University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of U.S. Army first-line supervisors on first-term soldier attrition

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of U.S. Army first-line supervisors on first-term soldier attrition

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Perceptions of U.S. Army First-Line Supervisors on First-Term Soldier Attrition
by
Noel Ignacio Del Real
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 2023

© Copyright by Noel Del Real, 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Noel Ignacio Del Real certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Helena Seli
Eric Canny
Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Each year, the U.S. Army loses 14,000 to 16,000 soldiers serving in their first term to attrition,
with more soldiers choosing not to reenlist for a second term. The high costs associated with
training soldiers, coupled with soldier attrition, creates a large human and financial capital loss
for the U.S. Army. The problem of practice supported achieving equitable outcomes in that the
study attempted to address the negative impact poor leadership has on the attrition rate within
this all-volunteer force. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted
first-line supervisors within a single U.S. Army Division as it pertains to leading and retaining
first-term soldiers. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army
first-line supervisors regarding Army organizational support systems, including training and
accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their
supervision. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted first-line
supervisors within a single U.S. Army Division as it pertains to leading and retaining first-term
soldiers. To this end, a mixed methodological study was employed whereby supervisors of first-
term soldiers recounted their experiences with leading first-term soldiers. Semistructured
interviews with participants indicated that the culture of the U.S. Army often hinders optimal
leadership of first-term soldiers. Quantitative surveys of participants indicated that participants
believed a variety of leadership capacities are critical for leading first-term soldiers.
Recommendations for improving the attrition rate of first-term soldiers are provided. This study
has implications for equity, as the findings and results can be used to understand and enhance the
equitable treatment of all first-term soldiers, which may have implications for increasing
diversity in the U.S. Army.

v
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my incredible wife Mercedes and our beautiful children,
Mia, Jacob, Camila, and Benjamin. Throughout this long and challenging academic journey,
your love, understanding, and unwavering support have been my anchor and inspiration.
To my wife, thank you for your unconditional love, patience, and belief in me. You have
been my biggest cheerleader, standing by my side through the sleepless nights, the moments of
self-doubt, and the countless hours spent buried in research. Your unwavering faith and your
sacrifices to create a nurturing home environment have allowed me to focus on my studies and
pursue this academic dream. Your encouragement, listening ear, and wise advice have been my
guiding light, and I am eternally grateful for your presence in my life.
To my children, you are my greatest joy and motivation. Your innocent smiles, boundless
energy, and curious minds have kept me grounded and reminded me of the importance of the
work I am doing. While I may have missed some precious moments during this journey, know
that every step I took was with your future in mind. I hope this dissertation serves as a testament
to the love and dedication I have for you, and that it inspires you to pursue your own dreams
fearlessly.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to myself. This journey has tested my
limits, challenged my perseverance, and pushed me beyond what I thought possible. I am proud
of the growth I have achieved, the knowledge I have gained, and the person I have become. This
dissertation is a testament to my determination, resilience, and passion for knowledge.
May this work contribute to the advancement of the field and serve as a reminder that with
dedication, support, and belief in oneself, anything is possible.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all those who have
supported and guided me throughout the completion of this dissertation.
First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the members of my
dissertation committee, Dr. Phillips, Dr. Canny, and Dr. Seli. Their insightful feedback,
constructive criticism, and valuable suggestions have significantly contributed to the refinement
and overall development of this research. Their expertise and commitment to academic
excellence have been a constant source of inspiration for me.
I am immensely grateful to the participants of this study, whose time, cooperation, and
willingness to share their experiences and insights have been invaluable to the success of this
research. Their contributions have provided a solid foundation for the findings presented in this
dissertation. A special thank you to Erica Buteau and Dr. CM Manlandro.
I would like to extend my appreciation to all the authors and researchers whose work has
been referenced in this dissertation. Their contributions to the field of study have been invaluable
in shaping my understanding of the subject matter and providing a solid foundation for this
research.
In conclusion, the successful completion of this dissertation would not have been possible
without the support, guidance, and contributions of all those mentioned above. Their unwavering
belief in my abilities, their encouragement during challenging times, and their invaluable insights
have played a pivotal role in the realization of this academic endeavor. I am deeply grateful for
their presence in my life.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Organization Context and Mission ..................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 6
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 8
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 13
Historical Perspective of First-Term Soldier Attrition in the U.S. Army ......................... 17
U.S. Army Soldier Attrition .............................................................................................. 19
United States Army Structure ........................................................................................... 29
U.S. Army Leadership Development ................................................................................ 38
U.S. Army Leadership Styles............................................................................................ 44
Leadership Practices Inventory ......................................................................................... 49
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 52
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 57

viii
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 57
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 58
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 60
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 62
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 76
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 79
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 80
Findings for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 82
Findings and Results for Research Question 2 ................................................................. 90
Findings for Research Question 3 ................................................................................... 109
Summary of Results and Findings .................................................................................. 112
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 115
Discussion of Findings and Results ................................................................................ 115
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 121
Implications for Equity ................................................................................................... 131
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 132
References ................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Army Command Structure .................................................................................... 160
Appendix B: Rank Insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces Enlisted ................................................ 166
Appendix C: Rank Insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces Officers ................................................ 167
Appendix D: U.S. Army ADP 6-22 Logic Map ......................................................................... 168
Appendix E: History of the U.S. Army....................................................................................... 169
Appendix F: Survey .................................................................................................................... 171
Appendix G: Recruitment Flyer.................................................................................................. 174
Appendix I: Information Sheet for Exempt Research................................................................. 179

ix
List of Tables

Table 1. U.S. Army Ranks and Positions ....................................................................................... 5

Table 2. Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 60

Table 3. Interview Participants’ Demographic Characteristics ..................................................... 81

Table 4. Participants’ Perceptions of Army Training for First-Term Soldiers .............................. 83

Table 5. LPI Results for the Model the Way Leadership Practice (n = 56) .................................. 91

Table 6. LPI Results for the Inspire a Shared Vision Leadership Practice (n = 56) ..................... 95

Table 7. LPI Results for the Challenge the Process Practice ........................................................ 99

Table 8. LPI Survey Results for the Enable Others to Act Leadership Practice ......................... 103

Table 9. LPI Results for the Encourage the Heart Leadership Practice ..................................... 106

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model ............................................................... 14

Figure 2. U.S. Army Command Structure .................................................................................... 31

Figure 3. The Army Leadership Requirements Model Attributes ................................................. 37

Figure 4. ATLDS Logic Map ....................................................................................................... 39

Figure 5. Army Leadership Requirements Model......................................................................... 41

Figure 6. Army Core Leader Competencies ................................................................................. 42

Figure 7. Soldier Ecological System ............................................................................................ 53

Figure 8. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 55

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
This study explored the problem of high rates of attrition among first-term soldiers in the
U.S. Army, which negatively impacts organizational performance and future potential for those
soldiers who leave. It is disproportionately difficult and more expensive to recruit, train, and
retain soldiers, especially as the Army’s size grows (Hogue & Miller, 2020). First-term soldiers,
a soldier still serving in their original contract but not reenlisted (M. G. Hughes et al., 2020),
leave the military for various reasons. All military branches suffer from first-term attrition,
where recruits fail to complete their first contracts (Marrone, 2020).
First-term servicemember attrition rates are highest in the Army and lowest in the Marine
Corps (Marrone, 2020). In all services, attrition rates peak just before six months, and level out
by 12 months, remaining around 18.5% for the Marine Corps and 29.7% for the Army over 36
months (Marrone, 2020). The U.S. Army attrition rates vary based on length of service. Attrition
rates are 5.1%, 9.9%, 15% and 29.7% at three, six, 12 and 36 months, respectively (Marrone,
2020). The cost of recruiting and training one soldier is estimated to be between $60,000 and
$70,000 (Kimmons, 2018). In addition to the lost investment costs for these soldiers, the Army
loses valuable tacit knowledge, reducing knowledge available to its entire fighting force
(Marrone et al., 2021).
Background of the Problem
The U.S. Army is a large and complex organization, and the size of the U.S. Army alone
makes it challenging to recruit and retain soldiers (Janowitz, 2019). The total Army force
comprises three components—Active, Reserve, and National Guard—containing more than one
million soldiers (Meese, 2022). Directives and policies from the Department of Defense (DoD)
and the U.S. Army complicate military recruitment (Green et al., 2021).
2

Congressionally mandated end-strength requirements, mandatory promotion selections,
and rank distribution limit the Army’s recruitment and retention practices (Hogue & Miller,
2020). Such limitations push manning decisions away from optimal solutions (Hogue & Miller,
2020). The Army must recruit, promote, and retain a specific number of personnel under
Congressionally established manning requirements, known as end strength requirements, to fill
structural personnel needs (Rauen & Hill, 2018). The Army must balance new accessions and
loss management to meet end-strength laws (Hairston, 2022). Congress determines the total
required personnel per branch and division (end strength) annually under the National Defense
Authorization Act (Mendez et al., 2020). In addition, mandatory promotion opportunities require
soldiers to appear before a local promotion board as soon as they reach the zone of eligibility
(Golba, 2021). With rank distribution limits, raters are limited in their ability to award
subordinates above-average performance evaluations based on these forced distributions (Evans
& Bae, 2019).
Higher than-expected attrition rates of first-term soldiers and a limited pipeline of
potential recruits have created a hole in the U.S. Army that has to be filled by Non-
Commissioned Officers (NCOs) (Kirchner, 2018). Personnel managers need to forecast
voluntary and involuntary attrition to fill the gaps caused by shortages in the younger population
(Hogue & Miller, 2020). As separation behavior among recruits or end strength requirements
change, recruiting and promotions must adjust accordingly (Asch, 2019).
As the civilian labor market, colleges, and other military services compete for the
appropriate quality and quantity of recruits, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Army to
sufficiently recruit individuals that meet all necessary characteristics (T. D. Smith et al., 2020). If
accession targets are high, recruiting becomes more expensive. The Army must invest in more
3

advertising, additional recruiters, and significant enlistment bonuses (Orvis, 2022; Pollard et al.,
2022). Recruiters and drill sergeants are NCOs who are primarily staff sergeants and sergeants
first class; these individuals are always in demand to fill leadership opportunities and technical
positions (Muhammad et al., 2020). High attrition rates drive higher demand for these
individuals to fill positions as recruiters and drill sergeants, further draining skilled leaders in
operational U.S. Army units.
To enable recruiting and retention, the U.S. Army, as an enterprise, commits a myriad of
resources, including recruiters, administration professionals, and training experts, all of which
are not available to the operational force, the part of the U.S. Army that conducts combat
operations. In 2016, the U.S. Army estimated that recruiting and training soldiers to serve in
combat units cost an average of $70,000 per soldier (Hogue & Miller, 2020). This cost included
marketing, military entry processing, and basic combat training expenses. It is distressing that
first-term soldiers have a high attrition rate (29.7%), considering the investments made for long-
term retention. The demographics at accession for U.S. Army soldiers between fiscal years 2001
and 2013, as reported by Marrone (2020), include gender (83.8% male, 16.2% female), race, and
ethnicity (71.8% White, 17.4% Black, 4% Asian, 1.6% American Indian, 6.3% other/non-White,
10.6% Hispanic), age (54.3% under 21, 30.7% 21–25, 9.7% 26–30, 5.3% over 30) and the most
common physical characteristics accounting for attrition (eye limitation 20.76%, mean male BMI
25.2%, and mean female BMI 23.4%).
Supervisors have been found to significantly impact attrition (Hoffman & Tadelis, 2021),
and research indicates that this is also true in the Army. Wenger et al. (2018) found that unit
leadership contributes to why some soldiers leave and others do not. First-line supervisors
oversee soldiers at the lowest level of the U.S. Army (L. E. Smith, 2017). These soldiers hold the
4

rank of corporal or specialist (E-4) or sergeant (E-5) in the U.S. Army (U.S. Army, 2020). The
perspectives of first-line supervisors on attrition are an invaluable source of information for
developing solutions for first-term soldier retention. This study aimed to determine the
perceptions of Army first-line leaders regarding Army organizational support systems, including
training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their leadership and
management of soldiers.
Wenger et al. (2018) conducted a study that identified a correlation between senior NCO
traits and attrition among first-term soldiers, after controlling for individual traits. The more
experienced the NCO, up to a threshold level, the lower the attrition rates of their first-term
soldiers (Marrone et al., 2021; Wenger et al., 2018). By addressing the negative influence
inexperienced leadership has on attrition within this all-volunteer force, this study sought to
promote equitable outcomes. Table 1 provides an overview of the hierarchy of the U.S. Army,
including ranks, grades, and titles.

5

Table 1
U.S. Army Ranks and Positions
Rank Title Level and responsibility Time to promotion
E-1 Private Junior enlisted 6 months
E-2 Private Junior enlisted 12 months + 4 in rank
E-3 Private First Class Junior Enlisted 24 months + 6 in rank
E-4
Specialist Junior NCO, First-term Supervisor 2 years, training class
Corporal Junior NCO, First-term Supervisor 26 months + 6 in rank
E-5 Sergeant
NCO, First-term Supervisor, 4
soldiers per team
36 months + 8 in rank
E-6 Staff Sergeant NCO, 2-3 teams of 8-16 soldiers each 84 months + 10 in
rank
E-7 Sergeant First Class NCO, assists Platoon Lead 6 years
E-8
Master Sergeant Principal NCO, Battalion 8 years
First Sergeant Senior NCO, 60-200 soldiers 8 years
E-9
Sergeant Major NCO, 300-1000 soldiers 9 years
Sergeant Major of
the Army
Senior Enlisted Advisors -
O-1 Second Lieutenant
Officer, Platoon, 2-4 squads, 16-44
soldiers each
-
O-2 First Lieutenant
Officer, Platoon, 2-4 squads, 16-44
soldiers each
-
O-3 Captain
Officer. Company with 3-5 platoons,
60-200 soldiers each
-
O-4 Major
Officer. Staff Officer of 3-5
Companies, 300-1000 soldiers
-
O-5 Lieutenant Colonel
Officer. Battalion of 3-5 companies,
300-1000 soldiers
-
O-6 Colonel
Officer. Brigade with 3+ Battalions,
1500-3200 soldiers
-

Note. Adapted from U.S. Army (2020). Time to promotion includes months in service plus a
minimum of months in the current rank (as noted). In addition to time requirements, there are
specific educational and command recommendation requirements not listed here. Time to
promotion for Sergeant Major of the Army through Colonel is omitted for relevance to the study.
6

Organization Context and Mission
The U.S. Army’s mission is to fight and win the nation’s wars by providing prompt,
sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in
support of combatant commanders (U.S. Army, 2018). The U.S. Army executes this by training
and equipping land forces for swift and continuous combat operations. The NCO Support
Channel executes the orders of commissioned officers through the lower-enlisted soldiers.
A numerical identifier, The Division, was assigned to the organization of focus, a single
U.S. Army Division located in the United States. The Division is responsible for training and
employing soldiers supporting combatant commanders. At the time of the study, the Division
comprised more than 10,000 soldiers spread across the United States and in several overseas
locations. There were approximately 750 first-term supervisors and up to 3,000 first-term
soldiers in the Division (U.S. Army, 2020).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line
supervisors regarding Army organizational support systems, including training and
accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their
supervision. The problem of practice supported achieving equitable outcomes in that the study
attempted to address the negative impact poor leadership has on the attrition rate within this all-
volunteer force. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted first-line
supervisors within a single U.S. Army Division as it pertains to leading and retaining first-term
soldiers. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What is the perception of enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division of how well the
U.S. Army prepares them to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers?
7

2. What key attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division perceive they need
to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers in the U.S. Army today?
2a. What key self-perceived leadership attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in the
Division currently report?
3. How do the U.S. Army and Division policy and processes influence enlisted first-line
supervisors’ perceived ability to lead and aid in the retention of first-term soldiers?
Importance of the Study
It is important to study the leadership qualities of first-line supervisors that aid in or
prevent the retention of first-term soldiers because of the implications of the high attrition of
soldiers within their first term of service. The U.S. Army is designed to fight and win the
nation’s wars, and it can only achieve this outcome if its ranks are filled with qualified soldiers
(Cancian et al., 2020; U.S. Army, 2018). Research shows that poor or improperly prepared first-
line leadership contributes to the attrition of first-term soldiers (Marrone et al., 2021). It is
important to determine how well-equipped these individuals feel and whether they are aware of
the research-proven attributes and practices that will help retain first-term soldiers. If this
problem of practice is not studied, the U.S. Army will likely continue to struggle with retaining
first-term soldiers.
This study will help current and future military and civilian leaders better understand the
perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding Army organizational support
systems, including training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their
ability to lead and manage soldiers under their supervision. The problem of practice supported
achieving equitable outcomes in that it attempted to address the negative impact poor leadership
has on the attrition rate within this all-volunteer force. According to Hogue and Miller (2020),
8

the cost of training a first-term soldier averages $70,000, twice the cost of the soldier’s salary.
Due to this initial investment and the current challenges for U.S. Army recruiting (Asch, 2019;
Pendleton, 2019; Spoehr & Handy, 2018), it becomes imperative for leaders to address factors
that influence retention.
The implications of first-term soldier attrition go beyond the financial costs absorbed by
the U.S. Army and are a matter of national security. The challenges and issues driving quality
soldiers away must be understood by U.S. Army leaders for the organization to man, equip, and
train their formations to meet the U.S.’s domestic and international needs (E. A. Cohen, 2019).
Recruiting has become difficult for the U.S. Army (Asch, 2019). Military leaders develop within
the ranks because the U.S. Army does not have access to civilian executives like many other
non-profits, corporations, and public service organizations do (Baker, 2018). Maintaining the
soldiers who have already enlisted in the Army is essential for executing an enduring vision and
ensuring quality leadership.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
A theoretical framework describes or draws on relevant theoretical aspects from previous
research to support research (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2011; S. Hughes et al., 2019). The
theoretical framework for this study was Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1979).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) defined ecological systems as consisting of four levels—the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem—each differentially impacting the
development of an individual. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2013) systematically reviewed the literature
on research framed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory.
Considering ecological theory is about relationships between philosophy, policy, and
practice, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2013) concluded that philosophy, policy, and practice might be
9

linked and viewed through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Onwuegbuzie et al.
(2013) posited that Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory benefits quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed research methods. Social, behavioral, and health science research studies
benefit from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory. Ecology refers to the habitat of an organism.
Ecological frameworks have guided research in psychology, and Bronfenbrenner (1979) is a
notable example. According to ecological theory, ecological principles govern behavior
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Ecological systems provide a valuable framework for understanding
leadership, according to Bronfenbrenner (1979).
This study used the mixed methods research methodology to explore the perceptions of
enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding army organizational support systems, including
training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead and
manage soldiers under their supervision. Mixed methods is a research approach that integrates
multiple approaches to answer research questions effectively (J. W. Creswell & Plano Clark,
2017). The approaches are a mix of qualitative research focusing on a process as the product or
desired outcome (J. W. Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and quantitative research focusing
specifically on numerical data (Goertzen, 2017). The research methodology incorporated surveys
of enlisted first-line supervisors (quantitative) within the Division and interviews of first-line
supervisors (qualitative).
Definitions
The following is a list of definitions and key terms used throughout the study.
• First-term soldiers refer to soldiers serving their first duty tour (M. G. Hughes et al.,
2020). The length of a soldier’s tour of duty varies and can be as short as two or as long
as six years (E. A. Cohen, 2019).
10

• Enlisted soldiers are soldiers who have completed the process of becoming service
members and have taken the U.S. military oath of enlistment (Finney, 2022). Enlisted
soldiers are the backbone of the U.S. military (Wigton, 2021), executing missions and
carrying out orders. These soldiers commonly do not have a college degree upon initial
entry. The typical tasks of enlisted soldiers include operating, maintaining, repairing
equipment, and performing technical and support activities (Russell et al., 2022). In the
U.S. Army, enlisted soldiers have ranks ranging from E-1 (Private) through E-9 (Sergeant
Major, Command Sergeant Major). Ranks E-6 (Staff Sergeant) through E-9 are
considered Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs).
• Officers are soldiers who lead soldiers in the U.S. Army (Kapp, 2020). Officers
commonly plan and organize missions and manage soldiers of lower ranks. Most military
officers earned a college degree. Officers enter the military through a commission source,
including a military academy, a direct commission program, or Reserve Officers Training
Corps (ROTC) (Ouimet et al., 2019). Officers in the U.S. Army are generally thought of
in two groups: (a) those who have ranks ranging from O-1 (Second Lieutenant, 2LT)
through O-6 (Colonel), and (b) those who have reached the rank of General,
corresponding to O-7 (Brigadier General) through O-10 (General).
• First-line supervisors serve as the NCO support channel's first line and are the lowest-
ranking soldiers' immediate supervisors (Davis et al., 2020). First-line supervisors
oversee soldiers at the lowest level of the U.S. Army, commonly overseeing three to four
soldiers and are directly responsible for their soldiers’ health, welfare, and training (T. D.
Smith et al., 2020). These soldiers hold the rank of corporal or specialist (E-4) or sergeant
(E-5) in the U.S. Army (U.S. Army, 2020).
11

• Non-Commissioned officers (NCO) are the backbone of the U.S. Army, charged with
upholding the Army values (U.S. Army, 2020). Ranks E-6 (Staff Sergeant) through E-9
are considered NCOs.
• The NCO Support Channel runs parallel to the military chain of command and
complements it (Gurwitch, 2018). “It is a channel of communications and supervision
from the Command Sergeant Major (CSM) to 1SG and then to other NCOs and enlisted
personnel of the unit” (U.S. Army, 2020, p. 12-13). Commanders use the NCO Support
Channel to communicate with and supervise their soldiers and monitor their health and
welfare (U.S. Army, 2020).
• Army values exemplify what it means to be a professional soldier (Hollis & Yancy-
Tooks, 2021). The exact definition of army values is, “improved thinking strategies will
create greater self-confidence, making it more likely to address rather than avoid complex
challenges” (U.S. Army, 2015, p. 1). The Army values are seven core values – loyalty,
duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage – each has its
doctrinal definition and makes up the acronym LDRSHIP (Gutierrez et al., 2021).
• Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development System (NCOPDS) is a
synchronized system that links NCOs' training and education across the operational,
institutional, and self-development learning domains (U.S. Army, 2020).
Organization of the Dissertation
A study overview was provided in Chapter 1, and an explanation of the importance of
understanding the perspectives of first-line supervisors on leadership training and how such
leadership training translates to the retention or attrition of first-term soldiers was presented. This
chapter includes a brief introduction of related literature, the significance of the study, an
12

introduction to the conceptual framework that guided the study, the definition of terms, and the
organization of the dissertation. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on sustainable leadership, the
development of first-line supervisors, the U.S. Army structure, and Army ranks and leadership.
Chapter 2 also contains a description of the theoretical framework for the study. Chapter 3
includes a discussion of the research methodology and the reasons for choosing a mixed
mythological approach. A detailed discussion of the sample, participant selection,
instrumentation, and data collection framework are also included in Chapter 3. Chapter 4
discusses the research findings, and the research questions concerning the existing literature are
answered. Chapter 5 examines the implications of the identified promising leadership practices
and their implications within the U.S. Army. This final chapter provides implications and
recommendations for future studies, as well as for future practice.

13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature on the use of reflective practice relevant to
the high rate of attrition among first-term soldiers in the U.S. Army, which negatively impacts
organizational performance and future potential for soldiers who leave. The chapter begins by
outlining the theoretical framework for this study, followed by an overview of the evolution and
development of the U.S. Army. The following section reviews the literature on the structure of
the U.S. Army. This discussion precedes a review of the literature on sustainable leadership,
Army policies and processes, leadership training, and the development of first-line supervisors.
The final section of the literature review focuses on the study's problem, specifically, soldier
attrition and the internal and external factors that contribute to the problem.
Theoretical Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory was chosen as the theoretical
framework for this study. Yuri Bronfenbrenner was a Russian-born American developmental
psychologist who died in Ithaca, New York, U.S., on September 25, 2005. Bronfenbrenner's
family immigrated from Russia to the United States when he was six years old (Lawrence,
2022). He earned a bachelor's degree in psychology and music from Cornell University in 1938
(Hertler et al., 2018). Harvard University awarded him a master's degree in education in 1940
(Lawrence, 2022). His Ph.D. in developmental psychology was awarded in 1942 by the
University of Michigan (Hertler et al., 2018). During World War II, he served as a military
psychologist and later joined the University of Michigan faculty as an assistant professor (Bagby
et al., 2015). During the remainder of his nearly 60-year career, he served as a professor of
human development at Cornell University (Hertler et al., 2018).
14

Bronfenbrenner profoundly influenced the field and study of psychology (Navarro et al.,
2020) by introducing an ecological model of psychology in the 1970s, which he subsequently
revised (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Bronfenbrenner (1994) described an individual’s environment
as akin to nested Russian dolls, moving from microsystems to mesosystems to exosystems and
macrosystems, all situated within chronosystems, a particular time dimension. Figure 1 depicts
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model.

Figure 1
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model

Note. The diagram depicts the relationship of the individual, microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem within the chronosystem. Adapted from: The ecology of human
development: Experiments by nature and design by U. Bronfenbrenner (1979).
15

Although Bronfenbrenner’s work focused on young children and their interactions in the
caregiving context, his concepts offer valuable insights into human development across various
ages and situations (Brandt, 2018). Notably, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model has
been used to understand several military-related research topics, including military resilience
programs (McInerney et al., 2022), veterans transitioning from the military to academia (Bagby
et al., 2015), veteran reintegration (Elnitsky et al., 2017), military women’s health (Trego &
Wilson, 2021), and Army climate and training (Walker, 2016). Bronfenbrenner’s model centers
on the belief that humans create the environments in which they operate and live; these
environments are synergistic and multidirectional (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2011). Within the
context of this study, a soldier’s environment is influenced by the soldier’s first-line supervisors,
national leaders, and policymakers through the division’s leadership (Lerner, 1995). The
soldier’s immediate and extended family members comprise part of their environments as well.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued that it is necessary to consider each individual’s ecological
system holistically. Bronfenbrenner’s theory describes individuals interacting face-to-face with
others in their immediate environment through relationships, activities, and social roles (Merçon-
Vargas et al., 2020). A microsystem consists of others relating to the individual and those
separate from him or her (Brown, 2022). Every individual is part of many microsystems, such as
a family, a military unit, a classroom, a peer group, and a job environment (Bagby et al., 2015).
For instance, a military service member’s family is a considered a microsystem.
The mesosystem is the next system level where the separate microsystems interact
directly with the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). A person’s duties within the military
microsystem may affect their family microsystem, and what happens in one’s familial
microsystem can also affect military performance (Bagby et al., 2015). Mesosystems are not only
16

where microsystems interact but also where they may clash. The exosystem is the third level in
ecological systems theory. The exosystem refers to the part of an individual’s environment that
influence an individual’s development, but do not directly interact with the individual
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Government, the media, commerce, and industry are examples of
exosystems for a soldier (Michell et al., 2018).
The macrosystem includes the societal and cultural blueprints of an individual’s cultural
belief systems, customs, opportunities, knowledge, and life course options at the most extreme
level of the ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The beliefs and practices ultimately shape
microsystems at this level. Some examples of the macrosystem level of society are education and
politics (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). For example, a culture’s emphasis on honor and duty may
influence an individual’s interest in joining the military (Bagby et al., 2015). Notably, each
ecological system level exists in a time dimension, known as a chronosystem, which determines
the system’s overarching influences (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Throughout time, the chronosystem
explores the changes and consistency in the individual and the environment in which they live
and can include factors such as the degree of busyness in their everyday lives (Bronfenbrenner,
1994).
Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1994, 2005) believed that humans create the environments in
which they live and operate; these environments are synergistic and multifaceted (Gardiner &
Kosmitzki, 2011). In this study, first-line supervisors, national leaders, policymakers, and the
soldier’s family influence their environment (Lerner, 1995). Considering each individual’s
environmental factors is critical to understanding the ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Since there are several potential factors causing soldier attrition, it is imperative to examine the
full scope of a soldier’s environment to understand better what factors are more likely to result in
17

attrition. Further, it is vital to understand the environment of the first-line supervisor to
comprehend how Army organizational support systems, including training and accountability
mechanisms, support or hinder their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision.
Historical Perspective of First-Term Soldier Attrition in the U.S. Army
The study examines the high attrition rate among first-term soldiers in the U.S. Army, a
phenomenon adversely impacting organizational performance and future potential. When the
Army's size grows, recruiting, training, and retaining soldiers becomes disproportionately
difficult and expensive (Hogue & Miller, 2020). First-term soldiers leave the military for various
reasons while serving in their original contracts (M. G. Hughes et al., 2020). Many recruits fail to
fulfill their first contracts in all military branches (Marrone, 2020). However, the U.S. Army has
a notably high attrition rate compared to other branches. For example, the U.S. Army attrition
rate at three months is 5.1%, nearly doubling to 9.9% at six months before reaching 15% at 12
months and reaching a maximum at 29.7% over 36 months (Marrone, 2020). One soldier's
recruitment and training costs between $60,000 and $70,000 (Kimmons, 2018), representing a
significant financial and human capital problem. As such, attrition reduces the Army's fighting
force and investment costs (Marrone et al., 2021).
The following sections include a brief overview of the U.S. Army and a review of the
literature on the U.S. Army structure, including Army ranks, leadership positions, and leadership
styles. A discussion of U.S. Army leadership development with a focus on developing first-term
soldiers and first-line supervisor competencies. Information about U.S. Army soldier attrition
follows, including an overview of the history of Army attrition and the internal and external
factors contributing to attrition. The chapter closes with a detailed discussion of the conceptual
framework for this research.
18

As one of the eight uniformed services recognized by the U.S. Constitution, the Army is
the land service branch of the United States Armed Forces (U.S. Army, n.d.). A uniformed
service of the United States, the U.S. Army is one of three military departments in the United
States Department of Defense (Mattis, 2018). The Army's chief of staff is a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and is appointed by the secretary of the Army. Despite an ongoing national
pandemic, the U.S. Army met its end-strength goal of 485,900 active soldiers in the fiscal year
2021, enabling the Army to fulfill all operational requirements (U.S. Army Public Affairs, 2021).
However, the Army Reserve's end strength fell short of its goal of 189,800 with only 184,358
soldiers. A total of 58,141 soldiers were retained, and another 6,618 transitioned into the Army
Reserve or Army National Guard. To achieve the Army’s overall end strength goal, a
combination of accession, retention, and attrition is used. More people chose to join and stay in
the Army this year due to advances in talent management across all proponents, innovative
marketing campaigns, updated policy, and investments in technology (U.S. Army Public Affairs,
2021).
Throughout its initial entry training sites, the Army implemented the 2+8 Army Training
Camp Program of Instruction in April 2020 (U.S. Army Public Affairs, 2021). As part of the
program, classes on sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention, Army ethics, and other
subjects are prioritized during the first two weeks of basic combat training (U.S. Army Public
Affairs, 2021). Rather than at the end of their basic training, these courses teach recruits the
expectations for conduct and professionalism within the organization. During basic training, the
Army has improved the ratio of drill instructors to trainees, which has led to an increase in
graduation rates and an improved quality of life for instructors (U.S. Army Public Affairs, 2021).
These changes reduced basic training attrition rates from 10.8% during fiscal year 2020 to 5.5%
19

during fiscal year 2021 (U.S. Army Public Affairs, 2021). Appendix E contains an additional
history of the U.S. Army.
U.S. Army Soldier Attrition
Army recruitment and retention have consistently been a challenge through the Army’s
history. Training recruits to become U.S. Army soldiers requires substantial resources and
government funding. As with the other armed services, the Army struggles with early attrition.
U.S. Army recruits who do not meet their initial contract cost the Army substantial losses in
capital, making it harder to reach to reach the Army’s annual end strength goal (Bushatz, 2018).
In addition to impacting force numbers, recruits who fail to meet their initial contract obligations
cost the Army tens of thousands of dollars in training and equipment.
The number of U.S. adults who qualify and volunteer to serve the nation is less than 1%
of the population (Dingle et al., 2021). First-term soldier retention, first-term attrition, initial
entry attrition, and quality of life are important metrics for the U.S. Army. Dingle et al. (2021)
explained how a robust Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) System allows leaders to invest
holistically in soldiers and their families to help increase reenlistment rates and decrease attrition.
Effective leaders positively contribute to soldiers' health and readiness (Curley et al., 2020). A
supportive leader can reduce the likelihood of soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder (Obuobi-Donkor et al., 2022). Thus, leadership may be a contributing factor to first-
term soldier retention or attrition.
According to Marrone et al. (2021), traditional views of attrition simplify a more
complex phenomenon. A soldier’s attributes and experiences do not solely determine the
likelihood of soldiers leaving from to their contract end; rather, their experiences within the
Army influence this tendency. Rather than viewing attrition as a singular event, Marrone et al.
20

(2021) suggested that interventions can influence outcomes at multiple points in the process.
Furthermore, due to the contractual nature of Army service, quitting and firing behaviors are
often iterated (Marrone et al., 2021). Therefore, a soldier's firing from the Army may culminate
in a long process that begins with their refusal to perform their duties. Several soldiers in
Marrone et al.'s (2021) study reported that failure to marshal adequate support or help resulted in
the loss of a soldier due to attrition after a seemingly minor issue. These findings suggest that
U.S. Army leadership may substantially influence a soldier’s intention to leave the Army prior to
the end of their contract term.
Attrition History Within the U.S. Army
Soldiers with problematic behaviors has been a part of the American military since its
founding. When leniency was judged appropriate, deserters experienced corporal punishment
that easily surpassed today’s definition of torture in Revolutionary War days. When a soldier did
not perform his duties as mandated, it was rarely considered a personal failure (Cox, 1997).
Many desertions, particularly those in large numbers within the same unit, were caused by severe
cold, illness, and lack of care or relief. These offenses resulted in punishment for individual
moral failures not considered mitigating factors. By the conclusion of the First World War,
soldiers who had not adapted appropriately to Army life experienced more humane treatment.
However, the mindset around the qualities that led to success and failure remained unchanged.
Due to the increasingly complicated technical requirements of many weapon systems and
advancements in psychometrics, the Army developed screening and testing mechanisms
generally designed to measure physical and mental abilities. When recruits found themselves in
physical danger, the Army also evaluated potential recruits in terms of valiancy and self-control
(Woodworth, 1933).
21

The Army established remedial battalions to mitigate insufficient soldiers in the summer
of 1918. After a thorough trial and examination, the Army was immediately responsible for
eliminating all men found incapable of performing their duties as soldiers (Uhlaner, 1977). Since
the 1950s, scholars have conducted U.S. Army attrition research, fueled by management science
and personnel studies in public and private organizations, leading to the development of a large-
standing military that could benefit from modern management theory. This work implicitly
considered that attrition resulted from the specific qualities of those who attrite. As a result of the
high cost of recruiting and training first-term soldiers, researchers focused on identifying those
individuals who were most likely to attrite before selection. In the early 1950s, a study of
resignations among officers during their first term was an early example of this literature. During
this period, one-fifth of Officer Candidate School graduates resigned before serving their original
term, and only slightly fewer graduates resigned from the military academy. In that study, motive
was one of the critical predictors for attrition (Parrish, 1957). The ongoing and significant shift in
U.S. society’s sources and nature of authority, particularly in the military, contributed to the new
attention paid to personnel issues. In 1959, Janowitz described the evolution of U.S. military
discipline from dominance to manipulation. Several factors contributed to this change, including
the end of closed-order infantry, which relied on rigid discipline and coordination.
Open-order infantry depended on individual and small-unit initiatives. Also, nuclear
weapons and missiles were becoming more prevalent, requiring a workforce similar to civilians’
training and daily routines. As deterrence became more important, the military’s most senior
NCOs needed an enhanced understanding of politics, culture, and diplomacy. This awareness
spread, paving the way for social mobility in civilian life (Janowitz, 1959). When success as a
soldier depended less on mere compliance and more on group identity and teamwork, enlisted
22

and officers' personalities and cognitive and social abilities gained new importance (Janowitz,
1959). Savage and Gabriel (1977) labeled Janowitz’s earlier dynamic as a gladiatorial and honor-
based officer class. However, officers began this shift from a managerial approach to Armed
Forces and Society in 1976 and 1977 (Faris, 1977; Savage & Gabriel, 1977). For the
disintegration of the Army in Vietnam, the authors blamed the rise of administrative careerists
who refused to die for their men due to the increased number of organizational careerists
unwilling to die for their men. According to this new approach, a ‘commander’ may view troops
as a source of career survival and profitability rather than a duty and honor based on mutual trust.
Political Factors
According to Congressionally-established manning requirements, known as end strength
requirements, the Army must recruit, promote, and retain a specific number of staff to fill
structural personnel needs (Rauen & Hill, 2018). To comply with end-strength laws, new
accessions, and loss management must be balanced (Hairston, 2022). As part of the National
Defense Authorization Act (Mendez et al., 2020), Congress determines the total number of
personnel required per branch and division, a provision known as end strength. Soldiers who
reach the eligibility zone for mandatory promotion must appear before a promotion board
(Golba, 2021). Based on these forced distributions, raters cannot award subordinates above-
average performance evaluations (Evans & Bae, 2019).
There is a shortage of potential recruits in the Army and a higher-than-expected attrition
rate among first-term soldiers, leaving gaps that NCOs must fill (Kirchner, 2018). V oluntary and
involuntary attrition must be forecasted for a personnel manager to fill gaps caused by shortages
in the younger population (Hogue & Miller, 2020). Recruitment and promotion must adjust as
separation behavior or end strength requirements change (Asch, 2019).
23

As colleges, the civilian labor market, and other military services compete for recruits, it
is increasingly difficult for the U.S. Army to recruit individuals with all the necessary traits (T.
D. Smith et al., 2020). The Army must spend substantial capital on advertising, additional
recruiters, and more significant enlistment bonuses if accession targets are high (Orvis, 2022;
Pollard et al., 2022). Recruiting and drill sergeant positions are usually filled primarily by staff
sergeants and sergeant first-class, and this personnel is always in demand for technical and
leadership positions (Muhammad et al., 2020). Notably, recruiters and drill sergeants are in high
demand to help address high attrition rates, creating a further drain on skilled leaders available
for operational units.
Internal Factors
Many internal factors lead to soldier attrition. In this study, internal factors contributing
to soldier attrition were defined as any factors related to the structure and policies of the Army, as
well as experiences that may force soldiers to leave the Army rather than reenlist for another
term. Three such factors that were examined are the leadership qualities of supervisors, physical
health, and mental health.
Leadership Concerns
Marrone et al. (2021) found that an individual's first assignment can substantially
influence his or her likelihood of failing to adapt. It is often the combination of a battalion and
senior NCOs that determines whether or not a soldier will fail to adapt, regardless of the location
(Ingurgio et al., 2020). Junior enlisted soldiers' chances of failing to adapt within an installation
vary from battalion to battalion, depending on their first assignment. An association exists
between failure to adapt, and reenlistment based on the combined effect of a battalion and its
NCOs (Pollard et al., 2022). A battalion with particularly high or low attrition maintains that
24

status even when its senior NCO rotates out, despite attrition outcomes varying somewhat
(Marrone et al., 2021). According to a study by Wenger et al. (2018), first-term soldier attrition
rates are associated with senior NCO traits. A lower attrition rate is associated with more
experienced NCOs (Marrone et al., 2021; Wenger et al., 2018). An equitable outcome is achieved
by addressing the negative impact of inexperienced leadership on attrition within this all-
volunteer force.
Marrone et al. (2021) investigated the impact of NCO support on soldier outcomes in a
mixed methodological study. Understanding the relationship between NCOs and junior enlisted
soldiers is important in determining whether an individual may attrite (Marrone et al., 2021). In
their quantitative research, Marrone et al. (2021) demonstrated the importance of battalions in
predicting attrition outcomes, even among senior NCOs. The qualitative findings of Marrone et
al. (2021) suggest that junior NCOs can influence attrition outcomes at the battalion level. In
their study, Marrone et al. (2021) concluded that junior NCOs may imbibe the unit's culture
when they arrive and continue promoting it after a senior NCO retires. The interviews conducted
by Marrone et al. (2021) also indicated that NCOs are busy and choose how much time to devote
to mentoring soldiers. There is no equal distribution of guidance among soldiers who need it. In
some cases, junior NCOs with less experience may focus on documenting underperformers
rather than mentoring them (Moyers, 2020). Soldiers and a senior NCO attributed this
phenomenon to junior NCOs' inexperience during the Marrone et al. (2021) study.
NCOs have discretion in whom they help, but Marrone et al. (2021) could not explain
why some soldiers were mentored, and others were not. Marrone et al. (2021) suggest that
additional research could determine whether NCOs make high-quality determinations of who
should be helped or if additional guidance is necessary for NCOs to reduce attrition and build
25

successful soldiers effectively. At the battalion level, senior leaders establish behavioral
incentives for junior NCOs, who frequently interact with junior enlisted soldiers. According to
Marrone et al. (2021), future studies should examine whether senior NCOs motivate platoon and
squad leaders to force struggling soldiers to perform their duties or to develop them and ensure
they complete their contracts. To investigate the mechanisms driving the differences in attrition
rates among battalion-NCO combinations, Marrone et al. proposed that a follow-up to their 2021
study should examine the data to identify the top- and bottom-performing combinations of
battalion-NCOs and conduct qualitative interviews with commanders, soldiers, and other
personnel in these units to allow for robust comparisons.
In 2018, Wenger et al. examined how NCO leaders' experience levels affect their soldiers'
performance and found that too little and too much experience can negatively affect
performance. Despite their rapid promotion, Wenger et al., (2018) found that the quick
promotion of senior NCOs is not an indicator of their effectiveness. By better selecting its senior
enlisted leaders, the Army could lower attrition rates, save money, and improve junior soldier
performance (Asch, 2019). According to Wenger et al. (2018), NCOs who earned a rank of E-6
fail to fulfill their initial service contracts than their counterparts who advance slowly (Wenger et
al., 2018). In other words, fast promoters may make excellent soldiers but do not necessarily
make excellent leaders. The impact of NCOs on the performance of junior soldiers lack
oversight, partly because it is difficult to follow a force that is constantly moving (Wenger et al.,
2018). When developing junior troops, time in the unit, time in service, and the amount of time
deployed all play a significant role (Wenger et al., 2018).
Senior personnel with 20 to 39 months of deployment experience had the lowest attrition
rates among junior soldiers (Wenger et al., 2018). In contrast, soldier attrition is higher when
26

senior leaders have been deployed for less than 20 months or more than 39 months. According to
Wenger et al. (2018), the Army should design a more substantial overlap between leaders during
transitions and increase the time a leader spends in a unit to maintain consistency. A leader with
the correct experience level could influence two additional soldiers to complete their initial terms
of service when comparing two similar units with 100 junior soldiers (Wenger et al., 2018). For
each unit with a leader of the typical experience, the Army would need to recruit about one fewer
soldier than for one with a leader of less experience. Wenger et al. (2018) suggested that the
Army should consider providing additional training and support for its least experienced senior
enlisted personnel, maintaining continuity during senior enlisted leaders' transitions between
units, and giving greater weight to desired leadership traits during a promotion.
Physical and Mental Health
Marrone et al. (2021) found that attrition outcomes appear to be heavily influenced by
unit-level NCOs. These busy NCOs can provide mentorship and guidance at their discretion. A
frantic training schedule may make it challenging for soldiers to adapt to Army life. This was
further compounded by soldiers’ inability to understand why certain exercises were required.
Several soldiers reported barracks conditions detracting from their quality of life, and the
location was crucial to assessing their quality of life (Marrone et al., 2021).
According to Dingle et al. (2021), leaders can integrate new soldiers into their teams
quicker if their sponsorship program is strong. The leaders are responsible for ensuring soldiers
have access to food, clothing, childcare, and health care when they arrive. Through a strong
sponsorship program that puts people first, attrition can be decreased, and retention can be
increased. As part of H2F, soldiers improve their performance, readiness, and emotional well-
being by improving their physical, cognitive, spiritual, nutritional, and nutritional health (Dingle
27

et al., 2021). The H2F System tenets can be implemented now, even while changes are being
made to staffing, equipment, and facilities. Leaders can accelerate improvement in these 16 key
metrics by enacting the cultural change required to make the H2F System thrive (Dingle et al.,
2021). A small change can greatly impact Army readiness and personal health.
Psychological problems are almost 23% more prevalent when officers and NCOs are
viewed as ineffective or toxic (Dingle et al., 2021). Psychological problems decrease to 12%–
13% when only one of the first-line leaders is ineffective. The rates drop to under 6% when both
officers and NCOs are effective first-line supervisors (Dingle et al., 2021). Better soldiers and
units result from leaders who embrace the importance of health, resilience, sleep, and operational
stress management. Dingle et al. (2021) posited that the H2F System, People First Task Force,
and Quality of Life Task Force outline cultural changes to help the U.S. Army retain the best and
brightest soldiers in America.
Commonly cited reasons for soldier attrition include physical factors such as stress
fractures incurred during basic training, previously undiagnosed conditions, and body mass index
ratios outside the U.S. Army requirements. According to B. S. Cohen et al. (2019), soldiers who
perform heavy physical tasks as part of their military occupational specialty are more likely to
suffer serious injuries, especially on-the-job injuries, and to become disabled. Soldiers often
choose not to seek medical attention for musculoskeletal injuries and their symptoms (Molloy et
al., 2020). According to B. S. Cohen et al. (2019), 58% of active-duty soldiers in combat arms
occupational specialties and support battalions sustained injuries for which they did not seek
medical attention.
Stigma surrounding health care may influence attrition through the development and
sustainment of injuries. Wooldridge et al. (2022) found that nearly 54% of soldiers in their study
28

reported that they would not seek medical attention immediately if injured. B. S. Cohen et al.
(2019) emphasized the need to encourage trainees to report injuries for proper early-stage
treatment. In addition to reducing the self-reported severity of musculoskeletal injuries, better
reporting can reduce attrition at the first-term soldier level and medical expenses. Knapik et al.
(2018) concluded that body fat percentage correlated with the incidence of stress fractures
leading to first-term attrition. A study by Petersen et al. (2019) also found a high incidence of
attrition related to weight gain and body mass index concerns. Swedler et al. (2011) reported a
higher likelihood of attrition among pregnant women 13 or more months before basic training.
Thus, access to basic medical care for injuries and preventative care may influence first-term
soldier attrition.
External Factors
External factors leading to soldier attrition are competing outside influences that may
influence a soldier to think about a career outside the Army, decreasing their chances of
reenlistment. According to Marrone et al. (2021), while social support may offer some chance of
arresting attrition cycles, family life may exacerbate them. This has been demonstrated in
historical literature such as Vernez and Zellman (1987). Military families face several stresses
because of their service. Often, spouses are separated for long periods and must frequently move
to places unfamiliar with the culture and have few employment opportunities (McCubbin &
Marsden, 2019). There may be restrictions on the spouse’s independence and privacy due to the
customs and authority structure of the military. During a service member’s first term, family
stresses may influence their desire to leave the service (attrition), desire to stay beyond his first
term (retention), and even the readiness of the force to accomplish its mission (Vernez &
Zellman, 1987).
29

Huffman et al. (2005) state that operations tempo (OTEMPO) is a significant factor in
first-term soldier attrition. OTEMPO measures military operations based on deployments,
exercises, and absence from duty (Huffman et al., 2005). Based on Huffman et al. (2005)
findings, soldier attitudes toward work hours were similar to the actual work hours. For example,
officers dissatisfied with long work hours were more likely to report leaving intentions than
those satisfied with long work hours (Huffman et al., 2005). Also, almost one-third of officers
stated that time away from home was a significant reason for leaving the service, even though
the most common reasons for leaving the service were family, work, pay, and satisfaction with
the organization or supervisor (Huffman et al., 2005). Huffman et al. (2005) investigated
OPTEMPO work overload and workload measures, finding links between these factors and
employee turnover.
To demonstrate the importance of family separation and the perceptions of OPTEMPO,
Giacalone (2000) evaluated responses from the revised Army Career Transitions Survey. Military
life satisfaction and the effects of army life on soldiers' and officers' decisions to leave the Army
were measured. Family separation items were used only indirectly to assess OPTEMPO. Two
OPTEMPO-related items were reported most frequently as reasons for leaving the service; (a)
30% said time spent away from family, and (b) 22% said time spent with family (Giacalone,
2000). Again, results demonstrated that the perception of high OPTEMPO was associated with
intentions to leave the military (Giacalone, 2000). Thus, family may serve as important external
factor influencing first-term soldier attrition.
United States Army Structure
This section provides an overview of the U.S. Army structure to place first-term soldier
and NCO positions into perspective concerning how the Army is organized. The Army has three
30

branches: the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard (U.S. Army, n.d.).
State defense forces are also maintained by some states as a type of reserve to the National
Guard, while all states regulate state militias. There are two types of state militias: organized
militias, which are usually part of a state defense force, and unorganized militias, which are open
to all able-bodied men and women (U.S. Army, n.d.).
A number of branches and functional areas also comprise the U.S. Army. There are three
types of branches: officers, warrant officers, and enlisted Soldiers, while functional areas are
made up of officers who have been reclassified from their former branches (U.S. Army, n.d.).
Most officers, however, continue to wear the insignia of their former branch because functional
areas do not generally have distinct insignia. Some branches of the Army operate similar to
functional areas in that individuals can join their ranks only after serving in another branch. The
Army offers careers for officers, warrant officers, enlisted personnel, and civilians that cross-
functional lines (U.S. Army, n.d.). Figure 2 provides an overview of the U.S. Army command
structure. See Appendix A for a detailed overview of the acronyms used in Figure 2 and the U.S.
Army.

31

Figure 2

U.S. Army Command Structure

Note. An overview of the U.S. Army structure. U.S. Army structure. Adapted from Organization,
by U.S. Army, n.d., https://www.army.mil/organization/. Copyright 2022 by U.S. Army.

U.S. Army Ranks
The U.S. Armed Forces are responsible for defending the Constitution and the rights and
interests of the people of the United States (Biden, 2021). A soldier’s rank is more than a
measure of pay grade; it indicates their level of expertise, responsibility, and authority within
32

their profession (Janowitz, 2019). Every soldier plays an essential role in the overall mission of
the U.S. Army, regardless of rank (Micewski, 2021).
Soldiers enlisted in the Army are its backbone (U.S. Army, n.d.-a). Within an Army unit,
enlisted soldiers have specific skills, perform specific tasks, and have specialized knowledge that
ensures the success of the unit's mission. Among the Army enlisted ranks are: private (E-1),
private second class (E-2), private first class (E-3), specialist (E-4), corporal (E-4), sergeant (E-
5), staff sergeant (E-6), sergeant first class (E-7), master sergeant (E-8), first sergeant (E-8),
sergeant major (E-9), command sergeant major (E-9), and sergeant major of the Army (Senior
Enlisted Advisors) (U.S. Army, n.d.-a). Ranks for each of the enlisted soldiers are provided in
parentheses. NCOs are individuals in ranks E-4 through E-9 and are primarily responsible for
leading first-term soldiers.
Warrant officer ranks include the adaptive technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and
advisor (U.S. Army, n.d.-a). Warrant officers administer, manage, maintain, operate, and
integrate systems and equipment across various operations through progressive levels of
expertise gained through training and education. The specific warrant officer ranks are Warrant
Officer 1 (W-1), Chief Warrant Officer 2 (W-2), Chief Warrant Officer 3 (W-3), Chief Warrant
Officer 4 (W-4), and Chief Warrant Officer 5 (W-5) (U.S. Army, n.d.-a).
A commissioned officer leads enlisted soldiers in any situation by managing, solving
problems, influencing, and planning (U.S. Army, n.d.-a). The duties of a commissioning officer
include planning missions, giving orders, and assigning tasks to soldiers. Specific officer ranks
include: Second Lieutenant (O-1), First Lieutenant (O-2), Captain (O-3), Major (O-4),
Lieutenant Colonel (O-5), Colonel (O-6), Brigadier General (O-7), Major General (O-8),
Lieutenant General (O-9), General (O-10), and General of the Army (Special) (U.S. Army, n.d.-
33

a). See Table 1 in Chapter 1 for more information on ranks and responsibilities. Also, see
Appendix B for an overview of the rank insignia of the U.S. Army Forces enlisted and Appendix
C for an overview of the rank insignia of the U.S. Army forces officers.
It is difficult to find a broad discussion of the U.S. Army ranks in recent literature. More
often, scholars discuss experiences and phenomena within the context of U.S. Army ranks, or
Army ranks are mentioned in passing. Some of the more recent literature that included
discussion of the U.S. Army ranks was focused primarily on women’s experiences (Herrick-
Reynolds et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2019; Verveer, 2019), racial disparities (MacGregor, 2020)
and research focused on mental health (Burek, 2018; Ghahramanlou-Holloway et al., 2019;
Phillips et al., 2022), healthcare (Blattner et al., 2018) and sexual harassment and assault (Sadler
et al., 2018). In most of these articles, military rank was treated as a variable or thematic factor.
The relationship between U.S. Army ranks and soldier attrition is the subject of multiple studies
(Anglemyer et al., 2018; Marrone et al., 2021; Speten, 2018). The section below denoted as
Soldier Attrition contains a more thorough review of the literature related to the phenomenon of
soldier attrition.
U.S. Army Leadership Position Types
Business and corporate entities and civilian organizations require organizational
leadership (Micewski, 2021). Leadership is also a requirement for positions at the battalion and
above-level organizations in the U.S. Army (Stilwell, 2019). The U.S. Army has a leadership
doctrine that provides guidelines and theory behind its leadership development planning,
education, and training (U.S. Army, n.d.). Army doctrine defines Army leadership as providing
purpose, direction, and motivation so that others will accomplish the mission (U.S. Army, n.d.).
34

The role of leadership is to influence individuals by giving them direction, purpose, and
motivation, while accomplishing a mission and improving the organization as a whole (Briggs et
al., 2022). A leader in the Army is someone who inspires and influences others to achieve
organizational goals through their assumed role, responsibility and authority (U.S. Army, 2015).
The Army’s leaders can motivate soldiers both within and outside their chains of command to
pursue actions, focus on thinking, and make decisions that are in the organization’s best interest.
Providing orders is only one aspect of being a leader (Raabe et al., 2020). Instead, Army leaders
can exert a great deal of influence on others. It is a leader’s words and deeds, the values he or she
espouses, the example they set, and every action he or she takes-on or off duty that influence
those around them (U.S. Army, 2015).
Army leaders provide soldiers with a purpose, enabling them to see the underlying
rationale for missions and act accordingly (U.S. Army, 2015). There are several ways in which
leaders provide clear direction to their followers. Orders and requests can be used directly. A
leader’s vision is another way of providing purpose (Shemella, 2021). Unlike other purpose
statements, a vision statement refers to an organization’s more ambitious or long-term goals
(Kirchner & Akdere, 2019). Leaders at higher levels carefully consider how to communicate
their vision. A person’s motivation is their desire to accomplish a goal or mission. To motivate
others, a leader must understand their followers’ needs and desires, align individual goals with
team goals, and influence others to succeed (Yuengert, 2020). U.S. Army leadership positions fall
into direct, organizational, and strategic categories (Flowers, 2018), which will be discussed in
the following paragraphs.

35

Direct Leadership
The concept of direct leadership refers to face-to-face first-line leadership (Kim, 2020). A
direct leader’s subordinates always see them in teams, squads, sections, platoons, companies,
batteries, squadrons, and battalions. In addition to influencing their subordinates in a one-on-one
fashion, direct leaders may also guide the organization through the actions of their subordinate
officers and NCOs (Taylor, 2018.). The direct line leader sees what works and does not work
effectively, directly, and simultaneous, so he or she can determine how to solve problems. Within
the context of U.S. Army rank structure, direct leaders comprise the NCOs that directly lead first-
term soldiers. Notably, direct leaders enact the mandates of organizational leaders, which are
now described in more detail.
Organizational Leadership
Many hundred to several thousand people are under the command of organizational
leaders in the U.S. Army (Van Laar et al., 2020). There are usually multiple levels of
subordinates under their command. Results are sometimes difficult to see due to this chain of
command. In the U.S. Army, organizational leaders usually enlist subordinate officers' help to
manage their organizations' resources (Törnblom, 2018). Organizational leaders establish policy
and climate. Despite the same skills as direct leaders, organizational leaders must be concerned
with more complexity, individuals, uncertainty, and unintended consequences (Shemella, 2021).
At the brigade and corps levels, they have very little face-to-face contact with the rank-and-file
soldiers. Most of organizational leaders’ attention is focused on two- to ten-year planning and
missions (Sangwan & Raj, 2021; Shemella, 2021).
Generally, organizational leadership in the U.S. Army begins at the battalion level
(Matzenbacher, 2018). Organizational leadership also rises to the higher levels of organizations
36

with greater authority and responsibilities, whereas strategic policy occurs at the national and
international level and is linked to national strategic goals (U.S. Army, 2015). To accomplish its
missions and maintain the security interests of the United States, the U.S. Army requires strong
organizational leaders and leadership (Biden, 2021). By the nature of the leadership position,
battalion leaders and higher levels of leadership are the decision-makers and policymakers for
subordinate leadership (U.S. Army, 2019). Despite some direct-level leadership traits and
characteristics, organizational-level leadership is more complex within the type and scope of
organizations. As a result of increased uncertainty, multiple priorities, and the development of
long-range visions and organizational goals, the priority among organizational leadership shifts
(U.S. Army, 2019). Thus, organizational leadership must have the capacity for forward thinking.
Strategic Leadership
The final form of leadership is strategic leadership. From the major command level
through the Department of Defense leadership, strategic leaders are military and Department of
the Army civilian leaders (Galvin et al., 2018). A strategic leader in the U.S. Army involves
managing large organizations and influencing many employees (Flowers, 2018). Their
responsibilities include determining force size and structure, allocating resources,
communicating strategic vision, and preparing their commands for future missions. A strategic
leader considers the entire environment in which the Army operates (Shemella, 2021). They may
consider Congressional hearings, Army budget constraints, new-systems acquisitions, civilian
programs, research and development, and interservice cooperation (U.S. Army, n.d.).
The U.S. Army doctrine specifies that direct leadership is below battalion-level
organizations (Casey, 2009). Figure 3 provides an overview of the attributes required for U.S.
Army leadership. See Appendix D for the complete Army leadership requirements model,
37

including a description of Army leadership, competencies, requirements, and outcomes under the
Be, Know, Do guidelines (U.S. Army, 2019).

Figure 3

The Army Leadership Requirements Model Attributes

Note. Army attributes for leadership. Adapted from Leader Development, Field Manual 6-22, by
U.S. Army, 2015. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm6_22.pdf.
Copyright 2015 by U.S. Government Printing Office.

38

U.S. Army Leadership Development

In addition to understanding leadership styles, it is beneficial to understand the
development practices of U.S. Army leadership. To examine how training and accountability
mechanisms support or undermine NCOs' ability to become leaders, a clear understanding of
what types of training NCOs undergo as they learn to be leaders is required. For the fiscal year
(FY) 2020-2028 (FY20-28), the Army Training and Leader Development Strategy (ATLDS) is
designed to identify priorities and outcomes for achieving the Army vision and the Army strategy
in the near- and midterm periods of the Army Campaign Plan (ACP), as well as to coordinate
Army-wide training programs (CAPL, 2020). As part of its "Build Readiness" initiative, the
ATLDS supports the ACP's mid-term (FY23-28) and near-term (FY20-22) efforts. As part of its
near-term readiness strategy, the Army is transitioning to modernization between 2022-2028.
Under the National Defense and National Military Strategies, the ATLDS assists the Army in
achieving readiness objectives (CAPL, 2020).
The ATLDS combines the Army Training Strategy and Army Leader Development
Strategy, which were published separately. In the 2018 Army Strategy, the training and
leadership development objectives were linked to the ways and means to achieve them (CAPL,
2020). The ATLDS describes the means necessary to accomplish these objectives, but
commanders, leaders, and trainers must also implement them at their level (CAPL, 2020). Aside
from maintaining readiness for large-scale combat operations, the Army must train and develop
multi-domain operations leaders, as shown in Figure 4.

39

Figure 4

ATLDS Logic Map

Note. Leadership training and development plans for fiscal years 2020 through 2028. From
Army Training and Leader Development Strategy, by Center for the Army Profession and
Leadership (CAPL), 2020. (https://capl.army.mil/repository/army-training.docx). Copyright
2020 by United States Army.

Development of First-Line Supervisors
Leadership is a key aspect of Army life, from the Chief of Staff to the newest soldier. The
concept of leadership is codified in doctrine, taught in leadership schools, demonstrated daily,
and is the focus of Army Training and Doctrine Command's NCO 2020 strategy (U.S. Army,
2015). Despite their relative inexperience, NCOs are effective leaders who rely on their
experiences in the Army to adopt the most effective leadership style for their soldiers. The
following paragraphs include an overview of the leadership training and attribute requirements
for NCOs.
The Army teaches leadership and doctrine courses or academies in a tiered training
approach. Future leaders receive recognized leadership training through academies and courses,
40

an advantage they may not have with their civilian counterparts. The Field Manual 6-22, Leader
Development, Army Leader Development (U.S. Army, 2015) is based on the following tenets: (a)
strong commitment by Army leaders, superiors, and individuals; (b) a clear purpose for
developing leadership; (c) supportive relationships and learning culture; (d) three mutually
supportive domains that enable education, training, and experience; and (e) providing, accepting,
and acting upon candid assessment and feedback (U.S. Army, 2015). Army Doctrine Publication
6-22, Army Leadership (U.S. Army, 2015) outlines leadership attributes such as character,
presence, and intellect required for effective leadership in the U.S. Army. By demonstrating these
attributes, Army leaders are expected to have a high probability of successfully leading their
soldiers and accomplishing their missions (U.S. Army, 2019).
According to TRADOC's NCO 2020 strategy, an NCO must understand the strategic
environment, be able to think critically and creatively, visualize solutions, and describe and
communicate crucial information so that shared understanding, collaboration, and teamwork can
be achieved. Throughout their careers, soldiers gain knowledge and experience in their military
occupational specialties, and as they master these skills, they rise through the ranks and take on
various leadership roles. According to TRADOC, an NCO must be capable of strengthening their
leadership skills and understanding the various leadership styles available to become an expert in
any task. Figure 5 demonstrates the requirements necessary for leadership in the U.S. Army.

41

Figure 5

Army Leadership Requirements Model

Note. The leadership requirements of the U.S. Army. From Army Leadership Requirements
Model, APD 6-22, by U.S. Army (2019). Copyright by U.S. Army, 2019.

First-Line Supervisor Competencies
In NCO Professional Military Education (PME), six competencies (leadership,
communication, readiness, training management, operations, and program management) are
taught to all NCOs regardless of their military occupational specialties, rank, or position. In
addition to directly supporting the four Army learning areas, NCO common core competencies
include sequential and progressive topics and subjects based on Army doctrine (NCOLCoE,
2020). These competencies build on all NCOs' skills, knowledge, and abilities by increasing the
42

mutual understanding necessary to function effectively as an experienced member of a lethal
force. Figure 6 provides an overview of the U.S. Army’s core leader competencies.

Figure 6

Army Core Leader Competencies

Note. Reprinted from NCOLCoE. (2020). Bulletin No. 1-19, Developing the Future of the NCO
Corps through Education: NCO Common Core Competencies (NCOC3). The NCO Leadership
Center of Excellence & U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.
https://www.ncolcoe.army.mil/Portals/71/publications/ref/1-19-NCOC3.pdf?ver=2020-03-09-
111137-160

43

The following section provides an overview of the leadership competencies required by
the U.S. Army. NCOs are vital to the Army's ability to conduct daily operations, execute mission
commands, and make intent-driven decisions (Wiggs, 2020). To model the characteristics of the
Army profession, NCOs must lead by example. The leadership competency encompasses; (a)
leader development, (b) counseling, (c) coaching and mentoring, and (d) Army ethics, (e) Army
values, and (f) character development (NCOLCoE, 2020). The program also includes a
comprehensive understanding of the leadership requirements model, mission command
philosophy, critical thinking, and problem-solving (NCOLCoE, 2020). A competent NCO is an
effective communicator (Sanders, 2018). Without clear communication, leadership, training,
consultation, coaching, mentorship, and team building are impossible. The communications
competency includes both verbal (public speaking/military briefings) and written (grammar and
English) communication (NCOLCoE, 2020). Among some of the other communication
competencies that NCOs need are active listening (a), facilitation (b), negotiations (c), social
media (d), digital communications (e), media engagement (f), staff studies (g), and decision
papers (NCOLCoE, 2020).
Soldier readiness is the responsibility of NCOs and is essential to unit readiness (Nguyen,
2021). The readiness competency includes (a) Army Inspections, (b) command supply discipline,
(c) comprehensive soldier fitness, including physical, spiritual, emotional, social, and family
wellness, (d) equipment maintenance, (e) resiliency, (f) MEDPROs, the Army’s medical
protection system used to monitor soldiers’ health, and (g) financial readiness (NCOLCoE,
2020). The NCO is responsible for directly training soldiers, crews, and teams (Straus et al.,
2019). As NCO leaders plan, prepare, execute, and assess sustained and effective training, the
Army training principles provide a broad but essential framework (Clarke, 2021). Training
44

management skills include (a) risk management, (b) preparing an eight-step outline, (c)
delivering individual training, and (d) the art and science of training from the squad to the
brigade (NCOLCoE, 2020).
NCOs at every level are expected to demonstrate the initiative necessary to take prudent
risks and take advantage of opportunities that arise under ambiguous and chaotic conditions
(Alexander, 2020). The operations competency includes; (a) large-scale combat operations, (b)
multi-domain operations—cyber, land, sea, sir, & space, (c) joint operations, (d) operational and
mission variables, (e) troop leading procedures, (f) military decision-making process, (g) combat
power and warfighting functions, and (h) operational terms and symbols (NCOLCoE, 2020).
Officers and NCOs work together to support soldiers and their families through Army programs
(Guzman et al., 2022). Among the competencies associated with program management are (a)
Army safety programs, (b) Army career trackers, (c) human resources systems, (d) military
justice procedures, (e) Army force management models, (f) Army community service programs,
and (g) soldier for life-transition assistance programs. Thus, NCOs have many responsibilities in
addition to leading first-term soldiers.
U.S. Army Leadership Styles
It is essential to examine leadership styles as they significantly affect job satisfaction,
retention, and attrition (Ashton, 2018). Several studies on business, the military, and leadership
have examined the impact of military leadership styles on attrition and retention. Booth-Kewley
et al. (2017) investigated factors affecting organizational commitment in Navy corpsmen. In
addition to job satisfaction, performance, organizational citizenship, and absenteeism,
organizational commitment is the state of being associated with an organization (Booth-Kewley
et al., 2017). The study aimed to identify psychological factors and demographics related to
45

organizational commitment, including leadership styles. In all organizations, it is essential to
retain experienced employees.
Considering the high cost of training and recruiting new service members, further
research on the relationship between leadership styles, job satisfaction, and retention is warranted
(Booth-Kewley et al., 2017). According to Booth-Kewley et al. (2017), organizational
commitment is associated with job satisfaction and retention. Military leaders and policymakers
should take concrete steps to strengthen organizational commitment, according to Booth-Kewley
et al. (2017). Armijo (2017) studied military attrition, retention, and transformational leadership
in a military environment. Participants in the study were active-duty members of a United States
Marine Corps unit. Attrition of service members positively correlated with transformational
leadership, according to the study. The transformational leadership model empowers followers,
reduces turnover, and improves job satisfaction (Armijo, 2017).
Training, education, and experiential events cultivate the leadership qualities of military
leaders (Guttieri, 2021). Leadership in the military focuses on service, caring for others in war
and peace, and putting others' needs before their own. Supervisory positions are the only way to
reach higher levels in many agencies. The federal workforce rewards employees for their
technical skills and retains their talent by promoting them to supervisory positions (Omotunde &
Alegbeleye, 2021). Training online and trial and error are two methods supervisors use to
develop leadership abilities. Military leaders often serve as deputy chiefs of staff and senior
leaders of both civilian and military organizations, allowing for observation and evaluation of
leadership skills and abilities (Brooks et al., 2021). Managers who lead day-to-day efforts must
emulate similar leadership behaviors to achieve senior military leaders' organizational goals.
46

More than one leadership style is associated with military leaders’ success. The goals and
objectives of an organization, coupled with its leaders and leadership styles, determine its
success (Alrowwad & Abualoush, 2020). A leader's leadership style can positively influence the
leader’s environment. Culture and leadership play an important role in the success of an
organization. An organizational culture that promotes productivity results in a better-quality
organization, according to Gkolia et al. (2018). The NCO Journal Staff (2018) identified five
effective leadership styles for U.S. Army leaders; transactional, transformational, servant,
autocratic, and followership.
Transactional Leadership
In transactional leadership, results are emphasized, rewards are provided, and penalties
are enforced (Guhr et al., 2019). A transactional leader provides subordinates with goals,
establishes project checks, provides performance reports, and motivates them with rewards
(Jayasingam, 2019). Former U.S. Central Command commander Gen. Norman H. Schwarzkopf
and Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi are transactional leaders (NCO Journal Staff,
2018). Because transactional leadership emphasizes leadership, organization, and performance, it
has been assessed as a good fit for the Army (Jayasingam, 2019). Furthermore, transactional
leadership can be used for situations where immediate responses to orders are required and
instructional scenarios in which information flows from leaders to followers. Alrowwad and
Abualoush (2020) argued that transactional leadership is not often suitable for free thinkers who
regularly take on the personal initiative because it limits their creativity. Thus, transactional
leadership is effective for leading soldiers in a context where specific tasks must be undertaken
to support the success of a mission.

47

Transformational Leadership
Leadership by example, also known as transformational leadership, is a tradition in the
U.S. Army (Kayaalp, 2018). Leaders who use this style of leadership thrive in changing
environments, where ideas are freely exchanged, and subordinates are encouraged to suggest
solutions (Afsar & Umrani, 2020). If there is little to no structure to support the team during an
ad hoc or initial development decision-making process, transformational leadership is not
effective (Amin et al., 2020). However, the structured aspect of the U.S. military provides the
support necessary for transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are usually technical
experts, keen to improve their environments and understand how their soldiers operate (NCO
Journal Staff, 2018). Through rapport, inspiration, and empathy, transformational leaders inspire
their subordinates and thrive in an environment where they can collaborate to create change
(Scuotto et al., 2022). A number of leaders have adopted this leadership style, including the late
General Omar Bradley, the last of the nation's five-star generals, and President Franklin D.
Roosevelt (NCO Journal Staff, 2018).
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership is based on the premise that the leader is in a position of authority in
service to their followers and to the overall mission. Thus, servant leaders are effective NCOs
who develop their soldiers by addressing the needs of their squads or teams (NCO Journal Staff,
2018). Soldiers are trained to serve others first through the Soldier's Creed, and as they become
NCOs, they put others' needs before their own (NCO Journal Staff, 2018). It is essential for
servant leadership to build relationships and rapport between leaders and subordinates. It is,
however, a style that can be used only sometimes and requires time to build trust. Stephen
48

Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, and retired General Matthew B.
Ridgway are two examples of servant leaders (NCO Journal Staff, 2018).
Autocratic Leadership
It is expected that Army leaders will be the decision-makers and issue clear instructions,
mission statements, and goal statements to their subordinates (NCO Journal Staff, 2018). In this
way, the Army is structured to foster autocratic leadership. This leadership style works well when
the decision-making process becomes stale or when life-and-death decisions are involved
(Gultom & Budiyanto, 2022). In an environment where life-and-death decisions are made daily,
such as in the U.S. Army and especially in combat situations, autocratic leadership is warranted
and even necessary. Subordinates need more input into the decisions made by autocratic leaders.
However, successful autocratic leaders listen to their subordinates, respect their work, and
communicate effectively (Gultom & Budiyanto, 2022). They communicate their vision of
success for the mission and have a clear understanding of the mission. Their leadership style
requires them to make correct decisions and have a high success rate. Former Third Army
commander George S. Patton and New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick are examples of
autocratic leaders (NCO Journal Staff, 2018).
Followership Leadership
In a followership scenario, leaders and followership are symbiotic, sharing the same
values, requiring the same effort, and requiring the same dedication (NCO Journal Staff, 2018).
Those who follow the Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and
personal courage can influence outcomes (Hollis & Yancy-Tooks, 2021). The followers of their
leaders adhere to best practices, complete the mission, and advocate for improvements to the
process. Effective followers often provide solutions to problems their leaders face and are not
49

afraid to approach them. When followers understand that following instructions isn't enough,
they are more effective followers. If a leader needs guidance on procedures, good followers
anticipate his or her needs and are courageous in delivering unpleasant news to the leader (NCO
Journal Staff, 2018).
Summary
This background information on leadership styles observed in U.S. Army leaders is
beneficial for exploring the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding army
organizational support systems, including training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting
or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision. The various leadership styles
were shown in the literature to impact subordinate outcomes. Understanding the positioning of
leadership styles in the U.S. Army aided me in developing interview questions and recognizing
themes during data analysis. Research shows that poor or improperly prepared first-line
leadership contributes to the attrition of first-term soldiers (Marrone et al., 2021). It is important
to determine how well-equipped these individuals feel and whether they know the research-
proven and evidence-based attributes and practices that will help retain first-term soldiers.
Understanding how leadership styles impact soldier outcomes can enhance the implications of
this study. If this problem of practice is not studied, the U.S. Army will likely continue to
struggle with retaining first-term soldiers.
Leadership Practices Inventory
The Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) is a quantitative survey developed by
researchers Posner and Kouzes (1988) that is based on the transformational leadership model,
which emerged from Posner and Kouzes’ analyses of thousands of case studies regarding
people’s personal best leadership experiences and the times when the individuals accomplished
50

an extraordinary result. The model postulates that there are five exemplary leadership practices:
(a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the process, (d) enable others to act,
and (e) encourage the heart (Posner & Kouzes, 1988).
• Model the Way. Communicating values, setting examples of expectations,
following through on promises and commitments, and asking for feedback on
how their performance affects staff performance are some steps a leader takes to
clarify values and demonstrate what is expected (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
• Inspire a Shared Vision. The leader must confidently discuss future trends
affecting the work to encourage staff to have their voice heard, so they can
collaborate to create something meaningful (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
• Challenge the Process. Leaders question the status quo, seek innovative
improvements, and respond to change as it arises (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
• Enabling Others to Act. Leaders actively listen to diverse perspectives, build
relationships, and involve their employees in critical decisions (Kouzes & Posner,
2017).
• Encourage the Heart. Leaders recognize the accomplishments of their teams and
members (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
From their early research into transformational leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2017)
stressed the importance of exemplary leadership through a set of learned practices; first-line
supervisors can learn these principles and apply them to positively influence first-term soldiers.
As part of Model the Way, supervisors must set personal examples for others of expectations and
ensure all staff adheres to the standards and principles set. Leaders who demonstrate exemplary
behaviors follow through on promises and commitments and ask for feedback on how their
51

actions affect first-term soldiers’ performance. They build a consensus around shared values and
model the behavior they expect others to exhibit. By verbally praising and expressing confidence
in first-term soldiers, exceptional leaders can Encourage the Heart. These supervisors become
personally involved and compassionate about the accomplishments of others. NCOs who
Challenge the Process take risks and challenge first-term skills to keep Army projects on track.
They are innovative and not afraid to experiment with new approaches (Posner & Kouzes, 1988).
There is much overlap between Model the Way and Challenge the Process when comparing the
behavioral statements. Those first-line supervisors who Enable Others to Act build trust and
respect first-term soldiers by being active listeners. As a result, they are open to giving first-term
soldiers a voice in decision-making, empowering everyone to work with the first-line supervisor
to improve training operations. Kouzes and Posner (2017) believe that leaders who work to
Inspire a Shared Vision provide their reports with a clear personal vision and a big picture of
what their work means. Leaders like these look forward, not backward, and invite staff to join in
the vision for the Army’s future (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). NCOs can become exemplary leaders
by learning and implementing Kouzes and Posner’s (2017) five exemplary leadership practices.
Effective leadership behaviors can be measured using an LPI assessment (Kouzes &
Posner, 2017). The LPI consists of 30 statements describing essential leadership actions and
behaviors that are derived from the five exemplary leadership practices (Posner & Kouzes,
1988). There are six statements for each of the five practices, each assessed on a five-point Likert
scale (Posner, 2016; Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The LPI was utilized in this study to determine
what leadership attributes and practices each participant possesses, which directly answers RQ2
of this study.

52

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study utilizes the Army ecological system (ARES)
model. This model is an application of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory to the
U.S. Army context. Bronfenbrenner profoundly influenced the field and study of psychology
(Navarro et al., 2020) by introducing an ecological model of psychology in the 1970s, which he
subsequently revised (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Bronfenbrenner (1994) described an individual’s
environment as nested Russian dolls, moving from microsystems to mesosystems to exosystems
and macrosystems, all situated within chronosystems, a particular time dimension. Figure 1
depicts Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model.
In a study of how ecological systems theory can support training, mentorship, and
development of Soldiers in small Army units, Walker (2016) modified Bronfenbrenner's
Ecological Model to develop the Army Ecological System (ARES) model. According to Walker
(2016), the ecological system theory can be applied to: (a) identify key influencers in a soldier's
sphere of influence, (b) pinpoint meaningful influences on attitudes and behaviors, and (c)
investigate the role and sphere of influence of ecological systems at the individual, small unit,
and community levels in within the Army. The diagram in Figure 7 shows the soldier ecological
system (SEcoS) diagram of the Army ecological system (ARES) from the perspective of a junior
enlisted soldier.

53

Figure 7

Soldier Ecological System

Note. The Soldier (S) is the center of ARES. The left side of the diagram details people, and the
right side identifies the tasks, behaviors, or policies they influence. The rings represent spheres
of influence. From Ecological Systems Theory: Using Spheres of Influence to Support Small-unit
Climate and Training by R. Walker, 2016. Copyright by U.S. Army Research Institute, 2016.

The ARES concept of sphere of influence describes the ability of individuals to influence
and develop a system (Walker, 2016). Individuals significantly impact tasks, behaviors, and
policies at each system level. Individuals in the soldier's immediate environment are most likely
to influence him or her directly, immediately, and permanently from an ecological perspective
(Walker, 2016). Consequently, at the center of Bronfenbrenner’s model is his belief that humans
54

create the environments in which they operate and live, and in turn, these environments are
synergistic and multidirectional (Lerner, 1995). The soldier’s first-line supervisors, through the
division’s leadership, influence these environments, up to national leaders and policymakers. The
soldier’s immediate and extended family members are part of their environments as well.
ARES is integrated with concepts taken from Posner and Kouzes (1988) leadership
practice inventory (LPI) model. The model postulates that there are five exemplary leadership
practices: (a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the process, (d) enable
others to act, and (e) encourage the heart (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). As part of this study, first-
line supervisors ranked 30 statements describing essential leadership actions and behaviors
derived from the five exemplary leadership practices (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). There are six
statements for each of the five practices, each assessed on a five-point Likert scale (Posner,
2016; Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The LPI was used in this study to determine what leadership
attributes and practices each participant possesses, which directly informs individual participant
perspectives in answers response to RQ2. The conceptual framework for this study was used to
address the research questions and integrates three key constructs; Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystem,
the ARES model, a derivative of Bronfenbrenner applied to soldiers, and the LPI concepts. A
depiction of this framework is shown in Figure 8.

55

Figure 8

Conceptual Framework

Conclusion

A general review of the literature suggests a need for exploring the perceptions of
enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding army organizational support systems, including
training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead and
manage soldiers under their supervision. The first section of this review focused on the
theoretical framework that underpins this study. The second section included an overview of
historical perspectives of first-term soldier attrition. The third section included a discussion of
the development of the U.S. Army structure, including background information on U.S. Army
ranks and leadership. The fourth section provided an overview of sustainable leadership and the
preparation, attributes, and characteristics of first-line supervisors under the umbrella of the
development of first-line supervisors. A conceptual framework at the end of the chapter
56

described how stakeholders could use reflection to achieve their performance goals by using
knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements. In the next chapter, the methodology of this
study is described.

57

Chapter Three: Methodology
Attrition is a critical outcome that shapes the workforce of the United States military. It
has been estimated that attrition rates across all the U.S. armed forces are approximately 25%,
with the highest rates of attrition seen in the U.S. Army (Marrone, 2020). Historically, there has
been approximately a 12% attrition of Army recruits discharged within their first six months of
service, ultimately rising to approximately 30% after 26 months. This attrition trend has
remained consistent through recent years (Marrone, 2020). With the cost of training a soldier
estimated to be between $60,000 and $70,000 (Kimmons, 2018), it is vitally important to identify
factors that influence soldiers to seek discharge from the armed forces. Therefore, this study
aimed to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding army
organizational support systems, including training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting
or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision.
In Chapter Three, I review the purpose and research questions of the study. Next, I
discuss mixed methodology and why I chose this methodology for the study. I then include a
discussion of the convergent research design I used in the study. Following these preliminaries, I
discuss my positionality as a researcher and highlight the reflexivity protocols I undertook to
mitigate researcher bias. Next, I discuss the data sources for each research question, including
the participants, instrumentation, and data collection procedures that were used to answer each
research question. The chapter then turns toward discussing the data analysis procedures I used
for the study. Finally, I discuss aspects of trustworthiness, reliability, and validity of the study, as
well as ethical considerations, before a comprehensive chapter summary.
Research Questions

Three research questions guided this study:
58

1. What is the perception of enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division of how well the
U.S. Army prepares them to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers?
2. What key attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division perceive they need to
lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers in the U.S. Army today?
a. What key self-perceived leadership attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in
the Division currently report?
3. How do the U.S. Army and Division policy and processes influence enlisted first-line
supervisors’ perceived ability to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers?
Overview of Methodology

I chose the mixed methodological research tradition for the study. Mixed methods
research has become increasingly popular in various academic disciplines for generating insights
that are not accessible by either qualitative or quantitative research designs alone (J. W.
Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; J. W. Creswell & Poth, 2018; Shannon-Baker, 2022). The mixed
methodology includes the collection, analysis, and integration of the two forms of data and
results framed by theoretical or conceptual frameworks and philosophy (Creswell & Poth,
2018). There are three general types of mixed methods research designs: sequential explanatory,
sequential exploratory, and convergent design (J. W. Creswell & Poth, 2018). Sequential
explanatory and sequential exploratory designs occur in two phases. In a sequential explanatory
design, the first phase is the collection of the quantitative data, followed by a second phase in
which qualitative data is collected (J. W. Creswell & Poth, 2018). Notably, the qualitative phase
seeks to explain or expand on the quantitative results (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Winston &
Dirette, 2022). Conversely, sequential exploratory designs prioritize the qualitative phase first to
59

explore a phenomenon. In the second phase, the researcher designs a “quantitative feature based
on the qualitative results” (J. W. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017, p. 67). After data is collected
from both phases, the researcher interprets and integrates the results from the two data sets
(Winston & Dirette, 2022). In the convergent design, the researcher collects qualitative and
quantitative data simultaneously but analyzes each set separately. After data analysis, the
researcher determines how to best merge the qualitative and quantitative data to reveal new
information about the phenomenon under investigation (J. W. Creswell & Poth, 2018).
I used a convergent research design in this mixed methodological study because I
collected qualitative and quantitative data in the same timeframe. This design seeks to leverage
the capabilities of both qualitative and quantitative research in order to create a more thorough
understanding of the research problem. I collected quantitative-based leadership survey data
using the LPI and qualitative interview-based data in parallel. This convergent design was
performed with the different participants so that data from the qualitative and quantitative
portions of the study would complement each other, allowing for a robust compilation of
participants’ perspectives (Driscoll et al., 2007). One of the advantages of a convergent mixed
methods research design is that the quantitative and qualitative findings can be mutually
corroborated, allowing for an additional means of triangulation (Doyle et al., 2009). Convergent
research designs also allow for a comprehensive account of the phenomenon under investigation
and allow for expansion if a qualitative or quantitative methodological tradition provides
unexplained findings (Doyle et al., 2009). This suggested that a convergent research design was
appropriate for the study. Table 2 depicts the research questions and data sources for each.

60

Table 2

Data Sources

Research questions Survey Semi-structured
interviews

RQ1: What is the perception of enlisted first-line
supervisors in the Division of how well the U.S.
Army prepares them to lead and aid in retaining
first-term soldiers?

X

RQ2: What key attributes do enlisted first-line
supervisors in the Division perceive they need to
lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers in the
U.S. Army today?

X

RQ2a: What key self-perceived leadership attributes
do enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division
currently report?
X

RQ3: How do the U.S. Army and Division policy
and processes influence enlisted first-line
supervisors’ perceived ability to lead and aid in
retaining first-term soldiers?

X

The Researcher

The integrity of qualitative research depends on the skills, competence, and
thoroughness of the individual conducting the research. In the present convergent mixed methods
research study, I, the researcher, was the sole human instrument, collecting human data and
acting as an objective viewer (Wa-Mbaleka, 2018). When working with human subjects,
researchers must follow ethical norms by guaranteeing numerical identifierity, voluntary
participation, and a thorough knowledge of the requirements of the study (Moustaka, 1994). As
the sole research instrument, I selected participants that meet the inclusion criteria; conducted
semi-structured interviews and administered the LPI survey; I ensured participants' data were
protected; I ensured that the participants did not influence data collection; I limited researcher
61

bias; I interpreted the responses of participants while minimizing any bias or predetermined
viewpoints; analyzed the semi-structured interview data using NVivo version 12, a computer-
assisted qualitative data analysis software; and made suppositions grounded on the emerging
themes from the data within the context of the theoretical framework, ecological systems theory,
chosen for the study.
It must be disclosed that, at the time of the study, I was employed in the United States
Army as a Chief Warrant Officer Four (W-4) and subject matter expert in Air and Missile
Defense with the U.S. Army Division from which I selected participants. In my 20 years of
military service, I have professional knowledge about the phenomenon under investigation in the
research study, having been a first-term soldier supervisor. However, I was only an outside
observer of those team leaders supervising first-time soldiers. I asked individuals to reflect on
their own leadership abilities and capacities, rather than make statements or inferences about the
leadership of others. As an active member of the U.S. armed forces, I wanted to understand the
leadership practices that influence the attrition of first-time soldiers. I also wanted to increase the
likelihood that soldiers would remain with the U.S. armed forces. Importantly, while I may have
been considered superior to some participants, this superior relationship was concerning rank
only. My influence in the Division was that of an organizational leadership and policy
development perspective, and I did not directly supervise or have influence over any of the
participants that met the inclusion criteria of the study. Consequently, I did not encounter any
situation in which a participant was my direct subordinate, and none of the participants chosen
were my direct superiors. As such, there were no conflicts of interest in selecting potential
participants from my Division.
62

To mitigate potential researcher bias, I engaged in reflexivity practices throughout the
study. Reflexivity involves a researcher thinking critically about how their values, opinions,
thoughts, beliefs, and worldviews influence each facet of the research process, including
decision-making, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation (Olaghere, 2022). I used
journaling techniques to maintain complete awareness of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs
throughout the research process, as suggested by McGrath (2021). To this end, I journaled before
and after engaging in any research-based activity, including participant selection, development of
the interview protocol, data collection via semi-structured interviews, and data analysis.
Similarly, memos were used throughout the data collection and analysis process. In addition, I
took detailed observation notes during the interview process to document my thoughts, opinions,
and beliefs regarding the participants’ interviews, a best practice identified by Deggs and
Hernandez (2018). In summary, I utilized journaling and observation notes as reflexivity
protocols to mitigate researcher bias.
Data Sources

There were two data sources in this convergent mixed methodological research study. At
least 50 participants who met the inclusion criteria of the study were conveniently selected to
participate in the survey, which involved participants completing screening questions,
demographic questions, and questions adapted from the LPI (Posner & Kouzes, 1988) (Appendix
F). Importantly, anyone attempting to complete the survey but did not meet the inclusion criteria
was exited from the remainder of the survey. Incomplete surveys were discarded. The second
data source in this study was a semi-structured interview. To this end, at least 12 participants
were selected to participate in semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions meant to
63

explore the participants’ perceptions of the attributes, policies, and processes required to
effectively lead first-term soldiers.
Method 1: Survey
The first data collection method was a survey sent to the entire population of the U.S.
Army Division under examination in the study. The survey consisted of three sections. First, it
contained screening questions that enabled me to ensure that only those individuals who met the
inclusion criteria for the study continued forward with the study. Second, the survey included
relevant questions regarding age and leadership experience, among other characteristics, that
could be compared to the leadership practices interrogated by the LPI (Appendix F). Finally, the
third portion of the survey was a Leadership Practices Inventory adapted from the original survey
proposed by Posner and Kouzes (1988). The survey was adapted with language to apply to
NCOs leading first-terms soldiers, rather than general leadership practices.
Participants
The general population of the study was team leaders in the United States armed forces.
In contrast, the target population was team leaders at the Staff Sergeant (E-6), Sergeant (E-5) or
Corporal (E-4) rank in the United States Army who directly supervise first-term soldiers within a
single Division. The Division central to this research study had approximately 10,000 soldiers
with team leaders from diverse age groups, ethnicities, and background experiences. According
to Singh et al. (2021), a research sample is a collection of individuals selected randomly from a
population to determine the traits of the overall population. As such, convenience sampling was
used in the study, as it was enable me to gain access to participants from the target population
with knowledge about the phenomenon under investigation (Suri, 2011). The survey was sent to
the entire population; those who opted to complete it and met the inclusion criteria were included
64

in the study. My goal was for at least 50 individuals to complete the survey who met the
following inclusion criteria:
1. Participants were enlisted in the United States Army in the selected Division.
2. At the time of the study, participants had the rank of Corporal (E-4) or Sergeant (E-5).
Individuals currently in the rank of Sergeant or Corporal were chosen for participation
because these individuals were most likely to directly supervise first-term soldiers.
3. Participants directly supervised first-term soldiers. Not all individuals at the rank of
Corporal (E-4) or Sergeant (E-5) were in a supervisory role, so it was essential to ask this
question.
4. Participants had at least one month of experience supervising first-term soldiers.
Selected participants must also not meet the following exclusion criteria:
1. Participants had not been promoted to the Staff Sergeant (E-6) rank at the time of the
study. These individuals were excluded from the study because they are generally
responsible for supervising soldiers in their second term.
2. Participants could not actively be under investigation for disciplinary reasons. I asked this
question but did not have any way of confirming if this was the case. I depended upon the
study participants' truthfulness in responding to this question.
Instrumentation
The survey tool used in the study contained two sections (Appendix F). The first section was
used to determine if a potential participant met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the study's
exclusion criteria. This portion of the survey asked the potential participants to provide the
following information:
1. Current rank in the U.S. Army
65

2. The amount of time spent at the current rank.
3. The number of months spent supervising first-time soldiers.
4. Whether the individual was currently undergoing disciplinary hearings or proceedings.
The first section of the survey was relevant to the research questions because the questions
comprised the participant selection criteria. If participants did not meet the study's inclusion
criteria, the survey tool automatically exited them from the survey, thereby preventing answering
the remaining questions. Incomplete surveys were discarded from analysis.
The second portion of the survey was an adapted version of the Leadership Practice
Inventory (Appendix F). The LPI is a quantitative survey developed by researchers Posner and
Kouzes (1988) that is based on the transformational leadership model, which emerged from
Posner and Kouzes’ analyses of thousands of case studies regarding people’s personal best
leadership experiences and the times when the individuals accomplished an extraordinary result.
As discussed in Chapter Two, the model postulates that there are five exemplary leadership
practices: (a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the process, (d) enable
others to act, and (e) encourage the heart (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The LPI consisted of 30
statements describing essential leadership actions and behaviors derived from the five exemplary
leadership practices (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). There were six statements for each of the five
practices, each assessed on a five-point Likert scale (Posner, 2016; Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The
LPI was used in this study to determine what leadership attributes and practices each participant
possessed, which informed individual participant perspectives in response to RQ2. The LPI has
high reliability and validity, which will be discussed in the reliability and validity section below.
The LPI instrument was chosen for the study, as opposed to the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), because the LPI assesses leadership practices. In contrast, the MLQ aims
66

to identify a leader's leadership style (Posner, 2016). While determining leadership style is often
an important facet of leadership research, it was not appropriate for this study because almost all
leaders in the armed forces must have authoritarian and transactional leadership styles
(Cammalleri et al., 1973; Thomas, 2021). I did not choose the MLQ as the leadership assessment
instrumentation for these reasons. On the contrary, the LPI directly assessed what attributes a
leader exhibits. Since leaders exude qualities that they believe are important for those they lead
(Kotterman, 2006), the LPI was appropriate for answering RQ2a, as it interrogated the key
attributes enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division utilized to lead first-term soldiers in the
U.S. Army. Importantly, the LPI was adapted to meet the needs of this study in examining the
leadership attributes that participants believed were important for leading first-term soldiers. The
survey was generated using Qualtrics, allowing me to collect survey responses easily.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were recruited by posting a recruitment flier (Appendix G) on the Division’s
Facebook page, with permission from the Facebook group’s moderators. Fliers were also posted
in the Division’s office buildings with permission from the Division supervisor. Candidates who
believed they met the inclusion criteria were given a QR code that took them directly to the
survey in Qualtrics. The first screen of the survey provided each potential participant with an
information sheet for exempt research (Appendix I). The survey then took the participants
approximately 15 minutes to complete. Data collection for this phase was considered complete
when at least 50 eligible participants completed the survey. If participants completed the
demographic portion of the survey but did not successfully complete the LPI portion, I continued
to survey potential participants utilizing the demographics survey until I collected 50 complete
67

surveys. Data collection for this phase was considered complete when 50 eligible participants
completed the survey, and all data was saved under the appropriate numerical identifiers.
Data Analysis
There were two data sources used in the quantitative data analysis, namely data from the
demographics questionnaire and the LPI. The study analyzed the key attributes the participants
believed were necessary for leading first-term soldiers. The statistical design used for this study
was non-experimental since there were no random assignments, no control groups, and no
variables manipulated within this study. The LPI was determined on a five-point Likert scale.
The scores for each of the 30 items on the survey were averaged, and a standard deviation was
calculated. In addition, the median and mode of each survey item were assessed to give a
complete picture of the views of the participants’ views. Sub-scores in the five subject areas were
similarly calculated.
Validity and Reliability
The first measure of rigor in a quantitative study is reliability or the accuracy of an
instrument. In other words, reliability is the extent to which a research instrument consistently
produces the same results if used in the same situation but on repeated occasions (Heale &
Twycross, 2015). Instrument reliabilities above 0.6 are considered good, and above 0.8 are
considered strong (AdeVellis, 2011). The second measure of rigor in quantitative studies is
validity, which is defined as the extent to which a concept is accurately measured in a
quantitative study (Heale & Twycross, 2015). For example, a survey designed to explore anxiety,
but which actually measures depression would not be considered a valid instrument.
The reliability and validity of the LPI instrument have been extensively studied (Posner,
2016). In a study by the instrument’s developer, Posner (2016) utilized the LPI normative
68

database to determine the reliability and validity of the LPI instrument. In the course of the
analysis, Posner (2016) analyzed approximately 2.8 million responses to the LPI online from
2007 through 2015. The reliability of the self-assessed LPI, as measured by Cronbach alpha
coefficients, is consistently strong (Posner, 2016). The Cronbach alpha coefficients were
reported to be 0.810, 0.901, 0.843, 0.825, and 0.898 for each of the five exemplary leadership
practices, respectively (Posner, 2016). Further analysis showed that the internal reliability for the
LPI is robust across a variety of sample populations, including that for the U.S. Army
government employees, with Cronbach alpha coefficients between 0.88 to 0.95 (Posner, 2016).
Validity was measured empirically for the LPI using factor analysis (Posner, 2016). Results from
these studies demonstrated that the LPI is indeed a valid instrument (Posner, 2016). These data,
taken together, suggested that the LPI instrument was both reliable and valid; as such, this
instrument accurately measured the leadership attributes of enlisted team leaders.
Method 2: Interviews
The main qualitative instrument in the study was the use of semi-structured interviews
with open-ended questions. The interviews were used to explore the perceptions of enlisted first-
line supervisors regarding the attributes, policies, and processes required to effectively lead first-
term soldiers. The sub-sections below address the participants, instrumentation, data collection
procedures, data analysis, and credibility and trustworthiness for the qualitative data collection.
Participants
Participants who successfully completed the demographics questionnaire and the LPI
were eligible to participate in the semi-structured, open-ended interviews. The participants were
prompted at the end of the LPI survey to indicate if they were interested in participating in the
semi-structured interviews. If they answered yes, they were taken to a separate survey to provide
69

an email address the researcher could use to contact them. Twelve to 15 participants were
randomly chosen from those who indicated they would like to participate in the interviews. I
gave each participant that affirmatively responded an overview of this phase of the study,
including a summary of the expectations of their participation. A random number generator was
then used to select participants. In this way, 12 to 15 participants were selected for interviews.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in the qualitative portion of this study was a semi-structured
interview comprising key questions about the participants’ experiences regarding the leadership
attributes required to lead first-term soldiers. Importantly, semi-structured, open-ended
interviews were utilized to investigate the three research questions. While semi-structured
interviews were used to collect data for the research, the open-ended interview questions
provided an ordered and logical manner to conduct an interview and directed the discussion
toward data that could help answer the research questions. I developed the interview protocol
and based the interview questions on the study purpose and problem statement informed by
Bronfenbrenner's ecological system theory (Appendix H). According to Rubin and Rubin (2012),
this approach should encourage responses from participants discussing their experiences with the
attrition of first-term soldiers. Researchers use this technique to speak with knowledgeable or
experienced people on a topic.
Some demographic questions were also included in the interview for two reasons. First,
these questions were utilized as a method of triangulation based on responses to demographic
surveys. Second, these demographic questions were included to help me get to know the
participant, establish a rapport, and explore and respond to the study objectives within the
context of the participants’ views, thoughts, and emerging themes (Jett, 2019). Importantly, I
70

ensured that the open-ended questions in the interview protocol were designed so that the
participants’ answers provided rich, deep information about the leadership attributes, policies,
and procedures required to effectively lead first-term soldiers.
Data Collection Procedures
A random number generator was used to select participants from among volunteers who
answered the survey. I used Calendly to schedule the planned interviews for the participants at a
date and time that was mutually convenient for each participant and myself. One-on-one
interviews were conducted via Zoom to ensure the safety of the participants and myself amid the
ongoing threat of COVID-19 transmission. This data collection method was deemed appropriate
as it allowed for direct engagement with the enlisted team leaders at the E-4 and E-5 ranks who
had experience leading first-term soldiers (Billups, 2019). I conducted the interview sessions and
was responsible for asking open-ended questions, moderating the sessions, and seeking
clarification for any parts of the interview that may be misunderstood. According to McGrath
(2021), open-ended questions ensured that I could consider participants' views, attitudes,
barriers, and experiences. In this study, I was interested in the perspective of enlisted team
leaders regarding the reasons for the attrition of first-term soldiers.
Audio recordings of the interviews were taken with the consent of the participants. The
audio recordings, in turn, were used for transcribing data collected in this study. Each interview
was 45-60 minutes to allow each participant to expand on their ideas; during the interview, I used
journaling to ensure reflexivity and took field notes to capture essential impressions or changes
in tone. I manually transcribed the interviews line-by-line to confirm the transcriptions’ validity
and accuracy. All the interviews were transcribed within 72 hours to ensure my familiarity with
the responses. The interview transcriptions were sent to participants for interviewee transcript
71

review to ensure the accuracy of the transcriptions, and any requested changes were made to
ensure that the participants’ intentions were accurately captured (Candela, 2019).
Once the interview sessions were complete, and the participants reviewed the
transcriptions, each audio recording and transcript were saved. The audio files from the
interviews were saved with numerical identifiers such as P51, P52, …, and P62 for anonymity
and confidentiality and to ensure that participants’ personal information was safeguarded
(Hamilton & Finley, 2019). Data collection was considered complete after the participants
reviewed all interview transcripts and assigned an appropriate numerical identifier.
Data Analysis
Content analysis was used to analyze the transcripts from the semi-structured interviews
because it is a common form of analysis for large amounts of verbal data (Lindgren et al., 2020).
According to Elliott (2018), a researcher must examine the data, identify themes, categorize
themes, and perform the final data analysis to form a cohesive data-based argument in qualitative
data analysis. Data analysis is a methodical approach to working with obtained data, structuring
it, and placing it in manageable pieces that can be analyzed to identify themes (Raskind et al.,
2019). The basic goal of the data analysis process is to organize data, look for patterns, and
uncover themes to determine important information related to the research problem and
questions while combining the results to allow the researcher to draw conclusions (Raskind et al.,
2019).
Content analysis was used to find cohesive instances, essential themes, and patterns in the
data acquired from the interviews. Unlike the quantitative phase, the research phase focused on
allowing a deeper connection and investigation of the attributes, policies, and practices required
for effective leadership of first-term soldiers. According to Blanco and Rossman (2021), the data
72

analytic process is comprised of seven phases, including (a) organizing the data; (b) immersion
of the researcher in the data; (c) generating ideas for case summaries and possible themes; (d)
coding the data; (e) offering interpretations through analytic memos and connecting the data to
previous literature and the theoretical framework chosen for the study; (f) searching for
alternative understandings of the data; and (g) writing the formal presentation of the study. I
employ each of these steps in the study.
I analyzed the data and looked for the participants' broad themes and major ideas. NViVO
Version 12 was used to aid data analysis and thematic coding. All information was coded and
synthesized in conjunction with the appropriate data analysis process, as described in Merriam
and Tisdell (2015). Moreover, J. W. Creswell (2013) stated, “The process of coding involves
aggregating the text or visual data into small categories of information” (p. 184). I conducted the
coding process to interpret data in smaller descriptive units. Coding captures significant ideas
surrounding the data without losing meaning (Saldaña, 2021). The next step in the data analysis
process was to develop constructs or categories. The process was done by research question and
sub-research question using the following process: code, sort, synthesize, and lastly, theorize.
Due to having an epistemological research question that sought to understand the phenomenon of
enlisted team leaders’ perceptions of leadership attributes, policies, and processes required for
effective leadership of first-term soldiers, the initial coding methods included descriptive,
narrative, and theming techniques, as suggested by Saldaña (2021).
A list of initial codes was compiled and grouped through developed anchor codes,
including tallying the frequency and generating categories that addressed the research questions,
again following the models of J. W. Creswell (2013) and Saldaña (2021). I sorted the data
collected by determining if a group of codes refers to a specific research question, sub-research
73

question, or theme, how many times a specific code is attached to portions of the data, and if
there were underlying meanings of the codes. During the second stage of coding and in
accordance with J. W. Creswell (2013), I used a combination of pattern, axial, and focused
coding techniques to further identify the themes. Importantly, I used the elements or components
of ecological systems theory to group the participant’s responses into themes.
Credibility and Reliability
According to Connelly (2016), the trustworthiness of a study is defined as the level of
confidence the researcher has in the data, transcription, and methods employed to ensure the
quality of the research work. The four (4) main elements—credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability—intersect to ensure trust in qualitative research, each of which
will be discussed in turn.
Credibility. A study is said to be credible when it accurately captures the perspectives of
its participants. According to Morse (2015), the term credibility is similar to internal validity and
refers to a person's views in a qualitative investigation. Participants can trust the findings of
published research because they believe them to be their own. Therefore, this study can be
regarded as credible because the study participants answered honestly, and the recordings would
not be altered in any manner to ensure that they truly reflect the participant's experiences
(Cilesiz, 2011). One major factor that can mitigate threats to credibility in this study is the study
design. Importantly, the qualitative descriptive design was chosen because it presents the
participants’ viewpoints, thereby ensuring that the participants’ perceptions are not overpowered
by the researcher’s beliefs. Credibility can also be ensured through the use of verbatim
quotations from the participants in the reporting of themes and sub-themes (Daniel, 2019). I
74

addressed credibility through journaling to ensure and understand my reflexivity. I also used
verbatim quotations from the participants.
Interviewee transcript review was another method I used to address the study's credibility
(Johnson et al., 2020). As described in the data collection procedures section, interviewee
transcript review involves sending the participants a copy of their interview transcript prior to
data analysis to ensure that the interview transcript accurately reflects the research subjects'
attitudes, perceptions, and views (Candela, 2019; Johnson et al., 2020). Interviewee transcript
review is a potent method of verifying the credibility of a study since, in qualitative research, the
participants are the best judge of their own experiences.
Transferability. According to Tong et al. (2012), the ability of a study's findings to be
applied to different people or places is what is meant by the term transferability in qualitative
research. This quantitative generalizability measure is used to assess external validity (Carmanti,
2018). Transferability looks to answer the questions surrounding how the study results can be
generalized or applied to other groups, contexts, or settings (Lindgren et al., 2020).
Transferability in qualitative studies ensures that the theoretical knowledge obtained from the
research can be applied to other settings and the general population under review. J. W. Creswell
and Poth (2018) note that the transferability of a research study can be ensured by providing
enough details on the procedures used to carry out the study. Hence, I provided a concise and
detailed description of the methods and the processes used to derive conclusions from the
research data. The study also utilized sampling sufficiency and thick description to enhance
transferability (Kyngäs et al., 2020). Sampling sufficiency is how a qualitative descriptive study
contains the appropriate sample size representing the phenomenon and population. A thick
75

description lets the consumer of the information comprehend the study's phenomenon and
compare it to other circumstances (Shenton, 2004).
Dependability. Dependability is a critical component of trustworthiness and the validity
of the data in the research. Dependability focuses on the results' consistency or congruency
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The role of dependability is to give a framework where the researcher
checks the analysis process to ensure it is aligned with the standards for the designated design
(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Although dependability in a qualitative study is challenging, the
researcher should make every effort to present information to allow future investigators to repeat
the study (Shenton, 2004). Forrero et al. (2018) discuss how studies with well-documented and
reliable research methods are considered dependable. Dependability can be ensured by creating
an audit trail that documents the process and decisions taken in the research where future
researchers may replicate the same study and derive similar conclusions (Nowell et al., 2017).
Therefore, to ensure that the study findings have dependability, I created an audit trail at each
step of the research process to ensure that details were not neglected or missed in the data
collection or analysis processes.
Confirmability. Confirmability is the capacity of others to confirm or verify findings in a
research project (Elo et al., 2014). According to Singh et al. (2021), this guarantees that the
researcher's biases do not impact the findings. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) highlight that the
research can be enhanced by developing confirmability. This is accomplished by: (a) supplying a
large number of evidence to support claims, (b) providing a detailed description of the
methodology, (c) acknowledging and declaring the researcher's preconceptions and positionality,
and (d) giving appropriate weight to participants’ experiences and perceptions rather than those
of the researcher. I followed these protocols to enhance the confirmability of the study. Protocol
76

two provides a detailed description of the methodology, and protocol three, acknowledging and
declaring the researcher’s preconceptions and positionality, was accomplished in the current
chapter.
Ethics

Research can present risks to the participants. As such, the researcher must ensure that
the well-being of the participants is maintained throughout the research duration (Connelly,
2016). Adhering to set ethical standards throughout the process ensures the well-being of the
subjects. These set standards were clearly outlined in the Belmont Report (National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). They
include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. I adhered to these three ethical standards
throughout the entirety of the study. Respect for persons involves recognizing the autonomy of
the research participants. Respect for persons was demonstrated by providing all participants
with information about the research study, which augments their informed consent. I also gave
the participants informed consent forms with information about the study, as well as ensured the
voluntary participation of the participants. The principle of beneficence concerns the risks and
benefits of the research, and the report states that the participants who bear the greatest risk
should directly benefit from the research (Arifin, 2018). Beneficence was ensured by informing
all the participants of the risks and benefits involved in the study. The principle of justice is
concerned with ensuring that the procedures applied in the study are fair and that all the
participants have an equal chance to participate (Beauchamp, 2008). All the participants were
given an equal opportunity to participate in the study and an equal chance to participate in the
LPI and provide their views, perceptions, and attitudes in the semi-structured open-ended
interview process.
77

Clearance from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
was sought to ensure that the researcher had the necessary authorization to conduct the research.
The University of Southern California requires IRB approval for all research studies involving
human subjects under FDA regulations. The IRB can approve, request modifications, or
disapprove research requests if they do not meet the required thresholds (Osborne & Luoma,
2018). I ensured that all the requirements for approval were met before requesting approval.
The participants were provided with the information sheet for exempt studies and formal
invitation letters that made their participation in the study official. The informed consent forms
provided information on the nature of the study and my plans to maintain their anonymity and
confidentiality. All the participants were informed that if they felt uncomfortable with the
research, they could terminate their participation in the research study without penalty or fear of
repercussion. The participants were notified of the potential risks and benefits gained by
participating in the study after completing the study. According to J. W. Creswell and Poth
(2018), researchers should inform participants of the potential risks involved in the study and
potential benefits arising after the research study's completion. The study did not reveal the
Division in which the participants serve to preserve anonymity. A numerical identifier referred to
each participant in all files derived from the study. All participants were informed of the
mechanisms I employed to preserve their anonymity and protect their confidentiality.
All the data gathered during the collection process remained confidential until I assigned
numerical identifiers. I responsibly stored all the data, which will be kept safely for three years
until the research study is published (Hurst et al., 2020). I also stored a copy of the information
sheet shared with the participants for future use in case conflict arises from the study. Records
are stored and maintained following the state and federal statutes that govern research
78

procedures. Once the study is published, the records will be disposed of safely to ensure the
confidentiality of the study.

79

Chapter Four: Results and Findings

Soldier attrition in the U.S. armed forces is an increasingly persistent problem. Recent
studies suggest that soldiers’ attrition from the U.S. armed forces may be due to a changing
psychological dimension of attitudes toward military service (Margiotta, 2019). Although soldier
attrition improved during the COVID-19 pandemic (Pollard et al., 2022), soldier attrition is still a
formidable problem that costs the United States Army millions of dollars each year in lost human
and intellectual capital. The aim of this study was to explore leadership practices that first-line
supervisors in a U.S. Army Division in the southern United States believe are necessary for
effectively leading first-term soldiers and preventing soldier attrition. Multiple sources of
quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Data was collected in two phases. First, NCOs
responsible for leading first-term solders were invited to participate anonymously in the LPI
survey to identify leadership attributes they believe are important for leading first-term soldiers.
Survey respondents subsequently had the option to participate in semi-structured interviews, the
second phase of data collection. Though survey results supported the interview findings,
ultimately, there was not much deviation in the surveys. Most of the 56 participants selected
agreed/strongly agreed.
Semi-structured interviews were analyzed using content and thematic analysis, following
the method Clarke (2021). Initial codes were derived from themes presented in the study’s
literature review, including those derived from the study’s conceptual and theoretical
foundations. Some examples of initial codes were microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
macrosystem, and chronosystem. Initial codes were reexamined within the context of internal and
external attrition factors to form secondary codes, including leadership qualities of supervisors, a
microsystem component, physical health, mental health, family life, and Army culture, an
80

exosystem component. Themes presented in this chapter met two criteria. First, a theme needed
to encompass at least three primary or secondary codes. Second, a theme must have been
mentioned by at least four of the 12 participants. Instances of discrepant cases in which a
participant disagreed with a major theme identified by the other participants, were identified and
are discussed in this chapter.
Participants

In the U.S. Army Division chosen for the study, there are approximately 10,000
individuals working as junior enlisted servicemembers, NCOs or officers. The Divisions contains
approximately 7,000 NCOs, with approximately 5,000 of the NCOs attaining the rank of E-4 or
E-5. NCOs currently holding a rank of E-4 or E-5 with experience leading first-term soldiers
were eligible for participation in this study.
Survey Participants
Invitations to participate in this study were extended to Division members through the
Division’s Facebook page, with permission from the Facebook page’s moderators and the
appropriate Division permissions. Fifty-six participants completed the LPI survey.
All participants held a rank of Corporal (E-4, 21 participants, 37.5%) or Sergeant (E-5, 35
participants, 62.5%). Three individuals attempted to complete the survey but had attained a rank
of Staff Sergeant (E-6). The survey logic applied to the survey thanked these individuals for their
interest in the study and exited them from the survey. The eligible participants who completed
the survey had varied experience with their time at current rank. The frequency of participants’
time at current rank is depicted graphically in Table 1.
Most participants had 3-6 months (21.4%) and 9-12 months (23.2%) of experience at
their current rank. The participants also had a significant amount of experience leading first-term
81

soldiers. Specifically, six participants reported having 1-2 months of experience (10.7%), 2-3
months (14.3%), 3-6 months (35.7%) and more than one year of experience leading first-term
soldiers (39.3%). The data indicate that the participants had experience at rank and leading first-
term soldiers and could be considered knowledgeable about the leadership attributes necessary
for effective first-term solider leadership. The majority of participants having 0-12 months of
experience at the E-4 and E-5 ranks, the participants were not temporally removed from being a
first-term soldier and could speak to leadership attributes of their first-term supervisors as well.
Interview Participants
The LPI survey included an option for participants to express an interest in participating
in semi-structured interviews. Twelve of the 56 survey participants completed semi-structured
interviews. Participants were given a numerical identifier to protect their confidentiality. The
interview participants demographic characteristics are described in Table 3.
Table 3

Interview Participants’ Demographic Characteristics

Participant Gender Race
Length of
time in
Army
Rank
Time at
rank
Time supervising
first-term soldiers
P1 Male Caucasian 2 years Corporal 1 month 1 month
P2 Male Caucasian 2.5 years Corporal 6 months 9 months
P3 Male Caucasian 4 years Sergeant 6 months 1.5 years
P4 Male Caucasian 3 years Sergeant 3 months 1 year
P5 Male
African
American
3 years
Specialist
(E-4)
3 months 1 year
P6 Male Caucasian 6 years Sergeant 2 years 6 years
P7 Male Caucasian 4 years Corporal 2 years 1.5 years
P8 Male Caucasian 2 years Corporal 1 years 3 months
P9 Female Hispanic 5 years Corporal 4 years 3 years
P10 Male Hispanic 7 years Sergeant 4 years 6 years
P11 Male Caucasian 4 years Sergeant 2 years 3 years
P12 Female
African
American
3 years Corporal 6 months 2 years

82

Ten participants (83.3%) who participated in the semi-structured interviews were male;
the other two participants were female (16.7%). This gender distribution is reflective of the
gender distribution of the U.S. Army. According to the U.S. Army (2022), 84.5% of active duty
servicemembers are male, and 15.4% are female. Eight participants (66.6%) were Caucasian,
two participants (16.7%) were Hispanic, and two participants (16.7%) were African American.
This distribution is also generally reflective of the diversity present in the U.S. Army, as U.S.
Army (2022) reports that approximately 53.9% of active-duty service members are Caucasian,
20.3% are African American and 17.2% are Hispanic. These data indicate that the research
sample is reflective of the gender and racial diversity of the U.S. Army, which has implications
for the transferability of the study’s findings.
The participants also had substantial experience supervising first-term soldiers. On
average, the participants had spent 3.8  1.5 years in the U.S. Army. At the time of the study, six
participants had attained a rank of Corporal (E-4), one participant had attained a rank of
Specialist (E-4) and the remaining five participants were Sergeants (E-5). The participants had
17.0  16.0 months at their current ranks and similar varied experience leading first-term
soldiers.
Findings for Research Question 1

In this section, the qualitative findings related to RQ1 are presented. The first research
question addressed by this study is:
RQ1: What is the perception of enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division of how well
the U.S. Army prepares them to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers?
Data derived from qualitative interviews were used to answer this research question. Survey data
were not used. Three themes were elucidated by the participants: (a) Adequate preparation for
83

leading first-term soldiers, (b) Leadership training, but not specific for first-term soldiers, and (c)
Insufficient preparation for leading first-term soldiers.
In general, the 12 participants had varied opinions regarding their leadership training with
respect to leading first-term soldiers. Five participants believed they had strong and adequate
leadership training, represented by Theme 1. Three participants believed they received leadership
training, but it was not specific to leading first-term soldiers. This opinion of participants is
represented by Theme 2. The qualitative themes for this research question are summarized in
Table 4.
Table 4

Participants’ Perceptions of Army training for Leading First-Term Soldiers

Theme Participants Excerpt
Adequate Preparation for
Leading First-Term
Soldiers
P7, P8, P9,
P11, P12
“The U.S. Army provided me with a solid
foundation and comprehensive training to
lead first-term soldiers. The initial training
and subsequent professional development
programs have equipped me with the
necessary knowledge, skills, and resources
to fulfill my role as a leader effectively.
However, leadership is a continuous
learning process, and I am always seeking
opportunities to improve and grow” (P7).
Leadership Training, but not
Specific for First-Term
Soldiers
P1, P3, P6 “My leadership training is from artificial
intelligence to basic training, and then
observations throughout my time as a
soldier myself. I think the approach seems
to line up more towards that the Army is
training me to be a leader, more than
preparing and training me to lead them”
(P1).
Insufficient Preparation for
Leading First-Term
Soldiers
P2, P4, P5,
P10
“Aside from the examples provided by my
squad leader and the things that he did and
being able to turn around and then give
those same traits to my subordinates, there
hasn't been very much development” (P2).

84

Four participants believed that they were not sufficiently prepared to lead first-term
soldier, as indicated by Theme 3. Verbatim quotations from the participants are provided so that
the reader can draw their own conclusions about the strength of the U.S. Army leadership
programs regarding first-term soldiers. Each of these themes is now discussed in turn.
Theme 1: Adequate Preparation for Leading First-Term Soldiers
Five participants (P7, P8, P9, P11 and P12) believed that they received strong or adequate
training to lead first-term soldiers. Interestingly, four of these participants (P7, P8, P9 and P12)
were Corporals, the lowest rank permittable for supervising first-term soldiers. The five
participants represented by this theme had, on average, 2 years of experience leading first-term
soldiers. P7, whose excerpt is shown in Table 7, described their leadership training as equipping
them with the requisite knowledge required for leading first-term soldiers. P7 also described the
Army as providing continued professional development and highlights the notion that leadership
training is an on-going process. P7 also believed that they were provided with the necessary
resources for leading first-term soldiers. P8 also believed that they received adequate training to
lead first-term soldiers. P8 said, “The Army provided comprehensive training and mentorship,
equipping me with the necessary skills and knowledge to lead effectively. I feel well-prepared to
support and guide my first-term soldiers.” P8 further described that the organization structure of
the Army provides the support necessary for leading first-term soldiers. P8 explained,
“Organizational support systems, such as clear policies, access to resources, and mentorship
programs, have made my role easier and enhanced my ability to lead and manage soldiers.” P7
also believed that these same attributes have been provided and are required for leading first-
term soldiers. P7 described:
85

The Army has established support systems such as mentorship programs, counseling
services, and resources for personal and professional development. These systems have
been instrumental in assisting me in my role as a first-line supervisor and have provided
guidance and support when facing challenges.
Notably, both P7 and P8 described the U.S. Army as having extensive and sufficient mentorship
programs, and personal and professional development programs, that enable them to effectively
lead first-term soldiers. Therefore, according to five participants, the U.S. Army has adequate
preparation programs in place for leading first-term soldiers.
Three participants also described the U.S. Army as having sufficient leadership programs
and training to teach junior NCOs how to lead first-term soldiers. For example, P9 described,
“Overall, the U.S. Army has prepared me well to lead first-term soldiers. Through a combination
of rigorous training, mentorship, and hands-on experience, I have developed the necessary skills,
knowledge, and mindset to effectively lead and mentor my soldiers.” P9 highlighted a different
facet of leadership training than P7 and P8, namely that of hands-on experience and on-the-job
training. On-the-job training is multifaceted and can be described in terms of both observation
and experience (Sisson, 2001). That is, P9’s experience as a first-term soldier demonstrated what
leadership capacities were important for their leadership development. They further explained,
“When I was a first-term soldier, I learned what one should and shouldn’t do as a leader. While
some leadership attributes are unavoidable, I try to be as fair as possible.” P9 also stresses the
importance of collaborative structures that are inherent in the U.S. Army. P9 described,
“The U.S. Army has established organizational support systems that have made my role as a
first-line supervisor easier. These include access to resources, guidance from more experienced
leaders, and policies and procedures that promote fairness and consistency.” Thus, like the other
86

participants, P9 highlighted the importance of mentorship from other leaders in leading first-term
soldier. However, P9 had a unique perspective in describing teamwork and collaboration as
being integral to their leadership capabilities.
P11 and P12 expressed similar thoughts to the other participants represented by this
theme. For example, P11 said, “Overall, the U.S. Army has provided me with substantial
preparation to lead my first-term soldiers. Through rigorous training, real-world experiences, and
the mentorship of seasoned leaders, I have gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and mindset
to fulfill my responsibilities.” Notably, P11 described the importance of mindset in leading first-
term soldiers. They also believed that the Army had adequate programs and trainings in place for
their success as a first-line supervisor. P11 further explained, “Organizational support systems,
such as access to resources, guidance from senior leaders, and mentorship programs, have
significantly aided my role as a first-line supervisor. These systems have provided valuable
guidance, assistance, and a framework for effective leadership.” P11, like the other participants,
highlighted the importance of access to resources and mentorship in leading first-term soldiers.
Finally, P12 described their leadership training, saying:
These trainings have equipped me with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively
lead and mentor first-term soldiers. Overall, the U.S. Army has prepared me well to lead
first-term soldiers. The training and support systems in place have provided me with the
necessary tools, skills, and knowledge to be an effective leader.
Thus, according to some participants, the U.S. Army has an adequate structure in place for junior
NCOs to learn how to lead first-term soldiers.

87

Theme 2: Leadership Training, but not Specific for First-Term Soldiers
Three participants (P1, P3 and P6) received leadership training, but did not believe their
training to be specific for leading first-term soldiers. P1 described the leadership training they
received from the Army as being integral to their success as a leader but noted that their
leadership training did not cover the unique challenges pertaining to leading first-term soldiers.
Specifically, P1 described, “my leadership training is from artificial intelligence to basic training,
and then observations throughout my time as a soldier myself.” When asked if they received
training specific to first-term soldier attrition, P1 responded, “Not at all. I have had a lot of
mandatory training for resiliency and suicide prevention.” Thus, P1’s experience suggested that
some junior NCOs do not feel adequately prepared to lead first-term soldiers. P3 had similar
experiences to P1, describing their leadership training as not being targeted at leading first-term
soldiers. P3 explained, “There was never any emphasis on a soldier in their first term, versus a
soldier that was outside of that first term in any of the training that I received, to be honest. I
learned how to lead, but not to lead first-term soldiers.” P1 and P3’s responses indicated that
their leadership training focused on developing them as leaders, but not necessarily leaders of
first-term soldiers. When asked what organizational structures made P3’s role in leading first-
term soldiers easier, they described, “[There were] none for first term soldiers, in particular. We
learned [to lead] different types of soldier demographics, such as single soldiers, but nothing was
in place for leading first-term soldiers.” Therefore, based on P1’s and P3’s responses, some
junior NCOs felt prepared as leaders, but not necessarily as leaders of first-term soldiers.
P6 similarly described their leadership training as not being specific to first-term soldiers.
Notably, they also described all their leadership training and experience as being on-the-job
training: “Most of my leadership training has been on the job development and figuring things
88

based on doing things exactly the right way. I’ve done the wrong thing, up made bad decisions,
then realized what I did wrong. I realize that I need to make better decisions.” P6, therefore,
described their leadership training as being derived from on-the-job training, making mistakes
and having the opportunity to reflect on those mistakes. P6 further described, “I didn’t receive
any training related to leading first-term soldiers. Everything I know is from being a first-term
soldier.” Thus, according to some participants, some junior NCOs likely received leadership
training, both formal and on-the-job training, but these practices are not specifically targeting
leading first-term soldiers.
Theme 3: Insufficient Preparation for Leading First-Term Soldiers
Four participants (P2, P4, P5 and P10) believed they received insufficient training and
preparation for leading first-term soldiers. P2 described, “Aside from the examples provided by
my squad leader and the things that he did and being able to turn around and then give those
same traits to my subordinates, there hasn't been very much development.” P2 emphasized the
importance of observation in leadership development, noting that their leadership experience for
leading first-term soldiers derives from their observations as a first-term soldier. However, they
also reported not receiving any leadership development or training pertaining to leading first-
term soldiers. P2 also noted that organizational structures that facilitate their ability to lead first-
term soldiers have been difficult to find:
I think that there's a lot of programs and a lot of risk resources to help soldiers at the
Education Center or resources for soldiers who want to improve their education status or
[programs] for soldiers with family issues. There’s a large number of programs, but
they’re not advertised.
89

Based on P2’s response, the organizational programs and supports in place for leadership
development regarding first-term soldiers are not transparent, which hinders some junior NCOs
ability to access those programs. P4 also did not believe they received adequate leadership
training for leading first-term soldiers. They stated, “If I was going score my [leadership
training] on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best and one being the worst, I'd score the
Army at a three or four.” P4, like P2, also believed they did not receive adequate leadership
development for leading first-term soldiers. Other participants expressed similar through to P2
and P4. For example, P5 explained, “As a first term soldier, I was given my chance to go to
PME, but haven't really had any leadership driven by the Division level. I haven't really had
anything formal as far as leadership training to prime me for the next level.” P5, like the other
participants, did not believe they received training on how to lead first-term soldiers. They
further described that the Division did not teach them how to prevent soldier attrition, saying,
“Soldier attrition was never a direct focus of any sort of leadership training. No one has ever
said, ‘This is what you should do to try to make sure that people want to stay.’ That was never
really explicit topic.”
Summary
In Research Question 1, I examined the perceptions of enlisted first-line supervisors in
how well the U.S. Army prepares them to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers. The
participants had varied opinions regarding their leadership training and preparation. Some
participants believed they received strong leadership training, both formal and on-the-job
training, imperative for leading first-term soldiers. Other participants believed that they received
leadership training but described their leadership training as not targeting first-terms soldiers or
first-term soldier attrition. Still, other participants believed that they did not receive sufficient
90

leadership training, in general, or for leading first-term soldiers. The participants also had varied
opinions about organizational structures in place that facilitate their ability to lead first-term
soldiers. Some participants believed the U.S. Army has strong support structures in place,
whereas others describe an overall lack of structure regarding leading first-term soldiers.
Findings and Results for Research Question 2

Research Question 2 contained a central research question and a sub-research question:
2. What key attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in the Division perceive they need
to lead and aid in retaining first-term soldiers in the U.S. Army today?
2a. What key self-perceived leadership attributes do enlisted first-line supervisors in the
Division currently report?
Data derived from quantitative analysis of the LPI survey and qualitative interviews were used to
answer this research question. Five categories were elucidated by the participants: (a) Model the
Way, (b) Inspire a shared vision, (c) Challenge the process, (d) Enable others to act, and (e)
Encourage the heart. The findings for each theme are subsequently presented. The following
sections will discuss the categories of the LPI survey and what themes emerged from the surveys
and the qualitative interviews.
Model the Way
The model the way construct involves a leader effectively communicating values, setting
examples of expectations and following through on promises and commitments. This construct, a
tenet of transformational leadership, also involves leaders for feedback on how their performance
affects staff performance are some steps a leader takes to clarify values and demonstrate what is
expected (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Model the way was addressed by the LPI and semi-structured
interviews.
91

LPI Survey Results
The model the way leadership practice was one of the five factors included in the LPI
survey. Six survey items, labeled M1 through M6, were modified and included to understand
whether the participants believed that modeling the way was important for leading first-term
soldiers. The results for these survey items are shown in Table 5. The LPI survey was assessed
on a seven-point Likert scale, with the following possible values: (a) 1: strongly disagree, (b) 2:
disagree, (c) 3: somewhat disagree, (d) 4: neither agree nor disagree, (e) 5: somewhat agree, (f)
6: agree, and (g) 7: strongly agree.
Table 5

LPI Survey Results for the Model the Way Leadership Practice (n = 56)

LPI modified statement Average St. dev Median Mode
M1. Setting a personal example of what a leader
expects of followers is important for leading first-
term soldiers.
5.71 1.11 5 5
M2. Making certain that soldiers adhere to the
principles and standards of the U.S. Army is
important for leading first-term soldiers
5.46 1.21 5 5
M3. Following through on promise and
commitments made by a leader is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
5.46 1.21 5 5
M4. Asking for feedback on my actions affect
soldiers’ performance is important for leading first-
term soldiers
5.57 1.19 5 5
M5. Building consensus around a common set of
values is important for leading first-term soldiers
5.64 1.09 5 5
M6. Being clear about my philosophy of leadership
is important for leading first-term soldiers.
5.43 1.13 5 5
Total Subscore for Model the Way 5.55 1.15 5 5

92

As shown in Table 5, the average score for the model the way leadership practice is 5.55,
which corresponds to an average value intermediate between somewhat agree and agree.
Notably, the median and the mode of the data set both corresponded to a value of somewhat
agree. No participants strongly disagreed or disagreed with any of the six model the way survey
statements. Notably, the median and mode are consistent with the average value for this factor,
indicating that the data is consistent across the 56 participants. These data suggest that the
participants in this sample believe that their role as first-line supervisors involves modeling the
way for first-term soldiers. To further understand how the participants believe modeling the way
is important for leading first-term soldiers, qualitative interviews were performed with 12
participants who also competed the LPI.
Interview Findings
Five participants (P10, P9, P7, P5, P4) believed that modeling the way is critical for
leading first-term soldiers, contributing to their retention. However, two participants expressed
frustration believing they can do so much to model the first-term soldiers. For example, P10 said,
As a leader, it's difficult to communicate values and set examples of expectations when I
feel disillusioned myself. The Army's bureaucracy often undermines the values it claims
to uphold. Promises and commitments are frequently broken or brushed aside, which
erodes trust and makes it challenging to follow through. The Army claims to encourage
feedback, but, it’s often discouraged or ignored. There's a culture of "shut up and do your
job" that hinders open communication and constructive feedback.
P10 believed that modeling the way and setting an example for first-term soldiers is critical, but
also acknowledges that, at times, their feedback and constructive criticism isn’t welcome, which
hinders their leadership process. P9 indicated that they believe that modeling the way is critical
93

for the retention of first-term soldiers: “Setting a good example as a leader significantly
influences the retention of first-term soldiers.” P9 indicated that one of their roles is to foster a
positive and supportive environment for first-term soldiers, which they believed influences
soldier retention, and team productivity.
Three participants also stressed the importance of modeling the way. For example, P7
said, “setting a good example has a significant influence on the retention of first-term soldiers.”
P7 stressed the importance of demonstrating professionalism, which first-term soldiers will
model in future actions. P7 also believed that professionalism is important for the job satisfaction
of first-term soldiers, which can positively influence their decision to reenlist. P5, like the other
participants believed that setting a good example is critical for leading first-term soldiers. P5
said: “I think when you lead by good example, you show people that there is a right way and
what is accepted and rewarded.” P4 also highlighted the importance of modeling the way but
described interpersonal skills as being more important. P4 said, “I think a good example is
paramount. I think it's important, but I think the interpersonal skills are just as important because
you can be the sterling example of great behavior. However, if you don't have the ability to
influence soldiers, that almost doesn't matter.” Thus, these five participants in this study
identified model the way as an important leadership practice for leading first-term soldiers,
especially concerning soldier attrition. The model the way construct involves a leader effectively
communicating values, setting examples of expectations, and following through on promises and
commitments However, interpersonal communication and skills was identified as a more
essential leadership practice.

94

Summary
The participants in this study believed that modeling the way is critical for leading first-
term soldiers. Setting a good example not only provides first-term soldiers with information on
practices that are acceptable in the U.S. Army, but also allows first-term soldiers on-the-job
training with leadership practices and the development of professionalism. Two participants
noted that modeling the way can be difficult within the context of the hierarchical structure of the
U.S Army. Five participants believed that showing first-term soldiers’ professionalism through a
good example is one mechanism for preventing soldier attrition and inspiring soldiers to reenlist
for a second term. These findings were congruent with the findings from the LPI survey, which
indicated that participants agreed with the survey statements corresponding to the model the way
leadership practice. Therefore, an important finding of this study is that the modeling the way
construct is an important way that first-line supervisors can prevent first-term soldier attrition.
Theme 2: Inspire a Shared Vision
The second leadership practice identified by LPI survey and interview participants was to
inspire a shared vision. Regarding the inspire a shared vision leadership practice, the leader
should confidently discuss future trends affecting the work to encourage staff to have their voice
heard, so they can collaborate to create something meaningful (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). A
shared vision involves both a short-term vision and a long-term vision for mission success,
inspired by organizational goals and tenets. Inspire a shared vision was addressed by the LPI
survey and qualitative interviews.
LPI Survey Results
The inspire a shared vision leadership practice was one of the five factors included in the
LPI survey. Six survey items were modified and included to understand whether the participants
95

believed that inspiring a shared vision was important for leading first-term soldiers. The results
for these survey items are shown in Table 6. The LPI survey was assessed on a seven-point
Likert scale, with the following possible values: (a) 1: strongly disagree, (b) 2: disagree, (c) 3:
somewhat disagree, (d) 4: neither agree nor disagree, (e) 5: somewhat agree, (f) 6: agree, and (g)
7: strongly agree.
Table 6

LPI Survey Results for the Inspire a Shared Vision Leadership Practice (n = 56)

LPI modified statement Average St. dev Median Mode
I1. Talking about future trends will influence how
well work gets done by first-term soldiers 5.21 1.20 5 5
I2. Describing a compelling image of what soldiers'
futures could be like is important for leading first-
term soldiers 5.63 1.04 5 5
I3. Appealing to followers to share an exciting
dream of the future is important for leading first-
term soldiers. 5.32 1.01 5 5
I4. Showing soldiers how their long-term interests
can be realized by enlisting a common vision is
important for leading first-term soldiers. 5.52 1.22 5 5
I5. Painting a big picture what we aspire to
accomplish is important for leading first-term
soldiers 5.95 1.09 6 7
I6. Speaking with genuine conviction about higher
meaning and purpose of the work is important for
leading first-term soldiers. 5.82 1.05 5 5
Total subscore for Inspire a Shared Vision 5.57 1.13 5 5

As shown in Table 6, the average score for the inspire a shared vision leadership practice
is 5.57, which corresponds to an average value intermediate between somewhat agree and agree.
Notably, the median and the mode of the data set both corresponded to a value of somewhat
agree. Statement I5, which describes painting a big picture of the Army’s mission had the highest
96

mode of all statements in the survey, with a mode value of strongly agree. Notably, the median
(5) and mode (5) of the data for this construct are congruent with the average value (5.57),
indicating the data is consistent across the 56 participants. These data suggest that the
participants in this sample believe that their role as first-line supervisors involves inspiring a
shared vision for first-term soldiers. To further understand how the participants believe inspiring
a shared vision is important for leading first-term soldiers, qualitative interviews were performed
with 12 participants.
Interview Findings
Five participants (P10, P9, P7, P4, P3) acknowledged that inspiring a shared vision
through collaboration is essential for leading first-term soldiers. However, they all also voiced
concerns regarding the Army’s willingness to facilitate this leadership practice. For example, P10
said, “Inspiring a shared vision is difficult when there's a lack of trust and a feeling of
disillusionment among the ranks. Collaboration is essential in leading first-term soldiers, but the
hierarchical structure of the Army often discourages it.” P10 noted that inspiring a shared vision
is not generally possible with the hierarchical and autocratic nature of the U.S. Army, which
limits their ability to inspire a shared vision among their first-term soldiers. P4 also expressed
inspiring a shared vision to be difficult within the context of the U.S. Army. P4 said, “I don't
even think I have the capacity, as a Sergeant E-5, to really put forth a shared vision.” Thus, two
participants found it challenging to inspire a shared vision in the U.S. Army, given the
hierarchical nature of the Army’s decision-making process.
P9 described ways in which they inspired a shared vision, saying, “to inspire a shared
vision among first-term soldiers, I emphasize the importance of our collective goals and the
impact of their contributions. By fostering a sense of ownership and purpose, I encourage them
97

to be motivated and engaged.” P9 described the importance of communicating the vision for
their missions and how that vision works within the larger framework of the U.S. Army,
believing that understanding the shared vision is critical for first-term soldier retention.
P7 and P3 believed that inspiring a shared vision is critical for leading first-term soldiers.
For example, P7 said, “I inspire a shared vision by clearly articulating the unit's mission and
goals, highlighting the importance of each soldier's contribution. I encourage open dialogue and
seek input from my team, allowing them to actively participate in shaping the unit's future.”
P7 believed that inspiring a shared vision is critical for leading first-term soldiers because it
allows soldiers to feel valued in contributing to a larger mission. P7 further identified that
fostering a sense of collaboration promotes job retention among first-term soldiers. P3 believed
that inspiring a shared vision involves identifying what individual first-term soldiers believe to
be important. P3 described, “every soldier may not share the same vision for what success looks
like. It’s important to figure out what their vision for success looks like and trying to help them
achieve it.” P3 noted that not all soldiers have a long-term vision for a career in the U.S. Army.
However, P3 believed that by showing first-term soldiers how the Army can aid them in
achieving their short-term and long-term goals, a soldier’s vision can be reimagined to include
the Army. Thus, based on participants’ responses, inspiring a shared vision is a critical
component of leading first-term soldiers to reenlist for subsequent terms.
Summary
LPI survey and semi-structured interview participants all believed that inspiring a shared
vision is an important component for leading first-term soldiers. Participants who completed the
LPI survey generally agreed with all statements regarding the inspire a shared vision leadership
construct, underscoring the importance of this leadership value. Interview participants also
98

described the importance of showing first-term soldiers their vision for short-term and long-term
success, placing this vision within the overall goals and context of the U.S. Army. As with the
model the way leadership practice, two participants found it difficult to inspire a shared vision
among first-term soldiers. Still, all participants agreed that inspiring a vision among first-term
soldiers was critical for eliciting optimal performance, which enhanced the ability of first-line
supervisors to promote first-term soldier retention.
Theme 3: Challenge the Process
The third leadership practice examined as a component of RQ2 is to challenge the
process. Transformational leaders often look for innovative ways to solve problems and
challenging the process is an essential component of this process. Challenging the process
involves leaders questioning the status quo, seeking innovative improvements, and respond to
change as it arises (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Often, leaders ask their subordinates to challenge
their preconceptions and processes as well. Challenge the process was addressed by the LPI
survey and qualitative interviews.
LPI Survey Results
The challenge the process leadership practice was one of the five factors included in the
LPI survey. Six survey items, little C1 through C6, were modified and included to understand
whether the participants believed that challenging the process was important for leading first-
term soldiers. The results for these survey items are shown in Table 7. The LPI survey was
assessed on a seven-point Likert scale, with the following possible values: (a) 1: strongly
disagree, (b) 2: disagree, (c) 3: somewhat disagree, (d) 4: neither agree nor disagree, (e) 5:
somewhat agree, (f) 6: agree, and (g) 7: strongly agree.

99

Table 7

LPI Survey Results for the Challenge the Process Practice

LPI modified statement Average St. dev Median Mode
C1. Seeking out challenging opportunities that test
skills and abilities is an important aspect of leading
first-term soldiers. 5.39 1.11 5 5
C2. Challenging soldiers to try out new and
innovative ways to do their work is important for
leading first-term soldiers 5.57 1.25 5 5
C3. Actively searching for innovative ways to
improve is important for leading first-term soldiers 5.57 1.36 5 5
C4. Leaders asking, 'What can we learn?' when
things don't go as expected is important for leading
first-term soldiers. 5.89 1.20 6 7
C5. Identifying measurable milestones that keep
projects moving forward is important for leading
first-term soldiers. 6 1.14 7 7
C6. Taking initiating in anticipating and responding
to change is important for leading first-term soldiers. 5.71 1.04 5 5
Total Subscore for Challenge the Process 5.69 1.20 5 5

As shown in Table 7, the average score for the challenge the process leadership practice
is 5.69, which corresponds to an average value intermediate between somewhat agree and agree.
Notably, the median and the mode of the data set both corresponded to a value of somewhat
agree. Statements C4 and C5, which describes reevaluation of tactics after a failure and
identifying measurable milestones for progress, had modes value of strongly agree. Notably, the
median (5) and mode (5) of the data for this construct are congruent with the average value
(5.69), indicating the data is consistent across the 56 participants. No participants strongly
disagreed or disagreed with statements C1 through C6. These data suggest that the participants in
this sample believe that their role as first-line supervisors involves challenging the process for
first-term soldiers. To further understand how the participants believe inspiring a challenging the
100

process is important for leading first-term soldiers, qualitative interviews were performed with
12 participants.
Interview Findings
Five (P12, P10, P9, P7, P4) participants interviewed in this study describe challenging
the process to be difficult within the hierarchical constraints of the U.S. Army. For example, P10
said, “challenging the process is met with resistance and can even be seen as insubordination.
However, the current culture and structure of the Army hinder the implementation of such
values.” Notably, P10 described the culture of the U.S. Army as being antithetical to challenging
the process. P4 also expressed the belief that challenging the process is difficult in the
hierarchical culture of the Army. P4 said, “there is a regulation, there is a manual, and you follow
it. The creative and critical thinking wasn't a big initiative. There's a method and I never really
questioned things.” P4 described the hierarchical decision-making process of the U.S. Army,
with stringent regulations, as preventing the challenge the process leadership capacity.
Even within the hierarchical nature of the U.S. Army, four participants stressed the
importance of challenging the process. For example, P9 said:
Challenging the process of leading first-term soldiers involves questioning the status quo,
seeking innovative improvements, and being responsive to change. When soldiers feel
empowered to contribute their ideas and see that their input is valued, it creates a sense of
ownership and investment in their role. This, in turn, increases job satisfaction and the
likelihood of reenlistment.
P9 believed that allowing first-term soldiers to challenge the process, seek clarification and
discuss innovation solutions increases their job satisfaction, which, in turn, decreases their
likelihood of attrition.
101

Other participants also described the importance of challenging the process in leading
first-term soldiers. For example, P7 said, “by challenging the process and seeking innovative
improvements, I empower my soldiers to contribute their ideas and take ownership of their
work.” P7, unlike P10, feels empowered to challenge the process, and promotes this leadership
practice among their first-term soldiers. P7 believed that this type of involvement allows for
first-term soldier retention. P12 also believed that challenging the process is critical for retention
of fist-term soldiers. P12 described: “Challenging existing processes is essential to ensure
continuous improvement and adaptability. By empowering them to question and contribute, we
create a culture of innovation and growth, which fosters job satisfaction and engagement.” P12,
in their role as a first line supervisor, did not describe encountering problems allowing first-term
soldiers to challenge the process. Notably, P12 placed an emphasis on questioning the status quo
and finding innovative solutions to complex and everyday problems. P12 described challenging
the process as being important for the retention of first term soldiers, as this practice empowers
them and engages them within their position in the U.S. Army. Therefore, challenging the
process is one mechanism first-line supervisors use to promote retention of first-term soldiers.
Summary
The first-line supervisors who participated in this study found the challenge the process
leadership practice to be important for leading first-term soldier and preventing their attrition.
The LPI survey results demonstrated that NCOs generally agreed with all challenge the process
survey statements. Five interview participants elucidated that allowing first-term soldiers to seek
innovative solutions to problems provided a sense of ownership among the soldiers. Challenging
the way also allows first-line supervisors to show their subordinates that their opinions are
valued. However, some participants found that allowing soldiers to challenge the process is
102

difficult due to the hierarchical nature of the Army, Army culture and decision-making processes.
Thus, challenging the process is important for leading first-term soldiers, but also can be difficult
for first-line supervisors to enact within the Army structure as reported by the participants.
Theme 4: Enabling Others to Act
The fourth leadership practice included in this study is enabling others to act.
Transformational leaders are known for their ability to inspire their following, enabling them to
take initiative and act on their own accord (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Therefore, the enabling
others to act leadership construct involves leaders actively listening to diverse perspectives from
their subordinates, building relationships, and involving their employees in critical decisions
(Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Enabling others to act was addressed by the LPI survey and
qualitative interviews.
LPI Survey Results
The enabling others to act leadership practice was one of the five factors included in the
LPI survey. Six survey items, little En1 through En6, were modified and included to understand
whether the participants believed that enabling others to act was important for leading first-term
soldiers. The results for these survey items are shown in Table 8. The LPI survey was assessed
on a seven-point Likert scale, with the following possible values: (a) 1: strongly disagree, (b) 2:
disagree, (c) 3: somewhat disagree, (d) 4: neither agree nor disagree, (e) 5: somewhat agree, (f)
6: agree, and (g) 7: strongly agree.

103

Table 8

LPI Survey Results for the Enabling Others to Act Leadership Practice

LPI modified statement Average St. dev Median Mode
En1. Developing cooperative relationships among
the people I work with is important for leading first-
term soldiers 5.61 1.00 5 5
En2. Actively listening to diverse points of view is
important for leading first term soldiers 5.54 1.11 5 5
En3. Treating followers with dignity and respect is
important for leading first-term soldiers. 6 1.01 6 7
En4. Involving soldiers in the decisions that directly
impact their job performance is important for
leading first-term soldiers. 5.46 1.21 5 5
En5. Giving soldiers a great deal of freedom and
choice in deciding how to do their work is important
for leading first-term soldiers. 5.47 1.21 5 5
En6. Ensuring that soldiers grow in their jobs by
learning new skills and developing themselves is
important for leading first-term soldiers. 5.82 1.19 5 5
Total Subscore for Enabling Others to Act 5.65 1.13 5 5

As shown in Table 8, the average score for the enabling other to act leadership practice is
5.65, which corresponds to an average value intermediate between somewhat agree and agree.
Notably, the median and the mode of the data set both corresponded to a value of somewhat
agree. Statement En3, which describes the importance of treating followers with dignity and
respect, had a mode value of strongly agree. Notably, the median (5) and mode (5) of the data for
this construct are congruent with the average value (5.69), indicating the data is consistent across
the 56 participants. No participants strongly disagreed or disagreed with any of the statements
addressed by this factor. These data suggest that the participants in this sample believe that their
role as first-line supervisors involves enabling others to act regarding leading first-term soldiers.
104

To further understand how the participants believe enabling others to act is important for leading
first-term soldiers, qualitative interviews were performed with 12 participants.
Interview Findings
Five (P11, P10, P9, P7, P4) participants who completed semi-structured interviews noted
the value of enabling first-term soldiers to be involved in critical decisions, but they also
described the U.S. Army hierarchical structure as a barrier to leadership practice. For example,
P10 said: “This lack of involvement in critical decisions contributes to the attrition of first-term
soldiers. When they feel their opinions and contributions don't matter, they are more likely to
seek opportunities elsewhere.” P10 described the practice of enabling first-term soldiers to take
ownership of their decisions to be critical in leading first-term solider and influencing their
retention. However, the structure of the decision-making processes involved in enabling others to
act difficult. P9 discussed the importance of enabling others to act in preventing first-term soldier
attrition. P9 said, “enabling first-term soldiers to be involved in critical decisions enhances their
sense of purpose and value within the team.” P9 believed that enabling first-term soldiers to
participate in critical decisions enhances their ownership of the mission, which positively
influences their military career through prolonged and sustained commitment.
Three participants stressed the importance of enabling first-terms soldiers to act. For
example, P7 said: “This increased sense of involvement and ownership can positively impact
their satisfaction with their role, enhancing the likelihood of reenlistment.” P7 stressed that the
importance of enabling first-term soldiers to act in providing them with ownership over their
mission; P7 also believed that enabling others to act promotes a sense of value among first-term
soldiers, which also influences their retention. P4 also believed that enabling others to act
positively influences the retention of first-term soldiers. P4 said, “I think [enabling others to act]
105

is huge. If you don't have a voice, you don't feel like you're a part of the team and you're not
going to want to participate on the team.” P11, like P7, valued the enabling others to act
leadership practice as it pertains to first-term soldiers. P11 said, “This quality of leadership
significantly influences the retention of first-term soldiers as it shows that their voices are
valued, their opinions matter, and their contributions are recognized. It creates a sense of
belonging and investment in the team and the Army.” Thus, based on these five participants’
responses, enabling others to act by involving them in decision-making processes positively
influences solider retention by promoting a sense of value within the organization.
Summary

The fourth leadership practice examined in this study was enabling others to act. This
leadership practice was among the highest scoring factors on the LPI survey, indicating that the
five participants strongly believed that enabling first-term soldiers to act is critical for leading
them. Interview participants noted that enabling first-term soldier action allowed these soldiers to
feel valued with the U.S. Army organization, thereby promoting their retention and increasing
the propensity of soldier reenlistment. Five participants in this study found that enabling others
to act was the easiest of the five leadership practices to implement when leading first-term
soldiers.
Theme 5: Encourage the Heart
The final leadership practice evaluated for RQ2 is encourage the heart. The encourage
the heart leadership practice entails leaders recognizing the accomplishments of their teams and
members (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Providing recognition for superior performance, a
fundamental tenet of transformational leadership, is thought to be important for facilitating the
other transformational leadership tenants, including enabling others to act, challenging the
106

process and inspiring a shared vision. Encourage the heart was addressed by the LPI survey and
qualitative interviews.
LPI Survey Results
The encourage the heart leadership practice was one of the five factors included in the
LPI survey. Six survey items, little Enc1 through Enc6, were modified and included to
understand whether the participants believed that encouraging the heart was important for
leading first-term soldiers. The results for these survey items are shown in Table 9. The LPI
survey was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale, with the following possible values: (a) 1:
strongly disagree, (b) 2: disagree, (c) 3: somewhat disagree, (d) 4: neither agree nor disagree, (e)
5: somewhat agree, (f) 6: agree, and (g) 7: strongly agree.
Table 9

LPI Survey Results for the Encourage the Heart Leadership Practice

LPI Modified Statement Average St. Dev Median Mode
Enc1. I praise first-term soldiers for a job well done 5.64 1.33 5 5
Enc2. Making a point to let followers understand a
leader has confidence in their abilities is important
for leading first-term soldiers. 5.61 1.00 5 5
Enc3. Making sure that followers are creatively
recognized for their contributions to the success of
projects is important for leading first-term soldiers. 5.43 1.06 5 5
Enc4. Publicly recognizing soldiers who exemplify
commitment to shared values is important for
leading first-term soldiers. 5.39 0.97 5 5
Enc5. Telling stories of encouragement about the
good work of other soldiers is important for leading
first-term soldiers. 5.32 1.25 5 5
Enc6. Getting personally involved in recognizing
soldiers and celebrating accomplishments is
important for leading first-term soldiers. 6.39 0.93 7 7
Total Subscore for Enabling Others to Act 5.63 1.15 5 5

107

As shown in Table 9, the average score for the encourage the heart leadership practice is
5.63, which corresponds to an average value intermediate between somewhat agree and agree.
Notably, the median and the mode of the data set both corresponded to a value of somewhat
agree. Statement Enc6, which describes being personally involved in recognizing soldiers and
celebrating their accomplishments had both a mode and median value of strongly agree. Notably,
the median (5) and mode (5) of the data for this construct are congruent with the average value
(5.63), indicating the data is consistent across the 56 participants. No participants strongly
disagreed or disagreed with any of the statements addressed by this factor. These data suggest
that the participants in this sample believe that their role as first-line supervisors involves
encouraging the heart regarding leading first-term soldiers. To further understand how the
participants believe encouraging the heart is important for leading first-term soldiers, qualitative
interviews were performed with 12 participants.
Interview Findings
Five participants (P12, P10, P9, P7, P4) believed that encouraging the heart is critical for
retention of first term soldiers but is often difficult due to Army culture. For example, P10 said:
Recognizing the accomplishments of my team and first-term soldiers is challenging in a
system that often focuses on the negative and shortcomings. The Army tends to highlight
failures rather than celebrate successes. Recognizing accomplishments can have a
positive impact on the morale and motivation of first-term soldiers. Feeling valued and
appreciated increases their sense of belonging and can contribute to their decision to stay.
P10 stressed the importance of encouraging the heart, but notes that some supervisors admonish
soldiers more than encourage them. P9 further described the importance encouraging the heart:
“Recognizing the accomplishments of first-term soldiers is essential for their morale and job
108

satisfaction.” P9 believed that encouraging the heart can aid in job satisfaction by properly
acknowledging individuals’ accomplishments, fostering a sense of belonging and importance to
the mission. P7 also identified encourage the heart as importance for influencing the retention of
first-term soldiers. P7 said, “this positive reinforcement can contribute to their overall job
satisfaction and increase their likelihood of reenlisting.” Therefore, based on 5 participants’
responses, encouraging the heart is an important component of leading first-term soldiers to
prevent their attrition.
Two participants also stressed the importance of encouraging the heart through
recognition of first-term soldiers. For example, P4 said, “I always thought it was important to
praise in public and discipline in private. This is a great method to keep soldiers motivated to be
a part of the Army team.” P4 interpreted the question in a different manner than other
participants, noting that encouraging the heart not only involves recognition of superior
accomplishes, but also involves not embarrassing the soldier in public when they make a
mistake. Mistakes are a part of any employment position that requires growth. P4 believed that
discipling first-term soldiers should occur in private as a mechanism of encouraging the heart.
P12 also noted the importance of recognizing soldier’s accomplishments. P12 said, “recognizing
soldiers is critical. No one wants to feel like what they're doing is not worth doing.” Thus, based
on five participants’ experiences and beliefs, recognizing soldiers for their accomplishments and
encouraging the heart is a critical component of leadership practices that lead to first-term soldier
retention.
Summary
Encourage the heart was the final leadership practice evaluated by the LPI survey and in
semi-structured interviews. When first-line supervisors encourage the heart, they recognize the
109

accomplishments of first-term soldiers. Five participants believed that encouraging the heart
allows first-term soldiers to feel valued, which gives them a sense of purpose within their team
and within the U.S. Army as a whole. Encouraging the heart can effectively encourage first-term
soldiers and promote efficiency in the other leadership areas, including inspiring a shared vision.
Based on these five participants’ responses, encouraging the heart is essential for leading first-
term soldiers and preventing their attrition.
Findings for Research Question 3

The final research question addressed in this study was:
3. How do the U.S. Army and Division policy and processes influence enlisted first-line
supervisors’ perceived ability to lead and aid in the retention of first-term soldiers?
This research question was examined through semi-structured interviews with 12 participants.
Two general themes emerged from analysis of participants’ interviews: (a) accountability
mechanisms for first-line supervisors and (b) communicating values and expectations. Each of
these themes will now be discussed in turn.
Theme 1: Accountability Mechanisms for First-Line Supervisors Support Retention
One of the critical policies and processes identified by participants as being important for
first-term soldier retention is accountability mechanisms for first-line supervisors. Notably, all 12
participants discussed the notion of accountability as critical for preventing soldier attrition. P12
discussed the importance and drawbacks of accountability mechanisms prescribed by the Army.
P12 said:
Accountability mechanisms for first-line supervisors are crucial for maintaining
discipline, ensuring adherence to standards, and promoting effective leadership. In some
cases, the rigid nature of these mechanisms may limit flexibility or discourage
110

innovation. Striking a balance between accountability and empowering leaders to make
informed decisions is essential for effective leadership.
P12 believed that accountability is critical for first-line supervisors, as the accountability
provided by the Army allows for equity in leadership. P12 noted that some of the accountability
mechanisms in place were regular evaluations by supervisors and performance reviews.
However, P12 also noted that accountability can also prevent effective leadership by limiting the
flexibility of first-line supervisors. P11 also highlighted the same accountability mechanism and
reiterated the same general ideas. P11 said, “accountability mechanisms provide a framework for
me to assess my performance and identify areas for improvement.” P11 and P12 both agreed that
accountability is critical for leadership, but also highlighted that such accountability can limit
their sphere of influence on first-term soldiers. Actions needed to prevent soldier attrition, in
some cases, may go against Army regulations, thereby limiting the first-line’s supervisor’s
ability to influence or prevent soldier attrition. This idea was reiterated by 9 other participants.
Thus, the accountability mechanisms present in the Army, while necessary for leadership, may
actually contribute to soldier attrition in meaningful ways.
Two participants believed that the demonstration of accountability also positively
influences soldier retention by providing transparency. For example, P2 said, “I think the
accountability of the Army is important for soldier retention. When soldiers see that there is a set
standard for everyone, they don’t feel singled out.” Based on P2’s experience, soldiers who can
view accountability with transparency see what is allowed and not allowed, which allows for
growth into leadership positions in subsequent terms. P4 also believed that accountability is
important for soldier attrition. P4 said, “I think that when soldiers see their leaders being held
accountable, they can see a path for the future. Seeing a path for the future leads to retention.”
111

Thus, while the accountability of the Army may hinder junior NCOs in some respects,
accountability serves as a critical factor in first-term soldiers’ visions for their futures, based on
the participants’ experiences.
Theme 2: Communicating Values and Expectations
Effective leaders require superior communication skills. Employees working under
leaders with poor communication skills often lack purpose in their employment (Cortellazzo et
al., 2019). Transformational leaders often prioritize the communication of shared values and
employee expectations (Santoso et al., 2022). Perhaps not surprisingly, another attribute the 12
participants ubiquitously identified as being critical for soldier retention is the clear
communication of values and expectations. The communication of expectations and values is
one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. Army (U.S. Army, 2018). Notably, all 12 interview
participants believed that communicating values and expectations contributes to either soldier
retention or attrition. According to the participants, when there is clear communication of values
and expectations, soldiers are likely to be retained, due to effective performance toward their
missions. For example, P4 said, “The Army stresses communication of expectations. When
leaders are clear with their expectations, soldiers are able to take those directions and perform.
Good performance leads to recognition, which leads to soldier retention.” P6 also noted that clear
communication leads to enhanced performance of first-term soldiers. P6 described,
First-term soldiers are like deer in headlights. They don’t know what to do unless you
explicitly spell it out. But, they’re all in the Army because they’re dedicated to their
mission. When communication is clear, the mission is less likely to fail. Failure is what
leads to soldier attrition.
112

P4 and P6 noted the significance of clear communication in influencing soldier performance,
which in turn, influences soldier attrition. This theme is reminiscent of the encourage the heart
leadership practice described in RQ2. When discussing ways the participants encourage the
heart, two participants believed that praising soldiers for their accomplishments contributed to
their retention. Thus, clear communication of values and expectations influences performance,
which, in turn, contributes to praise and recognition.
Two participants noted that when communication between leaders and subordinates
breaks down, so does performance. For example, P7 said, “one problem with first-line
supervisors is that they’re green and sometimes they don’t know what they’re doing. Lack of
clear communication can lead to mission failure, which leads to admonishment of the entire
team.” P7 described the one facet of the Army hierarchy, namely that inexperienced leaders are
responsible for leading first-term soldiers, as a factor that may influence soldier attrition. P7
noted that first-line supervisors often lack the experience necessary for effective leadership of
first-term soldiers. P10 also reiterated these same ideas. P10 said, “ineffective leadership can be
crippling and can really lead to a miserable existence for first-term soldiers. Soldiers who are
miserable leave. It’s really that simple.” Thus, communication of values and expectations can
either contribute to soldier retention, when communication is clear and effective, or soldier
attrition, when communication is unclear or ineffective. Thus, clear communication, a tenet of
the U.S. Army, is critical for first-term soldier retention.
Summary of Results and Findings

In this chapter, I presented the results and findings from semi-structured interviews and
LPI surveys with first-line supervisors. Fifty-six participants who supervise first-term soldiers
completed the LPI survey and 12 participants completed semi-structured interviews. In analysis
113

of RQ1, which interrogated how well participants believed the U.S. Army prepared them to lead
first-term soldiers. The participants’ opinions were varied. Some participants felt prepared by
their leadership programs and training to lead first-term soldiers. However, other participants
described feeling more competent as leaders after completing leadership training, but not
competent to lead first-term soldiers specifically. Other participants did not feel that the U.S.
Army prepared them to lead first-term soldiers. Thus, the participants had varied experiences,
likely depending on the quality of their first-line supervisors and the leadership training
programs they attended.
RQ2 examined which specific attributes first-line supervisors use to promote soldier
retention among first-term soldiers. Five leadership practices were examined through both the LI
and semi-structured interviews: (a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the
process, (d) enable others to act, and (e) encourage the heart. Participants cited each leadership
attribute as important for leading first-term soldiers, and to some degree, each leadership
attribute was important for preventing attrition. The model the way leadership attribute was
described by participants as important for setting a good example for first-term soldiers, teaching
and demonstrating professionalism. The inspire a shared vision leadership attribute allowed first-
term soldiers to understand the short-term and long-term goals of their mission and how these
goals fit into the context of the U.S. Army. Participants strived to allow first-term soldiers to
challenge the way by seeking innovative and creative ways to solve problems, also enabling
others to act. Finally, participants believed that encouraging the heart was critical for preventing
soldier attrition by recognizing and applauding significant efforts and accomplishments. Taken
together, each leadership attribute is important for leading first-term soldiers.
114

In RQ3, I examined the policies and practices of the U.S. Army that lead to first-line
supervisors’ perceived abilities to lead first-term soldiers and prevent attrition. Two main themes
were elucidated by the participants. The first was effective communication of expectations and
values. The participants’ discussed communication as an essential facet of U.S. Army leadership
training. They described effective and clear communication as contributing to the optimization of
soldiers’ performances, which leads to recognition and soldier retention. On the other hand,
ineffective communication and poor leadership leads to poor performance, soldier admonisher
and may contribute to soldier attrition. Similarly, accountability mechanisms for first-line
supervisors were discussed. All participants believed that accountability was critical for
leadership of first-term soldiers. Some participants described accountability as being positive by
providing transparency for first-term soldiers. Such transparency allowed them to view the next
stage of their military career with clarity. However, accountability can also limit the ability of
first-line supervisors in actions they can take to advocate for their first-term soldiers, thereby
preventing some leadership capacities. Thus, the mechanisms in place within the U.S. Army can
both contribute to or prevent soldier attrition, depending on the capacity of the first-line
supervisor. Additionally, based on the findings, the culture or structure system of the Army
appears to challenge rather than support first-line supervisors. Chapter 5 will present evidence-
based recommendations to address the identified results or findings, ensuring that actionable
steps are proposed to address the issues and promote positive change in the relevant areas.

115

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations

Soldier attrition from the U.S. Army has been a problem since the inception of the U.S.
armed forces. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line
supervisors regarding Army organizational support systems, including training and
accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their
supervision. Chapter Five first discusses the study’s findings. These findings will be placed
within the context of the existing academic literature, as discussed in the literature review. Next,
the chapter contains general evidence-based recommendations for first line-supervisor
preparation based on the study’s findings. Limitations and delimitations of the study are also
discussed. Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and the
study's broader implications. The recommendations provided in the study appear to be viable and
relevant for improving first-term soldier retention within the U.S. Army Division. They align
with the needs and challenges identified by the participants, as well as with broader research on
employee retention and engagement. However, it's worth mentioning that the viability of the
recommendations may depend on various factors, such as the organization's commitment to
implementing the proposed changes, available resources, and the willingness of leaders to
embrace a culture of continuous improvement. Moreover, the study is limited to a specific U.S.
Army Division in the southern United States, which could potentially limit the generalizability of
the findings to other divisions or branches of the military. It would be essential for the U.S.
Army to carefully assess the applicability and potential impact of the recommendations in
different contexts and divisions.
Discussion of Findings and Results

116

The problem of practice supported achieving equitable outcomes in that the study
attempted to address the negative impact poor leadership has on the attrition rate within this all-
volunteer force. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted first-line
supervisors within a U.S. Army Division regarding leading and retaining first-term soldiers. The
findings from this mixed methodological research study will be explored in detail. The first data
collection method was a census survey sent to the entire population of the U.S. Army Division
under examination in the study. The survey consisted of three sections. First, it contained
screening questions that enabled me to ensure that only those individuals who met the inclusion
criteria for the study continued forward with the study. Second, the survey included relevant
questions regarding age and leadership experience, among other characteristics, that could be
compared to the leadership practices interrogated by the LPI (Appendix F). Finally, the third
portion of the survey was a Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) adapted from the original
survey proposed by Posner and Kouzes (1988). Next, the main qualitative instrument in the study
was the use of semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. The interviews were used
to explore the perceptions of enlisted first-line supervisors regarding the attributes, policies, and
processes required to lead first-term soldiers effectively.
Discussion of RQ1 Themes
The participants in the study revealed three prominent themes regarding the preparation
and training provided to them for leading first-term soldiers. These themes included: (a) Little
preparation for leading first-term soldiers, (b) Leadership training but not specific for first-term
soldiers, and (c) Insufficient preparation for leading first-term soldiers. Firstly, they expressed
that there was (a) little preparation focused explicitly on leading first-term soldiers. The
participants perceived a lack of guidance and support in understanding first-term soldiers' unique
117

challenges and needs, which hindered their effectiveness as leaders. Secondly, while leadership
training was available, (b) such training was not explicitly tailored for leading first-term soldiers.
The participants highlighted the importance of training programs addressing the specific
concerns and responsibilities of leading individuals in their first term of service.
The participants stressed the value of mentoring programs for supplying newer recruits
with support, direction, and career advice. Based on the findings by Wenger et al. (2018), NCOs
tend to be promoted quickly and without indication of effective leadership; therefore, they could
account for less than effective leadership to the recruits. Similarly, the participants emphasized
how crucial it is for the U.S. Army Division to provide efficient channels for communication.
For example, some participants voiced the need for forums where people may voice their
opinions and have the participants underline meaningful conversations with the leadership.
According to Sanders (2018), a competent NCO is an effective communicator, and without clear
communication, leadership, training, consultation, coaching, mentorship, and team building are
impossible. The communication competency also covers written (grammar and English) and
vocal (public speaking/military briefings) communication (NCOLCoE, 2020).
Finally, the participants expressed that the (c) overall preparation for leading first-term
soldiers was insufficient. They felt that the existing training programs and resources did not
adequately equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to lead and support first-term
soldiers effectively. Participants explained that the initial training and orientation seminars
needed to provide them with more information regarding chances for personal and professional
growth, rewards, and career advancement. These findings are congruent with the results by
Dingle et al. (2021), which posited that leaders could integrate new soldiers faster into their
teams if their sponsorship program is vital. Dingle et al. (2021) further explain that the leaders
118

ensure soldiers have access to food, clothing, childcare, and health care when they arrive.
Therefore, more emphasis should be placed on these leaders during onboarding.
Discussion of RQ2 Themes
Data derived from quantitative analysis of the LPI survey and qualitative interviews were
used to answer this research question. The participants elucidated five categories: (a) Model the
Way, (b) Inspire a shared vision, (c) Challenge the process, (d) Enable others to act, and (e)
Encourage the heart. The findings for each category are subsequently presented. Model the way
was addressed by the LPI and semi-structured interviews. Firstly, the category of "Model the
Way" emerged, highlighting the importance of leaders setting a positive example through their
actions and behaviors. Secondly, the category of "Inspire a shared vision" underscored the
significance of leaders inspiring and mobilizing others towards a common goal. The third
category, "Challenge the process," emphasized the need for leaders to encourage innovation and
foster a culture of continuous improvement. The fourth category, "Enable others to act,"
highlighted the importance of empowering and supporting team members to contribute their best
efforts. Lastly, the category of "Encourage the heart" emphasized the role of leaders in
recognizing and celebrating the achievements and contributions of their team members. In line
with the findings, the literature explains that training, education, and experiential events cultivate
the leadership qualities of military leaders (Guttieri, 2021). Specifically, leadership in the
military focuses on service, caring for others in war and peace, and putting others' needs before
their own.
In line with the fourth and fifth themes, the participants reiterated that fostering a
welcoming and pleasant culture for first-term soldiers within the U.S. Army Division is crucial.
Supporting this finding, the literature explains that the goals and objectives of an organization,
119

coupled with its leaders and leadership styles, determine its success (Alrowwad & Abualoush,
2020). These recommendations include implementing comprehensive leadership development
programs, empowering, and supporting leaders to delegate and value diverse perspectives,
establishing mechanisms for recognition and celebration of team members' achievements,
fostering a culture that celebrates diversity and promotes teamwork, and providing first-term
soldiers with a range of professional development opportunities. Specifically, the necessity for
initiatives and programs that celebrate diversity fosters teamwork and acknowledges the
participants, emphasizing the efforts of all soldiers. Furthermore, the findings made clear how
important it is to give first-term soldiers access to various professional development
options. Finally, the findings indicate that there are perceived barriers to leadership and
communication within the culture and structure of the military.

Discussion of RQ3 Themes
The findings of RQ3 shed light on the policies and practices of the US Army Division
that impact the perceived abilities of first-line supervisors to lead first-term soldiers. The two
themes based on the findings include (a) effective communication and (b) accountability
mechanisms for first-line supervisors. Clear and effective communication was crucial in
optimizing soldiers' performance, leading to recognition and retention. Accountability was seen
as positive, providing transparency and clarity for soldiers regarding their military career
progression. However, it was also noted that accountability could sometimes restrict the ability
of first-line supervisors to advocate for their soldiers, limiting their leadership capacities. Based
on the literature, which describes the expected duties and competencies for first line supervisors
120

(Wiggs, 2020). Specifically, first-line supervisors who excel in these areas are better equipped to
lead and retain first-term soldiers successfully (NCOLCoE, 2020).
Limitations and Delimitations
Delimitations are the factors that limit the scope and describe the boundaries of a study,
such as a sample size, the setting or location, and the characteristics of the population
(Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). The study was delimited to participants at the E-4 or E-5 rank
who serve in the United States Army in a specific Division in the Southern United States. The
rank delimitation was chosen because soldiers with an E-4 or E-5 rank are specifically tasked
with leading first-term soldiers. Moreover, individuals who have attained ranks of E-6 or greater
generally lead soldiers who have advanced to their second term. Therefore, the delimitation of
participants to the rank of E-4 or E-5 allowed for selecting individuals who directly supervise
first-term soldiers and, therefore, had detailed knowledge of the phenomenon under
investigation. The study was further delimited to participants of any race, ethnicity, and gender.
The delimitation of race, ethnicity, and gender were selected because the study aimed to
understand the perceptions of E-4 or E-5 leaders across the Division who supervise first-term
soldiers but not the perceptions of a specific race, ethnicity, or gender. Leadership practices and
military doctrine do not separate leaders by race, ethnicity, or gender.
The limitations of a study are weaknesses within the research design that could affect the
outcome and conclusions of the study (Ross & Bibler Zaidi, 2019). One limitation of the study
was the choice to delimit the study participants to those serving in a specific Division of the U.S.
Army. This delimitation may have placed limitations on the transferability of the study, in that
the thoughts and perceptions of only the participants in one Division may not be transferable to
the general population, which was all team leaders in the U.S. Army that supervise first-term
121

soldiers. However, the Division central to this research study has approximately 10,000 soldiers
with team leaders from diverse age groups, ethnicities, and background experiences. This
suggests that the sample may be reflective of the general population. Another limitation was the
truthfulness of the respondents. To mitigate this limitation, I reminded participants that their data
is confidential and encouraged them to respond truthfully.
Despite the anonymity of the survey, respondents' responses may have been influenced
by social desirability. Even if participants were not afraid of immediate consequences or
judgment from the researchers, they may have been influenced by an unconscious desire to show
themselves favorably or match their responses with what they perceive is socially acceptable. To
address the possibility of social desirability in survey results, in addition to making the survey
anonymous, I also shared my own experiences with the participants in efforts to minimize their
potential tendency to provide socially desirable answers.
Recommendations for Practice

The Army has the greatest and the Marine Corps has the lowest first-term servicemember
attrition rates (Marrone, 2020). Attrition rates reach their highest across all services shortly
before six months, then level out around 12 months, remaining at about 18.5% for the Marine
Corps and 29.7% for the Army for 36 months (Marrone, 2020). The attrition rate for the U.S.
Army is 5.1% after three months, but it nearly doubles to 9.9% after six months, then rises to
15% after a year, and reaches its peak rate of 29.7% after 36 months (Marrone, 2020). The
current study’s findings indicate that there is a need for effective communication and improved
preparation for first-line supervisors. There are three recommendations identified below to
address critical findings.
122

Recommendation 1: Strengthen Leadership and Communication Through Leader
Development Programs
Leadership development programs can strengthen the quality of leadership encountered
by first-term soldiers. Leadership can significantly influence an individual’s initial experience
with an organization. An individual's first assignment can significantly affect their likelihood of
failing to adapt, according to Marrone et al. (2021). These programs should include thorough
instruction and materials to improve decision-making, leadership, and communication skills
(Wenger et al., 2018). Additionally, the U.S. Army Division can ensure enlisted first-line
supervisors are ready to lead and support the retention of first-term soldiers by providing them
with the required equipment and training in technical, tactical, and leadership areas to enhance
their ability to lead and support the retention of first-term soldiers effectively (Kirchner &
Akdere, 2019; Rauen & Hill, 2018).
Participants emphasized that initial training and orientation programs must be improved
to provide clear and comprehensive information about career progression, benefits, and
professional growth opportunities. Therefore, implementing this measure can ensure new
soldiers feel valued, supported, and connected to the organization (U.S. Army, 2015).
Furthermore, participants highlighted the importance of incorporating interactive and hands-on
activities during the initial training and orientation programs to address real life leadership and
conflict scenarios. Based on these responses, it is recommended to implement real-world
scenarios, simulations, and hands-on training would improve the educational process and better
prepare new soldiers for any difficulties they may encounter in their positions (NCOLCoE,
2020).
123

Effective leadership can lead to effective communication. Acccording to Briggs et al.
(2022) and Hoffman and Tadelis (2021), it is essential to develop platforms and processes
allowing open and transparent communication between soldiers and leadership to improve
communication. Specifically, creating an environment where soldiers feel free to voice their
opinions and the leadership actively hears them is crucial. By encouraging trust, involvement,
and a sense of belonging among soldiers, this two-way communication channel eventually helps
to boost morale and raise retention rates (Yuengert, 2020).
Fostering communication between leaders and first-term soldiers is crucial for building a
strong working relationship and ensuring a smooth onboarding process. According to Armijo
(2017) and Rauen and Hill (2018), some tangible ways to promote effective communication are:
1. Welcome meeting: Schedule a one-on-one welcome meeting with the first-term solider as
soon as they join the U.S. Army. This meeting provides an opportunity for the leader to
introduce themselves, share the organization's values and goals, and establish an open
line of communication from the start.
2. Regular check-ins: Establish a schedule for regular check-in meetings or informal check-
ins. These can be weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly depending on the needs and preferences
of both the leader and the first-term solider. These meetings allow for open dialogue,
address any concerns, provide feedback, and offer guidance on the new soldier's progress.
3. Team meetings: Including the first-term soldier in team meetings allows them to get
acquainted with their colleagues, understand ongoing projects, and discover the broader
goals of the team. Actively involving the first-term soldier in discussions and seeking
their input demonstrates that their voice is valued.
124

4. Clear expectations: Clearly communicate the roles, responsibilities, and performance
expectations to the first-term soldier. Clarity in expectations helps them understand the
team's objectives and their contributions in meeting those goals. It also minimizes
miscommunication and fosters a transparent working relationship.
5. Set goals and milestones: Collaboratively establish short-term goals and milestones with
the first-term soldier. Regularly review and track progress to provide feedback and ensure
alignment with the team's objectives. This practice facilitates communication around
expectations, progress, and any adjustments required along the way.
6. Use technology: Leverage technology tools such as communication platforms, project
management software, or intranets to facilitate communication and collaboration between
the leader and the first-term soldier. These tools enable easy access to information,
updates on ongoing projects, and opportunities for remote communication.
7. Feedback channels: Create feedback channels where the first-term soldier can freely
express their thoughts, concerns, or suggestions. This can be in the form of periodic
surveys, suggestion boxes, or anonymous feedback platforms. Assure the first-term
soldier that their feedback is valued, and take appropriate actions based on their input.
By implementing these tangible strategies, leaders can foster effective communication with first-
term soldiers, create a positive work environment, and establish a solid foundation for their
professional growth within the organization.
Recommendation 2: Promote Positive Culture and Sense of Purpose
Transformational leaders promote follower engagement by empowering them. Employee
empowerment can promote a positive employment culture (Chanana & Sangeeta, 2021).
Transformational leaders also instill a sense of purpose in their followers by communicating
125

shared vision, expectation and goals. Based on the findings, for RQ2 and the ‘model the way’
initiative, it is recommended to establish a welcoming and inclusive environment that celebrates
diversity, fosters teamwork, and honors the contributions of all soldiers to improve the
organizational culture. Five participants believed that modeling the way is critical for leading
first-term soldiers, contributing to their retention. However, three participants expressed
frustration believing they can do so much to model the first-term soldiers. Establishing this
environment can be accomplished by implementing initiatives and activities that honor diverse
cultures, ethnicities, and viewpoints (Gkolia et al., 2018). First tern soldier development can
leverage the strength of various perspectives, experiences, and skills by promoting an inclusive
atmosphere, which will boost creativity and collaboration (Chanana & Sangeeta, 2021; U.S.
Army, 2015). Additionally, it is essential to consistently emphasize the Army's mission and
principles to help soldiers develop a sense of purpose and pride in their nation's service
(Shemella, 2021). A strong sense of commitment and drive is instilled in first-term soldiers by
highlighting their significant impact on national security and their communities.
The following recommendation are tangible mechanisms that can be used to promote a
positive culture and sense of purpose among first-term soldiers (Briggs et al., 2022; Hoffman &
Tadelis, 2021).
1. Mentor or buddy system: Assigning a mentor or buddy to first-term soldier can be highly
beneficial. A designated mentor provides guidance, shares knowledge, and helps the new
employee navigate the organization's culture, practices, and procedures. This mentorship
relationship encourages regular communication and establishes a support system from
day one.
126

2. Open-door policy: Leaders should create a welcoming and inclusive environment by
implementing an open-door policy. This means encouraging first-term soldiers to
approach them with any questions, concerns, or ideas they may have. By making
themselves accessible, leaders demonstrate their willingness to listen and support their
team members.
3. Celebrate milestones: Recognize and celebrate accomplishments and milestones reached
by the first-term soldier. This can be done publicly within the team or organization.
Celebrating achievements not only motivates the first-term soldier but also reinforces a
positive communication culture within the team.
Implementing these strategies can help foster a positive environment for first-term soldiers,
enabling leaders to promote and instill a sense of purpose in their soldiers.
Recommendation 3: Invest in Professional Development for First Line Supervisors
Based on the findings for RQ3, it is recommended to create successful leadership
development programs emphasizing effective leadership at all levels to strengthen leadership
within the U.S. Army Division. Specifically, five participants stated that there was only adequate
preparation for leading first-term soldiers and four participants explained that there was
insufficient preparation for leading first-term soldiers. Investing in their professional
development is essential for first-term soldiers to improve and remain in the military (Armijo,
2017; Kirchner, 2018). Based on the findings of RQ3, accountability implementation and
professional development are two critical aspects of fostering effective leadership and promoting
growth within an organization, including the military (CAPL, 2020; U.S. Army, 2020). These
elements play a vital role in ensuring that individuals are held responsible for their actions and
127

decisions while providing them with opportunities to enhance their skills and knowledge (CAPL,
2020).
To assist soldiers in gaining new skills, information, and credentials, it is recommended
to provide a wide range of professional development options, such as training programs,
workshops, and certifications (Wenger et al., 2018). To provide soldiers with a feeling of
purpose and progression within the Army, it is equally crucial to provide clear avenues for career
advancement and ongoing study (Chanana & Sangeeta, 2021; U.S. Army, 2015). Finding any
obstacles or difficulties that frequently cause first-term soldiers to leave the military can be done
by collecting feedback from the troops and reviewing retention statistics.
Integrated Recommendations
Based on participant feedback and research findings, this proposed program aims to
integrate the recommendations to enhance the U.S. Army Division. The recommendations focus
on improving the onboarding process, strengthening leadership and mentorship programs,
improving benefits and work-life balance, promoting a positive culture, and investing in
professional development. By implementing these recommendations, the U.S. Army Division
aims to attract and retain talented first-term soldiers, foster a supportive and inclusive
environment, improve communication, and provide opportunities for growth and advancement
(Asch, 2019; Pendleton, 2019; Spoehr & Handy, 2018).
As they acknowledge the significance of multiple systems and settings in impacting the
experiences and outcomes of first-term U.S. Army troops, the recommendations are consistent
with Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model (1979). The onboarding process has been
improved, recognizing the importance of the microsystem and providing new soldiers with
support in their immediate surroundings (Pendleton, 2019; Spoehr & Handy, 2018). The
128

development of leadership and mentoring programs aligns with the mesosystem, which
emphasizes the value of interactions and connections between various people and groups
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The exosystem's influence can be seen in the emphasis on
communication, which acknowledges the importance of external elements like organizational
rules and practices. In light of the broader socioeconomic and cultural influences on soldiers'
experiences, promoting a healthy culture and investment in professional development aligns with
the macro system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The following proposal outlines a sequence for
implementing the recommendations and provides a timeline for their execution.
Step 1: Improve the Onboarding Process
Reviewing and enhancing the existing training and orientation programs is recommended
based on recommendation one to improve the onboarding process. Then, clear and
comprehensive modules should be developed to provide new soldiers with information about
their career progression, benefits, and professional growth opportunities as recommendation
three suggests (Asch, 2019; Pendleton, 2019). Additionally, incorporating interactive and hands-
on activities, such as real-world scenarios and simulations, could enhance the educational
process and better prepare new soldiers for their challenges (Kirchner & Akdere, 2019).
Furthermore, based on recommendation two, feedback mechanisms should be established to
collect input from new soldiers and make necessary adjustments to improve their experience.
Step 2: Strengthen Leadership, Mentorship, and Communication
Designing and implementing leadership development programs at all levels is crucial to
strengthen leadership and mentorship, focusing on decision-making, leadership, and
communication skills (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Pendleton, 2019). Based on recommendation one
and three, this should include aiding in the development of enlisted first-line supervisors,
129

thorough training and resources should be offered, and to provide direction, support, and career
advice, professional development programs connecting seasoned soldiers with recruits should be
established (Armijo, 2017; Asch, 2019). Furthermore, in line with recommendation two, open
and transparent communication channels should also be established to encourage trust,
involvement, and a sense of belonging between soldiers and leadership.
Step 3: Promoting a Positive Culture and Sense of Purpose
According to recommendation two, promoting a positive culture and a sense of purpose
requires implementing initiatives and activities that celebrate diversity, foster teamwork, and
honor the contributions of all soldiers. Providing a welcoming environment where different
viewpoints, experiences, and abilities can be shared is essential (Pendleton, 2019; Spoehr &
Handy, 2018). Soldiers will grow in their feeling of purpose and pride in their service if the
Army's mission and guiding principles are consistently reinforced. Feedback mechanisms should
be established to evaluate the results of these activities and make the required corrections in light
of feedback and analysis in line with recommendation one (Briggs et al., 2022).
Step 4: Invest in Professional Development
Focusing on recommendation three, investing in professional development for first line
supervisors and individuals is crucial for the growth and retention of first-term soldiers.
According to Kirchner (2018) and Spoehr and Handy (2018), soldiers can develop new abilities,
knowledge, and credentials by taking advantage of various options, including training courses,
workshops, and certifications. In order to give soldiers a feeling of direction and progression
within the Army, it is essential to establish clear avenues for career advancement and continued
education (Asch, 2019; Chanana & Sangeeta, 2021). Following recommendation one, feedback
130

from troops and extensive exit interviews with departing soldiers should be gathered to identify
the obstacles or difficulties that lead to high turnover rates and inform organizational reforms.
Step 5: Implementation and Evaluation
Creating an implementation plan with specific dates, roles, and budgets is essential. To
track progress, regular evaluations and checkpoints should be made (Chanana & Sangeeta,
2021). Additionally, it is essential to gather feedback from leaders, mentors, and troops to assess
how well the measures implemented have worked (Pendleton, 2019). Constant evaluation and
strategy adaption based on input and analysis will ensure ongoing relevance and impact. The
U.S. Army Division can improve troop satisfaction, increase retention rates, and develop a
stronger and more resilient force by putting this complete plan into practice.
Recommendations for Future Research
While the current study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of E-4 or E-5
leaders within a specific U.S. Army Division regarding the retention of first-term soldiers,
several limitations suggest avenues for future research. First, future studies could expand the
sample size and include participants from multiple divisions or branches of the military to obtain
a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing first-term soldier retention across
different contexts. This would provide a broader perspective and enhance the generalizability of
the findings. In addition, it would be beneficial to investigate the perceptions of soldiers from
various ranks and positions within the military hierarchy. By including a diverse range of
participants, such as soldiers of higher ranks and those who have completed multiple terms,
researchers can explore how different leadership roles and experiences shape the understanding
of retention challenges and strategies. Additional characteristics like socioeconomic status,
educational level, and individual military recruitment incentives would benefit first-term soldier
131

retention. Based on the limitations, studies on how women and minorities view leadership in the
U.S. Army Division would be beneficial. Understanding how these elements interact with
organizational support and leadership practices may offer important insights into how to promote
equity and diversity within the military. Lastly, future studies could explore the long-term
outcomes of implementing the recommended retention strategies. Researchers can assess the
effectiveness and sustainability of the implemented measures by conducting follow-up studies
and tracking first-term soldiers' career trajectories and satisfaction levels over an extended
period.
Implications for Equity

By addressing the unique needs and concerns of soldiers from all backgrounds, these
initiatives will also promote a more egalitarian atmosphere inside the U.S. Army. Furthermore,
preventing soldier attrition will increase the diversity of the Army by allowing diverse candidates
to move through the ranks and become effective first-term soldier supervisors. Specifically,
strengthening leadership and mentorship programs can provide equal opportunities for guidance
and support, regardless of rank or experience. Creating effective communication channels allows
for equal participation and engagement, ensuring all soldiers have a voice and can provide input
and trust that it will carry within the chain of command. Based on the findings, enhancing
compensation and benefits, prioritizing work-life balance, fostering a positive and inclusive
culture, and investing in professional development can create an equitable environment where
soldiers can thrive and succeed regardless of background or socioeconomic barriers. Finally, by
conducting regular evaluations and exit interviews, the U.S. Army Division can identify and
address systemic issues or obstacles that may disproportionately affect certain groups of soldiers.
132

Implementing these recommendations will promote equity, fairness, and equal opportunities for
all soldiers within the U.S. Army Division.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors
regarding Army organizational support systems, including training and accountability
mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision. It is
becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to recruit, train, and retain soldiers, especially as
the Army rises in size (Hogue & Miller, 2020). First-term troops, who are still serving under
their initial contract but have not reenlisted, depart the military for a variety of reasons (M. G.
Hughes et al., 2020). All branches of the military experience first-term attrition, which occurs
when recruits fail to finish their first contracts (Marrone, 2020). In Chapter Five, I discussed the
study's findings and outlined recommendations supported by evidence based on the study's
findings. The study identified several key themes related to the preparation and training provided
for leading first-term soldiers, as well as the leadership practices necessary for effective
leadership. The five leadership attributes identified—model the way, inspire a shared vision,
challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart—were considered crucial for
leading first-term soldiers and preventing attrition. Understanding and implementing these
attributes can help foster a positive and motivating environment for soldiers, ultimately
improving retention rates. Specifically, the findings highlighted the need for improvements in
leadership, mentorship, and communication, the establishment of a positive culture and sense of
purpose, and investments in professional development. Therefore, the recommendations included
improving the onboarding process, strengthening leadership, mentorship, and communication,
133

promoting a positive culture, and investing in professional development and accountability
mechanisms. By implementing these recommendations, the U.S. Army Division can enhance
troop satisfaction, increase retention rates, and develop a stronger and more resilient force.
Further research and evaluation will be necessary to assess the effectiveness of these
recommendations and make any necessary adjustments. In conclusion, this study contributes
valuable insights to the ongoing efforts to improve leadership and retention within the U.S.
Army, emphasizing the importance of addressing the specific needs and challenges faced by
first-term soldiers. Further research and evaluation will be necessary to gauge the effectiveness
of the proposed recommendations and to adapt them to different military contexts. By
continuously working towards better preparing and supporting first-line supervisors, the U.S.
Army can enhance its ability to lead and retain soldiers effectively, ensuring a more capable and
motivated fighting force.
134

References
AdeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage.
Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Does thriving and trust in the leader explain the link between
transformational leadership and innovative work behavior? A cross-sectional survey.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987119880583
Alexander, R. P. (2020). Mission command: The need for disciplined initiative. Army Command
and General Staff College. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1158686.pdf
Alrowwad, A. A., & Abualoush, S. H. (2020). Innovation and intellectual capital as intermediary
variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational
performance. Journal of Management Development, 39(2), 196-222.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-02-2019-0062
Amin, B., Hamidah, H., & Gunawan, K. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership,
power distance, and followership on the decision making capability. Management Science
Letters, 10(16), 3915-3922. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.7.019
Anglemyer, A., Speten, K., Shingleton, J., Alt, J., & Smith, A. D. (2018). Predicting US army
first-term attrition after initial entry training. Army TRADOC analysis center monterey.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1063055
Arifin, S. (2018). Ethical considerations in qualitative study. International Journal of Care
Scholars, 1(2), 30-33. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijcs.v1i2.82
Armijo, F. A. (2017). Effects of transformational leadership in the attrition of US service
members [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University].
https://search.proquest.com/openview/cef79aadeb3a2b6b5e92592a85007946/1
135

Asch, B. J. (2019). Setting military compensation to support recruitment, retention, and
performance. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr3197
Ashton, A. S. (2018). How human resources management best practice influence employee
satisfaction and job retention in the Thai hotel industry. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, 17(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2017.1340759
Bagby, J. H., Barnard-Brak, L., Thompson, L. W., & Sulak, T. N. (2015). Is anyone listening? An
ecological systems perspective on veterans transitioning from the military to academia.
Military Behavioral Health, 3(4), 219–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306
Baker, B. (2018). Strategy and military technology. In Badiru, A.B., & Barlow, C.B. (Eds.).
Defense innovation handbook: guidelines, strategies, and techniques (1st ed.), (pp. 327-
334). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22181
Beauchamp, T. L. (2008). The Belmont report. In Emanuel, E. J., Grady, C., Crouch, R. A Lie, R.
K., Reidar K., Miller, F. G., Wendler, D. (Eds.). The Oxford textbook of clinical research
ethics, (pp. 149-155). Oxford Unversity Press.
Biden, J. R., Jr. (2021). Interim national security strategic guidance. Defense Technical
Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1124337
Billups, F. (2019). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications (V ol.
55). Sage Publications.
Blanco, G. L., & Rossman, G. B. (2021). As a qualitative study unfolds: Shifts in design and
analysis. In C. F. Vanover, O. A. Mihas, J. Saldana (Eds.), Analyzing and Interpreting
Qualitative Research: After the Interview, (pp. 7-22). Sage.
136

Blattner, M., Price, J., & Holtkamp, M. D. (2018). Socioeconomic class and universal healthcare:
Analysis of stroke cost and outcomes in US military healthcare. Journal of the
Neurological Sciences, 386, 64-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2018.01.018
Booth-Kewley, S., Dell’Acqua, R. G., & Thomsen, C. J. (2017). Factors affecting organizational
commitment in Navy corpsmen. Military Medicine, 182(7), e1794–e1800.
https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00316
Brandt, D. (2018). Writing development and life-course development: The case of working
adults. In B. Graham (Ed.), The Lifespan development of writing, pp. 244–71.
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/lifespan-writing/chapter8.pdf
Briggs, S. P. B., Amah, E., & Okocha, B. F. (2022). Leadership and employee affective
commitment: A literary reflection. Global Academic Journal of Economics and Business,
4(4), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajeb.2022.v04i04.002
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2), 1643– 1647). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Ecological perspectives on human
development. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952484.n105
Brooks, R., Golby, J., & Urben, H. (2021). Crisis of command: America's broken civil-military
relationship imperils national security. Foreign Affairs, 100.
https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2022-20-3-178-190
Brown, A. E. C. (2022). Leadership at the intersection of gender and race in healthcare and
science: Case studies and tools. Routledge.
137

Burek, G. (2018). Military culture: Working with veterans. American Journal of Psychiatry
Residents' Journal, 13(9), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2018.130902
Bushatz, A. (2018). Army secretary wants to boost active-duty end strength above 500,000.
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/08/09/armysecretary-wants-boost-active-duty-
end-strength-above-500000.html
Cammalleri, J. A., Hendrick, H. W., Pittman, W. C., Jr., Blout, H. D., & Prather, D. C. (1973).
Effects of different leadership styles on group accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology,
57(1), 32.
Cancian, M. F., Saxton, A., Bryan, L. A., & Helman, O. (2020). Industrial mobilization—
assessing surge capabilities, wartime risk, and system brittleness. Naval Engineers
Journal, 132(2), 39–49. https://bt.e-
ditionsbyfry.com/publication/?i=670169&article_id=3741355&view=articleBrowser&ver
=html5
Candela, A. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report,
24(3), 619-628.
Carmanti, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions. Qualitative
Health Research, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318788379

Casey, G. W., Jr. (2009). The Army of the 21st century. Army Magazine, 59(10), 30.
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/Casey211009.pdf
Center for the Army Profession and Leadership (CAPL). (2020). army training and leader
development strategy. United States Army. https://capl.army.mil/repository/army-
training.docx
138

Chanana, N., & Sangeeta. (2021). Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19
lockdown. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), e2508.
Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state,
promise and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(4), 487-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9173-2
Clarke, G. B. C. (2021). Guidelines for the leader and the commander. Rowman & Littlefield.
Cohen, B. S., Pacheco, B. M., Foulis, S. A., Canino, M. C., Redmond, J. E., Westrick, R. B.,
Hauret, K. G., & Sharp, M. A. (2019). Surveyed reasons for not seeking medical care
regarding musculoskeletal injury symptoms in US Army trainees. Military Medicine,
184(5-6), e431-e439. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy414
Cohen, E. A. (2019). Citizens and soldiers: The dilemmas of military service. Cornell University
Press.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing: Official
Journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 25(6), 435-436.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30304614/
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A
review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1938.
Cox, C. H. (1997). A Proper Sense of Honor: The Status of Soldiers and Officers of the
Continental Army, 1775–1783. University of California, Berkeley.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). Sage.
139

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V . L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Sage Publications.

Curley, J. M., Penix, E. A., Srinivasan, J., Sarmiento, D. M., McFarling, L. H., Newman, J. B., &
Wheeler, L. A. (2020). Development of the U.S. Army's suicide prevention leadership
tool: the behavioral health readiness and suicide risk reduction review (R4). Military
Medicine, 185(5-6), e668-e677. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz380
Daniel, B. K. (2019, June). What constitutes a good qualitative research study? Fundamental
dimensions and indicators of rigor in qualitative research: The TACT framework. In
Proceedings of the European Conference of Research Methods For Business &
Management Studies (pp. 101-108).
Davis, L., Tercha, J., Hill, A., Klauberg, W. X., White, A., Owen, B., Rehlberg, K., & Klahr, A.
(2020). 2019 military services gender relations focus groups: Active duty. Office of
People Analytics.
https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/15_Annex_1_2019_Military_Service_Gender_Rel
ations_Focus_Groups_Overview_Report.pdf
Deggs, D. M., & Hernandez, F. (2018). Enhancing the value of qualitative field notes through
purposeful reflection. Qualitative Report, 23(10).
Dingle, R. S., Hibbard, L., Bigelman, K., & Teyhen, D. (2021). Targeting mind and body for
soldier readiness. Association of the United States Army.
https://www.ausa.org/articles/targeting-mind-and-body-soldier-readiness
140

Doyle, L., Brady, A. M., & Byrne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed methods research. Journal
of Research in Nursing, 14(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987108093962
Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging qualitative and
quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Ecological and
Environmental Anthropology, 3(1). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18
Elliott, V . (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850-2861.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/bd8668bc7af5c395f8c00171f50100a7/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=55152
Elnitsky, C. A., Blevins, C. L., Fisher, M. P., & Magruder, K. (2017). Military service member
and veteran reintegration: A critical review and adapted ecological model. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87(2), 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000244
Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014). Qualitative
content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Evans, L. A., & Bae, K. H. G. (2019). US Army performance appraisal policy analysis: a
simulation optimization approach. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation,
16(2), 191–205.
Faris, J. H. (1977). An alternative perspective to Savage and Gabriel. Armed Forces and Society,
3(3), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x7700300306
Finney, N. K. (2022). The profession of arms. In Carroll, K. (2022). Understanding the US
military (pp. 271–287). Routledge.
141

Flowers, M. (2018). Improving strategic leadership. In Military Leadership (pp. 233-244).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495007-25
Forrero, R., Nahidi, S., De Foster, J., Fitzgerald, G., Mohsin, M., McCarthy, S., & Aboeye, S.
(2018). Application of four-dimension criteria to assess rigor of qualitative research in
emergency medicine. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 120.
https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12913-018-2915-2
Galvin, T., Waters, D., Yuengert, L., Meinhart, R., & Gellert, F. (2018). Defense management
primer for senior leaders. US Army War College.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1124858
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2011). Theories and methodology. In Lives across cultures:
cross-cultural human development (pp. 19–27). Essay, Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Ghahramanlou-Holloway, M., Koss, K., Rowan, A., LaCroix, J. M., Perera, K., Carreno, J., &
Grammer, J. (2019). Retrospective and prospective examination of outpatient mental
health utilization and military career impacts. Stigma and Health, 4(2), 143.
https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000124
Giacalone, R. A. (2000). Analysis of the revised army career transitions survey (ACTS) and
comparison with the fall 1996 sample survey of military personnel (SSMP): Results and
recommendations (ARI Report No. 2000–03). U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada377201
Gkolia, A., Koustelios, A., & Belias, D. (2018). Exploring the association between
transformational leadership and teacher’s self-efficacy in Greek education system: A
multilevel SEM model. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 176-196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1094143
142

Goertzen, M. J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative research and data. Library Technology
Reports, 53(4), 12-18. https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6325
Golba, L. W. (2021). Snapshot of early noncommissioned officer leadership transition
experiences in the US Army. Army Research Institute for The Behavioral and Social
Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1158866.pdf

Green, D. C., Holloway, I. W., Pickering, C. E., Tan, D., Tzen, M., Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C.
A. (2021). Group Perceptions Of Acceptance Of Racial/Ethnic, Sexual And Gender
Minorities In The United States Military. Military Behavioral Health, 9(2), 139-150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2020.1819486
Guhr, N., Lebek, B., & Breitner, M. H. (2019). The impact of leadership on employees' intended
information security behaviour: An examination of the full-range leadership theory.
Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 340-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12202
Gultom, J., & Budiyanto, B. (2022). Autocracy leadership in improving organizational
performance. In International Conference of Business and Social Sciences, 33-48.
http://61.8.77.171/index.php/icobuss1st/article/view/147
Gurwitch, S. (2018). Article 31 (b), Tempia-Miranda, and the military defendant. Campbell Law
Review, 40, 205.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/camplr40&div=11&id=&
page=
Gutierrez, I. A., Alders, E. A., Abulhawa, Z., & Deuster, P. A. (2021). VICTORS: A conceptual
framework for implementing and measuring military spiritual fitness. Military Behavioral
Health, 9(4), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2021.1895922
143

Guttieri, K. (2021). Professional military education in democracies. In Who guards the guardians
and how (pp. 235–262). University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/712782-012

Guzman, R., Parker, M., Gano, B., Mishra, M., & Shaw, T. F. (2022). Military experience and
school leadership development in North Carolina. Journal of Veterans Studies, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v8i1.175
Hairston, O., Jr. (2022). Us Army Junior Enlisted Attrition (E-1 Private Through E-4 Specialist):
A Qualitative Single Case Study Of Contributing Factors [Doctoral Dissertation,
Northcentral University].
Hamilton, A., & Finley, E. (2019). Qualitative methods in implementation research: An
introduction. Psychiatry Research, 280, 112516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based
Nursing, 18(3), 66-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
Herrick-Reynolds, K., Brooks, D., Wind, G., Jackson, P., & Latham, K. (2019). Military
medicine and the academic surgery gender gap. Military Medicine, 184(9-10), pp. 383–
387. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz083
Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H. B. (2018). Urie
Bronfenbrenner: Toward an evolutionary ecological systems theory. In Life History
Evolution. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90125-1_19
Hoffman, M., & Tadelis, S. (2021). People management skills, employee attrition, and manager
rewards: An empirical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 129(1), 243–285.
https://doi.org/10.1086/711409
144

Hogue, L., & Miller, B. J. (2020). Harnessing inertia to improve Army enlisted service length: A
case for opt-out enlistment contracts. Armed Forces Society, 46(1), 116–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x18785380
Hollis, E., & Yancy-Tooks, B. (2021). Reflections on leading, values, & beliefs. NCO Journal.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-
Journal/Archives/2021/March/Reflections-on-Leading-Values-Beliefs/
Huffman, A. H., Adler, A. B., Dolan, C. A., & Castro, C. A. (2005). The impact of operations
tempo on turnover intentions of army personnel. Military Psychology, 17(3), 175-202.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1703_4
Hughes, M. G., O’brien, E. L., Reeder, M. C., & Purl, J. (2020). Attrition and reenlistment in the
Army: Using the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) to improve
retention. Military Psychology, 32(1), 36–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2019.1652487
Hughes, S., Davis, T. E., & Imenda, S. N. (2019). Demystifying theoretical and conceptual
frameworks: A guide for students and advisors of educational research. Journal of Social
Sciences, 58(1-3), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566756.2019/58.1-3.2188
Hurst, D., Padilla, L., Trani, C., McClintock, A., Cooper, D., Walters, W., Hunter, J., Eckhoff, D.,
Cleveland, D., & Paris, W. (2020). Recommendations to the IRB review process in
preparation of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Xenotransplantation, 27(2), e12587.
https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12587
Ingurgio, V . J., James, D. R., Silva, G., Mitchell, B., & Scoppa, A. (2020). Soldier performance
and talent assessment: Mobile application development. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1091764.pdf
145

Janowitz, M. (1959). Changing patterns of organizational authority: The military establishment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.2307/239081
Janowitz, M. (2019). The citizen-soldier and national service. In Changing US military
manpower realities (Pp. 235–256). Routledge.
Jayasingam, N. M. S. (2019). Military leaders’ leadership styles and subordinates hardiness
level: Can transformational and transactional leadership influence soldier’s hardiness.
International Journal of Business and Management, 3, 26-36.
https://doi.org/10.26666/rmp.ijbm.2019.3.4
Jett, C. C. (2019). Mathematical persistence among four African American male graduate
students: A critical race analysis of their experiences. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 50(3), 311-340. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.3.0311
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in
qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120.
https://doi.org/10.5688%2Fajpe7120
Kapp, L. (2020). Defense primer: Military officers. Library Of Congress.
Kayaalp, A. (2018). Transformational leadership, organizational climate and individual creativity
from a military culture perspective. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts,
and Science (EIJEAS), 4(9). http://www.eijeas.com/index.php/EIJEAS/article/view/136
Kim, D. (2020). Empowering Army Leadership for future high-intensity conflicts: Assessing
Army leadership doctrine. US Army School for Advanced Military Studies.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1159323.pdf
Kimmons, S. (2018). OPAT reducing trainee attrition, avoiding millions in wasted training
dollars, officials say. U.S.Army.
146

https://www.army.mil/article/207956/opat_reducing_trainee_attrition_avoiding_millions_
in_wasted_training_dollars_officials_say
Kirchner, M. J. (2018). Veteran as leader: The lived experience with US Army leader
development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(1), 67-85.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21302
Kirchner, M. J., & Akdere, M. (2019). Exploring inclusion of leadership development into new
employee orientations: a proposed approach from army leader development.
Organization Management Journal, 16(3), 156-166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2019.1618694
Knapik, J. J., Sharp, M. A., & Montain, S. J. (2018). Association between stress fracture
incidence and predicted body fat in United States Army basic combat training recruits.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19(1), 1–8.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-018-2061-3
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. The European Journal of General Practice, 24, 120 -
124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: what's the difference?. The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 29(2), 13.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/9e519b2df53655fd0f5f39c35480c1ac/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=37083
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge workbook. John Wiley & Sons.
Kyngäs, H., Kääriäinen, M., & Elo, S. (2020). The trustworthiness of content analysis. In The
application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 41-48). Springer, Cham.
147

Lawrence, D. (2022). Urie Bronfenbrenner. Scholarly Snapshots: The Importance of Child Play
as a Human Right, 73.
Lerner, R. M. (1995). The place of learning within the human development system: A
developmental contextual perspective. Human Development, 38(6), 361–366.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000278342
Lincoln, Y . S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lindgren, B., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation during the
qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632
MacGregor, M. J. (2020). Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965: An investigation into
race relations in United States Army. e-artnow.
Margiotta, F. D. (2019). Changing military manpower realities: Implications for the next decade.
In Changing US military manpower realities (pp. 7-35). Routledge.
Marrone, J. V . (2020). Predicting 36-month attrition in the U.S. military. Rand Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/rr4258.html
Marrone, J. V ., Zimmerman, S. R., Constant, L., Posard, M. N., Kidder, K. L., Panis, C., &
Jensen, R. (2021). Organizational and cultural causes of Army first-term attrition. Rand
Corporation.
Mattis, J. (2018). Summary of the 2018 national defense strategy of the United States of
America. Department of Defense. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1045785.pdf
Matzenbacher, M. B. (2018). The US Army and mission command. Military Review, 2018, 61-
71. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-
review/Archives/English/Matzenbacher-Mission-Command.pdf
148

McCubbin, H. I., & Marsden, M. A. (2019). The military family and the changing military
profession. In The changing world of the American military (207-221). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429309489-13
McGrath, R. (2021). Journalling and memoing: Reflexive qualitative research tools. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research Methodologies in Workplace Contexts (pp. 245-262).
Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904345.00022
McInerney, S. A., Waldrep, E., & Benight, C. C. (2022). Resilience enhancing programs in the
US military: An exploration of theory and applied practice. Military Psychology, pp. 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2086418
Meese, M. (2022). The United States Army. In Understanding the Us Military (Pp. 45–60).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003154877-6
Mendez, B., Kamarck, K., Kapp, L., Ott, A., & Torreon, B. (2020). FY2020 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected military personnel issues. Library of Congress.
Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal
processes: What Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn’t mean, and what he should have
meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321-334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12373
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Micewski, E. R. (2021). Conscription or the all-volunteer force: Recruitment in a democratic
society. In Who guards the guardians and how, 208-234. University of Texas Press.
https://doi.org/10.7560/712782-011
149

Michell, D., Szabo, C., Falkner, K., & Szorenyi, A. (2018). Towards a socio-ecological
framework to address gender inequity in computer science. Computers & Education, 126,
324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.019
Molloy, J. M., Pendergrass, T. L., Lee, I. E., Chervak, M. C., Hauret, K. G., & Rhon, D. I.
(2020). Musculoskeletal injuries and United States Army readiness part I: Overview of
injuries and their strategic impact. Military Medicine, 185(9-10).
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usaa027
Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry.
Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212-1222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973231558850
Moustaka, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moyers, D. (Ed.). (2020). Frontline leadership: leadership advice for usaf junior officers, mid-
grade officers, & NCOs. BoD–Books on Demand.
Muhammad, R. S., Wolters, H. M., & Jayne, B. S. (2020). Personality testing: Enhancing in-
service selection of mid-career soldiers. Military Psychology, 32(1), 71–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2019.1654294
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Navarro, J., Doucet, F., & Tudge, J. (2020). Bioecological systems influences on early childhood
education. In Scientific Influences on Early Childhood Education (pp. 55-68). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429468285-4
150

NCO Journal Staff. (2018). Mastering the art of dynamic leadership. NCO Journal.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/nco-journal/archives/2018/august/dynamic-
leadership/
NCOLCoE. (2020). Bulletin No. 1-19, Developing the Future of the NCO Corps through
Education: NCO Common Core Competencies (NCOC3). The NCO Leadership Center of
Excellence & U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.
https://www.ncolcoe.army.mil/Portals/71/publications/ref/1-19-NCOC3.pdf?ver=2020-
03-09-111137-160

Nguyen, N. Q. (2021). Basic factors regular for developing scientific belief of non-
commissioned officers, soldiers in the power of fighting Vietnamese People's Army.
European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, (3), 74-78.
https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46373897
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Obuobi-Donkor, G., Oluwasina, F., Nkire, N., & Agyapong, V . I. (2022). A scoping review on the
prevalence and determinants of post-traumatic stress disorder among military personnel
and firefighters: implications for public policy and practice. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1565.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031565
Olaghere, A. (2022). Reflexive integration of research elements in mixed-method research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221093137
151

Omotunde, O. I., & Alegbeleye, G. O. (2021). Talent management practices and job performance
of librarians in university libraries in Nigeria. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
47(2), 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102319
Onwuegbuzie, A., Collins, K., & Frels, R. (2013). Foreword: Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory to frame quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. International
Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 7. 2-8. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.2.
Orvis, B. R. (2022). 15 Recruiting And Strength Management. Understanding The US Military.
Osborne, T., & Luoma, J. (2018). Overcoming a primary barrier to practice-based research:
Access to an institutional review board (IRB) for independent ethics review.
Psychotherapy, 55(3), 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000166
Ouimet, M. N., Lensing, M. M. J., Carier, M. J., Lensing, L. R. F., & Bigelman, C. K. A. (2019).
Comparison of occupation physical assessment test scores administered at United States
Military Academy, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps and Initial Entry Training. Military
Learning, 106.
Parrish, J. A. (1957). The prediction of voluntary resignation at officer candidate schools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 606–611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445701700416
Pendleton, J. (2019). Army readiness: Progress and challenges in rebuilding personnel,
equipping, and training. United States Government Accountability Office.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1167897.pdf
Petersen, R., Pan, L., & Blanck, H. M. (2019). Peer reviewed: Racial and ethnic disparities in
adult obesity in the United States: CDC’s tracking to inform state and local action.
152

Preventing Chronic Disease, 16.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6464044/
Phillips, K. J., Banaag, A., Lynch, L. C., Wu, H., Janvrin, M., & Koehlmoos, T. P. (2022).
Comparison of musculoskeletal injury and behavioral health diagnoses among US Army
active duty servicewomen in ground combat and non-ground combat military
occupational specialties. Military Medicine, 187(9-10), e1024-e1029.
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac022
Pollard, M. S., Constant, L., Cheravitch, J., Haberman, R., Kidder, K. L., & Panis, C. (2022).
Identifying opportunities to recruit more individuals above the age of 21 into the US
Army. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr-a824-1
Posner, B. Z. (2016). Investigating the reliability and validity of the Leadership Practices
Inventory®. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci6040017
Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and validation of the leadership practices
inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 483-496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488482024
Raabe, J., Zakrajsek, R. A., Orme, J. G., Readdy, T., & Crain, J. A. (2020). Perceived cadre
behavior, basic psychological need satisfaction, and motivation of US Army ROTC
cadets: A self-determination theory perspective. Military Psychology, 32(5), 398-409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2020.1781028
Raskind, I. G., Shelton, R. C., Comeau, D. L., Cooper, H. L., Griffith, D. M., & Kegler, M. C.
(2019). A review of qualitative data analysis practices in health education and health
behavior research. Health Education & Behavior, 46(1), 32-39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377430
153

Rauen, L. C. B. R., & Hill, A. (2018). Promoting success: Observations on the Army’s Approach
to human capital. United States Army War Project.
https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/3581.pdf
Roberts, T. A., Smalley, J. M., Weir, L. F., & Adelman, W. P. (2019). Contraceptive use and
childbirth rates by service branch during the first 24 months on active duty in the United
States military from 2013 to 2018: A retrospective cohort analysis. Contraception,
100(2), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.04.002
Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical
Education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Russell, T., Ingerick, M. J., & Barron, L. G. (2022). Defining occupation-specific performance
components for military selection and classification. Military Psychology, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2065901
Sadler, A. G., Lindsay, D. R., Hunter, S. T., & Day, D. V . (2018). The impact of leadership on
sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. Military Psychology, 30(3), 252–
263. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2017.1422948
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sanders, A. D. (2018). Assessment of interpersonal communication and counseling skills:
Perspectives from NCOs. Army Research Institute For The Behavioral And Social
Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1060682
154

Sangwan, D., & Raj, P. (2021). The philosophy of Be, Know, and Do in forming the 21st-century
military war-front competencies: A systematic review. Defense Studies, 21(3), 375-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2021.1937135
Santoso, N. R., Sulistyaningtyas, I. D., & Pratama, B. P. (2022). Transformational leadership
during the COVID-19 pandemic: Strengthening employee engagement through internal
communication. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 01968599221095182.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599221095182
Savage, P. L., & Gabriel, R. A. (1977). Cohesion and disintegration in the American Army: An
alternative perspective. Armed Forces and Society, 2(3), 340–376.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x7600200302
Scuotto, V ., Nespoli, C., Tran, P. T., & Cappiello, G. (2022). An alternative way to predict
knowledge hiding: The lens of transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research,
140, 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.045
Shannon-Baker, P. (2022). Virtual special issue on “mixed methods designs, integration, and
visual practices in educational research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(2),
159–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221083959
Shemella, P. (2021). The spectrum of roles and missions of the armed forces. In Who Guards the
Guardians and How (pp. 122–142). University of Texas Press.
https://doi.org/10.7560/712782-008
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
https://www.pm.lth.se/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Shenton_Trustworthiness.pd
f
155

Singh, N., Benmamoun, M., Meyr, E., & Arikan, R. A. (2021). Verifying rigor: Analyzing
qualitative research in international marketing. International Marketing Review, 38(6),
1289-1307. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2020-0040
Sisson, G. R. (2001). Hands-on training: A simple and effective method for on the job training.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Smith, L. E. (2017). The team leader: duties and responsibilities. The NCO Leadership Center of
Excellence. https://www.ncoworldwide.army.mil/nco-corps-history/shared-
experiences/team-leader/
Smith, T. D., Asch, B. J., & Mattock, M. G. (2020). An updated look at military and civilian pay
levels and recruit quality. Rand National Defense Research Institute.
Speten, K. J. (2018). Predicting US Army first term attrition after initial entry training. Naval
Postgraduate School. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1063055
Spoehr, T., & Handy, B. (2018). The looming national security crisis: Young Americans unable to
serve in the military. Backgrounder, 3282, 1-16.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/BG3282.pdf
Stilwell, K. D. (2019). Learning agility-preparing leaders to fight and win in a complex world.
US Army Command and General Staff College.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1085437.pdf
Straus, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Connor, K., Eden, R., Boyer, M. E., Marler, T., Carson, C., Grimm,
G. E., & Smigowski, H. (2019). Collective simulation-based training in the US Army:
User interface fidelity, costs, and training effectiveness. RAND Corporation.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1086160
156

Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research
Journal, 11(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
Swedler, D. I., Knapik, J. J., Williams, K. W., Grier, T. L., & Jones, B. H. (2011). Risk factors for
medical discharge from United States Army basic combat training. Military Medicine,
176(10), 1104-1110. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-10-00451
Taylor, R. L. (2018). Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence. Routledge.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research
process. Perioperative Nursing-Quarterly Scientific, 7(3), 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Thomas, A. M. (2021). Authoritarian, transactional, and transformational leadership styles in law
enforcement. Organization Development Journal, 39(1), 33-44.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/c85585e372978686d2302f21b0abdbf5/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=36482
Tong, A., Flemming, K., Melnnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in
reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 12, 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
Törnblom, O. (2018). Managing complexity in organizations: Analyzing and discussing a
managerial perspective on the nature of organizational leadership. Behavioral
Development, 23(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000068
Trego, L. L., & Wilson, C. (2021). A social ecological model for military women’s health.
Women’s Health Issues, 31, S11-S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2020.12.006
157

Uhlaner, J. E. (1977). The research psychologist in the Army—1917 to 1977. U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ada047790
U.S. Army. (n.d.). U.S. Army: America's First National Institution. The United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/1775/
U.S. Army. (n.d.-a). U.S. Army ranks. The United States Army. https://www.army.mil/ranks/
U.S. Army. (2015). Leader Development, Field Manual 6-22 (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm6_22.pdf.
U.S. Army. (2018). Organization: The United States Army. The United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization/
U.S. Army. (2019). ADP 6-22 Army leadership and the profession. The United States Army.
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN20039-ADP_6-22-001-WEB-
0.pdf
U.S. Army. (2020). Noncommissioned Officer Guide. TC 7-22.7. Headquarters, Dept. Of The
Army. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/dr_pubs/dr_a/pdf/web/arn20340_tc%207-
22x7%20final%20web.pdf
U.S. Army. (2022). Active Component Demogarphics. Data as of 30 June 2022. Accessed from:
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/08/05/90d128cb/active-component-
demographic-report-june-2022.pdf
U.S. Army Public Affairs. (2021). Army meets fiscal year 2021 end strength goal. The United
States Army.
158

Van Laar, D. M., Kitchens, M. E., & Koskey, J. T. (2020). Measuring knowledge management
maturity in US Army headquarters. Knowledge and Process Management, 27(4), 311-
321. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1651
Vernez, G., & Zellman, G. L. (1987). Families and mission: A review of the effects of family
factors on Army attrition, retention, and readiness. RAND Corporation.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA189073.pdf
Verveer, M. (2019). Women and Gender Perspectives in the Military: An International
Comparison. Georgetown University Press.
Walker, R. (2016). Ecological systems theory: Using spheres of influence to support small-unit
climate and training. U.S. Army Research Institute.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1009046.pdf
Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2018). Introduction to the Asian Qualitative Research Association special issue.
The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.3433

Wenger, J. W., O’Connell, C., Constant, L., & Lohn, A. J. (2018). The value of experience in the
enlisted force. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/RR2211/RAND_
RR2211.pdf

Wiggs, G. A. (2020). Is the US Army adequately preparing army civilians to assume leadership
roles within the civilian corps compared to uniformed service. Defense Acquisition
University. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1106562
159

Wigton, M. J. D. (2021). Leading the change. Military Review.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/SO-
21/wigton-leading/wigton.pdf
Winston, K. A., & Dirette, D. P. (2022). Clarifying mixed methodology in occupational therapy
research. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10(2), 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.2042
Woodworth, R. S. (1933). Adjustment and mastery: Problems in psychology. Williams & Wilkins
Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/14536-006
Wooldridge, J. D., Selkow, N. M., McLoda, T. A., & Radzak, K. N. (2022). US Army reserve
officers’ training corps cadets’ knowledge of exercise-related musculoskeletal injuries.
International Journal of Exercise Science, 15(3), 300-312.
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol15/iss3/3
Yuengert, L. G. (2020). How the army runs: A senior leader reference handbook, 2019-2020.
Army War College. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1127933

160

Appendix A: Army Command Structure

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization/
161

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization/

162

Note: U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army. https://www.army.mil/organization.

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization
163

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization
164

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization
165

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). Organization. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/organization

166

Appendix B: Rank Insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces Enlisted

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). U.S. Army ranls. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/ranks/
167

Appendix C: Rank Insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces Officers

Note: Reprinted from U.S. Army (n.d). U.S. Army ranls. United States Army.
https://www.army.mil/ranks/

168

Appendix D: U.S. Army ADP 6-22 Logic Map

Note. Reprinted from U.S. Army. (2019). ADP 6-22 Army Leadership and the Profession.
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN20039-ADP_6-22-001-WEB-0.pdf

169

Appendix E: History of the U.S. Army

The U.S. Army was born on June 14, 1775 (U.S. Army, n.d.). On that day, the
Continental Congress passed the following resolution:
Resolved, That six companies of expert riflemen [sic], be immediately
raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland, and two in Virginia; … [and] that each
company, as soon as completed [sic], shall march and join the Army near Boston,
to be there employed as light infantry, under the command of the chief Officer in
that Army. (U.S. Army, n.d.)
As a result of this resolution, the Continental Congress created the New England Army of
Observation, which represented all 13 colonies and added troops from the three middle colonies,
making it a continental army—a united colonial fighting force—that could represent all 13
colonies (U.S. Army, n.d.). As a result, the Continental Army became the first national
institution in the history of the United States. George Washington was commissioned as
commander in chief of the Continental Army by the Continental Congress on June 19, 1775.
Washington's nomination resulted from his outstanding military record and the hope that a leader
from Virginia would further unite the colonies (U.S. Army, n.d.). The next day, Congress
unanimously approved the measure and presented Washington with his commission. It read, in
part:
We, reposing special trust and confidence in your patriotism, valor,
conduct, and fidelity, do, by these presents, constitute and appoint you to be
General and Commander in chief of the army of the United Colonies, and of all
the forces now raised, or to be raised, by them, and of all others who shall
voluntarily offer their service, and join the said Army for the Defence [sic] of
American liberty, and for repelling every hostile invasion thereof: And you are
hereby vested with full power and authority to act as you shall think for the good
and welfare of the service. (U.S. Army, n.d.)
Throughout its history, the U.S. Army has played a crucial role in the growth and
development of the nation (U.S. Army, n.d.). It fought long and hard against Great Britain for
eight years to win its independence, relying on militia traditions and newly introduced
professional standards. Patriots often rallied around the Army as the sole symbol of nationhood
(U.S. Army, n.d.).
The U.S. Army's mission is “to deploy, fight and win our nation's wars by providing
ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict
as part of the joint force” (U.S. Army, n.d.). As the service capable of defeating enemy ground
forces and indefinitely controlling those things an adversary prizes most—its lands, resources,
and people—the Army's mission is crucial to the United States (U.S. Army, n.d.):
According the U.S. Army (n.d.) U.S. Army’s vision for the near future is to;
Deploy, fight, and win decisively against any adversary, anytime and anywhere,
in a joint, multi-domain, high-intensity conflict, while simultaneously deterring
others and maintaining its ability to conduct irregular warfare. The Army will do
this through the employment of modern manned and unmanned ground combat
vehicles, aircraft, sustainment systems, and weapons, coupled with robust
combined arms formations and tactics based on a modern warfighting doctrine
and centered on exceptional Leaders and Soldiers of unmatched lethality. (U.S.
Army, n.d.)
170

The U.S. Army is one of three military departments under the Department of Defense; the
Army, Navy, and the Air Force (U.S. Army, n.d.). In addition to the Army Reserve, there is an
Army National Guard component. Both operational and institutional missions are performed by
the Army, regardless of its component. Several armies, corps, divisions, brigades, and battalions
make up the operational Army (U.S. Army, n.d.). The institutional Army provides support to the
operational Army (Casey, 2009; Shemella, 2021). All Army forces are raised, trained, equipped,
deployed, and ensured to be ready by the institutional Army (U.S. Army, n.d.). Throughout the
training base, Soldiers and members of sister services and allied forces learn military skills and
professional education. Wartime expansion of the Army is also made possible by the institutional
Army (Cancian et al., 2020). Providing the Army with world-class equipment and logistics is the
purpose of the industrial base. For combatant commanders to deploy land forces quickly, Army
installations provide power-projection platforms. Logistics support is the responsibility of the
institutional Army during active deployment (U.S. Army, n.d.). The operational Army cannot
function without the institutional Army, and the institutional Army cannot function without the
operational Army (U.S. Army, n.d.).
In addition to land combat that is prompt and sustained, the Army is also capable of
combined arms operations, armored and mechanized operations, airborne and air assault
operations, and special operations. On land, the joint force will set and sustain the theater, and
national, multinational, and joint power will be integrated. In 2018, the Army Vision for 2028
was enhanced with eight points in the Army Strategy 2018 (U.S. Army, n.d.). While the Army
Mission remains the same, the Army Strategy adds emphasis to Corps and Division-level
echelons in addition to Brigade Modernization. By 2028, the strategy will include modernization,
high-intensity conflict reform, and joint multidomain operations (U.S. Army, n.d.).

171

Appendix F: Survey
Screening Questions

1. What is your current rank in the U.S. Army?
a. Dropdown List:
i. private, private second class, private first class, specialist, corporal,
sergeant, staff sergeant, sergeant first class, master sergeant, first sergeant,
sergeant major, command sergeant major, sergeant major of the Army
2. Please indicate the amount of time spent at your current rank
a. Drop-down (0-3 months, 3-6 monhts, 6-9 months, 9-12 months, 12-18 months,
18-24 months, 2-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-7 years, 8-10 years, 10 years or more)
3. Please indicate the number of months spent supervising first-time soldiers
a. Drop-down (Less than 30 days, 30-60 days, 60-90 days, 3-6 months, 12 months or
more.
4. Are you currently undergoing disciplinary hearings or proceedings?
a. Yes
b. No
5. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: 5-pt scale – 1-
Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3- Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Strongly
Agree). (RQ1, RQ3)
a. The Army adequately prepares first-line supervisors to lead first-term soldiers.
b. The Army gave me confidence to lead first-term soldiers.
c. The Army has adequate policies and processes in place to ensure my success as a
leader of first-term soldiers.
d. First-line supervisors are well-equipped to lead first-term soldiers.
e. First-line supervisors receive adequate training to lead first-term soldiers.
f. First-line supervisors have a responsibility to ensure first-term soldier well-being.
g. First-line supervisors can impact first-term soldiers’ decision to reenlist.
6. Are the current policies and processes adequate for ensuring first-line supervisors can
effectively lead first-term soldiers?

Adapted Leadership Practices Inventory Assessment:
Scale for all questions is: 1- Strongly disagree, 2- Somewhat disagree, 3- Neither agree nor
disagree, 4- Somewhat agree, 5- Strongly agree.
The LPI will be used to answer research question 2 only in this study.
Prompt: Before you start, a few quick guidelines. This survey should take you no more than 3-5
minutes to complete, and I'd prefer that you set aside some time to complete it in one sitting. In
order for this feedback to be useful it has to be honest - I want you to feel comfortable in giving
your views, so all data will be anonymous. Please indicate the degree to which you currently
display these behaviors.

1. Setting a personal example of what a leader expects of followers is important for leading
first-term soldiers.
2. Talking about future trends will influence how well work gets done by first-term soldiers.
3. Seeking out challenging opportunities that test skills and abilities is an important aspect
of leading first-term soldiers.
172

4. Developing cooperative relationships with followers is important for leading first-term
soldiers.
5. Praising soldiers for a job well done is important for leading first-term soldiers.
6. Making certain that soldiers adhere to the principles and standards of the U.S. Army is
important for leading first-term soldiers.
7. Describing a compelling image of what soldiers’ futures could be like is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
8. Challenging soldiers to try out new and innovative ways to do their work is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
9. Actively listening to diverse points of view is important for leading first term soldiers.
10. Making a point to let followers understand a leader’s confidence in their abilities is
important for leading first-term soldiers.
11. Following through on promise and commitments made by a leader is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
12. Appealing to followers to share an exciting dream of the future is important for leading
first-term soldiers.
13. Actively searching for innovative ways to improve is important for leading first-term
soldiers.
14. Treating followers with dignity and respect is important for leading first-term soldiers.
15. Making sure that followers are creatively recognized for their contributions to the success
of projects is important for leading first-term soldiers.
16. Asking for feedback on my actions affect soldiers’ performance is important for leading
first-term soldiers.
17. Showing soldiers how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting a common
vision is important for leading first-term soldiers.
18. Leaders asking, “What can we learn?” when things don’t go as expected is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
19. Involving soldiers in the decisions that directly impact their job performance is important
for leading first-term soldiers.
20. Publicly recognizing soldiers who exemplify commitment to shared values is important
for leading first-term soldiers.
21. Building consensus around a common set of values is important for leading first-term
soldiers.
22. Painting a “big picture” of what we aspire to accomplish is important for leading first-
term soldiers.
23. Identifying measurable milestones that keep projects moving forward is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
24. Giving soldiers a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work is
important for leading first-term soldiers.
25. Telling stories of encouragement about the good work of other soldiers is important for
leading first-term soldiers.
26. Being clear about my philosophy of leadership is important for leading first-term
soldiers.
27. Speaking with genuine conviction about higher meaning and purpose of the work is
important for leading first-term soldiers.
173

28. Taking initiating in anticipating and responding to change is important for leading first-
term soldiers.
29. Ensuring that soldiers grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing
themselves is important for leading first-term soldiers.
30. Getting personally involved in recognizing soldiers and celebrating accomplishments is
important for leading first-term soldiers.

174

Appendix G: Recruitment Flyer

175

Appendix H: Interview Protocol

Opening Script: Hello, PARTICIPANT NAME. I am Noel Del Real, a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. This
interview should last no more than one hour. You will be asked to recall and reflect on your
experience with U.S. Army organizational support systems, including training and accountability
mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead and manage soldiers under their
supervision. All of your responses will remain confidential. Do you have any questions before
we begin?
Demographic questions:
1. What is your current rank in the U.S. Army? (Screening/Demographic)
2. How long have you been in the Army? (Screening/Demographic)
3. How much time have you spent at your current rank? (Screening/Demographic)
4. How long have you spent supervising first-time soldiers? (Screening/Demographic)
Interview questions:
1. What led you to join the Army? (Icebreaker)
a. Why did you reenlist after your first term? (Icebreaker, RQ1)
b. Do you see yourself continuing to retirement? (Icebreaker)
c. Tell me about your current role and responsibilities. (Icebreaker)
2. How would you describe yourself as a leader? (RQ2, RQ2a)
a. What have been your greatest challenges, if any, while leading first-term soldiers?
(RQ1, RQ3)
b. What are you most proud of, if anything, in terms of your leadership of first-term
soldiers? (RQ2)
3. Why do you think first-term soldiers leave the Army rather than reenlist? (RQ2)
a. In what ways, if any, do you think First-Line leaders help prevent or reduce first-
term soldier attrition? (RQ2)
4. Thinking about your experience leading first-term soldiers, which leadership attributes
have helped you lead first-term soldiers in the Army? (RQ2)
176

a. How did you develop those attributes? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)
b. Which leadership attributes, if any, do you feel need more development? (RQ2)
5. In what ways, if at all, do you communicate values and set examples of expectations?
(RQ2, LPI model the way)
a. To what extent, if at all, does the Army allow you to follow through on promises
and commitments? (RQ2, LPI model the way)
b. To what extent, if at all, do you ask for feedback on how their performance affects
other staff performance? (RQ2, LPI model the way)
c. In what ways, if any, does setting a good example influence retention of first-term
soldiers? (RQ2, LPI model the way)
6. In what ways, if at all, do you inspire a shared vision when leading first-term
soldiers? (RQ2, LPI inspire a shared vision)
a. How, if at all, does discussing future trends affecting the work to encourage staff
to have their voice heard? (RQ2, LPI inspire a shared vision)
b. What’s the role of collaboration, if any, in leading first-term soldiers? (RQ2, LPI
inspire a shared vision)
7. In what ways, if at all, do you challenge the process (question the status quo, seek
innovative improvements and respond to change) when leading first-term soldiers?
(RQ2, LPI challenge the process)
a. How, if at all, do you believe that these values influence the retention of first-term
soldiers? If yes, how so? (RQ2, LPI challenge the process)
8. In what ways, if at all, do you enable first-term soldiers to act and involve them in critical
decisions? (RQ2, LPI enabling others to act)
177

a. How, if at all, does this quality of leadership influence retention of first-term
soldiers? (RQ2, LPI enabling others to act)
9. How, if at all, do you recognize the accomplishments of your team and its members,
specifically as it relates to first-term soldiers? (RQ2, LPI encourage the heart)
a. How do you believe this influences the retention of first-term soldiers? (RQ2,
LPI encourage the heart)
10. Tell me about the leadership training, if any, you have received since joining the Army.
a. What about specific training you have received from the Division? (RQ1)
b. How, if at all, were you trained to prevent first-term soldier attrition? (RQ1)
11. Overall, how well, if at all, did the U.S. Army prepared you to lead your first-term
soldiers? (RQ1)
a. What organizational support systems, if any, have made your role easier? (RQ1,
RQ3)
12. Please describe the accountability mechanisms, if any, in place for First-Line
supervisors. (RQ3)
a. How did those accountability mechanisms support your ability to lead and
manage soldiers under your supervision.
b. In what ways did those accountability mechanisms hinder your ability to lead and
mange soldiers under your supervision.
13. How, if at all, have you contributed to or influenced the behavior, training, counseling,
and well-being of first-term soldiers? (microsystem) (RQ2)
178

a. What have been the key influences on you as a leader in the Army in terms of
behavior, training, counseling, and well-being from your squad leaders, members,
and team leaders (mesosystem) (RQ1)
b. What have been the key influences on you as a leader in the Army in terms of
policies and resources from your platoon leaders and company commanders?
(mesosystem) (RQ1)
c. What have been the key influences on you as a leader in the Army in terms of
Army values, customs, traditions and standards from the higher commands such
as Command Sergeant Major up to the Army Chief of Staff? (macrosystem)
(RQ1, RQ3)
d. What have been the key influences on you as a leader in the Army in terms of
your time in service, time in grade, and promotions? (Chronosystem) (RQ1)
14. Is there anything else you would like to add about your experience or perspective as a
First-Line Supervisor in the U.S. Army on first-term soldier attrition? (Closing)
Closing Script: That is all the questions I have for you. Do you have any questions for me? I’d
like to thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this interview and the overall
study.
179

Appendix I: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

STUDY TITLE: Perceptions of U.S. Army First-Line Supervisors on First-Term Soldier
Attrition

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Noel Del Real

FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, DLS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything unclear to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors
regarding army organizational support systems, including training and accountability
mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision. In
addition, we hope to learn from the lived experiences of team leaders in the United States armed
forces, whereas the target population is team leaders at the Sergeant or Corporal rank in the
United States Army who directly supervise first-term soldiers how well equipped these
individuals feel and whether they are aware of the research-proven attributes and practices that
are going to help retain first-term soldiers. You are invited as a possible participant because you
currently enlisted in the United States Army and currently have a rank of Corporal (E-4) or
Sergeant (E-5), you directly supervise first-term soldiers.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

For this study, the researcher will survey approximately 50 team leaders and conduct interviews
with 12-15 team leaders between November and December 2022. The interviews will primarily
take place over Zoom, or an alternative virtual meeting platform, whenever possible. If agreed to
by the participant, the researcher will record the interview and take notes. All information from
the virtual meting platform will be transferred to a personal computer and removed from the
platform as soon as possible. All recordings from interviews will only be kept as long as
necessary and will be deleted once the research is completed.

If you consent to participate, you will be sent a link to a comprehensive demographics survey to
ensure that you meet the inclusion criteria of the study. If you meet the inclusion criteria, the
researcher will send you a link to participate in the second portion of the study, which involves
participants completing a second survey. Next, you may be randomly selected to participate in a
semi-structured open-ended. You may stop the survey or interview at any time and skip any
questions you are uncomfortable answering. The interview is expected to take approximately one
hour. Should the interview not be completed within one hour, you may elect to remain with the
researcher to provide additional information at your discretion.

All data collected from the survey and interview recording will be reviewed and transcribed only
by the researcher. During the interview, the researcher will take notes. The participant is under
180

no further obligation to the researcher following the interview. In the event that clarifications
arise during the transcription process, the researcher would like to be able to contact the
participant. If the researcher requests additional information from you, you are under no
obligation to follow up.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will not be compensated for participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

The researcher will assign all participants a numerical identifier for coding in the database. This
will allow the researcher the ability to keep participants distinct but anonymous. Names and any
other identifying information will not be included in the database. When the data is no longer
needed for this study, all data will be deleted. If the participant agrees to be recorded, the
researcher will be the only person to view the recording. The researcher may hire a transcription
service to help with transcribing the interview. If this occurs, the researcher will follow the
service's privacy policies regarding maintaining confidentiality. Once the data is transcribed and
the data is no longer needed, the recording will be deleted.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Noel Del Real at ndelreal@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Each year, the U.S. Army loses 14,000 to 16,000 soldiers serving in their first term to attrition, with more soldiers choosing not to reenlist for a second term. The high costs associated with training soldiers, coupled with soldier attrition, creates a large human and financial capital loss for the U.S. Army. The problem of practice supported achieving equitable outcomes in that the study attempted to address the negative impact poor leadership has on the attrition rate within this all-volunteer force. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted first-line supervisors within a single U.S. Army Division as it pertains to leading and retaining first-term soldiers. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of enlisted Army first-line supervisors regarding Army organizational support systems, including training and accountability mechanisms, in supporting or hindering their ability to lead soldiers under their supervision. For practical purposes, this study explored the perceptions of enlisted first-line supervisors within a single U.S. Army Division as it pertains to leading and retaining first-term soldiers. To this end, a mixed methodological study was employed whereby supervisors of first-term soldiers recounted their experiences with leading first-term soldiers. Semistructured interviews with participants indicated that the culture of the U.S. Army often hinders optimal leadership of first-term soldiers. Quantitative surveys of participants indicated that participants believed a variety of leadership capacities are critical for leading first-term soldiers. Recommendations for improving the attrition rate of first-term soldiers are provided. This study has implications for equity, as the findings and results can be used to understand and enhance the equitable treatment of all first-term soldiers, which may have implications for increasing diversity in the U.S. Army.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

Stress and burnout: a qualitative study of the influences on female leaders' decision to leave

PDF

Addressing underreporting of sexual assault in U.S. Army units: perspectives of retired senior leaders

PDF

The evaluation of in-person versus virtual interviews from underrepresented minorities in medicine

PDF

U.S. Army Reserve: the journey to psychological health resources

PDF

Disclosure of abuse to empowerment: exploring psychological safety as a leadership tool to support women struggling with workplace performance

PDF

Factors influencing first-term naval aviator career continuation: a gap analysis

PDF

Toxic leadership and U.S. Army special forces: a qualitative, phenomenological Study

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

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

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

The role of race and racism in Black male medical students’ specialty selection process

PDF

Enhancing transfer of harassment prevention training into practice

PDF

Black and [mis]educated: the Black American adult’s perspective of the U.S. K–12 public school system

PDF

Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women

PDF

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

PDF

The underrepresentation of Asian American Pacific Islanders serving in the senior and executive leadership ranks in the U.S. Navy SEALs

Asset Metadata

Creator Del Real, Noel Ignacio (author)

Core Title Perceptions of U.S. Army first-line supervisors on first-term soldier attrition

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 08/15/2023

Defense Date 07/26/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag aoldier,Bronfenbrenner,leadership,Military,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,sergeant,U.S. Army

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Seli, Helena (committee member), Canny, Eric (committee member)

Creator Email ndelreal@usc.edu,noel.delreal2@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113298170

Unique identifier UC113298170

Identifier etd-DelRealNoe-12257.pdf (filename)

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Del Real, Noel Ignacio

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230816-usctheses-batch-1085 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu