University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Factors Influencing First-Term Naval Aviator Career Continuation: A Gap Analysis
by
William Ronald Sherrod, Jr

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 2021

© Copyright by William Ronald Sherrod, Jr 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for William Ronald Sherrod, Jr certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Adrian Donato
Don Murphy
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The U.S. Navy struggles to retain enough First-term Naval Aviators beyond their initial service
obligation resulting in critical mid-career leadership gaps in operational units. Previous retention
research identifies factors influencing career continuation. This effort conducts a quantitative gap
analysis surveying over 1,200 stakeholders; the instrument included open-ended prompts
resulting in rich qualitative data. The instrument collected stakeholder perceptions on conceptual
understanding and metacognition, expectancy, persistence, value, and organizational support,
purpose, fairness, trust, and mentorship. The resulting data analysis offers an improved
understanding of the knowledge and motivation factors influencing First-term Naval Aviator
decisions to opt-in and continue service through the lens of self-determination theory and two-
factor theory. It explores the interaction between organizational culture and context related to
First-term Naval Aviator’s knowledge and motivation to increase opt-in rates and continued
service. Finally, it integrates generational differences to recommend improved aspects of
organizational practice that can increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and
remain in service.
Keywords: Naval Aviator retention, self-determination theory, two-factor theory, mentors

v
Dedication
To my wife Sarah, I could not have achieved this without your love and support.

To my daughters, Aubrey, Anna, and Madison, thank you for your patience and understanding
when Daddy had schoolwork to do. I love you to the moon and beyond.

vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not be complete if not for the incredible USC faculty that guided
me through the process. Drs. Jenkins, Lynch, Ott, Robles, and Muraszewski challenged my ideas
and pushed my thinking in new directions; I am grateful for your guidance. Drs. Donato and
Murphy, thank you for not only your encouragement and support as your student but for your
willingness to serve as dissertation committee members. I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to
Dr. Jennifer Phillips. If not for your focus, feedback, and guidance, I would not have reached this
point.
Additionally, this effort would not be possible if not for the support of key personnel
from the U.S. Navy. Vice Admiral Whitesell and Rear Admirals Jones, Lemmon and Baze all
provided crucial support to this research effort. CNAF FRAG, OPNAV N1, and NPC members
also provided necessary assistance to keep this effort moving forward.
No endeavor such as this is possible without the support of family and friends. I am
deeply grateful for the love and support of my mother, Arlene Sherrod, and my mother-in-law,
Cathy Dixon. You both gave up your lives to take care of the girls while Sarah is deployed. If not
for you, I would have abandoned this quest. And lastly, to the members of Cohort 13’s Saturday
morning warriors, most especially Jim and Elana, never could a more diverse group of people
not only become friends but become family. This journey brought a lifetime of memories and
friends for a lifetime—Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 2
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 4
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 6
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 8
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Study and Questions ................................................................................... 9
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 10
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 14
Historical Context of Naval Aviation ............................................................................... 16
Motivation Theory ............................................................................................................ 18
Generational Differences .................................................................................................. 23
Factors Affecting Retention .............................................................................................. 26
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 32

viii
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 62
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 68
Study Questions ................................................................................................................ 68
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 69
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 71
Ethics and Role of the Researcher .................................................................................... 80
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 84
Participant Demographics ................................................................................................. 85
Research Question 1: What Are the Knowledge and Motivation Factors Influencing First-
Term Naval Aviator Decision to Opt-In and Continue Service? ................................ 93
Research Question 2: What Is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture and
Context As It Relates to First-Term Naval Aviator’s Knowledge and Motivation
Required to Increase Opt-In Rates and Continued Service? ..................................... 121
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 156
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 158
Discussion of Results and Findings ................................................................................ 158
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 166
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 178
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 179
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 181
References ................................................................................................................................... 183
Appendix A: First-Term Naval Aviator Retention Survey Questions ........................................ 235
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 252
Appendix C: Text Analysis Key Word Query Coding ............................................................... 254
Appendix D: Qualtrics Qualitative Analysis .............................................................................. 269

ix

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance
Goal 9
Table 2: Knowledge Influences 38
Table 3: Motivation Influences 46
Table 4: Organizational Influences 62
Table 5: Data Sources 70
Table 6: Data Analysis 76
Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (n) 86
Table 8: Composite Variables 88
Table 9: Education Experience of the Sample (n) 90
Table 10: Professional Experience of the Sample (n) 91
Table 11: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Conceptual Knowledge 97
Table 12: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Metacognition 100
Table 13: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Expectancy 104
Table 14: In Your Opinion, What Is the Main Reason for First-term Naval Aviators to Opt
Out of Continued Naval Service? 105
Table 15: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Persistence 108
Table 16: Likelihood of Sample (n) Career Continuation 109
Table 17: Likelihood of Sample (n) Aspiring to Aviation Command 109
Table 18: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Value 114
Table 19: How Do Each of the Following Factors Influence Your Motivation to Continue
Serving in the Navy? 116
Table 20: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Supports 123
Table 21: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Fairness 130
Table 22: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Trust 136

xi
Table 23: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Purpose 143
Table 24: I Seek Most of My Career Advice From (Select One) 147
Table 25: Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Mentorship 149
Table 26: Summary of Results and Findings 157
Appendix A: First-Term Naval Aviator Retention Survey Questions 235
Appendix C: Text Analysis Key Word Query Coding 254
Table D1: Open Ended Question 1 270
Table D2: Open Ended Question 2 271
Table D3: Open Ended Question 3 272
Table D4: Open Ended Question 4 273
Table D5: Open Ended Question 5 274
Table D6: Open Ended Question 6 275
Table D7: Open Ended Question 7 276
Table D8: Open Ended Question 8 277

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Self-Determination Continuum 20
Figure 2: Pew Research Center Generations Defined 24
Figure 3: Generational Comparison of Naval Aviation Accessions, Retention,
and Rank Distribution
25
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework of the Study 64

xiii

List of Abbreviations
ADHRB Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus
ADHSB Aviation Department Head Screen Board
CAPT / O6 Captain
CAG Commander, Carrier Air Wing
CDR / O5 Commander
CDRE Commodore
CNAF Commander, Naval Air Forces
CO Commanding Officer
DH Department Head
DOD Department of Defense
DON Department of the Navy
ENS / O1 Ensign
FRS Fleet Replacement Squadron
FTNA First-term Naval Aviator
FY Fiscal Year
HELO Helicopter Communities
HM Helicopter Mine Countermeasures
HSC Helicopter Sea Combat
HSM Helicopter Strike Maritime
JO Junior Officer
LCDR / O4 Lieutenant Commander
LT / O3 Lieutenant

xiv
LTJG / O2 Lieutenant Junior Grade
MPRA Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft
MSR-I Minimum Service Requirement-Initial
NAS Naval Air Station
NFO Naval Flight Officer
NPC Naval Personnel Command
OBLISERV Obligated service
OCS Officer Candidate School
PERS-43 Aviation Officer Distribution
SDT Self Determination Theory
TACAIR Tactical aircraft (jet) communities
URL Unrestricted Line Officer
USA United States Army
USAF United States Air Force
USMC United States Marine Corps
USN United States Navy
USNA United States Naval Academy
VAQ Electronic Attack
VAW Airborne Command and Control
VFA Strike Fighter
VP Maritime Patrol
VRM Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission
VRC Fleet Logistics Support

xv
VQ Fleet Air Reconnaissance
XO Executive Officer
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The United States Navy depends on its aviation forces for its ability to meet national
defense requirements globally. The problem is that Naval Aviation struggles to retain enough
aviators to meet future fleet needs. The Navy’s human resources management uses an “up or
out” framework that presumes most officers opt-in for the next career milestone (Snodgrass,
2014). However, the number of Naval Aviators electing to opt-out increased in recent years
(Baze, 2019a). Navy leaders acknowledge this increase creates a shortfall at mid-career
operational leadership tours (Baze, 2019b), and warning flags indicate the problem is worsening.
In 2018, the Navy required 40 additional pilots to continue service to achieve the 70% selection
rate target marking the third consecutive year the service did not retain enough pilots to fill
planned strike-fighter community fleet gaps (Baze, 2019a). Low retention of Naval Aviators
beyond their Minimum Service Requirement (MSR) creates significant leadership gaps in the
strike-fighter community; historical trends suggest this could expand to other communities
within Naval Aviation (Jehn, 1999; Rasch, 1998). In 2019 more pilots opted out of aviation
department head than anticipated across seven of nine type-wing communities within Naval
Aviation, resulting in a service-wide shortfall (Baze, 2018b). The Navy needs to retain enough
aviators to fill planned fleet vacancies and desires to preserve a 70% selectivity target (Baze,
2019b). To achieve this goal, the Navy must increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators
who opt-in for continued service.
Background of the Problem
Experienced and capable leadership for the United States’ all-volunteer military is
selected solely from within military ranks; therefore, retention of “high-caliber officers” is not
only required by federal legislation but an imperative for organizational survival (Rostker et al.,
2

1993). U.S. Naval Aviator retention is cyclical. The literature suggests recurring historical
factors reducing retention. These include more time away from home, lower financial
compensation, and increased commercial aviation opportunities, which are often associated with
a stronger economy (Farrell, 2018a; Gibb et al., 1988; Hill & Gaupp, 2006; Mitchell & Albright,
1972). Family impacts caused by career demands and time away from home are also consistent
career dissatisfaction influences across all the military services, including the Navy (Farrell,
2018b).
The current period of low retention began in 2013 and abated in 2019 when the Covid-19
global pandemic slowed the largest commercial aviation hiring period in 30 years (Switzer,
2020). Although fewer First-term Naval Aviators declined department head consideration in
2019, Naval Aviation still experienced shortfalls (F. Young, 2020a). The recurring factors
mentioned previously consistently affect retention across each of the services (Pendleton, 2018).
Furthermore, declining trust in senior leadership, reduced operational funding without reducing
the operational tempo, and shifting demographic force composition are new factors exacerbating
the current retention crisis (Snodgrass, 2014). Multiple generations comprise the current active-
duty population and each generation has a unique attitude towards work (Iorgulescu, 2016).
Some generations are motivated by career success and financial gain (Juhász et al., 2016), while
others value personal growth, work-life balance, workplace culture, community, and career
transparency (Finn & Donovan, 2013; PricewaterhouseCooper, 2011). The complexity of factors
challenges singular organizational solutions.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to solve this problem for a variety of reasons to include minimizing the
lost investment of training resources, underperformance of units attributed to personnel gaps, and
3

the influence of high turnover on organizational culture (Hom et al., 2020). In 2014, only 42.8%
of officers across all Unrestricted Line (URL) communities, including aviation, intended to serve
past their minimum obligation (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014). Low retention of Naval Aviators
beyond their Minimum Service Requirement (MSR) is a problem creating significant leadership
gaps in the strike-fighter community. In 2018, 46 of 75 eligible strike-fighter pilots declined
department head consideration and signaled their departure from the service; this marked the
third consecutive year the Navy did not retain enough pilots to meet anticipated requirements
(Baze, 2019a, 2019b). Navy leaders acknowledge retention is worsening, and leadership gaps in
squadrons will become unmanageable if it does not significantly improve (Baze, 2019b). In
2019, the Navy again fell short of the 65 pilots needed for planned squadron leadership vacancies
when 25% of the eligible pilots declined department head (Baze, 2019c); this suggests the Navy
has not addressed the factors driving low retention identified in 2014. In 2020, the strike-fighter
community projected an average of 88 gapped pilot billets over a six-month period (F. Young,
2020b). Low retention creates immediate critical leadership gaps from which recovery will take
several years and poses a national security risk (Baze, 2019a; Pendleton, 2018).
There is an immediate need to stem the poor retention trend and ensure that enough
qualified pilots are available to serve in squadrons (Farrell, 2018b). Additionally, because the
Navy promotes from within, retaining the best and brightest is essential to develop future
military leadership (Snodgrass, 2014). Historical trends and current data suggest that Naval
Aviation has not hit the nadir of its retention challenges (Farrell, 2018b; Baze, 2019b).
Additionally, the analysts project a resurgence in commercial aviation hiring to replace an aging
industry workforce approaching statutory retirement (Switzer, 2020). Analysis indicates it will
take years to recover to normal manning levels (Pendleton, 2018). Extending tour lengths and
4

reducing operational unit manning levels are current approaches to mitigate gaps; however, these
measures do not coincide with a workload reduction and may exacerbate the problem, ultimately
challenging deploying fully manned fleet units effectively (Farrell, 2018b; Gebicke, 1999; F.
Young, 2020b). Naval Aviation provides national leadership the ability to project military power
in contested environments, which is integral to the United States’ defense strategy; Navy senior
leadership’s testimony in early 2020 before the Senate Armed Service Committee suggests a
strategy focused on non-monetary, quality of life programs supporting the needs of individuals
and their families (Modly et al., 2020). However, it remains unclear how recovery strategies are
grounded in a gap analysis that identifies performance factors to achieve the service’s goal.
Organizational Context and Mission
The United States Navy, the organization of focus, is comprised of various specialty
communities of practice, but this research focuses specifically on Naval Aviation. Naval
Aviation units, squadrons, and detachments are located predominately in fleet concentration
areas and conduct deployed operations around the globe. Title 10 United States Code §8062
directs the Navy to organize, train, and equip for “prompt and sustained combat incident to
operations at sea” (U.S. Code Title 10, 2018). The United States Navy’s mission as the maritime
branch of the uniformed military services is to recruit, train, equip, and prepare naval forces to
defeat adversaries in conflict and maintain sustained forward naval presence to ensure the
security of the global commons (Spencer, 2019). The service currently maintains over 30
strategy and vision documents (Department of the Navy, 2020d). These documents were created
or revised at various times resulting in variation among the priorities they set; focusing on
people, processes, and capabilities at the service-level (Spencer, 2019); operations in a
5

geographic area (Richardson, 2019b); operations in a functional area (Department of the Navy,
2019b); or within a specific warfare community (Rowden, 2017; Shoemaker et al., 2016).
Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF) is the aviation type commander (TYCOM)
responsible to man, train, equip, maintain, and administratively manage and forward deploy
combat-ready Naval Aviation forces (Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet, 2013; Moody, 2013).
Although CNAF is responsible for ensuring proper aviation unit staffing, CNAF is dependent
upon Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) and the Bureau of Naval Personnel
(BUPERS) in their respective roles as global force manager and director of military personnel
distribution (Chief of Naval Operations, 2012, 2017; United States Fleet Forces, 2020). USFFC
and BUPERS manage the prioritized distribution and assignment of 383,542 total force
personnel (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019c). In 2019, officers constituted 16% (N: 54,151 of
383,542) of the total force structure, and Naval Aviation comprised 4% (N: 13,328 of 383,542)
of the total force structure (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019e, 2019f). Although a small
percentage of the Navy’s end-strength, Naval Aviators make up 24% (N: 13,328 of 54,151) of
the service’s total officer corps and 48% (N: 13,328 of 27,411) of Unrestricted Line Officers,
those officers eligible for command at sea (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019c, 2019d). Officers
commissioned into aviation service are typically in their early to mid-twenties (Chief of Naval
Personnel, 2002), and have a general career path that depicts typical assignments and expected
milestones on a career extending to statutory retirement eligibility (Department of the Navy,
2020c).
Organizational Goal
Naval Aviation needs to retain enough officers to serve beyond their MSR to fill fleet
requirements, and it strives for a 70% selection rate in each competitive category at the Aviation
6

Department Head Screen Board (ADHSB) (Baze, 2019b). Navy Personnel Command, Aviation
Officer Distribution (PERS-43) sets the goal, and it is benchmarked annually by comparing the
maximum number of board authorized selections per competitive category to the pool of eligible
officers within each category who opt-in for continued service (Department of the Navy, 2019b).
Additionally, continuous monitoring of board eligible Year Group members requesting
resignation from active duty is an early indication the organization may not achieve the goal in a
competitive category (BUPERS, 2002b). Naval Aviation desires to retain enough officers to
ensure the best and most fully qualified officers are selected for the next career milestone
(Hughes, 2018). It is important to explore the Navy’s organizational performance to achieve 70%
selectivity and fill planned fleet vacancies because the Navy has exhausted various mitigation
strategies to offset the impact of low First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rates (Farrell, 2018b; Baze,
2019b, 2020b). The consequences of not resolving the problem explored in this study may result
in a continued downward retention trend limiting future operational squadron readiness (Baze,
2019b).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Naval Aviators are commissioned Unrestricted Line Officers who are aeronautically
designated to serve as either pilots or Naval Flight Officers (NFO), who operate an aircraft or its
weapons system (Chief of Naval Personnel, 2002). NFO retention is healthier than pilot retention
(Baze, 2019b); therefore, any implications identified to improve pilot motivation and retention
should also have a positive effect on NFOs. For the purpose of this research, stakeholders are
organized into three groups: junior officers, also known as First-term Naval Aviators; mid-career
department heads and commanding officers; and major commanders and flag officers.
7

Naval Aviators obligate to an eight-year an initial Minimum Service Requirement (MSR)
upon the completion of flight training, which averages approximately two years to complete,
thus ensuring a minimum of ten years of active-duty service (Department of the Navy, 2020c).
First-term Naval Aviators are Naval Aviators who have not completed their Minimum Service
Requirement – Initial (MSR-I) obligation (Chief of Naval Personnel, 2002). First-term Naval
Aviators are the principal focus group for this study and will be discussed further in later sections
of this chapter.
Department heads and commanding officers are the next stakeholder group. Department
heads are critical mid-level leadership positions in aviation squadrons (Richardson, 2019a). An
Aviation Department Head Screen Board (ADHSB) selects department heads, normally post-
MSR-I Lieutenant Commanders or O-4s, who are responsible for various aspects of aviation
squadron operations (Farrell, 2018b). Commanding officers are selected by the Aviation
Command Screen Board (ACSB) and charged with the responsibility and accountability for an
aviation squadron. The ACSB typically convenes in the 14
th
and 15
th
years of service as an
aviation officer and has a 22% selection rate overall (Department of the Navy, 2020c).
Commanding officers include executive officers who are the second-in-command and will
eventually advance to serve as the commander. Department heads and commanding officers are
distinctly separate career milestone groups; however, for the purpose of this study, they comprise
the local leadership influences for First-term Naval Aviators and therefore serve as one
stakeholder group.
Major commanders and flag officers are the final stakeholder group. They are senior
officers with more than 20 years of experience who serve as major commanders or strike group,
fleet, or type commanders (Department of the Navy, 2020c). They are responsible for setting
8

operational requirements and organizational policies which influence knowledge, motivation,
and organizational (KMO) factors across other stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete analysis would involve exploring all stakeholder groups; however, for
practical purposes and because they are the focus of the organizational goal, First-term Naval
Aviators are the focus group for this study. This stakeholder group, First-term Naval Aviators,
are those still completing their Minimum Service Requirement. Pilots comprise over 70% of the
Navy’s total 9,880 personnel inventory, and approximately 50% are within eight years of service
following completion of initial flight training (Baze, 2019a). First-term Naval Aviators are the
focus of this study for multiple reasons. First, the other stakeholders opted-in to continue service
past their MSR. Second, retention is an outcome of motivated work behavior (Meyer, 2014), and
KMO provides a framework to understand the motivation factors influencing First-term Naval
Aviator organizational commitment. Furthermore, goal attainment is hypothesized in this study
to rest on First-term Naval Aviator’s decision to continue service.
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals
The gap analysis improves organizational performance by focusing on relevant
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary to achieve organizational goals
(R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008). Goal identification is the first step in the Turning Research Into
Results Process Model and guides this study (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Table 1 depicts the Navy’s organizational mission, organizational goal, and the
stakeholder group’s performance goal. Annual board selectivity rates and fleet vacancies
following selection measure organizational goal attainment. Annual cohort retention measures
stakeholder goal attainment.
9

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Group’ s Performance Goal
Organizational Mission
The United States Navy’s mission as the maritime branch of the uniformed military services is to
recruit, train, equip, and prepare naval forces to defeat adversaries in conflict and maintain
sustained forward naval presence to ensure the security of the global commons (Spencer, 2019).
Organizational Performance Goal
The Navy retains enough aviators to preserve a 70% selectivity target and to fill planned fleet
vacancies by increasing the number of First-term Naval Aviators who elect to opt-in for
continued service.
Stakeholder Group Goal
Improve quality of life and quality of service to achieve 80% of accession year group cohort size
for First-term Naval Aviators opt-in rate.

Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this project is to explore the degree to which the Navy is able to meet its
organizational goal of selecting enough department heads to fill fleet needs while preserving a
70% selection rate. A complete performance evaluation should focus on all stakeholders;
however, time constraints limit this study’s scope and scale. The analysis will focus on First-term
Naval Aviators’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to retention.
The research questions guide exploration and align with the research purpose and
problem statement (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research questions that support this
endeavor follow below.
10

1. What are the knowledge and motivation factors influencing First-term Naval
Aviator decision to opt-in and continue service?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context as it relates to
First-term Naval Aviator’s knowledge and motivation required to increase opt-in
rates and continued service?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources to increase the number of
First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and remain in service?
These questions support organizational performance through understanding the factors
promoting First-term Naval Aviator retention, thereby increasing the opt-in rate for continued
service.
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Highly effective leaders begin with the end in mind, and the extent to which effective
organizations focus their resources and energy towards a clearly defined goal is a predictor of
success (Covey, 1991). Organizational change efforts require a clear direction (W. W. Burke,
2018). The Navy struggles to retain enough First-term Naval Aviators to preserve a 70%
selectivity target for milestone screening and fill planned fleet vacancies. Theoretical
frameworks guide research design and exploration (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Clark and
Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) gap analysis provides a strong
framework to investigate this problem. Using the goal of increasing First-term Naval Aviator
opt-in rates, the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework provides the relevant structure to
understand gaps in organizational performance. This research focuses primarily on
understanding the motivation and organizational factors affecting retention behaviors. Data
11

suggests a consistent organizational performance gap in retaining enough aviators to meet
service requirements (Baze, 2019a); KMO is an appropriate framework to guide gap analysis
research and identify potential barriers to organizational goal attainment. A theory of change
emerges through this framework.
A theory of change is a heuristic map, an iterative and conceptual approach, designed to
articulate the complex connections between stakeholder groups, intended outcomes, and
strategies to achieve those results (Hernandez & Hodges, 2006). A theory of change drives
practitioners to declare implicit assumptions and state how to bring about change (Reinholz &
Andrews, 2020). A constructivist philosophical worldview, influenced by the transformative
elements of giving a voice to those without power, drives the core assumption of this study. This
study assumes organizational retention is the compound result of individual behaviors based on
personal decisions reached through one’s subjective interpretation of their environment and the
value they place on continued service. It is through this lens that a conceptual framework
emerges.
Although a constructivist paradigm is typically oriented towards qualitative research
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), this project seeks to understand the perspectives of a large sample
population. Surveys are useful ways to measure attributes, behaviors, abilities, and thoughts of
respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The methodology for this research effort is a
quantitative approach and a survey protocol is the most efficient strategy of inquiry for a large
focus group (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Unlike other quantitative approaches testing a
hypothesis, quantitative surveys are a tool utilized when conducting organizational performance
gap analysis (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008). This project seeks to identify the stakeholder’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impeding organizational goal attainment.
12

Future quantitative research efforts may seek to validate hypothesis developed from the potential
factors identified in this research.
Definitions
• Administrative Burden is a broad characterization of required and perceived duties or
tasks not directly associated with flight planning, briefing, or execution.
• First-term Naval Aviators (FTNA) are Naval Aviators who have not completed their
Minimum Service Requirement – Initial (MSR-I) obligation incurred during flight
training.
• Golden Path refers to the specified career progression for due course officers to promote
and ascend to command.
• Grit is determined persistence and application of motivated behavior to take on difficult
challenges in pursuit of long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007).
• Ready Room refers to space in a squadron or on a ship where Naval Aviators conduct unit
meetings, mission briefs, and used as a lounge area. Also a term used to for the collective
membership.
• Unrestricted Line Officers (URL) are Regular Navy and Naval Reserve officers not
restricted in their performance of duty who are eligible to command ships, submarines,
aircraft squadrons, and shore installations; URL communities include Naval Aviation,
Surface Warfare, Nuclear (Surface and Submarine) Warfare, Naval Special Warfare, and
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (S. Smith, 2019).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about Naval Aviation retention; additionally, it
13

introduced the Navy’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and the research framework. Chapter Two
provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study to include factors
affecting retention, motivation theories, and generational differences. Chapter Two also reviews
First-term Naval Aviator knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences explored through
the lens of Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework. Chapter Three describes the research
methods to include participant selection, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four assesses and
analyzes the data. Chapter Five concludes with recommendations for practice and future
research.

14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Keep a Clear Eye on the Horizon (Snodgrass, 2014) highlighted several factors driving
low retention; however, trends indicate the Navy has not adequately addressed these issues. In
2018, 61% of eligible strike-fighter pilots declined to accept their career-milestone department
head opportunity, signaling their intention to separate from active duty. The resulting department
head shortfall marked the third consecutive year the Navy was unable to retain an adequate
number of strike-fighter aviators beyond their MSR (Baze, 2019b). As a result, the Navy was
only able to fill 68% of the strike-fighter pilot department head goal and sacrificed the desired
70% selectivity rate (Baze, 2018b). Data from multiple sources show that the factors negatively
affecting retention is not isolated to Naval Aviation and indicates a service-wide problem
(Carmen, 2014; Doyle & Patrissi, 2014; Farrell, 2018a; SWE, 2013). A 2018 Navy-wide survey
projected a 35% attrition rate across the service (Navy Office of Talent Optimization, 2018). The
leading reasons to remain in the service are external motivators such as pay and benefits, while
the prevailing dissatisfiers are internal motives like career impacts on family and work-life
balance (Z. Brown, 2017; Navy Office of Talent Optimization, 2018; Snodgrass & Kohlmann,
2014).
During 2018 Congressional testimony, the Chief of Naval Personnel asserted the Navy
was focused on quality of life, quality of service, and meeting Naval Aviator career expectations
(R. Burke, 2018a). Senior leadership acknowledges the imperative to modernize outdated
personnel management systems and processes (Nowell, 2020). Additionally, the Navy sought
Congressional support in the Fiscal Year 2021 budget to resource non-monetary incentives and
quality of life improvements for service members and their families (Modly et al., 2020). Despite
the stated service-focus on quality of life improvements, Naval Aviation leadership believes
15

positive outcomes are achieved through improved aircraft material availability enabling flight
hour execution; in other words, all good things come from ‘up’ (or mission-capable) aircraft
(Waters, 2018). Efforts to improve aircraft material condition and availability are well underway,
but progress is slow (R. Burke, 2019a; Eckstein, 2018b; Seapower Staff, 2019). Critics of this
approach suggest that despite improving readiness, the increased flight time will not eliminate
the factors causing career dissatisfaction and low continuation rates (Kochanski, 2018). While
some assert retention is a leadership problem (Khalid et al., 2016; Kowalski et al., 2006), the
scale and duration of the Naval Aviation’s retention challenges suggest other factors are at play.
Retention is a lagging indicator of an individual’s motivation, and motivation is typically
directly proportional to performance (Milbourn et al., 2018). The analysis shows that recovery to
healthy manning levels will take several years, posing strategic risk in an emerging Great Power
competition (Pendleton, 2018). Despite this strategic imperative, the Navy’s small sample exit
survey data does not provide empirical analysis to understand and effectively frame the problem,
identify potential systemic issues, and develop enduring solutions to improve motivation,
performance, and retention outcomes.
This research aims to identify the root causes in an objective and quantifiable manner and
effectively frame the problem so organizational leaders can better understand the current
retention challenges. This chapter will explore the historical context of Naval Aviation, review
motivation theories, and highlight generational differences in motivation. Motivation research
offers theories which provides insight to explain why these factors cause lower retention. It is
through this lens of motivation theory and generational differences in the current literature on
factors affecting retention are discussed. This chapter also explores First-term Naval Aviator
16

knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, and describes the conceptual framework
guiding this research.
Historical Context of Naval Aviation
The Navy has long held an interest in the notion of flight when then-Assistant Secretary
of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt ordered an evaluation of Samuel Langley’s flying machine in
1898, years before the Wright brothers’ famous first flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in
1903 (Goodspeed, 2001). In a few years, aviation pioneers demonstrated the ability to launch
planes from the water, to launch from reconfigured ships, and in early 1911, successfully
demonstrated a shipboard arrested landing of an airplane, which spawned the Navy’s first
requisition of airplanes and training the service’s first Naval Aviator, Lieutenant Theodore G.
“Spuds” Ellyson (Evans & Grossnick, 2015). The subsequent decades saw the integration of
flight into fleet operations, but it was not until the Second World War that Naval Aviation stood
the ultimate test. A decisive victory against the Japanese Fleet using carrier-based fighters and
dive-bombers at Midway was the turning point for the Americans in the Pacific Theater and
proved the primacy of Naval Aviation (Goodspeed, 2001). Rapid technological change
throughout the interwar periods and in multiple conflicts cemented Naval Aviation’s place in the
Navy and nation’s strategy and remains a symbol of the United States’ national power projection
around the globe (Hone, 2001; Sizemore, 2013). The 1986 film Top Gun flew into American
popular culture, glamorized a hyper-macho Naval Aviation culture, and was a boon in recruiting
for the years that followed (Evje, 1986; Forsling, 2019; Goulopoulos, 2019; Sirota, 2011). Born
from that rich history of aviation pioneers, wartime combat aces, and countless nameless heroes,
these predecessors are the giants upon whose shoulder today’s Naval Aviators stand. This
imagery forms the first impressions and shapes expectations of future Naval Aviators.
17

Naval Aviation candidates are commissioned officers of the unrestricted line, eligible for
command at sea. They are accessed from a pool of eligible U.S. citizens who are at least 19 years
of age but not older than 27, possess a bachelor’s degree, meet moral and physical requirements,
and demonstrate the potential aptitude to successfully complete aviation training (Chief of Naval
Personnel, 2002). Aptitude is determined through the Aviation Selection Test Battery (ASTB), a
five-section exam first developed in the 1940s that remains largely unchanged since the early
1990s (Stricker, 2005); 15% of the nearly 10,000 aviation aspirants who take this exam annually
are selected for aviation training (Denton, 2011). Pilot flight training consists of three phases:
Aviation Preflight Indoctrination; primary flight training in the T-6 Texan II; intermediate flight
training followed by advanced flight training, occurs after selection to jets where students fly the
T-45 Goshawk, multi-engine aircraft flying the T-44 Pegasus, or helicopters flying T-57 Sea
Ranger (Chief of Naval Air Training, 2021b). The Naval Flight Officer pipeline is similar and
focused on the necessary skills to operate aircraft sensors and weapons systems in various type-
wing communities (Chief of Naval Air Training, 2021a). The duration of flight training varies
based on the specific type of aircraft or platform flown but averages almost two years
(Bookheimer, 1995). Upon the completion of flight training, newly winged aviators advance to
the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) for training in their specific fleet platform and the initial
tactics associated with that aircraft (Price, 2020). Upon graduation from the FRS, First-term
Naval Aviators join their fleet squadron, beginning their initial operational tour known as the
first sea tour (Department of the Navy, 2020c). This first sea tour is notionally 36 months long
before a first shore tour assignment, also approximately 36 months, which is followed by a
second sea tour assigned to a ship, afloat staff, or squadron (Department of the Navy, 2020c).
This second sea tour typically starts around eight years of service; it is during this period First-
18

term Naval Aviators are considered for promotion to Lieutenant Commander and screened for a
squadron department head position (Department of the Navy, 2020c).
Naval Aviation’s demographic composition lags behind a more diverse Navy. Women
comprise nearly 20% (N: 66,835 of 383,542) of the total force, and approximately 40% of that
force is racially diverse (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019e, 2019f). In comparison, women make
up just under 10% (N: 1,265 of 12,800) of the total aviation inventory and nearly 10% (N: 1,267
of 12,800) of aviation officers are racially diverse (Navy Personnel Command, 2019b). Women
also comprise 47% of the rotary wing communities; additionally, both gender and racial
representation decreases as year group cohorts become more senior (Baze, 2019b).
Motivation Theory
Motivation theories explain work-place human behavior and offer a framework to
understand how individual needs and the environment influence retention. Research shows
connections between motivation, organizational performance, and organizational behaviors
resulting in employee retention (Kanfer et al., 2017). Management and human resource theories
inform military retention initiatives. A market-driven approach provides a popular framework for
practitioners (Cappelli, 2000); but, these efforts fall short of articulating why such measures are
effective.
Reviews of motivation theories highlight the significance of creativity, groups, and
culture (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999); however, the theories do not provide a holistic view of
motivation. Motivation content theories focus on motivated behavior as a function of need
satisfaction, such as self-actualization, growth, positive reinforcement, enrichment, and
achievement (Alderfer, 1969; Lawter et al., 2015; Maslow, 1943; Pardee, 1990). Process theories
focus on how motivated behavior occurs; expectancy, goals, equity, self-regulation, and efficacy
19

theories suggest how motivated behavior manifests (Bandura, 2005; Bassett-Jones & Lloyd,
2005; Latham & Locke, 1991; Miner, 2005). Two-Factor Theory suggests job satisfaction is not
inversely proportional to job dissatisfiers, decreasing one does not equate to an increase in the
other (Herzberg, 2003). This theory introduces an important consideration for organizational
practice as efforts focused on solely reducing workplace dissatisfiers may not produce a
corresponding increase in motivation.
Self-determination theory (SDT) evolved from 30 years of research to understand
intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivation; it evolved into an overarching macro
theory describing a spectrum of motivation types ranging from autonomous to amotivated (Deci
et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Figure 1 depicts Gagné and Deci’s
(2005) self-determination continuum. SDT aims to satisfy the basic psychological needs of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2015; Gagné & Deci,
2005). Some research adds meaningful purpose or value as the fourth need (Pomerantz et al.,
2005). This research considers the expanded needs of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
purposefulness as the basic psychological needs address through SDT.

20

Figure 1
Self-Determination Continuum

Note. From “Self-determination theory and work motivation,” by M. Gagné, and E. L. Deci,
2005, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, p. 336 (https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322).
Copyright 2005 by John Wiley and Sons, Limited.

Autonomous motivation enables organizational citizenship and prosocial behaviors,
improving organizational trust, commitment, and job satisfaction (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Autonomy is personal causation (De Charms, 2013), individual self-determination (Friedman,
2006), one’s own volition instead of external compulsion (Grolnick & Raftery-Helmer, 2013),
and a basic psychological need to feel one’s actions result from self-regulation (Deci et al., 2017;
Deci & Ryan, 2013, 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005). White (1959) described competence as one’s
21

capacity to effectively interact with one’s environment. The pursuit of competence is integral to
guiding intrinsically motivated behavior (Alderfer, 1969; Bandura, 1991; Deci, 1971; Gagné &
Deci, 2005; Lawler & Hall, 1970). Relatedness is the need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
or feel socially connected to others (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000). Relatedness is acceptance,
understanding, and influence (Alderfer, 1969), it contributes to perceptions of fairness (Vavra et
al., 2017), and is associated with authentic leadership (Ilies et al., 2005). The many factors
influencing retention link to one or multiple of SDT’s basic needs. Evidence indicates
autonomous motivation, an aspect of SDT, enables organizational citizenship and prosocial
behaviors, and it can improve organizational trust, commitment, and job satisfaction (Gagné &
Deci, 2005).
SDT consists of six mini-theories that recognize and correspond to different aspects of
motivation across various life domains such as work, education, athletics, health care, and
emerging technologies (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The six theories are cognitive evaluative theory
(CET), organismic integration theory (OIT), causality orientation theory (COT), basic
psychological needs theory (BPNT), goal contents theory (GCT), and relationship motivation
theory (RMT). CET alternatively considers the perceived locus of causality and identifies
externally caused behavior (through extrinsic reward) reduces intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,
1980); it describes the influence of social environments on intrinsic motivation and subsequent
performance (Ryan & Deci, 2017). OIT is the process of internalizing and integrating external
motivators into one’s behaviors where action becomes autonomous and recognizes that factors in
social contexts either promote or inhibit integration (Ryan & Deci, 2017). COT suggests three
causal orientations (autonomy, controlled, and impersonal) that affect an individual, their
behavior and the motivational primes, or unconscious cues, such as self-endorsed values or
22

external direction that trigger behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Weinstein et al., 2010). While the
previous mini-theories discuss the conditions for need satisfaction and autonomous orientations,
BPNT focuses on basic need satisfaction and resultant wellness. Basic psychological need
satisfaction is an integral element across all mini-theories; however, BPNT shows a direct
relationship between need satisfaction, especially autonomy and well-being (Ryan et al., 2010;
Ryan & Deci, 2017). Conversely, need-thwarting environments negatively impact well-being
and promote burnout (González et al., 2017). GCT focuses on intrinsic and extrinsic life goals,
those aspirations that are rewarding or contingent satisfactions that are instrumental to fulfilling
unmet needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Lastly, RMT shows that high-
quality interpersonal and intragroup relationships support relatedness and autonomy (Ryan &
Deci, 2017; Ryan & Hawley, 2016) enables emotional reliance, while relationships contingent
upon satisfying the demands of a partner result in ill-being (Ryan et al., 2005).
Work-place retention is a function of motivation, and various disciplines have
successfully integrated SDT; yet there is limited research focused on the military context. A
longitudinal study spanning 14 years that evaluated the impact of compounding external motives
and internal motives and the effect on near-term performance, long-term performance, and the
likelihood of career retention for West Point cadets stands out as the only published research
focused on understanding motivation in the military (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). A longitudinal
approach suggests the compound effect of factors influencing motivation over a protracted
period. The Ecological Model of Human Development presents a schema to consider the
transactional relationship between an individual and their multi-layered environment
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979); it offers a construct to understand the reciprocity between individuals
23

and organizational culture as well as consider the cumulative effect over time (Gardiner &
Kosmitzki, 2001; Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017).
Motivation theory provides an approach to consider factors impacting retention, a
manifestation of career-motivated behavior. Self-determination theory describes a spectrum of
motivated behavior, and Bronfenbrenner offers a framework to explain how an individual’s
motivation may shift along that spectrum based on changes to their environment over time. The
two-factor theory provides a means to understand why the tools offered by leadership to improve
retention may not be effective. Additionally, because the Naval service is comprised of different
generational groups, it is important to consider the factors affecting motivation in the context of
generational differences.
Generational Differences
Understanding factors affecting retention are essential to frame the problem, and
motivation theory provides a heuristic to connect the factors to basic psychological needs.
Current research suggests generational differences in factors affecting motivation. Four
generational demographic groups comprise the modern-day workforce (Baby-boomers,
Generation X, Generation Y or Millennials, and Generation Z); research suggests each has a
distinctive character and attitude towards work (Iorgulescu, 2016). Abrupt shifts in behaviors and
attitudes do not occur at clearly defined dates. Instead, those on the edge of a generational group
are more likely to demonstrate the adjoining group’s characteristics. The now retired from
active-duty Baby Boomer generation established most of the Navy’s policies and programs.
Some continue to serve, advise, and influence the service in a civilian or contractor capacity.
Generation Xers comprise the service’s senior leadership. The Millennials of Generation Y
comprise the mid-grade and junior officer corps. Generation Z is entering the junior officer
24

ranks. Therefore, the motives and values are not homogenous across the currently serving aviator
demography. Researchers do not agree on the bounding limits for each generation (Iorgulescu,
2016); however, for the purpose of this research, Pew Research Center’s (Figure 2) provides a
clear generational demarcation for this inquiry (Dimock, 2019). Figure 3 depicts a generational
comparison of the active-duty Naval Aviator inventory.

Figure 2
Pew Research Center Generations Defined

Note. From “Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins,” by M.
Dimock, 2019, January 17, Fact Tank, (https://pewrsr.ch/2szqtJz). Copyright 2020 by the Pew
Research Center.

