there is considerable research on organizational retention and, more
recently, military retention. The consensus is that organizations should make a serious effort to
retain employees to avoid the negative effects of turnover costs and loss in productivity, which
can affect the overall financial position of an organization. Turnover is an individual and
organizational process where both parties have a responsibility to adjust to and manage shocks or
triggers to maintain a healthy balance in the relationship.
35
Military service in general and the SWO community specifically have significant
potential challenges that can lead a service member to voluntarily depart active duty prior to
mid- or senior-career pay grades. These challenges are particularly difficult when attempting to
balance family and work commitments within a household. The SWO community continues to
face challenges in retaining top talent past mid-career and offers various incentives and bonuses,
with questionable efficacy, to financially reward the sacrifices expected of the additional service.
A spouse or partner’s employment status or prospects are important aspects of the retention
decision; some surveys and researchers conclude it is often a critical contributor to retention, if
not the single most important factor.
Overall, SWO households are more likely than ever to include highly educated and
driven partnerships with a spouse holding significant career aspirations. These predominantly
female spouses outpace their male peers in education and desire to have a rewarding career of
their own. Ultimately, many societal shifts and various other factors are intersecting to create a
modern generation of professional SWO couples. Their partnerships are under increasing
pressure to balance work and life in ways previous generations never experienced to this level or
frequency.
Conceptual Framework
For this study, I applied the concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological systems
model to the problem of SWO retention, emphasizing the effect a partner or spouse’s career has
on the decision to stay in or depart from active duty. The foundations of this theory frame
behavior and development as a result of the features of the individual and the environment in
addition to broader contexts such as time periods and societal expectations (Gardiner &
Kosmitzki, 2008). The framework provides five system levels. The microsystem is the
36
immediate environment of the individual. The mesosystem refers to the individual’s connections
and relationships. The exosystem is the indirect environment outside the immediate proximity of
the individual. The macrosystem contains cultural and societal factors or values. The
chronosystem is the time horizon in consideration (Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
This framework is appropriate to study the problem of practice because it can be used to
explore the myriad factors involved in the complex interaction between systems in the specific
environments in question. Figure 6 is a visualization of the systems model created by
Bronfenbrenner (1992), adapted with an overlay of some factors critical to the decision for
military retention. The adaptation includes two separate hemispheres representing the systems
from a home perspective and a work perspective, which is a departure from the original model.
37
Figure 6
Study Framework Adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model
This visualization shows the interplay between work and home factors and the multiple
levels a couple must consider when making major career decisions. An essential consideration in
this model is the progression of time affecting all these levels in different ways. As time elapses,
changes naturally occur in the various systems at home and work, resulting in a total system that
is constantly fluctuating. This fluctuation is indicative of work-life balance challenges all
individuals and couples face in different ways during their professional lives.
38
In addition to Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) work, this study was informed by the conceptual
model of military career and family life course events developed by Segal (Segal et al., 2015).
Segal’s work is an adaptation of Elder’s (1998) earlier work on the effects of service by male
veterans of World War II on their life course as measured through their well-being and
achievements (Elder, 1998; Segal et al., 2015). These two models of life course theory include
five main principles.
First is lifelong development, which is an acknowledgment that aging is a process that
requires the use of longitudinal data to better understand trends over time (Elder, 1998; Segal et
al., 2015). Second, human agency is the understanding that each individual has a direct role in
decision-making throughout life to take advantage of or forgo opportunities (Elder, 1998; Segal
et al., 2015). Third, location in time and place highlights the context of both physical and
temporal location as development occurs (Elder, 1998; Segal et al., 2015). Fourth, the timing
principle is essential in understanding the points in the life cycle that result in transitions and
their effect on future trajectories (Elder, 1998; Segal et al., 2015). Finally, linked lives emphasize
relationships in various networks, including personal and professional (Elder, 1998; Segal et al.,
2015).
Segal used these five principles and created the model in Figure 7, showing the
concentric circles of cycles affecting the well-being of a military household (Segal et al., 2015).
The inner area represents the primary dependent variable of well-being for a service member and
their family (Segal et al., 2015). That variable depends on the four surrounding rings,
encompassing various life courses: a service member’s military career, family life, child life, and
other everyday life events (Segal et al., 2015). Finally, the arrows represent inputs to the cycles
39
from outside sources, such as military policies, interventions for life events, and financial
resource changes (Segal et al., 2015).
Figure 7
Military Family Events and Well-Being: A Life Course Model
Note. From “Conceptual Model of Military Career and Family Life Course Events, Intersections,
and Effects on Well-Being,” by M. W. Segal, M. D. Lane, & A. G. Fisher, 2015, Military
Behavioral Health, 3(2), p. 97. (https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2015.1009212). Copyright
2015 by Taylor & Francis Group.
40
There are significant overlaps and connections between Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) and
Segal’s models (Segal et al., 2015), which I used to inform this study. Overall, the framework of
cycles and systems in a circular form represents a holistic approach households use in making
major life decisions. It is an acknowledgment that the decision is not easily broken down into
pieces of a formula. Rather, it is an interplay among factors or variables that each couple will
weigh differently depending on how they envision or perceive their current status and the
prospects of their household system and life course. Using both models to inform the study is
important because the concept of well-being humanizes the systemic approach in
Bronfenbrenner’s model and considers the difficult-to-quantify factors such as job satisfaction,
which is connected to feelings of purpose that are naturally individualistic. Comments about the
SWO bonus encapsulate the sentiment: “They could take SWOCP and double it. It wouldn’t
keep me around. It’s not the money. It’s the job satisfaction.” (Graham, 2006, p. 56).
Finally, the previously discussed integrated framework of the dynamic turnover process
shown in Figure 5 considers the time variable in deciding to stay or depart from active duty
(Grotto et al., 2017). Some individuals will experience shocks or triggers that hasten the decision
(Factor 5), while others will experience positive events that change their decision calculus. This
ultimate decision is affected by a series of adjustments or changes from fit (Factor 1) to potential
withdrawal states (Factor 4), with opportunities at each stage for mentorship or policy to halt the
turnover of the individual in question (Grotto et al., 2017). This turnover framework is
instructive in the qualitative instrument because knowing the individual paths to service assists in
better understanding an individual’s fit into the organization and their formative experiences,
which could affect their prospects for continued service.
41
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to better understand the effect a spouse or partner’s career
has on the retention decision for SWOs entering mid-career. Looking through the lens of
ecological systems and life course theory, the study focused on four main areas to explore the
problem: (a) the background of the participants, (b) the retention decision process, (c) the impact
of the partner’s career, (d) potential policy changes for the SWO community to consider. The
study was designed to explore the complicated decisions a household must make and the
contemporary factors affecting present-day SWOs to better inform future policy decisions. To do
this, I interviewed eight couples where one individual is a recently separated SWO or is in the
process of separating from active duty and the other works in a civilian capacity.
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. How does a dual-income couple factor a non-military partner’s career into the
retention decision?
2. What potential changes to Navy policy could alter a preliminary decision to depart
military service?
Overview of Design
The methodological design of this study is qualitative. Qualitative research is used to
appreciate and understand how individuals make sense of their experiences, construct the world
around them, and attribute meaning to their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study
works to give voice to the couples through the use of phenomenological analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Phenomenological analysis is a form of inquiry
where a researcher collects the lived experiences of multiple individuals who have experienced
42
the same phenomenon in their own words (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This analysis is
appropriate for the study because it aligns with the design to collect data on the lived experiences
of the SWO and partner related to the problem of practice, SWOs’ retention, and make meaning
of the experience with an aim to address solutions that could enable greater retention of dualincome couples.
Research Setting
I conducted the research in a natural setting through virtual video on Zoom. I sought to
create a comfortable, conversational setting where the interviewees could speak frankly and
confidentially about their experiences. Both partners were present for the interviews and had
complete autonomy to answer the questions however they felt best for their partner dynamic.
The Researcher
My positionality to the problem of practice is important because it is interwoven
throughout the study. I am a SWO with 17 years of total service, approximately 9 years on active
duty, and the remainder in a selected reserve status. I lived the experience I am studying and
departed active duty before becoming a department head. While this decision had many
variables, my spouse’s career was a defining aspect. She has five degrees, including a PhD, and
is an internationally recognized therapist at a cutting-edge medical practice focusing on couple
and individual sexual health. In deciding the trajectory of my career on active duty, the sacrifices
of the job were more than we wanted to make as a family; we decided geographic stability was
more important for our household and settled for the long term in an area of our choosing.
Appendix A provides further details about me as the researcher and methods to address potential
biases.
43
Data Collection
The data analyzed in this study came from interviews conducted with eight couples. The
topics concerned how they factored the non-military partner’s career into the retention decision.
The interviewees’ responses informed recommendations for changes the U.S. Navy could
implement to retain SWOs whose spouses hold employment outside of the military.
Interview
This study employed virtual video interviews of seven couples and received an eighth
written electronic response from one additional couple utilizing the protocol in Appendix B. The
one couple who presented answers in written format was approved by the committee chair prior
to completing the interview; the couple was an exemplar of the intended participants, and their
ongoing international travel made it difficult to complete the interview otherwise. The goal was
to conduct a sufficient number of interviews for the findings to approach a point of saturation
where similar themes emerged from a preponderance of the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I believe this representative sample of participants met the point of saturation and reflects
an accurate snapshot in time for the population.
Participants
Participant sampling and recruitment were purposeful to ensure the target population
provided relevant input to understand the problem and potential solutions. I found participants
via two main methods. First, I posted recruitment fliers and brief descriptions of the study on
Facebook and LinkedIn on six occasions over 3 months to canvas for participants in the Navy
SWO community. Dozens of individuals known and unknown to me shared and commented on
these posts as they found the study’s purpose interesting or useful. This method produced 17
solid inquiries about participating and requesting more information. From those 17 inquiries, I
44
conducted eight interviews with couples who met the study requirements. Two other potential
participant couples were ideal for the study but never got to the point of interview. One of the
couples could not commit to a scheduled interview, and the second couple had marital problems
that resulted in the SWO moving out of their home just before their interview. This SWO
ultimately responded via email that they could not participate because they were separating.
The second method of participant recruitment involved an inquiry to the Bureau of Navy
Personnel, commonly referred to as PERS, through a personal contact. After connecting with
different individuals at PERS, I received a list of 252 individual SWOs who had an approved
pending separation. This list included personal and professional email addresses for these SWOs,
and I sent inquiry emails to the entire list explaining the purpose of the study and participant
requirements. The emails also asked for responses from those who met the criteria. Thirty-two
individuals on the list responded to the inquiry. Some of those responses simply acknowledged
the email with a response that the individual did not meet the study criteria, most often as a result
of not being in a long-term relationship. Many of the responses included sentiments about their
perceptions of the study’s importance, with some including the contact information of peers they
believed met the criteria. I pursued each lead to maximize reach and gain a representative
sample.
I ultimately connected with hundreds of colleagues, peers, and mentors to find couples
who met the study criteria. The ideal participant couple had a SWO who departed active duty
within the last 3 years or was in the process of doing so and was in a long-term committed
relationship, married or not, with a person employed in the civilian sector. Due to the highly
specific criteria of the study, the eligible pool of participants willing to conduct an interview was
relatively small. However, the participants who did complete an interview represent a relatively
45
wide spectrum of backgrounds, experiences, geographic locations, and service history. While the
participants had similar demographic characteristics such as age, sex, employment status, and
education status, that was due to the requirements for employment in the field and the
demographic make-up of the time-bound subset of the SWO community. I ultimately
determined, with concurrence from the committee chair, that this sample was representative of
the intended population and provided rich data from which to draw conclusions and insights.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol included 14 semi-structured questions with potential follow-up
probing questions, as shown in Appendix B. This is an appropriate approach because the goal of
the research was to understand the participants’ lived experiences as they made the retention
decision (Seidman, 2013). The protocol builds on initial foundational questions, which set the
context for the couple’s decision and helped lead to questions about potential solutions. For
example, if the couple indicated they have children, then childcare and education would likely be
part of the later discussion, but if the couple did not intend to have children, those topics would
be irrelevant.
The goal of the protocol was to get to the heart of the decision as it related to the spouse’s
career and focus on those factors most important to that specific couple. Ultimately, the
questions address the degree to which the spouse’s career factored into the decision, in addition
to learning what changes the Navy could make to policy that may have altered their decision.
The protocol attempts to address both work and home factors, as discussed in the framework and
concepts above.
46
Data Collection Procedures
The logistical procedures for conducting these interviews depended heavily on the
participants’ geographic location. If they were local to Southern California, then the priority was
to privately interview the couple in person at a mutually agreed space where the couple felt
comfortable discussing potentially sensitive topics. However, for participants who were not
locally available, I defaulted to a Zoom interview. Ultimately, all interviewees, regardless of
location, preferred to conduct a Zoom interview.
The interview protocol was designed to take approximately 60 minutes based on the level
of dialogue these topics could elicit and how much the participants had to share. With the
participants’ permission, I recorded the Zoom interviews through the computer with an audio
backup done concurrently through a phone-based application. In addition, I took handwritten
notes during the interview to highlight answers important to the research questions. The four
types of questions outlined by Castillo-Montoya (2016) informed the protocol and design of the
questions to allow for a conversational flow in the interview.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this qualitative study began with taking handwritten notes during and
after the interviews to capture important and relevant information to the two main research
questions. I then edited and cleaned the raw interview transcripts created from Zoom recordings
for accuracy. I changed the interviewees’ names to the assigned pseudonyms and coded the
interviews for themes based on the concepts in the frameworks presented earlier.
I used questioning to analyze the SWO and partners’ responses to the interview questions
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Examples of questions regard the story of service these individuals are
relaying, their motivations for the decisions they are making, how the partners balanced different
47
conflicting systems at home and work to make career decisions, how the experiences they
imparted were similar to other participant couples, how they were different, what was unique
about each participant couple, and what was not unique or common among the participant
couples.
I also used coding as a main analytical tool in producing findings to address the research
questions. The code book is contained in Appendix C and shows the use of the conceptual
framework’s various systems and cycles in the analysis. The outcome of these themes and
patterns led to the findings and recommendations in subsequent chapters. Examples of these
themes are the interplay of home and work microsystems of both the SWO and partner,
essentially creating an overlapping Venn diagram, the impact of a partner’s earning potential on
the decision space of a SWO and perceived comfort with making a major shift in work
microsystem, and the concept of stability affecting both work and home systems leading to
decisions to stay or depart active duty.
I also used comparative analysis (Gibbs, 2019) as a method of organizing participants’
responses into various tables that highlight the different aspects of the interviews and tell the
narrative of their experiences in deciding to stay in or depart active duty as a couple. Responses
from participants were highlighted and coded in ATLAS.ti and quotations were compiled into
related themes to determine the main themes in addition to illustrating the findings from those
themes and the subsequent recommendations. Finally, I included some key definitions in
Appendix D to aid readers in understanding some of the terms used throughout the interviews
and analysis.
48
Validity and Reliability
In this protocol, and the study in general, I used the concepts of triangulation, member
checks, and saturation to maximize credibility and trustworthiness in the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To triangulate the data, I took the findings of these interviews from the
experiences discussed and compared them to prior research. The similarities in the findings or
common themes that emerged were in line with the work of previous researchers, so I am
confident in the study’s credibility. In addition, I conducted member checks with participants by
sending a draft of the interview findings to see if the interpretation “rings true” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 246). Third, I conducted enough interviews until the narratives reached
saturation and heard the “same things over and over again” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 248).
Finally, I attempted to probe alternate explanations for the decisions by asking more generally
about the decision to gauge the true effect the partner’s career had on the decision. The
interviews elicited various factors extraneous to the specific research questions but assisted in
understanding the holistic nature of the discussions. By using all these strategies, I endeavored to
reduce bias in the study based on my experiences to build credibility of the findings. Finally,
Appendix E addresses the ethical considerations and strategies used to ensure the data is as
credible as possible.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of any study are weaknesses in the research the author recognizes with
the goal of improving future research so others can build on the knowledge of this subject
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Potential limitations of this study are the small sample, lack of
potential applicability to single servicemembers and same-sex couples, questionable applicability
to future trends, and potential interviewer bias. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that all
49
participants had already decided to depart active duty when they were interviewed, meaning the
voices of those SWOs who decided to stay on active duty are missing from this analysis. This
study was designed with that assumption in place and should not be viewed negatively.
Delimitations of any study are the choices a researcher makes which have implications
for the collected data, such as the questions asked and number of interviews conducted (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Delimitations of this study include choosing participants who met strict criteria
for the interview, expanding the pool of potential couples through virtual interviews, and outside
critique of the methodology and protocol to reduce researcher bias as much as possible. These
delimitations kept the scope of the study to a manageable level, enabled the completion of
interviews, and established boundaries in the conclusions or findings.
Participants
Eight couples participated in this study and answered the questions found in Appendix B.
They provided the context and service history of the SWO along with the professional
background and education of their partner. The specifics of their service, educational institutions,
and partner’s career field were all generalized to protect their anonymity, but important aspects
germane to the study were kept intact to provide an accurate depiction of their experiences.
The following section introduces the individual couples who participated in the study.
They were randomly assigned pseudonyms found in Table 1, which also has a brief summary of
the background of each couple. The intent is to share the couples’ personal and professional
backgrounds with enough detail to provide context while also protecting their identities. In
addition, the section summarizes how the SWO decided to join the Navy and their current
professional status to give context to their career and motivations. These background details give
50
an understanding of the motivations of each participant, which then influenced their motivation
for continued service.
51
Table 1
Summary of Participant Background
SWO
pseudonym
Service
history Education
Partner
pseudonym
Education/
occupation Location
Intent to stay
at career start Became couple
Ethan 9+ years of
service,
continues in
SELRES,
departed on
shore duty
ROTC at major
midwestern
university
currently
attending a
prestigious
private MBA
program
Susan Major midwestern
undergrad and
JD from East
Coast
university.
Lawyer barred
in multiple East
Coast states
Living
apart
during
graduate
school in
two
major
East
Coast
cities
More inclined to
depart, but
open to
options,
family legacy
Met in college,
stayed together for
many years before
marriage during
shore duty
Stewart 7+ years of
service,
nuclear trained
SWO,
departing on
shore duty will
continue in
SELRES
OCS from a
West Coast
state
university,
getting ready
to start a
prestigious
West Coast
MBA program
Victoria Prominent West
Coast
undergrad,
MBA from
major West
Coast university
Large city
on West
Coast
Had no strong
opinion at the
start, very
open to
possibility to
stay for a
career
Met during the Navy
through mutual
friends, married
for several years
James 8+ years of
service, variety
of nontraditional
experience,
departing on
shore duty
ROTC from a
major
southeastern
private
university
Danica USNA
undergraduate
with a master’s
in electrical
engineering
Large city
on West
Coast
Open to all
possibilities
but SWO was
not first
community
choice
Met through a
mutual friend in
the Navy
5
2
SWO
pseudonym
Service
history Education
Partner
pseudonym
Education/
occupation Location
Intent to stay
at career start Became couple
unsure about
SELRES
Damien 15+ years of
service,
departed postDH,
continuing in
SELRES
USNA
undergratuate
Savanna USNA
undergraduate
now pursuing a
masters in
education
Suburbs of
a major
East
Coast
city
Open to all
possibilities,
but SWO was
not first
community
choice
Met at the U.S.
Naval Academy
Crystal 8 years of
service,
continues in
SELRES,
departed on
shore duty
OCS after
undergrad
from a smaller
northeastern
university,
almost
finished a
master’s
degree
John USNA
undergraduate
who served as
SWO for 6 years
and now works
in project
management
East Coast
living
apart
Had no strong
opinion at the
start, very
open to
possibility to
stay for a
career
Met on active duty,
engaged and soon
to be married
Marshall 10+ years of
service, wide
variety of nontraditional
experience,
departing after
shore duty
following
three sea duty
assignments
OCS after
undergraduate
at large
northeast
university
Megan Economics
undergraduate
from small
northeastern
college, works
in project
management
City on the
southern
East
Coast
Always took it
one job at a
time, but open
to all
possibilities
Met in high school,
married for several
years
5
3
SWO
pseudonym
Service
history Education
Partner
pseudonym
Education/
occupation Location
Intent to stay
at career start Became couple
John 6 years of
service,
departed
following
second sea
duty
OCS after major
midwestern
engineering
undergraduate,
working on
master’s in
engineering
Abigail Major midwestern
undergraduate,
now in MD/PhD
program in
midwest
Large city
in the
Midwest
Intent at the
beginning was
likely
departure
after
minimum
commitment
Met in college,
stayed longdistance until
marriage in 2022
Max 8+ years of
service,
continuing in
SELRES
ROTC at major
southern
university,
undergraduate
in science
field
Charlotte Undergraduate in
Supply Chain
Management
from major
southern
university,
works in
defense industry
Large city
on West
Coast
Open to all
possibilities
but uncertain
about career
in the
beginning
Met in college,
married for several
years
54
Findings
These participants were candid in their responses. Some quotes may reflect negatively on
a small sample of leaders in the U.S. Navy, but it is important to remember that some of these
experiences were part of isolated situations. Some examples referenced in the findings (Table 2)
resulted in publicly reported violations of policy addressed within established legal reporting and
processes. All participants reflected on their service with positive sentiments. Many
acknowledged that their negative experiences fell outside the formally expressed standards of the
U.S. Navy and do not necessarily reflect larger organizational challenges or systemic leadership
problems in the U.S. Navy. However, participants expressed these experiences in cautionary
ways and wanted their experiences to lead toward increased instances of positive leadership for
future generations.
55
Table 2
Summary of Findings
Research question Finding
How does a dual-income couple factor a nonmilitary partner’s career into the retention
decision?
Each SWO made their retention decision in
genuine partnership with their spouse, and
they made the career decision from a
holistic multisystem approach.
The concept of stability was a significant
factor in each decision, with the two most
significant being geographic stability and
spouse professional stability.
Professional career satisfaction acted like a
counterbalance to the significant stressors
and sacrifices each couple experienced.
Higher SWO professional satisfaction
meant the couple was willing to endure
greater sacrifice.
Well-being was at the center of each decision,
with family outcomes and spouse career life
course being the two most important of the
discussion.
Shocks and triggers are important to the
retention decision, but positive leadership
and a sense that leaders are addressing the
shocks can make a difference.
SWOs want to feel like PERS is taking their
personal concerns, including spouse
employment and performance on the job,
into genuine consideration when making
placement decisions.
What potential changes to Navy policy could
alter a preliminary decision to depart
military service?
SWOs want a more personalized detailing
experience and want to see performance
count more in the process.
SWOs desire some form of greater career
specialization.
SWOs desire greater geographic stability to
support spousal employment.
Well-being and life course outcomes from
Segal’s life course model have a
considerable impact on retention.
56
Ethan and Susan
Ethan and Susan are an outgoing and energetic couple who met at a major midwestern
university and stayed together during multiple periods of being geographically separated. Ethan
served on the East Coast for both sea tours, on a guided missile ship and an amphibious ship,
with subsequent shore duty on the East Coast. He was underway more than half of his time on
his two ships. He said, “Both ships were very operational … in both sixth and fifth fleets.” In
addition to a family lineage in the Navy, he was inspired to join after seeing the Navy respond to
the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. He said,
I joined the Navy because I want to help people … I saw pictures on the news [following
the earthquake]. … Navy helicopters going in and flying in the relief. And I was like,
“That’s something that I want to do. … That’s really cool.” [I liked the] idea of serving
others and serving the country. … I didn’t want to be a helicopter pilot but to be leading
people doing organizational missions.
Susan stayed on the East Coast for law school and her early career positions. She is
barred in two East Coast states and works in private practice. They married after Ethan settled
into shore duty on the East Coast where they could live together long term. During shore duty,
they decided he would join the U.S. Navy Reserve, where he could continue to serve while also
exploring other opportunities. He described the decision to depart active duty as “difficult” with
a “large emotional component for sure” due to the strong connections and positive camaraderie
he experienced in the service. Ethan is currently a full-time student in a prestigious MBA
program. They live apart while he attends graduate school, and Susan continues in her law
practice.
57
Stewart and Victoria
Steward and Victoria are an introspective and analytical couple who met through mutual
friends in a major West Coast city after completing undergraduate school. Ethan graduated from
a West Coast state university, attended OCS, and completed nuclear power training. He served
on a West Coast guided missile ship, then East Coast aircraft carrier, and subsequent West Coast
shore duty before deciding to affiliate with the U.S. Navy Reserve. He joined the Navy to use his
engineering background while also fulfilling “a call and desire to serve” related to his familial
history of service. Upon entering the service, he “had no strong opinion one way or the other”
concerning long-term service and was open to all possibilities.
Victoria attended a prominent West Coast university for undergraduate school and
currently works full-time at a start-up company while also attending a top-tier MBA program
with the intention of growing the start-up. They have been married for approximately 5 years and
described the decision for Stewart to depart active duty as “pretty easy” after a long period of
weighing the pros and cons. She said, “We talked a lot. … After a certain point, it felt like there
was kind of no reason to stay in [active duty].” He almost departed active duty earlier in his
career and had submitted his resignation due to a “lack of geographic stability or certainty” but
rescinded his resignation after a leader on his ship advocated for his desire to serve on the West
Coast, where Victoria’s company is located. Stewart is in the process of departing active duty to
join the reserves and will begin graduate school at a prominent program on the West Coast.
James and Danica
James and Danica are an athletic, outdoorsy couple who met while they were both on
active duty and married after years of dating long-distance. James completed ROTC at a major
private university in the South and has served in a wide variety of less common roles, including a
58
small surface combatant ship, a mine countermeasure ship, a squadron staff, and a small boat
squadron. He moved four times in 7 years, including 2 years living overseas. James joined the
Navy after growing up in a military family and chose the Navy because it “had the most
opportunities with things you could do … [because] I didn’t know what I exactly wanted to do. I
knew I wanted to go into the military, and I wanted to lead sailors and make a difference.” While
SWO was not his first choice of community, he wanted to “give it a shot” and was open to
staying in long-term.
Danica attended the U.S. Naval Academy and completed a master’s degree in electrical
engineering from a West Coast university. She served on active duty in a non-SWO community,
departed active duty over a year ago, and currently works in the energy sector. James’ described
his decision to depart active duty as “a difficult decision. I love being in the Navy. I like working
with sailors. … It was definitely a very hard decision for me.” James added that his decision was
so difficult that, even with the departure imminent, he still “questions if I really want to get out.”
He is currently in the process of departing active duty and is still considering whether he wants
to remain in the reserves.
Damien and Savanna
Damien and Savanna are a previously dual-military couple who met at the USNA and
dated while they were both active-duty SWOs. They married after their initial sea duty tours, and
Savanna departed active duty several years ago to allow flexibility for Damien’s career moves
and to begin a family. Damien served on multiple guided missile ships and an amphibious ship in
a variety of division officer and department head positions on both the East and West Coasts. He
joined the Navy after growing up in a military family because “I liked traveling, and I liked the
adventure, you know. It’s the old saying, ‘It’s not a job. It’s an adventure.’ … That really
59
appealed to me.” Special operations was his preferred choice of community, but he found SWO
to be a rewarding challenge and remained for many years after his minimum service
commitment. He described the decision to depart active duty as “moderately difficult” with a
strong emotional component especially considering he had completed over 11 years of active
service.
Savanna and Damien now have four children and live on the East Coast. Savanna will
soon begin graduate school for education and wants to be a public school math teacher. He said a
major factor they considered in the decisions for both of their military careers was “she wanted
… to be a teacher, and she put that on hold for a long time. She basically put her career on hold
so that I can go be a department head.” Damien transitioned to reserve duty to gain geographic
stability after his department head roles and currently works in the personal financial sector. He
is now over 15 years of service including his continuing reserve duty.
Crystal and John
Crystal and John are a previously dual-military couple who met while they were both on
active duty. Crystal attended OCS after completing her undergraduate education in the
northeastern United States. She served overseas and in the Pacific Northwest on guided missile
ships and is completing shore duty on the East Coast. John attended the USNA, served on East
and West Coast ships, and departed the Navy while on shore duty after a little over 6 years of
service. They are currently engaged and living apart while Crystal departs active duty and John
works in the private sector.
Crystal’s decision to depart was connected to John’s timeline to depart active duty. They
made both of their decisions in conjunction with each other and worked to time the transitions as
smoothly as possible. She said,
60
So, once [John] officially got a job offer up in New England [after leaving the service], I
basically immediately put in my resignation letter. … I already knew I didn’t want to go
back to sea. I didn’t want to do department head. I wasn’t gonna sign [for continuation
bonuses]. I already knew that was gonna happen by this point. … Once I got on shore
duty, I’m done. … It wasn’t for me.
However, John added that her decision was tenuous at points. He said,
One thing I do remember, [Crystal] you going kind of back and forth, being like, “Oh,
I’m definitely not staying, this is terrible, or, oh, maybe I could do it, maybe I’d want to.”
I remember on [your second ship], we had those conversations about, like, you’ve
considered staying in, and then a week later, you’re like, “Oh no, not at all.”
In addition, their desire to start a family heavily affected her decision to depart. She said, “I’m
[also] getting out cause I, we, wanna start a family in the next couple of years, and I didn’t do it
on my shore duty.” Crystal plans to remain in the reserves while finishing a master’s degree, and
John is pursuing a career in project management in the northeast. She plans to move to the house
they bought together when she soon departs active duty.
Marshall and Megan
An easy going and well-spoken couple, Marshall and Megan met in high school and
stayed together while at different universities. Marshall graduated from a large northeastern
university and then attended OCS partly due to the “abysmal” job market they entered after
graduation. His family history of service led him to the Navy, where he found “surface warfare
[to be] interesting.” In addition, they both agreed that part of his decision to join was that they
“really wanted to get out of our hometown, and that allowed [us] to do that.” Marshall has served
in three different locations, West and East Coasts, on a guided missile ship, amphibious ship,
61
small boat squadron, and a training command on shore duty. He described the decision as
“nuanced” because he enjoyed the work and “loved the organization,” but he ultimately found
himself in a non-traditional career timeline and became jaded by the hold-up of his promotion for
nearly 6 months due to the political debate around abortion in the U.S. Senate. Megan became
animated by this topic and said the message they got while his promotion was delayed was,
“Well, you’re a political pawn now, and we’re gonna, you know, keep your money [that the
promotion would’ve brought].”
Marshall has decided not to affiliate with the Navy Reserve and is currently working on a
master’s degree at a prominent East Coast university. He intends to explore federal service jobs
related to his skills from the Navy. Meghan plans to continue in her current field and hopes the
stability in his career will allow her to progress to positions of higher pay and responsibility,
which she has, up to this point, been unable to pursue.
John and Abigail
A younger, upwardly mobile couple with serious educational aspirations, John and
Abigail met at a prominent undergraduate school and continued dating long-distance until
marriage in 2022. John has an engineering degree, commissioned through OCS, and served on
guided missile ships in two different Pacific ports. About his decision to depart, he said, “At the
time, it was an easy decision,” but he added,
As the end approached, though, and then immediately afterwards, you know, I think it’s
kind of one of those things that you don’t realize what you have until it’s gone. … I
suffered the kind of things that a lot of transitioning veterans suffer when leaving active
duty, which is, you know, the loss of sense of purpose. You know, the loss of that
immediate group of really, really tight friends and compatriots and all that other sort of
62
stuff. So, you know I’ve vacillated a lot on whether that was, you know, something, if I
could go back, if I would still do the same thing. But you know it’s 2 years later, so “c’est
la vie.”
Abigail is currently attending an 8-year MD and PhD program in the Midwest, and after
separation from active duty, John moved to be with her while also attending graduate school in
engineering and continues serving in the reserves. At the conclusion of their graduate programs,
she wants to work in a major medical research program or hospital, and he desires to find work
in the space industry.
Max and Charlotte
A couple who met at a major undergraduate school in the south, Max and Charlotte
stayed together through college and got married in 2019. Max has a degree in science and
commissioned through an ROTC scholarship. He served on two different guided missile ships,
one on the East Coast and the second overseas. Max and Charlotte completed their interview
through email correspondence due to scheduling challenges and travel as he transitioned out of
the Navy. They described the decision in two different ways. First, he said,
Professionally, it was a very difficult decision. I have worked hard to gain a lot of
accreditations and make a good name for myself in the SWO community. I truly believe
that had I wanted to stay in I would be a good candidate for leadership. [However], there
is a fear that had I continued, even if you do everything correctly, I still may not be given
the opportunity to command [a] ship at sea.
Conversely, the couple described their collective decision as more nuanced, adding,
[He] did three deployments in 4 years and was gone the majority of the time. Max’s love
for the Navy and how much he enjoyed his second tour impacted this decision [and gave
63
them pause to depart]. … It felt difficult to make roots with people or places, given the
amount of moves in 5 years.
He added,
It took us years to be confident in the decision to leave. In this transition to the reserves
[and] civilian life, we are still not 100% certain. I was offered department head on my
first [selection] look and that’s when the decision-making process began.
Charlotte has a degree in supply chain management and has worked in various defense
contractor roles throughout his active-duty career. She has secured positions that allowed for
remote work, including time pre-pandemic. They are still considering career options for both of
them and are open to moving wherever job opportunities take them.
Holistic Approach to Career Decisions
A significant consideration to acknowledge before addressing the specific research
questions of this study is the holistic nature of the career decision-making process, which is why
I used Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) systems model in addition to Segal’s life course model (Segal et
al., 2015). This study addressed the effect a partner’s career has on the decision, but that is only
part of the broader set of considerations a servicemember and their partner weigh in the retention
decision. With that in mind, the following section addresses some of those larger considerations
and how they affect the retention decision and potentially interrelate with a partner’s career.
Why Did You Join the Navy?
The question “why did you join the Navy?” is almost ubiquitous in mentorship sessions
throughout the service but is an important consideration when looking at an individual’s
motivations for their career. This group of SWOs gave a wide range of reasons for their initial
service entry which then often had a role in their ultimate decision to depart active duty. For
64
example, all the SWO participants and some of their partners mentioned a familial connection
with the military that affected their initial service affiliation and, in some cases, was a positive or
negative factor in their decision to depart. Ethan specifically said his father’s previous service
made him see “a lot of value in the service.” However, his decision to depart was influenced by
“talking to my dad [about his experiences], … the idea of it would be hard. Right? Like, all the
time away from home and having a family.”
In addition to familial connections and a call to service, the reasons for joining also
included considerations of having a steady job and the health of the economy. These were
significant themes in multiple participants’ stories. About her decision to begin OCS, Crystal
said,
I wanted a good steady job with a good income. … I was a psych undergrad, [and] I
wasn’t gonna be able to really make any money. And then I really wanted to travel the
world. I hadn’t, like, left the States. I hadn’t really left [my home state]. … So, I kinda
wanted to go and see things, experience a lot. And then I’d gone into the Navy thinking
that it was going to be a really good steppingstone to eventually find something
afterwards. But I also kind of left it open, that if I wanted to stay in and continue on, then
I left that option open.”
Marshall and Megan also discussed the impact their hometowns and the economy had on
their initial entry, saying,
When we both graduated college in 2011, and the job market was abysmal. [Marshall]
applied to a bunch of federal jobs, and they pretty much all said, “Hey, you’d be a lot
more competitive if you had military service.” My grandfather served on a destroyer
escort in Korea. So, I started looking at the … military. The Navy was the kind of the
65
first choice for that, and surface warfare sounded interesting. So, that’s kind of what led
me to it. And to be quite frank, [I] really wanted to get out of our hometown, and the
Navy allowed me to do that. … So, it was between the Navy and the Air force. Megan
didn’t want to live in Kansas or Oklahoma, you know, whatever. So, we knew waterfront
property was in the future.
Effect of Positive and Negative Leadership or Experiences
Not surprisingly, the effect of leadership and experiences in service weighed on the
decisions of each SWO. These experiences impacted both home and work microsystems within
the couple and often overlapped with the home and work microsystems of the partner. At least
two of the participants and one of the partners who had military experience said their decision to
depart was at least influenced by negative leadership on their ships. Crystal and John expressed
disappointment and disillusionment with some of their leaders and the impact those individuals
had on the crew. Crystal said,
I, unfortunately, was with [a particular captain]. I don’t know if you heard all the stories.
… We [the ship] had the worst [command managed equal opportunity] survey on record.
So, the morale was absolutely terrible. Being put down all the time. The racism, the
sexism. Like, we all, as JOs [Junior Officers], had our own fan rooms [small private
spaces on a ship] to go cry in. It was very, very toxic. And right there, I was like, I’ll keep
an open mind on a second ship. But it was just not good. So, once we got to the second
ship, it was okay.
John is now a civilian but had previous SWO experience, and he added,
I kind of always wanted to stay in. But just talking to senior personnel, and understanding
that what I was told even by senior people like … [they would say], “Hey, if you want a
66
family, it’s really not worth staying in, especially if your partner is also in.” By the end of
my second tour as a SWO, I was like I would be more content living in the dumpster,
eating trash, and being homeless than being financially stable and continuing to do this.
In addition, Ethan expressed frustration with a commanding officer who had regular
outbursts which created a difficult environment to work. He said,
I mean, the time the captain threw his radio at me. … That was a pretty, like, clear sign
that I didn’t want to be in the organization anymore. You know, I brought them bad
news, and they ripped it [hand-held radio] off of their belt and threw it at me.
“Goddammit Ordo [ordnance officer].” that was like a, okay, got it type moment. But I
still wasn’t fully out, I guess, until shore duty. … I was kind of like, I’m not going to be
appreciated or like I’ve been told you did, you did well, all of your FITREPs [fitness
reports] were really great … but that didn’t seem to matter to big Navy.
His wife, Susan, interjected at this point of the interview to remind him of some
conversations they had during the process, saying,
You were like, if I have these top FITREPs and I can’t choose what I want to do in this
organization that’s not valuing me. I felt that I think for me that was a point where I felt
like you were like. Yeah, I’m done. Yeah, it was definitely an accumulation.
Conversely, some participants also relayed examples of positive leadership experiences
that helped them stay in longer. Stewart shared that this was actually the second time he had
submitted his resignation from active duty, but a leader above him helped him achieve a positive
outcome that allowed his wife to progress in her career. He said,
I, we, almost left the service after my [East Coast] sea tour. Actually, you know,
submitted the resignation and everything, and that was primarily due to a lack of
67
geographic stability or certainty. … I recall it was she had followed me around going to
[different East Coast cities] and everything. … And her career [now] being the front and
center piece, and me being like the supporting member there. And in order to do that, we
both decided, oh, we need to be [on the West Coast] because, you know, her job
thankfully let her work remote while we were in [East Coast city]. But it definitely was
kind of stifling things a little bit there. And so, originally, my proposal to the detailer was
like, if you can guarantee us, [West Coast city] we’d love to stay and do shore tour, if not,
understand no hard feelings. You know, [PERS] wasn’t able to make that guarantee. So,
then we started that process of separating and then got up to my RO reactor officer, and,
you know, sat down, had a chat with her, and kind of relayed those concerns to her, and
she was able to, you know, do the O6 [captain] thing, and pull some strings. And you
know, … [we moved to San Diego].
Stewart acknowledged that this was a time-consuming task for the leader, but it made a
difference for Victoria and him. While he did not stay in past his shore duty, the Navy used his
skills in valuable ways for the remaining years before his departure.
Damien had a unique perspective, being the only post-department head SWO to
participate in the study. He discussed the positive influence of addressing each individual for
their talents and trying to find the best fit:
The [leaders] that I got along the most with were the ones who would appreciate me as a
person, and me being different, like not every [lieutenant commander] department head
SWO who did destroyers was the same kind of person. They’re just not, you know, but
the best [leaders] were like, “Okay, well, this guy is a good fit here, this guy’s a better fit
here. This guy needs more emotional [support]; this guy needs less.”
68
He added during a subsequent part of the interview, “The [commanding officer] has to be a
human being, and they have to actually care about their people for who they are.”
Max added his thoughts about the decision based on leadership on his first and second
ships. He said,
Once I moved onto my second division officer tour, my interest in staying in the Navy
dramatically increased, even though we had multiple COVID deployments. This was due
to great leadership on board and camaraderie with the other junior officers.
Ultimately, the themes of leadership effectiveness were significant in making participants
reconsider their decision to depart or push them to depart altogether. This leadership effect is a
major opening for leaders to positively influence young officers, not necessarily in their words,
but through their actions and treatment of each individual as an individual. Several participants
acknowledged that this type of leadership is challenging due to the demands of leaders on ships.
While discussing the demands of her ship, Crystal said, “[The commanding officer and executive
officer] can’t care about every person because they have a whole ship to care about. … I can’t be
in that kind of culture.” She acknowledged that this was not necessarily because the leaders did
not care but because there were too many requirements placed on their time, and the ship’s time,
that they did not have the space to provide the level of care needed for some of the sailors.
Remaining in the Reserves to Continue Service
One final contextual consideration among the participant group is the fact that six of the
eight SWO participants have remained in the U.S. Navy Reserve or are committed to doing so
after departure. Staying in the reserves was a common theme among participants in their final
decision. In different ways, each participant said that staying reserves allowed them to continue
service as a SWO with greater flexibility and control over the situation. Stewart said “100%”
69
when asked if staying in the reserves gave him a cushion during the transition and was “a little
bit easier of an off-ramp.” In addition, he liked the fact that he knew what he would be doing in
the reserves, saying,
I think another thing that really made that decision very easy was the fact that, you know,
being part of this specialized [tactical] community, and that there is a reserve unit within
[a command he had previously worked]. So, you just have a better sense of what you’re
getting into.
In addition, the theme of reserves tied to healthcare was a common connection. Damien,
who has a large family, said,
I mean, a big reason to become a reservist and then stay reserves is really because [of]
healthcare. I mean, it’s like, you know, for a family of six. It’s about 25% of the cost as if
I had even some of the best employer plans out there. … The healthcare thing was a
pretty big factor for me going reserves.
Crystal echoed the connection between reserves and healthcare saying, “So, doing
reserves, I do get the medical with it. … It’s why I’m doing reserves. … Truthfully, for the
medical.” Ethan added to the conversation, saying, “It was nice to kind of transition into the
Navy Reserve … I still get like a little bit in [West Coast Navy base] this weekend, and it was
nice … talking with people about our time and service.” He added that it was also great to keep
using his tactical knowledge to continue making the fleet better.
Research Question 1: How Does a Dual-Income Couple Factor a Non-military Partner’s
Career Into the Retention Decision?
Six findings emerged in response to the first research question. Partnerships between
spouses, stability, and career satisfaction were important in the participants’ decisions. Also,
70
family well-being was central to these decisions. Lastly, leadership in the Navy and support from
PERS factored into the ultimate decision to stay or leave.
Finding 1: Partnership and Holistic Multisystem Approach
Each SWO made their retention decision in genuine partnership with their spouse, and
they made the career decision from a holistic multisystem approach.
Partnership
Each couple showed a real partnership and desire to make the decision together in an
equitable manner. Through their answers, the various home and work systems at play were
evident and often at odds with each other. For example, the SWO’s work microsystem resulted
in sacrifices needed from the civilian spouse in the home microsystem, which negatively
impacted the spouse’s work microsystem. The cascading themes were common topics in all the
interviews. In reference to the pros and cons, they mentally tallied over months. James said the
short-notice deployment he completed
was just another one of those [negative] checks in the box of like, okay, the Navy is
gonna take priority on all these things, and I think we’re very much trying to balance both
of us having a fair share and a fair say, and when you’re both out of the military, that’s a
lot easier.
When asked about the trade-off between their careers, James added,
I think it’s just making them more equal. Just to be honest, because I feel like for [my
career] the last couple of years, it’s been very much where my orders have been and kind
of my deployment schedule, and underway schedule and all those kinds of exercises. And
now it can get a little bit more co-equal. … We’ve got the flexibility to go somewhere
71
else, and either I can be remote for a while, if I can find a job like that, or we can have a
more co-equal discussion.
Max and Charlotte echoed the challenges between home and work while he was on active
duty. They said,
Max’s love for the Navy versus the tough home life was the major crossroads. The time
he spent at sea was substantial comparable to a lot of his peers and was ultimately the
reason we decided as a couple for Max to leave active duty.
Holistic Thinking
In the case of a dual-career couple, it is almost impossible to detach the spouse’s career
and aspirations from the SWO retention decision. Each couple discussed a balancing act in their
discussions and a desire to meet both partners’ career aspirations while also weighing the
potential sacrifices each was required to make in any changing situation. Marshall addressed this
balancing act between his and Meghan’s careers and home life in addition to the future of their
family by saying,
The question that we kind of asked was, we’ll kind of stay as long as the return for me
professionally is sort of worth it. I was never gonna just like just stay to stay. So, that was
actually one of the heaviest factors. It was, where do we want to live? And we sort of
reached a turning point where we said, hey, it’s been 10 years. We have to start really
thinking. It’s really hard to support kind of both careers simultaneously. In fact, it’s
almost impossible. There becomes a point when you sort of have to say, okay, we’re
gonna start making choices that benefit us both. Not only, hey, I’ll take a billet, and
move, and whatever. So, in this conversation, we sort of said we need to start looking at
what we want our life at home to look like in the next 10, 20, 30, whatever years. … That
72
really led us to I don’t think that’s gonna include the Navy because if we want to choose
where we’re gonna live, … we want to have flexibility and employment for Megan and
for myself.
As a result, I created an adaptation of the conceptual framework presented in the
literature review to represent this balancing act or negotiation between a couple’s home system
and their individual work systems. This adaptation was mostly relevant to the microsystem,
mesosystem, and chronosystems, which is why I focused on those systems for this framework.
Figure 8 shows this adaptation.
Figure 8
Adaptation of Systems Framework for Work and Home in a Dual-Income Military Couple
73
The adaptation in Figure 8 can then be theoretically placed on a fulcrum at the center of
the two circles, representing the give and take of the workplace factors and how they shift the
balance of home factors in different ways. The concept of work-family conflict is embedded in
this fulcrum, creating tension between the workplaces of the partners and their shared life at
home (Molina, 2021). For example, several of the couples discussed the effect increasing
workplace demands of the SWO had on the professional and home life of their partner. In many
cases, the partner needed to assume additional home responsibilities, sometimes to the detriment
of their own workplace systems. This imbalance in the system can reach a point of
unsustainability, especially when considering the weight of the chronosystem, or time elapsing,
as the imbalance draws longer on one partner over the other.
James and Danica noted this balancing act when he transitioned to a new command and
was immediately notified of a pending deployment. The response from leadership was an
indication to them of the future they would have as a couple, should he remain on active duty for
a career, and factored into their long-term decision-making about having a family. James said,
Just one person’s career takes the priority, at least in the Navy, and it’s always the Navy.
The members know. I checked into my new command, and they were like,
congratulations, you’re deploying in 3 months. And you know, obviously, [we have] no
kids, nothing like that. But if the timing would have been anything different, you know,
that could have been very challenging for me, and it was just kind of the expectation.
“Oh, you know you’ve got a spouse. Things will be fine back home. You don’t need to
worry about anything.” Which I get deployable commands, you know. No issues on our
end. But again, it was just another one of those, like, checks in the box of like. Okay, the
Navy is gonna take priority on all these things, and I think we’re very much trying to
74
balance both of us having a fair share and a fair say, and when you’re both out of the
military, that’s a lot easier.
Danica, James’ partner, added her point of view by saying, “There’s stuff that needs to get done
around the house, and we both have full-time jobs. But your [James’] job ends up being more
than full-time, so it’s like, ‘I guess I’ll do the housework, too.’”
This situation is indicative of many assumptions that are rooted in the culture of the
military through generations of service members and relate directly to the myriad changes in
society over the last few decades noted in the literature review. The lack of concern about home
factors in the deployment timeline, assumptions that a partner can accept the slack in an absence,
and the general need to assume service is the number one priority in their lives all add up to a
potential for the couple to decide that these sacrifices are not worth the trouble. Ultimately, the
lack of stability in these systems and the balancing act couples are experiencing can reach a point
of unsustainability.
Finding 2: Stability
The concept of stability was a significant factor in each decision, with the two most
significant being geographic stability and spouse professional stability. These considerations
about work-life balance, or a trade-off between the partners’ professional lives and personal
lives, revolve around the broad consideration of stability. The concept of stability came up in
every interview in different ways. There was a general understanding and implied agreement
with each couple acknowledging some amount of sacrifice or challenge in the military was going
to happen. The difference for each couple was the acceptable limit of sacrifice and what level of
sacrifice was a tipping point for them.
75
Ethan put the larger sentiment together, saying, “It [the Navy] was just not something I
wanted to keep doing on active duty, and I decided I wanted to kind of [have a] little more
stability in my life, and so I’m getting my MBA right now” as he transitions into the civilian
sector. His spouse, Susan, added,
Stability, I think, was something that we weighed professionally, but also personally, for
family, like, we don’t have children yet, but we were thinking about what would that look
like, you know, neither of us had that moving around a lot as a kid, and we didn’t want to
do that to our children.
Damien put it succinctly by saying, “It was really just about, hey, like this is an organization
that’s got just a lifestyle that I can’t really do” in terms of stability and balance. While I found
this overall theme throughout the interviews, the two major sub-themes of stability were
geographic stability and spouse career stability, which in many ways intertwined to again reach a
point of unsustainable work-life balance challenges.
Geographic Stability
Moving to different locations throughout a career has been a hallmark of military service
for many centuries. This fact of life can be viewed as positive or negative depending on
perspective. Personal preferences, a desire to experience new and exciting cultures, and wanting
to escape a bad situation, or lack of opportunity, are examples of the reasons these SWOs gave in
their motivation for initial service commitment. Marshall said part of his motivation for joining
the Navy was “to be quite frank, [I] really wanted to get out of our hometown, and the Navy
allowed me to do that.” Crystal explained part of her motivation:
I wanted a good steady job with a good income, which I was a psych undergrad [so] I
wasn’t gonna be able to really make any money. And then I really wanted to travel the
76
world. I hadn’t like left the States … so I kind of wanted to go and see things, experience
a lot.
Damien stated that his motivations for joining also related to a sense of adventure and a
desire for travel. He said, “I liked traveling, and I liked sort of like the adventure, like, you know
that old saying “It’s not a job. It’s an adventure.” … That really appealed to me.”
However, these motivations and their perspective altered as the couples’ relationships and
their personal and professional lives evolved. James and Danica explained that as they got older,
they needed to discuss the future. James said,
Have those discussions [about the future]. And when you’re in the military, you can’t
have those discussions about, maybe we need to move somewhere else, maybe I need to
take the load while [Danica is] doing a major project … There isn’t the flexibility to have
those discussions. You know, it’s the Navy owns you, and that’s how it’s gonna be, at
least from my perspective.
Stewart reflected on the challenge in his relationship and the geographic instability by
explaining a major motivator for his departure centered on geography. He said,
I know we’re hitting this a lot, but the lack of geographic stability, and then also just the
lack of kind of overall agency and security … That fear of the unknown, I guess, and
kind of being yanked around.
In addition, the effect on family, or potential children, came up in multiple interviews. Damien,
who has four children under the age of 12, said his motivations around geography centered on
the best fit for his children:
So, I also had a unique perspective, where you know, I was an Army brat growing up and
like it was good, but it was also terrible. I mean, I had three elementary schools, three
77
middle schools, two high schools. … It was out of control, like how much we moved. It
was just way too much for me and it was hard on my parents, right? So, I knew for me
what it felt like to move around a lot. My wife was the complete opposite. She moved
one time in 18 years, so she knew what it was like to have a stable family. So, you know
[it came down to] how do we increase stability for the kids? Because if we [his wife and
he] are happier, they are [his kids], gonna be happier, and vice versa.
Victoria explained her problem with geography was, “We don’t really know where we’re
gonna end up, like that was really hard to figure out, especially as it relates to other decisions that
you make in your life about career and stuff like that.” Her husband, Stewart, added, “Yeah. And
then my resolution again is it did very much center around geography. I considered all the, you
know, branch plans [of where we could live].”
Spouse Career Stability
While geographic stability, even in the age of remote work, was a major factor in career
decisions and trajectory, the overall concept of the spouse’s ability to control their professional
destiny and establish themselves in a career was a major topic of discussion. Many of the
partners in this study expressed some amount of flexibility in their careers, where they
maintained positions in somewhat related fields when their SWO was transferred. However,
many of the participant spouses reported feeling limited in their opportunities or held back by the
SWO’s career, especially as the partner became more senior. Victoria summarized these
sentiments:
It was getting to the point where, for me to actually progress in my career, like, I was
very lucky that I was able to work remotely [up to that point], but I felt like I was starting
to have to hold myself back, and like I wasn’t being considered for certain things,
78
especially as the company was growing. I mean, we ended up timing [my departure]
pretty well because there’s no way I could do that now. Just given that I’m overseeing a
team, but I wasn’t able to be in that position [before]. You know, I wouldn’t have. … I
could kind of start to see that my opportunities were closing off. And I was not really
okay with that personally. So, I wanted to make sure that where we were was somewhere
that we could both feel like it would be good for our careers.
Damien echoed these sentiments for his spouse, acknowledging the sacrifices she made
for his career and their young family. The inability to maintain some sense of stability has acted
as a hold on starting the career Savanna ultimately wants to pursue. Damien said,
Yeah. So, I mean, [Savanna] basically had to put her career on hold or, you know, her
long-term career … [It came down to] you know, can my spouse go on to earn? Is she
gonna have the flexibility she needs to be able to live her best life, you know she can be
able to pursue her dreams.
Many of the partners also expressed how instability put them into positions they were
underqualified to do or were not leading to the future they desired for their professional lives.
Meghan described her experience of moving multiple times over a 10-year period and the toll it
had on her professional prospects:
I’ve kind of had to fight my way back into project management roles, you know. We
moved to [the West Coast]. I took some data analyst positions at a nonprofit. Was
definitely underpaid pretty much the whole time that we lived there. And then, when we
moved back East, I got another data analyst role at [a major national retailer] and was
there for 4 years. In that time, I negotiated my way into a business analyst job and then a
project management job, and when I left because we moved [again], and despite the fact
79
that I had been working remotely for almost 2 years, at that point, they decided they
wanted everyone back in the office. So, I went and got another project management job
that’s remote first [to continue working].
She lamented that this was not an ideal situation for her career, and at some point, the constant
changes became too much for her, especially when factoring in the potential for children adding
to the equation.
Victoria discussed mapping out their collective future based on her career prospects and
the challenges of instability by saying:
When we were mapping out kind of our future, when we would meet up and, like, build
out, what do we want our future to look like? We kind of would scenario plan for what
does that look like if we’re in the Navy? What are benefits of that? Okay? And then what
are the downsides? And what would look like if we didn’t, you know? Kind of risk
assessment, I would say for that … I feel like my career definitely played a very large
role in it [the decision for him to depart], too, which is related to geography.
In addition, the often-cited challenges of licensure or credential transfer came up in the
conversation with Susan, who is a lawyer barred in two East Coast states. She and Ethan
addressed the prospect of moving somewhere outside of those locations. Ethan said,
We’re also considering [her] career. … I forgot exactly with the act is called where you
can transfer licenses between states, … but that was still something that we were talking
about. That’s great that exists here. But you know, [what if] I go to Japan? It’s gonna be
kinda hard for you to be a lawyer. I think maybe there’s [a] way it works. But anyways,
that was, like, something. … That was a deciding factor.
Susan added to this line of thought by saying,
80
So, I could have, like, gotten a bar license [in a new place]. Just gone through the kind of
application process [if] he had orders wherever we were going, but also like the stability
of just being able to, you know, not have to deal with all of that was a consideration.
Max and Charlotte added to the overall conversation about their experiences balancing
both careers through multiple moves. Max said,
I think my role in the Navy was the priority during active duty because we didn’t have
much say in where we lived. Charlotte was able to maintain her job due to being a valued
employee at [large defense contractor] but wasn’t able to go into an office because of
moves around the world. This may or may not have hindered promotion in her current
role.
Charlotte added to Max’s answer by discussing the limitations she felt as a result of being the
trailing spouse in the relationship. Charlotte said,
I also found it limited the opportunities to look elsewhere as I found it difficult to justify
looking for new positions when we would only be in the new location for a short time.
My position over the last 6 years fits well with my educational background, and I did
enjoy it for some time, but in time I did start to feel stuck. It felt like the best option I had
during the multiple moves. I think my career took a back seat for the last 7 years for
multiple reasons. With Matt leaving active duty, I will have drastically more
opportunities. It was important to us for me to stay in a position that was career-focused
and not be having to take a job that didn’t fit my potential/education level simply because
it was easier to find.
Finally, Marshall and Megan summarized the day-to-day challenges of being a military
spouse through the perspective of instability and working with her employer. Megan said,
81
You know, employers don’t want to take a chance on you. You kind of have to figure out,
like, when should I even bring it up that I’m a military spouse? You know, the demands
day to day, depending on what the, you know, your spouse’s job is, but, like, when
Marshall was on [East Coast ship], I mean, there were like eight times that I had to leave
my job in the middle of the day to, like, go buy supplies because they were in a hurricane
sortie. He was going to be home for 2 hours, you know, off of an underway to go out for
who knows 6 weeks or whatever. So, there’s a lot of flexibility that’s required of you as a
military spouse in order to support your spouse’s career, not just the moving around, but
like the day-to-day activities that, fortunately, I’ve been in sort of like white-collar jobs
that have allowed me to do that, but it’s still something that you have to like. Go to your
boss and be like, hey, I have to go like do housewife stuff now. I’ll be back in a couple of
hours, like, which is awkward.
Spouse career stability is a multifaceted consideration requiring multiple perspectives to
fully understand. When viewed through a chronosystem perspective, the considerations change
over time and evolve depending on the personal situation of the couple and the seniority or
profession of the partner. Ultimately, the consensus of the partners in the study is that those
challenges grow over time and, at some point for them, the challenges became too much for the
balance between the home microsystem and both partners’ work microsystems to be sustainable.
Finding 3: Satisfaction as a Counterbalance
Professional career satisfaction acted like a counterbalance to the significant stressors and
sacrifices each couple experienced. Higher SWO professional satisfaction meant the couple was
willing to endure greater sacrifice.
82
The challenges mentioned throughout the interviews were routinely countered with
statements reflecting the understanding that service comes with sacrifice. Some of the partners
acknowledged they were open to the SWO continuing service, but only if the SWO was really
satisfied or fulfilled by the work. This acted like a counterbalance in many of the discussions
where the partner was willing to continue sacrifice if they felt it was worth it for the SWO.
Victoria addressed this counterbalance by saying,
I was just thinking of your, like, career satisfaction. … I felt like every time you would
hit a certain point where you felt like, yeah, I got this under my belt. Then something
would change, and so, … if I had seen you really, really happy or like, “Oh, my gosh, [I]
get so fulfilled with my career,” I feel like I would have probably been more like, okay,
let’s really think about this more. But I didn’t really see that from you.
Marshall echoed these sentiments by saying, “The question that … we kind of asked was,
we’ll kind of stay as long as the return for me professionally is sort of worth it. I was never
gonna just like just stay to stay.” His wife, Meghan, added that she was perfectly fine with him
being gone a lot of the time if she thought he was valued and happy in that profession. When his
decision came down to its final stages they anchored on job satisfaction and fulfillment. She said,
Marshall is a, he’s a high horsepower guy. Like, he likes to be doing stuff. And I was
like, can you picture yourself going to an office building and doing this job and deploying
and doing inspections and doing this job that they’re telling you you’re gonna get [if you
stay in]? Is that gonna make you come home every day miserable because you’re bored?
I don’t want that. I would rather you be, you know, take a job where you have to travel
50% of the time, if it made you happy, than for you to continue wearing a uniform and
being unhappy like, I’m not interested in that. … We’ve always been very open about it
83
and very, like, candid about it with each other, like, understanding what’s required when I
have to be flexible to support Marshall’s career. And I’ve always said, like, you wake up
tomorrow, and you’re like, I want to be an admiral. Like, I’m gonna do it, you know,
okay, I’ll be there, you know, I’m gonna do it. And I’m fortunate, you know, by virtue of
my education and my background, that I’ve had some flexibility in my career. I can find
remote work. There are lots of people who can’t, you know.
When viewed through the adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) systems model in
Figure 8, the satisfaction of the SWO can be viewed as a positive lift, countering the weight of
work on the SWO’s side of the dual system. In that case a partner may be willing to assume
greater strain on their home and work systems to keep a balance on the larger family unit. This is
an important takeaway because the integrated framework of the dynamic turnover process
emphasizes changes in affect or attitudes and the potential for triggers to lead to turnover, as
those changes can come from outside the workplace (Grotto et al., 2017).
Finding 4: Well-Being, Family, and Spouse’s Career
Well-being was at the center of each decision, with family outcomes and spouse career
life course as the two most important of the discussion.
Life Courses and Well-Being
The holistic nature of the interviews connected in many ways to Segal’s life course model
(Segal et al., 2015). The concept of well-being as an individual and partnership and the effect
that had on decision-making was woven throughout the interviews. The most prevalent outcomes
the participants mentioned were physical, psychological, financial, and family.
Physical well-being and the impact of medical challenges or lack of medical support in
the Navy system were themes in multiple interviews. Crystal approached the challenge of
84
physical outcomes as a build-up during her sea tours that culminated at shore duty and connected
her stress and physical challenges with a lack of time. She said,
I think it got to the point where it was just every single time you turn around, and it’s
never enough. You’re not allowed to fail. The SWO mentality, the SWO guilt. You
always have to do stuff, always have to be working, and then I got to shore duty, and I
went to medical for the first time, like, that I wasn’t on a list for being dink [delinquent]
on something. I went to medical, and I was like, I have all these medical issues. And now
my disability claim that I put in for has 10 medical issues on it. … You can’t get anything
seen to on the ships because they don’t care.
Stewart’s spouse, Victoria, specifically mentioned the lack of sleep as contributing to his poorer
health and well-being. She said,
I feel like it’s kind of a build-up of things. … I just remember, like, the sleep, you know,
at least, I’m thinking back when we’re in [East Coast city], like the schedule being crazy,
like you not being able to sleep very often. That was really rough on you.
Life courses and their impact on well-being took different forms in these interviews.
Some of the life courses discussed were the physical outcomes of extended family, the financial
outcomes of the couple and their earning potential, and the physical and mental health of the
SWO and their partner. Overall, these outcomes were discussed in the context of a larger concept
of the well-being of the system within the partnership.
Damien and Savanna were the sole couple with children in this study. Their perspective
was understandably unique in terms of family life course. Damien laid out the thought process
and prioritization of their decision-making in relation to the family. His list beautifully showed
the interconnectedness of the different life courses, their connection with well-being, and the
85
balancing act they considered in deciding his career trajectory. In response to the question
regarding some other things that he considered, Damien said,
I think three main things. I mean, Number 1 was just emotions, you know. It was just
emotional health of myself, and then of the family as well. That was, like, the most
important thing. The finances, just it was kind of like, okay, are we gonna be good?
Yeah, we’re fine, okay. Plus, if your emotional help is higher, you’re gonna be better
performing. Therefore, you’re probably gonna earn more, maybe not immediately but
long term. So, emotional health was number one. Finances was kind of maybe 2 Alpha,
and then 2 Bravo was really, okay, you know, can my spouse go to earn? Is she gonna
have the flexibility she needs to be able to live her best life, you know she can be able to
pursue her dreams. … And then, 3, you know, what’s the best fit for my kids? So, I also
had a unique perspective, where you know, I was an Army brat [Army child] growing up
and like it was good, but it was also terrible. I mean, I had three elementary schools, three
middle schools, two high schools, two colleges like it was out of control how much we
moved. It was just … way too much for me, and it was hard on my parents, right? So, I
knew for me what it felt like to move around a lot. My wife was the complete opposite.
She moved one time in 18 years, you know, so she knew what it was like to have a stable
family. So, you know, Number 3 was like, how do we increase stability for the kids?
Because if we are happier, they are gonna be happier, and vice versa.
Segal’s life course model (Segal et al., 2015), in concert with the adaptation of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological system model, helps to understand the various factors in
consideration with these participants. These complicated relationships between factors at the
work and home microsystems are highly nuanced and influenced by individuals’ past
86
experiences in addition to their outlook on the future, reflecting in the chronosystem. The
complex web of factors is framed through the life course outcomes and well-being
considerations of the couple in relation to the SWO’s and partner’s careers.
Family Obligation and Caregiving
Included in the concept of Segal’s life course model and the concept of well-being in the
service member is the physical outcomes of family (Segal et al., 2015). The family life course
presented in different ways throughout the interviews, but one that surprised me was the role of
caregiving and other family obligations to extended family, such as parents and grandparents,
weighed in the decision-making process. Multiple SWOs and their spouses discussed the
challenges of meeting family obligations or the concern over missing notable events in the
extended family and the growing sense of guilt about not being present. Crystal, as a female
SWO, stressed this familial obligation in many different ways, both as a future parent and as a
daughter and granddaughter. She said,
I don’t wanna have to sacrifice my family and taking care of my kids. With him also
having a career, and then I wouldn’t be able to spend time with my kids. … I … have an
aging grandfather, and my mother isn’t doing as well, like, now I can. I can finally spend
the time and not feel guilty about taking time off from my job to go and help them. …
Being [oversea] and then being West Coast, and then COVID hit, I would say, in those 5
years. I lost probably eight to 10 family members or, like, really close family friends that
I couldn’t come home to their funerals. And I finally got to shore duty over here on the
East Coast, and I was able to see my grandmother and got to the hospital 2 hours before
she passed, so that was one of those things that like if I was West Coast or [overseas], I
wouldn’t have made it. … Like, my grandfather’s health is really deteriorating. He
87
actually just got hurt, like, a week ago. So, that’s like one of my biggest draws right now
is that I’m going up to [my new state] once my household goods are there, getting
everything good to go, and then I’m probably gonna go and help them with the spring
chores and whatnot, and open the house up so it’s just one of those things that it would
have, if I weren’t already getting out, it probably would have been a bigger indicator for
me to get out.
Megan and Marshall echoed these sentiments in their own decision for Marshall to depart active
duty. Megan said,
You know he’s an only child. I’m the oldest daughter. We’re both kind of the responsible
kid in our whole extended family. You know his parents are aging. My mom passed
away. My dad’s aging. My grandparents are aging, you know. … My dad is the primary
caregiver for two out of three of my remaining grandparents, like it’s there’s [sic] we’ve
hit a point in our life where there’s like a lot of responsibilities on the outside that are
starting to kind of poke their way into our day-to-day lives for sure.
Marshall added,
I have at least two or three people [SWOs] I could think of right the top my head who I
know, are exiting service at around the time that I am somewhere between that, you
know, 8, 10, 12-year mark, because they’re concerned they won’t be available for
familial emergency and things like that. And that’s definitely a big, a big factor and I
think I should have mentioned this earlier. But a big driving, a really big moment and
driving force for me was last summer. My father had open heart surgery, and you know, I
had to go home, and it was a huge, huge endeavor just to get there, and the whole thing
and that trip kind of drove home kind of “hey they’re not getting any younger.” These
88
kind of things may continue to happen. If I stay in the Navy, will I be available? Or will I
be, you know, somewhere else in the world unable to return, and when we were younger,
it was a little easier, you know, parents were in their 50s and 60s. They were healthy, but
now they’re in their 70s. … That was a big factor for me. Because I’m an only child, no
siblings, you know they, you know, no other family in the area where they live. It’s just
gonna come to me or come to us to handle whatever that comes up. So, that was a big
moment for me, and I know others. I have a friend who lost his father on a deployment
and couldn’t be home for any of the service or any of that kind of stuff. And basically
decided, ‘hey, this is it, that’s going to be the end for me just because I couldn’t be there.’
That’s enough of a driving force to get me to go, … and her and her family situation is
very similar enough to go all into it. It’s very similar.
Megan concluded this train of thought by adding,
I mean, and we don’t like, we’re in a position we don’t have kids. The military factored
into that decision [to not have children] for us up to this point. But a lot of people do.
And they’re in that like sandwich generation phase of their life. You know they have
young children; they have responsibilities. They also have their mom calling them like,
you know, there’s no one here, and the power’s out and how do I, you know, do this?
How do I do that? Like, you know, you just start to feel that pressure of additional
responsibility.
These sentiments and discussion points show the holistic nature of these various decisionmaking processes and how the work and home balance is weighed differently depending on the
calculus of the partnership in question. Segal’s life course model helps to explain how well-being
is affected by the various life courses and the impact that changes in these life courses can have
89
on decision-making for a service member (Segal et al., 2015). Ultimately, the challenge of
maintaining well-being for the current generation of SWOs is growing due to demographic
shifts. Individuals having children later in life and parents living longer into retirement means the
sandwich generation feels pressure from both sides.
Spouse Earning Potential and the Cushion It Provides
The surprising aspect of the decision that I did not anticipate is the effect the partner’s
income had on the decision from the SWO’s perspective. When crafting the interview protocol, I
assumed some impact from earning potential and how a SWO might consider the partner’s career
from that aspect. However, I neglected to consider how the income from a partner gave a cushion
or safety net in the SWO’s mind and made them feel more comfortable in taking a leap of faith
to depart the service. Danica said, “we are pretty secure, and I think the fact that I have a job that
could support us makes it easier for him to get out.” Susan addressed how her steady income as a
lawyer played in Ethan’s decision:
I think we were confident in my employment. … We weren’t looking at it like he needs
the Navy. Like, I had a job that could sustain us. There were moments where we thought,
you can always be stay-at-home dad. … I think we felt … financially secure, so there
wasn’t a moment where we felt like [he] had to stay in to support our lives.
In addition, Stewart used an anecdote to compare his situation as a married man with an
employed spouse to a peer he knows in a similar transition period but as a single person:
I’ll put it this way. [I] have a friend who is single and is getting out, and one of his big
concerns is, you know, that transitionary period, and being able to find a, you know,
sustainable job quickly, and everything like that. Whereas I know with us, like, I haven’t
90
felt quite that much pressure because [my wife is also], you know, supporting. So, there’s
definitely that safety blanket there, for lack of a better term.
This effect is significant to the findings in this study because the financial life course and
home/work microsystems are heavily impacted by both the spouse’s career potential and the
implications a SWO’s career has on that potential. It is also significant because the partner
dynamic playing out in the current cohort of young SWOs is different from previous generations
where the SWO may have been the primary earner with a spouse doing less paid work, or no
paid work, outside the home to support the family (Kamarck et al., 2020). With a solid second
income in the partnership, the SWO now has the luxury of a cushion to rely on which opens
options and lessens the potential fallout from losing their source of income, even if it is
temporary.
Finding 5: Shocks and Triggers
Shocks and triggers are important to the retention decision, but positive leadership and a
sense that leaders are addressing the shocks can make a difference.
A significant aspect of the integrated framework of the dynamic turnover process is the
impact of triggering events or shocks, either positive or negative, impacting the decision for an
individual to remain or depart an organization (Grotto et al., 2017). When discussing the cohort
in question, those at approximately 6 to 12 years of service, two major shocks came up in
interviews and are worth noting the lasting impact of those events. The first shock was the two
major ship collisions that occurred in 2017. Those events reverberated through the community in
different ways, resulting in significant investments in professional development and training to
help avoid future accidents. However, those events also reverberated in ways that may be
91
difficult to capture but are no less real. The second shock was the COVID-19 pandemic and the
response to that emergency.
Ethan addressed the shock of the ship collisions and the changes it made on him and the
SWO community by acknowledging the reduced amount of emphasis on training and the
concern with making a mistake due to his lack of knowledge. He said,
Something I actually didn’t talk about was those, like, ship collisions happened. I
remember I was on deployment, you know. Went up to the bridge and looked at, like, my
friend. I was like, well, I mean, that could have been us, like, you know. We’re not. We
just. We’re not any better than them. Like, we’re as well trained as they are like. And it
was, like, hard being on deployment. I just felt like [the] Navy wasn’t really investing [in
training]. … I don’t want to be a lesson learned in the Navy. [I] remember, like, I
specifically said that to one of my friends, I don’t want to be on a ship, and I don’t
wanna, you know, get hurt or die because the Navy didn’t care to invest in training ’cause
they’re so busy on, oh, did you meet READ-E one [readiness evaluation] to if you done
this check that like, because I feel like we’ve moved away from like a lot of what we
want to do in the Navy like tactical training … Like when I was making a decision, the
Navy wasn’t very invested in training. I saw people had gotten killed because of that, and
that I think really upset me. … I feel like I’m good at my job, but at the same time, I
don’t feel like I’m well-trained. I don’t know if I would have done any better in that
situation, even though I like to think I’m good, and I don’t wanna be in that situation one
day where, like, I guess, I get somebody killed because I just, I haven’t been trained on
how to do this.
92
He caveated those statements to add, “I know [the] Navy’s made a lot of good changes, I
think. Like with the maritime skills stuff, which was, you know, after I went through.” However,
he acknowledged that there is a whole group of SWOs in his cohort who never attended those
new courses, and their lack of investment in these professional skills was at least a contributing
factor to his decision.
Crystal addressed the issue of COVID through different perspectives. She previously
discussed the impact COVID had on her ability to see family, but in this instance, she addresses
the impact COVID had on her ship’s OPTEMPO and her professional microsystem. She said,
I showed up there [her second ship]. I wanna say it was June of 2019, and we went on a
deployment 2 days later. So, then we did a 7-month deployment. … It was a NATO
deployment. Came back in January of 2020, and then COVID hit. We were the first ship
with COVID … Once COVID hit, the [OPTEMPO] went insane. Unfortunately, it wasn’t
a lot with our ship. It was off ship [destroyer squadron] and other higher headquarters,
shoving a whole bunch of stuff down on our ship, and it became 4 am to 8 or 9 pm every
day. We didn’t see the light. It was just really bad. And once you get to that point, there’s
nothing that I am looking forward to except for shore duty and then getting out.
In addition, Crystal and her partner John had a unique perspective because he was forced
out of the Navy due to his resistance to the required COVID vaccine. She said,
So, what John didn’t say is he was forced out because he was a COVID refuser. … So, he
didn’t have the option to stay in when that happened. He took some time off, but he used
a headhunter to get his job, and that kind of that took some time. And we kind of went
back and forth on what our timeline looked like. So, once he officially got a job offer up
in [the northeast], I basically immediately put in my resignation letter.
93
Ethan added his frustration with the COVID response just made him frustrated with
reactionary policies in the Navy. He said,
You know the first couple of weeks, whenever we do anything, got it. But I’m a 30-yearold man, and I can’t go more than 100 miles outside of this radius, which you know, of
course, I did all the time, especially [for] this one [motioning to his wife who was living
apart from him at the time]. And like, I’m seeing it, some of my friends were still on the
ship and like knowing like, okay, so now you have to sit for 2 weeks and then get
underway and then come back and sit for 2 weeks. And like, that’s all that extra burden
coming from the family. I was like, yeah, this sounds about right, for how the Navy deals
with stuff like this is very taxing.
These two events will follow this current cohort of mid-career SWOs for the rest of their
careers and are likely to factor into their retention decisions when looking at the holistic nature
presented in multiple previous sections. These events were not mentioned as significant enough
to tip the decision toward getting off active duty, but they are examples of triggers or shocks to
the home and work systems that may tilt the delicate balance one way or the other. This tilt can
add to other challenges and create strain in a partnership, which must be addressed to continue
productive life cycles in the personal and professional contexts.
One additional finding in a specific interview caught me by surprise: the U.S. Senate
hold-up of confirmations for promotion that occurred in 2023. During this time, much of the
attention was placed on the high-ranking individuals who were unable to promote due to U.S.
Senator Tuberville’s insistence that the U.S. Department of Defense end a policy on travel and
leave for service members to obtain reproductive healthcare. However, this blockade affected
others down the line, and one of the SWOs interviewed for this study was unable to promote to
94
lieutenant commander for 6 months until the Senate blockade was resolved. This event had a
significant impact on this couple. Marshall and Megan addressed this challenge in the context of
their other difficulties getting the desired next job for Marshall. Megan said,
The promotion blockade in the Senate was happening. So, while we were being told by
the Navy on one side, like, you know, screw you and your decorated service. We’re just
gonna slate you wherever we feel like it from now on. … We’re also being told by the
Navy. Well, you’re a political pawn now, and we’re gonna, you know, keep your money
[that you are owed due to the promotion].
Marshall added,
That’s kind of, I think, was a part of it was nuance to that was definitely a factor. Was
watching the effects that … [the blockade] had not just on me, but on all of my peers
going all the way back from, you know, the [basic division officer course] classmate
days. So, that was tough as well. But the final choice to say, “Yep, I’m gonna go.” I took
pretty much without reservation. … I felt like a pawn. I really am just a political tool and
I feel used.
This instance of perceived politicization of the military is a nuance that could influence a
SWO’s decision to depart the service and potentially affect military retention overall. It is a
significant potential topic for studies for future researchers that this study was unable to capture.
From a holistic approach the exosystem and macrosystems at play are difficult to fully grasp.
However, it is important to remember that those larger forces at play are considerations
individuals are using in their decision-making.
95
Finding 6: Human Resources and Performance
The SWOs want to feel like PERS is taking their personal concerns, including spouse
employment and performance on the job, into genuine consideration when making placement
decisions.
Role of Human Resources and Placement
The role of human resources in the Navy was a very common theme and challenge
addressed in the interviews. The PERS is responsible for representing the needs of filling jobs in
the Navy, attempting to meet the desires of the individual service member, and implementing
efforts to retain individuals for future jobs. All of this is done while trying to keep those
individuals in positions that will maximize the available pool of talent for advancement and
senior leadership positions. The career path is commonly discussed as a way to go from a junior
officer to a senior officer and eventually command ships and units. The major challenge for
PERS is managing all of those competing interests. The two major groups of individuals are
placement officers, mostly representing the needs of the Navy, and the detailers, mostly
representing the interests of the individual but also considering the reality of the needs of the
Navy.
These interviews represent the perspective of SWOs who decided not to remain on active
duty and should be seen through that perspective while not dismissing their concerns. There are
significant take-aways from these interviews and recommendations, which lead to the next
section and Research Question 2. Ultimately, the challenge represented most often by these
SWOs was a general feeling that their concerns or desires were not adequately addressed, or
even acknowledged, throughout the process of transitioning to the next potential job or stage in
their career. In addition, the partner’s professional experience added an insightful perspective
96
that came up in multiple interviews. Finally, in these conversations, it is important to note that
each individual is unique in the timing and stage of their career. These situations are only a
snapshot in time and are difficult to create generalizations.
Marshall and Megan discussed their interactions with PERS at length and approached the
topic from multiple angles. Marshall was in a unique situation since he had taken command early
in his career, which limited his later choices. Marshall said,
We looked at the slate [listing] of jobs, and even the, you know, the redslate, whatever
you want to call it, even the downstream fill slate. And there were things on there that
were interesting, couple of international opportunities, things like that. And I had asked in
the process, “Hey, I would stay if I could do one of these currently open fill jobs.” And
she [his detailer] said, “Yeah, you know, those are just on there because they have to be.
Everyone is gonna go to one of three commands. And it’s not gonna be one of those. …
There’s no other choices.” So, I don’t know if she was supposed to tell me that. But she
said, “Hey, you can. If you submit your slate, it won’t matter what you put on it. You’re
gonna go to one of those [we need].” I said, okay, well, you know, in that case, thanks, no
thanks. I’m gonna get out … So yeah, I was very upfront about it. But it was weird.
The way we went out with PERS was very weird, and I know they never reached back
out to me, which was kind of weird, except just to generally say, “Hey, if you change
your mind, let us know,” but we were very clear with what we’re interested in, and it was
just not an option.
Marshall also added the additional context that he unexpectedly selected for Lieutenant
Commander after being told he would not promote and likely be forced to depart the Navy
97
anyway. His wife Megan added her perspective as a human resource project manager at a large
corporation. She said,
For me, watching from the outside. I mean, you have somebody who has who has been
focused on [in demand] skills, on small units … the entirety of his career. He ran [Visit,
Board, Search and Seizure] at both his sea, you know, ship commands before going into
[his special program]. That’s huge right now, like that’s what the Navy is actually doing,
you know. And so you’re essentially edging someone out who stood up training
programs for that, who certified anti-terrorism programs on not just his ship when he was
on [East Coast ship], but they actually brought ships up from [other areas] for him to run
their certification programs for anti-terrorism, … and he’s gonna reach the end of the
road on this growing, this [in demand] skill set and the Navy is just like, well, “We don’t
have anything to do with you now,” … which strikes me as a person who works in large
organizations as a project manager, as an HR project manager, actually as completely
insane. You know, you don’t lose someone who has this valuable skill set just because
you don’t have a job to slate them into.
James and Danica represented a different perspective as a younger couple, not as senior
in his SWO career, and her prior experience in a different Navy community but now a civilian
while he was considering the transition. He felt like their concerns were not adequately
addressed and it made him question the future of his career and whether that may happen again
in the future. James said,
There was some stuff with how, when I was up for orders again, and Danica was
basically getting out, we knew she was trying to line up a job with how some of the
detailing process went that left a very bad taste in my mouth. That made that decision a
98
little bit easier. … So, I was up for orders, basically, right around the time she was slated
to separate, and we had obviously been dual mil [dual-military couple]. And so, I was
working with my detailer and I was slating. I kind of highlighted [to] my detailer. I was
like, “Hey, I would love to stay in San Diego. Currently dual mil and you know, would
like to stay here, for, you know, personal reasons.” And I think it might be the canned
PERS answer, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. Like, “We’re under no obligation
to keep you in San Diego. Your wife is separating, so we could separate you up to 6
months apart.” And it just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth personally because it was
like, well, she, you know, she’s getting out, and there was never any effort by my detailer
to ask, “Hey? What kind of employment is she trying to get, you know, is important that
you stay in San Diego for professional reasons?” Never ask any questions about
credentialing or any of those kinds of things. ’Cause she is a [credentialed professional],
so getting credentialed in the correct state is important. So, just that kind of, I was leaning
towards getting out, and that definitely pushed me towards getting out with that
perspective.
Another perspective came from Stewart, who almost departed earlier in his career but
was able to ultimately get the desired shore duty he wanted from PERS. He said,
So originally, you know, my proposal to the detailer was like, “Hey, if you can guarantee
us [West Coast city] love to stay and do shore tour, if not, understand no hard feelings,
you know.” [Detailer] wasn’t able to make that guarantee. So, then we, you know, started
that process of separating and then got up to my reactor officer, and, you know, sat down,
had a chat with her, and kind of belayed those concerns to her, and she was able to, you
know, do the O6 [captain] thing, and pull some strings.
99
This particular instance shows the potential importance of professional networks and the
mesosystem of mentors and peers who can have an impact on these larger career decisions. In
addition, this example shows the value of quality mentoring of junior officers by senior officers
and the positive impact it can have on the outcomes of larger Navy problems like retention.
Ultimately, the concerns of the individual are important to the decision-making process,
and these interviews showed the need for a perceived understanding of the individual
partnership’s concerns, not just the needs of the Navy or some hard and fast policy with little
flexibility for interpretation. I got the impression from multiple interviewees that they were
persuadable to continue to the next step if their concerns had been dealt with more personally or
to a greater extend. This is challenging for PERS and will be addressed in the findings pertaining
to Research Question 2.
Importance of Performance
Finally, the difficulty in fully understanding the dynamic between quantity and quality is
a significant topic requiring discussion. In the Navy, the words “fit” and “fill” describe positions
and people. “Fill” references a physical person in a position, thereby filling the job. “Fit” refers
to the quality or recency of that individual’s skills, meaning how well they fit the job. In essence,
fill is having the needed quantity of individuals, while fit is having the needed quality of
individuals. This dynamic is important because the quality side of that equation is often difficult
to measure objectively whereas quantity is the definition of measurable. The quality of officers
came up in many interviews and was a topic of discussion in the introduction section. The
aforementioned 2022 survey of SWOs at most pay grades revealed there is skepticism that top
talent is remaining in the Navy or reaching the highest ranks (CNSF, 2023). In this study, only
17% of junior officers believed top SWOs are remaining for department head and beyond
100
(CNSF, 2023). This trend continued into the senior Officer ranks, where only 22% of those
surveyed indicated they somewhat or strongly agreed top SWOs were remaining to serve as
admirals (CNSF, 2023).
Ethan put it very succinctly by saying, “Some of the people who stayed in, I wouldn’t
necessarily say they were the best officers.” I asked a follow-up question: “You made some
comments about friends of yours that had gotten out. Do you feel like a lot of the people are kind
of the people that the Navy would have really liked to have kept?” Susan and Ethan looked at
each other, and he responded, “I think most of them, yeah, very good officers.” Ethan added,
“Anecdotally, yeah. All of my people who I was close friends with have gotten out. Like, one
way or another, pretty much everybody’s gotten out, and it’s a shame because all of them were
really good performers.” Susan also added her perspective and frustrations as an outside
observer:
For me, sometimes it was frustrating to watch, like, some of your colleagues who I knew
like didn’t put in the effort that you put in. And I knew, like, you’re just frankly as good
[as] I perceived you being, you know, basically getting the same promotions and getting
the same jobs. And, you know, just moving up as you were, whereas in the more
traditional workforce generally, you know you’re eligible, more eligible for promotions,
you know. I saw you moving up actually depends on what you do. You were just kind of
like … performing here [gesturing higher], and other people were performing here
[gesturing lower], and you were going to the same place.
Ethan also added how he felt like the extra work and dedication were not rewarded in any of the
detailing processes or his future prospects. He said,
101
I had like a really solid record, you know. I had my [tactical action officer] letter [an
advanced qualification for his relatively junior status] and, like, all my other, like, good
qualifications. And then I was, like hey, really want, it’s like my wife, you know she’s
been here, and like we haven’t really lived with each other. So, like, let me put these like
top eight choices in DC area … And then it’s like, it will be like, great. So, yeah, that that
was like, I guess frustrating was like I felt like it didn’t pay off for what I wanted to do.
[it felt] like it paid off, like, at the micro level but not the macro level. And what I mean
by that is like, you know, on my ship, … I was known as, like, the performer. So, I was
given leeway in my leadership. … I had more say, because I was known at the micro
level on the ship as a good performer, and the same happened my next ship and then on
shore tour, but didn’t seem to matter to big navy.
Stewart and Victoria were also frustrated by the perception that good performance was
not rewarded in the detailing processes. When asked in a follow-up question at the end of the
interview about this topic Stewart said,
You don’t have a lot of control. In my opinion, you don’t have a lot of control over, you
know, the jobs you get assigned and things like that. … Do I think the Navy has, you
know, lost talent [in my departure]? Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, the Navy is
definitely in a war for talent right now. I think that’s a pretty common, well-known thing.
And it’s going to be challenging, I’m sure, to try and develop those policies to, you know
combat with private sector opportunities.
His wife Victoria added,
I always talk to my friends, like other wives, I guess about that. But there, it’s like
frustrating on our side because I’ll admit I’m not as versed exactly the day-to-day
102
operations of your job, but just from an overall like people that I know who I would
consider to be driven critical thinkers. None of those people that I know have stayed in. It
seems like there’s kind of a mismatch for people who are problem solvers. I mean, this is
again very broad generalization. I’m not saying every person who’s still in the Navy
makes the choice to stay is not a good critical thinker, but just within the group that I
know it’s that’s been the hardest, I think, on them to justify staying in … You know [they
think] I can’t actually bring the talent that I have. … The impact I have is kind of like my
hands are a little bit tied, and there’s a lot of things that don’t really add up in terms of
making … those people thrive. So, every person I’m thinking of is like, yeah, they
couldn’t handle that. So, they really are, like, “I’m gonna leave.”
Implications of Performance and Partnership
Overall, the participant couples were personally and professionally impressive. Further
review of Table 2 shows that these SWOs had excellent education from prestigious and wellregarded education institutions, and many of them achieved significant professional
qualifications beyond the minimum expectations for their paygrade and years of service. In
addition, when asked directly about their performance evaluations, they all remained humble but
admitted they were either selected for department head on the first look and/or had multiple
Number 1 fitness reports. Some participants had advanced training in warfare tactics, and others
were command-qualified or had completed an early command tour.
Their partners were equally, if not more, impressive in their resumes with completed
advanced degrees or pursuing advanced degrees at this time. Many of them were in serious
leadership roles within their company or organization and had serious career aspirations for even
103
higher positions in the future. Finally, many of the couples indicated that the partner made more
money than the SWO or was on a trajectory to outearn the SWO in the near future.
The implications for these striving couples are significant in the retention discussion.
Megan succinctly stated, “high performers are going to marry high performers.” This statement
ties in well with the concept of assortative mating discussed in the literature review, which
argues that individuals select partners through a framework that sorts potential individuals by
various characteristics or desires with the ultimate goal of finding the most ideal mate (Schwartz,
2013). In this study, the individuals seemed to select partners with educational attainment and
professional goals similar to their own. With society’s changing dynamics and women’s
advancement in the workplace, these predominantly female spouses are now equal to or
surpassing their partners in the professional space and want to be considered equally in the career
choices of their partners so they may both thrive. In the case of these couples, the needed
sacrifice, personally for the couple and professionally for the partner, for continued active duty
service was more than they were willing to assume.
Research Question 2: What Potential Changes to Navy Policy Could Alter a Preliminary
Decision to Depart Military Service?
Three major themes emerged from the participant interviews when asked what changes to
Navy policy could have changed their minds about departing active duty. First, multiple
participant couples asserted that PERS should alter and improve detailing processes to
accommodate spouse career aspirations more fully in addition to more fully connecting the
performance of the SWO to the outcome of the detailing process. Second, multiple SWOs
asserted it is time for the Navy to pursue the concept of field specialization as a way to allow for
greater depth of knowledge and expertise in the face of growing demands on SWOs. Third, all
104
participant couples spoke in different ways about the need for geographic stability, which could
be achieved by implementing regional specialization of SWOs in specific areas of responsibility
or coasts.
Finding 7: Personalization and Performance
The SWOs want a more personalized detailing experience and want to see performance
count more in the process.
Understanding the Couple
The myriad factors involved in a retention decision are a challenge to fully understand for
any specific couple, much less an entire population of couples. The challenges placed on the
work and home systems of SWOs and their partners are growing to a level arguably never seen
before. As a result, multiple couples indicated they felt PERS’ detailing process did not
adequately understand or, more bluntly, care about their situation. This was often caveated with a
comment about the limitations on PERS staffing or capacity, but the consensus was that PERS
needs to better connect with couples and provide a more personalized detailing process, whatever
that looks like.
Ethan expressed his frustration with the detailing process and the need for updated human
resources processes to meet the challenge. He said, “I mean, [I recommend] maybe a more 21stcentury human resources management … and just kinda like, partially the opacity of it. And
then, like the talent management side of it, too, is just a little befuddling.” In addition, James
echoed that frustration in his situation with Danica being former Navy and the change from dualmilitary to single-military but dual-income couple. James said,
There was some stuff with how, when I was up for orders again, and Danica was
basically getting out, we knew she was trying to line up a job … with how some of the
105
detailing process went that left a very bad taste in my mouth. That made that decision [to
depart] a little bit easier … And it just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth personally
because it was like, well, she, you know, she’s getting out, and there was never any effort
by my detailer to ask, hey? What kind of employment is she trying to get, you know, is
important that you stay in [West Coast city] for professional reasons. Never asked any
questions about credentialing or any of those kinds of things. ’Cause she is a
[credentialed professional]. So, getting credentialed in the correct state is important. So,
just that kind of I was leaning towards getting out, and that definitely pushed me towards
getting out.
James added the aforementioned caveat to his statement with an understanding that PERS is in a
difficult position with so many different competing priorities. He added,
The detailers have a very challenging job. But it just felt like there was no effort on their
end to talk with me about any of the reasons why I would be staying in [West Coast city].
And then no real second questions about, okay, your spouse is getting out, are there any
professional concerns that I should be concerned of that might push you one way or the
other? And obviously, I haven’t signed department head, didn’t sign department head, so
it just felt like there was no real effort by PERS to like, figure out, okay, how can we get
this person to stay in? And it’s at that point, if like, if they aren’t trying to get me in now
when I’m on the fence. If I’m already in, how are they gonna treat me then? Once I’m
already in, especially with regards to kind of the professional concerns that I had.
Marshall added that his experience with the detailer consisted of weeks between
correspondence, which was likely due to the significant responsibilities of the detailer and their
capacity to spend more time with each person they are responsible. He was initially told he
106
would be limited in his options even though the list of available jobs included things he was
interested in pursuing. He said,
I said, okay, well, you know, in that case, thanks, no thanks. I’m gonna get out. I sort of
expected at that point maybe [for] her to come back and re-engage, … but that never
happened. I think she just kind of said, “Alright, he’s … gone,” and sort of wrote me off
at that point … So yeah, I was very upfront about it, but yeah, that was, it was … weird.
The way we went out with PERS was very weird, and I know they never reached back
out to me, which was kind of weird, except just to generally say, hey, if you change your
mind, let us know, but we were very clear with what we’re interested in, and it was just
not an option.
Implications for PERS and Retention
Ultimately, the limitations of personnel and capacity for work are a challenge for any
organization, but the inability of detailers to work more intimately with their SWOs made a
difference for these individuals. James commented, “If they aren’t trying to get me in now when
I’m on the fence. If I’m already in, how are they gonna treat me then?” This statement is telling
of the message PERS is sending by their communication or lack of communication. This is
important because various researchers in turnover literature identified three main components of
embeddedness, which is a key to retention, including “links, fit, and sacrifice” (Grotto et al.,
2017, p. 449). These findings emphasize the impact of relational ties and mentoring, such as
formal PERS mentoring, perceived organizational support, such as getting to know each
individual situation, exchange between leaders and members through leader messaging, and
perceived sacrifice the member would experience if leaving the organization (Grotto et al.,
2017). As discussed before, the presence of a partner with a strong career and earning potential
107
reduces the perceived sacrifice of the SWO if they leave the Navy, meaning that PERS may need
to work harder to counter the growing options and cushion many SWOs have outside the Navy.
Finding 8: Field Specialization
Surface warfare officers desire some form of greater career specialization. Second in the
main policy recommendations from participants is the potential for different possibilities of field
specialization. This took different forms depending on the perspective of the SWO, but
generally, there was a feeling that the demands on SWOs in the current environment have grown
to an unsustainable level, and they proposed specialization as a remedy for that challenge. Being
a generalist has always been a broad community value for SWOs and is sometimes a source of
pride, but these participants expressed concern about the complexity of the job and the volume of
knowledge needed to be effective as a SWO.
Crystal was a weapons department junior officer and she expressed great affection for
those roles. When asked about ways she would have reconsidered her decision to depart, she
responded,
[Staying in those jobs] definitely would have made it a lot harder for me to get out. It
might have made me reconsider. … The money is good, like I know I will have a steady
job, and the paychecks and all of that, and the medical care, medical care right now is big
for me. But, like, my entire background is in weapons department, but as being a SWO
… you have to know everything. I heard, you always hear the rumblings, hey? They’re
gonna make it so that there is topsiders and people down below, like the engineers. You
can kind of stay in your lane kind of like what [limited duty officers] do. But then it’s just
rumblings, and they never actually follow through with that. So, you, like, I, I get to stay
in weapons.
108
In addition, Crystal added her perspective as someone who wasn’t interested in command of a
ship. She expressed frustration with the overarching thought that SWO’s ultimate goal is to be a
ship commanding officer (CO) and asserted that there should be other avenues for SWOs to
continue serving in other roles. She said,
You have to meet timelines ’cause, as a SWO, they just want to make Cos, and truthfully,
a lot of us don’t want to be Cos. … They just kinda [want] you to be a CO. [That] is kind
of the only way to go.
Marshall echoed some of the same sentiments around field specialization using existing
programs as examples of things that could be replicated or expanded. Marshall said,
I would love to see PERS expand … some of these programs that already exist. Like, we
have [engineering duty officer] and all these other kind of side pipelines. I think I would
… love to see more choice. It’d be great. I understand that I also live in the real world
where jobs have to get filled. We have high-priority billets people have to have jobs. We
have to do these things, but to a certain extent, I think we’re totally counter balancing
desire and skill set versus need. So, if I have a desire to stay and the unique skill set to
support various roles, I should be allowed to do that within some capacity and some
limitation, and I don’t know how, what policy change, you enact to do that. But I think
SWO has become so rigid. I know I’ve seen the briefs about trying to expand different
career paths, but we have to force everyone to department head because we need
department heads, and we have to force everyone to try to go to [executive officer,
second in command] because we don’t have enough of those either, and that, you know,
it’s a compounding problem [I] get all that. But there just isn’t enough choices. I don’t
ever want to be a ship CO, but I will go work in expeditionary staffs forever, and I’ll
109
serve 25 years, 30 years doing that, and they have no interest in that conversation. At
some point, you have to kind of come back to the herd or you get cold. We do it a little
bit, we allow people to get off the beaten path and go do some very specific things, but I
think more of that would help keep people to stay. Knowing that they weren’t having to
go back to those jobs on board ships. That’s just my two cents. That expeditionary officer
idea [previously discussed in the interview] is just one of 1,000 different ways we could
do this and look at it in a kind of a different lens.
In addition, Marshall brought up the idea of creating topsider versus engineering officers. He
said,
But I think, yeah, definitely, that topsider [operations, weapons, combat systems] versus
engineering would be a great start … and frankly, I think it’s obvious to see the benefits.
I mean, how many [chief engineers] get fired? I mean that like, I mean, we had four or
five chief engineers on a 2-year tour. I think it speaks for itself. Like, it would only
benefit both the people who are then doing jobs that they enjoy. Therefore, they’re more
invested. They want to be part of it, and also it benefits because people with more
experience and higher level jobs. So, you see it a little bit in some of the special
operations or [Navy Expeditionary Combat Command] communities. But anyone who’s
able to stay in those a long time works that, like Megan was describing, because they
know a guy who knows a guy, and they can move from billet to billet. But that’s all
internal. I’d love to see it as a [formal] process, and topsider versus engineer would be …
a great first step.
Max connected his experience in his junior officer tours with his decision to depart and
his concerns with the future. He expressed concerns about the “check the box” nature of
110
qualifications and inability to more fully learn the skills of the job before moving on to the next
position. He said,
Understanding I had a pretty dynamic first and second tour onboard [guided missile
ships], career specialization is one of the main reasons I am getting out. … The SWO
curriculum allows you to be a jack of all trades and learn just enough to get PQSs signed
off and complete boards until you are promoted or have something else you are required
to earn. An example is [officer of the deck] to [engineering officer of the watch] to
[tactical action officer]. You get these in this order to have an additional [additional
qualification designator] in your record to make you more competitive amongst your
peers to hopefully get better orders and not get stuck going to Bahrain for your shore duty
after you spent the last 5 years out to sea.
Stewart added his perspective as a nuclear-qualified officer and the challenges of being a
SWO with additional highly specialized training. His concern comes from a volume of
information and the need for switching between roles, introducing increasing risk to job
performance and outcomes. He said,
I would say the other big factor [in my departure decision] for me would be the constant
shifting between the SWO and the nuke worlds. In my opinion, very, very difficult to,
you know, attain and maintain the level of proficiency in both of those. And so you
know, I knew like had I continued on, switching continuously between those, you’re
much more just like shooting from the hip and kind of playing things fast and loose and
stuff like that. And that definitely doesn’t, like, match with my strengths. … You have
the very kind of golden path, if you will. And lot of times I felt like those roles, or those
jobs didn’t align with what I was good at: my strengths and skills, you know. And also
111
from, like, a risk standpoint, you know, once you start to get to those upper commands,
right? You have very little ability to control the risk that you take on so that was always
something that was like on my mind, too, I would say.
Finding 9: Geographic Specialization
Surface warfare officers desire greater geographic stability to support spousal
employment. The third main theme in participants’ recommendations for changes to Navy policy
revolved around geography. This theme is mentioned throughout the study and is a major aspect
of the decisions all of these participant couples made. Similar to the concept of field
specialization, the concept of geographic specialization came up in most of the interviews. There
are many potential benefits participants argued would benefit the Navy and SWOs in
concentrating individuals into certain regions. Ethan said,
I hadn’t, like, thought about this before, but it would be interesting. I read somewhere
that there are some [people] looking at putting people in regions. I know there’s a
[potential] draw back to the Navy because they [need] to get people across the world, and
it’ll have to regionalize the military, but if we could have stayed in [East Coast city]
[that] would have helped if you had some guarantee that we would have stayed in that
area.
Marshall echoed the concept and added,
I think that [geographic specialization] would’ve played a factor … I understand that …
it’s hard to be like, hey, I want to stay at Norfolk. Okay? Well, you can’t stay at Norfolk.
But there is a job at Little Creek [in same region], or there is a job at Langley, or
whatever, and in Virginia. There isn’t something at San Diego, but there is something at
Camp Pendleton [in same region]. I think that would be definitely a big, a good step
112
towards that. That would have made [a] difference for me for sure. And we sort of did
that on our own. We said, hey, we want to stay on the East Coast, and they said, great,
you’re going to [the south]. Okay, I mean, that’s something, but [the South] is not [the
mid-Atlantic], you know, and our families are [far up north]. So, I mean, we’re just as far
here as we would be in from California. So, I think if you break it into like navy region,
southeast, what or whatever, and navy region, southwest or etcetera. That kind of exists
now in kind of the [Commander, Navy Installations Command] architecture. But I think
you, that would be a big … win. I know a lot of people who … will take any job because
they want to stay in wherever they are because they have kids or roots, or family, or
whatever. And they, you know, hey, I’ll do anything to stay in San Diego. We’re gonna
give you this job you’re gonna absolutely hate. Okay, but that’s fine. I just want to stay in
San Diego.
In addition, John connected geographic stability to medical stability for Crystal. His
comments display the interconnectedness of these challenges and the multifaceted benefits of
some proposed policy solutions. John said,
I think the root of the problem is just increasing the retention by increasing people’s daily
quality of life. Geographic stuff. I know Crystal did touch on it, too, but, like a lot of the
time for medical and being able to, like, take care of your like medical appointments is
kind of difficult, especially on sea duty. And I’ve seen how that has affected Crystal’s
ability to perform her job and stay consistent just because she has issues, getting, like
consistent medical treatment and appointments and the kind of balancing that with the
Tricare system.
113
Geography is a major challenge and limiting factor for any organization. The challenge is
magnified in a worldwide organization like the U.S. Navy and creates potential competing
interests for the individual and organization which are difficult to navigate. Moving has always
been a part of the culture of the military, and for some individuals, this is an enhancing feature of
the profession. For others, the challenges are too difficult to overcome, and research suggests
that the dual-career couples where this is most prevalent are a growing cohort within the SWO
community. Finding solutions to the challenges of frequent relocations is a problem worth
further research and consideration by policy leaders in the Navy.
Finding 10: Well-Being and Life Courses
Well-being and life course outcomes from Segal’s life course model (Segal et al., 2015)
have a considerable impact on retention. In addition to the three main themes discussed above,
there were individual recommendations from various participants worth noting, which largely fit
into the category of life course and well-being factors. Some of these suggestions include
expansion of family care leave policies, expansion of childcare availability, and initiatives and
cultural changes to leadership philosophy and interactions.
Megan said a bright spot of policy changes in the past few years is the expansion of
maternity and paternity leave. However, she suggested the policy could be expanded to fit more
situations, such as individuals who have care responsibilities for elderly parents or close family
members. She admitted this is a big ask but should be considered to remain competitive with
other employers who have such policies. Megan said,
One specific thing that I think we’ve had frustrations around. And we kind of alluded to
this earlier is that there have been, I think, very positive changes around maternity,
paternity leave policies, like, which great totally in favor of it. One hundred percent. But
114
that’s not the only kind of caregiving that happens, right? Like when you have a person
who have their parents’ generation [or] their grandparent’s generation aging, who don’t
have the ability to easily take leave to take on those caregiving responsibilities. You’re
driving people away, you know, into jobs that will allow them to do that.
James and Danica added their perspective as future parents weighed in on the decision to
depart. In addition to her career aspirations, the potential for children in the near future and the
instability of childcare were considerations they discussed. James said,
The CDC [Child Development Center] spots are already limited, and the priority goes to
dual mil [dual-military] couples, which I know they’re dealing with a lot. But at the same
time, you know, my wife also has a professional full-time job. So, you know, there’s no
real priority there with regards to the CDCs on that. It’s just, you know, there’s never
enough space for any of those. So, childcare was definitely one of those that was in our
mind of she wants to have a full-time job, but some of the expectation of the Navy is one
of the spouses or someone else can take care of the kids. Because they’re either, you
know, unemployed, they have a job that supports it, or you get friends and family that
can cover down. So, that [childcare] was definitely a factor for us.
Marshall added to this line of policy suggestion by saying that he believes the Navy is investing
time and effort into changing the wrong policies. He suggested simple things like childcare and
other quality-of-life issues should be where leaders focus their efforts to increase retention. He
said,
Personally, I think we may have been looking in the wrong places to increase retention. I
don’t think people care as much about hairstyles and weight standards. I think if we cared
115
more about childcare and competitive wages and things like that, we would be more
competitive.
Finally, Ethan lamented a need for cultural changes in the SWO community impacted his
decision to depart. He suggested the job satisfaction, well-being, and improved operational
tempo are significant changes needed to increase retention. He said,
Anything about the culture, or, like, I mean other than someone throwing, like, radios at
your head. Obviously, that’s not encouraging to keep you in. But yeah, it wasn’t about
the money like the [department head retention bonus] was obviously nice, but it wasn’t, I
was like, financially comfortable. It was not about the money. The OP tempo was, you
know, not great. We saw like a pretty hard side of that, even, for, like [East Coast] based
tours.
Segal’s life course model (Segal et al., 2015) is interwoven throughout the
recommendations of these participants. Suggested interventions and policy changes can increase
SWO retention through improvements in well-being and life course outcomes (Segal et al.,
2015). None of the aforementioned policy changes are simple fixes or easy solutions to the
challenges the Navy and SWOs face. However, if the trends continue in dual-income couples,
the Navy will likely face additional challenges retaining SWOs at levels needed for a fully ready
force that can respond to national security threats in the future.
Discussion of Findings
These couples are a small snapshot of the experiences of dual-income couples in the
military, and their experiences are representative of individuals who decided to depart active
duty. Participant couples showed a significant introspection on the decision, noting that many
aspects of the choice made it a complicated process, sometimes to the point where the SWO still
116
had doubts about whether they made the right decision. This was often attributable to their
fervent desire to be a part of a meaningful profession and their initial motivations for joining the
Navy in the first place.
These findings connect directly to the concept of embeddedness, including “links, fit, and
sacrifice,” and the effect of positive embeddedness reduces outside job searching, which leads to
lower turnover and increased retention (Crossley et al., 2007; Grotto et al., 2017; Holtom et al.,
2012, p. 449; Mitchell et al., 2001). In addition, these findings show the impact on retention of
relational ties and mentoring, satisfaction with coworkers, perceived organizational support,
exchange between leaders and members, transformational leadership, and perceived sacrifice the
member would experience if leaving the organization (Grotto et al., 2017).
Finally, these findings demonstrate the delicate balance a dual-income couple must find
in their personal and professional lives, as represented in Figure 8, as they relate to the level of
sacrifice each partner is willing to make to maintain the balance in their relationship. Abigail
summarized the challenge beautifully when, at the end of the interview, she said,
We are both career-driven people, and I feel like, in a lot of conversations that I’ve had,
it’s the person who’s not in the military [who] is willing to sacrifice that career aspiration
to support their significant other in the military. And that’s not something I’m willing or
able to do in this MD/PhD program.
These sentiments show the dilemma the current generation of predominantly male SWOs
increasingly face as their generation’s mostly female partners experience significant education
and career growth. Table 3 presents a summary of the findings and their connections to the
frameworks used in this study.
117
Table 3
Summary of Findings Connections to Framework
Research question Findings Model connections
How does a dualincome couple
factor a non-military
partner’s career into
the retention
decision?
Each SWO made their retention
decision in genuine partnership with
their spouse, and they made the
career decision from a holistic
multisystem approach.
The concept of stability was a
significant factor in each decision,
with the two most significant being
geographic stability and spouse
professional stability.
Professional career satisfaction acted
like a counterbalance to the
significant stressors and sacrifices
each couple experienced. Higher
SWO professional satisfaction
meant the couple was willing to
endure greater sacrifice.
Well-being was at the center of each
decision, with family outcomes and
spouse career life course being the
two most important of the
discussion.
Shocks and triggers are important to
the retention decision, but positive
leadership and a sense that leaders
are addressing the shocks can make
a difference.
SWOs want to feel like PERS is
taking their personal concerns,
including spouse employment and
performance on the job, into
genuine consideration when making
placement decisions.
Microsystem, mesosystem,
and macrosystem
Family life course, location
of microsystems,
financial life course
Family life course,
interaction of home and
work microsystems,
balancing the systems,
chronosystem
Life course outcomes,
home, and work
microsystems
Dynamic turnover model,
triggers and change in
affect in the work
microsystems affecting
home microsystem
Spouse work microsystem
and SWO work
mesosystem and
macrosystem, military life
course outcomes
What potential
changes to Navy
policy could alter a
preliminary decision
to depart military
service?
SWOs want a more personalized
detailing experience and want to see
performance count more in the
process.
SWOs desire some form of greater
career specialization.
SWO work microsystem,
military, and family life
course outcomes
Military life course
outcomes, SWO
microsystem, and
mesosystem
118
Research question Findings Model connections
SWOs desire greater geographic
stability to support spousal
employment.
Well-being and life course outcomes
from Segal’s life course model
(Segal et al., 2015) have a
considerable impact on retention.
Family life course
outcomes, financial
outcomes, spouse work
microsystem, SWO work
microsystem
Life course outcomes and
well-being, military
outcomes, work
macrosystem
Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to understand better the active-duty retention decision from
a dual-income couple’s perspective, paying particular attention to how a non-military partner’s
career affects the decision. The myriad factors in consideration make it difficult to pinpoint
specific aspects of the decision that most affect the outcome, but Bronfenbrenner’s (1992)
ecological systems model and Segal’s life course model provide useful frameworks to analyze
these factors (Segal et al., 2015). Through those frameworks and the considerations of the
integrated framework of the dynamic turnover process, generalizations can be inferred from the
data to produce recommendations for leaders to consider and for future researchers to add to the
understanding of this problem (Grotto et al., 2017).
This study was designed to give voice to the SWO and their partner as a system instead
of considering them in isolation. As a system, the various home and work factors are weighed
against each other, as shown in Figure 8, with both partner’s careers outside the home on either
end of a fulcrum. With these various systems in mind and the spouse’s career at the forefront of
the discussion, the study sought to answer two primary research questions. This chapter
119
discusses the study’s findings, and I propose recommendations for Navy leaders stemming from
the answers to this study’s guiding questions:
1. How does a dual-income couple factor a non-military partner’s career into the
retention decision?
2. What potential changes to Navy policy could alter a preliminary decision to depart
military service?
Recommendations for Practice
The following section outlines four recommendations for Navy leaders to consider
improving SWO retention in the face of changing partner dynamics and an increased focus on
life course well-being considerations. The recommendations are based on current programs,
policies, or processes and vary in terms of complexity. I acknowledge the potential resource
challenges of some recommendations and framed these as considerations leaders should make as
they assess the retention challenge. Based on the interviews, I believe that, in many cases, even
incremental implementation of these changes can improve retention.
Recommendation 1: Detailing and Human Resources Improvements
The Navy should explore additional ways to enable detailing and human resources
systems which allows for greater personal connection between the SWO and Navy stakeholders.
The goal should be to better understand each SWO’s individual situation, including their
partner’s career, and improve the perceived connection between performance on the job and
future detailing. Many of the participants expressed frustration with the impersonal nature of
human resources and detailing in the Navy and indicated that it had an impact on their perception
of how they would be treated in the future if they had stayed for department head or beyond.
120
In addition, the perception that strong work performance did not make a meaningful
effect on their next assignment created an impression that stated goals based on meritocracy in
the SWO community were hollow at best. The participants all indicated they understood this
profession involved significant sacrifice, but ultimately, the impact of that sacrifice on the home
microsystem and partner’s work microsystem was too much, especially if their hard work was
not rewarded in tangible ways. All of these considerations connect to previously discussed
research by Maertz and Griffeth (2004, as cited in Grotto et al., 2017), who proposed six
motivational forces “expected to shape an individual’s preference to stay or leave an
organization and ultimately predict turnover” (p. 449): affective forces, calculative forces,
alternative forces, moral/ethical forces, constituent forces, and human resources management
forces.
Ethan summed many of these factors toward the end of the interview by expressing
frustration from the perceived performance and reward perspective. He said,
I had like a really solid record, you know, I had, my [tactical action officer] letter, and,
like, all my other good qualifications. And then I was, like, hey, really want [to be near
my wife]. We haven’t really lived with each other, so I put these, like, top eight choices
in DC area. … And I guess [it was] frustrating because I felt like it didn’t pay off for
what I wanted to do. I was known at the micro level on the ship as a good performer, and
the same happened my next ship and then on shore tour, but none of that seemed to
matter to big navy.
Recommendation 2: Field Specialization and Geographic Stability
Navy leaders should seriously consider different ways SWOs can specialize in fields and
regions to allow for a greater depth of knowledge and experience in their field and greater
121
geographic stability for the family unit. If done in an intentional manner, the SWOs could learn
their profession or region at a deeper level and potentially improve warfighting effectiveness by
creating SWOs who were able to become experts in certain skills. Examples of field
specialization could include dramatic changes like a split between operations SWOs and
engineering SWOs but could also include specializing individuals into ship class SWOs who
then can fully immerse themselves in that aspect of surface warfare. In addition, SWOs in
specialized geographic areas could learn and gain experience in their region at a deeper level and
potentially improve warfighting effectiveness. These are significant and potentially controversial
policy changes with major cultural implications, but they should nonetheless be considered if the
retention challenges continue and become unsustainable.
The consideration of the balance between home and work microsystems in the
partnership weighs heavily in these decisions, and dual-income couples are on the rise in this
cohort of SWOs. Removing instabilities in the work microsystem of the SWO would likely have
a positive impact on retention because it would create a greater likelihood of balance in the
partnership. These examples of recommendations are only indicative of possible options to
consider and may seem like a major departure from tradition. However, if retention challenges
persist to the point of affecting operational readiness, the need for bold changes may be a
strategic imperative for national security.
Stewart presented both of these concepts toward the end of his interview. He said,
“Splitting the SWO and the nuke [nuclear power] communities could definitely have, I would
say, probably be the largest policy change that could have affected that decision [to depart].” He
also added a few moments later, “I think had we had a greater confidence in that [geographic
122
stability], you know, we could have had more control over that, I definitely think that would
have, [pause] oh yeah, played a part [in staying].”
Recommendation 3: Well-Being and Life Course Considerations
Multiple SWOs and spouses in the interviews acknowledged the Navy has made
significant strides in addressing quality of life issues for their members and families. However,
they added leaders should consider ways to further improve the well-being and life course
outcomes represented in Segal’s life course model (Segal et al., 2015) to increase retention. The
literal and figurative health of the force is a driver of retention and can perpetuate through
generations due to the strong familial influence prior service has on future service. All
participants discussed their lineage with the military as a factor in their decision to join the Navy.
If the current generation of SWOs has negative life course outcomes, then their children,
and potentially grandchildren, may not have the same call to service these participants
experienced, which will hinder recruitment. The cycle of service can be directly linked to the
military outcome life course in Segal’s model (Segal et al., 2015). Positive military outcomes
could lead to positive retention and recruitment, while negative military outcomes could lead to
negative retention and recruitment.
Recommendation 4: Spouse Employment Policy Support
Finally, the Navy and larger DoD have made significant improvements to policy for
military spouses, but much of this progress impacts partners in entry-level employment. The
careers that SWOs’ partners are increasingly pursuing require significant investments in time,
money, and education, and the partners plan to gain some intrinsic or extrinsic return from that
investment. The home system is jeopardized if the sacrifices of the SWO affect the partner’s
potential return on their career investment. Either the partnership ends, or the couple navigates
123
the imbalance through negotiations, determining the prioritization of their professional lives.
This is where departure from the Navy becomes a significant consideration for the couple.
The Navy and DoD should further support military spouses in professional roles who
desire a career. Legislation that supports credential or license portability is a first step, but it is
inconsistent across industries and can be difficult to navigate. A bold suggestion for policy
consideration is establishing legislation for military spouses similar to the support afforded
selected reservists and National Guard members called the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Act (USERRA; U.S. Department of Labor, 2024). If done carefully and in
consultation with state legislatures, nationwide employment protections for military spouses in a
single comprehensive legislative vehicle could significantly improve military retention. This is
no small suggestion and would require thoughtful consideration to help solve issues facing
military families while minimizing unintended consequences.
In addition, changes in policy at PERS could further support spouses while working to
retain the talent that the SWO community identified as valuable for retention. Combining aspects
of various recommendations presented above, it is possible to see ways where PERS could make
significant changes affecting multiple concerns of the SWOs. For example, as part of the
selection process for department head, PERS could select fewer individuals in the first board or
identify a number of the top selects similar to the merit reorder done for promotion. Then, PERS
could offer those individuals the ability to secure one specific desire, such as geographic location
or type of job for department head, in return for immediately committing to the extra time. The
smaller cohort of first-select or top-select department heads would make the detailing guarantee
possible from a numbers standpoint while showing tangible rewards for top performance.
124
Therefore, the couple would have the ability to plan the future and provide stability in their home
system.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study is a snapshot in time for a relatively small subset of the SWO population
currently at mid-career. The research questions will continue to be relevant for years as dualcareer couples continue to serve in the military. Additional researchers should explore this
dynamic and report their findings based on specific aspects of the decision. The experiences of
same-sex couples, dual-military couples, enlisted sailor couples, and more senior officers in
dual-income partnerships are all potential areas of further exploration. In addition, two specific
themes worth further research that came out of this study are the senate promotion blockade and
initiatives PERS is already exploring to improve retention.
Effect of Senate Blockade
The previously discussed blockade on military officer promotions in the U.S. Senate had
implications for many individuals who may have gone underreported or unacknowledged. The
impact this event had on attitudes and potential changes in affect toward the Navy could result in
accelerated decisions for Officers to depart the service. However, this effect is unknown and only
presented in one participant couple in this study. Marshall and Megan spent several minutes of
their interview discussing the impact his promotion delay to Lieutenant Commander had on their
perception of the Navy. Their comments showed how the event impacted their discussions and
contributed to his specific departure. Marshall said,
I think honestly, and this is a separate study, I’m sure, but the effects of that promotion
hold affected a lot of people in this stage that I’m in, that I know well, and I know that
caused them to have a lot of this conversation with their spouses. And what their spouses’
125
careers look like, what their careers look like, and what they wanted to get out of the time
in the Navy. So, I think it is happening. And I think as we kind of go along now in the
way we’re trending with, you know, recruiting. … I think it’s gonna happen more. I think
you’re gonna start seeing people look at the spouse’s career and go, “Hey maybe that
should be the primary option, and we shouldn’t think about the Navy as the primary
option because maybe that isn’t the best option.” I know a few people that are kind of my
year group or close that are doing that now.
Effect of New Initiatives From PERS
Navy Personnel Command seeks new and innovative ways to encourage improved
retention and recruiting. The evolving nature of societal values and what resonates with different
generations of servicemembers is important to remain current. In these efforts, there are
initiatives of which I am aware due to my close connections with the SWO community and
which might already address some of the findings and recommendations in this dissertation. For
example, PERS implemented a program using designated SWO detailing coaches to better
connect with individuals in their window for the next assignment. These coaches connect with
and mentor SWOs to understand their needs and desires and assist PERS in creating a more
personalized process due to their fixed, relatively small group of detailers. This initiative directly
addresses several of the findings and recommendations in this study, and further research should
assess the efficacy of this program and any other programs currently being implemented.
Conclusion
Recruiting, training, and retaining quality members of the U.S. Armed Forces is a matter
of national security. Without sufficient numbers of qualified SWOs, the U.S. Navy is unable to
effectively perform its mission and provide a return on investment to the U.S. taxpayer. These
126
officers’ retention has experienced historical periods of difficulty, and the current generation of
mid-career SWOs are experiencing new challenges to service in addition to new opportunities
outside the service.
Recruiting a highly educated and driven group of SWOs has become something of a
double edge sword because those SWOs are more likely than ever before to attract partners who
match or exceed the education and professional success of the SWO. This changing dynamic in
relationships is presenting options for SWOs to potentially explore opportunities outside the
Navy making the retention of top performers a significant challenge. This study sought to give
voice to the individuals currently facing these decisions to better understand the process they
experienced.
Addressing the newest challenges SWOs face in deciding to continue service should,
therefore, be a significant priority to Navy leadership. One participant in this study ended the
interview with an incredible encapsulation of the importance of this topic and the need for policy
within the Navy to evolve to meet the challenge. Victoria, a highly successful executive at a
technology start-up, said,
I love that you’re doing this as your topic. I feel like it’s long overdue. And yeah, when
[Stewart] was like, oh, do you wanna do this interview on this thing? I couldn’t be more
supportive. Because I think you’re completely right. I feel like it’s sort of the shadow
reason [spouse career] behind a lot of [the conversation] … like people are addressing the
tip of the iceberg, but I feel like that’s the actual huge root cause. Is that they’re not
considering the other factors outside of that one individual. And then I think they’re just
not considering the dynamic between the, you know, partners. … I don’t think it’s
[policy] caught up to the present.
127
References
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P., & Vardaman, J. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions
with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.51827775
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf
Ballard, J., & Borden, L. (2020). A study on military spouse licensure portability in legislation
and practice. Financial Counseling and Planning, 31(2), 209–218.
https://doi.org/10.1891/JFCP-19-00007
Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human
resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 695–717. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64869448
Blue Star Families. (2023). Military family lifestyle survey: 2022 comprehensive report.
https://bluestarfam.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BSF_MFLS_Spring23_Full_
Report_Digital.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Browning, A. G., & Burr, C. F. (2009). Monetary and non-monetary SWO retention bonuses: An
experimental approach to the combinatorial retention auction mechanism (CRAM)
(MBA Professional Report). Naval Postgraduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA514026.pdf
Castaneda, L. W., & Harrell, M. C. (2008). Military spouse employment: A grounded theory
approach to experiences and perceptions. Armed Forces and Society, 34(3), 389–412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X07307194
128
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol
Refinement Framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811-831.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Catalyst, Inc. & Philip Morris Incorporated. (1998). Two careers, one marriage: Making it work
in the workplace. Catalyst, Incorporated.
Chapman, J. (2014). Researcher as participant: Safeguarding against bias in a qualitative case
study (Sage Research Methods Cases Part 1). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014539101
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019). Navy message: Update to graduate education program.
https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Messages/NAVADMIN/NAV2018/NAV182
63.txt
Commander, Naval Surface Forces. (2023). On surface warfare: Summary of 2022 officer
surveys. https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Portals/54/Documents/Files/CNSP/CNSFSummary-of-2022-SWO%20Surveys.pdf
Congressional Research Service. (2020). Military spouse employment.
https:/crsreports.congress.gov/r46498
Congressional Research Service. (2022). FY2023 NDAA: Active component end-strength.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11994
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
129
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global
measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary
turnover. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031
DaLomba, E., Greer, M. J., Cruz, E., Harris, A., King, C., Laurel, L., McCuaig, T., & Wilder, R.
(2021). The experiences of active duty military spouses with advanced degrees in
maintaining and advancing their careers. Work, 68(2), 387–398.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203380
Daniels, S., D’Ercole, T., Foley, M. P., Lewis, C. A., Lowndes, B. H., & Svendsen, P. W.
(2016). U.S. Naval Academy class of 1980 — Women of the academy. U.S. Naval
Institute. https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/class-1980
Defense Manpower Data Center. (2018). 2018 demographics, profile of the military community.
U.S. Department of Defense.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2018-demographicsreport.pdf
Defense Manpower Data Center. (2020). Active duty military personnel by service by
rank/grade, June 2020. U.S. Department of Defense.
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp
Denmond, C. M., Johnson, D. N., Lewis, C. G., & Zegley, C. R. (2007). Combinatorial auction
theory applied to the selection of surface warfare officer retention incentives (MBA
professional report). Naval Postgraduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA475944.pdf
130
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x
Friedman, E. M., Miller, L. L., & Evans, S. (2015). Advancing the careers of military spouses:
An assessment of education and employment goals and barriers facing military spouses
eligible for MyCAA. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR784
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development (4th ed.). Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Gibbs, G. R. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE publications.
Ginac, L. (2002). Trailblazing couples: Ten rules for living a successful dual-career life style.
http://www.ginacgroup.com/docs/Dual_Careers_eBook.pdf
Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (Eds.). (2017). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of
the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472
Graham, S. (2006). An exploratory study: Female surface warfare officer’s decisions to leave
their community [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Naval Postgraduate School.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA445448.pdf
Grotto, A. R., Hyland, P. K., Caputo, A. W., & Semedo, C. (2017). Employee turnover and
strategies for retention. In Goldstein, Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention
(pp. 443–472). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch21
Hayghe, H. V. (1990, March). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, 14–
19. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf
131
Hiring Our Heroes. (2017). Military spouses in the workplace 2017: Understanding the impacts
of spouse unemployment on military recruitment, retention, and readiness. U.S. Chamber
of Commerce Foundation.
https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Military%20Spouses%20in%20t
he%20Workplace.pdf
Holtom, B. C., Burton, J. P., & Crossley, C. D. (2012). How negative affectivity moderates the
relationship between shocks, embeddedness and worker behaviors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.006
Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction
drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 975–987.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069441
Hom, P. W., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2019). Employee retention and turnover: Why
employees stay or leave. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315145587
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee
turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion.
Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027983
Kamarck, K. N., Schwemle, B. L., & Plagakis, S. (2020). Military spouse employment.
Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46498
Lang, S. S. (2000). Working couples make time for their families. Human Ecology, 28(1), 3.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary
employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51–89.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258835
132
Levner, L. (2000). The three-career family. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New
directions for therapists (pp. 29–47). Guildford.
Marsh, R. M. (1989). Predicting retention in the U. S. Navy: Officers and enlisted. JPMS:
Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 17(1), 1–26.
Meadows, S. O., Griffin, B. A., Karney, B. R., & Pollak, J. (2016). Employment gaps between
military spouses and matched civilians. Armed Forces and Society, 42(3), 542–561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X15607810
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes: An
empirical study of managers’ emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 221–
240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-0549-3
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people
stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237–240.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237
Molina, J. A. (2021). The work–family conflict: evidence from the recent decade and lines of
future research. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 42(Suppl 1), 4–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09700-0
133
Muchinsky, P. M., & Morrow, P. C. (1980). Multidisciplinary model of voluntary employee
turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-
8791(80)90022-6
Naval Services FamilyLine. (2021). Ranks, rates and insignias.
https://www.nsfamilyline.org/rate-rank-insignias
Navy Personnel Command. (2023). PERS-41 surface warfare officer community brief.
https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Career/Detailing/Officer/SurfaceWarfare/Do
cuments/FrontPageMatters/Community_%20Brief_%20Website_%20May23.pdf
NBC News. (2011, July 22). Obama certifies end of military’s gay ban.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43859711
Neault, R. A., & Pickerell, D. A. (2007). Dual-career couples: The juggling act. Canadian
Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 39(3). https://cjcrcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/58761
Nyberg, A. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2013). Context‐emergent turnover (CET) theory: A theory of
collective turnover. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 109–131.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0201
Park, T.-Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 268–309.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030723
Peterson, S. L. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of employee turnover: A human resource
development perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 39(3), 209–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304267832
134
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional turnover: The case of nurses. Luce.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8016-0
Quester, A. O., & Thomason, J. S. (1984). Keeping the force: Retaining military careerists.
Armed Forces and Society, 11(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8401100104
RAND Corporation. (2009). Military service obligation.
https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/dopma-ropma/military-service-obligation.html
Reagan, R. (1983). Address to the nation on defense and national security.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-nation-defense-and-nationalsecurity
Schirmer, P., Levy, D., Thie, H., Moini, J., Harrell, M., Curry Hall, K., Brancato, K., & Abbott,
M. (2005). Creating new career options for officers in the U.S. Military. RAND
Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RB7569
Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences.
Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc071312-145544
Schwartz, C. R., & Han, H. (2014). The reversal of the gender gap in education and trends in
marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 605–629.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414539682
Segal, M. W., Lane, M. D., & Fisher, A. G. (2015). Conceptual model of military career and
family life course events, intersections, and effects on well-being. Military Behavioral
Health, 3(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2015.1009212
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
135
Shelbourne, M. (2023, November 2). Adm. Lisa Franchetti sworn in as 33rd chief of naval
operations. USNI News. https://news.usni.org/2023/11/02/senate-confirms-adm-lisafranchetti-as-next-chief-of-naval-operations
Smock, P. J., & Schwartz, C. R. (2020). The demography of families: A review of patterns and
change. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 9–34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12612
Snodgrass, G. M. (2014). Keep a weather eye on the horizon: A navy officer retention study.
Naval War College Review, 67(4), 64–92.
Stancy, D. (2023, February 22). Navy reveals bonuses it’s offering to retain surface warfare
officers. Navy Times.https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/02/22/navyreveals-bonuses-its-offering-to-retain-surface-warfare-officers/
Thomas, I. (2022, October 26). The U.S. Army is struggling to find the recruits it needs to win
the fight over the future. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/26/us-army-struggles-to-findrecruits-its-needs-to-win-fight-of-future.html
Ton, Z., & Huckman, R. S. (2008). Managing the impact of employee turnover on performance:
The role of process conformance. Organization Science, 19(1), 56–68.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0294
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Women in the labor force: A databook. U.S. Department
of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2018/home.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, April 21). Employment characteristics of families [Press
release]. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). USERRA - Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/userra
136
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021). Navy readiness actions needed to evaluate and
improve surface warfare officer career path. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-168
Varpio, L. P., Paradis, E. P., Uijtdehaage, S. P., & Young, M. P. (2020). The distinctions
between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine,
95(7), 989–994. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075
Woodall, K. A., Esquivel, A. P., Powell, T. M., Riviere, L. A., Amoroso, P. J., & Stander, V. A.
(2023). Influence of family factors on service members’ decisions to leave the military.
Family Relations, 72(3), 1138–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12757
Yeager, K. (2023). Commander, naval surface forces, honors women serving at sea. Defense
Visual Information Distribution Service.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/458849/commander-naval-surface-forces-honorswomen-serving-sea
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
137
Appendix A: The Researcher
My positionality to the problem of practice is incredibly important because it is
interwoven throughout the study. I am a surface warfare officer with 17 years of total service,
approximately 9 years on active duty, and the remainder in a selected reserve status. I lived the
exact experience I am studying and chose to depart active duty before becoming a department
head. While this decision had many variables, my spouse’s career was a defining aspect of our
decision. She has five degrees, including a PhD, and is an internationally recognized therapist at
a cutting-edge medical practice focusing on couple and individual sexual health. In deciding the
trajectory of my career on active duty, the sacrifices of the job were more than we wanted to
make as a family; we decided geographic stability was more important for our household and
settled for the long term in an area of our choosing.
As a White, cisgender male, I am immediately afforded elevated status and the
assumption of power in many situations involving people of color, women, and transgender
individuals because I am the “default” in society. As an educated and credentialed member of the
upper-middle class, my status multiplies due to the resources I can access when needed. All these
connect to the capital I have in society, especially the social, cultural, and economic capital,
which Pierre Bourdieu asserts “can be acquired two ways, from one’s family and/or through
formal schooling” (Yosso, 2005). I benefit from a thriving family and excellent formal schooling
and, therefore, hold a great deal of societal capital. These variables in my positionality were
important to this study and were kept in mind so I could check my biases and work to make the
study reflect the largest, most inclusive representative population I am studying.
My motives and hypotheses are essential to keep at the forefront because they could
encourage a specific outcome (Chapman, 2014). I have many strong connections with my
138
problem of practice, and my power structures identified previously are significantly interwoven
into the topic. Many of my significant privileges affected my retention decision-making process.
Therefore, I was careful to keep those in mind when researching this topic because these factors
heavily affect the many facets of a decision to remain in a profession. For example, if I were not
a White male, my perception of opportunities in the civilian job market could be different and,
therefore, outweigh the consideration of my spouse’s career.
To address the many potential biases and assumptions, I employed several strategies to
mitigate their effects and gain an accurate understanding of the participants’ experiences.
Throughout the qualitative study, I continuously questioned the methodology. I looked for
outside constructive criticism through testing the interview protocol with peers and worked to
minimize my assumptions about the problem or anticipation of answers from participants. In
addition, I sought to always “look for data that support alternative explanations” to the problem
or experiences of participants (Patton, p. 653, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, it is also
important to note that my positionality in relationship to the problem was not necessarily
negative; as a member of the community and someone who experienced this same phenomenon,
I developed trust with participants and gained access to the complex web of factors at play
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
139
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Research questions:
1. How does a dual-income couple factor a non-military partner’s career into the
retention decision?
2. What potential changes to Navy policy could alter a preliminary decision to depart
military service?
Introduction to the Interview
As we discussed in our initial contact, my name is Tim Cushanick, and I am a doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California. I have served in the Navy for over 16 years as
a surface warfare officer and am currently in the reserves. The purpose of my dissertation study
is to better understand the decision SWOs make concerning retention past the initial service
commitment, with specific emphasis on how a non-military partner’s career affects the decision.
I would like to emphasize that your participation in this interview is completely voluntary, and
you may choose to decline to answer any question or end the interview at any time. I will be
assigning pseudonyms to you as a couple to maintain your anonymity in any quotes or
contributions I reference in my study. If there is anything you specifically do not want me to
include, please indicate that desire to me. With your permission, I am recording the interview so
I may accurately quote key statements and review my findings for accuracy. I will be the only
person with access to the recording. Do you have any questions?
140
Table B1
Interview Protocol
Interview question Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept and
framework connection
SWO: What is your
commissioning source,
and where have you
served?
1 Build rapport, understand
specific situation and
their journey.
Service member’s military
career course (Segal et
al., 2015).
SWO: Why did you join
the Navy?
SWO: Did you initially
intend to stay for a
career?
1 Build rapport, understand
specific situation and
their specific journey.
Important to understand fit
(Factor 1) in the
organization-integrated
framework of the
dynamic turnover
process (Grotto et al.,
2017).
Service member’s military
career course (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: How did you
become a couple? Was
it before, during, or
after the Navy?
Both: Where do you
consider home?
1 Build rapport, understand
specific situation and
their specific journey.
Family life course (Segal et
al., 2015).
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Partner: What is your
educational
background and what
job do you currently do
outside the home?
Would you consider
this job a longterm career?
1 Understand their specific
situation as a household.
Family life course (Segal et
al., 2015).
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Both: What is the size of
your immediate
family? Do you have
children?
If so, how old are
they?
If not, are children
something you
desire for the
future?
1, leads to 2 Understand their specific
situation as household.
Family life, child life, and
other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
141
Interview question Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept and
framework connection
Both: Would you
describe your decision
to depart active duty as
easy or difficult to
make? Something in
between?
Why? 1, leads to 2 Ice breaker to the main
topics, understand the
context of their decision.
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: How long did it
take for you to make
the decision?
Were you both
always aligned in
agreement to
separate?
1, leads to 2 Understand their specific
process.
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: What were the
primary or most
important factors you
weighed in the
decision?
Do any jump out as
the “tipping
point” factor or
“trigger”
positively or
negatively?
1, leads to 2 Understand their specific
process.
Important to understand fit
(Factor 1) in the
organization and
potential triggers or
withdrawal states
(Factors 2–4) in the
integrated framework of
the dynamic turnover
process (Grotto et al.,
2017).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Ecological Systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Both: How did you
weigh home versus
work factors in the
decision?
Did either work or
home take
precedence over
the other?
1, leads to 2 Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: Other than
immediate work and
home considerations,
were there outside
factors in your
decision?
Do you believe
these were unique
to your situation
or experienced by
peers as well?
1, leads to 2 Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
142
Interview question Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept and
framework connection
Both: What role did your
personal finances play
in the decision?
(Generally speaking;
don’t want financial
specifics)
Did income
potential of one
or both affect the
decision?
1, leads to 2 Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
SWO: How did your
partner’s career factor
into the decision?
Was there an
ultimate decision
on whose career
would take
precedence?
How did that make
both of you feel?
1, leads to 2 Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: What
administrative Navy
policies or benefits did
you consider in the
decision?
Did these policies
or benefits
positively or
negatively
influence the
decision?
1, leads to 2 Getting to
recommendations
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Both: What changes to
Navy policy, if any,
would have positively
influenced your
decision?
2 Getting recommendations
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses (Segal et
al., 2015).
Important to understand fit
(Factor 1) in the
organization and
potential triggers or
withdrawal states
(Factors 2–4) in the
integrated framework of
the dynamic turnover
process leading to
turnover (Factor 5;
Grotto et al., 2017).
Is there a positive trigger to
“reset” the decision?
Both: Is there a single
most important policy
If that change
happened, would
2 Getting recommendations
Ecological systems factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
143
Interview question Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept and
framework connection
change you would
have liked to see?
you have stayed
on active duty?
Military career, family life,
and other everyday life
events courses and inputs
from outside (Segal et
al., 2015).
Important to understand fit
(Factor 1) in the
organization and
potential triggers or
withdrawal states
(Factors 2–4) in the
integrated framework of
the dynamic turnover
process leading to
turnover (Factor 5;
Grotto et al., 2017).
Is there a positive trigger to
“reset” the decision?
Both: Is there anything
unique to your
situation we didn’t
discuss that affected
your decision?
Do you know any
couples in a
similar situation
who may be a
good participant
to interview for
this study?
1, 2 Closure and opportunity to
address anything missed
previously. Seek out
additional participants.
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you and understand your process.
If there is anything you think of later that you would like to add to this discussion, please reach
out to me.
14
4
Appendix C: Codebook
Code Definition Example
Work exosystem Indirect environment outside the
immediate proximity of the
individual.
Stewart: “Do I think the Navy has, you know, lost talent (in reference
to himself)? Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think the Navy is definitely in a
war for talent right now. I think that’s a pretty common, well-known
thing. And it’s going to be challenging, I’m sure, to try and develop
those policies to, you know combat with private sector
opportunities.”
Work mesosystem Connections and relationships of the
individual.
James: “That was definitely one of the ones where it just it keeps
coming up, the bad taste, my mouth, or the bad taste my mouth of
you know. Again the detailers have a very challenging job. But it
just felt like there was no effort on their end to talk with me about
any of the reasons why I would be staying in San Diego. And then
no real second questions about okay. Your spouse is getting out.
Are there any professional concerns that I should be concerned of
that might push you one way or the other, and obviously I haven’t
signed department head, didn’t sign department head, so it just felt
like there was no real effort by PERS to, like, figure out, okay, how
can we get this person to stay in? And it’s at that point, if like, if
they aren’t trying to get me in now when I’m on the fence. If I’m
already in, how are they gonna treat me then? Once I’m already in
especially with regards to kind of the professional concerns that I
had.”
Work microsystem Immediate environment of the
individual.
James: “I’ve only been in three section duty, my entire career when
I’m on a ship.”
Work chronosystem Time horizon in consideration. Victoria: “We would meet up and, like, build out, what do we want
our future to look like? We kind of would scenario plan for. What
does that look like if we’re in the Navy? What are benefits of that?
Okay? And then what are the downsides? And what would look like
if we didn’t, you know? Kind of risk assessment.”
14
5
Code Definition Example
Home exosystem Indirect environment outside the
immediate proximity of the
individual.
James: “I mean, we were both in middle school, in or high school, in
like 2008/2009 when the economy got really bad, and I think that at
least for me, when I first joined was something we considered that
there was job security. And then, when I got out, there’s lots of jobs.
Had that been different, I don’t know if it weighed in the back of
our heads, but if that was different, we probably would have made a
different decision.”
Home microsystem Immediate environment of the
individual.
Charlotte: “The majority of spouses we’ve met over the years are not
career-oriented and are either stay-at-home parents or work parttime jobs, regardless of their education level. That clearly works for
many couples but was not something I was interested in pursuing.”
Home chronosystem Time horizon in consideration. Ethan: “Some of my best friends were, you know, in military families,
and moved around every 2 or 3 years. [They were] very happy and
successful, but maybe because I hadn’t seeing how to do that
personally, it’s harder for me to see that future for our home
family.”
Life course physical
outcomes
Physical health and well-being. Stewart: “The only other thing that just came to mind that we haven’t
talked about at all. That, I would say, is a factor would be the
physical demands of the job, right? And like the stress and the
health impacts … That was definitely a consideration as well.”
Life course family
outcomes
Thriving of the loved ones in a
family system.
Ethan and Susan: “Neither of us had that like moving around a lot as a
kid. And we want to do that to our children.”
Life course
financial
outcomes
Monetary success, stability and
certainty.
Stewart: “So in a lot of respects, it’s kind of the safe option [staying
Navy], but you know your pay is going to be capped, right? You
know you have very defined pay structure … kind of the same
theme of, like, not being afraid. I kinda liked the idea of, like, no,
I’m going to bet on myself.”
Life course
psychological
outcomes
Mental health and well-being. Damien: “Number 1 was just emotions, you know. It was just
emotional health of myself, and then of the family as well. That was
like the most important thing.”
14
6
Code Definition Example
Life course military
outcomes
Perceived success and purpose
within the military.
Stewart: “Do I think the Navy has, you know, lost talent? Sure. Yeah,
I mean, … the Navy is definitely a war for talent right now. I think
that’s a pretty common, well-known thing. And it’s going to be
challenging, I’m sure, to try and develop those policies to, you
know combat with private sector opportunities.”
Turnover factor: fit Foundational element of
embeddedness .
Victoria: “It seems like there’s kind of a mismatch for people who are
problem solvers … within the group that I know that’s been the
hardest, I think, on them to justify staying in … they’re like ‘I can’t
actually bring the talent that I have … the impact I have is kind of
like my hands are a little bit tied’ and there’s a lot of things that
don’t really add up in terms of making those people thrive.”
Turnover factor:
triggering events
Positive or negative events which
may lead to a decision to stay or
leave.
Stewart: “So, then we, you know, started that process of separating
and then got up to my [reactor officer], and, you know, sat down,
had a chat with her, and kind of relayed those concerns to her, and
she was able to, you know do the O6 thing, and pull some strings.”
Turnover factor:
change in affect
or attitudes
A reaction to events (positive or
negative) that affect a decision.
Ethan: “But how some of them [department heads], like, you know,
told me like upfront like, I don’t recommend that you do this. The
stress is, like, put a lot on me and on my family, or like, who came
in like very like, happy as a department head, and then left just very
bitter and angry, and I had already, you know, seen some of that
happen frankly, as a division officer, and I was like I don’t, you
know, want to take it to the next level as department head, you
know, come home like always angry and cranky at the Navy, and
you know, there’s some stuff I think I would like to do as a
department head. But, like, look at the whole thing. I was like, it’s
gonna be too much stress. I’m gonna be too angry of a person, and I
don’t want that for my professional career, but also to bring that
home.”
Turnover factor:
decision to stay or
leave
Culmination of the turnover process. Victoria: “That decision was kind of like was definitely something we
talked about a lot. But you’ve had a kind of a running pro-con list
for a little while, and when the cons were way bigger than the pros,
that’s when it felt like a pretty easy decision. How I felt like it was
14
7
Code Definition Example
after a certain point. It felt like there was kind of no reason to stay
in.”
Geographic stability Stability of the physical location of
the home and work environment
for the SWO and their family.
Stewart: “And then my resolution again is, it did very much center
around geography.”
Spouse career
stability
The ability of the spouse to be stable
in their professional career
without surprise changes in
location.
Susan: “I think we were confident in my employment … we weren’t
looking at it like he needs the Navy … I had a job that could sustain
us [when I got out].”
Negative leadership Examples of leaders who negatively
influenced the retention decision.
Ethan: “Well, I mean, the time the captain threw his radio at me was
like that was a pretty, like clear sign that I didn’t want to be in the
organization anymore. You know, brought them [the captain] bad
news, and they ripped it ready off of belt and threw it at me.
“Goddammit Ordo” [ordnance officer].”
Positive leadership Examples of leaders who positively
influenced the retention decisions.
Damien: “The ones [leaders] that I got along the most with were the
ones who would appreciate me as a person, and me being different,
like not every O4 department had SWO who did destroyers was the
same kind of person. They’re just not. you know, but the best ones
[leaders] were like, okay, well, this guy is a good fit here, this guy’s
a better fit here. This guy needs more emotional (support), this guy
needs less.”
Policy Official Navy processes or norms
affecting the careers of SWOs and
their spouses.
Stewart: “Do I think the Navy has, you know, lost talent? Sure. Yeah,
I mean, … the Navy is definitely a war for talent right now. I think
that’s a pretty common, well-known thing. And it’s going to be
challenging, I’m sure, to try and develop those policies to, you
know combat with private sector opportunities.”
Field specialization Allowing SWOs to specialize on a
specific field within the
community, such as weapons,
combast systems, or engineering
to provide professional stability
for the SWO but to also increase
Stewart: “You have the very kind of golden [career] path, if you will.
And lot of times I felt like those roles or those jobs didn’t align with
what I was good at, my strengths and skills, you know, and also
from like a risk standpoint, you know. Once you start to get to those
upper commands, right? You have very little ability to control the
148
Code Definition Example
the professional expertise in that
field.
risk that you take on so that was always something that was like on
my mind.”
Regional
specialization or
stability
Allowing SWOs to specialize or
“homestead” in one region for
their career to provide stability for
the family but also increase the
professional expertise on that
region.
Crystal: “Besides that, I would say yes if you could choose a location.
Say, hey, right here is great. I don’t wanna move. … I’ve got a
house. I’ve got my family. They’re in schools. … That would be
probably better for, like, on the family side.”
149
Appendix D: Definitions
This section is intended to define key terms used throughout this dissertation to aid in
understanding terms that the general public might not readily understand.
Detailing: The work of placing or transferring an officer within a position based upon
established policy and procedures. The personnel who do this work are referred to as Detailers.
This process works to balance the needs of the Navy, desires of the officer in question, and the
career progression which makes the officer best positioned for advancement or promotion.
Fill: In the context of personnel management in the Navy this term refers to having an
officer physically working in a specific position regardless of their qualifications or skill set.
For example, someone might say a person is filling a position.
Fit: In the context of personnel management in the Navy, this term refers to having an
officer with the skills, education, or previous experience to execute the responsibilities of the
position. For example, someone might say a person is a good fit for the position.
Fitness report (FITREP): The annual or periodic professional evaluation similar to an
employee appraisal judging the overall fitness of an Officer in the U.S. Navy.
Retention: Specific to this study, the term retention refers to keeping or attempting to
keep SWOs on active-duty past their initial service commitment.
Sandwich generation: A cohort of adults in middle age who are responsible for caring for
their children still at home and their aging parents.
150
Appendix E: Ethics
As a leader in the U.S. Navy and an academic researcher, my commitment to ethics was
paramount to this study and was carefully considered in all of its facets. This study employed the
concepts of voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality (American
Psychological Association, 2017). In addition, the research proposal was vetted and approved
through the USC IRB before conducting interviews to ensure adherence to proper ethical
standards. Before all interviews, I confirmed with each participant that they were comfortable
with me recording the conversation and then read the statement in Appendix B informing the
participants of their voluntary participation in addition to their ability to refuse to answer any
question or end the interview at any point (American Psychological Association, 2017). Of note,
one participant SWO asked me not to include an anecdote about his service that may have been
too personal. I stored all recordings in a secure file with password protection and scrubbed names
from each interview immediately upon transcription.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination of factors that contribute to the shortage of behavioral health providers in the United States Navy
PDF
Military spouses, military lifestyle, and the concept of thriving
PDF
Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model
PDF
Attrition of junior military officers within the uniformed military services: a quantitative study
PDF
Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
A qualitative study that examines the transformational factors that prevent cybersecurity from being a funding priority in healthcare organizations
PDF
IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice
PDF
Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education
PDF
U.S. Army Reserve: the journey to psychological health resources
PDF
Identifying the environmental and systemic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women leaders in the male-dominated information technology sector in the United States
PDF
Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement
PDF
The underrepresentation of Asian American Pacific Islanders serving in the senior and executive leadership ranks in the U.S. Navy SEALs
PDF
Pay to play: a qualitative study on how the perception of the continued rise in college tuition impacts first-generation, loan-borrowing graduates and their financial well-being
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cushanick, Timothy Andrew
(author)
Core Title
The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
08/27/2024
Defense Date
08/05/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
active duty,ecological systems model,family,life course,military career,Navy,OAI-PMH Harvest,officer,partner,retention,spouse,surface warfare
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Freking, Fred (
committee chair
), Maddox, Gregory (
committee member
), Pritchard, Marcus (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cushanic@usc.edu,tcushanick@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113999U5A
Unique identifier
UC113999U5A
Identifier
etd-CushanickT-13442.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CushanickT-13442
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Cushanick, Timothy Andrew
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240828-usctheses-batch-1203
(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
Tags
ecological systems model
family
life course
partner
retention
spouse
surface warfare