25

Figure 3
Generational Comparison of Naval Aviation Accessions, Retention, and Rank Distribution

Note. Dark Grey = YG Accessions Light Grey = YG Retention

Millennials, who comprise the demographic core of the Navy’s strike-fighter pilot
retention problem, are less vested into a career by the time they satisfy their MSR than their
Baby-boomer and Generation Y predecessors (Snodgrass, 2014). Research suggests career
success and financial gain motivated Generation Y; whereas Generation Z values career agility
and flexibility (Juhász et al., 2016). However, the data does not always agree, and some evidence
suggests that Millennials value personal growth and a work-life balance over financial gain
(PricewaterhouseCooper, 2011). Additionally, they place greater value on workplace culture and
community as well as transparency, especially pertaining their careers and recognition (Finn &
26

Donovan, 2013). The factors driving retention between Millennials and non-Millennials are
virtually the same, but their significance and how they motivate differs (Finn & Donovan, 2013).
This aspect emphasizes the importance of understanding cross-generational motives as a
significant element to consider when framing the problem of aviator retention. The literature
indicates that addressing factors driving low retention may not yield the same outcomes
depending on the generation affected (Murphy, 2012; E. S. Ng et al., 2018). Two-factor theory
suggests addressing factors driving low retention may yield limited results if efforts satisfy basic
psychological needs are unchanged. This further adds to the complexity of enterprise-wide
solutions.
Factors Affecting Retention
Naval Aviator retention, like the other services, is cyclical, and there are four general
factors affecting retention. These categories are positive internal factors and positive external
factors encouraging retention and negative external factors and negative internal factors
encouraging separation. The cyclical nature of retention results in common historical factors
affecting retention; however, data indicates new factors are emerging in addition to variations on
historical influences.
Factors Encouraging Naval Aviator Retention
Positive internal factors are the original individual, almost intrinsic, motives inspiring
Naval Aviators to join the profession. Aspiring aviators join the program because of a desire to
fly, perceptions of pay and benefits, prestige and social opportunity, to develop self-discipline
and confidence, and interest in a Naval career (Waag et al., 1973). Leaders may perceive a prime
motivator is the desire to fly; however, prior studies were unable to correlate individual flight
time to retention (Bookheimer, 1995). Navy leadership believes Naval Aviators seek to be a part
27

of something bigger than themselves, a patriotic call to serve the nation, or the fulfillment of a
lifelong dream to fly (U.S. Congress, 2017).
Positive external factors include what Navy leadership calls a fair compensation package
consisting of pay, allowances and bonus opportunities, comprehensive health care, and a
retirement plan (Walenga, 2019). Additionally, other personnel and retention initiatives such as
advanced education opportunities, career intermission, and planned improvements to
performance evaluations are potential positive external factors enabling retention if properly
applied (R. Burke, 2018a).
Factors Encouraging Naval Aviator Separation
External factors negatively impacting retention include a healthy economy and low
unemployment resulting in increased job opportunities. A 1965 study of Naval Aviator retention
identified family separation, pay and allowances, limited duty assignment choice, and excessive
administrative burden as the leading factors negatively affecting retention (Adams, 1966, as cited
in Cook, 1979). RAND found a stronger correlation between increased major airline hiring and
increased military pilot attrition in the Air Force than in the Navy; however, this association
between civilian airline jobs availability and military pilot attrition is not separate from the
influence of airline pay and lifestyle (Elliott et al., 2004). Today’s commercial airline
opportunities are no longer limited to just jet and multi-engine aviators, and many airlines offer
transition training for rotary-wing aviators to meet the growing commercial demand (Gebicke,
1999). Leaders may falsely perceive airline hiring is a leading factor driving separation;
however, data aggregation may bias statistical analysis and overstate a smaller number of Naval
Aviators opting out who actually seek airline employment (Rasch, 1998). Aggregating retention
28

data across all aviation communities masked shortfalls in specific communities with over-
retention in other communities (Kelso, 2014).
Quality of service and quality of life are the two categories comprising negative internal
factors and are often interrelated. Proctor, Lassiter, and Soyers (1976) developed a predictive
model of junior officer retention based on an organizational climate survey and the member’s
average performance evaluation score (O’Donnell, 1980), suggesting not only the member’s
view of the organization matters but so does the member’s perceived value. Retention correlates
with attitude measures, specifically command climate and general satisfaction (Cook, 1979).
Poor quality of service includes limited aircraft availability and reduced flying hours, causing
delayed qualifications, ultimately impacting career progression (Z. Brown, 2017). The
implications of Continuing Resolutions are inadequately resourced budgets to sustain military
readiness (R. Burke, 2018b; Faturechi et al., 2019); this factor results in tangible impacts
undermining positive external motives and enhancing negative internal factors (Farrell, 2018b;
Hulbert, 2014; Snodgrass, 2014). A perception that aviators are not doing what they signed up to
do is another aspect of poor quality of service. Views of excessive administrative burden
reinforce this perception (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014). Additionally, the aviator’s normal
career progression is rigid, limiting flexibility.
Unplanned factors further limit career flexibility; low accession rates from 2005 to 2012
result in a reduced inventory and delays in intermediate and advanced jet training due to T-45
physiological episodes causing hypoxia as well as low aircraft material readiness rates at the
strike-fighter Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) delay replacement pilot arrival to fleet
squadrons (Baze, 2019b). The compounding impact of these issues caused the time to initially
train aviators to increase from approximately two to three years to nearly five years, and the
29

strike-fighter FRS achieved less than 20% of its annual pilot production target by mid-2019. The
resulting gaps in fleet squadrons increase the shared administrative requirements across fewer
personnel (Pendleton, 2018). Mitigations result in unplanned extensions, which increases aviator
fatigue and potentially impacts competitive performance evaluation timing (Baze, 2019b).
Another significant factor adversely affecting the quality of service because it is intangible, but
palpable, is the perception of declining trust in senior leadership (Elliott et al., 2004; Snodgrass
& Kohlmann, 2014).
The leading quality of life issues adversely effecting retention includes operational
tempo, family stability, and work-life balance. Factors influencing a decision to separate from
initial flight training include a dislike of the military structure and discipline, personal problems
stemming from spouse displeasure and separation from family, dislike or difficulty with
academic material, a negative response to the pressures of flight training, and a loss of interest in
the flight program (Waag et al., 1973); however, those dissatisfiers persist throughout the First-
term Naval Aviator’s career. The strongest negative influences correlate to an individual
mismatch with the military lifestyle and spousal dissatisfaction (Waag et al., 1973). Over 50% of
the Fiscal Year 2018 Aviation Department Head decliners reported they deployed three or more
times in their careers (Z. Brown, 2017). Frustration from operational tempo extends beyond just
the frequency, duration, and instability of deployments, but also includes time away from home
for schools, training detachments, and exercise support.
The frequency of permanent change of station moves, location of assignments, lack of
professional opportunities for spouses, and individual demands to augment other units for
deployment cause family instability (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014). Spouse career interruptions
and limited future earnings potential caused by reduced employer-funded development attributed
30

to perceptions of limited return on employee investment resulting from frequent military moves
(Asch, 2019; Hosek & Wadsworth, 2013). This contributes to external factors influencing
retention decisions, especially for aviators assigned to non-fleet concentration areas who
experience greater geographic instability caused by multiple career permanent change of station
moves (Z. Brown, 2017; Sonethavilay et al., 2019). An imbalance between work and home life is
the manifestation of forced prioritization of professional obligations and duty over family needs
and desires.
Historic Factors Versus Emerging Factors Affecting Retention
Historically, low retention periods typically correspond with a stronger economy and an
increase in commercial air transport job opportunities (Farrell, 2018a; Gebicke, 1999; Gibb et al.,
1987; Hill & Gaupp, 2006; Mitchell & Albright, 1972). Low flight time, increased time away
from home, and less competitive financial compensation compared to civilian opportunities were
additional factors that further push Naval Aviators from continued service (Gibb et al., 1988).
The current period of low military aviator retention is not exclusive to Naval Aviation; career
dissatisfaction stemming from variations related to time away from home and family impacts
caused by career demands and is a consistent factor across the services (Pendleton, 2018).
Declining trust in senior leadership, reduced operational funding without reducing the
operational tempo, and changing demographic composition of the force are new factors
exacerbating the current retention crisis (Cacciola, 2009; Snodgrass, 2014; Snodgrass &
Kohlmann, 2014). Low quality of life and quality of service perceptions countered by a belief
family stability and financial opportunity improve in the civilian marketplace characterize Naval
Aviation’s retention challenge.
31

Gap Analysis Framework
The difference between organizational performance, specifically underperformance, and
organizational goals is a performance gap; Schein (2012)called this information disconfirmation,
and it is the first element of unfreezing an organization or creating the motivation to change.
Unfreezing, first conceptualized by Lewin (1947, as cited in Cummings et al., 2016), is a three-
step process consisting of unfreeze, change, and refreeze. The organizational change industry is
replete with models, approaches, and techniques to improve individual and organizational
performance. Approaches focus on individual principles (Covey, 1991); reframing perspectives
(Bolman & Deal, 2017); or are process-driven (Kotter, 1995); model-driven (W. W. Burke,
2012); or culturally driven (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Each offers ways to successfully close
performance gaps, provided the organizational environment supports the change. An
organization is a group of people working together in a structured way for a common purpose
(Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2020). Etymologically, an organization is a coordinated
structure, a voluntary association, and a manifestation of collective interest (Cambridge
Dictionary Online, 2020). Therefore, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a means to identify
the human causes in organizational performance gaps and a suitable analytic methodology
framing systemic inquiry that is scalable across any organization. Grounded in organizational
goals, the Turning Research Into Results Process Model identifies individual goals to determine
performance gaps; the subsequent analysis enables the identification of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational factors preventing goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
organizational change can be realized by the continuous application of the model and evaluating
performance toward goal achievement across knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
32

This exploratory study follows the general framework of Clark and Estes gap analysis
aimed at factors impacting performance, specifically, low First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rate.
Although there is a limited body of work focused on Naval Aviator retention, the paucity of
empirical research on this specific problem of practice requires a broader review of the literature
associated with germane knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacting goal
achievement. The next section presents these influences.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
First-term Naval Aviators are pilots with less than eight to ten years of service who are
still fulfilling their MSR-I. Barring any adverse reasons, these officers are automatically
considered for continuation as their respective year group approaches the career milestone
selection and screening boards. The increase in First-term Naval Aviators opting out of
continued service is the crux of the problem of practice. Using the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework, the following sections explore knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impacting First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rates for continued service.
Knowledge Influences
What is knowledge, and how does it influence First-term Naval Aviator retention by
increasing the opt-in rate for continued service? Defining knowledge is a central pursuit of
philosophers and epistemologists; to Plato, knowledge is an inquiry of value in pursuit of one’s
interests, with the ultimate aim to understand (Welbourne, 2001). In Plato’s view, the purpose of
inquiry and acquiring knowledge is to understand, but the linkage between inquiry and
knowledge is ill-defined. Some philosophers view beliefs and knowledge as distinct
characterizations of different ideas. In contrast, others offer that beliefs are ideas we do not
believe in but still contribute to our knowledge or ideas we believe in (Stoczkowski, 2015).
33

Knowledge starts with an individual’s perceptions of the world around them,
introspection, and memory (Steup & Neta, 2005); one’s interpretation of this data forms ideas
that develop into beliefs and the foundation for logical reasoning (Gasset & Garcia-Gomez,
2002). Logical reasoning validates ideas thus viewed as truth (Hofweber, 2017), and learning is
the process of transforming information into knowledge and understanding. Krathwohl’s (2002)
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives categorizes knowledge as factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge consists of the fundamental
elements, terminology, and specific details necessary to be familiar with a domain and solve
problems within that domain; whereas, conceptual knowledge is about the interrelationship of
factual knowledge with other elements within larger systems and their associated theories and
principles (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge is the application of factual and conceptual
knowledge to perform tasks or solve problems; metacognitive knowledge is awareness of
cognition as well as self-awareness of one’s cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). This section reviews
literature explicitly focused on conceptual knowledge and metacognition as they pertain to First-
term Naval Aviators’ understanding of their career progression requirements and their ability to
adopt strategies for continued service.
Knowledge of Professional Obligations and Requirements for Career Progression
A First-term Naval Aviator’s conceptual understanding of their professional obligations
and career progression requirements is a knowledge influence relevant to increasing the
stakeholder goal. Conceptual knowledge is the perceived understanding derived from one’s
association of relationships linking discrete pieces of information (Ben-Hur, 2006). This section
will discuss the development of a First-term Naval Aviator’s conceptual knowledge and how this
knowledge may contribute to an expectation mismatch, specifically, training & development
34

through accession source, in-flight training, and at the first fleet tour. Moreover, mentorship
plays a role in mediating conceptual expectation alignment.
An expectation mismatch is a misalignment between one’s conceptual understanding and
their reality that introduces a mismatch between the individual and the organization or
organizational values (Branham, 2012; Gaschler et al., 2014; Kalleberg, 2008). Work-family
mismatches exist when professional and personal requirements and responsibilities conflict;
time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflicts are the three attributes contributing to a
work-life balance (Kalleberg, 2008). Overwork, characterized as the total number of hours and
the intensity of work, is a temporal mismatch leading to stress and interpersonal conflicts
(Kalleberg, 2008). Survey responses from First-term Naval Aviators declining to continue
service indicate the amount, nature, and value of work influenced separation decisions (Baze,
2018c; Z. Brown, 2017). These conditions suggest a person-organization mismatch.
Person-Organization (P.O.) fit theorizes the transactional need fulfillment dyad between
individuals and the organizations in which they work (Kristof, 1996). Negative P.O. fit correlates
to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Verquer et al., 2003) and job
performance, organizational citizenship, and retention (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Person-job fit,
the degree of alignment between an individual and their job, is characterized by an individual’s
knowledge and skill in a particular domain and positively relates to organizational performance,
commitment, and innovation (Huang et al., 2019).
Anecdotal stories from prior servicemembers (National Research Council, 2003), popular
culture influences (Forsling, 2019), and perceptions formed through limited exposure of the U.S.
Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps summer training programs (Chief of
Naval Operations, 2016) provide pre-service exposure to the quality of service and quality of life
35

aspects of a career as a Naval Aviator. The Midshipman Summer Training Program is a multi-
week immersion in an operational fleet unit (ship, submarine, or squadron) to facilitate
professional and leadership development. This period is under the direct mentorship of a career-
motivated officer to reinforce academic programs, familiarize with the Navy’s operational
forces, instill pride in service, and orient participants to a full-service career (Chief of Naval
Operations, 2016). The FY-21 Active Duty Line Community Brief publishes the career track and
values for each warfare community; Naval Aviation values outstanding performance, especially
production pilot and test pilot tours (Department of the Navy, n.d.)(Department of the Navy,
2020c). Production tours are assignments to the training squadrons, FRS, and the type-wing
weapons schools; because of their value, they are highly competitive and are often a
discriminator at the Aviation Department Head Screen Board (Baze, 2018b). The implication of
this organizational behavior is officers assigned to influential mentorship positions at accession
sources are less likely to select for a department head or continue service, signaling these tours
are not valued despite their inclusion in the published career path.
There are no known studies to confirm the effectiveness of summer training experiences
in preparing individuals for their commissioned service, nor proof such experience influences
career retention decisions. Conversely, most flight school attritions expressed dissatisfaction with
recruiting methods and limited information regarding the program resulting in misperceptions
and unfulfilled expectations (Waag et al., 1973). Griffin and Mosko (1977) found fewer flight
training attritions among USNA and NROTC accessions than OCS accessions, suggesting that
longer programs more effectively shape expectations regarding military service. However,
various studies on career retention rates between USNA and OCS (Cook, 1979; Rickus &
Berkshire, 1968) yield inconsistent findings. There is no recent formal research aimed to
36

understand the alignment between pre-service expectations and in-service experience. However,
some data suggests First-tour Naval Aviators perceive they do not have a work-life balance and
are not doing what they signed up for (Baze, 2018c), which results in an expectation mismatch.
This study seeks to clarify these preliminary findings.
Conceptual knowledge anticipates value congruence; notwithstanding specific variables
considered antecedents to individual change, much of the organizational change literature
focuses on aligning the organization with personal values (Branson, 2008). However, the
corollary is also true in that personal values evolve to adapt to the new social construct
introduced by military service and changing circumstances in their personal lives. Additionally,
trust is an organizational influence that will be discussed in greater detail later. It is associated
with a First-term Naval Aviator’s conceptual understanding of their environment and is a strong
predictor of change susceptibility leading to adaptation (Rahn et al., 2020). Adaptation is the
result of successfully implementing strategies to meet the conditions for continued service.
Ability to Adopt Strategies to Meet Conditions for Continued Service
Are First-term Naval Aviators aware of the necessary conditions for continued service,
and are they able to adopt strategies to meet those conditions? This question reflects the intent of
Flavell’s (1979) metacognition framework, the triadic reciprocity between knowledge, goals, and
the strategies to achieve those goals. Knowledge, acquired through learning, and metacognition
is self-knowledge about one’s learning and the self-regulation of cognition in learning (Flavell,
1979; Brown, 1978, as cited in (Veenman et al., 2006). Metacognition research primarily focuses
on formal learning (Boström & Lassen, 2006; Ohtani & Hisasaka, 2018) and adult education
(Johnston & Watson, 2004). However, informal or unstructured learning, such as on-the-job
training, results from metacognition, or reflection on the interplay between one’s experience and
37

prior knowledge (Barley, 2012). Metacognition is an active choice based on prior knowledge to
achieve goals, and metacognitive experience is the subjective reaction to those actions applied
towards one’s goals according to Flavell’s framework (Azevedo & Aleven, 2013). Others
expanded Flavell’s original framework. Kuhn (2000) limits metacognition to declarative
knowledge and adds metastrategic knowing, which consists of knowledge about task goals
(metatask) and procedural knowledge about available strategies to achieve one’s goals. However,
a critical flaw of metacognition is the vulnerability to erroneous or misinformed strategies based
on incomplete or inaccurate prior knowledge (Azevedo & Aleven, 2013). Furthermore, Argyris
(1976) asserted people often do not use the behavioral strategies they espouse to others because
they do not teach reflection and a reticence to communicate a strategy-experience mismatch.
Through this vulnerability and incongruence between espoused and enacted strategies, the
linkage to prior conceptual knowledge and expectation mismatch manifests as goals are
unrealized.
Naval Aviation training emphasizes the technical aspects of flight operations, and the act
of flight itself is a continuous sequence of conscious and subconscious problem identification
and correction. This conditioning to maintain control in the cockpit is integral to Naval Aviation
training. Success carries over outside the aircraft and presents a challenge to those who cannot
exert the same control on their careers or quality of life. Those who ascribe to Schön’s (2017)
positivist perspective of Technical Rationality focus on problem-solving and overlook the setting
in which the problem occurs. Individuals who possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
fulfill their work tasks earn recognition and respect from leaders, self-organizing support, and
more workplace autonomy, thus satisfying basic psychological needs (Zhao & Han, 2016 as
cited in Huang et al., 2019). Individuals demonstrate adaptive functioning, a willingness to
38

develop new skills when needs such as autonomy and competency are satisfied (Ryan & Deci,
2017). This acquiring new schema, internalizing competencies, and integrating into self-
regulated behavior depends on one’s motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Table 2 presents the
knowledge influences and types evaluated in this study.

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Type Assumed Knowledge Influence
Conceptual Naval Aviators have knowledge of their professional
obligations and requirements for career progression.
Metacognitive Naval Aviators are able to adopt strategies to meet conditions
for continued service.

39

Motivational Influences
Retention is the manifestation of organizational commitment influenced by motivated
behavior. Motivated behavior exists on a spectrum, is oriented to both tasks and domains, and
recognizes the interaction of tasks shapes the orientation of the domain as the does the overall
motivational appeal of the domain influence the tasks (Deci & Ryan, 2015; Moran et al., 2012;
Rigby & Ryan, 2018). For example, an artist may find true intrinsic motivation in painting, but
cleaning up after painting is a necessary labor that does not carry intrinsic value. These necessary
hygiene tasks do not add to but can diminish one’s motivation. The same can hold true in the
profession of Naval Aviation where various tasks and duties of limited or no perceived intrinsic
value influence overall motivation.
Humans exist on varying ranges along SDT’s spectrum of motivation with differing
sensitivity to factors that influence motivated behavior (Rigby & Ryan, 2018). Motivated
behavior is the activation of individual choice, persistence, and mental effort towards a task,
activity, or domain (Clark & Estes, 2008). However, mentors and leaders demonstrate the
potential for individual goal achievement and model the persistence and effort to achieve career
success (Godshalk & Sosik, 2003; Joo & Ready, 2012). Sustaining persistence and mental effort
through the course of a career to achieve personal goals is resilient behavior requiring grit. Grit is
determined persistence towards a goal despite challenges; it is inextricably linked to the value
one places on the goal and the influence it may have over other valued endeavors (Deci & Ryan,
2015; Duckworth et al., 2007). The following sections will explore the ideas that First-term
Naval Aviators will encounter the necessary supports for success in their careers, persevere to
achieve long-term goals, and value continued service.

40

First-Term Naval Aviators Believe They Will Encounter the Supports Needed for Success
A motivational influence mediating increased First-term Naval Aviator retention is the
belief First-term Naval Aviators will encounter the necessary supports for success. Vroom’s
(1964) expectancy-value theory, the subjective likelihood effort will produce the desired
outcome, grounds this influence (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Vroom’s model also considers
valence and instrumentality; otherwise stated as affective value and belief performance will yield
desired outcomes (Chiang & Jang, 2008). Expectancy is associated with goal framing and the
subsequent purposeful behavior in pursuit of something valued (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). The
expectancy-value model of achievement choice assumes goals and self-schema, the self-
perceptions of competence and difficulty, influence both expectancies and values; this
collectively affects task choice, performance, and persistence (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Subjective task-value of the achievement and expectancy of success predicts choice,
performance, and persistence (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994).
Porter and Lawler suggested intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are additive, the sum is
one’s total motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Integrating Herzberg’s intrinsic motivators and
extrinsic hygiene factors further supports the additive nature of motivation while recognizing
factors leading to dissatisfaction may detract from total motivation (Udechukwu, 2016).
Organizational leaders facilitate motivation by promoting follower self-perceptions of ability,
potential success, and their efforts are worthwhile (Isaac et al., 2001; Van Wart, 2013); thus,
nurturing individual expectancies. Conversely, leaders demonstrating differential treatment
towards group individuals can signal negative perceptions of ability and undermine expectancy
(Mckown, 2013). Organizations and leaders creating supporting environments enable
expectancies for success.
41

Objective determinants are not the basis for First-term Naval Aviator career success;
individual context is the focus for this study. Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1994) suggested
employees continuously evaluate whether their organization meets their expectations and the
perceived availability of better opportunities; this transactional view of career satisfaction leads
to boundaryless careers (Cheramie et al., 2007). Subjective career success is one’s satisfaction in
their individual professional accomplishments; it is predicated on personal goals and supports
specific to those goals (Joo & Park, 2010). Subjective career success correlates to intrinsic
motivators; the judgment of significant others influences subjective career success and it does
not always correspond with objective measures of success such as salary or position (Gattiker &
Larwood, 1986; Nabi, 1999). Furthermore, perceptions of low organizational support, low
career-related support, and limited promotion opportunities adversely affect subjective career
satisfaction (T. W. H. Ng & Feldman, 2014).
Low employee perceptions of job importance, control, challenge, and skill utilization
negatively affect career growth and career success perceptions (Ng & Feldman, 2014). These
perceptions equate to low valence and instrumentality, which degrades expectancy. Through the
lens of social cognitive career theory, researchers determined a proactive personality, the action
an employee takes to influence their environment, and organizational support for career
development are significantly related to career satisfaction (B. R. Barnett & Bradley, 2007). The
data suggests that although perceptions about current job, organization, and supervisors impact
subjective career satisfaction, unmet expectations have the most significant correlation to low
career satisfaction (T. W. H. Ng & Feldman, 2014)
42

First-Term Naval Aviators Can Persevere to Achieve Long-Term Goals
The perseverance and passion for long-term goals are factors in achieving complex
challenges requiring ability and sustained application of those abilities for protracted periods;
this is grit (Duckworth et al., 2007). Individual efficaciousness is a strong predictor of
motivation; however, when combined with grit, a stronger predictor of motivation exists (Kevin
et al., 2020). Grit links to conscientiousness in the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits
(Duckworth et al., 2007). Conscientiousness is a dominant trait in patient, goal-oriented
individuals (Mike et al., 2015) and correlates to the psychosocial resources to manage tasks in
dynamic work environments (Y. Li et al., 2015; Savickas, 2005). This career or situational
adaptability, when combined with the perseverance of effort, links to the academic, career
exploration and engagement, and talent development domains of motivation (Datu et al., 2017;
Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016). Multiple studies clearly established the relationship between grit
and retention (Duckworth, 2006; Duckworth et al., 2007; Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014). While
there are limitations to these studies, the empirical data suggests that perseverance is integral to
long-term organizational commitment in the form of grit.
Although grit is associated with long-term success in challenging domains, can it be
developed? Some argued true grit cannot be taught (T. Young, 2017), and some assert it should
not be taught (Smilie & Smilie, 2017; Willingham, 2016). Others still suggested grit and
resiliency are often intermixed and overused (Stoffel & Cain, 2018), making pedagogical
development challenging. However, the application of realistic positivity, deliberate practice,
skill-matched challenges, hard work, and meaning or purpose can develop grit (Stoffel & Cain,
2018). Additionally, external support from family, friends, peers, and mentors enables increased
persistence (Burkhart et al., 2014). Some may argue grit is a non-cognitive factor, and efforts to
43

instill grit instead develop self-efficacy or expectancy. In any case, the resultant persistence
motivates behavior supporting goal-theory, provided the goal retains its perceived value.
First-term Naval Aviators Value Continued Service
Do First-term Naval Aviators value continued service? Value has different contexts, such
as usefulness, importance, worth, and belief. Depending on usage, value is a thing, an action, or a
description. Value can be the purpose behind or the focus of motivated behavior. Pomerantz et
al. (2005) suggested experiencing oneself as purposeful, engaged in meaningful and valuable
activities, as a fourth fundamental human need. Assimilation in to groups or organization with
shared values facilitates connections, supporting relatedness need fulfillment (Chirkov et al.,
2003; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Ultimately, value guides behavior (Irby et al., 2006). This section
will explore each context for value and how value is an antecedent for motivated behavior
orientations.
Values often represent an individual’s beliefs or abstract ideals, influencing one’s
behavior (Michie & Gooty, 2005). Value congruence between individuals and their organization
promotes job satisfaction and pro-retention behaviors (Chatman, 1991; Westerman & Cyr, 2004).
Core values are timeless guiding principles that can unify the social dimension of the
organization’s culture (Irby et al., 2006). While core values remain relatively constant, the
interaction with environmental influences shapes value congruence between individuals and their
organizations (Bui et al., 2017). In the context of broader individual subjective importance,
interaction with organizational structure, leader behaviors, and external forces influence values
(Irby et al., 2002). Shifts in values, goals, and motives are often age-related, stemming from
gained knowledge and experience and gradual personality changes (Kollmann et al., 2020).
Employees tend to stay at organizations where their values fit and leave organizations where
44

their goals do not fit (Kollmann et al., 2020). Conflicts between organizational and individual
values, whether core values or lesser achievement values, results in a person-organization
mismatch (Irby et al., 2006). The importance of goals in the work-value framework suggests
goals are the purposeful objective of a task or activity’s subjective achievement value.
In the context of motivation, the value of a task or activity is achievement value and the
cause of motivated behavior (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Achievement values manifest in four
ways: importance or attainment value, interest or intrinsic value, use or utility, and cost (Eccles
et al., 1983). Interest value is like intrinsic motivation. It is why individuals perform activities
out of interest or enjoyment, and the relationship to current and future goals determines the
utility value of a task or activity (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Further, the utility value is
associated with SDT’s extrinsic motivation in that task performance is to enable an outcome
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). More individuals value meaningful work over the reward of salary
(Achor et al., 2018); and members value inclusive organizational cultures as they facilitate need
satisfaction for relatedness (Carr et al., 2019). An ironic causality of successful work
achievement is advancement or promotion as an extrinsic reward for performance which takes
individuals away from their jobs and assigns greater administrative responsibility; however,
emphasis on intrinsic values improves job satisfaction perceptions (Erdogan et al., 2004).
Pre-accession personality assessments indicate the prototypical Naval Aviation candidate
during pre-flight training has ambitious goals and engages in constructive activity to achieve
those goals (Lambirth et al., 2003). This personality orientation may correlate to decreased
motivation when faced with lesser value tasks and assignments. Studies (Roche & Haar, 2013;
Schreurs et al., 2014) show increased employee engagement and organizational citizenship when
workplace environments support intrinsic work values and individual psychological need
45

satisfaction. Goals are the pursued objective of something valued. That objective may have
intrinsic value. The pursuit and accomplishment of the goal are challenging and supports
competency needs, or the goal is instrumental in achieving another goal of greater value. An
individual’s motivated behavior results from the triadic interplay between that behavior and
oneself (cognition, pre-existing personality traits, and affect) and their environment (Bandura,
1988). Behavior is not reactionary to the environment; instead, it is purposeful and regulated by
forethought (Bandura, 1989). Multiple studies show individual expectancies and perceptions
subjective value of tasks or activities can shift over time; as the value decreased, so did
enjoyment (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Individual’s base persistence and performance towards a
chosen achievement on their belief about how well they will do on an activity and its perceived
value (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This perceived value may be a pre-existing internalized value
or an external influence, either of which governs self-regulation (Bandura, 2000).
Self-determination theory’s fulfillment of competence needs explains why people seek
optimal stimulation and challenging activities (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Nevertheless, another
facet of value is the need for fulfillment associated with social esteem. As individuals’
understanding and feedback interpretation improve their self-awareness, their perceptions of peer
performance and self-assessment may become more realistic, causing negative self-referent
perspectives to emerge (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Acceptance into social groups and networks
is relational to the degree to which individuals come to value tasks that significant others value
(Greguras et al., 2014). The approval and the subjective regard of those providing approval
fosters social esteem (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2008); in essence, the approval of those who are
valued matters more than those who are not and contributes to the need satisfaction for
relatedness. Feedback from leaders who are not valued by organizational members may have
46

limited effect in supporting basic psychological needs satisfaction. Table 3 presents the
motivation constructs and influences evaluated in this study.

Table 3
Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Motivation Influence
Expectancy Value First-term Naval Aviators believe they will encounter the right
supports to achieve their professional aspirations.
Persistence (Grit) First-term Naval Aviators can persevere to achieve long-term goals
Value First-term Naval Aviators value continued service over perceived
alternatives.

47

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are the processes, materials, and culture that enable
performance or impede goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Value streams are the interaction
of people, processes, materials, and culture. Value chains draw on value streams to identify how
organizations achieve their stated goals; neither are effective if the organizational culture
impedes either one (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture is organized into two categories, settings and
models. Cultural models are the shared conceptual understanding and presumed truth about how
the organization works, present tools to understand how things work (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural settings are the interactions between people over time to accomplish something
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001); they are the workplace interactions among the various people
that are part of the organization. These models and settings constitute the workplace
environment, and their corresponding affect influences individual behaviors and performance.
Understanding the influence of the environment over time offers a means to understand shifts in
an individual’s motivation and behavior. The following sections will explore various cultural
models and settings within Naval Aviation and their relationship to increasing the opt-in rate for
First-term Naval Aviators. Specifically, Naval Aviation provides support, flexibility,
appreciation, and development opportunities in a culture of fairness and performance-based
equity. Additionally, service as a Naval Aviator is purposeful and the organization fosters a
balanced approach to authority, responsibility, accountability, and expertise at every level.
Naval Aviation Provides Valued Support, Flexibility, Appreciation, and Development
Naval Aviation needs to provide First-term Naval Aviators support, flexibility,
appreciation, and developmental opportunities they value. Feedback from separating First-term
Naval Aviators reflects expectation mismatches between perceived and actual work experiences,
48

negative quality of life influences, and a desire for greater autonomy or flexibility (Baze, 2019b).
In turn, the Navy responded with efforts to improve quality of service and quality of life,
increased professional and personal development opportunities, and included some flexibility in
specialty pays and bonus programs (Baze, 2019b). However, perceptions of limited promotion
opportunities, professional conflicts with personal goals, poor organizational climate, a sense of
diminished worth, and a lack of successful role models all erode organizational commitment
(Pecenco, 2005).
Extrinsic factors have limited effectiveness in promoting motivated work behavior and
retention (Pecenco, 2005); instead, improving intrinsic motivation through need fulfillment will
improve organizational performance and retention (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Increasing intrinsic
motivation is not the only means to improve performance; internalized extrinsic motives become
autonomously regulated behavior (Howard et al., 2016). Internally motivated activities, different
from intrinsically motivated, are not undertaken for enjoyment, pursued instead of for their
lasting effect on individual well-being (B. Schwartz & Wrzesniewski, 2019). Job satisfaction
supports well-being, which is also related to retention attitudes (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2009).
Identified regulation is an outward endorsement of a behavior or activity bearing personal
significance or value; whereas, integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic
motivation, when one fully embraces valued behavior, integrating it into their everyday life and
identity (Chirkov et al., 2003).
The data suggests peers heavily influence First-term Naval Aviators (Snodgrass &
Kohlmann, 2014); feedback from role models and significant others in the social network
complements self-reflection and influences career aspirations (National Research Council, 2003).
Observing others achieve or fail to achieve a goal influences one’s self-perceptions of ability
49

(Vianen, 1999); goal expectancy may be forfeit when the environment is not conducive to the
desired behavior.
Expectancy theories complement SDT’s spectrum of work motivation and offer that
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence influence motivated behavior (Fall & Roussel, 2014).
Otherwise stated, workers expect a level of effort to achieve the desired performance, resulting in
a particular reward that generates the desired effect. Effective workplace compensation programs
consider this cause-effect relationship between employee effort and associated performance
incentives’ desirability (Fall & Roussel, 2014). However, organizations focused solely on
extrinsic influences, such as monetary incentives to retain employees, risk fostering increased
turnover compared to organization retention efforts focused on improving employee perceptions
of future opportunities such as increased responsibilities that are interesting and challenging,
increased promotion opportunity, and increased autonomy (Hannay & Northam, 2000). These
opportunities facilitate satisfaction of competency, relatedness, and autonomy needs, thus
fostering increased intrinsic or internalized motivation (Baard et al., 2004). Numerous studies
show organizational environments creating need-supporting workplace contexts fostering
autonomous motivation produce positive employee and workplace outcomes (Deci et al., 2017).
Although individuals pursue personal growth and development, well-being depends on the
workplace setting; environments that support positive attitudes and organizational trust provide
non-controlling feedback for choice and initiative (Roche & Haar, 2013).
Leader feedback in the form of encouragement, rewards, and recognition improves
performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Distribution of extrinsic rewards and recognition fosters
feeling of organizational value; this promotes competency and can have varying degrees of
impact promoting intrinsic satisfaction associated with achievement (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999;
50

Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Other intrinsic rewards stemming from positive interpersonal
interactions stimulate feelings of social connection and fulfill the need for relatedness (Cacioppo
& Cacioppo, 2017). Authentic leaders with positive self-awareness are emotionally intelligent
and encourage adaptability and decision-making flexibility (Ilies et al., 2005). Notwithstanding
many commonalities, differences in workplace preferences between Generations Y and Z
highlight an organizational need to address individual needs (Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015).
Millennials strongly desire flexibility and frequent feedback highlighting positive performance or
guidance on improving key competencies (PricewaterhouseCooper, 2011).
Despite the importance of positive relationships with organizational leaders, employees
under the age of 35 place more value on work-life balance, flexibility, and organizational culture
(Arora, 2012). Participative leaders value employee engagement, feedback and involve them in
decision-making, fostering autonomy and flexibility (Ariguzo & Okoro, 2018). Organizations
offering significant workplace flexibility in the way of idiosyncratic deals increase employee
perceptions of organizational support, career satisfaction, organizational commitment (Paris-
Dauphine University, 2011). Idiosyncratic deals differ from the leader-member exchange
psychological contract and instead are employers treat employees differently than other
employees in similar roles (Rousseau, 2001). However, according to the competing values model
of organizational culture, wide variability in employee flexibility runs counter to the Navy’s
hierarchal culture focused on stability (Giberson et al., 2009). While these approaches may
maximize flexibility, they can also easily promote perceptions regarding unfair practices and
favoritism (Rousseau, 2001).
51

Naval Aviation Demonstrates a Culture of Fairness and Performance-Based Equity
Naval Aviation needs to demonstrate a culture of fairness and performance-based equity.
A culture of fairness is subjective based on personal feelings and perceptions of events (S. K.
Johnson, 2018). Fairness is rooted in moral development, centered on altruism, and demonstrated
through pro-social behaviors that yield limited personal gain (Sheskin, 2017). Fairness is more
than evaluating outcomes from social-cognitive interaction; humans subjectively and
contextually perceive fairness, judgments on self-interest versus the greater good (Vavra et al.,
2017). Observing unfair rewards for effort triggers neurochemical responses in the human
brain’s prefrontal cortex (Cappelen et al., 2014). Humans internalize socio-cultural norms and
pro-social behaviors of fairness, trust, and cooperation which guide fair and equitable choice
even there was no consequence for an unfair decision (Lesorogol, 2017). This research suggests
humans are generally predisposed to treat others in their social context with fairness and,
therefore, reasonably expect the same in return.
Subjective fairness in organizations and the corresponding cognitive and behavioral
reactions are organizational justice, consisting of three elements oriented on fairness of
outcomes, fairness of processes, and fairness of interpersonal elements of organizational practice
(Sargeant et al., 2017). In contrast, some view equity as the like treatment of similar others based
on relevant characteristics while treating those who are not similar in an unlike manner (Culyer,
2001). Horizontal equity affords individuals greater focus and resources, while vertical equity
provides greater access to resources and support to those in greater need (Culyer, 2001). Based
on instrumental rationality, equity theory accords that the social exchange of inputs (resources)
and outputs (outcomes) in a proportional ratio is deemed just (Arvanitis & Hantzi, 2016).
Therefore, job satisfaction is the resultant exchange of inputs and outputs between an employee
52

and employer (Kollmann et al., 2020). However, in general, people may not understand the
distinction between equity and equality. Therefore, perceptions viewed as unequal when labeled
as equitable are considered unfair. The research suggests that performance evaluations relate to
employment outcomes, including retention (Cappelli & Conyon, 2018), foster moral engagement
(Latham, 2012), enable a culture of learning (Joo & Park, 2010), and promote intrinsic
motivation (Deci, 1971). Additionally, generational differences among employees necessitate
tailored approaches for performance evaluations, incentives, professional development, and
conflict resolution (Juhász et al., 2016).
The Navy’s promotion and screen boards identify the “best and fully qualified” (Baze,
2018a) using performance evaluations documenting a record of sustained superior performance
in community valued assignments to select the future leaders (Navy Personnel Command,
2019a). Detailers are officers assigned to Aviation Officer Distribution (PERS-43) who match
officers to assignments based on the needs of the Navy and the detailed individual’s personal and
professional goals (Navy Personnel Command, 2020). Follow-on options afforded aviators who
are due to rotate to a new assignment are dependent upon the detailer’s review of the strength of
the member’s performance evaluation record for command opportunity competitiveness (Navy
Personnel Command, 2018b). The Navy performance evaluation system expects leaders to
perform counseling based on a fair, accurate, and realistic assessment of the counselee’s
performance, capability, and contribution highlighting strengths and significant weaknesses
(Chief of Naval Personnel, 2019). Although this performance report evaluates individual
contributions, leaders rank individuals against their peer group that consists of all officers of the
same pay grade and competitive category regardless of the individual’s length of assignment at
the unit. This ranking system forces leaders to select a number one rank and sequentially order of
53

all others in the same summary group; limitations on summary group distribution restrict the
number of top recommendations in the Early Promote (EP) category. This limitation shapes
organizational behavior to distribute EP recommendations based on timing, typically towards the
end of one’s tour with their unit. This timing influences both opportunity and career milestone
selection (Navy Personnel Command, 2019a). First-term Naval Aviators may believe career
timing driven by forced performance mark distribution carries too much influence in evaluations
and that subsequent experiences with detailers based on those reports are negative and unfair
(Baze, 2018a; Z. Brown, 2017; Cairoli, 2018; Navy Personnel Command, 2018a). This study
seeks to evaluate how First-term Naval Aviators determine current performance evaluation,
recognition, and career management processes are fair and transparent.
The Navy Provides Naval Aviators Purposeful Employment
Naval Aviation’s purpose is to fight and win our nation’s wars; the men and women who
fly or operate the weapons systems of the Navy’s tactical aircraft train and prepare to be lethal
warfighters (Eckstein, 2018a). Therefore, the Navy needs to provide Naval Aviators employment
that has a clear purpose and supports retention. Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene factors presents an
alternative way to examine this organizational setting and consider the significance of work-
related tasks and activities within and their influence on retention. Herzberg suggests some
aspects of the work environment motivate, some aspects only demotivate, while others
negatively affect motivation only when present but do not contribute to motivation when absent
(Kroth, 2007). More simply stated, dissatisfaction is not the opposite of satisfaction; instead, it is
the absence of satisfaction (Herzberg, 2003). Hygiene or maintenance factors such as salary,
environment, leadership, tools, and resources to perform the required work are necessary
conditions for the work setting (Kroth, 2007). The absence of these factors erodes employee
54

motivation (Pardee, 1990). SDT posits that motivated behavior is in pursuit of need satisfaction;
the subsequent goal-oriented behavior results from innate psychological needs underpinning
those goals (Koestner & Hope, 2014). Maslow’s need hierarchy further supports understanding
the impact of missing need enablers (Saliba, 2006; UK Essays, 2018). These enablers are the
tools, resources, or settings necessary for need attainment, and their absence is a barrier to
moving on to higher-order needs (Maslow, 1943). Many characterize these workplace barriers as
quality of service issues (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014); however, quality of life issues may be
considered lower order or more basic needs and take priority over workplace needs (Rasch,
1998). Maslow and Herzberg acknowledged internal and external factors stimulating behavior
are interconnected and when present, factors appealing to intrinsic satisfaction motivate
employees over extrinsic rewards (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). This need satisfaction
translates to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has humanitarian and utilitarian roles where the
former promotes individual well-being and the latter promotes organizational performance
(Udechukwu, 2016).
The pursuit of intrinsic over extrinsic work values positively relates to job satisfaction
(Schreurs et al., 2014). Past studies on Naval Aviators show the relationship between intrinsic
motivators and job satisfaction (Comptroller General of the United States, 1980; Gibb et al.,
1987, 1988). Administrative workloads and assignments to non-aviation duties or jobs are a
frequent critique of military aviators (Farrell, 2018a; John Q. Public, 2017; Losey, 2018;
McCain, 2017). Although senior leaders believe they are making strides to reduce administrative
burdens (R. Burke, 2018b), many of these tasks remain exacerbated when units experience
personnel shortages (Supko, 2003). Additionally, significant changes to force structure and
cohort size cause military personnel system problems (Rostker et al., 1993). Dissatisfaction with
55

leadership and resource limitations negatively affecting mission accomplishment (Kapp, 2002),
time away from home and organizational climate (Hattiangadi & Horne, 2005), and perceptions
of civilian career opportunities (Kapp, 2019) are all cited as factors adversely impacting job
satisfaction and retention. However, positive leader-member exchanges, perceptions of
organizational support (Erdogan et al., 2004; Ilies et al., 2007), and trust in leadership (C. H.
Green & Howe, 2012) foster job satisfaction which increases employee engagement (Peart,
2019).
Leaders who create work contexts supporting autonomy appeal to individuals’
psychological needs, which garners perceptions of job satisfaction and increased well-being
(Baard et al., 2004), as does meaningful work (Achor et al., 2018; Cross, 2019). Work
environments providing material and informational resources enable goal attainment, whereas
environments viewed as untrustworthy or uncooperative impair motivated behavior (Ford, 1992).
Leadership approaches such as participative (Ariguzo & Okoro, 2018), authentic (Walumbwa et
al., 2008), and transformational (Bono & Judge, 2004) positively contribute to job satisfaction.
Conversely, toxic leaders negatively impact job satisfaction (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2009;
Aubrey, 2012; Maheshwari & Mehta, 2013; Williams, 2018). Lastly, age-related shifts to the
influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motives result in different outcomes facilitating job
satisfaction (Kollmann et al., 2020).
Naval Aviation’s Approach to Authority, Responsibility, Accountability, and Expertise Is
Balanced
Navy leadership illustratively describes trust and confidence as the coins of the realm
(Richardson, 2018); however, that characterization suggests a transactional notion of trust. Naval
Aviation needs to foster a balanced approach to authority, responsibility, accountability, and
56

expertise at every organizational level. Authority, responsibility, and accountability are the
trinity of command (Richardson, 2018), the pinnacle of organizational leadership within a
military context.
Authority is sanctioned position or power to enter financial obligations (Walker, 2005),
direct the action and activities that permeate military culture (U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013). It
also denotes members in a leadership position (Department of Defense, 2006). Responsibility is
the internalization of authority and the demands of one’s self (Kraines, 2002), the scope and
scale of one’s delegated authorities in an organization (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004), and
considered an integral aspect of personal character (Light, 2012). Accountability is ill-defined
but well understood; types of accountability are subjective and fluid based on organizational
context (C. Bianchi et al., 2010; Pollock & Winton, 2016), environment (Pollock & Winton,
2016), orientation (J. C. Burke, 2004), and application (V. I. Kraak et al., 2014). Common
among these types is a relationship between stakeholders that expects responsible individuals to
explain their actions and bear the consequence for the outcome (Connelly et al., 2018). Expertise,
otherwise stated as competence, is the fourth necessity for leaders (National Research Council,
2008); however, integrity-based trust has a more significant positive impact on inter-
organizational relationships than competence-based trust (Connelly et al., 2018).
Trust is central to the psychological contracts serving as the basis of the relationship
between individuals and organizations; these contracts are transactional (i.e., instrumental
exchanges or interactions) or relational (Frey, 2018). Transactional contracts may be analogous
to external or extrinsic motives, and relational contracts are associated with internalized or
intrinsic motives. The opposite of trust is betrayal, an actual or perceived breach of trust that is
intentional or unintentional (Reina & Reina, 2010). The misalignment between expectation and
57

experience potentially challenges trust. This expectation mismatch may result in emotional bias
(Di Bartolomeo & Papa, 2016); experiments mismatching expectations to reality did not confirm
emotional bias, although this may be because participants’ expectations were generally satisfied.
Notwithstanding the results, these experiments highlight the triadic causation of one’s
perceptions regarding their interactions with others and their environment as a prominent
influencer of trust (Rousseau et al., 1998). Pew Research Center reported that younger
Americans are less trusting than older generations (Gramlich, 2019); this is likely due to the
younger generation’s access to information that shapes their perceptions about the world around
them.
Defining trust is complicated by the variability of the trust targets; whether they are
interpersonal, oriented towards immediate teams, or the echelons of a larger organization, the
nature of trust evolves at each level. Trust is a personal emotion shaped by an individual’s
disposition, experiences, and neurochemical response to their environment (Zak, 2019). Trust is
based on both cognition and affect, with the former using performance-relevant judgments and
the latter emphasizing interpersonal emotional connections (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). For this
project’s purpose, trust is both perceptions of the trustee’s reliability and trustor’s willingness to
accept vulnerability (Ashley Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Trust is an anticipatory rationalization
based on and reinforced by others’ positive behaviors (De Jong et al., 2015).
What is the relationship between trust and accountability? Military literature often
focuses on personal accountability, the consequences of individual choices and actions (Swain &
Pierce, 2017), yet accountability at the organizational level remains focused on an individuals’
actions (Marsh et al., 2011). Accountability is an integral element of governance (Dubnick,
2014). However, many formal and informal systems operating simultaneously present
58

accountability (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987), and these systems may conflict at times.
Organizations that hold members in positions of special trust and confidence expect loyalty
(DeMott, 2015). Nevertheless, trust, confidence, and loyalty are reciprocal; in effective
organizations, subordinates likewise hold trust and confidence in leaders. Organizational
performance shortfalls bias accountability practices and introduce unethical behavior that erodes
trust (Carmona et al., 2013).
Trust in an organization is the cornerstone for teamwork and motivation (Zak, 2017), and
the basis of trust is the absence of betrayal. Individuals are held accountable for breaches of trust,
such as unethical behaviors (Beu et al., 2003) or substandard performance attributed to low
competence (McCall & Pruchnicki, 2017). However, these constructs remain focused on
individuals and they do not consider organizational behaviors that depart from expectations are
also a breach of trust. The minor and significant betrayals such as not keeping agreements, not
giving credit for work, layoffs due to restructuring, and delegating responsibility without
corresponding authority are all breaches of trust (Reina & Reina, 2010), as are perceptions of
unfair behaviors (E. C. Bianchi et al., 2015). These behaviors diminish perceptions of autonomy
and competence; conversely, leader behaviors that satisfy follower needs and promote autonomy
improve organizational trust (Deci & Ryan, 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Olafsen et al., 2018).
Trust is fostered through positive social supports (Ryan et al., 2016) and undermined in
competitive environments (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Organizational climate, work content, and
individual orientation are antecedents for autonomous behavior that improve performance, well-
being, satisfaction, and trust (Gagné & Deci, 2005). This research aims to quantify aspects in a
First-term Naval Aviator’s experience influencing perceptions of trust in leaders and the
organization.
59

Naval Aviation Develops First-Term Naval Aviators
Naval Aviation needs to provide a formal mentorship program that includes training and
professional development for mentors on supporting First-term Naval Aviators. Societal and
cultural views influence various mentorship approaches, frameworks within organizations, and
expectations (Kent et al., 2013). Close personal relationships facilitate trust (Weinstein et al.,
2010), such as leader-member exchange (LMX) (Joo & Ready, 2012; Richard et al., 2009) which
overlaps with mentorship (Schriesheim & Scandura, 1994). Some believe LMX and mentorship
are distinctly different, yet others find similarities as there is no empirical distinction from the
subordinate’s perspective (Leow & Khong, 2009). This research effort also views LMX and
mentoring as similar based on the shared beneficial outcomes created by both, in particular, trust.
Mentors facilitate competence development by advocating for challenging job assignments
enabling protégés career goal attainment (Leow & Khong, 2009); protégé success in these
assignments fosters competency and efficacy. The Navy firmly holds mentorship is a core
responsibility of leaders and integral to future leaders’ personal development (Greenert, 2013). It
is a means to build trust within a command (Greenert, 2011) and develops the competency and
character of those mentored (Richardson, 2019a). The Navy Leadership Development
Framework (NLDF) 3.0 depicts a balanced approach to developing character and competence in
officers throughout their career progression (Department of the Navy, 2020c). However, the
NLDF’s officer development framework understates the preponderance of subjective on-the-job
training serving as the backdrop for leader development. This developmental pedagogy does not
fully account for a constructivist approach to character development’s evolutionary nature rooted
in the interaction and tension across the various organizational systems and environmental
factors (Bredemeier & Shields, 2014; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). An aligned professional
60

development continuum reduces variation among stakeholders, improves trustworthiness, and is
characteristic of learning organizations (Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Scandura et al., 1986; Ulrich et
al., 1993).
The Navy envisions Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders (officers at the O-3 to O-4
paygrade) as motivational leaders who mentor and progress to inspirational leaders as they
promote to Commanders and Captains (Department of the Navy, 2013); however, historical data
suggests another reality. A significant majority of First-term Naval Aviators seek career advice
from peers instead of mentors, organizational leaders, and senior officers in their respective units
(dodretention.org, 2014). Research from the late 1990s and early 2000s shows a preponderance
of youth and adolescents had an informal mentor (Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2013); it may be
reasonable to conclude today’s First-term Naval Aviators are more accustomed to an informal
construct. Another potential reason for unsuccessful senior-subordinate mentor relationships is a
contrast between mentor and protege learning goal orientations (Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2013).
Misalignment between senior leader perceptions and junior officer feedback regarding why First-
term Naval Aviators separate at their MSR potentially reinforces the junior officer’s perspective
of eroding trust in leadership (Z. Brown, 2017; R. Burke, 2018a; Snodgrass, 2014). However,
positive senior-subordinate mentor engagement can yield positive organizational outcomes and
mediate trust in leaders but requires a preexisting trust in supervisors as an antecedent to
effective mentoring; although how mentors develop character and moral agency is not well
defined (Clement & Bollinger, 2017; Garcia, 2018; Richard et al., 2009). High-quality leader-
member exchange relationships in collectivist organizational cultures, those with strong in-group
loyalties, build quality relationships with leaders in return for interpersonal relationships,
fulfilling needs for relatedness, and receive organizational supports (Richard et al., 2009). The
61

NDLF aspires for mentor-protégé relationships extending beyond teaching and coaching,
asserting that productive relationships come from loyalty. However, the implication that the ideal
leadership development relationship based on dyadic relationships sends an ominous signal for
the Navy and poses the potential for ethical variance due to the primacy of personal loyalty over
institutional core values.
Although mentorship supports need satisfaction, goal attainment and fosters
organizational trust, the mentor’s relational reach and sphere of influence limit their span of
influence. Theoretically, every member of the organization benefits from participation in a
mentor-mentee relationship; further, the hierarchical nature of the Navy suggests every mentor
should also be a mentee to a more senior leader. Increased trust and confidence is the subsequent
implication of every member in a positive mentoring relationship. Mentors model desired
organizational behaviors and values; employing theoretical and practical frameworks to develop
authentic leaders improves follower organizational citizenship and commitment (Dulebohn et al.,
2012). Table 4 depicts the organizational influence categories and the influences that impact
First-term Naval Aviator opt-in behavior.

62

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1
Naval Aviation provides First-term Naval Aviators
support, flexibility, appreciation, and developmental
opportunities they value.
Cultural Model Influence 2
Naval Aviation demonstrates a culture of fairness and
performance-based equity.
Cultural Model Influence 3
Naval Aviation fosters a balanced approach to authority,
responsibility, accountability, and expertise at every
level of the organization.
Cultural Setting Influence 1
The Navy provides Naval Aviators purposeful
employment.
Cultural Setting Influence 2 Naval Aviation develops First-term Naval Aviators

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework guiding this study is a system of theories, concepts, and
assumptions developed through research and reflection regarding the problem of practice
designed around the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The constellation of ideas
informing this exploration start with reviewing the body of research and organizational
documents reporting various factors affecting organizational retention (Poindexter, 1998;
Snodgrass, 2014; Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014; Supko, 2003) understanding motivation
theories leaning heavily on self-determination theory (Deci et al., 2017), and considering
influences from two-factor theory (Herzberg, 2003) and the multilayered interrelated systems
that act on individuals over time to cause a change in motivation (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
An underlying assumption informing this study is Naval Aviators once possessed enough
motivation to volunteer to serve and complete one of the service’s most challenging training
63

programs, but the initial motivation that sparked their desire to serve eroded over time and
caused an increasing number of aviators to opt-out of continued service following their MSR.
Another assumption is that diminishing organizational trust (a cultural model) underpinned by a
perceived leader say-do gap is reinforced by the Navy’s responses to address retention coupled
with the generational differences between organizational power brokers and the target generation
result in a value mismatch further eroding a desire to serve. These elements inform the
application of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors preventing goal attainment of increasing First-term Naval Aviator opt-in
rate to enable 70% selectivity at community milestone screen boards. Figure 4 depicts the
conceptual framework and the relationship between individual factors and organizational factors
influencing motivation.

Figure 4
Conceptual Framework of the Study

64

65
This gap analysis seeks to understand the factors influencing First-term Naval Aviator
knowledge; specifically, the alignment of their conceptual understanding prior to service and
their lived fleet experience as well as their adaptability because of metacognitive strategy
development. Motivation is the central focus of this effort viewed through the lens of self-
determination theory and considers expectancy, efficacy, and value theories. Aspects of each
interconnect as they relate to need satisfaction. Additionally, Duckworth’s grit resonates as a
meta-theory of goal-oriented persistence and is an assumed variable leading to continued service.
Individual knowledge and motivation continuously interact with the environment. While all
facets of the organizational environment are not covered, the following factors are explored;
models enabling autonomy and fairness as well as settings reducing hygiene factors and
increasing trust and mentorship promote positive outcomes.
Summary
Retention is a lagging indicator of an individual’s motivation, and motivation is typically
directly proportional to performance. Research shows connections between motivation,
organizational performance, and organizational behaviors resulting in employee retention. Naval
Aviator retention is cyclical. The past body of research focused predominately on the allure of
careers in commercial aviation and the impact of monetary incentives. Although prior studies
also identified several intrinsic and extrinsic motivational influences, improving monetary
incentives are the prevailing efforts to incentivize continuation. The Navy is expanding non-
monetary incentives, but they are late to need, limited in their availability and effect. The shifting
generational demographic comprising the actively serving Naval Aviation cadre suggests
differing values from earlier generations regarding the nature of work and importance of
autonomy. Self-determination theory offers a lens to explore the knowledge, motivation, and

66
organizational factors impacting First-term Naval Aviator retention; SDT differs from other
motivation theories in that it offers a spectrum approach to a motivation typology ranging from
autonomous to controlled and amotivated to satisfy the basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, relatedness, and value. It is an overarching macro theory currently consisting of six
mini-theories focused on understanding intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivation.
The mini-theories examine facets of motivation, including cognitive evaluation, integration,
causality, goal contents, and interpersonal relationships, to satisfy the basic psychological needs
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Additional research suggests purpose as another
motivational driver. One can draw a connection between from the factors affecting Naval
Aviator retention in recent data to one or multiple basic psychological needs. Furthermore,
evidence indicates autonomous motivation, an aspect of SDT, enables organizational citizenship
and prosocial behaviors, and it can improve organizational trust, commitment, and job
satisfaction.
The literature supporting conceptual knowledge and metacognition explore the
significance of an expectation mismatch and resultant impact of a person-organization mismatch
as well as adaptation through supporting environments. The evolving nature of work and
workforce diversity warrant advancing knowledge about motivation. Singular motivation
theories are insufficient, and the problem of low Naval Aviator retention requires a multi-theory
approach to understand the interaction between factors and the environment over time and how
each factor enhances or undermines individual perceptions of competency, relatedness,
autonomy, and purpose. This chapter considered the influence of expectancy, value, and
persistence or grit and highlighted elements specifically connected to individual basic need
satisfaction. SDT’s CET recognizes the influence of the environment on supporting or thwarting

67
intrinsic motivation, and several organizational factors are considered. The environment is
categorized into models and settings, each an influence that impacts both an individual’s
knowledge and their motivation. Organizational models promoting autonomy and fairness are
explored as are organizational settings that reduce the aspects of work that erode intrinsic
motivation while increasing organizational trust and mentorship. Collectively, these factors,
while not all-inclusive, set the conceptual framework for inquiry that is detailed in the next
chapter.

68
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project is to explore the degree to which the organization can meet its
organizational goal of filling fleet needs while preserving a 70% selection rate. Although a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is First-term aviators. The analysis will focus on
First-term aviators’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to retention.
This chapter will describe the methodology guiding the research to answer the study questions in
the sections that follow. It will set forth the plan for data collection, instrumentation, and
analysis. Additionally, it will discuss the ethical considerations associated with this research and
any limitations and delimitations.
Study Questions
The research purpose and problem statement align with the research questions; they guide
exploration (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research questions that support this endeavor
follow below.
1. What are the knowledge and motivation factors influencing First-term Naval
Aviator’s decision to opt-in and continue service?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context related to First-
term Naval Aviator’s knowledge and motivation required to increase opt-in rates
and continued service?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources to increase the number of
First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and remain in service?

69
These questions aim to support organizational performance through understanding the
factors promoting First-term Naval Aviator retention, thereby increasing the opt-in rate for
continued service.
Overview of Methodology
This research project undertook a quantitative or closed-ended inquiry using qualitative
or open-ended questions to collect amplifying participant context (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
This design builds upon a quantitative survey instrument to develop the factors affecting
retention (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014). Naval Aviation leaders and practitioners understand
the factors adversely impacting retention. This protocol validated the key retention issues
influencing First-term Naval Aviators and offers an explanation why these factors matter.
Simultaneously, qualitative data collected from First-term Naval Aviators through open-ended
free-text comments and organizational document review provided context to the quantitative
findings. These focus group perspectives highlighting motivation and organizational factors.
Validity or credibility is a measure of congruence with reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016); the
subjectivist ontology posits that reality is a uniquely individualized perception and reflection on
the world in which an actor exists (Aliyu et al., 2015; Nicholas & Hathcoat, 2014). This design
incorporates peer debriefing to legitimize findings to readers who do not ascribe to an
interpretivism paradigm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data collection is through a convenience sample obtained by sending a survey invitation
to all available Naval Aviator email accounts. Although a census sample is the ideal means to
ensure maximum reach of the stakeholder group, validating 100% of such a large stakeholder
group is not practical considering the time constraints for this project. Analysis of the data
highlighted emerging trends across demographic groups and engaged in purposeful qualitative

70
inquiry to seek the participant’s context. The goal for quantitative participation is approximately
1,400 respondents. It is consistent with the number of participants in Snodgrass’ (2014) survey
that provides the foundational data that supports the need for this study. The quantitative data is
an adequate sample size to generalize to the broader population. Peer review cross-checked
emerging themes from quantitative data and qualitative statements within the survey instrument
for increased credibility. Table 5 depicts a crosswalk between data sources and this project’s
study questions.

Table 5
Data Sources
Study Questions Method 1 -
Survey
Method 2 –
Document
Analysis
SQ1. What are the knowledge and motivation factors
influencing First-term Naval Aviator decision to opt-in
and continue service?
X X
SQ2. What is the interaction between organizational culture
and context as it relates to First-term Naval Aviator’s
knowledge and motivation required to increase opt-in rates
and continued service?
X X

71
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan
The following section describes the plan for data collection methods, instruments used to
collect data, and the analysis plan. This investigation will adopt intermethod mixing, relying at
least on two data collection methods (R. B. Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The primary method
for data collection is through a widely distributed quantitative survey. The second method is
document analysis of any accessible and relevant secondary organizational data. Analysis of
secondary data is after the primary data collection and analysis is complete. Although the
secondary documents and artifacts are a priori, the second phase of analysis integrates these
documents to validate or challenge any themes emerging from the survey data.
Method 1: Survey
A multi-function survey instrument incorporating validated tools used to collect primary
data focused on areas relevant to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors discussed
in Chapter 2. The 2014 Navy Retention Study – Naval Aviation data, serves as the cornerstone
for this instrument (dodretention.org, 2014; Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014). It informed the
analysis that frames today’s challenge of low First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rates. However, the
2014 effort lacked a clear conceptual framework and stated research questions to guide protocol
design. Furthermore, the sampling methodology resulted in a respondent pool that was not
representative of the First-term Naval Aviator demographic composition. Relevant questions
from the 2014 survey incorporated in this protocol align with established and validated survey
instruments to address concerns about validity and reliability raised by critics (Santicola, 2014).
Appendix A contains the First-term Naval Aviator Retention Survey used in this study. It is an
instrument consisting of 82 close-ended questions and seven possible open-ended prompts based

72
on participant response. The open-ended questions seek to collect additional data to provide
context to stakeholder responses and further suggest respondent perceptions.
Participating Stakeholders
First-term Naval Aviators are the focus of this study. Organizational goal attainment
depends on the First-term Naval Aviator’s decision to opt-in for continued service. This effort
explores relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors identified in presenting the
problem and supported in the literature review. A census sample is the intended method for
participant recruitment. This approach requires the approval of the Navy Survey Manager, the
Office of Navy Research (ONR), Naval Air Systems Command supplemental investigator
assurance, as well as Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF) endorsement to conduct an official
Navy-supported survey. CNAF emailed a hyperlink to the online survey protocol to invited First-
term Naval Aviators using an organizational email distribution list. Because distribution list did
not include encompass 100% of the focus group stakeholders, the data collection method resulted
in a convenience sample (Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
The participants’ objective response rate is between 1,300 and 2,000 since that will yield
a confidence level between 95 and 99% with a 2.5 % margin of error (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). As
of 2019, the Navy had over 9,860 aviation officers and approximately 8,970 First-term Naval
Aviators (the sum of current aviation officer inventory from FY 2010 to 2020) (F. Young,
2020a). Naval Aviation aggregates the demographic data for both First-term Naval Aviators and
those who continued service beyond their MSR. Women comprise 9% of winged aviators, and
15% are non-white (F. Young, 2020a). Historical data shows low retention of women and
minorities beyond Lieutenant Commander, suggesting this demographic breakdown closely
resembles the First-term Naval Aviator composition (Navy Personnel Command, 2019b). In

73
comparison, this cohort tends to be more diverse than other stakeholder groups. First-term Naval
Aviators are college-educated married white males between 26 and 35 years of age; most possess
science and mathematics degrees, although few have attained some graduate-level education
(dodretention.org, 2014).
Instrumentation
Surveys are helpful ways to measure attributes, behaviors, abilities, and thoughts
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey instrument aims to collect data regarding participant
conceptual and metacognitive knowledge, expectancy, efficacy, resiliency and grit, achievement
value, autonomy, fairness, hygiene factors, trust, and mentorship. Within the bounds of this
study, there is no suitable method to collect participant conceptual knowledge regarding service
as a Naval Aviator before their lived experience; however, adapting an expectation survey
(Sarkisian et al., 2002) will provide insight into the congruence between participant pre-service
and current perceptions. Additionally, adapting elements of other validated survey instruments
discussed later in this section informed the First-term Naval Aviator Retention Survey’s
development. Questions are one-dimensional, clear, succinct, and limited in jargon to improve
participant response (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Modeling Krueger and Casey’s (2009)
questioning route, the survey instrument presents questions to orient participants and initiate a
self-reflective inquiry to understand participant knowledge and motivation before exploring
organizational issues.
Data Collection Procedures
Primary data collection used Qualtrics XM experience management online survey
platform to administer an online survey. The self-report questionnaire is one of the six most
common data collection methods used by researchers (R. B. Johnson & Christensen, 1995). An

74
online survey is the most efficient means to reach the principal stakeholders stationed and
deployed across the globe. The survey’s introduction provided an opportunity for participants to
acknowledge their informed consent for exempt research before continuing with the instrument.
The informed consent for exempt research is adapted from the University of Southern
California’s Office for the Protection of Research Subjects website and provided in Appendix B.
The survey took approximately 20 minutes for participants to complete and offered both a
desktop and mobile device view for ease of use. Data collection ran for two weeks. The Navy
endorsed this research. Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF) was the research sponsor and
sent the survey to focus group participants via an anonymous link sent to the official Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) email account for all First-term Naval Aviators. The instrument
employed available survey protections through Qualtrics to prevent duplicate participation and
provide a message when respondents revisit a previously completed survey link. Respondents
could go back to review and change their answers. There are no forced responses, only prompts
requesting a response for unanswered open-ended questions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis leveraged Qualtrics’ automated features to provide an ordinal mean of the
responses to the closed-ended attitude scales that form the core of the survey instrument
(Harrison, n.d.). Descriptive statistics explains survey focus group characteristics principally
using measures of central tendency. Inferential analysis used chi-square and Pearson’s r
statistical tests to identify characteristics of selected populations and any relationships between
variables (QualtricsXM, 2020; N. Salkind & Frey, 2017). A chi-square test determines the
likelihood the number of responses across categories to identify any statistical significance
between two nominal-level variables; the Pearson’s r is a correlational measure to determine the

75
amount of variability between two variables (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017). Table 6 summarizes the
inferential quantitative data analysis.
Additionally, the instrument included supplementary domain-specific demographic data
to include the respondent’s community within Naval Aviation (i.e., tactical air, rotary-wing,
maritime), overall career experience (i.e., before the first fleet tour, first fleet tour, first shore
tour, and second sea tour), as well as rank, years of service, and marital information. This
additional data is beneficial for multiple reasons. First, this information allows the filtering of
non-First-term Naval Aviator responses in the event spillage beyond the focus group. It will also
allow for the ability to sort and compare responses across the various communities, married/non-
married, and fleet experience levels to identify potential variation in attitudes. This comparison
helps address research question three (RQ3) to identify potential tailored recommendations for
organizational practice to increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and
remain in service. Furthermore, it may support further framing any attitudinal difference across
the various generations that comprise the active-duty population. The dependent variable for this
study is a stated likelihood to continue service. The independent variables include community,
fleet experience, and marital status.

76
Table 6
Data Analysis
Research
Question
Independent
Variable(s)
Level of
Measure
ment
Dependent
Variable(s)
Level of
Measure
ment
Statistical
Test
What are the
knowledge and
motivation
factors
influencing
First-term
Naval Aviator
decision to opt-
in and continue
service?

1) Years of
Service

2) Community

3) Marital
Status

4) Gender
Nominal

1) Cognition
2) Metacognition
3) Expectancy
4) Persistence
5) Value
Ordinal Chi-
Square
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context as it
relates to First-
term Naval
Aviator’s
knowledge and
motivation
required to
increase opt-in
rates and
continued
service?
1) Years of
Service

2) Community

3) Marital
Status

4) Gender
Nominal

1) Autonomy

2) Fairness

3) Purpose

4) Trust

5) Mentorship
Ordinal

Chi-
Square

Validity and Reliability
The challenge of developing a survey compared to qualitative interviews is the validity of
the protocol; specifically, the survey questions answer the questions the researcher intends (N.

77
Salkind & Frey, 2017). Additionally, the survey implement’s reliability, or assessment of the
ability to reuse the protocol and achieve similar results, is another concern for researchers of
large focus groups (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017). Both reliability and validity are central to proving
or disproving any hypothesis (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017). Elements of previously used Navy
retention surveys inform the survey protocol in Appendix A; specifically, the 2014 Navy
Personnel, Research, Studies & Technology (NPRST) Naval Aviation Officer Retention Study,
the 2014 Navy Retention Study facilitated by dodretention.org, and Navy Personnel Command’s
Aviation Officer Distribution survey shape this research instrument. The original theory of
change envisioned a survey that compared the 2014 dodretention.org data with responses
collected today. This comparison of data may suggest the Navy has not taken adequate measures
to mitigate retention problems and raise awareness that alternative approaches are required.
However, during a phone interview with the survey author, the research effort did not have a
theoretical or conceptual framework. It would not withstand a dissertation committee or
Institutional Review Board. There is no published theoretical framework for either of the other
military surveys considered in Appendix A.
The survey was informed by or adapted elements of the following tools; researching
studies in other domains that explored similar elements under the conceptual framework
provided valid and reliable resources to draw from and inform the First-term Naval Aviator
Retention Survey. Expectancy-Value Questionnaire (EVQ) measures expectancy-related beliefs
and perceptions of task value (Østerlie et al., 2019). The EVQ is modified to capture expectancy
and task-value perceptions about flight-related and non-flight-related duties. The General Self-
Efficacy Scale (GSE) measures perceived self-efficacy and informed aspects of inquiry
regarding organizational supports (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Resiliency incorporates

78
elements of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (Gras et al., 2019; K. T.
Green et al., 2014) and the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). The CD-RISC has been
used in various domains, including the military, as has the Grit Scale. Trust is measured using
Trust Scales (Castaldo, 2013) is derived from Yamagishi’s (1986) instrument, which quantifies
perceptions of interpersonal trust. Additionally, the Campbell Organizational Survey (COS)
elements capture organizational trust perceptions (Campbell, 1988). An adaptation of the
Mentorship Effectiveness Scale captures mentor relationship quality (The Johns Hopkins
University School of Nursing, 2002).
Two approaches may be feasible to confirm the reliability. However, neither are
incorporated in the limited-length survey depicted in Appendix A. Internal consistency reliability
means determining if protocol questions measure only one dimension or area of interest (N.
Salkind & Frey, 2017). Introducing the use of opposing questions such as “I like…” and “I don’t
like…” oriented toward a singular construct will allow for the application of Cronbach’s alpha.
Cronbach’s alpha is the correlation of each question score with the total individual score and
comparing variability; the higher the score, the more reliable (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017).
Cronbach’s Alpha for this instrument is 0.900 and calculated using IBM SPSS statistical analysis
software platform. The second means to determine reliability is called interrater reliability.
Interrater reliability is an assessment of alignment between participants, specifically looking at
the difference between the number of agreements between raters and the total possible
agreements (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017). This form of reliability may be a useful measure when
comparing respondent perceptions of organizational models under review. Additionally,
soliciting the review of subject matter experts in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and

79
organization to assess whether or not the protocol questions successfully achieve their intended
answer establishes content validity (N. Salkind & Frey, 2017).
Another means to assess for reliability is to administer a pre-test; this will determine if
questions generate consistent responses (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). A pre-test was
administered from December 10 to 14, 2020, by distributing the survey through social networks.
This distribution method resulted in a nonprobability sample consisting of 362 total survey
participants were representing O1 to O6 active duty, selected reserve, and full-time support
officers. Data filtering by rank excluded responses from all selected reservists and full-time
support officers and all O4 and senior Naval Aviators who presumably post MSR-I. This
filtering reduced the sample to 104 active duty O3 and below Naval Aviators, the focus
stakeholder group. Findings from this pre-test informed the final survey design. The scales and
subscales’ central tendencies were consistent; the final survey is reliable.
Method 2: Document Analysis
Data Collection Procedures
The second method of data collection relied on secondary organizational data (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). Most of this data is in the form of publicly shared Navy official policies,
messages, and briefings. Additionally, this secondary data set includes recordings of current and
past leadership interviews, presentations, or publicly available testimonies. The request for
formal support associated with an official Navy endorsement of this research effort also sought
access to any past or ongoing research data relevant to the conceptual framework.
Data Analysis
While Method 1 is a quantitative survey that includes open-ended qualitative questions,
data analysis of documents and artifacts included incorporating qualitative elements. Coding and

80
examining secondary data that is not qualitative was through the lens and bias of my
interpretation and sense-making (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data analysis was both inductive
and deductive; inductively building categories and themes, then determine if the evidence
supports these themes or more data is required (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Challenges in the
analysis of secondary data, especially quantitative survey data, were limited to understanding the
validity or reliability of those instruments or the research questions the data sought to answer
(Boslaugh, 2010).
Ethics and Role of the Researcher
I am a white heterosexual male and embody the default representation of the U.S.
military, especially the officer corps. As a result, I do not fully understand or appreciate any
emerging trends or potential causes to response variation based on race or gender. I have not
experienced service through their lens. Additionally, efforts to increase retention of the
aggregated stakeholder group do not address any specific gender or racial equity issues
influencing retention attitudes of non-white male First-term Naval Aviators. I am a senior officer
actively serving, and my rank carries status and deference within military ranks that is culturally
common regardless of service. Although I have no actual power over survey respondents,
perceptions of power and unrealized influence attributed to social norms may still emerge. Power
and positionality are real threats to the study’s credibility, transferability, and dependability
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The survey is anonymous to mitigate the influence of power and
positionality. Additionally, the online survey tool did not collect internet protocol (IP) addresses.
The survey introduction clearly stated both mitigations.
The purpose of the study is to support organizational performance through understanding
and improving First-term Naval Aviator motivation and retention performance; however, an

81
underlying tension influences the purpose and paradigm., This research explores three questions.
First, what are the U.S. Navy’s knowledge and understanding related to First-term aviators’
motivation to serve beyond initial obligation? Second, how do the organizational and external
influences impact the U.S. Navy’s capacity to address factors that affect preserving a 70%
selectivity target to fill planned fleet vacancies? And third, what are the knowledge, motivational
and organizational recommendations? The stated purpose is to make a difference and improve
Naval Aviator retention by improving career flexibility. Although I have not spent a great deal of
time exploring deeper motives for this research, I suspect two other factors guide my purpose.
The first is to craft a well-researched and empirically grounded alternative to the current
approaches used to develop and manage talent within Naval Aviation and the Navy writ large.
My own experience throughout a 26-year career has shaped my perspective. I was the
beneficiary of a leader who endorsed career autonomy and supported a significant career path
change. Although I had various mentors throughout my career progression, the Naval service’s
rotational nature precluded clear, consistent mentorship spanning several years. As I reflect on
my advancement through the organization, I acknowledge my limited formal leadership
education and development as a mentor other than successful and unsuccessful on-the-job
experiences. At several junctures throughout my career, I felt organizational suppression of
career autonomy and pursuit of intrinsically motivating experiences for adherence to a certain
and required path, which was the most likely for career advancement. I perceived peers who
selected for the same career milestone but had had not yet fulfilled all of their professional
requirements to progress were afforded time while those who previously completed all
professional requirements and denied the same latitude to delay for a fellowship opportunity.

82
This loss of choice fostered a perception that adhering to the scripted career path served as a
disadvantage.
The second deep-rooted reason is to make a difference. My career afforded opportunity
for increased leadership where I experienced success and setback leading organizational change.
I gained a deeper understanding on the impact of mentorship, trust, and the Navy’s approach to
accountability. Leadership, especially in a military context, requires accepting personal
responsibility for that you cannot control. Yet, the research establishes the importance of senior
leaders’ responsibility for their subordinates’ professional well-being and the impact of the
organization’s contextual environment. I am cognizant of my bias in these areas and endeavored
to minimize their influence in my research and analysis. I focused on a problem that the Navy
needs to address, and any actionable solution that does not cost the Navy money while improving
retention will be valued.
Strategies to mitigate these factors’ impact or influence begin with understanding and
acknowledging the limitations caused by my positionality. Grant and Osanloo (2014) guided
researchers to consider their own beliefs and epistemological values when developing a
theoretical framework for research. A researcher must recognize that their paradigm may not
align with their participant’s worldviews. Awareness of this misalignment does not negate the
potential to misinterpret events or depreciate the effect on others. Although this survey protocol
is quantitative, the open-ended questions are qualitative, and as independent elements, are
handled with the same regard. A qualitative effort must explicitly acknowledge the individual
impacts and be cautious not to misrepresent their experience as my own. Emotion and feeling
guide behaviors (Krueger & Casey, 2009); even reason is subjective based on context,
perspective, and sense-making. Although these open-ended questions will provide subjective

83
data, many will lack the depth of context and emotion best conveyed through an interview
(Weiss, 1994).
Additionally, there are ethical considerations for this research. Despite the best intentions
to improve conditions for First-term Naval Aviators, there may be consequences in doing so.
Will Naval Aviation’s diversity and equity be helped or harmed? Will, the expectations of the
focus group, be met, or will they be unfulfilled? These are a few of the possible ethical
outcomes that bear further consideration.

84
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This chapter addresses the First Term Naval Aviator Retention Study findings and
recommendations. Data collection occurred over two weeks spanning from February 19 to
March 6, 2021. Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) sent an email invitation directly to known
stakeholder work and personal email addresses. The invitation included an anonymous hyperlink
and quick response or QR code to access the survey hosted on Qualtrics.
Survey distribution relied on an externally managed email distribution list to invite
approximately 6,800 participants. The list did not encompass all 8,649 O3 and below Naval
Aviators, and responses include members of other identified stakeholder groups who are not the
focus of this research. The invite did not reach all currently deployed units; additionally,
bandwidth limitations of shipboard computer systems may have hindered survey access for those
stakeholders. The survey closed with 1,843 recorded responses and 25 responses in progress.
Incomplete surveys provide useful data representing stakeholder perceptions for those questions
answered; this data is included in the analysis, resulting in 1,868 total responses. Additionally,
there are 5,772 qualitative free-text responses. Data analysis included only those respondents
who self-identified as active-duty Naval Aviators whose rank is O3 and below, resulting in 1,231
respondents representing the focus stakeholder group. The completion rate among focus
stakeholders is 76.0% (n: 971 of 1,277). This sample results in a 99% confidence level with less
than 4.0% margin of error; the findings are representative of a larger focus stakeholder group.
The survey design intentionally made every question optional, allowing participants to
progress without providing an answer. As a result, the sample size varies with each question.
This chapter reviews survey respondent demographic characteristics, reviews the instrument
subscales and their purpose, describes the central tendency and any significant inferential

85
findings through statistical analysis, and discusses dominant themes discovered during the
qualitative data review. The discussion presents the influence as an asset or a gap and how the
analysis supports that finding.
Participant Demographics
The focus stakeholder sample demographically matches the demographic composition of
Naval Aviation. In general, the prototypical Naval Aviator in this sample is a married white male
aged 26 to 35 with six to 10 years of service and has completed their initial operational fleet tour.
Consistent with the demographic composition of the stakeholder group, 84.1% (n: 1,021 of
1,214) respondents are male, while female and those who preferred not to answer comprise
13.9% (n: 169 of 1,214) and 2.0% (n: 24 of 1,214), respectively. However, female participation
is slightly better than the current stakeholder group, where women comprise 10% of Naval
Aviation. Additionally, 76.8% (n: 728 of 948) of survey participants are Caucasian, 10.1% (n: 96
of 948) are racially or ethnically diverse, and another 13.1% (n: 124 of 948) preferred not to
answer. Diversity is underrepresented in Naval Aviation. However, minority participation in the
survey matches Naval Aviation’s 10% racially or ethnically diverse demographic. Table 7
contains participant demographic data.

86
Table 7
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (n)

n %
What is your gender? Male 1021 84.1

Female
169 13.9

Prefer not to Answer
24 2.0

How old are you? 21 - 25 3 0.3
26 - 30 478 50.0
31 - 35 439 45.9
36 - 40 36 3.8

With what ethnicity do you most
identify?
African descent 18 1.9
American Indian 9 0.9
Asian descent 21 2.2
Caucasian 728 76.7
Hispanic 31 3.3
Multi-Ethnic 14 1.5
Pacific Islander 4 0.4
Prefer not to Answer 124 13.1

What is your marital status? Single 396 32.8
Married 783 64.8
Divorced / Separated 30 2.5

Do you have children? Yes
350 36.8
No
601 63.2

If yes, how many? 1
175 50.4
2
107 30.8
3 55 15.9
4
8 2.3
6 or more
2 0.6

87

n %
If Yes, what are the ages
categories of your children?
Under 2 years 166 48.0
2 - 4 98 28.3
4 - 6
35 10.1
6 - 8 17 4.9
8 - 10 14 4.0
10 - 12
4 1.2
12 - 14 9 2.6
14 - 16 1 0.3
16 - 18
2 0.6

The survey sample is sufficient to conduct data analysis of identified knowledge and
motivation factors influencing First-term Naval Aviator decisions to continue service. As
discussed in Chapter Three, each research question’s analysis explored the relationships between
independent and dependent variables. This research’s independent variables are years of service,
marital status, gender, diversity, and type-wing community. The dependent variables for the first
research question are the knowledge and motivation influences; conceptual knowledge,
metacognition, expectancy, persistence, and value influences. Independent variables are
compared to the dependent variables of organizational culture and context to address the second
research question. These dependent variables are organizational supports, fairness, purpose, trust,
and mentorship, related to First-term Naval Aviator’s knowledge and motivation required to
increase opt-in rates and continued service. Qualtrics XM Stats iQ calculated statistical
significance using a Chi-Squared test. The test uses adjusted residuals to determine if a data cell
is statistically significantly above or below expected. The degree of significance is presented as
XX has a statistically higher/lower value than typical (p = 0.05), XX has a clearly statistically
higher/lower value than typical (p = 0.01), or XX has a very clearly statistically higher/lower
value than typical (p = 0.001). The following pages present the descriptive quantitative results

88
and discuss relevant inferential statistical relationships between independent and dependent
variables.
Correlation between influences is determined using composite variables to determine a
statistical relationship between two groups. Composite variables are formed by converting text
Likert-type answers to a numerical value (1 strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree), then
computing the subscale score. A composite variable score was determined by averaging the
subscales. Stats iQ calculates Pearson’s r to characterize the effect size of a meaningful
relationship. The effect sizes are trivial (r = < 0.1), small (r = > 0.1), medium (r = > 0.3), and
large (r = > 0.5). Positive correlations are presented regardless of effect size. The analysis
excluded any missing responses. Table 8 details the composite variable sample, median, and
standard deviation.

Table 8
Composite Variables
Variable
Sample
size
Median Avg
Confidence
interval of
average
SD Min Max
Conceptual 240 3 3.0 2.85 to 3.10 1.0 1 5
Metacognition 1,014 2.3 2.3 2.23 to 2.31 0.6 1 5
Expectancy 1,011 3 3.0 2.97 to 3.08 0.9 1 5
Persistence 980 1.7 1.8 1.75 to 1.82 0.5 1 4.67
Value 980 2 2.0 1.97 to 2.03 0.5 1 3.60
Org. Supports 983 2.5 2.6 2.59 to 2.70 0.9 1 5
Fairness 974 3.2 3.3 3.23 to 3.33 0.8 1 5
Purpose 960 3 3.0 2.93 to 3.04 0.8 1 5
Trust 957 2.6 2.6 2.56 to 2.66 0.8 1 5
Mentorship 920 2.5 2.5 2.44 to 2.55 0.9 1 5

89
Additional demographic data reflects that although 64.8% of participants are married (n:
792 of 1,223), only 36.8% (n: 350 of 951) have children. Of those with children, 81.3% (n: 282
of 347 have two children under the age of four (76.3%; n: 264 of 346). Accession sources are
relatively balanced, with Officer Candidate School (OCS) accessions represented slightly ahead
at 36.7% (n: 348 of 948) with 30.3% (n: 287 of 948) commissioning through the Naval Reserve
Officer Training Corps (NROTC) and 29.2% (n: 277 of 948) from the United States Naval
Academy (USNA). Over 84% (n: 797 of 947) of respondents do not possess a graduate degree.
Additionally, the Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus (ADHRB) acceptance is the
Navy’s clearest indicator of retention. The survey asked ADHRB-eligible participants whether
they intend to take the bonus; only 40% (n: 204 of 579) indicate they would either definitely or
probably accept the ADHRB. The remaining 60% (n: 365 of 579) of the eligible pool probably
or definitely would not take the bonus, indicating an overall gap in the Navy’s retention efforts to
date. Tables 9 and 10 provide the educational and professional experience of the survey sample.

90
Table 9
Education Experience of the Sample (n)

n %
What is your commissioning
source?
Service Academy 277 29.2
ROTC 287 30.3
OCS
348 36.7
Other
36 3.8

What is the highest level of
education you have received?
BA
179 18.9
BS
618 65.3
MA 26 2.7
MBA
54 5.7
MPP
1 0.1
MS 68 7.2
JD
1 0.1

What was your course of study in
college?
Arts & Humanities 115 12.2
Science & Engineering
504 53.4
Mathematics
48 5.1
Social Sciences 88 9.3
Business
108 11.4
Law
9 1.0
Medicine 8 0.8
Other
64 6.8

91
Table 10
Professional Experience of the Sample (n)

n %
How long have you been in the
Navy?
0 - 2 years 1 0.1
3 - 5 years 111 11.7
6 - 10 years 718 75.7
11 - 15 years 87 9.2
16 - 20 years 26 2.7
21 - 25 years 6 0.6

What is your designator? 131X 937 77.5

132X 272 22.5

In what community were/are you
most recently qualified?
HSM 211 17.3
HSC 213 17.5
HM 16 1.3
VAQ 93 7.6
VAW 98 8.0
VRC/VRM 19 1.6
VFA 201 16.5
VP / VQ(P) 331 27.2
VQ(T) 37 3.0

In what tour are you currently
serving?
First sea tour 351 28.7
First shore tour 615 50.4
Second sea tour 202 16.5
Other tour 53 4.3

Are you eligible for the Aviation
Department Head Retention
Bonus (ADHRB)?
Yes 598 49.3
No 614 50.7

Do you have prior enlisted
experience?
Yes 107 11.3
No
840 88.7

92

n %
If yes, how many years of prior
enlisted service do you have?
1 year 3 2.9
2 years 11 10.7
3 years
7 6.8
4 years 13 12.6
5 years 12 11.7
6 or more years
57 55.3

How many deployments have you
made in your career?
0 36 3.8
1
247 26.2
2 344 36.5
3 172 18.2
4
66 7.0
5 17 1.8
6 or more 61 6.5

How long was your last
deployment?
N/A - I have not
deployed before
12 1.3
< 6 months on last
cruise
216 23.4
6 months 199 21.6
7 months
278 30.2
8 months
105 11.4
9 months 37 4.0
10 months
51 5.5
11 months
15 1.6
> 11 months 9 1.0

If in a sea tour, in what phase of
the deployment cycle is your
unit?
In Transition /
Maintenance
74 18.5
Basic
41 10.3
Intermediate 104 26.0
Deployment
136 34.0
Post-deployment, will
or currently surged
29 7.3
Post-deployment, will
not surge
16 4.0

93

n %
How long do you expect your next
cruise or deployment to be?
< 6 months 105 15.0
6 months 154 22.0
7 months
118 16.8
8 months 108 15.4
9 months 95 13.6
10 months
68 9.7
11 months 17 2.4
> 11 months 36 5.1

Research Question 1: What Are the Knowledge and Motivation Factors Influencing First-
Term Naval Aviator Decision to Opt-In and Continue Service?
The central tendency of each category’s question determined the knowledge and
motivation factors influencing opt-in rates. The line of questioning for each factor evolved from
established instruments. However, they required modifications for a relevant line of exploration
of themes and ideas underpinning each influence discussed in the supporting literature review.
The central tendency focuses on a singular prompt. It may not capture the totality of the scale
related to describing an asset or gap. Depending on the influence explored, the scale used may
offer a neutral response.
A core assumption of the research problem is that a gap exists; otherwise, Naval Aviation
would attain the organizational goal. Therefore, a central tendency of neither agree nor disagree
is considered a gap since the respondent perception is not strong enough to characterize it as an
asset. In some cases, the stratification of responses may not yield a clear central tendency. The
aggregation of strongly agree and mostly agree responses presents a generally positive
perception; similarly, corresponding strongly disagree and mostly disagree responses are
combined to present a generally negative perception. Negative tendencies greater than 30% are

94
considered a gap that prevents achieving the organizational goal of 70% opt-in rate for
continuation.
The instrument consisted of up to eight open-ended questions, depending on participant
response, which collected nearly 5,000 free-text comments. Some questions were only provided
if the respondent gave a negative response on a preceding associated quantitative prompt. The
open-ended questions had no character limit and provided rich contextual data. Appendix D
provides an overview of the qualitative analysis tool used for this research and summarizes
prevailing topics and subtopic themes identified using the analytical tool. A complete analysis of
the data set is beyond this study’s scope. However, it will provide organizational leaders recent
insights not currently available through other data sources. An NVivo qualitative analysis
software query identified the 20 most frequently-used words and associated stemmed words
found in all open-ended responses. Qualtrics XM Text analysis feature performed sentiment
analysis and quick coding to organize dominant themes. A Qualtrics-provided pre-built generic
employee experience topic library was modified to include the 20 most frequently-used words
identified by NVivo. This research project’s conceptual framework, common organizational
lexicon and jargon, and emerging themes all informed subsequent library modifications.
Appendix C illustrates the modified employee-experience text analysis framework. The initial
analysis included all parent and subordinate topics. Due to the unbounded nature of the free text
responses, numerous comments inform and add context to influences that did not initially include
an open-ended prompt. A priori and emergent coding used Atlas.ti commercial qualitative
management software resulting in over 4,700 individual codes organized across 10 themes. The
themes identified are administrative burden and bureaucracy, career autonomy, teams and
teamwork, feedback and recognition, financial compensation, information technology (IT)

95
systems and e-learning, leaders and mentors, resources, value and being valued, and work-life
balance. Where appropriate, those themes are brought forward and add further perspective to
quantitative findings. Lastly, a discussion will take place on any available and pertinent
organizational artifacts.
Knowledge Results and Findings
Conceptual Gaps in Understanding Professional Obligations and Career Requirements
Conceptual knowledge stems from various points of information and the relationships
linking them that form perceptions and expectations. This section explores the degree of
expectation alignment between this understanding and their experience. Participant expectation
alignment is measured by understanding the role accession program mentors played in shaping
career expectations, perceptions of accession and flight training program preparation for fleet
assignments, and reflections of individual conceptual understanding about their first fleet tour
and future career progression. This portion of the instrument consisted of three Likert-type
questions. Additionally, one open-ended question asked participants Is anything about your
experience as Naval Aviator you wish you knew before joining the service? This portion of the
protocol sought to identify the role mentors played in preparing participants for future service
and the degree of perceptions of person-organization fit as mediated by the congruence of pre-
service expectations and perceived in-service experience.
Survey Results. A coding error during survey design transposed the questions and
answer choices; this resulted in the data reflecting the Conceptual Knowledge subscale across
possible response options. I identified and corrected the discrepancy while the survey was open.
The responses collected before survey correction were exported to a manually sorted database
and filtered to remove erroneous data sets. The filtered scores were compared to the corrected

96
survey question data scores to verify the central tendencies are consistent. They are consistent
and incorporated to present the combined data for descriptive statistical analysis.
As a consequence of this error, the inferential analysis used the smaller corrected survey
data set. The analysis does not consider possible correlations between conceptual knowledge and
other variables. This exclusion is to prevent erroneous findings due to the smaller data set. The
coding flaw only affected the Conceptual Knowledge influence, and no other influences required
external data handling for analysis.
Conceptual knowledge is a gap among survey participants. According to participant
responses, accession and flight training mentors did not prepare respondents for the Naval
Service realities or their first fleet squadron. Only 23.3% of respondents (n: 187 of 803) believe
the preparation from their accessions source mentor exactly matched or mostly matched their
fleet experience. Flight school mentors fared slightly better. Only 33.7% of participants (n: 304
of 903) believe their experience in their first fleet tour exactly matched or mostly matched their
expectations shaped by flight school mentors. Slightly more than half of the respondents reported
their first fleet tour expectations matched their experience in that tour. Only 51.2% (n: 534 of
1,042) believe their initial fleet tour matched their expectations before that tour. Table 11
presents the distribution of combined responses for conceptual knowledge.
A chi-square test identified a statistically significant relationship between accession
source mentors and type-wing community (n = 247; v = 0.235; p = 0.00782). Strike Fighter
(VFA) and Airborne Command and Control (VAW) respondents report did not match at a
statistically higher value than other communities, 37.2% (n: 16 of 43) and 39.1% (n: 9 of 23),
respectively. No other statistically significant relationships; however, the exclusion of 961
potential responses from the analysis may prevent the identification of other relationships.

97
Table 11
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Conceptual Knowledge
Prompt
Select which option best
matches your experience.
Exactly
Matched
Mostly
Matched
Somewhat
Matched
Slightly
Matched
Did Not
Match
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
My mentor during accession
(USNA, NROTC, OCS,
other) prepared me for the
realities of Naval service.
4.0 32 19.3 155 30.0 241 22.0 177 24.7 198 803
My mentor in flight school
shaped my expectations
which prepared me for life in
my first fleet squadron.
2.8 25 30.9 279 28.7 259 23.0 208 14.6 132 903
I believe my experience in my
first fleet assignment
matched my expectations for
that tour (ie: I understood my
professional obligations or
requirements for career
progression).
16.5 172 34.7 362 22.6 235 13.4 140 12.8 133 1042

Qualitative Response Findings. The survey items measuring conceptual knowledge
provided an open-ended question to capture respondent context to the perceived expectation gaps
identified in the quantitative portion of this section. Survey participants provide over 1,200 free-
text comments. Performance and development, leadership, and execution are the three dominant
categories using Qualtrics text analysis.
Numerous comments reflect an absence of identified mentors at accession programs and
flight training. A VFA pilot commented on little to no VFA representation at the United States

98
Naval Academy (USNA) and primary flight training. A Helicopter Minecountermeasures (HM)
pilot received varying guidance levels depending on their primary or advanced instructor, but
Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) instructors shaped most career expectations. A VAW pilot
based most assumptions on peer-to-peer interactions. “I did not realize how much a female
mentor would be helpful until I finally found one at the end of my first fleet tour,” another VFA
pilot offered. This sentiment highlights the value of diverse mentors. The absence of, or poor
perceptions of, mentors is not limited to accession source or flight training. It includes negative
attitudes about mentors and mentorship discussed later in this study. A significant majority of the
comments detail the multitude of issues contributing to a career expectation mismatch. The
prevailing themes cutting across all aviation communities focus on limited career autonomy,
dissatisfaction with the scope and scale of non-flying duties, and the interconnected negative
impact of operational tempo on individual work/life balance. A discussion takes place on the
organizational issues in subsequent sections.
Summary. Most survey respondents report accession and initial training mentors did not
prepare them for their future service. Engaged mentors have a crucial role in facilitating
conceptual expectation alignment (Bui et al., 2017), thus enabling improved person-organization
and person-job fit. However, slightly more than half of those surveyed believe their experience in
their first fleet tour matched their expectations suggesting the conceptual knowledge was gained
through other avenues. The significant gap in expectation mismatch suggests the alternative
sources of conceptual knowledge are insufficient. Conceptual knowledge is the understanding
serving as the foundation of expectations (Kalleberg, 2008); deficits in understanding lead to
expectation mismatches. Reinforcing the quantitative results, there is an overwhelming sentiment
that the expectations survey participants held for their first fleet tour did not match their

99
experience once serving in that tour. The data suggests a gap in conceptual understanding
mediated by organizational mentors. This knowledge gap contributes to an expectation
mismatch.
First-Term Naval Aviators Learn and Adapt for Career Continuation
Metacognition is higher-order thinking that includes formal and informal or unstructured
learning that reflects the interplay between experience and prior knowledge. This section
explores survey participants’ metacognitive knowledge and career goals and their strategies to
achieve those goals. The subscale used in the segment collects participant perceptions they
understand the requirements for career progression. Metacognitive awareness instruments
informed this segment of the survey instrument. It used five Likert-type questions to collect
participant reflections of metacognitive knowledge and goal-oriented strategy development. The
degree to which participants believe past experiences influence career choices more than
perceived future opportunities measures the influence of experiential learning in metacognitive
development to exercise active choice toward individual goals. The ability to effectively assume
greater responsibility with little guidance or formal training captures the respondent’s
metacognitive adaptation. It supports self-regulated behavior that promotes autonomy- and
competency-need satisfaction. The last element of the subscales collected respondent’s
metacognitive strategy development to achieve a goal; specifically, their belief on whether they
could serve an entire Naval Aviation career. This segment also uses a single yes or no prompt to
ascertain the degree to which participants believe an organizational mentor facilitated strategy
development after a professional setback.
Survey Results. Metacognition is a gap based on quantitative responses. Participants
indicated a high degree of metacognitive adaptation; 76.4% (n: 778 of 1,019) believe they

100
effectively take on new duties with little guidance or training. Additionally, 82.9% of
respondents (n: 845 of 1,019) believe they understand career progression requirements. A slight
majority, 57.9% (n: 541 of 934), report reflection on past experiences is more influential to
career decision than future opportunities. More respondents had help after a professional setback;
55.5% (n: 590 of 1,019) report an organizational mentor helped develop recovery strategies.
These elements suggest an asset; however, only 48.9% (n: 497 of 1,019) of respondents indicate
they believe they can serve a full career as an active-duty Naval Aviator. This low rate suggests a
gap in metacognition to support increased opt-in rates for career continuation. Table 12 presents
the distribution of participant responses for metacognition.

Table 12
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Metacognition
Prompt
Select which option that
best describes you.
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I am able to effectively
perform new duties with
little training or
guidance.
27.9 284 48.5 494 14.3 146 7.7 78 1.7 17 1,019
I understand the necessary
requirements for career
progression as a Naval
Aviator.
35.2 359 47.7 486 10.5 107 5.1 52 1.5 15 1,019
My past experiences are
more influential than my
perceived future
opportunities when I
make career decisions.
27.9 284 30.0 306 27.2 277 11.1 113 3.8 39 1,019
I believe I am able to
serve a full career as an
active-duty Naval
Aviator.
22.5 229 26.4 268 18.9 192 16.5 168 15.7 160 1,017

101
The inferential analysis compared metacognition subscales to the independent variables.
This analysis also measured the relationships between a composite metacognition variable and
motivation and organizational influences. A chi-square test identified a statistically significant
relationship between community and respondent perceptions they can serve a full career as a
Naval Aviator (n = 1,017; v = 0.131; p = 0.000142). Both the Helicopter Sea Combat the (HSC)
community, at 25.6% (n: 46 of 175), and the Maritime Patrol (VP) community, at 23.1% (n: 64
of 277), selected mostly disagree at a very clearly statistically higher value than other
communities. The Electronic Attack (VAQ) community showed a statistically higher value than
other groups with 38.4% (n: 28 of 73). They mostly agreed they can serve a full active-duty
Naval Aviation career. There are no statistically significant relationships between the
metacognition subscales and gender, marital status, ethnicity, or service years. Using Pearson’s r,
metacognition positively correlates with expectancy (n = 1,009; r = 0.276; p = <0.00001) and
perseverance (n = 978; r = 0.247; p = <0.00001). There is no correlation between metacognition
and value, suggesting that higher-order thinking does not significantly alter what one values.
Qualitative Response Findings. This section of the instrument did not have a dedicated
open-ended question associated with the influence. However, reviewing other free-text responses
reinforces a gap in metacognition among survey participants. A lack of understanding of the
Naval Aviator’s required career path is a theme identified in the qualitative analysis of
participant conceptual knowledge. A quantitative majority of the respondents believe they
understand career progression requirements. However, the qualitative data conveys a gap in
understanding why the path for career progression includes disassociated sea tours and non-
flying staff assignments that pull away from flying. Respondents perceived these tours as a
significant disruption to tactical skill mastery and undermine individual perceptions of

102
competency. Additionally, HSC respondents critique a litany of tactical training requirements
unrelated to the community’s operational mission employment. This divide signals a lack of
understanding of the platform’s intended employment to support the Navy’s mission. Gaps in
metacognition negatively impact motivation influences; future sections will explore this gap.
Summary. Metacognition is a gap among survey participants. Despite the subscales
indicating an asset, less than half of the respondents believe they can serve a full career as an
active-duty Naval Aviator. The resultant gap in metacognition does not support increased career
continuation opt-in rates. The data suggests this sentiment varies by community and merits more
in-depth exploration to understand the other influences at play. Additionally, there was no
statistical correlation between metacognition and value. However, the data revealed value is
related to metacognition. It suggests value serves as the motive for metacognitive goals and
strategy development to reach those goals.
Motivation Results and Findings
Expectancy—First-Term Naval Aviators Believe They Will Encounter Supports for Success
This portion of the survey measured whether First-term Naval Aviators believe they will
encounter the right supports to achieve their professional aspirations. The perceived subjective
task-value of intrinsic and extrinsic workplace tasks moderates the expectancy-value model of
achievement. This predicts a Naval Aviator’s task choice, performance, and persistence
represented individuals’ overall motivation. Those supports are focused on respondent
perceptions of autonomy and competence. Additionally, the subscales explore the First-term
Naval Aviator’s subjective career success characterized by work experience and expectation
alignment. Participants describe themselves using a five-point Likert scale (Strongly agree,
Mostly agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Mostly Disagree, or Strongly disagree). Participants

103
provided what they believe is the main reason First-term Naval Aviators opt-out of continued
service. The scale provided six possible responses, informed by previous instruments, to select
the main reason First-term Naval Aviators opt-out of continued service. The section also
provided an open-ended option for those respondents who selected Other as the primary reason
the stakeholder group is opting out of career continuation.
Survey Results. Survey respondents indicated a gap in overall expectancy characterized
by low workplace autonomy and low subjective workplace career satisfaction associated with a
mismatch between workplace expectations and their experience. Table 13 provides the
distribution of participant responses for this section. A majority of respondents, 72.0% (n: 730 of
1,013), generally disagree they have a sense of freedom of choice in their tasks at work.
Additionally, 67.4% (n: 682 of 1,012) believe the ability to achieve personal goals defines career
success. Only 39.9% (n: 404 of 1,012) of participants believe their work experience matches
their expectations; furthermore, just 30.8% (n: 313 of 1,012) conveyed that their work
environment increases their overall motivation.

104
Table 13
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Expectancy
Prompt
Select which
option that best
describes you.
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
My work
experience
matches my
expectations; I
am doing
what I signed
up for.
7.2 73 32.7 331 17.8 180 25.5 258 16.8 170 1,012
At work, I feel
a sense of
choice and
freedom in the
things I
undertake.
5.3 54 22.6 229 19.6 199 32.1 325 20.3 206 1,013
My work
environment
improves my
overall
motivation.
7.5 76 23.3 236 23.8 241 25.2 255 20.2 204 1,012
I believe a
successful
career is
defined by
achieving
personal
goals.
24.5 248 42.9 434 17.0 172 8.9 90 6.7 68 1,012

A majority of respondents, 73.0% of those surveyed, cite autonomy, career expectation
mismatch, and an imbalance between extrinsic drivers and intrinsic motivators, as suggested by
the work-life balance, as the primary drivers of low retention. Interestingly, only 6.1% (n: 62 of
1,012) believe financial compensation is the main reason Naval Aviators separate after their

105
minimum service requirement. Table 14 shows the distribution of responses to the question
asking participant opinions on the main reason First-term Naval Aviators opt-out of continued
service.
A chi-square test determined no statistically significant relationship between the elements
of expectancy explored in the protocol and years of service, ethnicity, or marital status. However,
a significant relationship exists between the belief career success is defined by personal goal
achievement and gender (n = 1,007; v = 0.0921; p = 0.0292). Women mostly disagreed at a
statistically higher rate compared to others.

Table 14
In Your Opinion, What Is the Main Reason for First-term Naval Aviators to Opt Out of
Continued Naval Service?
% n
Financial Compensation 6.1 62
Not What Doing They Thought They Signed Up For 22.6 229
Work-Life Balance 32.0 324
Not Enough Career Flexibility 18.4 186
Quality of Leadership 13.4 136
Other 7.4 75

106
A Pearson’s r determined expectancy is positively correlated with value (n = 979; r =
0.0955; p = 0.00227) and persistence (n = 982; r = 0.301; p = <0.00001). This study anticipated
a relationship between expectancy and the other motivation influences; expectancy is but one
facet contributing to an individual’s overall motivation.
Qualitative Response Findings. The survey offered an open-ended response for survey
participants who selected other as the main reason First-term Naval Aviators opt-out out of
continued Naval Service. Other constituted 7.4% of responses (n: 75 of 1,012). A majority of
comments indicate a combination of all of the factors listed in Table 14 as the reason First-term
Naval Aviators opt-out of continuation. Low quality of service - “scrambling for readiness at the
expense of personnel morale,” operational tempo - “extended deployments and work upcycles,”
work-life balance - “I am still working 60+ hour weeks while not deployed,” and low perceptions
of unit leadership emerged as themes in the comments.
Additionally, negative sentiments toward the supposed golden career path appeared in
several comments. Lastly, First-term Naval Aviators do not perceive Commanding Officers (CO)
have autonomy. These perceptions consistently emerge from comments across the instrument
and highlight a significant negative influence impacting career expectancy. A Helicopter
Maritime Strike (HSM) pilot offered, “Commanding officers do not have the amount of authority
or autonomy they need to accompany the inescapable responsibility and accountability they have
with the command.” A VFA pilot observed that COs “can’t act with full autonomy.” These
perceptions erode future expectancy of the stakeholder’s subjective career success due to
anticipating the individual need for autonomy will not be satisfied. The declaration of all of the
above or a combination of factors indicates survey respondents perceive several factors that
support career continuation are absent.

107
Summary. In general, First-term Naval Aviators are confident they can successfully take
on challenging tasks. This finding is not unexpected as all respondents completed arduous flight
training to reach their current positions. However, past success in overcoming challenges is not
the sole factor that constitutes expectancy as a motivational influence. Negative feelings of work
task freedom, reinforced by strong perceptions external motivators drive most work tasks,
underpin perceptions of low career autonomy and suggest a gap in individual expectancy. Lack
of career flexibility diminishes autonomy, inhibiting perceptions of subjective career success due
to deprived opportunity to pursue more intrinsically oriented professional interests.
Persistence—First-Term Naval Aviators Persevere to Achieve Long-Term Goals
Grit, the perseverance and passion that results in a sustained effort towards long-term
goals, is a behavior or set of behaviors that enable retention (Duckworth et al., 2007). Three
Likert-type prompts were used to capture First-term Naval Aviator perspectives on the
antecedents to persistence: perseverance, adaptability, and leader support. This section also asked
participants the likelihood they will stay in the Navy until retirement and provided an open-
ended response option for those who select slightly likely or not at all likely.
Survey Results. First-term Naval Aviators overwhelmingly view themselves as gritty;
90.5% (n: 889 of 988) believe they can persevere for long-term goals. Additionally, 92.8% (n:
915 of 986) believe they easily adapt to changing situations. Support from leaders improves
motivation for 78.8% (n: 775 of 984) of respondents. Table 15 provides the distribution of
participant responses for persistence. However, despite strong indications of persistence among
participants, only 36.2% of those surveyed (n: 359 of 992) report they are very likely or
somewhat likely to stay in the Navy until retirement. Additionally, 68.9% of respondents (n: 676
of 981) do not aspire to aviation command. This suggests individual long-term goals are not

108
aligned with organizational retention goals. Table 16 presents the likelihood of survey participant
career continuation and Table 17 shows respondent aspirations for aviation command.

Table 15
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Persistence
Prompt
Select which option that
best describes you.
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I am gritty, that I have
perseverance for long-
term goals.
45.6 450 44.9 444 8.1 80 1.2 12 0.2 2 988
I easily adapt to changing
situations.
37.5 370 55.3 545 5.3 52 1.7 17 0.2 2 986
Support from my leaders
increases my motivation.
35.8 352 43.0 423 12.8 126 5.2 51 3.3 32 984

109
Table 16
Likelihood of Sample (n) Career Continuation
Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Slightly
Likely
Not at all
Likely
Total
% n % n % n % n n
What is the likelihood you
will stay in the Navy until
retirement?
15.2 151 21.0 208 27.4 272 36.4 361 992

Table 17
Likelihood of Sample (n) Aspiring to Aviation Command
Yes No Total
% n % n n
Do you aspire to aviation command? 31.1 305 68.9 676 981

110
A chi-squared test determined no statistically significant relationship between ethnicity,
years of service, or type wing community. A significant relationship was found between
perceptions of leader support and marital status (n = 976; v = 0.104; p = 0.00676); 16.0% (n: 4
of 25) of divorced/separated respondents selected strongly disagree, a very clearly statistically
significantly higher value than other groups. Additionally, a significant relationship exists
between self-identifying as gritty and marital status (n = 856; v = 0.103; p = 0.0201). Both
women and those who prefer not to identify their gender responded mostly disagree at a
significantly higher value than typical, 3.0% of women (n: 4 of 132) and 10.5% (n: 2 of 19)
those who chose not to identify their gender have a slightly lower self-perception of
perseverance.
A Pearson’s r determined a positive correlation exists between persistence and
expectancy (n = 982; r = 0.301; p = <0.00001) as well as between persistence and value (n =
967; r = 0.0767; p = 0.00389). These relationships highlight the connection between persistence
as an individual characteristic and motivation which can result in persistent behavior.
Understanding the significance of these relationships requires further research.
Qualitative Response Findings. To gain further insight and context to factors
influencing persistence, an open-ended question was provided to respondents who indicated they
were slightly likely or not at all likely to stay in the Navy until retirement. This question received
over 760 responses from 992 participants. Qualtrics sentiment analysis indicated the top three
categories generating the most feedback are performance and development, leadership, and pay
and benefits. There is nothing in the open-ended comments to suggest that First-term Naval
Aviators are not confident in their ability to overcome operational challenges; rather, the data
suggests other factors contribute to low motivation. A more in-depth review and analysis of all

111
qualitative comments are outside the scope of this study and serves as a focal point for future
research efforts.
Work-life balance emerged as a clear dissatisfier contained within those groups, directly
undermining persistence. One VFA pilot offered, “I can make much more in the private sector
AND have a great quality of life with my family.” Another VFA pilot believes “the more
competent you are, the more work you are saddled with, causing the top performers to have a
poor work/life balance.” “There is not enough money offered to the community to convince me
that it would be worth it for the family to make the necessary sacrifices,” an HSC pilot replied.
Referring to a year-long deployment, a VAQ pilot stated, “I cannot put my family through that
again.” One HSM pilot said, “quality of life cannot be bought,” while another offered, “no
amount of money can give me more time at home with my family.”
The quantitative data suggests positive perceptions of adaptability and leader support.
However, several comments regarding the quality of leadership, limited career flexibility,
organizational changes in response to low VFA pilot manning, COVID mitigations, and fleet
operational tempo demands offered a counter view. These comments present negative sentiment
on factors that support perseverance and contribute to organizational issues beyond the local unit.
A VP/VQ(P) Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft pilot shared “my perseverance and
general ‘grit’ has suffered immensely due to extreme demotivation and disappointment in my
Navy career.”
Summary. Generally speaking, First-term Naval Aviators believe they are gritty,
adaptable, and motivated with leader support. However, most ADHRB-eligible participants
indicate they are not likely to take the bonus, signaling their intention to separate following their
minimum service requirement (MSR), let alone continue to a full career as a Naval Aviator.

112
Furthermore, 69.0% of respondents (n: 680 of 985) do not aspire to aviation command. The
qualitative comments highlight various organizational influences that undermine persistence and
reinforces this conclusion. The quantitative data suggests First-term Naval Aviators are
persistent. However, other quantitative and qualitative data obtained during this survey indicates
they do not intend to continue service due to other influences. Although First-term Naval
Aviators can be persistent, they do not indicate the persistence to achieve the organizational goal,
resulting in a motivational influence gap.
First-Term Naval Aviators Do Not Value Continued Service
This section of the instrument sought to determine if First-term Naval Aviators value
continued service over perceived alternatives. Participant value was determined using a five-
point Likert-type scale to measure the influence of 10 quality of service and quality of life issues
previously identified in 2014’s Navy Retention Study (Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014) to
determine how each factor increases or decreases motivation. The following contrasting choice
statements of factors identified in the literature indicate participant value-driven preferences;
career flexibility versus the golden path, financial compensation versus leadership opportunity,
and flight time compared to other responsibilities. Respondent perceptions on performance
feedback support competency need satisfaction; I value serving provides an apparent measure of
attitudes that satisfy the basic need for purposefulness. The survey also included an open-ended
question asking participants, What aspect of your service do you value most? The following
sections present the results of statistical analysis and qualitative analysis which includes
organizational documents and artifacts.
Survey Results. A resounding 93.4% (n: 917 of 982) of participants value serving.
Additionally, 91.6% (n: 899 of 982) value career flexibility over the ‘golden path.’ Only 68.8%

113
(n: 674 of 980) value feedback in their performance evaluations. Although financial
compensation is a recurring theme in the qualitative data, just 46.0% (n: 452 of 982) believe that
money is more important than increased leadership opportunities. Unexpectedly, only 57.9% (n:
569 of 982) believe that flight time is more important than other responsibilities.
Table 18 shows the distribution of responses for value. Graduate education is important
to respondents; 23.2% (n: 213 of 917) have attained a graduate degree, while 56.4% (n: 517 of
917) desire to attain one while on active duty. The top three dissatisfiers influencing motivation
for continued service identified by participants in descending order are military administration,
time away from family, and concerns and grievances. The top three satisfiers were an
opportunity for advanced education or fellowship, compensation, and the military lifestyle. Table
19 depicts the distribution of factors influencing participant motivation to continue service.

114
Table 18
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Value
Prompt
Select which option that
best describes you.
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I value serving. 71.0 697 22.4 220 4.8 47 1.2 12 0.6 6 982
Flight time is more
important than my other
responsibilities.
29.3 288 28.6 281 25.2 247 10.8 106 6.1 60 982
I value career flexibility
over the “golden path” to
command.
74.8 734 16.8 165 5.9 58 1.6 16 0.9 9 982
Financial compensation is
more important to me than
increased leadership
opportunities.
21.7 213 24.3 239 30.2 297 17.5 172 6.2 61 982
I value the feedback in my
performance evaluation.
32.5 318 36.3 356 13.8 135 8.7 85 8.8 86 980

The value of career flexibility was strong compared to the independent variables using
the chi-squared test to identify any statistical relationships. That is, no statistically significant
relationships are present. There is a significant relationship between the value of service and
marital status (n = 947; v = 0.0935; p = 0.0297); 73.7% of married respondents (n: 473 of 642)
chose strongly agree, a clearly significant statistically higher response than others.
There is a statistically significant relationship between the perception that flight time was
more important than other responsibilities and community (n = 981; v = 0.142; p = <0.00001),

115
marital status (n = 974; v = 0.0941; p = 0.0277), and gender (n = 976; v = 0.156; p = <0.00001).
Specifically, 49.1% (n: 77 of 152) VFA respondents had a very clearly statistically higher value
than other communities, strongly agreeing that flight time is more important than other
responsibilities. Conversely, 23.3% of females (n: 30 of 129) chose mostly disagree that flight
time is more important, a very clearly significantly lower value than other categories.
Additionally, 12.6% officers with 11 to 15 years of service (n: 11 of 87) selected strongly
disagree that flight time is more important (n = 944; v = 0.0933; p = 0.0346), a statistically
higher value than other groups.
There is a statistically significant relationship between gender and perceptions that
financial compensation is more important than increased leadership opportunities (n = 976; v =
0.112; p = 0.00199). Only 7.8% of women (n: 10 of 129) strongly agree financial compensation
is more important than leadership opportunity. There is no significant relationship between
financial compensation and community. However, 31.1% of VFA respondents (n: 50 of 161)
strongly agree that financial compensation is more important than increased leadership
opportunities, a statistically significantly higher value than typical.
Using Pearson’s r determined the existence of any correlations. Value is positively
correlated with expectancy (n = 979; r = 0.0955; p = 0.00277) and persistence (n = 967; r =
0.0767; p = 0.00389). These relationships support the view that value orients and serves as the
focus of motivated behavior.

116
Table 19
How Do Each of the Following Factors Influence Your Motivation to Continue Serving in the
Navy?
Prompt
Significantly
Increases
Somewhat
Increases
No Impact
Somewhat
Decreases
Significantly
Decreases
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
Time away from
family
5.0 50 3.2 32 9.5 94 35.3 350 47.0 466 992
Opportunity for
advanced
education,
internship, or
fellowship
12.6 125 33.2 329 35.5 352 10.9 108 7.8 77 991
Military
Administration
2.7 27 4.1 41 16.1 160 28.2 280 48.8 484 992
Operational
Tempo
3.8 38 9.0 89 27.0 267 33.3 329 26.9 266 989
Trust in leadership 9.3 92 20.5 203 19.2 190 25.1 249 25.9 257 991
Concerns and
grievances
2.4 24 6.9 68 28.8 285 39.0 386 22.9 227 990
Compensation 15.2 150 30.8 305 25.7 254 15.8 156 12.5 124 989
PCS Moves 3.9 38 8.4 83 36.1 356 29.6 292 22.1 218 987
Military Lifestyle 5.8 57 23.3 231 40.5 401 20.6 204 9.9 98 991
Spouse Career 4.5 45 5.8 57 41.7 414 22.4 222 25.6 254 992

117
Qualitative Response Findings. Survey participants provided approximately 800 free-
text responses to the open-ended prompt, What aspect of your service do you value most? Clear
linkages emerge that connect respondent feedback to basic psychological need fulfillment;
purposefulness, relatedness, and competency all resonate as broad characterizations of consistent
qualitative data themes. Perceptions of serving a patriotic duty in defense of the nation,
comradery developed among like-minded peers, leadership opportunities, and other competency-
related activities, such as instructing others or personally developing one’s skills, were repeated
ideas throughout the responses. Qualtrics sentiment analysis reinforces these findings; the top
three topics are performance and development, leadership, and people and teams. Compared to
the other comments throughout the instrument, this section reflected the most positive sentiments
based on initial analysis. A deeper review of the qualitative data beyond the scope of this study is
required to understand further what aspects of their service First-term Naval Aviators value most.
Notwithstanding the positive comments regarding what survey participants value,
participants also report negative views regarding value. Value is a theme across all open-ended
responses and generated over 550 coded responses. A portion of those codes conveys First-term
Naval Aviators’ views on their perceived value to the organization. A VFA pilot’s response to
prompt asking the primary reason people opt out of continued service, “I think the big problem is
people don’t feel truly valued.” Each individual’s value proposition about continued service was
significantly low. As a VFA pilot indicated, “I cannot abandon common sense, and I am forced
to juxtapose operational requirements, quality of life, and total compensation when considering
whether my continued service is the best choice for my family and for myself.”
The analysis identified a clear hygiene factor that will not improve motivation but
notably detracts from motivation. Survey respondents provided over 216 negative comments

118
regarding the Navy’s IT infrastructure, software applications, and resource availability. “The
technology does not enable us to do our job. NMCI is woefully inadequate for the 21st century,”
an HSM pilot shared. He added, “Several of my peers say one of the major reasons they are
getting out is because of the technology.” Poor performing IT systems compound the
dissatisfaction associated with perceived administrative burdens. “The ever-increasing
administrative burden in the form of antiquated technology,” offered a VP/VQ(P) aviator. “When
it takes 3 hours for my computer to work, only to find out outlook isn’t working correctly, or my
internet settings are not configured properly for me to go to government websites. The admin
burdens of day-to-day ground jobs are atrocious at best,” said a VAW aviator.
There is a strong sentiment that the ADHRB is insufficient to offset the perceived
negative balance between personal and professional needs. As one HSC pilot shared, the bonus
“is not worth the 10-12 plus hour days as well as working weekends.” A VP/VQ(P) pilot
perceives “work/life balance only gets worse as seniority increases.” As one VFA pilot stated,
“the money is not worth it. People outside the military with less education and skill are earning
much more than I do and they have a much better family life and life in general.” Another
VP/VQ(P) pilot offered, “I don’t think I can justify deploying away from my family months at a
time for a job that doesn’t ensure I am getting a job that I signed up to do from the start.” Some
respondents view the bonus as monetizing their worth to the Navy. “When the bonus goes down
all you are signaling to us is 1) The Navy doesn’t value you and 2) Everything is based on timing
and PERS only thinks short term,” said an HSM pilot. A VAW pilot quipped, “why am I less
valued than someone who just so happened to have another platform available the week they
finished Primary.” Furthermore, a VAQ aviator offered, “the constantly slashed bonus sends a
pretty strong message that the Navy thinks we don’t have any option but to stay as well.”

119
Negative perceptions regarding present and perceived future work-life balance is a
common theme across multiple prompts. A VP/VQ(P) pilot said, “My DH’s are all over-worked
and underpaid…The Skipper and XO seem even more overworked, meaning that each
advancement seems to make life worse, rather than better.” An HSC pilot does not aspire to
aviation command because, “I do not desire to prioritize squadron life in an aviation community
with questionable future value to the fleet over the career of my spouse and family time with my
wife and children.” Another VP/VQ(P) pilot said, “Ultimately, the sacrifice for my family is not
worth the benefits of making command.”
Some respondents highlight how exercising career autonomy resulted in perceptions of
reduced organizational value. A VFA pilot stated that being off track is only way to a good deal
in the Navy; he warned, “be off track, and be immediately ignored.” An HSM pilot offered, “I
did not choose to be a WTI which is all the Navy values,” while a VP/VQ(P) NFO shared, “I
chose to go to Test Pilot School, which my community does not value at all.” A VAQ aviator
said, “once you are off the golden path, it feels like you are valued much less.”
Document Analysis. Publicly accessible information depicting the Naval Aviator career
progression affords graduate education opportunities during the first shore tour. However, the
message of what Naval Aviation values is mixed. Naval Aviation values early graduate
education opportunities when career timing supports (Department of the Navy, 2020c). It also
requires reinvesting aviation skills in production assignments that limit tour diversity while
valuing diversity in first shore tour assignments before promotion to Lieutenant Commander.
Furthermore, despite valuing early graduate education, this is often not possible before
promotion to Lieutenant Commander due to compressed career timing and is reserved for top-
tier officers post-Department Head tour (Department of the Navy, 2020c). In addition to

120
competing community values and career timing concerns, actual opportunities are limited. Of the
Navy’s six out-service education opportunities offered for the academic year 2020-2021, First-
term Naval Aviators compete against several other communities for a total of eight Politico-
Military Master’s (PMM) slots offered each year (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019a). In addition
to sustained superior performance and necessary academic qualifications, selection criteria
included a politico-military, national security, or political science background developed through
a prior Master’s or undergraduate degree or previous assignment in a Navy or joint command
strategy billet and concurrence from their detailer (Chief of Naval Operations, 2019a). The
Academic Year 2021 advanced education board results reflect lower aviation representation by
comparison to the proportion of aviation-specific and non-discreet billets filled by aviation
officers (Baze, 2019b; Chief of Naval Operations, 2020c). This perception of limited opportunity
further supports a career management expectation mismatch as it served as a potential barrier to
intrinsic goal attainment that is achievement value-based.
Summary. Value could be considered an asset; however, it is conditional and based on
choices and conditions First-term Naval Aviators value. Respondents value serving; their desires
for purposefulness, competency, and relatedness motivate the willingness to serve. However,
fundamental dissatisfaction reported by survey participants negatively impacts intrinsic factors
such as time with family or the pursuit of individual competency need satisfaction, whether
oriented towards improved in-flight ability or other responsibilities. The presence of hygiene
factors, such as administrative burdens and inadequate resources to perform duties, reduced
motivation. The reduction of hygiene factors does not result in an associated increase in
motivation; nevertheless, it does afford the increased opportunity to pursue value-driven action,
which can translate into motivated behavior (Herzberg, 2003). This motivated behavior can

121
enable the pursuit of personal and professional goals provided organizational supports are
present. Notwithstanding this opportunity, the present dissatisfiers are too great to preserve the
value they hold in continued service as a Naval Aviator. These dissatisfiers for participants
ultimately outweigh the value found through service and cause a gap in value as a motivation
influence.
Research Question 2: What Is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture and Context
As It Relates to First-Term Naval Aviator’s Knowledge and Motivation Required to
Increase Opt-In Rates and Continued Service?
The connection between motivation and the environment is inextricable. Motivated
behavior is the outcome of the interaction of individuals and their surroundings. In the work
context, the work organization’s culture and settings and interactions with that environment form
the basis of metacognition and subsequent goal-oriented behavior. Five organizational influences
emerged from the literature review. They were selected primarily because of their relevance in
other research and the absence of any recent research exploring the impact of these influences on
the stakeholder group. This section reports the data and findings of organizational supports for
individual autonomy, the culture of fairness, the ability to foster purposefulness, perceptions of
organizational trust, and mentors’ influence with the stakeholder group. The following sections
will present the organizational results and findings and then discuss the interaction between those
influences and First-term Naval Aviator knowledge and motivation.
Cultural Models
Naval Aviation Has Gaps in Support, Flexibility, Appreciation, and Development
The study surveyed participant perceptions on Naval Aviation’s support, flexibility,
appreciation, and availability of valued developmental opportunities. Participant views on

122
leadership, recognition, and autonomy are linked to the organizational supports promoting job
satisfaction. A subscale measuring participants’ belief their job is very rewarding validates job
satisfaction. The survey also asked respondents if they aspire to aviation command; those who
answered yes to this question received an open-ended prompt asking what supports they need to
achieve this goal. Those who answered no received a prompt to explain why not.
Survey Results. The quantitative data indicates organizational supports are a gap. The
instrument’s use of affirmative statements is intentional. The use of Neither Agree nor Disagree
is generally considered neutral; however, in this case, it suggests a perception that is not in
agreement with the prompt and therefore not neutral. Over 63.1% (n: 633 of 1,004) of First-term
Naval Aviators do not agree they have the right balance between personal and professional
needs. Despite this perceived imbalance, 64.3% (n: 648 of 1,007) believe their unit supports their
professional goal achievement. Just over half of those surveyed have positive views regarding
leader feedback; 52.9% (n: 531 of 1,004) of participants report it encourages self-confidence.
However, leaders fall short of connecting to value; 54.0% (n: 542 of 1,004) of respondents do
not agree that their leadership connects the unit’s mission or purpose to their values. Over 68.1%
(n: 670 of 984) of survey respondents believe their job is very rewarding. However, only 59.8%
(n: 588 of 985) of respondents agree their unit leadership are good role models. Moreover, the
data indicates negative perceptions of other organizational supports. Recognition is not adequate
for 50.7% of survey participants (n: 489 of 983), and 57.2% (n: 563 of 984) do not agree they
have the autonomy to make important decisions. Additionally, 69.0% of respondents (n: 680 of
985) do not aspire to aviation command. Table 20 presents the distribution of responses for
autonomy and organizational support.

123
Table 20
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Supports
Prompt
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I have the right
balance between
personal and
professional
needs.
5.5 55 31.5 316 20.8 209 28.1 282 14.1 142 1004
Feedback from my
leadership
encourages my
self-confidence.
13.0 130 39.9 401 24.6 247 13.9 140 8.6 86 1004
My leadership
connects the
unit’s mission or
purpose to my
values.
8.7 87 37.4 375 28.3 284 15.2 153 10.5 105 1004
My unit
encourages me to
achieve my
professional
goals.
22.8 230 41.5 418 17.6 177 10.6 107 7.5 75 1007
I believe my job is
very rewarding.
24.3 239 43.8 431 13.3 131 12.6 124 6.0 59 984
The leadership in
my unit are good
role models.
21.7 213 38.1 375 16.9 166 13.3 131 10.1 99 984
I receive adequate
recognition for
my performance.
11.9 117 37.4 368 24.6 242 16.2 159 9.9 97 983
I have the
autonomy to
make important
organizational
decisions.
11.7 115 31.1 306 19.0 187 21.1 208 17.1 168 984

124
A chi-square test identified any statistically significant relationships between
organizational supports and this study’s independent variables. There are no statistically
significant relationships between organizational support and gender, marital status, ethnicity, or
service years. However, a significant relationship exists between participant response to I believe
my job is very rewarding and type-wing community (n = 983; v = 0.127; p = 0.000799).
Specifically, 40.1% (n: 65 of 162) of VFA respondents answered strongly agree, a very clearly
significantly higher value than other communities, while 10.0% (n: 17 of 170) of the HSC
community chose strongly disagree at a higher rate than other communities. There is also a
statistically significant relationship between perceptions that unit leaders are good role models
and community (n = 983; v = 0.123; p = 0.00232). Both VAQ and VFA strongly agree,
reporting a very clearly higher value than typical at 38.2% (n: 26 of 68) and 32.7% (n: 53 of
162), respectively.
Taking a deeper look at the influence of perceptions of leaders as role models and
retention behaviors, the following supplemental analysis explores relationships with ADHRB
acceptance rates and aspirations for command. There is a statistically significant relationship
between unit leader perceptions as good role models and intentions to accept the ADHRB.
Twenty-six of 43 respondents (60.1%) who definitely intend to take the bonus mostly agree unit
leaders are good role models at a higher rate. In contrast, 18.1% of respondents (n: 29 of 160)
who indicate they definitely do not intend to take the ADHRB strongly disagree their unit
leaders are good role models. Additionally, 46.2% of survey participants (n: 141 of 305) who
aspire for aviation command mostly agree unit leaders are good role models while 16.1% (n: 109
of 679) of those who do not desire command mostly disagree. Both are very clearly statistically

125
significantly higher value than typical and suggests the influence of positive leadership on
retention behaviors.
There is a statistically significant relationship between aspiration for aviation command
and community affiliation (n = 984; v = 0.177; p = 0.000141). Nearly half of VAW community
respondents (49.4%; n: 40 of 81) aspire to aviation command, a value very clearly significantly
higher than typical, while 41.4% (n: 67 of 162) of VFA respondents aspire to aviation command.
This rate is clearly significantly higher than others. However, 76.5% (n: 130 of 170) of HSC
respondents do not desire aviation command, a significantly higher rate than communities. There
is also a statistically significant relationship between aspiration for aviation command and
ethnicity (n = 948; v = 0.127; p = 0.0335) where 48.4% of Hispanic respondents (n: 15 of 31)
desire aviation command.
A Pearson’s r identified the following correlations between composite variables.
Additionally, there is a positive correlation with metacognition (n = 978; r = 0.188 = p =
<0.00001). Autonomy support has a strong positive correlation with expectancy (n = 982; r =
0.630; p = <0.00001) while there is a positive correlation with persistence (n = 970; r = 0.3; p =
<0.00001) and value (n = 976; r = 0.165; p = <0.00001). These relationships strengthen the body
or research suggesting organizational supports for autonomy have a positive impact on
motivation and goal attainment.
Qualitative Response Findings. Organizational supports that emerged across qualitative
comments orient on leadership, mentorship, career autonomy, and recognition through
performance feedback. Autonomy is a valued aspect of the individual work environment when
present and noted when absent. Comments generated over 770 codes related to career autonomy.
Some respondents specifically value autonomy in mission execution, decision making, and

126
project management; conversely, others feel they have limited or no autonomy in their roles. A
VFA pilot offered, “PERS and Detailing rarely let anyone go do what they’d like to do,
especially if it’s not one of the billets on the ‘path.’” “Not everyone wants to be a Skipper,” he
added. “Lack of career flexibility is a big factor,” a VAW pilot offered. “The navy also
advertises personal advancement, but any distraction from the golden path is negatively looked
on, making it harder to achieve personal goals such as continued education,” he continued.
A clear theme that resonates across the responses is the perception of diminished
autonomy as one advanced in the organization; specifically, there are strong views that
commanding officers (COs) have limited autonomy in their roles. Additionally, several
participants believe they will experience greater autonomy in their personal and professional
lives outside of Naval service. One pilot shared, “I do not aspire to be a mid-level manager with
perceived autonomy over leading a squadron.” In contrast, another pilot believes, “I can achieve
greater autonomy, professional satisfaction, and success outside of the military.” As discussed
earlier in the literature review, organizations that focus on improving employee perceptions of
future opportunities, such as increased responsibilities that are interesting and challenging,
increased promotion opportunities, and increased autonomy experience improved retention.
Workplace efforts that satisfy the individual basic psychological need for autonomy foster
increased motivation and organizational performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b).
Several respondents who indicate their intention to decline the ADHRB cite the
additional time commitment or refer to “being locked in” to continued service as one reason;
many view taking the ADHRB as accepting a loss of autonomy. Interestingly, as discussed
earlier, over half of survey participants desire to attain a graduate degree while on active duty;
education funded by the Navy entails a period of obligated service and presents one opportunity

127
to address retention. This opportunity suggests a transactional relationship between autonomy
and achievement value where individuals willingly accept reduced autonomy for higher value
goals.
Although the quantitative data suggest that a small majority of survey participants view
their unit leaders as good role models, the negative sentiment analysis across several open-ended
questions throughout the instrument presented a counter view. Qualtrics analysis automated
coding identified 539 of 677 comments specifically conveying negative leadership sentiments.
Respondents hold a negative view of both unit leaders and senior leaders, their major
commanders and flag officers. These negative perceptions of participants underpin the
significance of external leader influences on job satisfaction at the local level.
Survey participants who indicated they aspire to aviation command identified the
supports they need to achieve that goal. The prevailing topic areas are performance and
development, leadership, and resources. Leading themes center on career growth and growth and
development; respondents specifically highlight the need for mentorship, performance feedback,
career path diversity, and stable schedules that improve work-life balance. Several other
comments highlight the desire to pursue in-residence graduate education, a modernized
performance evaluation system that reduces the influence of timing, and flexibility for female
aviators to have children without career risk.
Negative attitudes about leadership, performance and development, and execution
emerged among the 392 free-text responses from survey participants who indicated they do not
aspire to aviation command. Initial qualitative analysis identified over 420 codes among the
comments; 389 codes regard organizational leaders and mentors while over 90 comments contain
codes associated with career autonomy. Two distinct themes regarding leadership emerged. The

128
first theme conveys strongly negative attitudes about current leadership examples. A VAQ pilot
offered “the Navy has promoted poor leaders who are both bad in the aircraft and bad on the
ground making it not a desirable position or a group I want to be a part of.”
The other theme highlights that respondents to not desire aviation command; sentiments
reflect perceptions of limited career flexibility on the path to command, lack of autonomy in
command, and personal sacrifices while in command. “Commanding officers do not have the
amount of authority or autonomy they need to accompany the inescapable responsibility and
accountability they have with command,” stated an HSM pilot. Poor perceptions of career path
autonomy, work-life balance, and job satisfaction appear throughout the performance and
development group. A VAW pilot shared, “Watching the XO’s and CO’s of my previous
squadrons and even now, I see the mentally taxing nature that can (and has) crushed work-life
balance and destroyed some families.” Another respondent offered, “the burden, responsibility,
and bureaucracy of leadership is heavy... and looks miserable.” Many respondents cited
excessive bureaucracy and perceptions of a pervasive zero-defect organizational culture
negatively influencing leader behavior. That is, they did not want “to make the cover of navy
times for getting fired while the major commanders and flags that might put me in an untenable
situation avoid consequences.”
Summary. There is a gap in the organizational supports that create and promote
perceptions of individual autonomy. Notwithstanding the gap the data collected through this
instrument suggests, most survey participants generally view their job as rewarding. However,
this gap negatively impacts performance towards the goal of increasing First-term Naval Aviator
opt-in rates for career continuation. Self-determination theory has established the significance of
autonomy as a basic psychological need. Effective organizations foster settings that facilitate

129
need satisfaction among their members. Participants indicate improved mentorship, career
autonomy, and latitude to balance valued endeavors, such as career and family, all support their
desire to continue service and aspire towards aviation command. However, aviation command is
undesirable because of a perceived absence of supports. Instead, perceptions about aviation
command are characterized by a heavy administrative load and unnecessary bureaucracy while
serving under the constant pressure of being held accountable for things beyond the scope of
one’s control or authority.
Naval Aviation’s Culture of Fairness and Performance-Based Equity Is Gapped
Organizational aspects that contribute to member perceptions of fairness are a gap from
the perspective of study participants. The study used five affirmative statements to determine
whether respondents’ perceptions of performance evaluation, recognition, and career
management processes are fair and equitable. It also captured views on leadership approaches to
fairly distributing additional responsibility and perceptions regarding individual treatment.
Survey Results. Survey participants report a gap in organizational fairness. Only 49.2%
of participants (n = 478 of 976) agree their unit leadership distributes responsibility fairly.
Perceptions of organizational fairness across the subscales continue to decline; only 39.9% (n =
389 of 975) of respondents believe performance is the sole basis for individual treatment in their
units, and 35.6% (n: 347 of 975) believe performance rankings are fair. Only 20.1% of
respondents (n: 196 of 976) believe the Navy’s promotion selection and milestone screen boards
are fair. Lastly, just 12.5% of those surveyed (n: 122 of 976) believe the Navy’s career
management processes are fair. Table 21 presents the distribution of survey responses to
organizational fairness.

130
Table 21
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Fairness
Prompt
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
My unit leadership
distributes
additional
responsibility
fairly.
9.6 94 39.6 386 17.5 171 21.9 214 11.4 111 976
People in my unit
are treated based
solely on their
performance.
9.4 92 30.5 297 22.7 221 22.2 216 15.3 149 975
I believe
performance
rankings are fair.
6.8 66 28.8 281 19.8 193 23.6 230 21.0 205 975
I believe the
Navy’s
promotion and
milestone screen
boards are fair.
2.6 25 17.5 171 36.3 354 24.2 236 19.5 190 976
I believe the career
management
processes (ie:
detailer
interactions) are
transparent.
1.2 12 11.3 110 23.0 224 29.4 287 35.1 343 976

A chi-square test identified a statistically significant relationship between perceptions of
fair distribution of additional responsibility and gender (n = 970; v = 0.0923; p = 0.0355) and
community (n = 975; v = 0.123; p = 0.00265). A statistically higher rate of women, 30.5% (n:

131
39 of 128), mostly disagree their unit leadership distributes additional responsibility fairly.
VP/VQ(P) respondents report both mostly disagree and strongly disagree at a clearly
significantly higher rate and significantly higher rate respectively; 27.6% (n: 74 of 268) mostly
disagree while 15.3% (n: 41 of 268) strongly disagree their unit leadership distributes additional
responsibility fairly. Additionally, 16.6% (n: 28 of 169) HSC respondents also strongly disagree
at a significantly higher value than typical. Conversely, 46.9% (n: 75 of 160) VFA participants
mostly agree at a statistically significantly higher value.
A statistically significant relationship exists between perceptions people are treated based
solely on their performance and gender (n = 969; v = 0.0938; p = 0.0296), marital status (n =
967; v = 0.0922; p = 0.0366), and community (n = 974; v = 0.129; p = 0.000457). A
significantly higher rate of women, 33.1% (n: 42 of 127), mostly disagree that personal treatment
in their unit is based solely on performance. Also, single respondents strongly disagree at a
significant higher value, 20.2% (n: 62 of 307) do not believe treatment is solely performance-
based. VP/VQ(P) respondents strongly disagree at a very significantly higher value with 21.6%
(n: 58 of 268) and 30.7% of HSM reports (n: 51 of 166) mostly disagree at significantly higher
rate while 16.3% of VFA participants (n: 26 of 160) strongly agree that treatment in their unit is
based solely on performance, a statistically significantly higher value than others. And lastly, a
significant relationship exists between views that performance rankings are fair and community
(n = 974; v = 0.114; p = 0.0201). HSM respondents strongly disagree performance rankings are
fair at a significantly higher value with 27.5% (n: 46 of 167) while 11.9% (n: 19 of 159) VFA
participants strongly agree rankings are fair.
A Pearson’s r was performed to identify any correlation between a composite fairness
variable and knowledge and motivation influences. Fairness positively correlated with

132
metacognition (n = 969; r = 0.214; p = <0.00001). Fairness also positively correlated with
expectancy (n = 973; r = 0.487; p = <0.00001) and persistence (n = 961; r = 0.168; p =
<0.00001). There is no statistically significant relationship between fairness and value.
Notwithstanding these findings, a relationship may exist and requires additional exploration.
Overall, these relationships suggest perceptions of organizational fairness positively influences
higher-level knowledge processes and supports individual motivation influences to a varying
degree.
Qualitative Response Findings. The survey did not present participants with a direct
prompt related to their perceptions of fairness and performance-based equity; however, negative
perceptions of organizational fairness stand out in qualitative responses across the instrument.
Perceptions of bias in performance rankings and evaluations emerged as a repeated theme across
communities. An HSM pilot stated, “performance rarely translates to fair rankings, it’s either
political agenda of the military or favoritism of the CO.” A VFA pilot said, “I am unhappy with
how timing plays into a Navy career and how unfair the current FITREP system is for people
who are obviously the best and most fully qualified.”
Additionally, some respondents believe their leaders demonstrate favoritism and bias
towards selected in-group members are frequent issues repeated throughout the responses. “I
want to escape the good old boys club, taking the bonus will only force me into that world even
more,” a VFA ADHRB decliner shared. A VP/VQ(P) pilot said, “If we are not on the “golden
path” we get treated unfairly.” Some comments offer this in-group bias was not realized by its
members; a VFA pilot stated, “those that benefit from privilege fail to recognize their privilege
and attribute all their success to their performance.” Another VFA pilot offered, “it [is]
challenging for those who promote to higher levels to understand why everyone would not want

133
to do what they did. It worked for them, so it must work for everyone.” Unfairness associated
with leader bias also manifest in comments about sexism. A VFA pilot observed, “Sexism is still
very real.” A VAQ NFO offered, “I never encountered sexism or discrimination for my sexual
orientation until I got to my fleet squadron.” And a VAW aviator said, “the office politics,
sexism, and this boys club mentality is such a turn off.”
Female participant responses highlighted unique organizational issues, further fostering
negative perceptions of fairness, such as the low representation of women in Naval Aviation and
the prevalence of sexist behaviors and attitudes that translate to female Naval Aviators’ unfair
expectations. “I’m not the squadron ‘mom,’ and it’s not my responsibility to look after or clean
up after the guys,” a female VAW NFO offered. Additionally, female respondents who desire a
family feel forced to choose between a career or starting a family; few believe their career paths
afford them the ability to start a family. Respondents perceive pregnancy has negative
consequences for their career progression. Female participants highlighted their challenges posed
by infertility or the Navy’s Career Intermission Program (CIP). CIP is a one-time sabbatical
period that incurs an obligated service, and the financial trade-offs required make it an unrealistic
choice for some respondents. These issues and others undermining perceptions of fairness
identified in the qualitative comments require more in-depth analysis beyond this study’s scope.
Summary. Fairness, or organizational justice, is the subjective assessment of a fair
process, fair outcomes, and fair interpersonal interactions. Survey participants overwhelmingly
held negative views that career management processes are transparent and promotion or career
milestone selection processes fair. Additionally, the central tendency indicated low agreement
performance rankings are fair or that individual treatment is based solely on their performance.
The belief that a “good old boys club” exists in a unit or community reinforces a perception that

134
biased groups with the power to influence rankings or career outcomes create an exclusive
subculture that runs counter to the ideas of fairness. Even less than half of respondents (49.2%)
believe leaders fairly distribute additional duties. The quantitative scores are among the lowest
across the survey and suggest fairness as an organizational influence is a significant gap.
The Trust Gap
Survey participants report the Navy’s approach to authority, responsibility,
accountability, and expertise is not balanced; the Navy has a trust gap. This section of the survey
sought to understand First-term Naval Aviator perspectives of trust within Naval Aviation. This
portion of the study used five Likert-type questions to capture First-term Naval Aviator
perceptions on trust within their organizational context. The Navy considers authority,
responsibility, and accountability as the triadic framework that underpins any organizational
leader (Richardson, 2019a); it acknowledges the application of each must be balanced with the
other two for an effective organization. Imbalanced delegation of responsibility and authority can
create perceptions of unfair behavior within the unit. First-term Naval Aviator provided
perceptions regarding the balanced distribution of authority, responsibility, and accountability
within their unit. The Navy also includes expertise, perceived as competence, as a fourth critical
element for leaders (Richardson, 2019a). Knowledge is rooted in one’s observations, memory,
and reflection of their environment (Steup & Neta, 2005); the interpretation of those elements
form ideas and beliefs that are the foundation of logical reasoning (Gasset & Garcia-Gomez,
2002). Competency is one’s capacity to interact with their environment effectively (White,
1959); therefore, knowledge, as demonstrated by logical reasoning, is essential to fostering
competency perceptions. Furthermore, perceptions of and interactions with others and their
environment prominently influences organizational trust (Rousseau et al., 1998). Consequently,

135
respondents’ perceptions regarding senior leaders’ understanding of the challenges First-term
Naval Aviator units face are antecedents for senior leaders’ competency and trust.
Additionally, respondent perceptions of peer competency are an indication of trust in the
organizational context. This perception of organizational trust is further reinforced by collecting
views on the trust placed in unit leadership. The final aspect of trust aims to provide recent
perspectives regarding the presence of a leader “say-do” gap identified in earlier studies
(Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014).
Survey Results. The quantitative data overall suggests a gap among the elements
promoting organizational trust; although First-term Naval Aviators indicate greater perceptions
of trust among their peers. Perceptions of trust are strongest within the individual unit and
perceptions of trust in leaders external to their unit decrease. Survey respondents trust their peers
and unit leaders to a large degree; 73.8% believe their peers perform their duties to the best of
their ability (n: 707 of 959), while just 64.3% of participants trust their unit leadership (n: 619 of
963). Only 59.7% of those surveyed believe authority, responsibility, and accountability in their
unit are balanced (n: 575 of 962). Only 39.5% (n: 379 of 960) believe there is a “say-do” gap
among leadership, and 53.7% (n: 517 of 963) perceived senior leadership understands today’s
challenges in their units. Table 23 provides the distribution of participant perceptions on trust.

136
Table 22
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Organizational Trust
Prompt
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
Authority,
responsibility,
and
accountability
are balanced in
my unit.
11.6 112 48.1 463 21.4 206 14.4 138 4.5 43 962
Senior leadership
understands the
challenges in my
unit today.
15.5 149 38.2 368 15.7 151 17.2 166 13.4 129 963
I trust my unit
leadership.
23.1 222 41.2 397 16.7 161 10.5 101 8.5 82 963
My peers perform
their duties to the
best of their
ability.
25.8 247 48.0 460 16.7 160 6.8 65 2.8 27 959
There is a “say-do”
gap among
leadership.
15.6 150 23.9 229 35.6 342 19.7 189 5.2 50 960

A chi-squared test determined if any relationship exists between trust elements explored
in the survey and the independent variables, years of service, community, marital status, and
gender. There is a statistically significant relationship between perceptions that peers perform
their duties to the best of their ability and community (n = 958; v = 0.136; p = 0.0000801) as
well as years of service (n = 945; v = 0.109; p = 0.00106). The strongest perceptions of peer

137
performance exist among participants in the VFA community, where 41.0% (n: 64 of 156)
strongly agree their counterparts perform their duties to the best of their ability, a very clearly
statistically significant value higher than typical. Additionally, 69.2% (n: 18 of 26) of
respondents with 16 – 20 years of service mostly agree at a rate significantly higher than others.
However, 10.9% of the VP/VQ(P) respondents (n: 29 of 266) mostly disagree their peers
perform to the best of their ability, a statistically significant value lower than others.
There are significant statistical relationships between years of service and perceptions
one’s unit balances authority, responsibility, and accountability (n = 948; v = 0.101; p =
0.00675). Specifically, 34.6% (n: 9 of 26) of those with 16 – 20 years of service mostly
disagreed. Whereas 33.3% (n: 2 of 6) of those with 21 – 25 years of service strongly disagreed.
Both values are statistically significantly higher than typical. Additionally, a relationship exists
between perceptions of a leadership “say-do” gap and community affiliation (n = 959; v = 0.104;
p = 0.123). Respondents from the VAW and VFA communities hold this view more so than
others; 26.3% (n: 20 of 76) of VAW and 22.2% (n: 35 of 158) of VFA participants strongly
agree there is a say-do gap among leadership. Additionally, 30.9% (n: 51 of 165) of HSM
respondents mostly agree, all are statistically significantly higher values than typical.
Lastly, there is a statistically significant relationship between community and perceptions
of trust in unit leadership (n = 962; v = 0.110; p = 0.0426). There is a statistically significant
value higher than typical among the VAQ community, where 36.4% (n: 24 of 66) strongly agree
they trust their unit leadership. Conversely, only 18.0% (n: 48 of 266) of the VP/VQ(P)
community reported strongly agree they trust their unit leadership; although not statistically
significant, 42.1% (n: 112 of 266) of the VP/VQ(P) respondents mostly agree they trust their unit
leadership. Notwithstanding the statistical relationships, the VP/VP(Q) and VAW communities

138
report lower trust in their unit leadership, 60.1% (n: 160 of 266) and 59.8% (n: 46 of 77),
respectively, when compared to the mean (66.5%) across all type-wing communities.
Pearson’s r determined the correlation between trust and the other knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences identified in this research. Trust is positively correlated
with metacognition (n = 952; r = 0.151; p = <0.00001), persistence (n = 946; r = 0.247; p =
<0.00001), and value (n = 950; v = 0.136; p = 0.0000268). Trust is strongly positively correlated
with expectancy (n = 956; v = 0.505; p = <0.00001). These relationships support the body of
research suggesting the importance of trust in an organization and the effects on goal-oriented
strategy development and motivated behavior.
Qualitative Response Findings. This portion of the protocol did not have an open-ended
question aligned directly to trust; however, other sections of the instrument highlight
organizational trust elements in the collected comments. Trust or being trusted is a consistent
theme in comments asking what respondents value most about their service; however, over 60
negative comments explicitly relate to trust or being trusted. One VFA pilot noted the
consequence of earning unit leadership’s trust results in a disproportionate amount of
administrative burden compared to those who are not trusted and subsequently afforded more
time off. Another VFA pilot values flying, “but have completely lost trust in Navy leadership to
use rational thought and throttle back ops tempo.” Lack of trust is also evident at the local level.
An HSM pilot identified a secondary implication of low trust with unit leadership, “the
environment my front office formed was one of micromanaging and distrust, which ultimately
showed that professional development was not a priority.”
Survey participants submitted over 100 comments presenting negative views of the
Navy’s recent approach to COVID mitigations. Specifically, respondents highlight the

139
dichotomy of how the Navy entrusts them to operate multimillion-dollar aircraft yet they are not
trusted to travel or afforded liberty (or time off ashore) during a foreign port of call. They also
pointedly highlighted that the Navy is the only military service mandating heavy restrictions to
personal liberties when not deployed. As a VP/VQ(P) pilot noted, “You are saying that you don’t
trust me to make responsible decisions.” Negative sentiments are not exclusive to the Navy’s
COVID response. Many respondents conveyed frustration at the lack of trust and transparency in
many facets of their work. As one VP/VQ(P) NFO noted, views of being “micromanaged while
being told that as an Officer there is great trust and responsibility” presented a gap between
leadership’s words and actions.
Qualtrics sentiment analysis reports leadership is consistently in the top three family
topics areas; trust and other associated keywords are subfamily topics within leadership. Nearly
13% (n: 83 of 689) of negative comments about leadership refer to trust or confidence. Trust in
unit leadership is lacking among some respondents, and perceptions of micro-management
present as a lack of trust from organizational leaders. However, limited or absent bidirectional
trust comes together at the squadron commanding officer position; specifically, “I do not trust
my leadership and do not see any benefit from becoming the commanding officer of a squadron
or above,” noted a VFA pilot. Others view that senior Navy leadership has little trust in
commanding officers. This perceived erosion of trust in commanding officers by senior leaders is
a negative influence on retention attitudes. As an HSM pilot noted, “I do not want to be part of a
command structure that does not appear to trust their CO’s to do their job.”
Over 25% (n: 160 of 617) of negative comments offered by respondents who do not
aspire to aviation command are regarding leadership and indicate negative views on the Navy’s
approach to authority, responsibility, and accountability. An HSM pilot offered the Navy is quick

140
to judge and fire commanders “while offering little trust in their decision making.” Further, the
Navy’s public approach to accountability for things considered beyond leaders’ control erodes
trust among respondents. “Watching COs get publicly sacked on an almost weekly basis
generates no trust in the navy taking care of people anymore,” noted a VQ(T) pilot.
Qualitative coding resulted in over 460 comments providing negative feedback about
both unit and organizational behaviors associated with performance rankings and career
management opportunities or negative transactions with career managers connecting perceptions
of fairness and organizational transparency or trust. When asked what is the most dissatisfying
part of the job, a VP/VQ(P) pilot said, “There are several things but I truly believe that not being
able to be ranked according to the level of work that I perform but solely based on my seniority
in the command, is the largest dissatisfying aspect of my job.” An HSC pilot chided, “Fitrep
rankings are heavily politicized and almost never take in to account actual individual
performance.” Another VP/VQ(P) pilot shared, “There is clear favoritism when it comes to
rankings. If you are one of the commands favorites, they rank you higher which sets you up well
for being on the “golden path.” If you want anything other than the “golden path” then you might
as well be ranked last from that point on.” Finally, an HSM pilot replied, “Seeing command
leadership handpick favorites for top billets.”
Lastly, some comments spotlight the detrimental impact of sexual harassment and assault
on perceptions of trust. Specifically, an HSM pilot stated, “We are the silent victims that endured
the sexual trauma from people who we trusted and who were supposed to lead and mentor us in
our dream of being Naval Aviators.” An HSC pilot shared, “As a victim of sexual harassment,
assault and intimidation, I was never prepared for what I would be forced to encounter from

141
those who were supposed to lead, mentor and instruct me.” They added, “Our perpetrators are
high among the ranks and this leadership is poison.”
Summary. Trust in, and perceptions of trust from the organization and organizational
leaders emerged as a gap. Trust does exist in the Naval Aviation and is strongest among the peer
cohort; however, it weakens as trust targets shift to the unit leader and then onward to leaders in
the organizational hierarchy above unit commanders. Some theorists consider an absence of trust
as the presence of interpersonal or organizational betrayal depending on the context; this
shortfall of trust among survey participants negatively influences motivation in many ways.
Despite a notion of trust among peers, a quarter of the peer group is not viewed as performing to
the best of their ability. This erodes the positive influence trust has on the focus group, as many
cited the ability to trust their squadron mates as something they value. Limited trust in the unit
and organizational leaders negatively influences retention attitudes. Although the quantitative
data suggests a minority view a “say-do” gap among leaders; the qualitative data directly offers a
different view. The repeated theme across other organizational influences regarding diminished
autonomy, value, purpose, and perceptions of fairness all contribute to undermining trust. A
deeper study of these relationships is beyond this project’s scope but necessary to understand the
interdependencies of direct and indirect organizational influences on perceptions of trust.
The Navy Does Not Provide Naval Aviators Purposeful Employment
The study surveyed participant perceptions on the Navy’s ability to provide First-term
Naval Aviation purposeful employment. According to self-determination theory (SDT),
individual behavior is motivated to satisfy the basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, relatedness, and meaningful purpose or value (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan,
2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Pomerantz et al., 2005). This project collected data to ascertain

142
respondent perspectives on whether or not their employment is purposeful or meaningful. It also
collected data supporting whether or not the organization provides support, flexibility,
appreciation, and desired developmental opportunities, which all support the satisfaction of
SDT’s other basic psychological needs. The exploration of the organizational influence of
purpose has a potential nexus with value which directs a line of inquiry that considers two
elements of purpose. The first line of inquiry captures survey participant views on the
purposefulness of their service. The second line of inquiry collects respondent perspectives on
organizational supports of individual value and individual goals that promote autonomy and
competency.
Survey Results. Naval Aviation’s ability to provide purposeful employment is a gap
among survey participants. A majority of respondents believe their service is purposeful; 76.1%
(n: 733 of 965) believe they make a difference to their unit. A slight majority of participants
view their Naval service as more than a job; 55.7% (n: 537 of 963) view their service as a
calling. However, views of organizational supports conveying individual value score poorly.
Only 20.9% (n: 201 of 963) of survey respondents believe the Navy supports their long-term
professional goals. Adding to low perceptions that undermine purpose, just 19.5% (n: 188 of
965) of survey participants believe the Navy values them as an individual. Table 22 presents the
distribution of responses for purpose.

143
Table 23
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Purpose
Prompt
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I believe the Navy
values me as an
individual.
4.2 40 15.3 148 19.5 188 24.6 237 36.5 352 965
I believe the Navy
supports my
long-term
professional
goals.
3.1 30 17.8 171 24.5 236 26.6 256 28.0 270 963
I believe serving in
the Navy is more
than a job, it is a
calling.
19.7 190 36.0 347 22.9 220 10.9 105 10.5 101 963
I believe I make a
difference to my
unit.
30.0 289 46.1 444 14.4 139 7.4 71 2.2 21 964

The following section discusses statistically significant relationships between the
subscales for purpose and the independent variables identified for this study identified using a
chi-square test. A significant relationship exists between perceptions participants make a
difference to their unit and community affiliation (n = 963; v = 0.119; p = 0.0076); 92.9% of
HM community respondents (n: 13 of 14) mostly agree at a very clearly statistically significant
value higher than others. This relationship is likely due to the small distribution of responses, but
it also points to a strong alignment of sentiment not observed to the same degree in other

144
communities. Additionally, 40.0% (n: 62 of 155) of VFA participants strongly agree at a
statistically significant value higher than typical. However, VP/VQ(P) participants respond at a
statistically significant rate lower than others, with only 24.3% (n: 65 of 268) who chose strongly
agree they make a difference to their unit. There is also a significant relationship between the
belief the Navy supports individual long-term professional goals and years of service (n = 941; v
= 0.114; p = 0.00031). Respondents with 11-15 years of service neither agree nor disagree at
14.0% (n: 12 of 86), a statistically significant value that is lower than typical.
Additional inferential analysis used a Pearson’s r to identify any correlation between
purpose and this study’s knowledge and motivation influences. Purpose is strongly positively
correlated with expectancy (n = 959; r = 0.525; p = <0.00001). Purpose is positively correlated
with metacognition (n = 955; r = 0.242; p = <0.00001) and persistence (n = 947; r = 0.312; p =
<0.00001). These relationships support the noteworthy influence of purposefulness in motivating
behavior and deliberate action taken towards meaningful goals. Interestingly, this survey
produced no statistically significant relationship between purpose and value; this is an
unexpected result and requires deeper exploration beyond the scope of this project.
Qualitative Response Findings. This portion of the instrument does not have a
dedicated open-ended question exploring purpose; however, survey participants address the
elements of organizational supporting meaningfulness or purpose in their experience in other
comments throughout the survey. Numerous respondents specifically acknowledged their service
provides a sense of purpose. Sentiments such as this HSC pilot’s comment “to serve our great
nation and serve a greater purpose bigger than yourself” are common responses to the prompt
asking what aspect of their service they value the most. Other comments pointed to a diminished
sense of purpose and the interaction of other organizational influences such as career autonomy

145
in promoting meaningfulness. “I will only stay in if I’m allowed to do a job that fulfills me and
has purpose, if my choice is to follow the “golden path” or get out then I’ll get out,” offered a
VAW pilot. These perspectives indicate a relationship between purposefulness and value despite
the absence of a statistical correlation in this study. Many survey respondents expressed they do
not feel valued, whether by their unit, community, or the larger organization. They perceive their
skills are not valued as characterized by ground duty primacy over flight duties. They desire
autonomy demonstrated by career flexibility without precondition. Moreover, they view their
individual needs for work-life balance are not valued and secondary to the purported needs of the
Navy. However, negative perceptions regarding purpose and perceived value of employment is
clearly present. A VAW pilot tersely stated, “We have a game called, “how overpaid am I right
now?” Why the fuck are we using 100k employees who can fly 300 million dollar aircraft for
mopping floors?”
Several comments reinforce the gap to connect the mission or purpose to the First-term
Naval Aviator’s values and emerged as at least two sub-themes. The first suggests a strong
perception that the HSC community’s mission focus in the training cycle is misaligned with the
operational employment. The second theme that emerges indicates several First-term Naval
Aviators do not see the current deployment tempo’s value in the current operational
environment. Lastly, several respondents recognize that increased organizational responsibility
translates to reduced flying opportunities, and the associated perception of eroded competency
anticipates an unfulfilled need and contributes to negative self-efficacy.
Finally, a clear theme emerged, highlighting the Navy’s approach to the ADHRB
reinforces negative perceptions of the respondent’s perceived value. Participants report the
Navy’s approach to change bonus amounts based on community health conveys a negative

146
message compared to the USAF offering the maximum financial incentive available. The
resultant perception is the Navy places a clear price tag on an individual’s value; those offered a
lower bonus amount equate this to lower value back to the organization. The qualitative data
strongly supports the gap in purpose or meaningfulness identified in the quantitative data.
Summary. The motivation to pursue a purposeful life is meaningful action oriented to
accomplish an intrinsic goal that satisfies basic psychological needs. Most respondents believe
they are making a difference in their unit at the local level, while just over half believe their
service is not just a job but a calling. These attitudes convey the nature of service as a Naval
Aviator is purposeful and meaningful; however, low perceptions of organizational support for
desired professional goal achievement or feelings the Navy does not value respondents as
individuals or a community undermine the greater sense of purpose. Individual perceptions of
diminished value is a repeated theme across the open-ended responses. Notwithstanding the
meaningfulness many survey participants feel in their service, the data suggests that the existing
organizational culture and behavior do not value the First-term Naval Aviators in a manner that
facilitates job satisfaction and improved organizational commitment. The data indicates a
perception the Navy does not value survey participants or their professional goals overshadows
the intrinsic value realized through individual service as a Naval Aviator. This perception of low
individual value by the organization results in a gap of purposeful service.
Cultural Settings
Mentorship and Development of First-Term Naval Aviators Is a Gap
Mentors and mentorship are one of the most important organizational influences explored
in this research effort; mentors can be positive influences on metacognition, expectancy, and
persistence. As a result, mentorship was interwoven throughout this instrument. This portion of

147
the survey explores First-term Naval Aviator views on mentorship; specifically, it determines the
proportion of respondents who have a mentor, identifies the resource where most seek career
advice, and collects perceptions on interactions with individual and organizational mentors. The
instrument used four Likert-type questions to capture participant reflections on their identified
mentor’s ability to promote efficacy and trust. As stated earlier, negative tendencies greater than
30% are considered a gap that prevents achieving the organizational goal of 70% opt-in rate for
continuation.

Table 24
I Seek Most of My Career Advice From (Select One)
Answer % n
Commanding Officer 8.3 80
Executive Officer 4.6 44
Department Head 28.7 275
Peers 31.2 299
Detailer 0.0 0
Spouse / Fiancée / Significant other 6.9 66
Mentor 19.7 189
Social Media 0.6 6

148
Survey Results. Only 54.5% (n: 524 of 962) of First-term Naval Aviators surveyed
report they have a mentor. Furthermore, only 12.9% (n: 124 of 959) of those surveyed seek most
of their career advice from their CO or Executive Officer (XO); instead, 31.2% (n: 299 of 959)
obtain their career advice from their peers. Another 28.7% (n: 275 of 959) solicit career guidance
from unit Department Heads. It is most noteworthy that 0.00% of respondents seek career advice
from their detailer. The data suggests a gap in mentor-mentee relationships; specifically, only
57.9% (n: 533 of 921) of survey participants believe their mentor is available when they need
guidance, while just 56.2% (n: 518 of 922) feel their mentor encourages them in the face of
setback or challenge. Additionally, just 55.2% (n: 509 of 921) think their mentor invested in their
professional development. Tables 24 and 25 depict the distribution of mentors and respondent
perceptions on mentorship’s response distribution.

149
Table 25
Participant Responses to Survey Questions Measuring Mentorship
Prompt
Strongly
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% n % n % n % n % n n
I feel the
relationships I
have with unit
leaders are just
superficial.
16.2 151 22.2 207 28.5 266 25.2 235 7.9 74 933
My mentor is
invested in my
professional
development.
28.3 261 26.9 248 36.3 334 1.9 17 6.6 61 921
My mentor is
available when I
need guidance.
31.2 287 26.7 246 34.1 314 1.5 14 6.5 60 921
My mentor
encourages me
when I face
challenges or
setbacks.
29.5 272 26.7 246 35.8 330 1.5 14 6.5 60 922

The inferential analysis used a chi-squared test to determine if any relationship exists
between mentorship aspects explored in the survey and the independent variables. There is no
statistically significant relationship between those surveyed with a mentor and gender, marital
status, ethnicity, years of service, or community affiliation. Although there is no significant
relationship between type-wing community and having a mentor, only 34.7% (n: 11 of 32) of the

150
VQ(T) reported having a mentor. This is a statistically significantly lower value than typical (n =
960; v = 0.125; p = 0.06).
There is a statistically significant relationship between from whom respondents seek
career advice and marital status (n = 951; v = 0.116; p = 0.0130), gender (n = 953; v = 0.106; p
= 0.0436), and community (n = 958; v = 0.0118; p = 0.00237). Of the married responses, 8.6%
(n: 54 of 625) seek most of their career advice from their spouse or partner, a clearly statistically
significant value higher than typical. On the other hand, only 2.4% of women (n: 3 of 126) seek
career advice from their CO, a clearly statistically significant value lower than others.
VAQ COs were statistically sought for career advice more so than their contemporaries
in other communities. Specifically, 29.7% of VAQ respondents (n: 15 of 66) received most of
their professional advice from their CO, a statistically significant value higher than typical. In
contrast, only 5.0% (n: 13 of 262) of VP/VQ(P) survey participants reportedly seek career advice
from their CO, a statistically significant value lower than others. The VAW community indicated
less of a tendency to seek career advice from their peer group; only 16.7% (n: 13 of 78) of VAW
participants expressed they obtain career guidance from their peer group, a statistically
significantly lower value than average. Lastly, 35.2% (n: 58 of 165) of HSM survey respondents
seek career advice from DHs. This is a statistically significant value higher than others.
There is a statistically significant relationship between respondent perceptions their
mentor is available when they need guidance and gender (n = 915; v = 0.0930; p = 0.0448)
where 39.2 % of women (n: 49 of 125) report strongly agree, a significantly higher value than
typical. There is a relationship between respondents’ views of their mentor invested in the
professional development and ethnicity (n = 908; v = 0.110; p = 0.0272), with 25.0% of
participants who identify as American Indian selecting strongly disagree at a rate significantly

151
higher than typical. Lastly, there is a statistically significant relationship between I feel the
relationships I have with unit leaders are just superficial and years of service (n = 921; v =
0.0950; p = 0.0316) and ethnicity (n = 919; v = 0.119; p = 0.0034). Respondents with 11 – 15
years of service selected strongly agree at a significantly higher value than others; 24.1% (n: 21
of 87) believe their relationship with unit leaders are superficial. There is also a significantly
higher value than typical for persons of color, 50.0% (n: 4 of 8) survey participants who identify
as American Indian and 30.0% (n: 9 of 30) who identify as Hispanic selected strongly agree they
have superficial relationships with unit leaders.
Pearson’s r compared the mentorship to knowledge and motivation influences to identify
any potential relationships. There is a positive correlation between mentorship and metacognition
(n = 915; r = 0.250; p = <0.00001). Mentorship was also positively correlated with motivation;
specifically, expectancy (n = 919; r = 0.331; p = <0.00001) and persistence (n = 910; v = 0.248;
p = <0.00001). This study recognizes the potential impact of mentorship across organizational
influences. As anticipated, mentorship is positively correlated with autonomy supports (n = 919;
r = 0.416; p = <0.00001), fairness (n = 918; r = 0.323; p = <0.00001), purpose (n = 910; r =
0.351; p= <0.00001), and trust (n = 915; r = 0.309; p = <0.00001). These relationships reinforce
the body of research identifying positive mentorship cultures as a prominent influence in
motivation and organizational performance.
Qualitative Results. The mentorship portion of the protocol did not have an open-ended
question directly related to mentorship; however, mentorship was an organizational factor
highlighted in several comments. Coding all free-text responses resulted in over 920 comments
regarding leaders and mentors; nearly 100 of those comments specifically refer to mentors or
mentorship. Several respondents value the opportunity to lead and mentor others, and those

152
sharing positive experiences with mentors correspond to positive sentiment. Survey participants
who indicated they desire to pursue aviation command also identified the need for positive
mentors. “There is a wealth of knowledge that could be tapped into at an early point in an
aviator's career if only there was a more efficient system for matching and communicating with a
mentor,” a VAQ pilot observed.
Numerous comments highlight the absence of or inadequacy of mentors during accession,
flight training, and for some, even in their operational tours. A VFA NFO said “No one will
spend the time to be a mentor. Emails and texts go unanswered, calls unreceived.” One HSM
pilot offered, “the mentorship received throughout my career has been inconsistent and indirect.”
Another HSM pilot reported, “I've been told by DHs and skippers in both my sea and shore tours
to not expect mentorship from DHs or the front office and that we should seek professional
development somewhere else.” One HSC pilot noted that they did not have a mentor and instead
relied on fellow JOs, figuring it out as they went along. An HSM pilot shared, “We learn mostly
from the herd of other lieutenants, especially people ahead of us in the pipeline, but dedicated
and long-term mentorship is hard to find.”
Some respondents recalled how squadron mentors recommend getting on the “good side”
of senior squadron leaders instead of demonstrating proficiency in the necessary material for
qualification. Other mentors advise protégés not to disclose long-term goals if they are
something other than following the golden path toward command. Poor unit leaders and mentors’
negative influence emerged as a theme among those who do not aspire to command. One HSC
pilot reported, “My last CO was the only quality CO I have had and see more low quality leaders
coming up through the ranks.”

153
While some respondents indicate they would like to continue their service to mentor
junior Sailors, others cite poor experiences with unit mentors as a reason that made the pursuit of
command undesirable. A VP/VQ(P) aviator said, “Because all of the skippers/XOs that I have
had during the duration of my 3yr sea tour were never individuals that I looked up. I never
viewed them as mentors/ role models.” A VRC/VRM pilot noted, “We’ve worked incredibly
hard to get to this point and have quickly realized the career advancement of the few higher up
are more important than that of the many Junior Officers trying to build a career.” “The state of
leadership in the roles at the top of the food chain do not seem like they care about the people
they are leading,” reported a VAW pilot. He added, “They seem to only care about getting the
"number 1" for themselves and not caring about how to take care of their people.”
These comments focus on the personal value and purposefulness of being a mentor and
the negative influence of poor-quality mentorship adversely affecting survey participants’
motivation and retention attitudes. The qualitative data bolsters the quantitative data suggesting
mentorship is a gap. This suggests low trust with organizational leaders, which is instrumental in
establishing a positive mentor-protégé relationship.
Document Analysis. A working paper obtained from Navy Personnel Command
discusses creating a coaching program. The initiative aims to develop individual performance for
everyone across the Navy through coaching (Harris, 2020). Objectives from this effort presume
every Naval Officer and Sailor actively embrace being coached and willfully develop into a
coach themselves; it also acknowledges not everyone can become a coach (Harris, 2020).
Formal development programs of naval personnel are not new or novel ideas. In 2003,
the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) directed all naval units to “create a mentoring culture and
assign a mentor to every service member,” (V. Clark, 2003). This mandate also directed the use

154
of a web-based counseling and professional development tool, which included laying out a path
towards a college or advanced degree (V. Clark, 2003). This directive resulted in subordinate
command policy issuances that turned the culture of mentorship into a compliance-driven
program with limited positive effects (Bates, 2019; W. B. Johnson & Andersen, 2009). In 2013,
the Navy released the first Navy Leader Development Strategy (NLDS), which makes a singular
mention of mentorship; mentorship is a component of personal development in conjunction with
performance evaluations, counseling, and coaching (Greenert, 2013). The strategy introduces a
leader development continuum and indicates self-awareness tools support O3 and O4 officer
personal development; however, these self-awareness tools are not identified (Greenert, 2013).
The Navy’s approach to leader development was updated in 2018 and again in 2019 with
a focus on leader character and competency; these updates characterized organizational
expectations for mentors, their relationship with protégé’s, and introduced advocates envisioned
to carry mentorship into public view by acting on behalf of protégés (Richardson, 2018, 2019a).
The 2019 framework continues to emphasize the distinct differences between mentors and
advocates. This updated leader development framework asserts that mentoring surpasses
teaching or coaching and that loyalty is the source for productive mentor-protégé relationships
(Richardson, 2019a). CNAF released the Naval Aviation Leader Development Strategy, which
makes only two mentions of mentoring without further description; additionally, the strategy
explicitly states leader development guidance is centralized at CNAF while execution is at the
unit level (Miller, 2018). Adding to the service’s leadership development guidance, the Navy’s
Fleet Commanders published Signature Behaviors for the 21
st
Century Sailor; the only mention
of mentorship is in response to a peer or subordinate who falls short of their personal or
professional goals (Aquilino et al., 2020). This characterization suggests mentoring is an

155
accountability tool used only after a setback. Notably absent from each strategy and framework
is mentor designation and development, as well as acknowledging the tension between the notion
every individual needs a mentor and mentor capacity.
A Naval War College study provides insight into the Navy’s inclusion of advocacy as the
highest ranked mentor function among survey participants was advocate on the protégé’s behalf
(Johnson & Andersen, 2015). This study highlights not all leaders are effective mentors, formal
mentorship programs are an administrative burden, and mentor-protégé mismatch undermines
positive mentorship outcomes (Johnson & Andersen, 2015). The study’s authors assert that
favoritism in not prevalent in mentoring in the Navy; however, survey participants were a
mixture of officer and enlisted averaging 20 years of service and the relationship between
mentors and the survey participants’ own career longevity was not explored (Johnson &
Andersen, 2015). Additionally, this study does not identify the basis for establishing and
maintaining mentor-protégé relationships. Despite the plethora of formal and informal service
guidance on the topic, the First-term Naval Aviator Retention Study findings show mentorship
remains a gap.
Summary. Positive mentor-protégé relationships are grounded in trust and facilitate
positive views of organizational culture and context; specifically, mentorship promotes
perceptions of support, fairness, purpose, and trust. Additionally, mentorship has a positive
relationship with metacognition facilitating learning and individual strategy development. This
correlation is reinforced by the previously reported 53% who had a non-peer organizational
mentor enable strategy development after personal setback. Furthermore, mentors can mediate
expectation mismatch and promote cognitive understanding in the organizational context.
Mentors facilitate person-organization fit by appropriately managing protege expectations.

156
However, over half of respondents believe their accession source mentor did not adequately
prepare them for Naval Service; 52.5% reported their mentor’s preparation only slightly matched
or did not match their experience. Including participants whose experience only somewhat
matched expands this gap in preparation to 80.5%. Mentors in flight school performed slightly
better at managing expectations, with 37.7% able to prepare First-term Naval Aviators for an
experience that only slightly matched or did not match their actual first fleet squadron
experience. Incorporating somewhat matched responses suggests a gap that 70% were not mostly
prepared or better for their first fleet tour experience. These findings reinforce the body of earlier
cited literature discussing the favorable personal and organizational impacts attributed to positive
mentorship. However, a low percentage of First-term Naval Aviators (11.78%) seek mentorship
from their CO or XO; this is a clear gap. The data suggests low trust and differing values
between the CO/XO and First-term Naval Aviators as possible factors; however, further
exploration is required to understand the drivers causing this gap, especially where there is
variation across type wing communities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, survey participants collectively reported gaps in conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge, expectancy, grit (persistence). Additionally, the following
organizational influences present a gap: value, autonomy, fairness, purposefulness, trust, and
mentorship. Table 26 provides a summary of the results and findings. Inadequate conceptual
understanding, attributed to gaps in mentorship, facilitates a person-organization mismatch for
First-term Naval Aviators once they are serving in their first operational fleet tour. Additionally,
participants generally report positive characteristics for metacognition. Nevertheless, less than
half indicate a metacognitive goal aligned with the Navy’s organizational needs. Low

157
perceptions of organizational supports promoting autonomy and appear to outweigh the positive
attributes for participants’ persistence. Value emerged as one of the most prominent motivational
influences. The data highlights respondents perceive a negative value proposition in their service
and anticipate advancement in the organization will result in diminished opportunity to
experience the aspects of their service they value while increasing exposure to elements they do
not value. Organizational gaps in purposefulness and mentorship miss opportunities to leverage
the assets existing within knowledge and motivation influences. Negative perceptions of
organizational trust and fairness are complex and intertwined amongst individual experiences,
peer group opinions, and perceptions of what unit leaders face or how they respond to external
drivers all erode motivation to continue service. Quantitatively, these conclusions stand on their
own; the qualitative data reinforces, and in most cases, amplifies these findings. Notwithstanding
the gaps identified, opportunities exist within each influence as some subscales present an asset.
The next chapter will discuss these results and findings and their implications for future practice.

Table 26
Summary of Results and Findings
Influence Gap Asset
Conceptual X
Metacognition X
Expectancy X
Persistence X
Value X
Org. Supports X
Fairness X
Purpose X
Trust X
Mentorship X

158
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study sought to understand the knowledge and motivation factors influencing First-
term Naval Aviator decision to opt-in and continue service. Additionally, it sought to understand
the interaction between organizational culture and context as it relates to First-term Naval
Aviator’s knowledge and motivation required to increase opt-in rates for continued service. The
study questions guided the research effort and contributed to the final research question asking,
what are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources to increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and
remain in service? This chapter will connect key results and findings to the body of literature
informing this study, compare the results and findings to similar studies, present
recommendations for practice, discuss the limitations and delimitation affecting this study, and
offer recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Results and Findings
This study identified potential gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences negatively impacting First-term Naval Aviator career continuation. This study
collected data from a statistically representative population of the larger First-term Naval Aviator
stakeholder group. A significant majority of respondents (95%) are Millennials between 26 and
35 years of age (Dimock, 2019). Limitations to study design precluded inclusion of other
organizational stakeholders (department heads, commanding officers, major commanders, and
flag officers). Senior ranking organizational leaders are presumed to fall within Generation X
(ages 40-55) and Boomer (ages 55-74) based on typical years of service to achieve their present
rank (Department of the Navy, 2020c; Dimock, 2019). This chapter explores the third study
question guiding this research through the lens of generational differences and specifically seeks

159
to answer What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators
who opt-in and remain in service?
The following section will review prominent knowledge and motivation influences
impacting desire for career continuation and the impact of organizational factors on stakeholder
knowledge and motivation. The data suggest a nexus between low conceptual understanding and
the resultant expectation mismatch. Furthermore, various hygiene factors diminishing the
perceived value found in service exacerbate the expectation mismatch resulting in low
motivation toward career continuation. Furthermore, stakeholder perceptions of fairness and
autonomy present barriers to psychological need satisfaction, thus eroding motivation to opt-in
for continued service as a Naval Aviator.
The Influence of Knowledge and Motivation on Career Continuation
Only 39.9% of participants (n: 404 of 1,012) agree they are doing what they signed up for
- that their career matches their expectations. Just 51.2% of participants (n: 534 of 1,042) believe
their expectations matched their first fleet tour experience. Additionally, only 20.3% (n: 187 of
808) believe their accessions source mentor, and 33.7% (n: 304 of 903) their flight school
mentor, prepared them for future service. However, 82.9% of those surveyed reported they
understand their career progression requirements. This understanding is likely because over
88.2% (n: 837 of 949) of respondents have more than five years of service, and 71.3% (n: 871 of
1,221) are in assignments beyond their initial fleet tour. This understanding emerged during or
after the initial fleet squadron tour. It demonstrated knowledge acquired through experience, yet
a career expectation mismatch persists. Recent Navy data reflects Naval Aviators believe they
are not doing what they signed up for is a common perception (Baze, 2019a). This data

160
reinforces the survey findings that negative perceptions of career expectation alignment are a
leading reason adversely impacting retention. Other studies predict Naval Aviators assigned to
non-flying duties experience higher attrition (Poindexter, 1998).
Expectation mismatch is the leading reason employees leave their jobs (Branham, 2012).
Person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit are the critical domains
of person-environment fit; orientation toward one or more of those domains may shape
respondents’ perceptions of career expectation mismatch (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Low
person-organization fit is an indicator of low retention (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).
Individuals often have mixed motives driving public service (Neumann, 2016), and
misalignment between individual and organizational values or motives may lead to a person-
organization mismatch. Additionally, differences among sub-cohorts within the same
generational grouping indicate varying career trajectory expectations (Deal et al., 2010). Rigid
organizational settings run counter to the younger generation’s desire for advancement, growth,
and experience (PricewaterhouseCooper, 2011). The survey findings from this study suggest a
person-organization mismatch is grounded in an expectation-reality mismatch that serves as the
basis for dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction fundamentally stems from an inability to satisfy
basic psychological needs of autonomy and purpose through continued service.
However, leadership can positively influence employee perceptions of fit and
engagement (Bui et al., 2017). Person-organization fit is positively related to job satisfaction,
continuation intentions, and organizational commitment (Verquer et al., 2003). An organizational
commitment element is continuance commitment rooted in transactional individual need
satisfaction by choosing to remain with the organization (Mcdonald & Makin, 2000). The
psychological contract between individuals and organizations underpins organizational

161
commitment (Kotter, 1973); perceived contract breaches manifest as expectation mismatches and
employee turnover (Branham, 2012). Subjective perceptions of psychological contract breach are
not limited to a singular organizational element. Instead, performance recognition, culture, and
organizational policies strongly influence perceptions of a breach (J. M. Kraak et al., 2017).
However, leaders and organizations can reduce the likelihood of breaches by periodically
deliberately assessing the extent to which the organization and its members are aligned (Bal et
al., 2010). Leaders can facilitate adaptive strategy development to minimize perceived breaches
(Bankins, 2015) and bridge the knowledge gap. Metacognitive adaptation facilitates career
continuation strategy development provided continuation is a valuable or purposeful goal.
Survey participants, 76.4% (n: 778 of 1,019), indicate they are metacognitively
adaptative. Many report mentors facilitated strategy development. Additionally, 82.9%
understand their career progression requirements; this suggests that person-organization
mismatch is not solely a result of a conceptual knowledge gap. Diminished value due to a
perceived imbalance of non-valued or hygiene factors further compounds negative perceptions
resulting in a person-organization mismatch. Millennials value autonomy (Deloitte, 2020a)
purposeful work (Aydogmus, 2019), functional or utilitarian activities (Hwang & Griffiths,
2017), and place greater importance on intrinsic aspects of their work (García et al., 2019). In
this study specifically, the military administrative burden is the most significant dissatisfaction
with 77.6% (n: 764 of 992) respondents indicating it decreases their motivation; 48.8% (n: 434
of 992) report it significantly decreases their motivation to continue service. However, a mere
57.9% (n: 569 of 982) of those surveyed value flight time over other responsibilities, which
suggests over 40% of stakeholders find value and purpose in non-flight related duties.

162
Furthermore, only 46.0% (n: 452 of 982) value financial compensation more than increased
leadership opportunities.
The survey did not explicitly intend to explore participant’s conceptual understanding
regarding the purpose behind many of the organization’s administrative requirements. However,
the qualitative comments suggest respondents do not understand the mission requirements
underpinning the administrative duties, programs, or tasks. Others do not feel they are
purposeful. Additionally, the survey did not measure stakeholder understanding of how non-
flight related duties are developmental and provide experience or exposure to lead at the
organization’s next level. Studies show those in public service are more likely to value work they
view as important than their private sector counterparts (Houston, 2000; Paarlberg & Perry,
2007). Therefore, improving understanding and purpose behind non-flight related administrative
duties may communicate relevance in supporting organizational values.
Value congruence between individuals and organizations is the degree to which both
sides share the beliefs about how an individual ought to behave; additionally, perceptions of
organizational values is a more reliable predictor of organizational commitment than personal
values or personal-organizational value fit (Seggewiss et al., 2019). This discussion on value is
not focused on moral values and ethics, although those influence stakeholder perceptions
according to qualitative responses. Instead, this value concept focuses on organizational values
communicated and reinforced by organizational behaviors. Survey participants believe the Navy
values the golden path towards aviation command over individual desires for personal and
professional autonomy. Conversely, 91.6% of respondents (n: 899 of 982) value career
flexibility over the golden path. Other surveys support this strong desire for career autonomy. A
recent Blue Star Families report identified control of one’s career as a top-three issue for military

163
servicemembers (Sonethavilay et al., 2019). Autonomy, characterized as self-direction (Sagiv &
Schwartz, 2000; S. H. Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987), is an individual value supported and promoted
by the organization (Schreurs et al., 2014). The desire for autonomy is stronger among younger
generations (Jin & Rounds, 2012). These gaps in First-term Naval Aviator conceptual knowledge
and value negatively influence opt-in rates for continued service.
The Influence of Organizational Factors on Knowledge and Motivation
Perceptions of fairness are an antecedent to value and trust; only 12.5% of those surveyed
(n: 122 of 976) believe the Navy's career management processes are fair. Furthermore, only
35.6% (n: 347 of 975) believe performance rankings are fair. Finally, only 20.1% of respondents
(n: 196 of 976) believe the Navy's promotion selection and milestone screen boards are fair.
Individual perceptions of fairness are holistic views their organizations treat them fairly and
appropriately (Levi et al., 2019). Organizational hardship is when employees experience sacrifice
and loss; this hardship results in reduced organizational fairness perceptions (Levi et al., 2019).
Examples of organizational hardship include reductions in compensation (Schaubroeck et al.,
2011), staffing (Halbesleben et al., 2013), work-life balance (Schawbel, 2016). Only 37.0% of
survey participants (n: 371 of 1,004) believe they have the right balance between personal and
professional needs suggesting respondents across the organization experience hardship.
Participant qualitative comments reemphasize this hardship by highlighting varying resource
reductions (i.e., aircraft availability, flight hours, squadron personnel) across Naval Aviation.
Research suggests employees who believe the organization will experience extended periods of
hardship are more likely to leave (Levi et al., 2019).
Perceptions of fairness are not limited to organization-wide hardship; one's response to
the interplay of work and non-work experiences over time forms emotional reactions influencing

164
the individual assessments of fair treatment (Barsky et al., 2011). Survey participants report low
perceptions of fairness in performance feedback, advancement, and career management
processes. Additionally, 50.8% (n: 496 of 976) do not agree their units distribute additional
responsibility fairly, and 60.2% (n: 586 of 975) do not believe their treatment is based on
performance. Positive perceptions of fairness support value, reduce burnout associated with an
increased workload and improve retention (Mcfadden et al., 2018). Employees base relative
worth determinations that consider transactional cost analysis (input-output value proposition)
and distributive justice, or fairness; these determinations influence behavior to either maintain or
end their relationship with the organization (Gassenheimer et al., 1998). First-term Naval
Aviators do not believe the forced ranking distribution in their performance evaluations is a fair
representation of their contributions to the organization and have too significant a bearing on the
entirety of their career trajectory. Their belief that timing carries more influence than
performance on their career opportunity undermines perceptions of organizational fairness. This
belief that timing is more critical than performance undermines trust in the organization and
organizational leaders.
Trust between survey respondents and organizational leadership is low; only 25.2% (n:
230 of 960) do not believe a "say-do" gap exists among leaders, and only 64.3% of those
surveyed (n: 691 of 963) trust their unit leaders. Perceptions of trust and fairness generate a
neurochemical response in the human brain (Vavra et al., 2017). Perceptions of respectful
treatment, trustworthiness (demonstrated motives when making decisions), unbiased decision
making, and allowing stakeholders to have a voice in decision-making form the basis of
organizational trust (Sargeant et al., 2017). However, only 42.8% of survey respondents (n: 421
of 984) believe they have a voice or the autonomy to make important decisions.

165
Low perceptions of trust are not just between survey respondents and organizational
leaders. Competency is a subjective measure that is integral to trust in the naval context
(Richardson, 2019a). Although 73.8% of those surveyed (n: 707 of 959) believe their peers
perform their duties to the best of their ability, a disaggregated view of the data reflects varying
degrees of trust among peers across Naval Aviation's type-wing communities. Only 60% of
VRC/VRM participants and 67% of HSC participants agree their peers perform to the best of
their abilities; conversely, over 85% of the HM respondents agree. It is also noteworthy that over
41% of VFA respondents strongly agree their peers perform duties to the best of their abilities.
The qualitative data reflects respondent perceptions of disproportionate work distribution,
workplace behaviors and attitudes that do not convey gender or orientation inclusivity, and
perceived relationships with unit leaders based on bias or favoritism, reinforcing negative views
of trust.
Negative perceptions of competency fostering low trust extend from peers to the unit and
organizational leaders. Respondents voiced criticism of leaders who ascended through the
organization. The perception that timing outweighs performance in evaluations and subsequent
opportunity is the basis for this critique. It is reinforced by some who view their unit leaders as
less competent warfighters. Others report perceptions their leadership is self-serving - these
opinions further negative views of leaders, which erodes trust.
Naval Aviation’s organizational culture and context as it interacts with the First-term
Naval Aviator’s knowledge and motivation influences create a gap adversely impacting retention
beyond minimum service obligations. Organizational barriers to need satisfaction, in particular if
they are anticipated aspects of the perceived psychological contract, compound strained member
perceptions of fairness and trust (Bal et al., 2010). Low perceptions of trust suggested in this

166
survey are supported by findings in other Navy-specific research (Z. Brown, 2017; Snodgrass &
Kohlmann, 2014; Whittam, 2009; Wilcove et al., 2007), and a recent study of servicemembers
and their families recommends leaders work to build trust and increase career autonomy
(Sonethavilay et al., 2019).
Recommendations for Practice
Naval Aviation fell short of meeting First-term Naval Aviator retention goals for several
consecutive years (Baze, 2019b). The data from this study indicate low retention will continue
for several years preventing organizational goal attainment of filling fleet needs while preserving
70% board selectivity. A gap analysis explored 10 knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influencing First-term Naval Aviator career continuation. The data indicates each
influence is a gap as it pertains to organizational goal attainment. There are three
recommendations identified below to address key findings to close the knowledge gap, reduce
factors diminishing the value found in service among First-term Naval Aviators, and improve
organizational culture and settings that foster perceptions of fairness.
Recommendation 1: Improve Knowledge Through Developed Mentors and Coaches
Over 45% of those surveyed reported they do not have a mentor, and there are significant
gaps in perceptions of mentor investment, availability, and support. The Navy can reduce career
dissatisfaction stemming from expectation mismatches rooted in a conceptual misunderstanding
by assigning top-performing Naval Aviators to attract, access, develop, and retain talent. Navy
leadership should expand the aperture of what constitutes Naval Aviation production and assign
Early Promote caliber fleet aviators to accession units where they serve as the initial Naval
Aviation mentor. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended the Navy develop the

167
mentor and coaching skills of these officers to facilitate conceptual knowledge development
among the stakeholder group.
Although Navy leaders may assert the service has an established mentorship program
(Department of the Navy, 2013; Greenert, 2013; Miller, 2018; Richardson, 2018, 2019a), the
data clearly shows the current approach is inadequate. Fifty-one percent of First-term Naval
Aviator surveyed believed their expectations matched their experience in their first fleet
assignment. Just over 23% believed preparation from their pre-commissioning mentors, and 33%
from flight training mentors, mostly matched their fleet experience. Furthermore, less than 40%
of participants believed their work experience matches their expectations. Expectation mismatch
is the start point of workplace dissatisfaction (Branham, 2012). The qualitative data suggests
First-term Naval Aviators lack understanding of the “why” behind certain aspects of Naval
Aviation’s organizational culture and context. The Navy should develop leaders able to mentor
and coach future and current First-term Naval Aviators to close the gap in understanding.
The Navy recognizes the necessity of mentors yet current approaches focus on protégé
outcomes and do not describe deliberate mentor development (Richardson, 2019a); past efforts
to mandate a program without the necessary preconditions significantly limited effectiveness (W.
B. Johnson & Andersen, 2009, 2010, 2015). Naval Aviation’s current leader development
framework is overly dependent upon experiential development on the job and a hierarchal
mentorship relationship, it depicts only three formal leadership development courses spanning a
20 year career (Chief of Naval Personnel, 2002; Miller, 2018) (Chief of Naval Personnel, 2021;
Miller, 2018). This framework assumes the competency and ability of envisioned mentors;
furthermore, the framework offers minimal deliberate, structured leader opportunities that afford

168
reflection and focus on nurturing leader traits (Miller, 2018). Moreover, the Navy’s published
frameworks fall short of accounting for the considerable influence of peer-based mentorship.
Mentorship is neither a task nor a program, merely doing “more mentorship” does not
yield the desired outcome. Instead of pushing formal mentors upon First-term Naval Aviators,
the Navy can develop the mentors they naturally seek to achieve positive outcomes (Raabe &
Beehr, 2003). There is robust literature on leader assessment and orientations (Bono & Judge,
2004), the importance of reflection as a core element of growth (Bäcklander, 2019; Gardner et
al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wood & Bandura, 1989), and the development of relevant
traits across multiple leadership theories (Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Day et al., 2014; Fitzgerald
& Schutte, 2010; Sanders & Davey, 2011). Mentorship is but one aspect of a larger professional
interpersonal relationship context-based in trust; another aspect is coaching.
Coaching is an established means to preserve the psychological contract and promote
learning (McComb, 2009). Coaching differs significantly from mentorship (Harris, 2020), and
current Navy publications offer limited descriptions of coaching (Richardson, 2019a), which
appear grounded in the literature that conflates the distinction between coaching and mentoring
(Jenkins, 2013; Shewbridge, 2002). These limited descriptions understate the positive influence
developed coaches can bring to professional interpersonal relationships. Like leadership, there
are multiple philosophical approaches to coaching (S. Green & Palmer, 2018; Hawkins &
Turner, 2020; Lawrence, 2021; Pavlović, 2021); the success of each is dependent upon the
coach, the coachee, the culture, and context in which coaching occurs (Megginson &
Clutterbuck, 2006). Mentoring is knowledge sharing through passing the mentor’s perceptions of
individual experiences onto the protégé (Clutterbuck et al., 2016) and roles can reverse
(Blackman et al., 2017; Davis, 2005; Eberle, 2009; Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2011). Conversely,

169
coaching has distinct roles (Pratt, 2021), focused on posing questions to the coachee (Grimley,
2020; Polster et al., 1990), and is action- or goal-oriented (Hall, 2004). Coaching requires
deliberate development to hone the skills to enhance professional interpersonal relationships,
individual performance, and positive organizational outcomes. The MyNavy Coaching initiative
still under development should focus on coaching mentors to improve mentor-protégé
relationships and outcomes.
The fundamental distinction between this recommendation and previous efforts is the
shift of focus from protégé outcomes to mentor development—protégé development is the
measure of effectiveness of the Navy’s mentor development efforts. This proposed approach
shifts the burden of initiating mentor-protégé relationships from the junior protégé to the more
senior mentor, introduces accountability through a goal-oriented development contract, and relies
on coaches to develop mentors which should improve protégé outcomes. Ultimately, improving
the knowledge and understanding of First-term Naval Aviators is a continuous process facilitated
by individual relationships between stakeholders. These relationships assume varying roles to
mentor, coach, and develop First-term Naval Aviators before they reach critical career
continuation decision points.
Recommendation 2: Preserve the Value of Service by Reducing Administrative Burdens
Ninety-three percent of survey participants value serving, and nearly 49% believed their
administrative burdens significantly decrease their motivation to serve. However, only 36% will
likely continue their Naval service until retirement; this suggests external factors significantly
outweigh the intrinsic value found in service as a Naval Aviator. There is substantial empirical
research documenting autonomy (Alderfer, 1969; Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; Moran et al., 2012;
Weber & Ladkin, 2011), work-life balance (B. R. Barnett & Bradley, 2007; Cairoli, 2018; Kroth,

170
2007; Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015), and positive workplace relationships (Cañizares & García, 2012;
Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Stevens et al., 2008; Tuan et al., 2019) as integral factors promoting
job satisfaction. According to survey respondents, administrative burden is a leading factor of
job dissatisfaction.
Leadership cannot eliminate all perceived administrative burdens or non-flight-related
tasks and duties. Several administrative requirements originate above the Navy. The Department
of Defense (Center for Development of Security Excellence, 2021; Department of Defense,
2020a; Lopez, 2021) or even Congress (Training Requirements for DoD Personnel., n.d.) direct
several of the Navy's administrative training requirements. The Department of the Navy has over
1,030 directives establishing service policies and delegating responsibility to subordinate
organizations; in turn, the Navy's various fleet commanders, type commanders, and other
communities promulgate additional policy that manifests as administrative requirements not
directly associated with an operational unit's primary mission (Department of the Navy, 2020a).
Aviation squadrons typically consist of five departments (operations, maintenance,
administration, safety, and training) to manage the day-to-day unit mission (Department of the
Navy, 2012). In addition to primary department head and division officer assignments, the
Navy's general guide to operational unit organization prescribes 24 executive assistant roles, 24
collateral duties, and 23 boards and committees (Department of the Navy, 2012). These duties
and the associated tasks lack apparent purpose to participants.
Nevertheless, the aggregation of tasks and duties negatively affects the time available for
intrinsic or autonomous motivated endeavors. These administrative demands exceed individual
and organizational capacity to comply with all the requirements (Natter et al., 1998). Strike-
fighter community respondents in this study highlighted that the reduction in staffing without a

171
corresponding reduction in administrative requirements exacerbates their dissatisfaction.
Participants across all communities shared the perspective that flight duties are secondary to their
ground or collateral duties.
Although some duties are necessary to manage the unit, as discussed earlier, survey
participants indicate a gap in understanding why these duties are necessary. Further complicating
effective solutions, what constitutes an administrative burden is subjective. This ill-defined
problem hampers successfully reducing administrative burdens or distractions. However, survey
respondents clearly identifed specific aspects of their work that they perceive do not add value.
Inadequate networked computer resources, obsolete operating systems, and bandwidth
limitations exacerbate the dissatisfaction of non-flight-related tasks and responsibilities. Younger
generations accustomed to capable technology and information management in their personal
lives (Juhász et al., 2016) struggle to find parity in their professional lives. The significant
dissatisfaction with the Navy's information technology (IT) systems, both hardware and
software, is a substantial hygiene factor worth addressing as the challenges to organizational
efficiency and effectiveness are not limited solely to Naval Aviation (Department of the Navy,
2019a). It may not necessarily improve motivation, but modernizing the IT capabilities will
reduce a negative work environment factor and reduce overall work dissatisfaction.
Naval Aviator dissatisfaction with administrative burdens is not a new challenge. The
service established a task force in 2013 focused on reducing service-wide administrative
distractions ranging from competing requirements to duplicative training; ironically, this effort
resulted in a perceived additional distraction by sending a survey to commands to collect
information on the problem scope (M. M. Burke, 2013). By 2014, the Navy's Reducing
Administrative Distractions website, a crowdsource issue platform, allowed Sailors to submit

172
and vote on top issues across the service (Laird, 2013; Weatherspoon, 2014) went dormant and
reinvigorated later in 2015 as the Naval Innovation Network (Wackerman, 2015). The overt
focus on reducing administrative distractions quietly ended as other efforts took shape (Eckstein,
2015). The tangible reductions from these initiatives remain unclear (Snodgrass, 2014).
Administrative training requirements are a known burden highlighted by Sailors during
the 2013 initial effort to reduce distractions (M. M. Burke, 2013) and remain a focal point among
respondents today. Although the Navy is making efforts to reduce administrative training (Chief
of Naval Operations, 2020d), it also continues to add requirements (Chief of Naval Operations,
2020b). Multiple organizational stakeholders direct administrative training requirements (Chief
of Naval Operations, 2019d, 2019c, 2019b) but do not present as the requirement as part of an
overarching learning framework that measures results (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The effectiveness of
the current training curricula and requirements at shaping organizational behavior is unclear (M.
M. Burke, 2013). Survey participants in this study do not see value in the volume of
administrative training requirements. They do not understand how the training connects to their
unit's mission. Furthermore, the lack of communication about impactful outcomes resulting from
training and respondent perceptions the service continues to add training facilitates perceptions
of a "say-do" gap. To be clear, feedback from the survey group does not seek to dissolve all
training.
Over 78% of survey respondents believed they effectively perform new duties with little
training or guidance. Nevertheless, they also desire formal training to prepare them for their
ground duties instead of learning on the job. However, the Navy's current approach is learning
falls into three separate but disjointed categories. The Navy’s Education for Seapower (E4S)
(Department of the Navy, 2020b) focuses on undergraduate and graduate-level education. Ready

173
Relevant Learning (RRL) is a career-long learning continuum intended to bring just-in-time
technical training to Sailors (Davidson, 2017). The Navy’s other administrative training
requirements are an ad hoc collection of general military training, service, and job specific
learning. The Navy lacks a comprehensive adult learning framework to validate, assess, and
integrate the various requirements across a Sailor’s career.
To address this issue, the Navy should establish a Navy Training Manager responsible for
reviewing and approving the issuance of fleet-wide or large-scale training requirements. This
review shall ensure the training is technically sound, avoids duplication of effort, provides life-
cycle management of training, and minimizes the impact of training administration. The Navy
already applies this approach to personnel survey management; it considers cost-effectiveness by
factoring the cost burden of time expended related to the anticipated benefit (Chief of Naval
Operations, 2008). The Navy Training Manager should reside within the Navy's Warfighter
Development Directorate (OPNAV N7) to integrate all Navy training. Integrating administrative
training alongside E4S and RRL provides the Navy a holistic approach to prioritizing, aligning,
and accelerating institution learning (Chief of Naval Operations, 2018, 2020a; Eckstein, 2020).
The Navy is not the only service plagued by administrative burdens. The Air Force
recently focused efforts to reduce administrative distractions; the service took a holistic approach
by focusing on mission-related tasks, strengthening leadership, and unit culture (R. Barnett,
2018). The Air Force is also an expeditionary military organization. This approach to focusing
on mission-related tasks within the unit and placing non-mission-related tasks outside the unit
offers a framework for the Navy to consider reducing administrative burdens. Many programs
and collateral duties performed at the squadron level in the Navy (i.e., such as personnel and pay
management, equal opportunity, legal, safety, violence prevention, and sexual assault prevention

174
and response); conversely the Air Force manages those programs at the wing level (Department
of the Air Force, 2017). The Navy should evaluate which programs and duties are mission-
related and must remain within operational squadrons and centralize non-mission-related
program management at the type wing, the administrative commander. The secondary benefit of
consolidating programs is management and oversight consistency, reducing effectiveness
variation.
In summary, this research combined with existing literature revealed the Navy should
implement three initiatives to reduce participants’ perceptions of excess administrative burdens,
the Navy should implement three initiatives. First, modernize IT hardware and software systems
to streamline workflow and improve efficiency. Second, establish a Navy Training Manager
within OPNAV N7 to integrate and align Navy training requirements as a critical part of the
Navy’s overall learning framework. Third, reduce non-mission-related administrative burdens at
the operational squadron by centrally managing those programs at the type wing level. These
three recommendations serve to reduce non-purposeful tasks or are a perceived waste of time.
Reducing non-purposeful tasks will minimize the extraneous demands placed upon First-term
Naval Aviators, allowing for more time to devote to intrinsic motivators or need satisfaction.
Recommendation 3: Improve Fairness Through Transparent Career Autonomy and
Eliminating the Influence of Timing in Performance Evaluations
A mere 12% of First-term Naval Aviators surveyed believed there is transparency in
Naval Aviation’s career management processes. Just 20% perceived the Navy’s promotion and
career milestone boards as fair. Perceptions of limited career autonomy substantially dissatisfy
stakeholders and undermine perceptions of value and subjective career success. Survey
participants indicated a clear desire for career autonomy to pursue diverse experiential

175
opportunities without consequence to career advancement. Over 93% of those surveyed value
career flexibility or autonomy over a pre-determined career path. The opportunity to pursue
advanced education or a fellowship is the top factor influencing motivation to continue service
reported by survey respondents. Over 56% of those surveyed desire to earn a degree while on
active duty. The Navy can take two approaches to increase perceptions of career autonomy. The
first is transparency in career job choice. The second is by removing barriers to advanced
education earlier in the career path.
Perceptions of high-trust culture is a strong indicator to retain Millennial and Generation
Z workers (Deal et al., 2010; Deloitte, 2020b; Juhász et al., 2016). Millennials are 22 times more
likely to continue towards a long-term career in high-trust organizations (Austin, 2017). One
approach to fostering increased trust is transparent job selection and placement (Deshmukh,
2019; SHRM, 2020). Leveraging proven corporate best practices, the Navy can create a digital
detailer marketplace. The Navy already takes this approach with enlisted personnel management
as part of the Sailor 2025 initiative but does not do the same for officer personnel management
(MyNavyHR, 2020). A web-based platform that advertises all possible billet opportunities along
the career path affords stakeholders to choose future assignments aligned towards their values
and career goals. The Navy can then leverage incentive options such as bundled orders with a
guaranteed follow-on assignment to fill undesirable priority assignments, thereby preserving
perceptions of autonomy (Bidwell, 2011; Gonzalez-Teruel et al., 2020). A fully transparent
career path navigator that allows stakeholders to map out sequential assignments improves talent
management focus and provides stability to military families (Carmen, 2014; Sims et al., 2018;
Sonethavilay et al., 2019).

176
The second approach to improving career autonomy satisfies most stakeholders’ desires
to pursue advanced education. Naval Aviation’s current approach to afford education post-
department head tour (Department of the Navy, 2020c) runs counter to the service’s recently
developed education strategy (Department of the Navy, 2020b) and misses the opportunity to
leverage the added service obligation incurred by participating in a Navy-funded education
program. Despite Navy leaders’ efforts to increase opportunity (R. Burke, 2018b), the actual
opportunity for First-term Naval Aviators is significantly lower (Chief of Naval Operations,
2019a, 2020c). Detailers are gatekeepers; requiring their endorsement for fellowships and the
Secretary of the Navy’s Tours with Industry applications is an organizational barrier. Removing
this barrier can reduce perceptions of organizational barriers that fomenting mistrust. The
mistrust perpetuates a “say-do” gap created when organizational agents undertake behavior
inconsistent with organizational leaders’ stated vision or direction.
Low perceptions of organizational settings promoting fairness begin at the local unit,
where only 35% of First-term Naval Aviators surveyed believed performance rankings are fair.
Only 40% believed their treatment is performance-based. These negative perceptions are not
unique to this survey. Navy data from 2008 reflected 53% of naval officers surveyed were
satisfied with the promotion system, and only 38% believed the most deserving and qualified
promote (Whittam, 2009). This research identified where some unit leader approaches to
performance feedback promote low organizational trust. Specifically, stakeholders who signal a
desire to depart the “golden path” or women who are pregnant report perceptions these choices
negatively impacted their performance evaluations. However, the significant weight timing in
performance evaluation rankings is the greatest factor influencing stakeholder perceptions of an
unfair system. Timing is beyond individual control. The influence of first tour performance

177
evaluations on subsequent assignment detailing creates perceptions of limited career mobility (Z.
Brown, 2017). The belief that superior performance is secondary conflicts with Millennial
generational values desiring constructive feedback that enables career growth (Deloitte, 2020b;
Juhász et al., 2016).
The Navy’s efforts to modernize human resources and personnel management systems
included an initiative to update the Navy’s performance feedback, the Fitness Report, and
remove timing as a factor (Baze, 2019b; R. Burke, 2018a). However, the Navy no longer
discusses modernizing performance evaluations; instead, the service is pursuing a Performance
Evaluation Transformation immediate feedback and coaching tool (R. Burke, 2019b). While this
initiative may support implementing a service-wide coaching culture, which is related to this
study’s first recommendation, it fails to address the trust and fairness gap caused by the primacy
of timing.
To address the trust gap posed by the undue influence of timing in performance
evaluations, the Navy should holistically revamp the performance feedback system to include
inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Eliminate rankings against a peer group and instead evaluate
individual performance against an agreed-upon plan similar to the Department of Defense
civilian appraisals (Department of Defense, 2020b). The U.S. Coast Guard’s leader development
framework presents 28 leader attributes aligned to four leadership focus areas (Venuto, 2006).
This offers a model for performance feedback geared towards intentional leader development.
Although some recommend shifting Navy performance reports to a semi-annual report
(Snodgrass & Kohlmann, 2014), current human resources research provides a wide array of
approaches based on organizational context and goals (Alam & Singh, 2021; Barth & de Beer,
2018; Bear et al., 2017; Poell et al., 2015; Reed, 2017; Sosik & Jung, 2018). Ultimately,

178
overhauling the Navy’s personnel evaluation system to eliminate rankings based on timing is a
seismic cultural shift necessary to develop leaders of competence and character.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are those things outside the scope of control for this research effort.
Limitations include official Navy support to conduct the study, actual sample size, security and
availability of collected online survey data, self-selection, and participant bias when responding
to the survey. Some audiences may discount the findings as biased since a portion of the
stakeholder group did not participate in the survey. Response bias, the effect of nonresponses on
findings, is a concern for finding validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018); however, pre-test
findings are consistent with the findings reached with this dataset. Additionally, the gap analysis
conceptual framework guiding this research focuses on solving a problem; thus, the instrument
intentionally frames this problem. I anticipated that the findings would have a negative
orientation. Although some selected qualitative responses are exaggerations or extreme views,
they are participant perceptions and reflective of their organizational experience.
The large volume of qualitative data collected through the open-ended response presented
an unanticipated limitation. Analysis winnowed data and open coding presented themes aligned
with the quantitative research design. Complete qualitative analysis requires axial and selective
coding aligned to a qualitative research framework (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and exceeds the
time constraints of this project. Furthermore, this effort is not an experimental design testing a
hypothesis; therefore, this research cannot establish true causality between retention attitudes and
various individual and organizational factors. Lastly, this effort focused on current First-term
Naval Aviator attitudes based on their environment experience and perceptions. Significant
events changing cohort experience or the environment may generate variability in responses. As

179
an example, the effects of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spurred a global pandemic
that significantly altered the employment landscape for commercial aviation in particular.
Although external factors may influence stakeholder retention behaviors, the data collected is
valuable. It provides a valid presentation of stakeholder perceptions and attitudes. A longitudinal
study may be more appropriate; however, this effort principally supports academic degree
requirements, limiting the duration of the study.
Delimitations are conscious research decisions that bound elements of this exploration.
The first delimitation is selecting the First-term Naval Aviators stakeholder group instead of
assessing factors influencing retention behaviors across all stakeholders groups, department
heads and Commanding Officers as well as Major commanders and flag officers. Another
delimitation is the deliberate choice to use quantitative methods to seek stakeholder attitudes
instead of a qualitative approach. The latter is more conducive to a subjectivist paradigm of
inquiry. A final delimitation to highlight is selecting the factors explored through the theoretical
framework is not all-inclusive of the widely studied knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors impairing goal attainment. Notwithstanding these limits and self-imposed constraints, this
study will provide quantifiable information and analysis of present-day attitudes among First-
term Naval Aviators and identify areas for further exploration.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings and recommendations to increase First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rates for
career continuation identified in this research effort are not the only potential solutions the Navy
can apply toward improving organizational performance. The sheer size and complexity of Naval
Aviation’s retention problem necessitate continued exploration where leadership continues to
examine the interaction between individual motivation factors and influences and Naval

180
Aviation’s culture and context. Although this study’s original design was a quantitative methods
approach, the more than 5,000 free-text responses to open-ended prompts resulted in a massive
amount of data. The original intent of this data set was to add stakeholder context to the
quantitative results; however, a vast majority of the responses are layered and possess rich
context requiring deeper analysis beyond that is beyond the scope of this effort. Continued
qualitative analysis of this study’s collected data is required to refine the findings from this study
and improve leader understanding of today’s First-term Naval Aviator’s lived experience.
Statistical analysis indicated a weak correlation between value found in service and this
study’s other knowledge and motivation factors. Future research should develop a deeper
understanding of the relationship between these factors as value forms the core of metacognitive
goals and subsequent strategy development. Additionally, future research should conduct a
deeper review of the qualitative data to understand what aspects of their service First-term Naval
Aviators most value. Perhaps the most critical line of value-related inquiry future research can
undertake is to understand better what factors cause the low desirability of aviation command
among First-term Naval Aviators found in this study. Retention of top talent will remain a
significant organizational factor in the future if this gap is not understood and addressed.
A repeated theme across this study also suggests interdependency of organizational
influences, such as autonomy, value, purpose, and fairness, that directly and indirectly
undermine perceptions of trust. The results of this study suggest low trust and differing values
between First-term Naval Aviators and their unit leadership (Commanding Officers and
Executive Officers) as a potential barrier to positive leader-member mentor relationships.
Understanding the drivers causing this gap requires further exploration, especially where there is
variation across type wing communities. The analysis of findings considered the generational

181
differences between Millennials and older generations who currently comprise the Navy’s senior
officer ranks. Future research should consider future generational differences that may influence
retention behaviors as Generation Z the predominate generational group of First-term Naval
Aviators in the future. Lastly, this study did not exclusively explore gender issues. However, the
data suggest that, unlike their male counterparts, women continue to experience a unique set of
factors influencing their career continuation decisions. A deeper exploration of these issues is
needed to understand both the issues and the barriers preventing suitable solution integration in a
male-dominated work context.
Conclusion
This study's results and findings indicate several organizational factors negatively
influence First-term Naval Aviator career continuation rates. Improving the quality of life and
quality of service perceptions by closing knowledge gaps fosters improved motivation, enabling
improved stakeholder retention. Specifically, retain 80% of each First-term Naval Aviators
accession year group cohort. Achieving this goal facilitates the organizational goal to retain
enough aviators to preserve a 70% selectivity target and fill planned fleet vacancies by increasing
the number of First-term Naval Aviators who elect to opt-in for continued service. Mentorship
gaps during accession and initial flight training enable work expectation mismatches that serve
as the genesis for career dissatisfaction. Limited career autonomy, strained work-life balance,
and dissatisfaction with non-flying duties and assignments are long-standing organizational
factors adversely influencing retention behaviors. However, generational differences suggest
these factors carry greater significance in today's First-term Naval Aviator population than in
previous generations who now comprise Naval Aviation's senior leadership. Additionally, low
perceptions of fairness, trust, and organizational support shift First-term Naval Aviator’s value

182
proposition away from their original intrinsic motives of flying and service to the nation. The
resultant effect is low retention that will continue unless the Navy implements significant
cultural change.
Naval Aviators demonstrated their ability to withstand challenges and persevere for a
long-term goal; however, this research found a vast majority of today's First-term Naval Aviators
do not aspire to aviation command. The Navy's confining approach to career management that
pushes individuals to a path they do not value will drive top talent away from continued service.
Navy leadership acknowledges the detrimental effect of timing's influence in performance
rankings, and advertised change is coming (Burke, 2018a; PERS-43, 2019). However,
abandoning the promise of performance evaluation modernization will perpetuate an unfair
system and reinforce the "say-do" gap found in this study that undermines junior officer trust in
senior leaders.
There will be some who dismiss these results, findings, and recommendations; those who
do are part of the problem. These deniers are toxic to a culture of critical thinking and continuous
learning that is Naval Aviation's comparative advantage in the Great Power competition
(Department of the Navy, 2020b). However, leaders who will champion Naval Aviation's
cultural change will see that these research findings go beyond merely revalidating the known
issues impacting retention. These findings suggest the why driving individual continuation
behavior - the satisfaction of self-determination's basic psychological needs for autonomy,
relatedness, competency, and purposefulness. Bottom line, First-term Naval Aviators will serve
an organization they believe will meet their needs; the service can meet the needs of the Navy by
meeting the needs of First-term Naval Aviators.

183
References
Achor, S., Reece, A., Kellerman, G. R., & Robichaux, A. (2018, November). 9 Out of 10 people
are willing to earn less money to do more-meaningful work. Harvard Business Review
Digital Articles, 1–7.
Alam, M., & Singh, P. (2021). Performance feedback interviews as affective events: An
exploration of the impact of emotion regulation of negative performance feedback on
supervisor–employee dyads. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100740
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/273207/1-s2.0-S0030507300X00414/1-s2.0-
003050736990004X/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-
Token=AgoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIA3l3QjVmuuSXCTzA6
HtpqpFpH%2FuqcTxMRo6IfqY3fqaAiEAvHXVgjCBN5LOIBtowLXxkGT9jCceWRmsD
N92FsY02NY
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015). Ontology, epistemology
and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the research
philosophical misconception. Proceedings of The Academic Conference: Mediterranean
Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon, 2(1).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318721927
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the
1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500302

184
Antecol, H., & Cobb-Clark, D. (2009). Racial harassment, job satisfaction, and intentions to
remain in the military. Journal of Population Economics, 22(3), 713–738.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0176-l
Aquilino, J., Grady, C., Foggo, J., Honea, J., O’Rawe, R., & Walters, D. (2020). Signature
Behaviors of the 21st Century Sailor (Issue February).
Argyris, C. (1976). Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist,
31(9), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.31.9.638
Ariguzo, V. A., & Okoro, M. O. (2018). Leadership: A theoretical and empirical discourse.
International Journal of Innovative Research and Knowledge, 3(6), 58–69.
Arnolds, C. A., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: An
empirical assessment of Alderfer’s ERG theory. International Journal of Human Resource
Management , 13(4), 697–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210125868
Arora, R. (2012). A research study of factors influencing talent retention in BPO industry.
Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 1(2), 54–62.
Arvanitis, A., & Hantzi, A. (2016). Equity theory ratios as causal schemas. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7(AUG), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01257
Asch, B. J. (2019). Setting military compensation to support recruitment, retention, and
performance. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr3197
Ashley Fulmer, C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across
multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
Aubrey, D. W. (2012). The effect of toxic leadership. United States Army War College.

185
Austin, C. (2017). The 10 best workplaces for millennials. Fortune, 176(2), 20.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=124221823&site=ehost-
live
Aydogmus, C. (2019). Millennial knowledge workers: The roles of protean career attitudes and
psychological empowerment on the relationship between emotional intelligence and
subjective career success. Career Development International, 24(4), 297–314.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2018-0165
Azevedo, R., & Aleven, V. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook of metacognition and
learning technologies. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-5546-3_47
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Bäcklander, G. (2019). Doing complexity leadership theory: How agile coaches at Spotify
practise enabling leadership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 42–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12303
Bal, P. M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2010). Psychological contract breach and work
performance: Is social exchange a buffer or an intensifier? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25(3), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011023730
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210

186
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-
L
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=206764
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.),
Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=206775
Bankins, S. (2015). A process perspective on psychological contract change: Making sense of,
and repairing, psychological contract breach and violation through employee coping
actions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1071–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Barley, M. (2012). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition - An anaesthetist’s
perspective. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 271–280.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657792
Barnett, B. R., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organisational support for career
development on career satisfaction. Career Development International, 12(7), 617–636.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710834396
Barnett, R. (2018). Revitalizing squadrons Air Force outlines progress. US Air Force News.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1598301/revitalizing-squadrons-air-force-
outlines-progress/

187
Barsky, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Just feelings? The role of affect in the formation
of organizational fairness judgments. Journal of Management, 37(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310376325
Barth, A. L., & de Beer, W. (2018). Performance management success.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-64936-8
Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying
power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929–943.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064
Bates, J. S. (2019). Command mentor program. Department of the Navy.
Baze, M. W. (2018a). FY-19 Aviation Department Head Selection Board lessons learned (Issue
May). https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-
npc/boards/screenboards/aviation/Documents/FY19 ADHSB Lessons Learned.pdf
Baze, M. W. (2018b). PERS-43 aviation community update (Issue September).
Baze, M. W. (2018c). PERS-43 aviation department head retention survey (Issue September).
Baze, M. W. (2019a). PERS-43 aviation community update (Issue January).
Baze, M. W. (2019b). PERS-43 aviation community update january 2019 speaker’s notes
(FDNF Brief) (Issue January).
Bear, J. B., Cushenbery, L., London, M., & Sherman, G. D. (2017). Performance feedback,
power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 721–740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.003

188
Ben-Hur, M. (2006). Concept-Rich mathematics instruction: Building a strong foundation for
reasoning and problem solving (p. 20). ASCD.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/106008/chapters/Conceptual-Understanding.aspx
Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-making: A
multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 88–107.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00308
Bianchi, C., Bivona, E., Cognata, A., Ferrara, P., Landi, T., & Ricci, P. (2010). Applying system
dynamics to foster organizational change, accountability and performance in the public
sector: A case-based Italian perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27,
395–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres
Bianchi, E. C., Brockner, J., van den Bos, K., Seifert, M., Moon, H., van Dijke, M., & De
Cremer, D. (2015). Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive
relationship between outcome fairness and procedural fairness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214556237
Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying more to get less: The effects of external hiring versus internal
mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 369–407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211433562
Blackman, A., Kon, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2017). Coaching and Mentoring in the Asia Pacific.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630014
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. SAGE.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856

189
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901
Bookheimer, W. R. (1995). Predicting naval aviator attrition using economic data. Naval
Postgraduate School.
Boslaugh, S. E. (2010). Secondary data source. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research
Design. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288
Boström, L., & Lassen, L. M. (2006). Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies
and meta-cognition. Education and Training, 48(2–3), 178–189.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610651809
Branham, L. (2012). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave (2nd ed.). AMACOM.
Branson, C. M. (2008). Achieving organisational change through values alignment. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(3), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869293
Bredemeier, B. L., & Shields, D. L. (2014). Character development. In R. C. Eklund & G.
Tenenbaum (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 121–123). SAGE
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483332222
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Harvard University Press.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=208632
Brown, Z. (2017). FY18 aviation department head screen board decliner survey data.
Bui, H. T. M., Zeng, Y., & Higgs, M. (2017). The role of person-job fit in the relationship
between transformational leadership and job engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 32(5), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2016-0144

190
Burke, J. C. (2004). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke & Associates (Eds.),
Achieving accountability in higher education: balancing public, academic, and market
demands (First). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Burke, M. M. (2013, June 13). Navy aims to cut ‘administrative distractions.’ Stars and Stripes.
Burke, R. (2018a). Personnel posture of the armed services. 115th Congress.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Burke_02-14-18.pdf
Burke, R. (2018b, March). We are on the road to aviation retention. Proceedings Magazine, 144.
Burke, R. (2019a). Naval aviation on its way to achieve readiness goal. Navy Live, The Official
Blog of the U.S. Navy.
Burke, R. (2019b). Personnel posture of the armed services. 116th Congress.
http://www.ghbook.ir/index.php?name= ﻓﺮ ھ ﻨ ﮓ و ر ﺳ ﺎ ﻧ ﮫ ھ ﺎ ی
ﻧﻮﯾ ﻦ &option=com_dbook&task=readonline&book_id=13650&page=73&chkhashk=ED9C9
491B4&Itemid=218&lang=fa&tmpl=component%0Ahttp://www.albayan.ae%0Ahttps://sch
olar.google.co.id/scholar?hl=en&q=APLIKASI+PENGENA
Burke, W. W. (2012). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage South Asia.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=208583
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory & practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Burkhart, R. A., Tholey, R. M., Guinto, D., Yeo, C. J., & Chojnacki, K. A. (2014). Grit: A
marker of residents at risk for attrition? Surgery, 155(6), 1014–1022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.01.015
Cacciola, J. (2009). A quantitative study on retaining leadership talent within a naval aviation
squadron (Issue December). University of Phoenix.

191
Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2017). The social muscle. Harvard Business Review, 2–6.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=125712736&site=ehost-
live
Cairoli, C. (2018). Milestone survey: Aviator review (Issue February). Department of the Navy.
Cambridge Dictionary Online. (2020). Organization. Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework (Third). Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, D. (1988). Campbell Organizational Survey. Cos, 1988–1990.
http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=m
mt&AN=test.1118&site=eds-live
Cañizares, S. M. S., & García, F. J. F. (2012). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
2(2), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-207-5.ch008
Cappelen, A. W., Eichele, T., Hugdahl, K., Specht, K., Sørensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B.
(2014). Equity theory and fair inequality: A neuroeconomic study. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(43), 15368–15372.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414602111
Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review,
January-February, 103–111.
Cappelli, P., & Conyon, M. J. (2018). What do performance appraisals do? ILR Review, 71(1),
88–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917698649

192
Carmen, H. (2014). Admiral, we need to talk! Officer’s white paper on JOs jumping ship warns
Navy’s leadership of heavy personnel seas ahead. Foreign Policy, 6.
Carr, E. W., Reece, A., Rosen, G., Robichaux, A., Carr, E. W., Reece, A., Kellerman, G. R., &
Robichaux, A. (2019, December). The value of belonging at work the value of belonging at
work. Harvard Business Review.
Castaldo, S. (2013). Trust in market relationships. Edward Elgar.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847208576.00018
Center for Development of Security Excellence. (2021). DoD mandatory controlled unclassified
information (CUI) training. Security Awareness Hub.
https://securityhub.usalearning.gov/index.html
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459–484.
Cheramie, R. A., Sturman, M. C., & Walsh, K. (2007). Executive career management: Switching
organizations and the boundaryless career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 359–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.002
Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. C. (2008). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 313–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.017
Chief of Naval Air Training. (2021a). Naval Flight Officer (NFO) Aviation Training Pipeline.
Chief of Naval Air Training. (2021b). Student Naval Aviator (SNA) Aviation Training Pipeline.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2008). Coordination and control of personnel surveys. Department
of the Navy.

193
Chief of Naval Operations. (2012). OPNAV instruction 5440.77B. Department of the Navy.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-4296.1950.tb00530.x
Chief of Naval Operations. (2016). OPNAVINST 1530.8A. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
4296.1950.tb00530.x
Chief of Naval Operations. (2017). OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5450.354A. Department of the
Navy. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-4296.1950.tb00530.x
Chief of Naval Operations. (2018). OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5450.352A. Department of the
Navy. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-4296.1950.tb00530.x
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019a). Academic year 2020-2021 multi-board. Department of the
Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019b). NAVADMIN 222/19 Operational stress control policy
update. Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019c). NAVADMIN 292/19 Fiscal year 2020 cybersecurity
awareness challenge. Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019d). NAVADMIN 293/19 Fleet-wide security stand-down.
Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019e). Navy Demographic Data Comparison.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2019f). URL Officer Demographic Data.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MTAS.2004.1371634
Chief of Naval Operations. (2020a). Change to the organization of the office of the Chief of
Naval Operations, establishment of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting
Development (OPNAVNOTE 5430).

194
Chief of Naval Operations. (2020b). NAVADMIN 318/20 The cultural champion network.
Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2020c). NAVADMIN 328/20. Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations. (2020d). NAVADMIN 329/20 Culture of excellence simplify and
align. Department of the Navy.
Chief of Naval Personnel. (2002). Naval military personnel manual (Bureau of Personnel (Ed.);
Ch 23, Issue CH-74). Department of the Navy. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-4389-
8.50063-7
Chief of Naval Personnel. (2019). Navy performance evaluation system. In BUPERS Instruction
1610.10E. Department of the Navy. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Chief of Naval Personnel. (2021). Navy officer leadership continuum training. In Naval Military
Personnel Manual (Issue CH-74). Department of the Navy.
Chiok Foong Loke, J. (2001). Leadership behaviours: Effects on job satisfaction, productivity
and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(4), 191–204.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2834.2001.00231.x
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization
of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, V. (2003). Acheiving Sea Power 21!

195
Clement, S., & Bollinger, R. (2017). Accelerating progress: A new era of research on character
development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1240–1245.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0681-9
Clutterbuck, D., Whitaker, C., & Lucas, M. (2016). Coaching supervision: A practical guide for
supervisees. Routledge.
Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet. (2013). Mission, functions, and tasks of Commander, Naval Air
Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CNAP) and Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF). Department
of the Navy.
Comptroller General of the United States. (1980). The Navy’s pilot shortage: A selective bonus
and other actions could improve retention.
Connelly, B. L., Crook, T. R., Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., & Aguinis, H. (2018). Competence-
and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: Which matters more? Journal
of Management, 44(3), 919–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315596813
Cook, V. G. (1979). Naval aviator retention: Predicting retention and identifying related
variables. Naval Postgraduate School.
Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. Free Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cross, R. (2019). To be happier at work , invest more in your relationships. Harvard Business
Review, 2–6.
Culyer, A. J. (2001). Equity - Some theory and its policy implications. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 27(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.27.4.275

196
Datu, J. A. D., Yuen, M., & Chen, G. (2017). Development and validation of the Triarchic
Model of Grit Scale (TMGS): Evidence from Filipino undergraduate students. Personality
and Individual Differences, 114, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.012
Davidson, P. S. (2017). Vision and guidance for ready relevant learning (Issue August).
Davis, A. L. (2005). An investigation of formal mentoring relationships and programs: A meta-
analysis. The City University of New York.
Day, D. V, Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & Mckee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
De Charms, R. (2013). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. In
Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825632
De Jong, B., Dirks, K., & Gillespie, N. (2015). Trust and team performance: A meta-Analysis of
main effects, contingencies, and qualifiers. 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, AOM 2015, 101(8), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.234
Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know and
what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 191–199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2
De Charms, R. (2013). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825632
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644

197
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav, 4, 19–43.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 39–80.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The importance of autonomy for development and well-
being. In B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, & U. Müller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy:
Social and developmental dimensions of human conduct. Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-Determination Theory. In International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 21, pp. 486–491). Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4
Deloitte. (2020a). Freelance flexibility with full-time stability.
Deloitte. (2020b). The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020: Resilient generations hold the
key to creating a “better normal.” Deloitte, 36.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/deloitte-
2020-millennial-survey.pdf
DeMott, D. A. (2015). Relationships of trust and confidence in the workplace. Cornell Law
Review, 100(6), 1255–1280.
Denton, T. L. (2011). Aviation selection test battery component predictiveness of primary flight
training outcomes among diverse groups. Naval Postgraduate School.
Department of Defense. (2006). The armed forces officer. Department of Defense.
Department of Defense. (2020a). Common military training (CMT). Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

198
Department of Defense. (2020b). Defense performance management and appraisal program.
https://www.dcpas.osd.mil/LER/DPMAP
Department of the Air Force. (2017). Air Force handbook 1. Department of the Air Force.
Department of the Navy. (n.d.). FY-20 Active-Duty Line Community Brief.
Department of the Navy. (2012). Standard organization and regulations of the U.S. Navy.
Department of the Navy.
Department of the Navy. (2013). Navy leader development outcomes (Issue August, pp. 1–7).
Department of the Navy.
Department of the Navy. (2019a). Comprehensive review of the Department of the Navy’s
uniformed legal communities. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Department of the Navy. (2019b). Department of the Navy business operations plan. Department
of the Navy. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381475-3.10032-4
Department of the Navy. (2020a). Directives.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/Forms/AllItems.aspx
Department of the Navy. (2020b). Education for seapower strategy. Department of the Navy.
Department of the Navy. (2020c). FY-21 active-duty line community brief.
Department of the Navy. (2020d). Strategic documents. https://www.navy.mil/StrategicDocs.asp
Deshmukh, A. (2019). The benefits of transparency in the workplace.
https://www.mya.com/blog/the-benefits-of-transparency-in-the-workplace/
Di Bartolomeo, G., & Papa, S. (2016). Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic
design. Experimental Economics, 19(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-
9428-6

199
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins. Pew
Research Center, 1996(1), 1–7. https://pewrsr.ch/3cV5pmw
dodretention.org. (2014). 2014 Navy retention study questions.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5353c5e1e4b073dfbc7e1326/t/536208a5e4b0b9aa739
c6911/1398933669967/2014+Navy+Retention+Survey+Question+Set.pdf
Doyle, A., & Patrissi, G. (2014). 2014 Naval aviation officer retention survey: Content analysis
of open-ended questions. United States Navy.
Dubnick, M. J. (2014). Accountability as a cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (First). Oxford
University Press.
Duckworth, A. L. (2006). Intelligence is not enough: non-IQ predictors of achievement.
Dissertation abstracts international: Section B: The sciences and engineering, 67(3-B).
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–
1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale
(Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Eberle, C. D. (2009). Air National Guard baby boomers’ perspectives of an online mentoring
program: A phenomenological study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(8-A).

200
Eccles, J. S., Alder, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Al., E.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361.n1
Eckstein, M. (2015, June 5). Navy Seeks increased connectivity, streamlined training and
inspections in RAD effort. USNI News.
Eckstein, M. (2018a, February). New Air Boss Miller pitches warfighting focus in first visit with
aviators. USNI News.
Eckstein, M. (2018b, April). CNO: Navy to restore readiness levels by 2022 after years of
insufficient funding. USNI News.
Eckstein, M. (2020, June 11). New warfighter development directorate (OPNAV N7) meant to
align learning efforts with strategy. USNI News.
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive
theory. American Economic Review, 98(3), 990–1008.
Elliott, M., Kapur, K., & Gresenz, C. (2004). Modeling the departure of military pilots from the
services. https://doi.org/10.7249/mr1327
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career
success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational
support. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2004.tb02493.x
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect:
Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in

201
Psychology, 5(FEB), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036
Evans, M. L., & Grossnick, R. A. (2015). A few pioneers. In United States Naval Aviation 1910-
2010 (5th ed., pp. 1–26). Naval History and Heritage Command.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/publications/1910/1 Chapter1.pdf
Evje, M. (1986, July 5). ‘Top gun’ boosting service sign-ups. Los Angeles Times.
Fall, A., & Roussel, P. (2014). Compensation and work motivation: Self-determination theory
and the paradigm of motivation through incentives. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determina-tion Theory. Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.001
Farrell, B. (2018a). Collecting additional data could enhance pilot retention efforts. Government
Accountability Office.
Farrell, B. (2018b). DOD needs to reevaluate fighter pilot workforce requirements. Government
Accountability Office
Faturechi, R., Rose, M., & Miller, T. C. (2019, February 7). Years of warnings, then death and
disaster. ProPublica.
Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent
students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 267–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608907
Finn, D., & Donovan, A. (2013). A global generational study: Evolving talent strategy to match
the new workforce reality. PwC’s NextGen, 14. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hr-
management-services/pdf/pwc-nextgen-study-2013.pdf

202
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing
self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495–505.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039240
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/CLVII.dec14.424-a
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361
Forsling, C. (2019). The original “Top Gun” was a recruiter’s dream. The sequel will be
anything but. Task & Purpose.
Frey, L. L. (2018). When it hurts to work: Organizational violations and betrayals. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2018(153), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20284
Friedman, M. (2006). A conception of autonomy. In Autonomy, Gender, Politics (Issue 2003).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195138503.003.0001
Fruiht, V. M., & Wray-Lake, L. (2013). The role of mentor type and timing in predicting
educational attainment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1459–1472.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9817-0
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601

203
Garcia, C. C. (2018). Moral agency. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of business
ethics and society (pp. 2322–2323). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381503
García, G. A., Gonzales-Miranda, D. R., Gallo, O., & Roman-Calderon, J. P. (2019). Employee
involvement and job satisfaction: a tale of the millennial generation. Employee Relations,
41(3), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2018-0100
Gardiner, H., & Kosmitzki, C. (2001). Theories and methodology. In Lives Across Cultures (1st
ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of economic value, social
value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 322–337. https://link-springer-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/content/pdf/10.1177/0092070398264005.pdf
Gasset, J. O. y, & Garcia-Gomez, J. (2002). What is knowledge? State University of New York
Press.
Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective career success: A study of managers and
support personnel. Journal of Business and Psychology., 1(2), 78–94.
Gebicke, M. E. (1999). Actions needed to better define pilot requirements and promote retention
(Issue August).
Gibb, G. D., Nontasak, T., & Dolgin, D. L. (1988). Factors Affecting Career Retention among
Naval Aviators. In Journal of Business and Psychology (Vol. 2, Issue 4). https://www-jstor-

204
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/pdf/25092154.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A702b7ec7c86a59b70
e05170396e2bc2a
Gibb, G. D., Nontasak, T., Dolgin, D. L., & Helm, W. R. (1987). Factors that influence career
motivation in the fighter community. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a178487.pdf
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A.
(2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural
values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 123–137.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9109-1
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal
orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 417–437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00038-6
Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust
and employee empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 26(1), 53–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101261004
Gonzalez-Teruel, A., Campos-Pelaez, I., & Fortea-Cabo, G. (2020). Information behaviour of the
millennial generation: a scoping review of medical residents and their use of social media.
Health Information and Libraries Journal, 38, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12306
González, L., Tomás, I., Castillo, I., Duda, J. L., & Balaguer, I. (2017). A test of basic
psychological needs theory in young soccer players: time-lagged design at the individual
and team levels. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 27(11), 1511–
1522. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12778
Goodspeed, M. H. (2001). A golden journey. In M. H. Goodspeed & R. Burgess (Eds.), U.S.
naval aviation. Hugh Lauter Levin Associates.

205
Goulopoulos, S. (2019). Is “Top Gun: Maverick” just a really expensive navy.
Gramlich, J. (2019). Young Americans are less trusting of other people – and key institutions –
than their elders. Pew Research Center.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative
Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Gras, M. E., Font-Mayolas, S., Baltasar, A., Patiño, J., Sullman, M. J. M., & Planes, M. (2019).
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) amongst young Spanish adults. Clinica
y Salud, 30(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.5093/clysa2019a11
Green, C. H., & Howe, A. P. (2012). Leading with trust. Harvard Business Review, 29(1), 6.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=heh&AN=70437687&site=ehost-
live
Green, K. T., Hayward, L. C., Williams, A. M., Dennis, P. A., Bryan, B. C., Taber, K. H.,
Calhoun, P. S., Bryan, B. C., Taber, K. H., & Illness, M. M. (2014). Examining the factor
structure of the. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114524014
Green, S., & Palmer, S. (2018). Positive psychology coaching. Positive Psychology Coaching in
Practice, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716169-1
Greenert, J. (2011). The charge of command. Department of the Navy.
Greenert, J. (2013). The Navy leader development strategy. Department of the Navy.

206
Greguras, G. J., Diefendorff, J. M., Carpenter, J., & Tröster, C. (2014). Person-environment fit
and self-determination. Theory. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work
engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.002
Griffin, G. R., & Mosko, J. D. (1977). Naval aviation attrition 1950-1976: Implications for the
development of future research and evaluation (NAMRL -1237). Naval Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory, August.
Grimley, B. (2020). The 7Cs of coaching. Routledge.
Grolnick, W. S., & Raftery-Helmer, J. N. (2013). Facilitating autonomy in the family:
Supporting intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, & U.
Müller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of
human conduct. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139152198.011
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2).
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=206778
Halbesleben, J. R., Wheeler, A. R., & Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. (2013). The impact of furloughs
on emotional exhaustion, self-rated performance, and recovery experiences. 98, 492–503.
Hall, L. (2004). Mindful coaching. In Mastery in Coaching.
Hannay, M., & Northam, M. (2000). Low-cost strategies for employee retention. Compensation
& Benefits Review, 32(4), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863680022097920
Harris, E. (2020). MyNavy coaching: Research ideas, objectives, best practices, moes, risks to
program.

207
Harrison, C. (n.d.). Managing and manipulating survey data: A beginners guide. Harvard
University Program on Survey Research.
Hattiangadi, A. U., & Horne, B. C. (2005). The fifth annual Navy workforce research and
analysis conference : Building on the pillars of the Navy’s human capital strategy. August.
Hawkins, P., & Turner, E. (2020). Systemic coaching: Delivering value beyond the individual.
Routledge. http://marefateadyan.nashriyat.ir/node/150
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, 17–19.
Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2006). Applying a theory of change approach to interagency
planning in child mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3–4),
165–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9079-7
Herzberg, F. (2003, January). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198203000-00001
Hill, R. R., & Gaupp, M. P. (2006). Visualization tools for prescriptive analysis of a complex
adaptive system model of pilot retention. International Journal of Modeling and Simulation,
26(4), 378–384.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-
organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389–399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003
Hofweber, T. (2017). Logic and ontology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (Spring 202).
Hom, P. W., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2020). Employee retention and turnover (1st ed.).
Routledge.

208
Hone, T. C. (2001). Flattop: The Queen of Naval Operations. In M. H. Goodspeed & R. Burgess
(Eds.), U.S. naval aviation. Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc.
Hosek, J., & Wadsworth, S. M. D. (2013). Economic conditions of military families. Future of
Children, 23(2), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0009
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10(4).
Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Van Den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at
work: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95–96, 74–
89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.004
Huang, W., Yuan, C., & Li, M. (2019). Person-job fit and innovation behavior: Roles of job
involvement and career commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(MAY), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01134
Hulbert, A. (2014). A Bad Time for Timing (pp. 1–13).
Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017). Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and
behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 34(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-10-2015-1560
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-
being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

209
Iorgulescu, M.-C. (2016). Generation Z and its perception of work. Cross-Cultural Management
Journal, XVIII(1), 47–54. http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/
Irby, B., Brown, G., Duffy, J. A., & Trautman, D. (2002). The synergistic leadership theory.
Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 304–322.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210433409
Irby, B., Brown, G., & Yang, L. L. (2006). Values of organizations and leadership. In F. English
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939584
Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective
application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212–226.
Jehn, C. (1999). Congressional Budget Office testimony on pilot retention: Issues and possible
solutions. U.S. House of Representatives.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a453324.pdf
Jenkins, S. (2013). David Clutterbuck, mentoring and coaching. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching, 8(1), 139–254. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.8.1.139
Jin, J., & Rounds, J. (2012). Stability and change in work values: A meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 326–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.007
John Q. Public. (2017). Punching out: Latest ‘dear boss’ letter decries Air Force’s lack of true
leadership!
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (1995). Educational research. In educational research:
quantitative, quaiitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed., Vol. 62, Issue 1, p. 17).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)63677-6

210
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Methods of data collection. In Educational
research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed, pp. 223–246). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092171-19
Johnson, S. K. (2018). A culture of fairness. In BenefitsPRO (pp. 1–2). ALM Media Properties,
LLC.
Johnson, W. B., & Andersen, G. R. (2009, April). How to make mentoring work. U.S. Naval
Institute Proceedings, 135(4), 26–32.
Johnson, W. B., & Andersen, G. R. (2010). Formal mentoring in the U.S. military. Naval War
College Review, 63(2), 113–126.
Johnson, W. B., & Andersen, G. R. (2015). Mentoring in the U.S. Navy. Naval War College
Review, 68(3), 76–90.
Johnston, B., & Watson, A. (2004). Participation, reflection and integration for business and
lifelong learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521512
Joo, B. K. (Brian), & Park, S. (2010). Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover intention: The effects of goal orientation, organizational learning culture and
developmental feedback. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(6), 482–
500. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011069999
Joo, B. K. (Brian), & Ready, K. J. (2012). Career satisfaction: The influences of proactive
personality, performance goal orientation, organizational learning culture, and leader-
member exchange quality. Career Development International, 17(3), 276–295.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241090

211
Juhász, T., Bencsik, A., & Horváth-Csikós, G. (2016). Y and Z Generations at Workplaces.
Journal of Competitiveness, 6(3), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.03.06
Kalleberg, A. L. (2008). The Mismatched Worker: When People Don’t Fit. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 22(1), 24–40.
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of
progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000133
Kapp, L. (2002). CRS Report for Congress Recruiting and Retention in the Active Component.
Kapp, L. (2019). Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers. https://crsreports.congress.gov
Kelso, E. W. (2014). Improving the efficiency of aviation retention bonuses through the use of
market mechanisms. Naval Postgraduate School.
Kent, A., Kochan, F., & Green, A. (2013). Cultural influences on mentoring programs and
relationships: a critical review of research. International Journal of Mentoring and
Coaching in Education, 2(3), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-08-2013-0047
Kevin, J., Varsha, J., & Sreelakshmi, T. (2020). The Influence of Grit and Self-Efficacy on
Teacher’s Teaching Motivation on School Teachers. IJSART, 6(4), 4–7.
Khalid, N., Pahi, M. H., & Ahmed, U. (2016). Loosing your best talent: Can leadership retain
employees? The dilemma of the banking sector of Hyderabad Sindh, Pakistan: A mediation
investigation. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(3), 608–616.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5–8. www.ispi.org
Klasen, N., & Clutterbuck, D. (2011). Implementing mentoring schemes. In Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9). Routledge.

212
Kochanski, A. N. (2018, January). To Fix TacAir Pilot Retention, Follow the Money.
Proceedings, 144(1).
Koestner, R., & Hope, N. (2014). A Self-Determination Theory Approach to Goals. In M. Gagné
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determina-tion
Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.025
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Kensbock, J. M., & Peschl, A. (2020). What satisfies younger
versus older employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory to explain
interactive effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job
satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 101–115.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21981
Kotter, J. P. (1973). The Psychological Contract: Managing the Joining-Up Process. California
Management Review, 15(3), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164442
Kotter, J. P. (1995, April). Leading Change – Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard
Business Review, 59–67.
Kowalski, K., Bradley, K., & Pappas, S. (2006). Nurse retention, leadership, and the Toyota
System Model: Building leaders and problem solvers for better patient care. Nurse Leader,
4(6), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2006.09.005
Kraak, J. M., Lunardo, R., Herrbach, O., & Durrieu, F. (2017). Promises to employees matter,
self-identity too: Effects of psychological contract breach and older worker identity on
violation and turnover intentions. Journal of Business Research, 70, 108–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.015

213
Kraak, V. I., Swinburn, B., & Lawrence, M. (2014). Distinguishing accountability from
responsibility: An accountability framework. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6),
2–3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301899
Kraines, G. A. (2002). Accountability Leadership. The Systems Thinker, 13(10), 1–5.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group,
and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-Organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kroth, M. (2007). Maslow — Move Aside! A Heuristical Motivation Model for Leaders in
Career and Technical Education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(2), 5–36.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Developing a questioning route. In Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research (4th ed, pp. 35–61). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2007.01.14.2.4.c6016
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9(5), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088
Laird, N. (2013). Reduce Administrative Distractions Site Launches. Military.Com.
Lambirth, T. T., Dolgin, D. L., Rentmeister-Bryant, H. K., & Moore, J. L. (2003). Selected
Personality Characteristics of Student Naval Aviators and Student Naval Flight Officers.
The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(4), 415–427.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1304

214
Latham, G. P. (2012). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335520.n7
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. (1991). Self-Regulation through Goal Setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454–470.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807
Lawler, E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 305–312.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029692
Lawrence, P. (2021). Coaching systemically: Five ways of thinking about systems. Routledge.
Lawter, L., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2015). McGregor’s Theory X/Y and Job
Performance: A Multilevel, Multi-source Analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 27(4),
84–101.
Leow, K., & Khong, K. (2009). The study of mentoring and leader-member exchange (LMX) on
organisational commitment among auditors in Malaysia. Sunway Academic Journal,
6(LMX), 147–172.
Lesorogol, C. K. (2017). Fairness in Cultural Context. In M. Li & D. P. Tracer (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice. Springer International
Publishing.

215
Levi, A., Shapiro, D. L., Fried, Y., Markoczy, L., & Noghani, F. (2019). When Everyone Works
Harder for Fewer Rewards, Is It Fair? Implications of “Organization-Wide Hardship”; for
Managing and Studying Organizational Fairness. Group & Organization Management,
44(2), 396–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119837045
Li, Y., Guan, Y., Wang, F., Zhou, X., Guo, K., Jiang, P., Mo, Z., Li, Y., & Fang, Z. (2015). Big-
five personality and BIS/BAS traits as predictors of career exploration: The mediation role
of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 39–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.006
Light, M. F. (2012). The Navy’s Moral Compass: Commanding Officers and Personal
Misconduct. Naval War College Review, 65(3), 136–152.
Lopez, C. T. (2021). SEAC: DOD Will “Move Fast” Against Extremism After Completion of
Stand Downs. Defense News.
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2542699/seac-dod-will-move-fast-
against-extremism-after-completion-of-stand-downs/
Losey, S. (2018, June 18). In war on ‘queep,’ Air Force aims to give squadron commanders new
weapons. Air Force Times. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-
force/2018/06/18/in-war-on-queep-air-force-aims-to-give-squadron-commanders-new-
weapons/
Maheshwari, G. C., & Mehta, S. (2013). Consequence of toxic leadership on employee job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Contemporary Management
Research, 8(2), 1–23.

216
Marsh, J. A., Springer, M. G., McCaffrey, D. F., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., Kalra, N.,
DiMartino, C., & Peng, A. (Xiao). (2011). A big apple for educators: New York City’s
experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation (First). Wilder Publications, Inc.
McCain, J. (2017, April). A Navy pilot’s take: The Air Force doesn’t have a pilot crisis, it has a
leadership crisis. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/24/a-navy-pilots-take-
the-air-force-doesnt-have-a-pilot-crisis-it-has-a-leadership-crisis/
McCall, J. R., & Pruchnicki, S. (2017). Just culture: A case study of accountability relationship
boundaries influence on safety in HIGH-consequence industries. Safety Science, 94, 143–
151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.008
McComb, C. (2009). How Does Psychological Contract Explain the Efficacy of Coaching? New
Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (Online), 34(2), 44.
Mcdonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
21(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010318174
Mcfadden, P., Mallett, J., & Leiter, | Michael. (2018). Extending the two-process model of
burnout in child protection workers: The role of resilience in mediating burnout via
organizational factors of control, values, fairness, reward, workload, and community
relationships. Stress and Health, 34, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2763
Mckown, C. (2013). Social equity theory and racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Child
Development, 84(4), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12033
Megginson, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2006). Creating a coaching culture. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 38(5), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610677670

217
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (Fourth). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. P. (2014). Employee Commitment, Motivation, and Engagement: Exploring the Links.
In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-
Determina-tion Theory. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.005
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please
stand up? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.006
Mike, A., Harris, K., Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2015). Conscientiousness. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition, 4, 658–665.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25047-2
Milbourn, B., Black, M. H., & Buchanan, A. (2018). Why People Leave Community Service
Organizations: A Mixed Methods Study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0005-z
Miller, D. (2018). Naval aviation leader development strategy.
https://doi.org/10.2169/naika.108.contents1
Miner, J. B. (2005). Equity Theory. In Organizational Behavior 1 Essential Theories of
Motivation and Leadership (pp. 134–158). Routledge.
Mitchell, T. R., & Albright, D. W. (1972). Expectancy theory predictions of the satisfaction,
effort, performance, and retention of naval aviation officers. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90033-5
Modly, T. B., Gilday, M. M., & Berger, D. H. (2020). Statement on Fiscal Year 2021
Department of the Navy Budget.

218
Moody, S. (2013). Naval Air Forces in the Pacific. Navy Supply Corps Newsletter, Dec.
https://scnewsltr.dodlive.mil/2013/12/23/naval-air-forces-in-the-pacific/
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T.-Y., & Liu, Z.-Q. (2012). A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 81, 354–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002
Murphy, W. M. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross- generational learning and
developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 549–574.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication
perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7
MyNavyHR. (2020). Sailor 2025. Department of the Navy.
Nabi, G. R. (1999). An investigation into the differential profile of predictors of objective and
subjective career success. Career Development International, 4(4), 212–225.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620439910270599
National Research Council. (2003). Attitudes, aptitudes, and aspirations of American youth:
Implications for military recruiting (P. Sackett & A. Mavor (Eds.)). The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Human Behavior in Military Contexts. In Human Behavior
in Military Contexts. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12023
Natter, J. T., Lopez, A., & Hodges, D. K. (1998). Listen to the JOs: Why retention is a problem.
Proceedings, 124(10).

219
Navy Office of Talent Optimization. (2018). 2018 Navy Personal and Professional Choices
Survey Summary.
Navy Personnel Command. (2018a). PERS-43 Tailhook18 Survey Results.
Navy Personnel Command. (2018b). VFA DH Boilerplate. Department of the Navy.
https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/officer/Detailing/aviation/Documents/DH
Boilerplate.pdf
Navy Personnel Command. (2019a). FY-20 Active Aviation Commander Command Screen
Board: Statistics and Takeaways (Issue May). Department of the Navy.
Navy Personnel Command. (2019b). PERS 43 April 2019 CNAF Diversity Brief Final.
Navy Personnel Command. (2020). Officer Assignments. Navy Personnel Command Website.
https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/officer/Detailing/Pages/default2.aspx
Neumann, O. (2016). Does misfit loom larger than fit? Experimental evidence on motivational
person-job fit, public service motivation, and prospect theory. International Journal of
Manpower, 37(5), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2014-0268
Ng, E. S., Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2018). Career Concepts. In Generational Career Shifts
(pp. 21–43). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-583-220181003
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). A conservation of resources perspective on career
hurdles and salary attainment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 156–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.008
Nicholas, M. C., & Hathcoat, J. D. (2014). Ontology. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.),
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research (pp. 571–572). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406

220
Nilforooshan, P., & Salimi, S. (2016). Career adaptability as a mediator between personality and
career engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.010
Nowell, J. B. (2020). Statement Before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed
Services Committee on Personnel Oversight. 116th Congress.
O’Donnell, J. R. (1980). A general retention model applied to the naval aviator. Naval
Postgraduate School.
Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: a meta-analytic review of the
relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition
and Learning, 13(2), 179–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9183-8
Olafsen, A. H., Deci, E. L., & Halvari, H. (2018). Basic psychological needs and work
motivation: A longitudinal test of directionality. Motiv Emot, 42(2), 178–189.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9646-2
Østerlie, O., Løhre, A., & Haugan, G. (2019). The Expectancy-Value Questionnaire in Physical
Education: A Validation Study Among Norwegian Adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 63(6), 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1453867
Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The Changing Face of the Employees – Generation Z and
Their Perceptions of Work (A Study Applied to University Students). Procedia Economics
and Finance, 26(15), 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00876-x
Paarlberg, L. E., & Perry, J. L. (2007). Values Management Aligning Employee Values and
Organization Goals. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006297238
Pardee, R. (1990). Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland.
https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p2

221
Paris-Dauphine University. (2011). Self-determination theory in the workplace – a qualitative
study of motivational experience and agenda for future research. Workshop on Research
Advances in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management.
Pavlović, J. (2021). Coaching psychology: constructivist approaches. Routledge.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3). Applied Research Methods,
August.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2016160%0Ahttp://ies.ed.gov/
Peart, N. (2019). Making Work Less Stressful and More Engaging for Your Employees. Harvard
Business Review.
Pecenco, E. G. (2005). The retention of female unrestricted line officers. Naval Postgraduate
School.
Pendleton, J. H. (2018). Rebuilding Ship, Submarine, and Aviation Readiness Will Require Time
and Sustained Management Attention. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695911.pdf
Poell, R. F., Rocco, T. S., & Roth, G. L. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge Companion to Human
Resource Development. Routledge.
Poindexter, S. H. (1998). Analysis of Mid-Grade Naval Aviator Retention [Naval Postgraduate
School]. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a356023.pdf
Pollock, K., & Winton, S. (2016). Juggling multiple accountability systems: how three principals
manage these tensions in Ontario, Canada. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 28(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9224-7

222
Polster, M., Polster, E., & Smith, E. W. L. (1990). Gestalt approaches. 103–111.
https://paloaltou.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=psyh&AN=1990-98893-005&site=ehost-live&scope=cite
Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children
approach school. In The handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 259–278). Guilford
Press.
Pratt, K. (2021). Transactional Analysis Coaching. Routledge.
PricewaterhouseCooper. (2011). Millennials at work reshaping the workplace. www.pwc.com
QualtricsXM. (2020). What is ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance ) and what can I use it for?
Experience Management.
Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker
relationships: differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24(3), 271–293.
Rahn, O. G., Soutar, G. N., & Lee, J. A. (2020). Perceived values-congruence and employees’
change beliefs. Journal of Management and Organization, May.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.4
Rasch, K. H. (1998). An analysis of institutional and non-institutional factors affecting Naval
Aviator retention [Naval Postgraduate School].
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a343640.pdf
Reed, S. M. (2017). A guide to the human resource body of knowledge. Wiley.
Reina, D. S., & Reina, M. L. (2010). Betrayal Is Universal. In Rebuilding trust in the workplace:
seven steps to renew confidence, commitment, and energy (1st ed). Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.

223
Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: what’s the
difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (2009). Mentoring in supervisor-
subordinate dyads: Antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of
mentorship. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1110–1118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.007
Richardson, J. (2018). Navy Leader Development Framework Version 2.0.
http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/
Richardson, J. (2019a). Navy Leader Development Framework Version 3.0.
https://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/NLDF3May19.pdf
Richardson, J. (2019b). Strategic outlook for the Arctic.
Rickus, G. M., & Berkshire, J. R. (1968). Development of an Aviation Combat Criterion:
Preliminary Report.
Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-Determination Theory in Human Resource
Development: New Directions and Practical Considerations. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318756954
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing Quality Survey Questions. SAGE
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Roche, M., & Haar, J. M. (2013). A metamodel approach towards self-determination theory: A
study of New Zealand managers’ organisational citizenship behaviours. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3397–3417.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.770779

224
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the
Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
Rostker, B. D., Thie, H. J., Lacy, J. L., Kawata, J. H., & Purnell, S. W. (1993). The Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980: A Retrospective Assessment. RAND
Corporation.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness. Organizational
Dynamics, 29(4), 260–273.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Introduction to Special Topic
Forum : Not so Different after All : A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource
practices: How employee and customer contracts are created. Human Resource
Management, 33, 463–489. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930330312
Rowden, T. (2017). Surface Force Strategy - Return to Sea Control. Commander Naval Surface
Forces.
Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends,Work, and Well-Being :
Psychological Need Satisfactions and ... Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(1),
95–122.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

225
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in
Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Hawley, P. (2016). Naturally good?: Basic psychological needs and the proximal
and evolutionary bases of human benevolence. In K. W. Brown & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of hypo-egoic phenomena. (pp. 205–221). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328079.013.14
Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the
interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and
cultures. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-
4126.2005.00106.x
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations
and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 177–198.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<177::AID-EJSP982>3.0.CO;2-Z
Saliba, S. (2006). Organizational Strategies That Inspire and Improve Employee Retention and
Morale. Royal Roads University.
Salkind, N., & Frey, B. (2017). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics (Seventh).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sanders, T. J., & Davey, K. S. (2011). Out of the Leadership Theory Jungle: a Proposed Meta-
Model of Strategic Leadership. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of
Strategic Management. Proceedings, 10(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/874057237

226
Santicola, R. (2014). Crowdsourcing navy policy: The flawed Navy retention “study.” War On
The Rocks.
Sargeant, E., Antrobus, E., & Platz, D. (2017). Promoting a culture of fairness: police training,
procedural justice, and compliance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 347–365.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9296-0
Sarkisian, C. A., Hays, R. D., Berry, S., & Mangione, C. M. (2002). Development, reliability,
and validity of the expectations regarding aging (ERA-38) survey. Gerontologist, 42(4),
534–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.4.534
Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In R. W. Lent & S. D.
Brown (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work.
John Wiley and Sons.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Noval, M. A. (1986). When Managers Decide Not to Decide
Autocratically: An Investigation of Leader-Member Exchange and Decision Influence.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1986(1), 203–207.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1986.4980620
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-Based and Affect-Based Trust
as Mediators of Leader Behavior Influences on Team Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022625
Schawbel, D. (2016, November). 10 workplace trends you’ll see in 2017. Forbes Online.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2016/11/01/%0Dworkplace-trends-
2017/#21c22be856bd
Schein, E. H. (2012). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.

227
Schön, D. A. (2017). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (E-book).
Taylor & Francis.
Schreurs, B., Hetty van Emmerik, I. J., Van den Broeck, A., & Guenter, H. (2014). Work values
and work engagement within teams: The mediating role of need satisfaction. Group
Dynamics, 18(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000009
Schriesheim, T. A., & Scandura, C. A. (1994). Leader-Member Exchange and Supervisor Career
Mentoring as Complementary Constructs in Leadership Research. The Academy of
Management Journal, 37(6), 1588–1602.
Schwartz, B., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Reconceptualizing Intrinsic Motivation Excellence as
Goal. In Reconceptualizing Intrinsic Motivation (Issue May, pp. 373–393).
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human
Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) (p. 10).
Seapower Staff. (2019, September). Naval Aviation Achieves Readiness Target, Shifts Focus to
Sustainment. Seapower.
Seggewiss, B. J., Boeggemann, L. M., Straatmann, T., Mueller, K., & Hattrup, K. (2019). Do
Values and Value Congruence Both Predict Commitment? A Refined Multi-Target, Multi-
Value Investigation into a Challenged Belief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2),
169–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9534-0
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Career
Success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1757

228
Sheskin, M. (2017). The Evolution of Moral Development Fairness. In M. Li & D. P. Tracer
(Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice. Springer
International Publishing.
Shewbridge, D. (2002). Coaching and Mentoring. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(3),
123–124.
Shoemaker, M., Davis, J. D., Grosklags, P. A., Manazir, M. C., & Norton, N. A. (2016). Naval
Aviation Vision (2016-2025). Naval Aviation Enterprise.
SHRM. (2020). Recruiting Internally and Externally. SHRM.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/recruitinginternallyandexternally.aspx
Sims, C., Trail, T., Chen, E., & Miller, L. (2018). Today’s Soldier: Assessing the Needs of
Soldiers and Their Families. In Today’s Soldier: Assessing the Needs of Soldiers and Their
Families. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr1893
Sirota, D. (2011, August 26). 25 years later, how ‘Top Gun’ made America love war. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-
how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-
war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html%5Cnhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2
5-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings
Sizemore, W. G. (2013). U.S. Naval air training and operational excellence. In Texas Heart
Institute Journal (Vol. 40, Issue 5). Naval Postgraduate School.
Smith, S. (2019). Navy Careers: Commissioned Officer Job Designators Descriptions. US
Military Careers. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/navy-commissioned-officer-job-
designators-descriptions-3356599

229
Snodgrass, G. M. (2014). Keep a Weather Eye on the Horizon. Naval War College Review,
67(4), 1–24.
Snodgrass, G. M., & Kohlmann, B. (2014). 2014 Navy retention study. United States Navy.
Sonethavilay, H., Akin, J. L., Strong, J. D., Maury, R. V., & Uveges, R. L. (2019). 2019 Military
Family Lifestyle Survey, Comprehensive Report.
Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. (2018). Full range leadership development: Pathways for people, profit,
and planet (Second). Routledge.
Spencer, R. V. (2019). Secretary of the Navy Year 3 Strategic Vision, Goals, and Implementation
Guidance. Department of the Navy.
Steup, M., & Neta, R. (2005). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 202). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41sup-0181
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314460
Stoczkowski, W. (2015). Belief is not always what you believe it is: Between belief and
knowledge. Anuac, 4(1), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.7340/anuac2239-625X-1878
Stoffel, J. M., & Cain, J. (2018). Review of grit and resilience literature within health professions
education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(2), 124–134.
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6150
Stricker, L. J. (2005). The biographical inventory in naval aviation selection: Inside the black
box. Military Psychology, 17(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1701_5
Supko, M. J. (2003). Factors Affecting the Retention of Junior Officer Fixed Wing Naval
Aviators [Naval Postgraduate School]. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a417564.pdf

230
Swain, R. M., & Pierce, A. C. (2017). The Officer at Work: Command. In The Armed Forces
Officer. National Defense University Press.
SWE. (2013). Surface Warfare Officer 2013 Junior Officer Survey Overview.
Switzer, T. (2020). Three Recommendations for Improving Air Force Pilot Retention (Issue
October).
The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing. (2002). Mentorship Effectiveness Scale.
Tuan, T., Pham, L., Li, K., Wu, W.-E., Liao, Y.-N., Yin-Tzu, |, Bs, C., & Chu, T.-L. (2019). The
impact of mentor-mentee rapport on nurses’ professional turnover intention: Perspectives of
social capital theory and social cognitive career theory. J Clin Nurs, 28, 2669–2680.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14858
U.S. Code Title 10, Pub. L. No. section 8001-8951 (2018).
Training requirements for DoD personnel., Pub. L. No. 32 CFR § 105.14.
U.S. Congress. (2017). Military pilot shortage. 115th Congress.
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2013). Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States. Joint
Publication 1, March, 172. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf
Udechukwu, B. I. I. (2016). Turnover: Of Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy and Herzberg’s Motivation
Theory. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 69–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600903800205
UK Essays. (2018). Content and Process Theories of Work Motivation. UK Essays.Com.
Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Glinow, M. A. Von. (1993). High-impact learning: Building and diffusing
learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(93)90053-4

231
United States Fleet Forces. (2020). Global Force Management.
https://www.public.navy.mil/usff/Pages/global-force-management.aspx
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s Expectancy Models and Work-Related Criteria:
A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575–586.
Van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of
leaders. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12069
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in
Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101
Vavra, P., Baar, J. van, & Alan Sanfey. (2017). The Neural Basis of Fairness. In M. Li & D. P.
Tracer (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice (pp. 1–184).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58993-0
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and
learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1),
3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., &
García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory Revision: Moving Culture
From the Macro Into the Micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617704397
Venuto, K. T. (2006). Leadership Development Framework. United States Coast Guard.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between
person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473–489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2

232
Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Managerial Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancies, and Work-Role
Salience as Determinants of Ambition for a Managerial Position1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29(3), 639–665.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Waag, W. L., Shannon, R. H., Ambler, R. K., & Baisden, A. G. (1973). A factor analytic study of
attritions from Naval Aviation training (Issue 1181).
Wackerman, L. (2015, May). Reducing Administrative Distractions: A Letter from RDML Linda
Wackerman to RAD Members.
Walenga, A. (2019). Military Pilot Shortage (Issues 7–7500). United States Navy.
Walker, D. M. (2005). Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process (p. 182).
Government Accountability Office.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
Waters, A. (Ed.). (2018). Warfighting, People and Readiness: Top Priorities for New Air Boss.
Naval Aviation News.
Weatherspoon, T. (2014, February). Reducing administrative distractions: RAD program works
on sailors’ ideas to eliminate distractions. All Hands.
Weber, K., & Ladkin, A. (2011). Career Identity and its relation to career anchors and career
satisfaction: The case of convention and exhibition industry professionals in Asia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 167–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.556339

233
Weinstein, N., Hodgins, H. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Autonomy and control in dyads: Effects
on interaction quality and joint creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 36(12), 1603–1617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386385
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. The Free Press.
Welbourne, M. (2001). Knowledge. Acumen.
Westerman, J. W., & Cyr, L. A. (2004). An Integrative Analysis of Person–Organization Fit
Theories. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 252–261.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66(5), 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934
Whittam, K. (2009). Navy-wide Personnel Survey (NPS) 2008: Summary of Survey Results
(Issue November). http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA477256
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation: A Developmental
Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wilcove, G. L., Schultz, R., & Patrissi, G. A. (2007). 2006 Navy Quality of Life Survey (Issue
May).
Williams, K. R. (2018). Toxic leadership in defense and federal workplaces: sabotaging the
mission and innovation. International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(3), 179–198.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-04-2018-0023

234
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
Wrzesniewski, A., Schwartz, B., Cong, X., Kane, M., Omar, A., & Kolditz, T. (2014). Multiple
types of motives don’t multiply the motivation of West Point cadets. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 111(30), 10990–10995.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405298111
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.51.1.110
Young, F. (2020a). PERS-43 Aviation Update. CNAF O6 Commanders Training Symposium.
Young, F. (2020b). PERS-43 Update. Virtual Hook: Tailhook Symposium.
Young, T. (2017). Sadly, true grit can’t be taught. Spectator, 335(9869).
Zak, P. J. (2017). Introduction. In Trust factor: the science of creating high-performance
companies. AMACOM.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=208638
Zak, P. J. (2019). How Our Brains Decide When To Trust. Harvard Business Review, 1–6.
https://hbr.org/2019/07/how-our-brains-decide-when-to-trust

235
Appendix A: First-Term Naval Aviator Retention Survey Questions
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
1 What is your current
status?
Nom Active Duty
Selected Reservist
(SELRES)
Full Time Support
(FTS)

2 What is your designator? Nom 131X
132X

3 What is your gender? Male
Female
I Prefer not to Answer

4 What is your marital
status?
Nom Single
Married
Separated
Divorced

5 What is your current
paygrade
Nom O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-5
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9

6 If Yes, in what
community were/are you
most recently qualified?
Nom HSM
HSC
HM
VAQ
VAW
VRC/VRM
VFA
VP / VQ(P)
VQ(T)

236
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
7 In what tour are you
currently serving?
Nom First sea tour
First shore tour
Second sea tour
Other tour

8 Are you eligible for the
Aviation Department Head
Retention Bonus
(ADHRB)?
Nom Yes
No

Skip To: End of Block If
Q2.8 = No

8.1 You indicate that you are
eligible for the Aviation
Department Head
Retention Bonus
(ADHRB). Do you intend
to take the bonus?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Probably not
Definitely not

Display This Question: If
Q2.9 = Probably not Or
Q2.9 = Definitely not

8.2 You indicated that you either
probably or definitely will
not accept the ADHRB.
Why?
Open Ended
9 My mentor during accession
(USNA, NROTC, OCS,
other) prepared me for the
realities of Naval service
Ord Exactly Matched
Mostly Matched
Somewhat Matched
Slightly Matched
Did Not Match
1 Knowledge—
Conceptual
10 My mentor in flight school
shaped my expectations
which prepared me for life
in my first fleet squadron.
Ord Exactly Matched
Mostly Matched
Somewhat Matched
Slightly Matched
Did Not Match
1 Knowledge—
Conceptual

237
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
11 I believe my experience in
my first fleet assignment
matched my expectations
for that tour (ie: I
understood my
professional obligations or
requirements for career
progression).
Ord Exactly Matched
Mostly Matched
Somewhat Matched
Slightly Matched
Did Not Match
1 Knowledge—
Conceptual
12 Is there anything about your
experiences as a Naval
Aviator that you wish you
knew prior to joining?
Open Ended Knowledge—
Conceptual
13 I am able to effectively
perform new duties with
little training or guidance.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Knowledge—
Metacognition
14 I understand the necessary
requirements for career
progression as a Naval
Aviator.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Knowledge—
Metacognition
15 My past experiences are
more influential than my
perceived future
opportunities when I make
career decisions.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Knowledge—
Metacognition
16 I believe I am able to serve
a full career as an active
duty Naval Aviator.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Knowledge—
Metacognition

238
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
17 Think of a time where you
experienced a professional
setback, did an
organizational mentor
outside your peer group (ie:
DH, XO, CO, DCAG,
CAG, etc) help you
develop strategies to enable
your recovery?
Nom Yes
No
1 Knowledge—
Metacognition
18 My work experience matches
my expectations; I am
doing what I signed up for.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Expectancy
19 At work, I feel a sense of
freedom of choice in the
things I undertake.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Expectancy
20 My work environment
improves my overall
motivation.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Expectancy
21 I believe a successful career
is defined by achieving
personal goals.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Expectancy

239
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
22
In your opinion, what is the
main reason First-term
Naval Aviators are opting
out of continued Naval
service?
Ord Financial
Compensation
Not What They Signed
Up For
Work-Life Balance
Not Enough Career
Flexibility
Dissatisfied with
Leadership
Other
1 Motivation—
Expectancy

Display This Question: If
Q5.2 = Other

22.1
You indicated ‘other’ as
the main reason First-
term Naval Aviators are
opting out of continued
service, please explain.
Open Ended
23
I am gritty, I have
perseverance for long-
term goals.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Perseverance
24
I easily adapt to changing
situations.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Perseverance
25
Support from my leaders
increases my motivation.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Perseverance

240
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
26
What is the likelihood you
will stay in the Navy until
retirement?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly Likely
Not at all Likely
1 Motivation—
Perseverance

Display This Question:
If Q7.2 = Somewhat likely
Or Q7.2 = Slightly Likely
Or Q7.2 = Not at all Likely

26.1
Please explain your
response.
Open Ended 1 Motivation—
Perseverance
27
How do each of the
following factors
influence your motivation
to continue serving in the
Navy?

27.1
Time away from family
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.2
Opportunity for advanced
education, internship, or
fellowship
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.3
Military Administration
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.4
Operational Tempo
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value

241
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
27.5
Trust in leadership
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.8
Concerns and grievances
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.9
Compensation
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.10
PCS Moves
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.11
Military Lifestyle
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value
27.12
Spouse Career
Ord Significantly Increases
Somewhat Increases
No Impact
Somewhat Decreases
Significantly Decreases
1 Motivation—
Value

242
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
28
I value serving.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Value
29
Flight time is more
important than my other
responsibilities.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Value
30
I value career flexibility
over the ‘golden path’ to
command.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Value
31
Financial compensation is
more important to me
than increased leadership
opportunities.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Value
32
I value the feedback in my
performance evaluation.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Value

243
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
33
If you have a graduate
degree, was it mostly
completed in residence or
as a distance program?
Select all that apply.
In-residence (Self-
funded)
In-residence (Navy
funded)
Distance Program
(Self-funded)
Distance Program
(Navy funded)
I do not have a
graduate degree but
desire to attain one
while on active duty.
I do not desire to attain
a graduate degree.
1 Motivation—
Value
34
What aspect of your
service do you value the
most, if anything?
Open Ended
35
I believe my job is very
rewarding.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 1
(Support)
36
The leadership in my unit
are good role models.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 1
(Support)
37
I receive adequate
recognition for my
performance.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 1
(Support)

244
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
38
I have the autonomy to make
important organizational
decisions.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 1
(Support)
39
I have the right balance
between personal and
professional needs.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Efficacy
40
Feedback from my
leadership encourages my
self-confidence.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Efficacy
41
My leadership connects the
unit’s mission or purpose to
my values.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Efficacy
42
My unit encourages me to
achieve my professional
goals.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Motivation—
Efficacy
43
Do you aspire to aviation
command?
Yes
No

Skip To: Q9.4 If Q9.2 =
No

245
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
43.1
What supports do you need
to achieve this goal?
Open Ended

Skip To: End of Block If
Condition: What supports
do you need t... Is
Displayed. Skip To: End
of Block.

43.2
You indicated you do not
aspire to aviation
command, please explain
why not.
Open Ended
44
My unit leadership
distributes additional
responsibility fairly.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 2
(Fairness)
45
People in my unit are
treated based solely on
their performance.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 2
(Fairness)
46
I believe performance
rankings are fair.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 2
(Fairness)
47
I believe the Navy’s
promotion and milestone
screen boards are fair.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 2
(Fairness)

246
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
48
I believe the career
management processes (ie:
detailer interactions) are
transparent.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Model
Influence 2
(Fairness)
49
I believe I make a difference
to my unit.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 1
(Purpose)
50
I believe the Navy values
me as an individual.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 1
(Purpose)
51
I believe the Navy supports
my long-term professional
goals.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 1
(Purpose)
52
I believe serving in the
Navy is more than a job, it
is a calling.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 1
(Purpose)
53
What is the most
dissatisfying part of your
job?
Open Ended

247
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
54
Authority, responsibility, and
accountability are balanced
in my unit.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 2
(Trust)
55
Senior leadership
understands the challenges
in my unit today.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 2
(Trust)
56
I trust my unit leadership.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 2
(Trust)
57
My peers perform their
duties to the best of their
ability.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 2
(Trust)
58
There is a “say-do” gap
among leadership.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 2
(Trust)

248
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
59
I seek most of my career
advice from (select one)
Nom Commanding Officer
Executive Officer
Department Head
Peers
Detailer
Spouse / Fiancée /
Significant other
Mentor
Social Media
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 3
(Mentorship)
60
I have a mentor.
Nom Yes
No

61
My mentor is available
when I need to guidance.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 3
(Mentorship)
62
My mentor makes me feel I
can successfully complete
difficult tasks.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 Cultural
Setting
Influence 3
(Mentorship)
63
My mentor motivated me to
improve my work product
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 3
(Mentorship)
64
I feel the relationships I
have with unit leaders are
just superficial.
Ord Strongly Agree
Mostly Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 Cultural
Setting
Influence 3
(Mentorship)

249
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
65
How old are you?
Nom 20 or younger
21 – 25
26 – 30
31 – 35
36 – 40
41 – 45
46 – 50
51 – 55
56 – 60
61 or older

66
Do you have children?
Nom
Yes
No

67
If yes, how many?
Nom
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more

68
If Yes, what are the ages
categories of your children?
(Select all that apply)
Nom
< 2 yrs
2 - 4 yrs
4 - 6 yrs
6 - 8 yrs
8 - 10 yrs
10 - 12 yrs
12 - 14 yrs
14 - 16 yrs
16 - 18 yrs
> 18 yrs

69
How long have you been in
the Navy?
Nom
0 - 2 years
3 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
16 - 20 years
21 - 25 years
26 - 30 years
31 + years

250
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
70
What is the highest level of
education you have
received?
Nom
BA
BS
MA
MBA
MPP
MS
MD
JD
PhD
EdD

71
What is your
commissioning source?
Nom
Service Academy
ROTC
OCS
Other (Enlisted
commissioning
program, Law/Medical
student program, etc)

72
What was your course of
study in college?
Nom
Arts & Humanities
Science & Engineering
Mathematics
Social Sciences
Business
Law
Medicine
Other

73
Do you have prior enlisted
experience?
Nom
Yes
No

74
If yes, how many years of
prior enlisted service do
you have?
Nom
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 or more years

75
How many deployments
have you made in your
career?
Nom
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more

251
# Question Level of
measure
Response options RQ Concept
measured
76
How long was your last
deployment?
Nom
N/A - I have not
deployed before
< 6 months on last
cruise
6 months
7 months
8 months
9 months
10 months
11 months
> 11 months

77
If in a sea tour, in what phase
of the deployment cycle is
your unit?
Nom
In Transition /
Maintenance
Basic
Intermediate
Deployment
Post-deployment, will
surge or currently
surged
Post-deployment, will
not surge

78
How long do you expect
your next cruise or
deployment to be?
Nom
< 6 months
6 months
7 months
8 months
9 months
10 months
11 months
> 11 months

252
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Factors Influencing First-Term Naval Aviator Continuation Opt-In Rates

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: William Sherrod

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Jennifer Phillips

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 that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
adversely impacting First-term Naval Aviator opt-in rates for continued service. This study seeks
to understand individual knowledge and motivation as well as understand how organizational
culture and context influence individual retention behaviors. We hope to learn what causes First-
term Naval Aviators to opt-in for continuation. You are invited as a possible participant because
you are a Naval Aviator who is still under your initial service obligation incurred upon the
completion of initial flight training.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You are asked to participate in an anonymous online survey. The survey consists of demographic
information, several multiple-choice statements and questions, and a few open-ended questions
for your free text response. The survey will take approximately 15-20 minutes, depending on the
length of your responses. You area under no obligation to participate in the survey. If you start
the survey but change your mind and decide you no longer want to participate, you may do so at
any time.

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to acknowledge you understand this survey is
voluntary and follow the embedded link to the survey.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, the United States Navy, 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.

The data is anonymous. No biographical information will be collected and only demographic
data relevant to data analysis. Additionally, the internet protocol (IP) addresses are not collected.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact William Sherrod via email at
wsherrod@usc.edu or Dr. Jennifer Phillips at jlp62386@usc.edu.

253

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.

254
Appendix C: Text Analysis Key Word Query Coding
Parent Topic
Sub-Topic
Key Word Query Coding
Communications
Channels & Tools “query”: “channels | \”all hands\” not \”all hands on
deck\” not \”all hands in\” | forum | \”faq\” | \”faqs\” | \”q
and a\” | \”q&a\” | \”q & a\” | memo | bulletin | intranet |
channel | email | (communicate slack)~2 | instant
message | instant messaging | text not (text boxes) not
(text book) | poster not (poster child) | (town halls) |
(company meeting)”
Clarity & Consistency “query”: “(clear communication)~2 | (consistent
communication)~2 | (aligned communication)~2 |
(frequent communication)~2 | (regular
communication)~2 | messaging | (mixed message)~1 |
(conflicting message)~1 | (conflicting information)~1 |
(consistent message)~1 | (clear message)~1 |
(consistently communicate)~2 | (clearly communicate)~2
| (frequently communicate)~2 | (regularly
communicate)~2 | (communication clarity)~2 | (ongoing
communication)”
Informed “query”: “(communicate down)~2 | (communication
flow)~1 | (communicate direction)~2 | (communicate
vision)~2 | (keep updated employees)~3 inform | (timely
communication)~3 | (information sharing)~3 |
(communicate strategy)~2 | (communicate priorities)~2 |
(communicate change)~2 | (keep informed)~2”
Overall Communication “query”: “communication | communicate | convey |
comms”
Transparency & Openness “query”: “(communicate reason)~2 | (communicate
decision)~2 | (open discuss)~2 | (open discussion)~2 |
transparent | transparency | (honest communication)~3 |
visibility | (open communication)~2 | (openly share)~3 |
(truthful communication)~3 | (open dialogue)~1 | (honest
dialogue)~1 | (openly discuss)~1 | (open and honest)”

255
Parent Topic
Sub-Topic
Key Word Query Coding
Culture & Values
Culture & Environment “query”: “culture | \”work environment\” | atmosphere |
toxic | political | politics | \”feel welcomed\” |
(welcoming environment)~5 | \”hierarchical\” | \”top
down\” | \”command and control\” | fun | working
conditions | (environment productive)~5 | (environment
enjoyable)~5 | (environment unproductive)~5 |
(environment frustrating)~5 | (environment
demoralizing)~5 | \”office environment\”“
Mission & Values “query”: “\”values\” not \”values employees\” not
\”value employees\” | principles | (live values)~4 |
(align values)~4 | mission | (company purpose)~3 |
(demonstrate values)~4”
Reputation “query”: “(respected company) | brand not \”brand new\”
| reputation not \”his reputation\” not \”her reputation\”
| image | (stay competitive)~1 | (care sustainability)~4 |
(care for environment)~4 | (community giving)~4 |
(serve community)~4 | (social responsibility) |
(corporate responsibility) | (corporate citizen)~4 |
(volunteer community)~4 | (volunteering events) |
(carbon neutral) | (carbon footprint) | donate | (match
donations)~2 | \”CSR\” | (corporate social
responsibility) | \”lead-certified\” | (ethical sourcing)~2
| (zero emissions) | (social impact)~3 | (corporate
citizenship) | (socially responsible) | (ethical company)
customer | client | consumer | (service delivery)~1 |
(service excellence)~2 | (service flow)~2 |
\”shareholder\” not \”stakeholder\” | \”shareholders\”
not \”stakeholders\” | \”CSAT\” | \”NPS\” | (lifetime
value) | \”QA\” | (\”quality\” not (quality people)~1 not
(quality workplace)~2 not (quality colleagues)~1 not
(quality coworkers)~1 not (quality training)~1) | (high
standard)~1 | (low standard)~1 | \”quality work\” |
\”quality assurance\” | respect”

256
Parent Topic
Sub-Topic
Key Word Query Coding
Decision Making Effectiveness
Decision Making Transparency “query”: “(transparency decision)~4 | (transparent
decision)~4 | (reasons decision)~3 | (rationale
decision)~3 | (open decision)~2 | (why decision)~4 |
(how made decision)~4”
Decision Speed “query”: “(efficient decision)~3 | (efficient
decisionmaking)~3 | (fast decision)~4 | (slow
decision)~4 | (speed decision)~4 | (fast
decisionmaking)~4 | (slow decisionmaking)~4 | (speed
decisionmaking)~4 | (timely decision) | (decision
approval)~2 | (bureaucracy decision)~4 | (layers
decision)~4 | (red tape decision)~4 | (timely
decisionmaking) | (decisionmaking approval)~2 |
(bureaucracy decisionmaking)~4 | (layers
decisionmaking)~4 | (red tape decisionmaking)~4”
Empowerment & Ownership “query”: “(empower decisions)~3 | (owner decision)~3 |
(decision accountability)~3 | (topdown decision)~2 |
(sign off)~1 | (decision ownership)~3 | (input
decisions)~1| (decision layers)~3 | (decision
approvals)~3 | (decision stakeholders)~4 | RACI
|(empower decisionmaking)~3 | (owner
decisionmaking)~3 | (decisionmaking accountability)~3
| (topdown decisionmaking)~2 | (decisionmaking
ownership)~3 | (input
decisionmaking)~1|(decisionmaking layers)~3 |
(decisionmaking approvals)~3 | (decisionmaking
stakeholders)~3 |(decision rights)~3”

257
Overall Decision Making “query”: “decisionmaking| decision making | decision”
Diversity, Inclusion, & Fairness
Diversity “query”: “diversity | diverse | gender | racial | LGBT |
LGBTQ | \”LGBTQ+\” | \”sexual orientation\” |
disability | \”age\” not \”day and age\” | female | male |
woman | ethnicity | \”my race\” | disabled | gay | lesbian
| (different backgrounds)”
Fairness & Equity “query”: “(unfair treat)~2 | (unfair treatment)~2 |
favoritism | favouritism | \”regardless of background\” |
(equal opportunity)~3 | (treat fair)~2 | (fair
opportunity)~2 | inequality | \”pay gap\” |
discrimination | \”sexist\” | \”racist\” | \”ableist\” |
homophobic | (color skin)~2 | (colour skin)~2 |
discriminate | \”pay equity\” | \”fairness\” | \”regardless
of race\” | \”based on race\” | \”irrespective of race\” |
\”glass ceilling\” | \”boys club\” | (fair treatment)~2 |
bias | fairness | integrity | (consistent treated)~2 |
\”ageism\” | nepotism | equality”
Inclusion “query”: “inclusivity | inclusiveness | inclusion |
\”belonging\” | \”authentic self\” | (possible
authentic)~2 | (respect differences)~2 | (celebrate
differences)~2 | (embrace differences)~2 \”be
yourself\” | \”be myself\” | (boys club)”
Engagement
Career Path “query”: “board or timing or path or promote”
Flying “query”: “flying or career or aviation or pilot”
Intent to stay “query”: “(stay here)~2 | \”quitting\” | \”to quit\” |
retention | (losing leaders)~5 | (losing employees)~5 |
(leave company)~5 | attrition | turnover | (stay
company)~5 | retain | (quit job)~3 | \”intent to stay\” |
\”intent to leave\” | \”plan to stay\” | \”plan to leave\”“
Meaningful Work “query”: “\”meaningful work\”| \”interesting work\” |
\”rewarding work\” | \”sense of accomplishment\” |
\”challenging work\” | ((interesting work)~2 not
\”interesting people\”) | (variety work)~2 | (job
fulfilling)~2 | (work fulfilling)~2 | job satisfaction |
(satisfied job)~3”

258
Engagement
Motivated “query”: “engaged | motivated | inspired | energized |
\”discretionary effort\” | \”extra mile\” | (look forward
to work)”
Pride “query”: “pride | proud”
Recommend “query”: “(recommend work)~6 | (great company)~1 |
(great place)~1 | (recommend place)~3 | (recommend to
friends)~3 | (recommend to family)~3 | (recommend
company)~3 | (place to work)”
Ethics & Safety
Ethics “query”: “violent | ethical not \”work ethic\” | bully |
ethics not \”work ethic\” | \”whistleblower\” | (human
rights)~3 | (safe complain)~3 | retribution | retaliate |
harass | crime | criminal | abuse | abusive | violent |
threaten | (employee complaint)~3 | racist | sexist |
homophobic | belittle | humiliate | yell | scream |
profanity | profane | shout not \”shout out\” | \”unsafe\” |
violate | violations | breach | fraud | liar”
Safety “query”: “accident not \”by accident\” | safe | safety |
(danger employees)~4 | (danger staff)~4 | dangerous |
unsafe | hazard | (safety training)~5 | (safety
climate)~5”
Execution
Delivery “query”: “\”operating\” | execute | implement | excellence
| deliver | delivery | plan not \”development plan\” not
\”career plan\” not \”training plan\” not \”action plan\”
not \”comp plan\” not \”compensation plan\” |
\”planning\” | (company performance)~2 | (achieve
company objectives)~6 | (achieve business
objectives)~6 | (achieve company goals)~6 | (achieve
business goals)~6 | (business performance)~1 | (achieve
company targets)~2 | \”stakeholder\” not
\”shareholder\” | \”stakeholders\” not \”shareholders\” |
project | prioritize | deprioritize | (competing
priorities)~2 | \”sense of urgency\” | execution |
(continuous improvement)~3 | (continuously
improve)~3 | roadblocks | obstacles | accountability |
accountable | ownership | deployment | (achieve

259
KPIs)~6 | (business metrics) | (project management) |
(agile teams) | (overcome challenges)”
Efficiency “query”: “lean not \”lean on\” not \”leaning\” not \”lean
in\” | efficient | efficiency | simplicity | simplify |
complexity | complex | bureaucracy | bureaucratic |
productivity | productive | layers | \”red tape\” | (fewer
resources) | \”do more with less\” | streamline |
automate | cumbersome | waste”
Innovation “query”: “(make mistake) | risk-taking | innovation |
innovate | (new idea)~0 | creativity | creative |
experiment | \”white space\”“
Processes & Procedures “query”: “mechanisms | \”routines\” | \”workflows\” |
process | procedures | \”practices\” | \”methods\” |
\”course of action\” | governance | protocol | guidelines
| documentation | policies | rules”
Quality “query”: “\”QA\” | (\”quality\” not (quality people)~1 not
(quality workplace)~2 not (quality colleagues)~1 not
(quality coworkers)~1 not (quality training)~1) | (high
standard)~1 | (low standard)~1 | \”quality work\” |
\”quality assurance\”“
Speed & Agility “query”: “slow | speed | fast | agile | agility | cumbersome
| nimble | heavy-lifting | (turnaround time)| accelerate |
expedite | simplified | (quick decisionmaking)~3 | (fast
decisionmaking)~3 (slow decisionmaking)~3 | \”keep
pace\” | (quick decision)~3 | (fast decision)~3 | (slow
decision)~3 | (keep up trends)~6 | (keep up
competition)~6”

260
Leadership
Coaching & Feedback “query”: “fitrep or eval or grades or reports or feedback
or mentor or high water”
Communication “query”: “(share goals)~3 | (communicate goals)~3 |
(share priorities)~2 | (communicate priorities)~2 |
(share expectations)~3 | (communicate expectations)~3
| (share OKRs)~3 | (communicate OKRs)~3 | (manager
communication)~3 | (leadership communication)~3 |
(supervisor communication)~3 | (management
communication)~3 | (leader communication)~3 | (clear
leadership) | (manager communicates)~3 | (leadership
communicates)~3 | (supervisor communicates)~3 |
(management communicates)~3 | (leader
communicates)~3 | (open communication)~2 | (openly
communicate)~1 | (transparent communication) |
(timely communication) | (explain decisions)~3 | (share
decisions)~3 | (communicate decisions)~3”
Competence “query”: “(manager competent)~3 | (leader competent)~3
| (supervisor competent)~3 | (leadership competent)~3 |
(management competent)~3 | (qualified manager)~3 |
(qualified leadership)~3 | (qualified leader)~3 |
(qualified supervisor)~3| (qualified management)~3 |
(manager effective)~1 |(manager effectiveness)~1 |
(leader effectiveness)~1 | (leader effective)~1|
(leadership effectiveness)~1 | (leadership effective)~1 |
(supervisor effective)~1 | (supervisor effectiveness)~1 |
(effective management)~1 | (effectiveness
management)~1 | (incompetent leader)~1 |
(incompetent manager)~1 | (incompetent supervisor)~1
| (incompetent leadership)~1 | (incompetent
management)~1 | (helpful manager)~3 | (dependable
manager)~3 | (dependable management)~3 |
(dependable leader)~3 | (dependable supervisor)~3 |
(dependable leadership)~3 | (helpful supervisor)~3 |
(helpful leader)~3 | (helpful leadership)~3 | (helpful
management)~3”
Decision Making “query”: “(leader prioritize)~2 | (leadership prioritize)~3
| (management prioritize)~3| (clear decisions)~3 |
(explain decisions)~3 | (share decisions)~3 |
(communicate decisions)~3 | (timely decisions)~3 |
(input into decisions)~4 | (decision clarity)~2 |
(supervisor prioritize)~3 | (manager prioritize)~2”

261
Leadership
Employee Listening “query”: “(employee opinion)~0 | (opinion of
employee)~1 |(employee input)~4 | (value input)~4 |
(ask input)~4 | (employee voice)~4 | (employee
ideas)~4 | (employee concerns)~4 | (listen employee)~4
| (employee survey)~4 | (employee suggestion)~4 |
(respond to feedback) | (respond to input) | (speak up) |
(feel heard) | (respect input)~3 | \”responsive to
employee\” | \”responsive to employees\” | (hear
voice)~2 | (listen people)~3 | (leader listens)~4 |
(manager listens)~4 | (leadership listens)~4 |
(supervisor listens)~4 | (management listens)~4| survey
| (take action)~2 | (ideas valued)~2 | (value opinion)~2”
Empowerment “query”: “(own decisions)~3 | empowerment |
empowered | autonomy | micromanage |
micromanagement | discretion | authority”
Leader “query”: “command or leader or CO or CAG or O6 or
admiral or flag or politics or trust |\”senior leadership\”
| executives | \”senior management\” | \”senior mgt\” |
\”senior mgmt\” | \”upper management\” | exec |
executives | director | board | SLT | \”senior leader\” |
\”VP\” | \”EVP\” | \”SVP\” | \”managing director\” |
president | \”upper mgmt\” | \”upper mgt\” | \”senior
ldsp\” | ELT | \”upper leadership\” | \”top leadership\” |
c-suite | leaders | leadership”
Managers “query”: “managers | management | supervisor | boss |
\”team lead\” | \”shift lead\” | \”shift supervisor\”“
Recognition “query”: “\”thank you\” | gratitude | (top performer)~0 |
reward | award | recognition | ((recognize or recognise)
not (\”I recognize\”~3 or \”I recognise\”~3)) |
(appreciated not (\”people appreciate\” or \”I
appreciate\”)) | acknowledgement | appreciation | \”pat
on the back\” | (celebrate success)~2| (celebrate
employee)~2 | (celebrate accomplishments)~2 |
(celebrate wins)~2 | (celebrate team)~2 | (celebrate
staff)~2 | (celebrate achievements)~2 | (feel valued)~1”

262
Role Clarity “query”: “(level responsibility)~3 | (responsibilities
change)~2 | (new responsibilities)~2 | (clear
responsibilities)~3 | (job clear)~3 | (job clarity)~3 | (role
clarity)~3 | (role clear)~3 | (expect me)~4 | (job
expectations)~2 | (role expectations)~2 | (understand
expectations)~2 | (understanding expectations)~2 |
(understand role)~2 | (understand job)~2 | (understand
responsibilities)~2”
Role Model “query”: “(leader mentor)~5 | (leader live values)~5 |
(manager live values)~5 | (model values)~3 | (model
behavior)~3 | role model | \”walk the talk\” | (example
leader)~1”
Trust & Care “query”: “\”walk the talk\” | \”has my back\” | \”has your
back\” | openness | confidence | trust | authentic |
genuine | transparency | \”responsive to employee\” |
authenticity | (serve employees)~2 | integrity | (treat
respect)~3 | (treat employees)~3 | (honest leader)~4 |
(honest manager)~4 | (honest supervisor)~4 | (honest
leadership)~4 | (honest management)~4 | (trustworthy
leadership)~4 | (trustworthy leader)~4 | (trustworthy
manager)~4 | (trustworthy supervisor)~4 | ( trustworthy
management)~4 | follow through | (leader accessible)~4
| (leadership accessible)~4 | (manager accessible)~4 |
(management accessible)~4 | (supervisor accessible)~4
| (leader visible)~4 | (leadership visible)~4 | (manager
visible)~4 | (management visible)~4 | (supervisor
visible)~4 | (leader connected)~4 | (leadership
connected)~4 | (manager connected)~4 | (management
connected)~4 | (supervisor connected)~4 |
(disconnected leader)~4 | (leadership disconnected)~4 |
(manager disconnected)~4 | (management
disconnected)~4 | (supervisor disconnected)~4 |
(manager fair)~2 | (leader fair)~2 | (supervisor fair)~2 |
(supportive management)~4 | (supportive
leadership)~4| (supportive supervisor)~4 | (supportive
leader)~4 | (supportive manager)~4 | ((care
employees)~4 not healthcare) | (care wellbeing)~3 not
healthcare | (value employees)~1 | (show care)~3 not
healthcare | sincere | (feel valued)~1 | (manager
approachable)~4 | (management approachable)~4 |
(supervisor approachable)~4 | (leadership
approachable)~4 | (leader approachable)~4 | \”open
door\”“

263
Leadership
Vision & Strategy “query”: “vision not \”vision insurance\” | (company
priorities)~2 | (company goals)~2 | (company
objectives)~2 | (business goals)~2 | (business KPIs)~2 |
(company KPIs)~2 | (business objectives)~2 | \”big
bets\”| strategy | strategic | (company direction)~2 |
(future direction)~2 | \”path forward\” | (future of
company)~3 | (align leaders)~4 | (align business)~4 |
(align operations)~4 | (align teams)~4 | (align
organization)~4 | (align resources)~4 | (align work)~4 |
(align executives)~4 | prioritize | deprioritize |
(company targets)~1 | (leader inspires)~5 | (manager
inspires)~5 | (supervisor inspires)~5 | (management
inspires)~5 | (inspire leadership)~5 | (supervisor
motivates)~5 | (motivates manager)~5 | (motivates
leader)~5 | (management motivates)~5 | (leadership
motivates)~5 | visionary”
Organization Change
Change Management “query”: “(communicating change)~5 | (communication
change)~5 | (poorly managed change)~2 | “change
management” | (managing change)~2 | (ambiguity
change)~5 | (direction change)~5 | (leading change)~3”
Pace of Change “query”: “(too much change)~3 | (amount change)~2 |
(nonstop change)~2 | (constant change)~3 | (rapid
change)~3”
Reduction in Workforce “query”: “layoff | furlough | downsize | “RIF” |
“reduction in force”“
Restructuring “query”: “(organization redesign)~1| (spans and layers) |
flatten | (reporting change)~2 | (organization change)~3
| (org change)~3 | (restructure org)~3 | (restructure
organization)~3 | (leader change)~2 | (leadership
change)~2 | (manager change)~2 | (supervisor
change)~2 | (management change)~2 | (organizational
change)~3 | reorg | merger | acquisition restructuring |
(process redesign) | rightsize | structure changes not
\”pay structure\” not \”bonus structure\” not
\”compensation structure\” | divestiture”

264
Pay & Benefits
Base Pay “query”: “(pay not \”pay for\” not \”pays for\”) | salary |
salaries | wage | \”cost of living\” | \”living wage\” |
\”minimum wage\” | \”merit increase\” | \”pay grade\” |
overtime | \”pay equity\” | \”equal pay\” | (raise not
(\”raising\” or (raise voice)~2 or (raise morale)~2 or
(raise issue)~3 or (raise concern)~2 or (raise family)~2 or
\”raised\” or \”raise the bar\” or \”reise\”)) | paycheck |
hourly | paycheck | \”base pay\” | \”merit pay\”“
Benefits “query”: “(\”benefits\” not \”benefits of\”) | 401k | 401(k)
| retirement | pension | pretax | posttax | (company
match)~1 | (match contribution)~2 | vest | ROTH | IRA |
(retirement savings)~4 | HSA | FSA | \”dependent care\” |
childcare | (cost premium)~3 | deductible | gym | perks |
discounts | copay | reimburse | (medical benefits)~1 |
(stock purchase)~2 | (tuition reimbursement)~0 | subsidy
| wellness | wellbeing | \”flexible spending account\” |
vision | adoption assistance | prescription | \”health
savings account\” | dental | (commuter benefits)~0 | (bus
pass)~2 | parking | (health plan)~0 | cafeteria | (free
food)~2 | (volunteer community)~4 | (volunteering
events) | insurance not (car insurance)~2 not (home
insurance)~3 not (insurance case)”
Compensation Philosophy “query”: “\”comp\” | (compensation decisions)~2 |
(reward performance)~2 | (reward contribution)~2 |
commensurate | \”pay for performance\” | \”comp\” |
(compensation decisions)~2”
Incentive Pay “query”: “bonus | incentive | (stock not \”in stock\” or
\”out of stock\”) | ESPP | RSU | vest | \”shares\” | (stock
grant)~3 | \”stock options\” | options | commission |
\”quota\”“
Time Off “query”: “vacation | (holiday not (holiday party)~1) |
\”get leave\” | \”extended leave\” | \”annual leave\” |
\”leave of absence\” | PTO | \”time off\” | maternity |
paternity | \”parental leave\” | \”unpaid leave\” | \”paid
leave\” | \”sick leave\” | \”study leave\” | (days off)~2 |
\”family leave\”| FMLA”

265
People and Teams
Collaboration “query”: “\”teamwork\” | (aligned teams)~2 | \”shared
goals\” | \”shared priorities\” | \”shared OKRs\”| \”shared
objectives\” | \”team goals\” | \”team objectives\” | \”team
OKRs\” | \”team priorities\” | (align teams)~2 |
collaborate | collaboration | (across department)~3 |
\”cross-team\” | collaborative | silo | cooperate | (work
together)~3 | (\”one team\” not \”one team member\”) |
\”cross-department\” | cohesion | (inter department)~0 |
\”shared purpose\” | (aligned priorities)~2 | (alignment
team)~3 | (competing priorities)~2 | (conflicting
priorities)~2 | united | camaraderie | (coordination
departments)~2 | (coordination functions)~2 |
(coordination teams)~2 | \”cross-functional\” | (achieve
together)~3”
Coworkers & Teams “query”: “(people work with)~2 | (amazing people)~3 |
(good people)~3 | (great people)~3 | talented | (great
group)~1 | passion | (work peers)~3 | (relationships
peers)~3 | (excellent people)~3 | (quality people)~3 |
coworkers | colleagues | teammates | (team member)~2 |
team | workgroup | (interesting people)~1 | (passionate
people)~1 | (talented people)~1 | (top talent) |
(incompetent people)~1 | “positive attitude”“
Performance & Development
Career Growth “query”: “(promotion not \”store promotion\”) | career |
(advance level)~4 | promote | (advance next level)~4 |
(opportunities advance)~4 | (room to advance) | (able to
advance) | (advance grow)~4 | (advance me)~4 | (advance
positions)~4 | (advance roles)~4 | (advance jobs)~4| (my
advancement)~0 | (advancement positions)~4 |
(advancement roles)~4 | (advancement jobs)~4|
(advancement next level)~4 | (opportunities
advancement)~4 | mobility | (move organization)~5 |
(external hire)~2 | (promote within)~2 | (job posted)~2 |
(chance interview)~2 | (get to next level) | (development
goals) | (potential roles)”

266
Performance & Development
Growth & Development “query”: “(growth not \”revenue growth\” not (growth
business)) | (develop not \”developer\” not \”develop
products\” not \”develop more products\” not \”was
developed\” not \”well developed\”) | learn | (stretch
assignment)~2 | rotation | \”stretch project\” | (job
shadow)~2 | (development plan) | (development
conversations)~3 | (performance conversations)~3 |
skills | learn | competency | (improve my performance) |
(development goals) | \”hipo\” | (high potential) | (meet
potential) | (developmental opportunities) | mentor |
(rotational assignment) | mentorship | (leadership
development) | (manager development) | (my potential) |
(lateral move)~2 | (rotate role)~2 | (rotate job)~2 |
feedback | 360 |(improve performance)~4 | \”coaching\”“
Job Fit “query”: “(right role)~3 | (in right job)~3 | (job fit)~4 |
(role fit)~4 | (fit skills)~4”
Performance Management “query”: “\”pay for performance\” | \”quarterly review\” |
(performance review)~2 | (performance rate)~1 |
competencies | \”goals\” | \”OKR\” | \”KPIs\”
|\”objectives\” | (performance conversation)~4 |
\”performance improvement plan\” | (rating calibration) |
(forced curve) | (bell curve) | (performance appraisal) |
\”meet the curve\” | (rating distribution)~1 | \”year end
review\” | \”mid year review\” | (compensation decisions)
| \”topgrading\” | (performance evaluation)~2 | \”PIP\” |
(cascade goals)~2 | goal-setting | rating not \”rate\” not
\”rates\” | (performance rating) | (HiPo rating) | (rate
potential)”
Training “query”: “training | train | (classes not \”economy class\”
not \”business class\” not \”top class\”) | facilitator |
trainer | (online class)~2 | orientation | onboard |
onboarding | skills | education | module | \”conferences\” |
(attend conference)~2 | (go conference)~2 | \”dues\” |
(course not \”of course\”) | induction | certification |
competencies | workshop | \”microlearning\” |
\”macrolearning\”“
Training Development “query”: “tool || value || deployment || process || trust ||
retention || priority || time || service || mission”

267
Resources
Admin Burden “query”: “admin or ground or paperwork or burden”
Budget “query”: “budget | (budget cut)~2 | \”cost-cutting\” | (cut
costs) | fiscal | finances”
IT & Systems “query”: “system | CRM | database | technology | server |
software | hardware | tech | laptop | mac | PC | keyboard |
mouse | screen | computer | (internet connection)~2 |
(internet access)~2 | \”internet explorer\” | (slow
internet)~3 | video | skype | \”zoom\” | webex | Microsoft
| \”google drive\” | \”sharepoint\” | \”google docs\” |
\”google hangout\” | wifi | ethernet | network | device |
(use slack)~5 | (slack tools)~4 | \”google chrome\” |
tableau | (help desk) | (IT support)~3 | equipment”
Staffing “query”: “hiring | (late night)~2 | \”hour week\” | \”hour
day\” | \”hours a week\” | \”hours per week\” | \”more
with less\” | \”hour days\”| (too much work)~3 | (enough
staff)~4 | \”staffing\” | manpower | \”understaffed\” |
(manning levels)~1 | \”more staff\” | \”more people\” |
\”enough people\” | (short staff)~1 | \”long hours\” | \”job
freeze\” | \”hiring freeze\” | headcount | (qualified
people)~3 | (qualified candidates)~3 | interview |
outsourcing | outsource | \”contingent staff\” |
\”contingent workers\” | \”contractors\” | (seasonal
staff)~1 | (seasonal workers)~1 | (seasonal employees)~1
| (seasonal members)~1 | (temporary staff)~1 |
(temporary workers)~1 | (temporary employees)~1 |
(temporary members)~1 | \”temps\” | parttime | fulltime |
layoff | furlough”
Tools & Resources “query”: “resource | funding | tool | information | supplies
| \”materials\”“
Work Space “query”: “(open space) | renovation | interior | (stand
desk)~2 | ergonomic | (meeting room)~1 | chairs |
(conference room)~1 | workstation | \”workspace\”|
bathroom | cafeteria | gym | office”

268
Wellbeing
Flexible Working “query”: “(flexible work)~1 | (work home)~2 | (flexible
hours)~2 | (flexible schedule)~2 | (remote work)~1 |
(flexibility work)~2 | (flexibility job)~2 | \”compressed
work week\” | \”telecommuting\” | \”flex time\” |
\”telecommute\” | \”part-time\”“
Job Security “query”: “job security | layoff | furlough”
Wellbeing & Resilience “query”: “resilience | \”well being\” | wellbeing | stress
not \”stress enough\” | burnout | burnt out | exhausted |
anxiety | morale | working conditions | resilience |
optimistic | persevere | (lose hope)”
Workload & Work-Life Balance “query”: “(personal balance)~3 | worklife | (work
balance)~3 | workload | (budget cut)~2 | (late night)~2 |
\”hour week\” | \”hour day\” | \”hours a week\” | \”hours
per week\” | \”more with less\” | \”hour days\”| (too
much work)~3 | (enough staff)~4 | \”staffing\” |
manpower | \”understaffed\” | (manning levels)~1 |
\”more staff\” | \”more people\” | \”enough people\” |
(short staff)~1 | \”long hours\” | \”job freeze\” | \”hiring
freeze\”“
Company Image “query”: “(respected company) | brand not \”brand new\”
| reputation not \”his reputation\” not \”her reputation\” |
image | (stay competitive)~1”
Corporate Responsibility “query”: “(care sustainability)~4 | (care for
environment)~4 | (community giving)~4 | (serve
community)~4 | (social responsibility) | (corporate
responsibility) | (corporate citizen)~4 | (volunteer
community)~4 | (volunteering events) | (carbon neutral) |
(carbon footprint) | donate | (match donations)~2 |
\”CSR\” | (corporate social responsibility) | \”lead-
certified\” | (ethical sourcing)~2 | (zero emissions) |
(social impact)~3 | (corporate citizenship) | (socially
responsible) | (ethical company)”
Customer Focus “query”: “customer | client | consumer | (service
delivery)~1 | (service excellence)~2 | (service flow)~2 |
\”shareholder\” not \”stakeholder\” | \”shareholders\” not
\”stakeholders\” | \”CSAT\” | \”NPS\” | (lifetime value)”
No Comment
269

Appendix D: Qualtrics Qualitative Analysis
Qualtrics Text iQ text analysis tool is a web-based qualitative inquiry tool that codes,
performs sentiment analysis, and provides dynamic visualizations. User-defined topics or a
Qualtrics default employee experience library of family topics and subtopics are the basis for
coding. Sentiment analysis is assigned a polarity and a numeric score based on the language in
the response, the question text itself, and any manual edits made to sentiment analysis. The
sentiment is a score from -10 for a very negative response to +10 for a very positive response.
Polarity is a measure of how mixed a comment is for those that contain multiple sentiments. As
noted in the open-ended summaries, positively framed prompts generated typically generated
more positive sentiment scores.
Text iQ provided a means to sort and organize a large amount of qualitative data rapidly.
The software provides a rudimentary analysis tool for this research. However, the use of a
generic topic library and the use of unique organizational terms increase the likelihood of
incomplete or inaccurate coding. To truly understand the perspectives of survey participants, a
deeper and more deliberate qualitative analysis is required. Tables D1 though D8 present the top
three family topics and subtopics, mean sentiment score, and sentiment distribution for each
open-ended question in the protocol.

270

Table D1
Open Ended Question 1
Prompt:
You indicated that you either probably or definitely will not accept the
ADHRB. Why?
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 340
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Pay & Benefits 102 -3.4 5 6 18 22 1 1 76 91
Incentive Pay,
Base Pay,
Benefits,
Execution 58 -3.0 3 2 39 26 0 0 58 38
Delivery,
Efficiency,
Innovation,
Performance &
Development
55 -2.5 6 4 37 25 1 1 56 38
Career
Growth,
Training,
Growth &
Development

271

Table D2
Open Ended Question 2
Prompt:
Is there anything about your experiences as a Naval Aviator that you
wish you knew prior to joining?
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 567
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance
&
Development
193 -2.1 6 17 38 101 0 0 56 150
Career Growth,
Growth &
Development,
Training
Execution 118 -3.2 4 5 31 41 0 0 65 87
Delivery,
Process &
Procedure,
Efficiency,
Leadership 111 -2.8 12 17 19 26 3 4 66 90
Leaders,
Employee
Listening,
Recognition

272

Table D3
Open Ended Question 3
Logic:
In your opinion, what is the primary reason First-term Naval Aviators opt
out of continued Naval service? Display prompt if Other is selected.
Prompt:
You indicated ‘other’ as the main reason First-term Naval Aviators are
opting out of continued service, please explain.
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 75
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance &
Development
37 -3.0 9 4 16 7 0 0 75 32
Career
Growth,
Training,
Performance
Management
Leadership 31 -2.6 10 4 37 14 0 0 53 20
Leaders,
Employee
Listening,
Vision &
Strategy
Pay & Benefits 29 -3.7 5 2 16 6 3 1 76 29
Incentive Pay,
Base Pay,
Benefits

273

Table D4
Open Ended Question 4
Logic:
What is the likelihood you will stay in the Navy until retirement? Display
prompt if Somewhat Likely, Slightly Likely, or Not At All Likely is selected.
Prompt: Please explain your response.
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 766
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance &
Development
367 -2.0 14 68 32 165 1 6 53 272
Career
Growth,
Training,
Growth &
Development
Leadership 269 -2.7 15 56 20 74 3 9 62 231
Leaders,
Recognition,
Trust & Care
Pay & Benefits 248 -2.2 12 38 33 105 3 9 52 164
Benefits,
Incentive
Pay, Base
Pay

274

Table D5
Open Ended Question 5
Prompt: What aspect of your service do you value most?
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 766
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance &
Development
174 1.0 38 85 45 101 0 1 17 37
Training,
Growth &
Development,
Career
Growth,
Leadership 138 1.4 65 81 30 38 1 1 4 5
Leaders,
Trust & Care,
Recognition
People &
Teams
118 3.2 65 81 30 38 1 1 4 5
Coworkers
& Teams,
Collaboration

275

Table D6
Open Ended Question 6
Logic: Do you aspire to aviation command? Display prompt if Yes is selected.
Prompt: What supports do you need to achieve this goal?
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 265
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance &
Development
96 -0.1 30 34 36 41 0 0 34 38
Training,
Growth &
Development,
Career
Growth,
Leadership 69 -0.8 31 23 29 25 0 0 40 34
Leaders, Trust
& Care,
Recognition
Execution 28 -2.5 16 5 26 8 0 0 53 18
Delivery,
Efficiency,
Process &
Procedure

276

Table D7
Open Ended Question 7
Logic: Do you aspire to aviation command? Display prompt if No is selected.
Prompt:
You indicated you do not aspire to aviation command, please explain why
not.
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 617
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Leadership 196 -2.1 14 37 24 63 1 3 61 160
Leaders, Trust
& Care,
Competence,
Recognition
Performance &
Development
171 -2.1 14 31 29 62 0 0 57 123
Career Growth,
Training,
Performance
Management,
Job Fit
Execution 101 -2.5 9 10 31 36 2 2 58 67
Delivery,
Efficiency,
Innovation,
Process &
Procedure

277

Table D8
Open Ended Question 8
Logic: Do you aspire to aviation command? Display prompt if No is selected.
Prompt: What is the most dissatisfying part of your job?
Total Responses: 1,230
Total Comments: 856
Family Topics
Total
Count
Mean
Sentiment
Positive Neutral Mixed Negative Subtopics
% n % n % n % n
Performance &
Development
247 -2.2 9 28 37 114 0 1 54 165
Training,
Career
Growth,
Growth &
Development
Execution 228 -3.6 7 19 22 58 1 2 70 188
Delivery,
Efficiency,
Processes &
Procedures
Leadership 225 -2.9 14 39 21 59 0 1 65 188
Leaders,
Recognition,
Trust & Care

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The U.S. Navy struggles to retain enough First-term Naval Aviators beyond their initial service obligation resulting in critical mid-career leadership gaps in operational units. Previous retention research identifies factors influencing career continuation. This effort conducts a quantitative gap analysis surveying over 1,200 stakeholders; the instrument included open-ended prompts resulting in rich qualitative data. The instrument collected stakeholder perceptions on conceptual understanding and metacognition, expectancy, persistence, value, and organizational support, purpose, fairness, trust, and mentorship. The resulting data analysis offers an improved understanding of the knowledge and motivation factors influencing First-term Naval Aviator decisions to opt-in and continue service through the lens of self-determination theory and two-factor theory. It explores the interaction between organizational culture and context related to First-term Naval Aviator's knowledge and motivation to increase opt-in rates and continued service. Finally, it integrates generational differences to recommend improved aspects of organizational practice that can increase the number of First-term Naval Aviators who opt-in and remain in service.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Taking the pulse on accountability: an innovation study

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

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

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Sherrod, William Ronald, Jr. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 06/30/2021

Defense Date 05/10/2021

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag mentors,naval aviator retention,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-determination theory,two-factor theory

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer L. (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Murphy, Don (committee member)

Creator Email wrsherrod@gmail.com,wsherrod@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-473064

Unique identifier UC13012646

Identifier etd-SherrodWil-9687.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-473064 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SherrodWil-9687

Dmrecord 473064

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sherrod, William Ronald, Jr.

Type texts

Source 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 MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu