University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

(USC Thesis Other)

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 1

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY:
AN IMPROVEMENT STUDY

by
Joshua T. Lackey

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2018 Joshua T. Lackey

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing this dissertation was an arduous process spanning nearly three years and
encompassing holidays, birthdays, vacations, work travel, and every life event imaginable.
Throughout the entire iterative process, there was a multitude of family, friends, mentors, and
peers that shouldered part of the load to make this possible. To Christina Lackey, my bride, who
watched over our four children, at times acting like a single mother as I typed away deep into the
night, thank you. The space and motivation you provided was the bedrock of my drive to finish.
To my kids, Kiersten, Kaitlynn, Jackson, Johnathan, Greg Jr, and Braden, you all played a major
role in my success. Thanks for keeping me focused on what is important.
Dr. Helena Seli, my brilliant dissertation chair, I am grateful for your wisdom. I know of
no more kind, compassionate, patient, and wise academic mentor. Your keen insight coupled
with gentle critiques was luminous in the darkest, depths of research. To Beth and Shannon
Mason, my sister and her wife, I am eternally indebted for your enduring confidence in me,
willingness to discuss my progress, and intelligent discourse. Shan, your reading list is always
on my play list. Beth, you’re my favorite sister and our math sessions kept me sane. Kathy
Fantasia, your are the most exceptional teacher I’ve ever known. Thank you for providing an
inspirational example of how to instruct irrespective of subject matter or audience. Your joyful
approach to learning and knowledge-sharing never ceases to amaze your students or friends.
Thank you for being Rainbow Brite to my family through everything. The Council of Eights,
who understood that despite my desire to go get a beer and relax, I did not have the time for the
past three years. Thank you for bringing the beer to me and checking in to make sure I was still
breathing. Cerberus, you are the three-headed, hell hound that was with me when this whole
process sparked. Discipline equals freedom; get some! Jeremy Miller. The man. The myth.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 3

The legend. Thanks for teaching me how SNCOs should conduct themselves and for walking
alongside me through the unimaginable. You will always be my brother. The Chiefs who have
mentored me over the course of my career. CMSgt George Cum, CMSgt Steve Koehler, CMSgt
Brady McCoy, CMSgt Kris Farve, and CMSgt Dan Bassett; I stand on the shoulders of giants to
reach these heights. CMSgt Richard Winegardner for your thoughts on attitude and for staying
interested in my progression on the project, thank you. To everyone who was a part of my
journey, you are appreciated in ways I cannot fully express.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 7
ABSTRACT 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Status 11
Related Literature 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem 13
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions 17
Methodological Approach 17
Definitions 18
Organization of the Project 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20
Influence of Trust and Collaborative Practices on Retention 20
Trust and Commitment 21
Collaborative Practices 29
The Role of Chiefs in the Air Force 36
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 37
Chiefs’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 37
Knowledge and Skills 37
Motivation 41
Organizational Influences 43
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Chiefs’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context 44
Framework Interactions 45
Conclusion to the Literature Review 47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 48
Participating Stakeholders 49
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 50
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 50
Qualitative Interview Data Collection and Instrumentation 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness 52
Ethics 53
Limitations and Delimitations 54
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 56
Participating Stakeholders 56
Findings 57
Knowledge Related to Collaborative Practices 57
Motivation Related to Integrating Collaborative Practices 80
Exploring Organizational Influences Related to Integrating Collaborative Practices 82
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 5

Organizational policy, procedure, and resource-related barriers to embracing collaborative
practices. 83
Synthesis 88
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 90
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 90
Knowledge Recommendations 90
Motivation Recommendations 93
Organization Recommendations 96
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 99
Implementation and Exploratory Framework 99
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 99
Level 3: Behavior 100
Level 2: Learning 103
Level 1: Reaction 105
Evaluation Tools 106
Data Analysis and Reporting 107
Summary 108
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 108
Future Research 110
Conclusion 111
References 113
APPENDIX A Recruitment Letter 138
APPENDIX B Interview Protocol 139
APPENDIX C Document Analysis Protocol 142
APPENDIX D Evaluation Tools, Level 2 143
APPENDIX E Evaluation Tools, Level 1 144
APPENDIX F Evaluation Tools, Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 145

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Organizational Mission and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 16
Table 2 Stakeholder Knowledge Influences 40
Table 3 Stakeholder Motivation Influences 42
Table 4 Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goals 44
Table 5 Collaborative Practice Quotes 58
Table 6 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 91
Table 7 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 94
Table 8 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 97
Table 9 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 100
Table 10 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 101
Table 11 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 102
Table 12 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 105
Table 13 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 106

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 45

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 8

ABSTRACT
The 60th Missile Wing located at Mythical Air Base, both pseudonyms, provides a mission-
ready intercontinental ballistic missile force. Over the course of the past three years, First Term
Airmen retention rates have fallen below the sustainable levels due to multivariate factors. The
qualitative study was constructed around the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences framework. The guiding research questions to
address the problem of practice through the exploratory study were the following: 1) What is the
Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related to integrating collaborative practices into the
organization to improve the retention of First Term Airmen, 2) What is the interaction between
organizational culture and context and Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation, 3) What are the
recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions. Chiefs were
selected as the participants for the interview protocols. Chiefs, as the highest enlisted Air Force
rank, are charged by Air Force instruction with the management and mission-readiness of the
enlisted force. Interview data were triangulated with a thorough document analysis of related
Air Force instructions regarding promotion and performance-based reporting to explore the
organizational influences present that impact the problem of practice. Analysis of the data
through the KMO lens revealed pervasive informal knowledge and high motivation related to
implementing collaborative practices to improve retention. There were significant organizational
barriers discovered as well in the form of policies and procedures aligned with internally
competitive practices. The most significant recommendations based on the findings are to
implement a career-long formal training program to embed collaborative practices within the
service culture and revision of applicable policies and procedures to reflect collaborative rather
than competitive practices.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 9

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 10

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Volunteer organizations rely on retention to maintain operations, and in instances where
volunteer employee retention declines, there is risk to mission sustainment. Retention rates are
of critical importance to operations in the United States military. Currently, the U.S. Air Force is
experiencing retention rates below projected expectations. In May of 2017, Air Force Manpower
Deputy Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Grosso testified on manpower shortages before
Congress. Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, in August 2017, instituted an involuntary
recall of personnel who had exited service to bridge the retention gap in shortfall career fields
(McCrae, 2017). In July 2017, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David Goldfein initiated
changes to the assignment system, career bonus program, and extension of high year of tenure
for career fields that were below retention needs (Bailey, 2017). He also announced in
September 2017 that 100% of all eligible captains would be promoted to major in an
unprecedented move to stymy the exit of company grade officers (Secretary of the Air Force,
2017).
Volunteer retention, as an expression of organizational loyalty, was demonstrated in 2011
by Garner and Garner to bear negative effects from internal competition. Competitiveness, as
defined by Toma and Butera (2015), is a pro-self, social motivation that subordinates the
effectiveness of a group to the egocentric desires of the individual. Anderson, Ronning, De
Vries, and Martinson (2007) proved that internal competition has detrimental effects such as
increased dishonesty and observable misconduct, which degrade trust between team members.
In contrast, Watson and Papamarcos (2002) found that collaborative practices increase
volunteer retention and loyalty. As described by Naskrent and Siebelt (2011), retention is
correlated with commitment, trust, satisfaction, and involvement. Baumeister and Leary found
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 11

in 1995 that those factors are essential to building a sense of belonging, which is foundational to
volunteer retention.
Organizational Context and Mission
The 60th

Missile Wing (MW) is located at Mythical Air Base, both pseudonyms. The
mission of the 60 MW is to defend America with the world’s premier combat-ready
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force. The vision is that empowered Airmen, inspired
by heritage and driven by innovation, are the world’s most trusted, dominant ICBM force. There
are over 2,000 Airmen and nearly 1,000 civilian employees assigned to the 60th MW through
five subordinate organizations termed groups. The groups are functionally aligned as Medical
Group, Maintenance Group, Security Forces Group, Operations Group, and Mission Support
Group. The Airmen population ranges in age from 18 through 53 and has an ethnic distribution
of 72.3% Caucasian and 27.7% minority. The gender composition of the force is 81.1% male
and 18.9% female.
Organizational Performance Status
The 60th MW First Term Airmen retention rates have fallen below the Air Force
Personnel Center (2016) mandated 60% to as low as 2% over the past three years. Invaluable
experience is lost when nearly all Airmen choose to exit service rather than reenlisting for a
subsequent contract term after the initial obligation. The resulting continuity break reduces the
60th MW’s capacity to execute its mission. While there are many potential reasons for the low
retention levels, the organization has specifically started to address the impact of the competitive
environment on retention rates and culture by deconstructing some of the traditional
bureaucratic, hierarchic lines of communication to foster team building.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 12

Related Literature
A properly functioning team, according to Bolman and Deal (2017), inspires members to
learn, excel, and remain loyal to the organization. Employee retention is the expression of
organizational loyalty. Employees who are loyal and committed to an organization will usually
continue employment there. Trust is required for a properly functioning team, and the
foundational dysfunction of a team is rooted in a lack of trust (Lencioni, 2004). Conversely,
internal competition degrades trust by redirecting the focus of members away from the team to
the individual (Anderson et al., 2007; Toma & Butera, 2015). These competing priorities of
individual focus versus team focus can cause a disruption in team dynamics. Muir’s (2013)
research determined that internal competition within a group is destructive to team survivability.
Teams cannot withstand the divisive force of competition, as team members never fully trust that
other team members have the best interest of the whole as their motivation.
Trust is linked to collaboration and a sense of group belonging (McAllister, 1995). This
sense of group belonging is how team members identify as part of the team and as part of a
larger whole. The sense of belonging provides a higher purpose to work towards. Absent a
unifying focus and a sense of belonging, it is reasonable to expect retention statistics to drop in a
competitive environment (Hyde, Dunn, Bax, & Chambers, 2016).
The work of Milligan (2003) and Vadell (2008) in the U.S. Air Force and Forsyth (2016)
in the U.S. Army indicate that these trust and competition elements are of equal or greater
magnitude in the military environment. These researchers found that lack of trust negatively
affects retention within the military as a volunteer organization. Trust in team is required to
execute often dangerous, exhausting, and human-resource dependent missions across the globe.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 13

Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of internal competition between team members, at the expense of
collaboration, and its impact on retention is important to address for a variety of reasons. In the
current Air Force enlisted promotion system, individuals are pitted against all other personnel
within the same pay grade at an installation for a promotion recommendation termed a
stratification. The stratification is given to the top 20% of senior master sergeants, E8, and 10%
of master sergeants at the installation. These stratifications are given on annual evaluation
reports in a rank-ordered basis. For example, a statement would read, “My #1 of 119 MSgts”
and so forth through the predefined cut-line limit based on the aforementioned grade-specific
percentage. Each grade from E7 and E8 is required to compete across Air Force Specialty Codes
(AFSC), the job classification of the person, against all other eligible AFSCs. This means that a
firefighter must compete against plumbers, personnelists, police, air traffic controllers, special
operations personnel, and any other AFSC for the stratification statement. Personnel with a
stratification have had a 90% promotion rate within both the E7 and E8 pay grades despite an
overall promotion rate of 23% and 32% respectively.
The stratification provides an obvious advantage to the recipients when meeting the
promotion board as it signals the members’ preparedness for the next rank. However, when the
member meets the promotion board, they compete only within their assigned AFSC, not against
all other AFSCs as is the practice at their local installation. Furthermore, the records at the
AFSC-specific promotion board are rank-ordered with a rating that tells the member a numerical
value for his or her standing amongst peers. This value is of greater importance since it actually
determines the members’ promotion sequence, is against the AFSC in which they actually work
and not against another discipline with different expectations, and is completed in a blind setting
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 14

where the board members are not allowed to know any identifying information about the eligible
member. Knowing that the board will not make a promotion recommendation based on the
particular individual, but, rather, on their records, removes the control of the eligible member on
the process and eliminates the need for competitive practices. It also means that personnel will
strive harder for the base-level stratification since they believe that is within their control. It
inspires otherwise good-natured personnel to withhold opportunities, sabotage the efforts of
others, and play political games, all in an effort to achieve the highest stratification. However,
since the board already completes a numerical ordering of personnel within their actual AFSCs,
where skill type differences are most relevant, this unnecessary inject of competitive practices
fractures the trusting environment and collaboration between senior non-commissioned officers.
The propagation of hyper-competitive models to develop leaders has created an
environment that promotes individuals who place self-interests above organizational goals
(Toma & Butera, 2015). Left unchecked, fratricidal promotion systems will continue to erode
the infrastructure at the core of industry and government. Based on Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
analysis of the actions of frustrated employees, highly competitive environments will result in
eroded teamwork, low morale, and nominal retention rates. In an industry charged with the
defense of a nation through the highest levels of teamwork, even a small fracture in
organizational cohesion, such as is evidenced by this problem, indicates catastrophic potentials.
Organizational Performance Goal
The 60th

MW has set a performance goal to improve retention rates from 2% to 60% by
August 2020. Although under different circumstances this goal would be considered ambitious
to the point of being unrealistic, the military environment affords a mechanism to speed cultural
shift. Personnel assigned to installations in the continental United States move through a
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 15

permanent change of station assignment process every three to four years. This cross flow
makes cultural norms less embedded and subject to change by way of personnel changeover.
The Command Chief has mandated that, in the future, retention rates will be tracked during pre-
existing decision points. Six months prior to reenlistment eligibility, Airmen will indicate their
intent to reenlist and any reasons why they would not reenlist.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The primary stakeholders in the organization are the First Term Airmen, First Sergeants,
Chiefs, and Commanders. Enlisted First Term Airmen are in their initial contractual obligation
of enlistment for terms of either four or six years. It is during this period of employment that
Airmen develop Air Force culture, values, and job knowledge.
The First Sergeants are responsible for the morale and welfare of the units. They act as
the primary enlisted advisor to the Commanders on matters relating to the climate of the force.
The Chiefs are responsible for the operational effectiveness of the units and serve as the primary
enlisted advisor to the Commanders on matters relating to the readiness of the force.
The rank of Chief is restricted by Congress to no greater than 1% of the total Air Force.
At the beginning of the study, there were 12 Chiefs assigned to the 60th MW. As the pinnacle of
enlisted ranks, Chiefs are empowered to make the necessary operational adjustments to
positively affect the work environment for Airmen. This capacity allows them to adjust the mix
of mission and operations tempo to afford the maximum level of efficiency and best work
environment possible.
Finally, Commanders are responsible to organize, train, and equip the force with which
they are given authority. They bear the final authority and responsibility for anything that occurs
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 16

within their respective command. Thus, the climate, expressed in retention statistics is a result of
the Commander’s leadership.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals

Stakeholder Group for the Study
A comprehensive stakeholder analysis would include every stakeholder group in the
organization; however, the focus of this study was the Chiefs stakeholder group. The Chiefs were
chosen based on their critical importance in achieving the organizational mission. The 12 Chiefs
assigned to the 60th MW are charged with providing the Commander a mission-ready force. The
process to determine the stakeholder goal was a top-down leadership mandate to move to
collaborative practices from the Command Chief at the MW in January 2017. Thus, the 60th
MW leadership has identified an assumed relationship between retention and collaborative
practices. No training in the area of Chiefs integrating collaborative practices has occurred. The
Chiefs are of utmost importance in achieving the organization’s performance goal since they are
the enlisted experts on organizational structure, climate, and operational capacity. If the Chiefs
Organizational Mission
The mission of the 60th Missile Wing is to defend America with the world's premier combat-
ready ICBM force.
Organizational Performance Goal
By August 2020, the 60th Missile Wing will improve retention rates by 58%.
Chiefs’ Goal
By August 2020, the Chiefs will integrate collaborative practices into the organization.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 17

are unable to attain their stakeholder goal of integrating collaborative practices into the team and
organization, the organizational goals cannot be met.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the Chiefs’ knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences in the context of improving the retention of First Term Airmen (FTA)
by integrating collaborative practices. The study adapted the Clark and Estes gap analysis
framework for an exploratory study. The analysis began by generating a list of possible
influences that were examined systematically to focus on actual or validated influences. While a
complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder of
focus in this analysis was limited to the Chiefs. The questions that guided the gap analysis are as
follows:
1. What is the Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related to integrating collaborative
practices into the organization to improve the retention of First Term Airmen?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Chiefs’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
Methodological Approach
The methodological approach for this study was qualitative analysis via interview. In the
manner prescribed by Clark and Estes (2008), the research developed a list of assumed
influences regarding the Chiefs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for
integrating collaborative practices. Interviews were structured to capture the influences in each
of the three categories.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 18

The interviews were conducted in a private, on-site location with limited public access so
that the Chiefs were not hampered by outside pressures regarding the questions. This strategy
was based on recommendation by Creswell (2014) to protect the privacy of the respondents as
well as limit outside influences. The sample size remained relatively small and purposeful to
provide the most relevant data, which was informed by recommendations from Merriam and
Tisdell (2016). There were only 12 Chiefs in the population, so each respondent was invited to
voluntarily participate to attempt the highest level of group representation in the data. The
questions were provided on an iPad tablet to the Chiefs as each arrived for their individual
interview, so there were not any unexpected questions when they were asked aloud by the
researcher.
The intent of the study’s methodology and approach was to minimize external
interference with the participants while providing capacity for well-reasoned, narrative responses
to use in subsequent analysis. The analysis developed theory for the basis of future studies and
implementation for process improvements. Engineering the design of the study in such a manner
was necessary to provide an adequate platform for organizational improvement, which was the
intent of the dissertation.
Definitions
Collaboration: Cooperative practices across teams and personnel that aid teamwork; the
inverse of competition.
First Term Airmen: An enlisted member of the United States Air Force in the initial term
of service for their contractual obligation between four and six years.
Retention: The continued service of a volunteer past the initial period of obligation.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 19

Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology. Chapter Two is a review of current literature regarding collaboration, competition,
and retention. Chapter Three describes assumed influences and research methods for participant
selection, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four presents data analysis and assessment.
Chapter Five closes the study with recommendations.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 20

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The chapter describes the influences on the problem of practice, such as a sense of
belonging, trust, and commitment. The literature review addresses the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on integrating collaborative practices within the 60th
MW. The emphasis primarily revolves around motivation and organizational influences, with a
brief check into existing knowledge, in recognition of the fact that the Chiefs have not been
specifically trained on collaborative practices. After, a review of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analytic conceptual framework will describe the structure of that process.
Influence of Trust and Collaborative Practices on Retention
Research has revealed that collaborative practices, those actions that increase and
enhance teamwork and affect turnover intention, are, in turn, affected by trust and commitment
(Bluedorn, 1978; Chen, Chen, & Chen, 2010; Darabi & Mansouri, 2013; Engel, Woolley, Jing,
Chabris, & Malone, 2014; Forsyth, 2016; Garner & Garner, 2011; McAllister, 1995; Milligan,
2003; Naskrent & Siebelt, 2011; Vadell, 2008). In their research, Kouzes and Posner (2002)
found that collaboration and trust are so interdependent that the central component of
collaboration is trust. Trust, defined by Kipnis (1998), is the reliance of one individual upon
another under conditions of dependence and risk. The definition was further refined by Boon,
Holmes, and Groebel (1991) to include the expectation that the other will not act
opportunistically through words, actions, or decisions. Trust is rooted in predictability,
confidence, dependency, risk, and vulnerability (Milligan, 2003). In an organizational context,
employees who trust their organization are likely to pursue a long-term career there (Bolman &
Deal, 2017).
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 21

The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review documented the issue of military-wide decreased
trust and commitment as a component of strategic military readiness. Vadell (2008), studying
Airmen’s intent to depart service, described trust as the key factor for military retention and lack
of trust as key to attrition. Milligan (2003), studying U.S. Air Force, stated that trust in
leadership is the most important aspect of intent to leave an organization. As a testament to the
service’s acknowledgement of the power of trust, in 2012, the Air Force founded the Profession
of Arms Center of Excellence which emphasized trust, loyalty, and commitment as the core
characteristics of the profession.
Facing similar retention problems in the U.S. Army, a study conducted by Aubrey (2013)
found that over 50% of first-term soldiers were considering leaving the Army due to lack of trust
in the organization. This lack of trust was subsequent to perceived mistreatment through
negative command climate and abusive supervision which formed a toxic culture (Aubrey,
2013). This validates the findings of Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) that organizational
commitment, morale, and turnover are outgrowths of interpersonal trust built through quality
communication. Forsyth (2016), after finding a significant level of relationship between trust
and intent to leave the military, surmised that, “[the problem of] trust in leadership is not a new
theme in the military, just not highly publicized” (p. 16).
Trust and Commitment
The concept of trust has been researched through the lenses of psychology, ethics,
morality, and sociology. Each discipline has added a different aspect to the nature of trust and
has refined the scope and definition. McAllister (1995) synthesized a conceptual framework for
trust from these disparate disciplines to include modality of acquisition, quality, and context of
use.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 22

Types of trust. Clark and Payne (1997) developed the idea of trust as an action,
behavior, or state of mind. There are two modes of acquisition for trust: affective and cognitive.
Affective trust is based in social identity and group value theory whereas cognitive trust is
founded in the social, political, and economic sciences.
Affective trust. Affective trust is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, which, according to
McAllister (1995), consists of an emotional bond between people derived from similarities. It is
the first-instinct, initial-impression that is not based on conscious decisions but on the
subconscious, System 2 thinking described by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and P. Egan
(2011). It is representative of the multitude of instantaneous inputs and insights such as facial
features, verbal tone, gestures, appearance, eye contact, and similar appearances that bias an
individual towards trust. Affective trust is governed by the subconscious biases and innate
understanding of interpersonal interactions. This type of trust is demonstrated when a person is
described as having a trustworthy face.
Affective trust is not based on highly rational, System 1 decision-making (Kahneman &
Egan, 2011). Rather, affective trust is indicative of a biological response. Rational trust, termed
cognitive trust by McAllister (1995), is consistent with economists’ philosophies that, given
enough information, people will choose the most rational choice that best improves their
position.
Cognitive trust. This type of trust is thought-out, rational, and evidence-based.
McAllister (1995) described cognitive trust as the individual belief in a peer’s reliability and
dependability. Cognitive trust is that reasoned extension of trust to another individual based on
past behaviors and the expectation that those actions will continue or expand. This is a decision
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 23

in the form of Kahneman’s System 2 thinking, whereby the individual calculates the
trustworthiness of another and then acts based on that assessment.
Trust is further specified by domain of application. The two types, individual and
organizational, differ in composition and functionality. Both types were examined in this study
to assess participants’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Individual trust. Individual trust is the trust one individual holds in another individual
where there is a risk. In an organization, Tan and Tan (2000) defined trust in supervisor as a
subordinate’s willing vulnerability to the actions or behaviors of the supervisor. This is not
solely a belief or state of mind, as the action of placing oneself in a vulnerable position is a
behavioral action necessary to complete the engagement.
Organizational trust. Organizational trust, as defined by Tan and Tan (2000), is an
employee’s confidence that the organization will perform an action that is beneficial or not
detrimental to the employee. It is the represents the aggregated trust of the organizational
constituent groups to the unit versus any individual. The research of Carnevale and Wechsler
(1992) found that, in most public bureaucracies like the government, supervisors act as the face
of the organization to subordinates. A connection exists between the trust of a person to an
organization based on their supervisor, but the converse is not true. Trust in a supervisor and in
an organization were highly correlated (r = .61, p = .01; Tan & Tan, 2000).
Antecedents to trust. Research has discovered that the main antecedents to trust are
largely within the control of the organization (Carnevale & Wechsler, 1992). Some of the
antecedents are interdependence behaviors and initial expectations. According to Butler (1999),
to enhance trusting behaviors, organizations must increase interdependencies in flat
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 24

organizations, expert power of educated employees, and cross-cultural differences in
international businesses.
Additionally, Butler (1999) also demonstrated that negotiation is a core competency of
management which requires trust and is demonstrably improved through both quality and
quantity of information sharing. McAllister (1995) further showed that work is accomplished
through interpersonal interactions that can determine the ability to accomplish work. Trust, in
this instance, is an expectation of the subsequent information sharing between people and the
initial level is reinforced as well as improved through continued sharing practices. The mutually
reinforcing dynamic spiral of trust and information sharing is conversely true where the initial
expectation of mistrust deteriorates into decreased information sharing and reduced trust
(McAllister, 1995).
Individual trust is developed through the perception of ability, benevolence, and integrity,
and are the antecedents of trust in supervisors (Tan & Tan, 2000). Seeing a superior display any
of the three qualities inspires trust in subordinates. The belief that someone in a higher position
has a high degree of skill or morals solidifies that idea of a meritocracy and that the better suited
person will advance in position.
Organizational trust bears root in the climate established in the unit according to
Carnevale and Wechsler (1992). The climate, according to Carnevale and Wechsler, is the
critical determinant factor of trust. Their research revealed that trust in an organization is
predicated upon an individual’s confidence that the organization will participate in open
communication and equity. This is a behavior, based on the belief that, although the individual
is at risk, the organization will not act indiscriminately towards the individual with negative
consequences.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 25

Individual behavior is grounded in established trends or previously witnessed behaviors.
The particular behaviors employees witness or experience to establish trust are organizational
justice and support (Tan & Tan, 2000). Procedural justice, a component of organizational justice
closely linked with increased levels of employee organizational trust, is the perception of
individuals fairness of allocation decisions (Tan & Tan, 2000).
Antecedents to trust in the context of the military, are addressed in Air Force Handbook
1, Airmen (Department of The Air Force, 2017). Trust is recognized as the foundational property
to relationship and itself is an antecedent to teamwork. The basis for the trust in this context is
confidence in the character and ability of other teammates as well as accepted risk-taking,
innovation, and open, honest, direct communication (Department of The Air Force, 2017). This
underscores the recognition by the military that trust is foundational to teamwork, which is a
cornerstone of military service. The Air Force Handbook 1 also highlights the priority of
effective communication to build and maintain trust (Department of The Air Force, 2017).
Singling out that open communication, rather than just communication, is essential to trust
further describes the collaborative nature of the communication that must be utilized for leaders
to enhance trust. Removal of barriers, indicated by the freedom of communication, also improves
the collaborative nature of the communication by allowing the natural and free flow of
information amongst parties, unhindered by unwieldy bureaucracy.
Result of trust. The effects of trust on an organization are multi-fold. Data related to the
effects of trust are founded in a variety of fields and studies. As previously stated, a climate of
trust is related to information shared. In turn, information shared is related to effectiveness
(Butler, 1999). Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) discovered that trust in management was
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 26

significantly correlated with turnover intention. Turnover intention is, as defined by Tett and
Meyer (1993), “a conscious and deliberate willingness to leave the organization” (p. 260).
Trust is a useful predictor of satisfaction, group harmony, and organizational
commitment (Tan & Tan, 2000). Furthermore, commitment to top management and supervisor
was positively correlated by Tan and Tan (2000) in their research with organizational
commitment. Organizational commitment is a psychological attachment characterized by a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization based on belief in
organization’s goals and values, coupled with a desire to maintain membership (Tan & Tan,
2000).
Organizational commitment is associated with employee identification and their sense of
belonging to a group. Tan and Tan (2000) found that trust in management is positively
correlated with separate measures of identification, involvement, and loyalty. The relationship is
reciprocal and employees who believe they receive support are less inclined to leave the
organization (Tan & Tan, 2000). This commitment, employee identification, and sense of
belonging are related to this study in the probing for trust and the relationship to collaborative
practices as well as the impact on FTA retention.
Barriers to trust. The most prevalent barrier to trust is most precisely described as the
commons dilemma in the game theory developed by Nash (1950). The commons dilemma is a
situation wherein a shared resource, the commons, is useful to a community of users. The
commonly used typograph is a field that ranchers share to graze their sheep. It benefits each
farmer to maintain the field so that they can use it. However, as the resource diminishes, it
benefits the individual farmers to use more than their share of the field in an effort maximize
their use of the availability while they are divorced from consequence from the remaining
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 27

farmers. Put succinctly, the commons dilemma is an incentive structure of individual profit, but
costs are identically shared by all persons within the commons (Brann & Foddy, 1987). Brann
and Foddy (1987), in their research into the subject, found that there are three categories for
barriers to trust which are exacerbated by resource scarcity: (a) social (group versus individual
gain), (b) temporal (short versus long-term gain), (c) expectation of reciprocity.
Competitive practices. Another barrier to trust in an organization is a culture of
competition. Although competition has been viewed favorably over the centuries, recent
research has illuminated the corrosive aspects of the culture: “when competition is pervasive,
such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science” (Anderson, De
Vries, Ronning, & Martinson, 2007, p. 437). Competitive practices within an organization are
frequently viewed as an extension of Darwin’s natural selection. Competition in that context is
viewed as an efficient mode of selection, where the winners and survivors are assumed to be the
best (Berta, Julien, & Tricou, 2012). Since the leaders in competitive practice-based
organizations have achieved their positions because of their ability to compete, it is natural for
those leaders to assume introducing competition into the work environment will be beneficial
(Crow, 1995). However, counter to this instinctual overreliance on competitive practices, the
potential harm of unmitigated competition must be assessed. When competition becomes the
default sorting mechanism, the norms of trust, sharing, collaboration, and public good become
unintended collateral damage (Anderson et al., 2007).
Competition is a strong oppositional force to collaborative practices as there is a positive
relationship between the level of perceived competition and misconduct (Anderson et al., 2007).
Since the incentive to collaborate is relative to the payoff expected under competition,
competition and collaboration are opposing forces (Li, Nguyen, & Yu, 2016, p. 352). There are
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 28

also ethical concerns that undermine the trust relationships in competitive environments, as the
well-being of the individual is not tied to the well-being of the unit (Berta et al., 2012). Rewards
and competition that foster commitment to self rather than the team has been found by the
Institute of Medicine to be positively correlated with unethical behaviors (Anderson et al., 2007).
As members of an organization or community enter into competition, the level of
collaboration and mutual support drastically decreases (Hutter, Hautz, Füller, Mueller, &
Matzler, 2011). This idea furthers the findings of Crow (1995), that competition produces
internal conflict and sub-optimization by damaging information flow and trust. When the
organizations or managers institute internally competitive systems, such as forced distributions in
the military, employees withhold information, hide mistakes, and reduce trusting behaviors
(Crow, 1995). Competitive practices for individual rankings and pay increases inhibit team-
based approaches. If the reward is directed towards collaborative practices, these will be
adopted. Converse, if the rewards are allocated towards defeating internal competitors, those
behaviors will be adopted (Crow, 1995).
A clear indicator that a competitive environment exists is that “people do not comment on
the ideas of others, they do not seem to be willing to collaborate, as no knowledge is revealed or
transferred” (Hutter et al., 2011, p. 8) and that “if people are not willing to share their knowledge
and freely reveal innovation-related information, then rivalry is usually very high” (Hutter et al.,
2011, p. 11). In a case study of IBM, an executive stated that “internal competition was
affecting the company’s ability to compete effectively in the marketplace. We do not talk to the
people in the other operations. They have become the competition. There is no sharing of
information and limited cooperation” (Crow, 1995, p. 47). The introduction of internal
competitive practices redefines the roles of internal teams from collaborators to competitors and
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 29

transfers the immediacy of competition from external actors to the proximal internal competitors,
redirecting efforts away from distant, external competition towards the internal in an act of self-
preservation. When confronted with such a dismal prospect, individuals will act “with self-
protective and self-promoting behaviors” which do not align with trust and suggest that
competition is not “salutary” (Anderson et al., 2007, p. 459).
This is not to say competition is not a powerful motivating factor. Indeed, it is capable of
producing short-term results at high levels. However, the culture and behaviors produced by
competitive and collaborative environments are different and diametrically opposed. In
collaborative practice environments, teamwork fosters: “win-win, shared information, working
together, honest, open communication, trusting, trustworthy, and synergy” (Crow, 1995, p. 48);
all of which are antecedents or factors of trust, Conversely, in competitive environments, the
culture is win-lose, secretive, working for self, deceitful, closed, suspicious, untrustworthy, us-
versus-them thinking, and turf wars” (Crow, 1995, p. 48).
Collaborative Practices
Collaborative practices, as defined by Nancarrow et al. (2013), can be categorized as
communication practices, management practices and structures, and attitudes. From these broad
categories, all other collaborative efforts can be integrated into the community of practice, in this
case, the 60th MW. Collaboration is the synergy of a wide array of teams and people working
together (Arsenyan, Büyüközkan, & F e y z io ğ lu, 2015). Collaboration focuses on interactive
dynamics between personnel rather than individual characteristics. In collaboration,
relationships are interdependent rather than independent (Gilbert, Yan, & Hoffman, 2010).
Collaborative practices require teamwork and a “reliance on others if the project is to maximize
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 30

results,” which means “sharing data and other organizational information” (Fleming, 2012, p.
375–376).
Communication practices. According to Chapman and Corso (2005), collaborative
efforts are dependent on open communication, knowledge sharing, trust, and common goals.
Arsenyan et al. (2015) refer to common goals as coordination since high levels of
synchronization are required to reach collaborative goals. This coordination illuminates the need
for open communication between personnel (Fleming, 2012). Specifically, as described by
Gilbert et al. (2010), collaboration requires participants to share information as broadly as
possible to maximize inclusion. The ideology is furthered in Air Force Handbook 1, Airmen,
where knowledge sharing is directly correlated with team success and is demonstrated by both
active listening and talking. The Air Force has acknowledged the need for sharing information
and that involves both sending and receiving. Specifically, it is important to practice active
listening. Air Force Handbook 1 also describes what happens when teams fail to heed the advice
to share information and actively listen:
Teams that do not allow honest, open sharing quickly lose their effectiveness. As a
result, some team members may purposely withhold vital information or disengage from
the team. This may cause confusion, frustration, and inability to complete tasks within
teams. (Department of The Air Force, 2017, p. 293)
It is imperative that information flow both ways as well. Leaders must make available
the most information feasible dependent on circumstances. Limiting information dissemination
from the top down adds to confusion and leads to poor outcomes.
The military has a diverse demography with a rich tapestry of cultural backgrounds that
lend strength to the force. In such an environment, it is necessary to foster communication to
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 31

build cooperative relationships that enhance collaborative practices. Cooperation, and
collaborative practices, alter team dynamics and impact organizational culture. The shift in
focus from competition to cooperation and collaborative practices has far reaching effects. As
discussed in Air Force Handbook 1,
Successful teams have few turf wars, little competitiveness, and an ability to forgive and
forget. Cooperation breeds shared ownership for performance results, and achieving
objectives increases team pride and a healthy team spirit. Conversely, competition
hinders the cooperative process, as some team members attempt to outshine others to gain
extra attention. Such ‘all-starring’ leads to in-fighting, making the team less productive.
“All-starring” may also be evidence of a power struggle. To reduce power-play behavior,
leaders should reemphasize [sic] each team member’s specific roles and responsibilities,
which eliminates potential barriers to cooperation. (Department of The Air Force, 2017,
p. 294)
An example of competition versus collaboration is the practice of information hoarding.
As described by Harskamp and Ding (2006), information hoarding is where competitive
personnel, driven by egocentric desires, withhold information to gain individual power as
knowledge owners. Conversely, collaborative practitioners seek to share information broadly for
inclusion of diverse insights, adding depth to group knowledge capacity and opening
opportunities for the information to be enhanced. Elaborations are necessary to solve a problem
collaboratively (Harskamp & Ding, 2006).
Management practices. Collaborative practices have a synergistic effect, and
management practices should be aligned to afford the greatest chance of collaboration given that
“Stakeholders are compelled to collaborate, because incremental or bilateral efforts do not
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 32

produce satisfactory results; they are interdependent” (Prins, 2010, p. 282). The aphorism “if
you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go with a team,” applies in this instance.
Individual effort is often not enough to accomplish the requirement in a satisfactory manner.
Reliance on a lone, experienced practitioner can limit solution set development. As asserted by
Ramm et al. (2013), “experience is not always an advantage for solving insight problems as
‘functional fixedness’ - the inability to consider an object or a problem from an unusual angle -
may prevent the kind of exploration that is needed to find a solution” (p. 4). Another benefit of
using groups, as established by Toma and Butera (2015) in their research, is that members can
aggregate a larger breadth and depth of knowledge and skills than can be executed by a single
individual.
Henneman, Lee, and Cohen (1995) identified that collaboration requires competence,
confidence, and commitment. These attributes are necessary to secure the constituency to
surmount obstacles and retain strong organizational affiliation (Berger et al., 2006). Patience is
an outgrowth of the necessary respect and trust between parties and is required to build the
relationship so that collaboration can develop (Henneman et al., 1995). Difficulties are to be
expected as the relationship and practices are in the process of growing.
Competence is the building block to confidence in collaborative practices (Henneman et
al., 1995). Substantive and unique contributions within the collaborative practice environment
reinforce the competence of the participant and underscore the confidence by the group for that
individual. Confidence, as an essential antecedent to collaborative practices, refers to in-group
confidence (Henneman et al., 1995). This confidence is a reflection in the trust of the skills,
attributes, and actions within the team. Confidence is critical to determining lines of effort,
responsibility, and roles within the collaborative efforts. Commitment, in terms of collaborative
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 33

practices, is defined by Henneman et al. (1995) as the unified direction of a group towards a
common goal or shared vision. It is the resolute, consensus to work towards a commonality. A
manager structuring the collaboration process, must correct impasses to facilitate a high-level
problem-solving interaction (Nancarrow et al., 2013).
Structures. The organizational structure must be one that provides the opportunity for
collaborative practices and does not stifle interoperability, interdependence, and the attitudes,
management, and communication required to set the environment for collaborative practices.
Johnson and Gonzalez (2014), in their research on team practices and structures, found that
despite the multivariate elements that contribute to teamwork and collaboration, most center on
either joint intention theory (Cohen & Levesque, 1990) or the shared plan (Grosz & Kraus,
1999). Between the two teamwork theories, a discernible constant is the concept of shared
intention amongst team members for a goal through the use of shared mental models and beliefs.
Gray (1989) distinguishes five characteristics of a collaborative work system: (a) the
stakeholders in the domain are interdependent, (b) solutions emerge by dealing constructively
with differences, (c) joint ownership of decisions is involved, (d) stakeholders assume collective
responsibility for the future direction of the domain, and (e) collaboration is an emergent process.
Of note, none of the characteristics imply or support dominance of one stakeholder over another.
This harmonious engagement is based on interdependence, not simply interoperability. Groups
can work together without being interdependent. Differences are not ignored or diminished, but
dealt with through constructive means that allow for them to exist in a safe space. Joint
decisions require these disparate elements to focus on interdependence and group need as well as
share in the decision-making process. The assumption of responsibility towards the future does
not afford short-term buy-in or gamesmanship with respect to the managerial approach.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 34

Rigid hierarchal organizations with strict lines of communication can reduce the capacity
of employees to communicate freely across work centers to enhance these shared mental models
and build trusting relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Within the military, bureaucratic
organizations, referred to as mechanistic, have extensive departmentalization with high
formalization, a limited network that allows for downward communication, and are organized on
work tasks or specialty (AFH 1, 2017). This limits the diversity and is increasingly used at
higher levels of specialization. Furthermore, a high reliance on rules and regulations mitigates
the flexibility necessary for collaborative practices. While there is no specific organizational
type for collaborative practices that can be prescribed, it is imperative to recognize those
structures that will inhibit the utilization of collaborative practices so that barriers to the
emergent behaviors can be removed.
Attitudes. As suggested in Nash’s game theory (1950) paper on forming coalitions
where individuals have the chance to collaborate towards mutually beneficial goals, trust should
be the default option until a basis for lack of trust has been established. Bendor, Kramer, and
Stout (1991) found that, when placed in an environment with a multitude of external factors
complicating circumstances, termed a noisy environment, generosity exceeds all other strategies
based on Nash’s theory of games by defusing the retaliatory response bias in tit-for-tat scenarios.
The attitude of responding to indifference, negativity, or positivity with increased generosity
mitigates the recursive negative tit-for-tat response by breaking the chain of assumptions and
attitudes. In alignment with Gerken’s 2007 treatment of Hanlon’s Razor, “never attribute to
malice what can be attributed to ignorance” (p. 1222), this perspective redirects the trajectory of
an encounter from competitive distrust towards the capacity for collaborative cooperation.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 35

Building collaborative teams. Leaders building collaborative teams focus on two major
components: emotional intelligence (Engel et al., 2014) and a culture of inclusion and inquiry
(Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006). Managers who constructed teams of individuals
who integrated into an inclusive environment where inquiry was appreciated, developed
concurrent mutuality, embeddedness, and the passion amongst team members to move beyond
egocentric focus to community goals and collaborative practices (Berger et al., 2006). When
leaders focus on attuning the emotional intelligence of the members of their teams, Engel et al.
(2014) showed a high correlational value with interpersonal connection and collaborative efforts.
Sense of belonging. A byproduct of collaborative practices that enhances the resulting
commitment and loyalty is the inherent need of every human to feel as though they belong to a
group. Defined as a sense of belonging by Baumeister and Leary (1995), this feeling is a key
influence on collaborative practices and retention. Social identity theory describes and interprets
how individuals perceive interdisciplinary group collaboration efforts and situations with unlike
members (Friedman & Waggoner, 2010). Social identity theory, as described by Bailey (2016),
contends that in-group identification for members prioritizes the membership and needs of the
group at the expense of outside groups or individuals. As evidenced in the work of Darabi and
Mansouri (2013) as well as Eckel and Grossman (2005), quality interactions have a positive
correlation in building this need between humans, addressed in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as
self-esteem and self-actualization. Efforts that increase the likelihood of developing this sense of
belonging increase the desire amongst individual team members to assist other team members
with whom they feel the sense of belonging (Berger et al., 2006). This cyclic process creates an
atmosphere of reciprocity where the recipient of such assistive efforts is predisposed towards
engaging in the same behavior with the provider as well as with other team members with whom
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 36

a sense of belonging is shared. The work of McAllister (1995) showed a strong correlational
value between cognitive based trust and affective based trust. The feeling of trust is enhanced by
the thought of trust, and the thought of trust is enhanced by trustworthy actions. This process
serves to increase the sense of belonging amongst all team members and can have a cumulative
effect on the overall collaborative practices of the team between members and between teams.
The Role of Chiefs in the Air Force
The rank of Chief was established by the Military Pay Act of 1958, which created the top
two enlisted pay grades of E8 and E9. Chief is the highest rank that can be attained by an
enlisted member and is the pinnacle of a career. Chiefs serve in a variety of operational and
strategic roles all the way up to Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. According to Air Force
Instruction 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure, Chiefs serve as education academy
commandants, superintendents, program managers, command chief master sergeants, functional
managers, and career field managers. Chiefs represent the highest qualities of a military leader
and apply experience and skills to their organizations.
Amongst the specialized roles a Chief can fill, the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
is the senior enlisted leader of the Air Force. The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
provides leadership to the enlisted force and advises the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
Secretary of the Air Force, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense.
The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force testifies before Congress and is the Air Force Career
Field Manager for Command Chief Master Sergeants and Group Superintendents.
Air Force Instruction 36-2618 describes the varying roles of Chiefs as advisors on
mission effectiveness, professional development, readiness, training, utilization, health, morale,
and welfare of the enlisted Airmen. Chiefs in superintendent roles serve to organize, train, and
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 37

equip their units to meet mission requirements. In addition, as career field managers, Chiefs
organize enlisted career fields and establishing career field entry requirements. The Chiefs
manage manpower requirements, construct career paths, and evaluate training.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework is a systematic approach to identifying
and understanding organizational performance goals and gaps. After the gap is clearly defined,
the potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that have an impact on
stakeholder group’s performance are proposed and examined via data. These influences will be
further discussed next with respect to the Chiefs’ capacity to increase collaborative practices and,
though that, improve 60th MW’s ability to achieve the performance goal of 60% FTA retention
rates by August 2020.
Chiefs’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following sections will explore the Chiefs’ knowledge, skills, motivation, and
organizational influences for integrating collaborative practices. Each section will be
independently addressed based on the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. The influences
described reflect the Chiefs’ unique influences regarding the problem of practice.
Knowledge and Skills
In the case of the 60th MW, the stakeholder group of focus is the Chiefs and their goal is
to integrate collaborative practices to ultimately meet the organizational goal to improve
retention from 2% by to 60% by August 2020. There are four types of knowledge influences
described by Krathwohl (2002): factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual is
declarative knowledge based on specific knowledge of concrete data. As the information
regarding collaborative practices is complex, this review will not focus on the factual knowledge
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 38

of collaborative practices. Conceptual knowledge is grounded in understanding how concepts
relate to each other in both similarities and differences through comparative analysis. Procedural
knowledge incorporates components of automaticity and understanding a process, rationale, and
steps associated with a task. Metacognition is thinking about thinking. Each of the knowledge
influences for the Chiefs was categorized into the conceptual knowledge type discussed above.
The Chiefs have not been formally trained in collaborative practices, and so this exploratory
study is designed to lead to well-informed learning and development opportunities. The lack of
formal training also determined the focus of the study to not emphasize procedural knowledge.
The importance of this categorization is to understand the level and depth at which the influence
is occurring.
Conceptual knowledge of collaborative practices. Chiefs need to know what
collaborative practices are before they can begin implementation. Chiefs also need to know
where integration of collaborative practices will be of greatest benefit. Understanding the
strategic areas where collaborative practices impact team loyalty can enhance the retention goal
of the 60th MW. Collaborative practice integration efforts, according to Frutiger (2002), are best
implemented at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of an organization within the
leadership elements so that they can properly support the change initiative by demonstrating the
procedures. Thus, Chiefs need to know their role as the standard-bearers for collaborative
practices implementation and modelling.
It is important for Chiefs to understand the concepts of the positive effects of internal
collaboration on retention rates that are indicated by Chen et al. (2010). The authors discovered
that loyalty, as expressed by increased retention, was improved by making career progression
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 39

transparent. Thus, clarifying career progression requirements leads to higher levels of
collaboration and retention.
Chiefs need to know the rationale or why behind collaborative practices to effectively
implement them within the organization. Collaborative practices allow teams and individuals to
aggregate efforts to synergistic effect by focusing all efforts towards a singular group goal rather
than individual goals. This strategic alignment still supports individual accomplishment. It is a
byproduct of the process, however, instead of the aim. Tying achievement to group dynamics
encourages the sense of belonging that is inherent in the collaborative practice domain.
The baseline tool for integrating collaborative practices is the capacity to communicate
the requirement and cultural shift effectively. Communication strategies and structures must be
aligned in such a way as to produce a clarity of vision devoid of task ambiguity. Chiefs must be
capable of understanding the differences between individual roles and responsibilities while
equally respecting their contribution to the organization. This knowledge and respect must then
be modelled and communicated to subordinates and peers for maximum dispersion.
Chiefs must also know how individual characteristics aid collaborative practices
integration by supporting interdisciplinary teamwork. Modelling collaborative behaviors such as
reliability, positive leadership, compromise, and mentoring show the desire of the Chief to
collaborate rather than compete. Structuring management practices to ensure appropriate
resources and procedures, training and development, and skill mixes emphasize the role of a
Chief as a team player.
Chiefs need to know how leader attitudes support collaborative practice integration. An
atmosphere of authenticity and tolerance builds a sense of community for a team climate. In
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 40

such a climate, task and relationship-oriented leadership leads to a focus on quality outcomes
built on integration of collaborative practices that leverage the very best of all teams.
It is important for Chiefs to know how to integrate collaborative practices within teams
and between teams. The collaborative practices integration procedures outlined by Gilbert et al.
(2010) emphasize the need for leaders to understand effective communication strategies. Their
study on the framework for action for interprofessional education and collaborative practice
formed a parallel construct to increasing collaborative practices in the military. The actions
identified are required knowledge for the Chiefs to effectively integrate collaborative practices.
The research emphasized training, the process champions, institutional support, and managerial
commitment. Each of these components has previously been discussed in various formats.
Chiefs need to know how to optimize the timing for integrating collaborative practices.
Disjointed efforts can become counterproductive and result in negative results that reduce the
impact of the overall effort. Instead, carefully scheduling the strategic implementation plans
through a phased approach will afford the opportunity to adjust for variance within the
community. Timing the implementation around major schedule pauses where efforts can be
focused on the critical culture shift rather than major projects or programs will increase traction
amongst the affected population for change towards collaborative practices
Table 2
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Chiefs need to know the relationship between collaborative practices
and retention rates for Airmen.
Conceptual
Chiefs need to know the importance of culture of inquiry and inclusion,
emotional intelligence, and sense of belonging
Conceptual
Chiefs need to know the importance of commitment, competence, and
confidence.
Conceptual

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 41

Motivation
In addition to knowledge needs, Chiefs must have the optimal level of motivation to
implement collaborative practices. Motivational influence describes the pursuit of a goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Motivation provides the drive necessary to overcome barriers and inertia
(Eccles, 2006). Expectancy value theory (EVT) asserts that beliefs drive motivations and, in
turn, behaviors (Eccles, 2006). The two relevant categories of EVT for purposes of this study
are utility value and attainment value. Understanding the motivations, background, and efficacy
of the Chiefs can improve collaborative practices.
Expectancy value theory. As stated by Eccles (2006), EVT questions capability and
willpower. According to EVT, the subconscious questions of “Can I do this task?” and “Do I
want to do this task?” are key to determining an individual’s level of motivation. Utility value is
the stakeholder’s perceived usefulness of the goal (Eccles, 2006). A key influence probed for in
this study was whether Chiefs find utility in increasing collaborative practices in the military.
Another dimension of EVT is attainment value, which is the perception of the stakeholder that
the goal describes their profession’s ideal state (Eccles, 2006). The question probed for in this
study is whether the Chiefs believe that increasing collaborative practices in the military is
valuable and important.
In order to integrate collaborative practices, Chiefs need to see the value of collaboration
as a critical means to build teamwork. Chiefs must understand that, as described by Darabi and
Mansouri (2013), collaboration, rather than competition fosters between-group relationships.
Chiefs need to know the importance of collective responsibility for the
future, emergent process, interdependence, joint ownership of decision-
making, and solutions emerging from constructive differences.
Conceptual

Chiefs need to know the importance of knowledge sharing as well as
open and honest communication.
Conceptual

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 42

Increasing collaborative practices will require a decrease in counter practices such as
competition. Anderson et al. (2007) asserted that competition degrades the capacity for shared
work and synergistic effect. Teamwork and group dynamics are cumulative and interconnected.
The authors published a statistically significant positive relationship between internal
competition and observed misconduct.
Chiefs’ attainment value. It is important that Chiefs see the alignment of professional
goals with collaborative practices. As found in the research by Eccles (2006), the understanding
of what constitutes a leader must be tied inextricably to the results of the team and group
dynamic. Thus, Chiefs have to believe that the ideal Chief is represented by the conduct of their
team, a component of which is collaborative practices.
Chiefs’ efficacy to integrate collaborative practices. Self-efficacy, according to
Pintrich (2003), is an individual’s confidence in their own ability to accomplish a goal or action.
This confidence is formed by processing experiences of mastery, vicarious experiences, social
persuasions, and physiological reactions (Pajares, 2006). Bandura (2000), in studying human
agency through collective efficacy, stated that efficacy impacts goals, aspirations, expectations,
proclivities, and the perception of barriers or opportunities. Thus, in order for Chiefs to integrate
collaborative practices, they must be confident in their capabilities in this area. Table 3 below
addresses the stakeholder motivational influences.
Table 3
Stakeholder Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences
Utility Value Chiefs need to see the value in retaining volunteers through collaborative
practices.
Attainment Value Chiefs should see being a leader who seeks collaboration as part of their
identity.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 43

Self-efficacy Chiefs need to feel confident in their ability to integrate collaborative
practices.

Organizational Influences
In addition to the individuals having the necessary knowledge and motivation, they need
support from the organization to achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Without the
resources, training and other critical organizational influences, individuals with even high levels
of knowledge and motivation cannot succeed. In looking at organizational influences, both the
organizational setting and model-related features have to be considered (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are the shared schema of an organization whereas cultural
settings are the locations where people come together to complete a joint activity. The cultural
setting and cultural model of the organization dictate the capacity for growth and change.
Understanding the cultural setting, cultural model, policies, and practices informs the
organizational influences operating for or against the performance goal.
The work of Toma and Butera (2015) forms the basis of understanding military cultural
model influences. The cultural setting of the military is derived from the organization’s purpose
to succeed in competition between countries through armed conflict. Competition, the opposite
of collaborative practices, activates fear of exploitation and desire to exploit others. Devaluation
of others becomes the comparison by which competitors can stand out. The motivation for self-
preservation to compete rather than collaborate entrenches confirmation bias and team discord.
Lack of organizational loyalty is an assumed organizational cause of substandard FTA
retention rates. Loyalty, expressed as retention, is developed through trust. As described in the
2013 study by Darabi and Mansouri, collaboration occurs only when trust exists. Trust can only
exist where there is no threat to an individual's survival. Otherwise, the innate survival instinct
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 44

will supersede any collaborative initiative. Table 4 below depicts the organizational influence
assets and needs in terms of the cultural models applicable to the stakeholder goals.
Table 4
Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goals

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Chiefs’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to ensure the intent of a study is met
(Maxwell, 2013). Influences do not act upon the organizational stakeholders in isolation. The
interactive relationship between the organization and the influences of the cultural setting,
cultural model, stakeholders, and organizational goal will be described and displayed through
visual representation.
Organizational Influences Assets and Needs
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
Organizational policies, procedures, and resources need to support
the capacity to embrace collaborative practices.
Cultural Model
Influence 2
Military culture is derived from competition between two countries
through armed conflict.
Cultural Model
Influence 3
The hyper-competitive nature of the promotion system has bred
distrust amongst teams and may hinder implementation of
collaborative practices.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 45

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Framework Interactions
In the conceptual framework figure above, the smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the Chiefs. The circle shows the needed knowledge and motivation by the Chiefs as
they operate within the larger circle, which is representative of the organization. The Chiefs, in
their smaller circle, must operate within the cultural settings and models provided by the larger
organization of which they are a part. Together, the Chiefs and the organization, working in
tandem, affect the trajectory towards the performance goal. The performance goal is illustrated
by a yellow box below the circles with an arrow from the circles towards the box. The arrow
Cultural Setting: Organizational policies, procedures, and resources need to support the capacity
to embrace collaborative practices.
Cultural Model: Military culture derived from competition between two countries through armed
conflict may act as a barrier to implementing collaborative practices
Cultural Model: The hyper-competitive nature of the promotion system has bred distrust amongst
teams and may hinder implementation of collaborative practices.
Conceptual Knowledge:
Chiefs need to understand the relationship between collaborative practices and retention rates for Airmen.
Chiefs need to know the importance of culture of inquiry and inclusion, emotional intelligence, and sense of
belonging
Chiefs need to know the importance of commitment, competence, and confidence
Chiefs need to the importance of collective responsibility for the future, emergent process, interdependence,
joint ownership of decisions, and solutions emerge from differences.
Chiefs need to know the importance of knowledge sharing as well as open and honest communication.
Motivation: Expectancy Value Theory
Utility Value: Chiefs need to see the value in retaining volunteers through collaborative practices.
Attainment Value: Chiefs should see being a leader who seeks collaboration as part of their identity.
Efficacy: Chiefs need to feel confident in their ability to integrate collaborative practices.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 46

highlights how the Chiefs, acting within the confines of the organization, impact the performance
goal.
Within the blue circle, the black square interacts with the orange circle by providing the
operating environment. Additionally, the box interacts with the black box in the orange circle.
The cultural setting of organizational resistance to collaboration due to the competitive nature of
a military’s existence informs the motivational factor of the Chiefs under the EVT of utility
value. The EVT utility value of the Chiefs is a lack of motivation towards collaboration due to
not perceiving its usefulness in the military.
The black motivational box representing EVT attainment value interacts with the black
organizational model box as demonstrated by the arrow from the former to the latter. The
Chiefs’ current belief that competition breeds the best leaders and that individual achievement is
a demonstration of that skill set shows a lowered attainment value for characterizing the ideal
Chief as an expert in collaboration. This lowered attainment value informs the cultural model of
Airmen believing their leaders are out for themselves and creates an environment of distrust for
leadership. The environment, depicted by the blue organizational culture, is the operating space
through which the Chiefs work to attain the performance goal of 60% FTA retention.
The black conceptual knowledge box within the Chiefs’ orange circle influences the
black EVT utility value box. The conceptual knowledge of not understanding the impact of
competition on teams or the effect of collaboration informs the motivational factor of the Chiefs
not finding utility value in collaboration. If the Chiefs understood the impact of each operating
and development system, they would be better able to assess the relative value of each.
However, since they are unfamiliar with collaboration due to the naturally competitive
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 47

employment of the military, they are incapable of making an informed decision on the utility
value of collaboration.
Each of the black boxes are influenced in some manner by the operating environment
provided through the organization’s cultural setting and model. Each circle is influenced by the
components of the other circles. These relationships, whether direct or indirect, impact the
operating environment of the organization through which the Chiefs work to drive the
organization to meet the performance goal. In this way, every aspect of the Chiefs’ knowledge
and motivation as well as the organization bear influence on the capacity to achieve the
performance goal. As such, any alteration to a component listed within the conceptual
framework will alter the trajectory of the arrow from the organization to the performance goal
either positively or negatively and result in a changed outcome.
Conclusion to the Literature Review
Chapter One focused on the impact of FTA retention on organizations and Chapter Two
focused on factors that affect FTA retention, competition versus collaboration in group
dynamics. The research in this literature review support the concept that internal competition and
collaboration affect collaborative practices and employee retention in volunteer organizations.
Despite this, very little research has been conducted regarding military retention regarding
competitive versus collaborative environments, and none specific to the 60th MW or FTA.
Chapter Three describes the study of Chiefs at the 60th MW and their knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on implementing collaborative practices. Included in the
description will be the methods, population, sampling, instrumentation, data collections, and data
analysis.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of the project was to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of the Chiefs to increase collaborative practices to achieve the 60th MW performance
goal of 60% retention of FTA. This chapter presents the research design and methods for data
collection and analysis. The research questions, interview sampling criteria, strategy, and
rationale, data collection and instrumentation, analysis, trustworthiness, and credibility, validity
and reliability, ethics, and limitations are also covered. The focus is on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impacting the gap between current performance and
desired performance in achieving the organizational goal. The Chiefs were the primary
stakeholder group explored during the study, as they are at the top of the enlisted force structure
and responsible for the organizational climate.
Research questions were used to provide detailed information about the practices
observed at the 60th MW. The research questions were developed over the course of a year
through topical discussion and assignments with professors and peers. The researcher collected
research on the factors that impact retention within volunteer organizations and, then, further
narrowed the findings to target competition within an organizational culture. This study focused
on answering the following questions:
1. What is the Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related to integrating collaborative
practices into the organization to improve the retention of First Term Airmen?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Chiefs’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 49

Participating Stakeholders
The problem of practice addressed in this study was the low FTA retention rates at the
60th MW. The specific focus of this study was to improve, per the organization’s mandate, the
retention rates by shifting from a culture of internal competition to a culture of collaboration.
The paradigm for military volunteerism is shifting as the demand on the force increases despite
decreased overall numbers.
The stakeholder population of focus for the study was the Chiefs assigned to the 60th
MW. The types of participants from this population selected were based on preset criteria
developed to correspond with the purpose of the study. There were four criteria for selection of
the study participant group: The Chiefs selected (a) had FTA in their supervisory chain, (b) held
a position of authority at the squadron level or higher, (c) participated as mentors in the locally
available professional development seminars, and (d) maintained an individual awards program
in their unit of assignment.
The rationale for the criteria was to answer the research questions with requisite
authority, the Chiefs must have relevant, recent experience in each of the categories. Chiefs
must have a position of authority at the squadron level or higher to provide the proper strategic
viewpoint on a cross-section of FTA within their assigned areas. Chiefs were involved in the
locally available professional development seminars so that they could describe what was being
taught and reinforced to FTA as key development requirements for leadership. For the purposes
of this study, the researcher defined participation in locally available professional development
seminars as being either a guest speaker or a panel member for the FTA Center course at least
once a year. The Chief participants also maintained an individual awards program that
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 50

demonstrated the current paradigm of preference towards individual achievement over collective
achievement and the Chiefs’ commitment to that paradigm.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
All Chiefs assigned to the 60th MW were invited to voluntarily participate in the
interview portion of the study. The detailed information gathered during the qualitative
interviews targeted their experiences with FTA and refined the overall findings and results. The
position as a Squadron Superintendent or higher gave the participants the chance to richly detail
the presence or absence of collaborative practices, impact of FTA retention problems, and
solutions previously engaged to correct the course. The Chiefs also described the role of
teamwork in a successful organization and what they are doing to achieve that critical aspect of
the military.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
As informed by Christensen, Johnson, Turner, and Christensen (2011), the sampling
strategy for the interviews was purposeful so that every willing participant would be interviewed.
The number of participants was maximized to include all Chiefs who met the criteria so that the
widest range of responses would be included for analysis since there are only five assigned
Chiefs in the 60th MW. This supported the research questions and conceptual framework by
including the variance in job specialty types through the different squadrons the Chiefs represent.
This broader spectrum of specialties captured data sets and responses not otherwise available to
Chiefs outside those career fields.
Qualitative Interview Data Collection
The researcher conducted five individual interviews with all Chiefs from the 60 MW who
volunteered to participate in the study. The intent of using the maximum number available was
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 51

to represent the broadest spectrum of individual perspectives across the 60 MW. There was no
monetary incentive or otherwise tangible reward offered to the respondents for participating to
avoid any ethical entanglements from a junior ranking service member presenting senior ranking
members with gifts. The interview invitation is located in Appendix A.
The interviews were conducted within each Chief’s private office so that they were
conducted without interruption or observation by coworkers. The meetings were set up directly
with the Chiefs, rather than through a secretary or administrative official, to reduce the amount
of personnel privy to the meeting details. The interviews were conducted over the course of two
months based on the Chiefs’ availability.
The researcher followed the semi-structured interview format, described by Patton
(2002), in which the items were asked the same way in the same sequence to each respondent
with probes to clarify as needed. This casual, conversational approach provided an environment
more conducive to the free flow of information and perspectives. The protocols were guided by
the conceptual framework. The interviewees were asked questions to engage thinking on their
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences regarding integrating collaborative
practices. The Chiefs, as actors within the conceptual framework, implement policies and
procedures towards the intended trajectory of the organization. The interview protocol, located
in Appendix B, includes the study’s purpose, an assurance of respondent confidentiality, a
request for permission to record the session, an opportunity for the interviewee to ask questions,
and a reminder that at any point the respondent can stop the interview.
The researcher also conducted document analysis on Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations. The document analysis was conducted using the
protocol instrument in Appendix C. The purpose of the document analysis was to ascertain the
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 52

cultural context and setting in relationship to the Chefs’ capacity to implement collaborative
practices.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In order to increase and maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, several
design factors were included. Internal consistency was established within the group since there
was no external group for comparison. Additionally, all instructions to the participants were
standardized along with the questions during the interviews. The number of interviews was
maximized to prevent the disproportionate weight of outliers in the final analysis and aid in
overall understanding. All ambiguous items were removed from the study as a result of peer
review and, if any item became unclear to an individual during the interview, it, too, was
removed from consideration to provide the greatest level of transparency and clarity to the study.
Additionally, conducting the interviews in the Chiefs’ offices minimized the potential intrusion
of external actors or events which could alter the data collection towards error.
As a researcher, I sought to enhance credibility and trustworthiness by conducting an in-
depth literature review, acknowledging biases, and limiting reactivity. Maxwell (2013) held up
bias and reactivity as the top two concerns in creating qualitative research with trustworthiness
and credibility. Using the advice of Creswell (2014), I engaged in member checking by
soliciting feedback on my initial findings from interviewees to increase the reliability and
internal validity of the data collected. To further mitigate the effects of bias and reactivity, I also
completed a peer review process with two coworkers who currently hold doctorates in education
and are former Air Force senior non-commissioned officers. The member checking and peer
review strategies validated the trustworthiness and credibility of my research by confirming the
integrity and interpretation of the data captured.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 53

Ethics
The researcher bears responsibility for safeguarding human subjects during the course of
any study (Glesne, 2011). The approach to this study was to provide full disclosure to each
individual participant to ensure that participation is voluntary, the same way Rubin and Rubin
(2012) describe performing similar studies. Informed consent was gathered in one-on-one
sessions. The researcher ensured that all aspects of the research are discussed and the purpose of
the research is disclosed. I also ensured that the participants had at least eight hours of sleep, not
consumed any mind-altering substances to include legal and illicit drugs or alcohol. The
participants were afforded an opportunity to ask questions regarding the construct, nature, and
involvement in the study before starting the interview.
Drawing on the writing of Rubin and Rubin (2012), participant confidentiality and all
data relevant to the participants’ identities were safeguarded against unauthorized access or
disclosure. Any information released will be coordinated through the individual participants for
consent prior to disclosure. Participants made elections to disclose all, some, or none of the
requested information without impacting their capacity to participate in the research study. All
information regarding the research participants’ data and participation was maintained in a
secure, confidential operating system and storage location accessible only to the researcher.
All data collection media were presented to the participants prior to use, and consent was
gained individually in the manner previously mentioned before collection procedures were
started. All recordings, tapes, DVDs, or written notes taken by the researcher during the course
of the study were available to the participants at their request within five business days. At any
point during or after the conclusion of the study, the participants were given the option to
withdraw their consent for a particular data collection platform.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 54

The relationship of the researcher to the organization where the study took place was as a
First Sergeant. The position held as a First Sergeant is specifically designated outside the chain
of any command and is not involved in any direct supervision. Furthermore, the targeted
stakeholders all bear a paygrade higher than the researcher, and their status as belonging to
another command clarifies any potential confusion by the other members of the organization
regarding duality of roles as informed by the work of Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The
researcher ensured that all participants understood his role as an investigator by clearly
identifying the difference in roles.
The researcher acknowledges that, due to previous work within the study arena,
assumptions and biases need to be accounted for prior to data collection, analysis, and reporting
activities. The researcher identified the difference in socioeconomic status between the primary
stakeholders for the study and his own background based on the difference in paygrade,
specifically that the Chiefs outrank the researcher. Additionally, the relationships built with the
stakeholders over a three-year working environment may have created more biases. Instituting
the peer review process and member checking previously described served to account for these
biases. This preserved the authenticity and unbiased nature of the research and prevented the
researcher from injecting outside assumptions.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were inherent limitations within the study that could not be controlled as well as
some delimitations that impacted the data. These limitations and delimitations define the
capacity, or lack thereof, of the study to be performed in a vacuum, free of external influences.
The limitations of this study were the degree to which the respondents were honest in their
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 55

interview answers, the time available for data collection and analysis, and the number of
respondents.
The respondents answered the questions as truthfully as they saw fit, and the researcher
may never know the accuracy of their responses. Additionally, due to constraints of location,
distance, work schedule, and coursework, the time for data collection and analysis was limited
by external factors. These factors could not be addressed by the researcher without significant
implications to the structure of the study. Another limitation, the number of respondents, could
not be controlled by the researcher. While every assigned Chief was approached to participate,
they could not be coerced or forced to comply with the research. Any attempt to manipulate the
response rate would have contaminated the study and invalidated the results.
The delimitations for the study were the number of questions asked, key stakeholders for
the study, and breadth of the study. The questions asked were focused to maximize the time of
the researcher and respondent by mitigating response fatigue while covering all research question
areas. The choice of Chiefs as the key stakeholders for the study also set the availability of
stakeholders to the limit of the defined group, rather than incorporating a larger stakeholder
group or multiple groups. The breadth of the study across a single base, rather than multiple
sites, also restricted the study by limiting the demographics available to the researcher.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 56

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This study was conducted at a single Air Force Base across a two-month period. The
purpose of this project was to explore the Chiefs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences in the context of improving FTA retention by integrating collaborative practices. The
methods used to collect the necessary data were qualitative interviews with the Chiefs and
document analysis on Air Force Instruction 36-2406. The first two research questions are
addressed in this chapter, and the final research question, based on content, is discussed in the
subsequent chapter. The questions that guided the study are as follows:
1. What is the Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related to integrating collaborative
practices into the organization to improve the retention of First Term Airmen?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Chiefs’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for the interviews were drawn from the original group of
Chiefs. However, due to assignment cycles, five of the 12 Chief positions at the base were
vacant by the time the interview process was started. Two Chiefs did not respond to successive
attempts to engage in the interview process. The five Chiefs who participated in the interviews
were from three different career fields and held positions at the tactical and operational levels of
Air Force leadership within the 60th MW. The Chiefs ranged in age from 42 to 48, had between
23 and 30 years of time-in-service, were all males, and led teams ranging in number from 225 to
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 57

560. Ethnic demography has been obscured from presentation in this study to preserve
confidentiality of the participants.
Findings
The findings were gathered through careful document analysis of the Air Force
Instruction 36-2406, The Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, as well as interviews
conducted with Chiefs. The documents and interviews were analyzed through qualitative
mechanisms and are presented using Corbin, Strauss, and Strauss’ (2014) 13 analytical tools.
The findings are discussed based on relationship to the research questions.
Knowledge Related to Collaborative Practices
The first research question asked, “What is the Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related
to integrating collaborative practices into the organization to improve the retention of FTA?”
This question was addressed through several items in the interviews. The initial assumption and
a bias by the researcher was that the competitive environment of the Air Force had produced
Chiefs who, through their familiarity with competitive practices versus collaborative practices,
would be unwilling and unable to incorporate collaborative practices into the organization to
improve FTA retention. However, during the interviews and subsequent analysis, two themes
emerged, which are presented in relation to the research question. The Chiefs displayed a broad
level of knowledge and motivation related to the integration of collaborative practices into the
organization to improve the FTA retention. Despite not being presented with the specifics of
collaborative practices or the relationship between those practices and retention, Chiefs
demonstrated a remarkable degree of broad understanding and motivation regarding the subject.
The Chiefs, in their responses to the interview questions, demonstrated knowledge in
each of the aspects and attributes of collaborative practices. Though the Chiefs did not expressly
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 58

state each aspect as a component of collaborative practice, through the context of their responses,
their understanding was conveyed. These findings were in keeping with the conceptual
knowledge focus of the study as procedural and metacognitive knowledge were not probed for in
the research. Table 5 displays some of the confirmatory responses from the five participant
Chiefs regarding the aspects. The table is a small representation of the total number of quotes
and is intended to provide a sampling overview of the Chiefs’ perspectives regarding the
subjects. Included in the table are five quotes from Chief 1, six from Chief 2, three from Chief 3
four from Chief 4, and four from Chief 5. There is a mild variance in the number of quotes
attributed per Chief in the table, however, this is not representative of their perspective. Rather,
it is representative of the quotes that captured the overall intentions of all the participants.
Table 5
Collaborative Practice Quotes
Collaborative Practice Chief Representative Chief Quotes
Culture of
Inquiry and
Inclusion

Chief 2

Chief 1
“We get a lot better because of the mistakes we make
because we get instant feedback”
“They need to know that you care what they think, how
they think, and why they think”
Emotional
Intelligence
Chief 2

Chief 1
“I think the bottom line is that it stifles creativity
throughout when you fail to collaborate”
“Attitude reflects leadership”
Sense of
Belonging
Chief 4

Chief 2
“I think collaboration significantly improves cohesion
because you develop relationships”
“It is understanding them, their goals, their values, and
what makes them a better part of the organization”
Commitment Chief 1 “Give them the standards of expectation and I hold them
to it”
Competence Chief 5 “Lead by example”
Confidence Chief 4 “You have to believe they will get the job done”
Collective
Responsibility
for the Future
Chief 5
Chief 4
“mission first, people always”
“we do this collaborative effort to do things better”
Emergent
Process
Chief 3 “if you allow collaboration to happen…you are going to
have people with faith in the system”
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 59

Interdependence Chief 5
Chief 2
“recognize that you can’t do things on your own”
“the point is to make each other better”
Joint Ownership
of Decisions
Chief 2
Chief 4
“they have to be able to trust your position”
“I like people to be able to do and create for
themselves”
Solutions
Emerge from
Constructive
Differences
Chief 3 “My goal is to put everybody in the same room with all
those different traits”
Open and
Honest
Communication
Chief 3
Chief 1
Chief 5
“communication builds trust”
“I am straight-up honest with them”
“You have to be open and willing to communicate with
your subordinates”
Knowledge
Sharing
Chief 1

Chief 2
“when they’re challenged, they know what their
mission and goals are and what the vision of their unit
is”
“More opportunities to talk to everyone at all different
levels”
Collaborative practice is predicated upon trust and an orientation towards positive
attribution for the actions of a teammate (Bendor et al., 1991; Johnson & Gonzalez, 2014; Nash,
1950). In this section, collaborative team building subsets of culture of inquiry, emotional
intelligence, and sense of belonging provide insight into the Chiefs’ level of knowledge
regarding collaborative practice implementation measures. Chiefs indicated their broad
knowledge and understanding of the subject matter by independently discussing the components
without being trained or prompted with technical terminology such as emotional intelligence,
sense of belonging, or culture of inquiry and inclusion. Three of the participants made four
specific statements regarding a culture of inquiry and inclusion, three made five statements
regarding emotional intelligence, and all five made a total of 36 statements regarding the
importance of a sense of belonging.
Knowledge of the importance of a culture of inquiry and inclusion. Knowledge of
the importance of a culture or inquiry and inclusion, a necessary component for building
collaborative teams (Berger, 2014), was demonstrated by the Chiefs’ consistent framing of
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 60

protocol responses in positive terms. When asked what the Air Force values as leadership
characteristics, Chiefs described the need for a culture that inquires for the reasoning behind
decisions to improve those decisions. As Chief 1 stated, “They have to know the ‘why’ so that
they perform actions with decentralized execution.” The Chiefs indicated that it is a
responsibility amongst the service personnel to understand the rationale and ask questions,
especially when related to mission or career impacting items.
Chiefs emphasized a positive attitude towards a culture of inquiry and relayed relevant
workspace scenarios to illustrate ways to cultivate leadership with troops. When a task or
responsibility is inaccurately delegated, one of the Chiefs discussed the process for evoking
thoughts, feelings, and solutions from subordinates by asking questions. The approach Chief 3
described is as follows:
My understanding is this got tossed in y’all’s lap. What is your understanding of it? What
do you think about it? What do you guys recommend and if you do not think it should be
in your lap, then it is mine to push back.
In the situation, the Chief has indicated a method for developing a culture of inquiry and
an appreciation for questioning as well as critical thinking without explicitly stating the words
“culture of inquiry.” This practice was assumed as intuitive knowledge by the Chief stating,
“What I am confused about is why doesn’t that come from within,” referring to an inherent need
to develop a culture of inquiry and critical thinking. This line of reasoning was separately
expounded on by Chief 2 who stated, “We get a lot better because of the mistakes we make
because we get instant feedback.” In this quote, the Chief was discussing the need for feedback
loops, inquiry, and transparency when failure happens. The Chief indicated that mistakes will
happen, but a positive attitude towards a culture of inquiry, deep-dive questioning, and
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 61

unflinching honesty must be present for learning. Chief 3 also described instant feedback as
being of the greatest benefit for the personnel involved. The absence of blame or assignment of
fault for the mistake was not noted in the response, another indicator of knowledge of the
importance of a culture of inquiry, although not explicitly stated as such.
Knowledge of the importance of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was
described by Engel et al. (2014) and associated by Berger et al. (2006) as foundational to
building collaborative teams. Knowledge of the importance of emotional intelligence was
captured in responses by three Chiefs through five separate statements. The responses provided
by the Chiefs did not explicitly state the term “emotional intelligence” as a part of collaborative
practices. However, the responses indicate an understanding of the foundational aspects of
emotional intelligence as identifying, understanding, and managing emotions as described in
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso’s (1999) Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS), and its
role in group dynamics.
When asked to speak about the leadership traits they find most influential, Chiefs
indicated knowledge of the importance of emotional intelligence within group dynamics. Chiefs
described “doing things the right way” as getting out and being amongst the troops, getting out
from behind the desk, active listening, participating in discussions with people at all levels of
leadership, and staying attuned to the attitudes and behaviors of the rest of the team. In a further
description of how interpersonal conflict might impact members of the team not directly
involved in the issue, Chief 2 described the rippling effect:
They know things are getting worse around them that indirectly affects them, it could
ripple effect negative attitudes throughout the whole unit. I think the bottom line is that it
stifles creativity throughout when you fail to collaborate.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 62

Again, though not overtly stated, the scenario provides an example of the importance of
emotional intelligence as it enhances group creativity and problem-solving. It is evident the
Chief is not trained specifically on the academic aspects of emotional intelligence, yet the
response indicates a deep practical knowledge of the benefits of emotional intelligence to an
organization. The Chiefs emphasized the need for respect and humility, aspects of emotional
intelligence, when interacting with team members, so as to foster a higher level of collaboration.
Chief 5 stated, “I would say I tend to gravitate towards those folks that have a respect for
mankind and humility” in describing the need for leaders to treat team members with fairness,
equity, and respect, so as to foster an environment primed for collaborative practices.
Knowledge of the importance of sense of belonging. Sense of belonging, a social
identity theory concept based on in-group and out-group behavior, was identified as a core
component of collaborative team building in literature review (Bailey, 2016; Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Friedman & Waggoner, 2010). All five Chiefs incorporated the concept of a sense
of belonging within their interviews for a total of 36 statements, indicating their level of
knowledge regarding the importance of sense of belonging. It was one of the instances where
the Chiefs explicitly stated the academic term without a prompt or contextual reference being
provided within the interview. This indicates a clearer level of knowledge regarding sense of
belonging and depth of exposure. Chief 4 responded to Q15 regarding what he considers
essential for the profession of arms,
Sense of belonging. To want to be a part of the profession of arms. I think that is huge.
And understanding that it is something that you have to develop and build. That when
someone joins the military that they’re not automatically a part of the profession of arms.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 63

The Chief was describing that there is a price for entry to the community because, once
in, a member has access to a strong network built around a deep sense of belonging. In further
comments, Chiefs described how mentorship across domains can help build a sense of belonging
and affiliation within a team or between teams. Chiefs also described that a sense of belonging
comes from leader involvement, face-to-face communication, and a shared message, which are
all available through mentorship. Chief 1 expounded on this idea by saying, “The subordinates
need to know, I hate to use that you care, but they need to know that you care what they think,
how they think, and why they think.” The Chief was expressing that team members need to feel a
sense of belonging through inclusion and acceptance.
Chiefs also alluded to the commonalities for reasons to join the in-group by stating,
“Most people join the military because they have, in my opinion, a patriotic view, or a certain
goal that they want to accomplish,” and saying, “We’re all working towards a common goal,
we’ve all volunteered to defend the constitution of the U.S. against foreign and domestic
enemies.” The Chiefs also demonstrated knowledge of the importance of a sense of belonging by
conveying a sense of community. As Chief 2 stated: “I’ve always thought that if you take care
of the Airmen and the people, and this could apply in civilian corporations as well, the mission
will take care of itself.” Chiefs consistently referred to the need to “take care of the people” so
that, “they want to come for the mission.” The Chiefs also drew a direct causal relationship
between sense of belonging, collaborative practices, mission effectiveness, and the precursor to
retention, loyalty.
Chiefs showed knowledge of the importance that a profession can also be a source of a
sense of belonging, and Chief 2 described such professional requirements when responding, “It
doesn’t matter what career; hard study is part of any profession and we’re professionals.” In the
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 64

brief statement, the Chief indicated there is a barrier to entry into the profession, irrespective of
exact career field, and that the barrier requires intensive effort to surmount. Those who have
exceeded the standard for entry deserve to be called professionals as part of the community,
enhancing the sense of belonging.
The Chiefs also demonstrated knowledge of the importance of a sense of belonging by
further describing the need to feel wanted, needed, and relevant. The practical application of the
knowledge of sense of belonging was underscored by Chief 3’s comment,
I think if I’d walked in and I never asked about their families or their goals or how
they’re doing, or their aspirations, they’d have a hard time understanding that I am a
human, too, and that I understand what they’re going through.
The statement implies that, without first understanding the individual, showing the
importance of their unique attributes and contributions, a sense of belonging cannot be
constructed and collaborative practices will be inhibited. This relationship is fostered by
including the members in the shared fate of the group and mission, as Chief 5 put it, “making
sure everyone has a voice and while one person might be in charge, it takes the whole team to
accomplish the mission.” The Chiefs acknowledged the need for subordinates to believe that
their leaders are trustworthy by showing an attitude of caring and inclusion to build a sense of
belonging. Throughout the responses, the Chiefs demonstrated knowledge of the importance of
a sense of belonging by emphasizing the relationship aspects of the profession of arms.
The Chiefs also described the relevance of traditional rites of passage and displays of
honor to build the sense of belonging amongst the community of practice. Occasionally, it is
necessary to refresh the sense of belonging within the membership through the application of
shared experiences and totems. These engagements and common symbols of the community
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 65

serve as reminders to the membership of their status within the organization as a select in-group.
Chief 3 stated,
If you go to these conferences or you go to these events where they’re honoring
somebody or they’re honoring the flag, or they have that patriotic type thing, you feel
good afterwards. You feel like, man, I am motivated. I am going to be the best Air Force,
Army, Navy guy ever. That is what I am talking about.
Knowledge of the inverse to a sense of belonging and its implications was also
demonstrated by the Chiefs in their responses. There are instances where the member is not
involved, or bought-in, and does not display a sense of belonging within the organization. Such
an individual places limits on the capacity for the organization to move forward or expand
collaborative practices. This level of involvement also applies to leaders that may not be fully
vested in the organization or are preparing for retirement. The lack of buy-in decreases the sense
of belonging within the community for all members, as described by Chief 4 when discussing a
previous experience, “When everybody’s kind of looking at the door, that affected the members
of that unit. They’re like, well, if my leaders are already retired, why am I going to be all in?”
The anecdote demonstrated an understanding of the pervasive, rippling effect of a sense of
belonging within a community or lack thereof.
In other instances, cultural attitudes or practices limit the sense of belonging and trust
amongst members. The fear of consequences drives behavior that is not inclusive, supportive, or
collaborative. Chief 1 summed it up: “Where folks are afraid to talk to the leaders. Afraid to
bring information forward. Fear of reprisal repercussion.” This fear of talk is in direct conflict
with the sense of belonging described by Chief 5 where, during warfighting exercises, “the
people that are giving the feedback also learn. And I think it is good for unit cohesion because it
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 66

ties everybody in and you become a close-knit community from it.” In a culture of inclusion with
a pervasive sense of belonging, even the evaluators and instructors are considered a part of the
community.
Throughout their responses, the Chiefs demonstrated a deep knowledge of the importance
of a sense of belonging, the components, and repercussions of barriers. As Chief 4 indicated
when responding on how to develop troops, “Generally just trying to get to know them. I try to
make them understand why they are important to the mission, why the mission we do is
important.”
The Chiefs were asked questions that probed for their level of knowledge regarding the
attributes of commitment, competence, and confidence (Johnson & Gonzalez, 2014). The Chiefs
displayed a high degree of knowledge regarding the three aspects of collaborative practice
management through their responses during the interviews. Although there was no indication
that would support a conclusion that Chiefs are trained in collaborative practices of management,
each aspect of the category was specifically referenced by the Chiefs, and the data indicated that
there is at least a familiarity with the sub-categories of commitment, competence, and
confidence.
Knowledge of the importance of commitment. Commitment was described by
Henneman et al. (1995) and Prins (2010) as an aspect of collaborative practices that unifies in-
group membership towards a shared objective. All five of the Chiefs made statements
throughout the interviews regarding commitment, compiling a total of 26 individual statements
regarding the subject. An expression of the understanding of commitment by the Chiefs was a
willingness to accomplish the mission irrespective of circumstances. As Chief 1 stated, “You
cannot just be a mouthpiece on a stage saying we want to be the best. You have to live it.” Chief
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 67

2 described it as “being selfless, working hard, focus on the mission and the people.” This
sentiment was supported by Chief 3’s comment: “the willingness to do the job when no one else
wants to do it.”
The Chiefs expressed a perceived causal relationship between commitment to standards
and morale by stating that in places with “low standards and [where] people aren’t held to
standards, and there never really is an understanding of why they’re doing things, those people
tend to do their four or six years or less and they get out.” Chief 1 clarified the statement later in
the interview by indicating how a commitment to standards can improve a culture. The
correlation between a commitment to standards, morale, collaborative practices, and mission
effectiveness indicates a knowledge of the importance of commitment impacts and practices.
This depth of commitment was discussed as an expected norm across the service from
each of the participants. Chief 3 said, “At work, I focus solely on the mission, nothing else,
because I know my family is taken care of” and that the expectation for personnel is that “they’re
going to do it because it is the right thing to do, because it is something they want to do, they
need to do, or it helps other people.” These statements indicate that the knowledge of
commitment is present within the Air Force culture as an expected norm behavior. The Chiefs
expanded the commitment to a societal obligation by incorporating the aspects of a failure to
maintain the level of commitment within the profession of arms when necessary. Simply stated
by Chief 3, “You got to have a willingness to fight and die for the cause.”
Knowledge of the importance of competence. In collaborative practices, there is an
expectation of competence from management which is a foundation to trust and loyalty
(Henneman et al., 1995). Four of the five Chiefs made specific responses regarding knowledge
of the importance of competence during the interview process for a collective total of 25
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 68

statements regarding the subject. The frequency with which the term or an associated term was
used indicates a moderate level of understanding regarding the importance of competence as an
aspect of collaborative practices.
Competence is essential for individuals to trust the benefit of a collaborative relationship.
If the partner or manager is suspected of incompetence, the potential collaborator will be
reluctant to engage in collaborative practices that would result in a negative return on efforts
(Henneman et al., 1995; Nancarrow et al., 2013; Toma & Butera, 2015). The Chiefs, as a whole,
indicated that demonstration of practical competence within their field of expertise was
important. Chief 1 described the importance of this level of competence by saying, “You cannot
just say it. You have to do it and if you cannot do that, then it is not going to work for you.” The
inference in the quote is that, if a leader cannot demonstrate the necessary competence within
their field of practice, they will not be effective and cannot foster collaborative practices.
The Chiefs expounded on the subject of competence by incorporating the concepts of
trust between leaders and subordinates, “If your subordinates do not trust that you’re going to
make the right decisions and do the right thing every time, then they’re not going to believe in
you.” The Chiefs indicated through similar statements an understanding of the correlation
between demonstrated ability and competence with levels of trust and willingness to collaborate.
Chief 1 described it as “the expert in your field. Prove it. Prove you have what it takes to operate
in all those environments before we set you up for it.” There is an expectation that, when a leader
is in charge, they must remain relevant within their career field and continually demonstrate that
competence. This level of mastery was corroborated by Chief 2 saying, “Do not ask them to do
anything you do not know how to do or haven’t already done.” The Chiefs’ knowledge of the
level of importance of competence was summed in a sentiment by Chief 4, “I tend to follow
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 69

somebody who has the expertise to follow the mission and can demonstrate that to me.” The
responses across the Chiefs show the uniformity of expectation that being a craftsman is part of
required competence.
The negative repercussions of a lack of competence were also thoroughly discussed
during the interviews. Chief 1, when providing a description of the effects of incompetence in a
work center, stated, “You lose that faith of mission execution or you lose that confidence that the
other person has the ability or is going to do the job that they’re supposed to do.” There’s a direct
relationship indicated between competence, trust, and mission accomplishment. As a whole, the
Chiefs demonstrated knowledge of the importance of competence.
Knowledge of the importance of confidence. Confidence in team members is a
necessary component of collaborative practices that builds capacity for further collaboration
(Henneman et al., 1995). Throughout the interviews, four of the Chiefs made a total of 11
statements regarding confidence as a leader. The Chiefs described confidence through several
contexts: confidence in subordinates, abilities, and decisions.
Chiefs discussed confidence in terms of leader and subordinate trust relationships, as
Chief 1 described, “At the end of the day, you got to trust that your boss is going to do the right
thing. You got to trust that your people are going to do the right thing.” This statement indicates
the knowledge of the importance of confidence and the relationship with trust.
Another aspect of confidence, the impact on an organizational culture was captured in the
statements by the Chiefs. The premise of the Chiefs’ position was that a level of confidence
demonstrated by leadership gets translated throughout the unit. As stated by Chiefs 4, “If you
have a ‘we tackle challenges and we will battle through these challenges [confidence],’ then your
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 70

squadron will take on a ‘we can dominate the world’ personality.” The Chief demonstrated an
understanding of how confidence permeates a unit and effects the overall atmosphere.
Collaborative practices are also identified through the implementation of structures that
set the environment for interdependence and shared intentions towards a common goal (Johnson
& Gonzalez, 2014). These characteristics were subdivided by Gray (1989) as (a)
interdependence, (b) solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences, (c) joint
ownership of decisions, (d) collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain, and
(e) collaboration is an emergent process. Throughout the interviews, the Chiefs demonstrated an
understanding of the importance of these categories.
Knowledge of the importance of collective responsibility for the future. The shared
responsibility for the future of the domain, termed collective responsibility for the future, is a
component of the structural aspect of collaborative practices (Gray, 1989; Cohen & Levesque,
1990; Grosz & Kraus, 1999). Four of the five Chiefs made specific comments during the
interviews regarding the collective responsibility for the future. The Chiefs demonstrated a high
level of knowledge of the importance that all personnel are responsible for what happens in the
future regarding the Air Force from both a cultural and mission effectiveness perspective. The
most obvious declaration of this knowledge occurred when a participant was describing the
career path the Chief had taken to arrive at the current position. In the commentary, the Chief
stated that there comes a time when the future, big picture items becomes an investiture for the
individual, but they cannot be attained alone. Chief 5 stated that, in that moment, you “recognize
that you cannot do things on your own.”
When another Chief was a young senior non-commissioned officer, he was mentored by
a Chief regarding collective responsibility. Chief 2 stated, “I believe that, when you take a task,
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 71

there’s a responsibility.” The responsibility being described was for the future of the
organization. There is an expectation that there is a collective responsibility from the
membership of the profession of arms towards the future, and the Chiefs demonstrated this
knowledge in both positive and negative statements regarding the subject. The Chiefs precisely
described the relationship and burden all senior non-commissioned officers bear towards the
community and the future. This sense of responsibility was more described by Chief 5 as,
“mission first, people always.”
The lack of collective responsibility towards the future was also described by the Chiefs
in the interviews. The absence of honest communication, a collaborative practice, was viewed
accurately as a negative where, as Chief 1 put it, “the individual is not held accountable.” The
concept was elaborated on by Chief 2 as “Criticism. Some people have thick skin. Some people
have thin skin, but the point is to make each other better and, all in all, I think that is what we
do.” The Chiefs demonstrated their knowledge of the importance of a collective responsibility to
the future by attributing uncomfortable criticism as a necessary practice which improves the
individual and organization.
Knowledge of the importance of interdependence. All five Chiefs responded to
questions during the interview with answers indicating a knowledge of the importance of
interdependence. Trust, although similar to interdependence, is not synonymous with the aspect.
Interdependence does not require a trusting relationship, as people can be unwillingly reliant
upon one another. The Chiefs viewed interdependence as the most effective method for getting
work accomplished and the basis for multiservice joint operations. As Chief 2 stated, the
foundational nature of interdependence is “really the only way to get a lot of stuff done.”
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 72

The Chiefs also drew a relationship between interdependence and trusting behaviors. As
described by Chief 1, “You have to believe that when your Airmen leave the gate, and they’re
going out to the missile field to do the job, that they’re going to do the job.” This statement
captures the Chiefs’ responses regarding the interdependent nature between leaders and
subordinates as well as between separate units that are necessary to accomplish the mission.
The practice of interdependence was also tied to performance evaluation measures by the
Chiefs. As Chief 2 stated, “At the end of the day, I think your performance will be based on how
your people perform and how the mission is accomplished.” The performance of the team and
the perception of the leader are interdependent upon each other for success, making each
beholden to the other and enhancing collaborative practices. These interdependencies were even
demonstrated by the Chiefs from a service-to-service vantage point. As described by Chief 5, “I
am going to look at it as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, where the joint force is working together a
long time.”
Knowledge of the importance of joint ownership of decisions. The concept of joint
ownership of decisions spontaneously emerged in the responses the Chiefs provided throughout
the interview. Three of the five Chiefs made specific comments regarding knowledge of the
importance of joint ownership of decisions during the interviews for a total of nine comments
regarding the subject. The Chiefs described the positive effects and demonstrated what joint
ownership of decision-making practically looks like in the field. As Chief 5 stated in detailing
the collaborative nature of joint ownership of decisions, “You might not always be the one with
the best idea.” The Chiefs also discussed what factors would limit joint decision-making,
demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic despite a low level of occurrence during the
interviews.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 73

The joint decision-making process was advocated by the Chiefs through a lens of
collaboration. One Chief described a preference towards shared decision-making, in this
instance termed “influence” above overt “power” decisions based on rank and authority. Chief 4
stated that, “I think influence is the biggest thing when I talk about leadership. I want to lead by
influence instead of by power.” The Chief was describing the technique of limited, effective
engagements during the decision-making process as affording a greater capacity to develop
subordinates. When this does not occur, Chiefs 2 described the negative consequences to the
team, subordinates, and continued relationship,
They have to be able to trust your position, and if that is going to be something you are
going to compromise and collaborate on. They’re not going to be willing to try your
suggestions or opinions or even be open to your feedback if the trust is not there.
Through this commentary, the Chiefs demonstrated a knowledge of the relationship between
shared decision-making and trust, a key to collaborative practices.
Knowledge of solutions emerge from constructive differences. Although the
discussion of solutions emerging from constructive differences was not a high frequency
discussion topic amongst the Chiefs, the responses provided did indicate a high level of
knowledge regarding the importance. The Chiefs described solutions emerging from
constructive differences in terms of positive and negative effects through a lens of diversity and
interpersonal conflict.
In responding to Q8 regarding how he felt competition and collaboration each influence
unit cohesion, one Chief described a situation where differences can lead to interpersonal conflict
and have a detrimental outcome for the subordinates and team. As Chief 2 stated, “If they divide
or cannot collaborate, the negative impact is that the Airmen or your people will pay the price.”
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 74

The idea the Chief was conveying was part of a larger discourse that diversity of personnel and
ideas provides a greater source of solutions than homogeneity, but if heterogeneous groups
cannot collaborate with respect, the results are divisive to the whole.
The fracture can also instill fear of presenting innovative or different ideas within the
team for fear of ostracism. Chief 4 stated that “people are afraid that every time they bring up an
idea, it is going to be shot down because it is a terrible idea. I think that is a way you would lose
that [collaboration].” The scenario depicts the inverse of a collaborative practice structure where
solutions emerge from constructive differences. The reason is that, in the instance, the described
differences are not viewed as constructive, but as anomalous and defective. In a structure built
towards collaborative practices, the inclusion of differences and diversity provides the necessary
variance for a stable platform (Houston, 2010).
The Chiefs demonstrated a knowledge and appreciation for solutions emerging from
constructive differences. Chief 5, in responding to Q4 regarding the ways in which he cultivates
leadership with troops, captured the essence of the concept by stating,” My goal is to put
everybody in the same room with all those different traits and go, ‘somebody needs to fix the
schedule and since you all are in it, y’all are going to sit here and fix it.’” The Chief further
expounded on the philosophy of placing a diverse group together to develop solutions in
collaboration in a later elaboration of the same question by stating,
Put them together in one room, put them in charge of their own destiny, letting them take
the reins and then just providing that steady hand guidance, I think gives them the ability
and empowers them to manage their work and workload.
Knowledge of the importance of knowledge sharing. The Chiefs both explicitly and
implicitly described and indicated the importance of knowledge sharing as well as openness and
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 75

honesty in communication. The breadth and depth of understanding displayed shows a high
level of knowledge on the subject across the domain. The key differences between the previous
section of open and honest communication and knowledge sharing is the active nature of the
latter. Knowledge sharing is an active push of the maximum available information to the furthest
areas within the organization feasible. It is an intentional process that includes mentorship.
While the two aspects are similar, it is important to remain to true to the delineation described by
Gray (1989) and in the literature review. All five of the Chiefs made comments regarding the
power and importance of knowledge sharing. The Chiefs made a total of 21 statements defining
the nature of knowledge sharing, the positive impacts of the collaborative practice, and the
negative repercussions when the practice is not implemented. The Chiefs defined this
knowledge sharing as expressing the why, or rationale, behind practices and disseminating this
information amongst subordinates. Chief 1, in answering Q4 on cultivation leadership with
Airmen, provided an example of how knowledge sharing is implemented in the Air Force. The
Chief stated, “Every time I have an expectation, I give them the ‘why.’ Why are we doing this?
Because they need to know that.” The emphasis that the knowledge sharing is a “need” rather
than just a “want” also qualifies the level of priority. The Chiefs also characterized knowledge
sharing as an attribute of leadership, as Chief 3 stated, the responsibility for a leader is to “get me
up to their level” or “bring somebody else up.”
The Chiefs also showed discernment regarding the type of information sharing that is
important. Chief 4, in discussing how the Chief’s squadron goes about developing subordinates,
stated, “We talked about standards and discipline and how the non-judicial punishment process
works and things like that” as well as how the development is a direct information path: “Non-
commissioned officers getting mentorship sessions directly from me and the First Sergeant.” In
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 76

this instance, the Chief is showing the specificity of knowledge sharing that is required.
Processes and procedures that impact the careers of the subordinates should be transparent.
Chief 1 provided the following insight: “When they know what their mission and goals
are, and what the vision of their unit is, those people in my opinion that I’ve seen, tend to stay
around longer.” The Chief was expressing a belief that a relationship exists between sharing
knowledge regarding mission, goals, and vision and retention. There is an aspect of humility
associated with knowledge sharing that was described by Chief 5: “You’re not always the one
that has the great idea. On your team, they may have a great way of coming to a solution” where
sharing knowledge may lead to better solutions being developed from within the team.
The Chiefs demonstrated a high degree of understanding regarding the negative
implications of barriers to or elimination of knowledge sharing. There was also a distinction
drawn between certain squadrons and the implication that an adversarial rather than a
cooperative relationship existed. Chief 1 described a particularly adversarial relationship
between maintainers charged with fixing equipment and security personnel charged with
guarding the equipment. The situation was retold by the Chief as follows:
Historically [we] have not trusted that maintenance is using their bodies effectively,
which creates us working longer hours. So, barriers start being put in place. We do not
ask much. We do not come together and look at schedules. We do not look at how to be
more efficient.
Even in the description of the negative knowledge sharing environment, the Chief
recognized the expected behaviors of asking questions, coming together, and looking for
efficiencies. The implication for negative mission impact was described in the understanding of
lower efficiency or a lack of continuous improvement, or as stated by Chief 3, “So,
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 77

communication builds trust in this particular avenue and that lack of trust can lead to very bad
things.”
One of the Chiefs captured the positive and negative impacts of knowledge sharing as
collaborative practice while responding to Q8 regarding how he feels competition and
collaboration each influence unit cohesion, with a work center example of information flow.
Chief 3 stated,
Collaboration here is a product that has been refined, that is been passed over to
somebody else that can look at it again and work with each other. [It] could mean the
difference between seeing something or understanding a situation that is developing and
not. Collaboration between my floor and the floor down could mean information flows
faster and more efficiently. If we’re willing to talk to each other; mission efficiency.
In this statement, the Chief has demonstrated an understanding of the need for knowledge
sharing between functional areas and the need for information to be refined through an iterative
process. This understanding of knowledge sharing also represents an awareness of the second
aspect of communication for collaborative practices: open and honest communication.
Knowledge of the importance of open and honest communication. All five of the
participants responded with statements indicating knowledge of the importance of honesty and
openness in communication. A total of 40 comments were made about open and honest
communication. In the interview, this was the highest frequency of response noted by the
researcher, demonstrating the level of knowledge the Chiefs had regarding the subject. In fact,
the Chiefs described honesty in terms that prioritized it amongst the highest aspects of
leadership.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 78

Chief 1, in response to Q2 about the leadership traits he found most influential, provided
the following statement, “Honesty is number one. Straightforward, brutal honesty, no beating
around the bush. Tell it like it is. Do not sugar coat it. None of that kind of stuff” which was
further clarified when he stated, “Without trust and honesty, it is not going to work.”
The aspects of open and honest communication were also tied to cultural requirements.
As Chief 5 stated, “you have to be open and willing to communicate with your subordinates to
successfully navigate leadership in general and to build the culture.” Another Chief described
the competitive process of rankings amongst peers, commonly called stratifications, and the
belief held by individuals that their records are the best and deserve recognition. Part of open
and honest communication is recognizing incongruities with reality and discussing that with the
individual and realizing where it exists within oneself. As Chief 2 stated, “Everyone thinks they
have great records until you bump them against somebody else,” which the Chief followed up
with, “I’ll be honest. Be honest. Here in this unit, of all the Chiefs, I have the worst records of all
of them. And my records aren’t bad, just not as great as theirs, and that is ok.” There is an open
and honest communication, an admission that room for improvement exists and that it is
acceptable to recognize the superiority of someone else in some regard without diminishing
one’s own leadership capacity.
It was clearly shown throughout the interviews that the Chiefs acknowledged the need to
provide open, barrier-free lines of communication. Chief 2 stated that there was a definite need
to “open the feedback chain, giving them information but allowing them to provide information
as well at the same time.” This opening of the lines of communication for two-way, honest
dialog was also addressed as approachability and availability. Chief 5 stated it as,
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 79

I think you always have to be approachable. It is not just approachable. Anybody can be
approachable. You have to be sincere when approached. I say that because I think you
have to understand your troops. I think being approachable is not just them being able to
come up and talk to you. It is about being sincere with them.
Chief 2 provided a short example regarding an approach to open communication, “What I
try to do is talk to those Airmen, and I make a lot of people nervous, man. I just go right to the
Airmen and talk to them, which I know that is not in line with chain of command.” The Chief
realized that this was not normative behavior as expressed by Air Force hierarchy; however, it
was necessary to achieve the level of open communication needed to facilitate collaborative
practices. This anecdotal evidence was repeated in various formats from each of the participants,
indicating that this solution to mitigate the rigid communication channels has been implemented
in a broad range of squadrons and leadership roles.
The Chiefs also demonstrated an understanding of the negative aspects associated with a
communication pattern devoid of openness and honesty. The Chiefs showed an understanding of
the critical nature of honest communication in scenarios where mishaps, mistakes, or errors have
been made. The inclination to cover-up, diminish, or avoid genuine ownership of fault is
contrary to open and honest communication, and the Chiefs discussed the negative implications
of those tendencies. Chief 4 stated that, “knowing and admitting your faults” was a key aspect of
leadership and provided an example indicating that subordinates, armed with technology, will
discern the truth anyway, so it is best to admit the error. “Every Airman has smart phone and
they can have a Google machine and say, ‘hey no, you’re wrong.’ So, you have to be open and
honest” if for no other reason than to maintain legitimacy.”
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 80

The Chiefs also recognized other detractors from open and honest communication such as
rigid communication chains, one-way communication channels, and physical or social barriers to
communication. These aspects were discussed and described in depth by the Chiefs in relation to
the need for open and honest communication to build trust, collaborative practices, teams, and
mission effectiveness.
Motivation Related to Integrating Collaborative Practices
Beyond understanding and having knowledge of collaborative practices, the Chiefs
demonstrated motivation to integrating collaborative practices within the work centers to
improve FTA retention. All five Chiefs responded positively to implementing collaborative
practices during the interviews, although specificity was minimal regarding exact practices or
strategies. The Chiefs, as a whole and individuals, displayed a generally positive outlook
towards collaborative practices as an essential aspect of organizational behavior necessary for
improving retention, cohesion, trust, and mission success.
The Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation towards implementing collaborative practices to
improve FTA retention could best be compared to knowing the definition of an academic
vocabulary word without knowing the precise spelling. The Chiefs consistently used terms,
phrases, and examples that demonstrated a practical knowledge of the aspects of collaborative
practices without necessarily being able to provide the theoretical definitions of the components.
Chiefs’ high utility value for collaborative practices in retaining volunteers. The five
of the Chiefs made a total of 13 statements indicating a high utility value for collaborative
practices in retaining volunteers. Chief 3, when discussing the need for collaborative practices,
stated bluntly that, “collaboration is key to winning this particular fight” and “collaboration is
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 81

key to mission success,” clearly demonstrating the value of collaborative practices within the
Chiefs’ domain.
In each instance where collaborative practices were discussed during the interview, the
Chiefs responded positively to the concepts. As Chief 2 stated regarding the Air Force’s shift
towards establishing collaborative practices, “If you can’t work together, it just is not going to
work.” Chief 5 furthered this commentary by sharing, “Collaboration is essential to unit
cohesion and retention.” Irrespective of their precise knowledge regarding the particular aspects
of collaborative practices, the Chiefs assessed a high utility value. The Chiefs used the terms
teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration interchangeably in these instances. The positive
attributions they associated with the categories as they spontaneously emerged throughout the
interview demonstrated the prominence and high utility prioritization with which the Chiefs held
the collaborative practices.
Throughout the course of the interviews, the Chiefs consistently demonstrated
understanding of the relationships between collaborative practices, loyalty, and retention
amongst volunteers. Further, the Chiefs also indicated high utility value in leveraging
collaborative practices to achieve retention by building on those relationships. As Chief 4 stated
when discussing how he viewed the relationship, “collaboration is absolutely essential to unit
culture and retention.”
Chiefs’ high attainment value of being a leader who cultivates collaboration. All
five of the Chiefs expressed high attainment value of being a leader who cultivates collaboration.
When looking at the language of the responses throughout interviews regarding collaborative
practices, the Chiefs used the words “priority,” “most important,” and “foundation” to refer to
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 82

the collaborative practices. These terms indicate the urgency of the utilization of the practices
within the minds of the Chiefs.
Chief 2, in describing his high attainment value, viewed collaborative practices in terms
of how the current Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force effects the entire service. The Chief
stated, “I think, especially with Chief Wright, working together and collaborating, that’s
important.” The Chiefs continued the same vein of discussion during the course of the
interviews, elaborating on the concept that the essence of a Chief is being a leader who cultivates
collaboration. As Chief 3 said, “We have to get people working together.”
Chiefs’ high efficacy related to integrating collaborative practices. All the Chiefs responded
positively to Q14, “Can you talk about your level of confidence to leverage collaborative
practices to develop leaders?” The confidence in their capacity to leverage the practices was
subsequently expanded in their responses as a discussion on how important the practices, in their
view, were to improving leadership and developing teams as well as subordinates. Throughout
the discourse, the theme that emerged was that all five Chiefs held high efficacy related to
integrating collaborative practices within their units. The Chiefs responded, “Absolutely
confident,” as well as, “Pretty confident.” The Chiefs, as in other areas, provided highly
descriptive responses that underscored their overall efficacy within the domain.
Exploring Organizational Influences Related to Integrating Collaborative Practices
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406 governs the promotion process for Air Force
members and is the central focus for competitive, non-collaborative practices. As such, a
document analysis was conducted in this study and the protocol can be found in Appendix C.
The analysis, coupled with interview protocol items designed to elicit responses on
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 83

organizational influences, provided the study’s framework for exploring the organizational
influences related to integrating collaborative practices.
Organizational policy, procedure, and resource-related barriers to embracing
collaborative practices. The Chiefs, throughout the interviews and the document analysis,
provided an in-depth description of the ways in which culture and context impact knowledge,
skills, and motivation to implement collaborative practices to improve FTA retention. In
describing the culture, Chiefs consistently mentioned the Air Force core values of integrity first,
service before self, and excellence in all we do as key components to the cultural makeup of the
service. Chief 2 further expanded by stating, “the characteristics of being selfless, working hard,
focus on the mission and the people.” These ideas were coupled with their perspectives on what
key aspects are essential to the profession of arms. The Chiefs assessed that the foundational
cultural elements to the profession of arms were remaining a consummate professional, loyalty,
willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of belonging.
Promotion and performance-based barriers to collaborative practices in Air Force
Instruction 36-2406. The purpose of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, is
to establish performance standards, feedback, and direction for improvement. It also provides a
cumulative record of performance and promotion potential as well as information to senior non-
commissioned officer promotion boards. The AFI also provides instances of specific guidance
on the competitive forced distribution and stratification process. Stratification is restricted to
10% of all assigned E7s and 20% of all assigned E8s. Stratification, as defined in AFI 36-2406,
is a “quantitative comparison of an individual standing amongst peers within a definable group
and within a specific evaluator’s scope of authority (i.e., direct rating chain)” (p. 307).
Promotion to the ranks of E7 through E9 is largely based on board score. This score is
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 84

developed by reviewing each person’s records within a particular job series, termed Air Force
Specialty Code, and rating the last five years of performance reports, medals, and personnel
information on a scale of 6 to 10 in half point increments. The score is independently made by a
panel of two Chiefs and a Colonel. The panel members are not allowed to discuss their scoring
with each other or know the name of the record they are scoring. This sets up a double-blind
system that does not allow for anyone to weight the system for their friends. The system also
rank orders all the records from a given AFSC and determines who achieved the highest score
and who achieved the lowest score. The promotion line is then established by determining the
number of vacancies projected in a particular AFSC and then determining what score would
allow for the number of vacancies to be filled fully. All members above that number are
promoted. Then, each member is given a number representing that member’s standing amongst
peers to determine their relative position within the career field.
The stratification process occurs at the base level before the promotion board. Members
from different AFSCs are rated against each other and given a number such as “#1/212 MSgts.”
This is not a blind scenario and is based on conversations between leaders at base who are
familiar with the individuals who are eligible. The numbers are assigned based on who the
stratification board believes will be most promotion eligible, in an attempt to notify the central
promotion board of the base’s intent for a person to be promoted.
The highly competitive performance and promotion-based policies and procedures reveal
a cultural setting as a barrier to collaborative practices. The obsolete stratification process
reinforces internally competitive behaviors between teams and coworkers rather than shifting the
competition towards external entities. Further, there are no instances within the promotion
system specifically designed to enhance collaborative practices, which limits the positive
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 85

potential impact towards team building. The lack of correlation between promotions and
collaborative practices emphasizes the performance gap and indicates a significant cultural
barrier.
The negative impact of competitive military culture on collaborative practices. The
Chiefs discussed organizational culture and context in terms of career progression, individually
valued leadership traits, Air Force valued leadership traits, elements essential to the profession of
arms, and the impact of leaders. They also identified relationships between collaborative
practices and trust, between competition and collaboration, and between culture and force-
shaping, retention, cohesion, context, knowledge, and motivation. The culture and context
demonstrated a culture with a predisposition towards competition and organizational barriers
between squadrons that define teams in terms of squadrons rather than complete units or the
service. The discussions on collaborative practices were absent any remarks on intergroup or
cross-functional cooperative activities. Chief 1 described the “elimination of communication”
and predisposition towards distrust when discussing the rivalry relationship between two
mission-partner squadrons. In no instances did the Chiefs describe or attribute any collaborative
practices or positive behaviors towards other squadrons or out-group individuals.
They also described the impact that leadership can play on a unit is culture both from a
positive and negative aspect. As Chief 5 described it, “Toxic leadership. It has been around for
everybody. There was a big write up in 2010 on how toxic leadership was driving military units
down in readiness.” Although it has not been widely described outside of military circles, the
negative implications of toxic leadership, as associated with internal competition, and its
consequences were well known amongst the Chiefs.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 86

Unit leadership was also pinpointed by the Chiefs as a critical indicator of unit success or
failure. The genesis of the leadership or office of responsibility was not shown as an important
factor so much as the quality of the leadership. Specifically, the outward attitude of the
leadership was identified by the Chiefs as a determinant for a culture of resiliency within the unit
as a response to adversity.
The negative impact of the hyper-competitive promotion system on developing trust
and collaborative practices amongst teams. There were negative statements made indicating
the peril of a unit cultural climate in the absence of collaborative practices, such as when Chief 1
stated, “that just is not going to work.” The importance was further affirmed through the use
similes and metaphors as in the case where Chief 5 said, “collaboration is the foundation.” Each
of the Chiefs responded in a manner rich with personal examples of collaborative practices and
the absence thereof and the impact on the culture and context as well as the reverse. The Chiefs
specifically described how a negative cultural climate and context would limit the use of
collaborative practices amongst peers within an organization, to the detriment of the mission.
Overall, the Chiefs demonstrated the negative impact of a hyper-competitive promotion
system on developing trust. The cultural aspect of career progression was viewed through a lens
of focusing on the competitive aspects of a record or career. Chiefs regarded competition as a
necessary construct in choosing the best person for the next higher pay grade. Despite comments
like Chief 2 stating, “I just focused on them and making them better and, in the process, it made
me better,” the overall belief amongst the Chiefs was that competition was a requirement. As
discussed by Chief 4, “Yeah, you’ve got competition amongst each other and that is great.” The
theme was that competition breeds excellence and that the best person would rise to the top of
individual competition, and by extension be the best team leader.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 87

There were also parallels drawn by the Chiefs between collaborative practices and trust.
The Chiefs described a positive relationship between level of trust and level of collaborative
practices. Chief 2, in responding to the close relationship between the two concepts, stated,
“Trust is a foundation,” and “I think without trust there’s no way to collaborate.” The inverse of
the relationship was also demonstrated by a clear understanding of the implications of a culture
and contextual application of competitive practices. The potentially destructive nature to
building trusting relationships and collaborative practices was further highlighted by the Chiefs’
understanding of the correlation between culture and unit cohesion.
Chief 4 remarked, “I think collaboration significantly improves cohesion because you
develop relationships.” Although the Chiefs made constituent statements regarding the cultural
and contextual implications towards collaborative practices, there was a knowledge gap in the
knowledge of the Chiefs on the relationship of culture on force-shaping. Previously, the Chiefs
discussed retention and trust, but they were unable to draw any conclusions about how those
factors would further impact force-shaping. Chief 1 stated, “I’ve never really thought about it,”
which was a common response towards the force-shaping impact of culture during the interview.
This response indicates that although the Chiefs were aware of the impact of culture and context,
the importance of collaborative practices, the relationship between collaborative practices and
trust, loyalty, and retention, they were unable to make the next correlation between culture and
force-shaping.
Despite the lack of knowledge regarding a relationship between culture and the internal
process of force-shaping, Chiefs consistently described a highly interdependent relationship
between culture and retention. As Chief 5 stated, “Unit culture and retention? Absolutely there’s
a connection” which was expressed specifically by Chief 3: “If folks are happy where they’re out
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 88

and they feel like there’s a chance for advancement or improvement, then they’re going to stick
around.” The Chief further described the impact of the culture on retention by stating, “If
promotions are happening, if they’re being treated well, with respect, I think people are happy all
in all.”
Synthesis
The results from the document analysis, interview administration, and qualitative findings
show a knowledgeable and motivated group of Chiefs dedicated to the implementation of
collaborative practices to address the problem of practice in the organization of study. The
Chiefs have not received formalized training in their career on the specific aspects of
collaborative practices. In fact, the document analysis revealed the opposite cultural norm of
collaborative practices to be advocated for, most especially regarding promotions and
stratifications. However, despite these cultural and contextual influences, the Chiefs
demonstrated a high level of knowledge and motivation with respect to the individual aspects of
collaborative practices, albeit without necessarily attributing the aspects to the domain of
collaborative practices or using specific nomenclature to refer to the practices.
In this manner, the Chiefs were an expression of the approach that theory is derived from
practice rather than practice derived from theory (Taleb, 2018). The Chiefs, as subject matter
experts and practitioners within the field, were demonstrably aware of the shortfalls in all of the
collaborative practice domains, simultaneously emphatic about the need for such practices, and
cognizant of organizational cultural factors that present barriers to those collaborative practices.
The two areas of limited knowledge, but high motivation, by the Chiefs were the steps required
to fully implement collaborative practices across the domain as well as the definition of a team to
include members of the Air Force beyond their own squadron.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 89

The context of the promotion system, as defined in the document analysis, reveals a
culture built towards individual competition. There is limited discussion in AFI 36-2406 of the
team building or expertise in collaborative practices of a leader in consideration for promotion.
The resulting expectation that a service member groomed for individual competition throughout
a career will be capable of leading teams and implementing effective collaborative practices, has
left the service with personnel willing to engage in the necessary actions but without the requisite
training or specific skills to do so. The level of training has not been commensurate with the
level of expectation. Chiefs, although highly motivated and with broad knowledge of the
subjects, have not been specifically, intentionally developed and trained for collaborative
practices.
Additionally, the concept of what constitutes a team was not universal throughout the
participants. Of the Chiefs, only one independently stated that the team was across the service
rather than an individual squadron. This perception of one squadron versus another is an
extension of the individually competitive nature previously noted and based on contextual
elements such as AFI 36-2406. Furthermore, without a proximate adversary, and a culture
normed to competition, the perception that another squadron, group, wing, base, or function is
the adversary becomes the accepted practice. Absent a unifying objective, the units or elements
contend against each other within the same service or country, reducing effectiveness, efficiency,
and collaborative practices.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 90

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The following pages discuss the recommendations for solutions to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps and barriers identified in the study. The influences were
presented in Chapter Four based on the guiding research questions. These were categorized
under knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences based on the research
questions. The recommendations will be implemented through a step-wise program designed to
mitigate the gaps while highlighting the need for change and immersion within the program
objectives and learning goals. The implementation of the program will be explored for efficacy
and areas of improvement through the four levels of the Kirkpatrick New World evaluation
model adapted for an exploratory study (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
In order to address each of the determined knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on the stakeholder problem of practice, research was conducted to develop
recommendations. In accordance with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, the
exploratory study discovered differences between current state and desired state of each
influence level was assessed the gaps where they were present. Subsequently, each of these gaps
was viewed through its individual knowledge, motivational, and organizational lenses to
determine the best method for impacting the problem of practice positively.
Knowledge Recommendations
The exploratory study found that the Chiefs had a practical, conceptual knowledge of
collaborative practices, although a formal, holistic conceptual knowledge and terminology was
limited. As the Chiefs demonstrated the required level of conceptual knowledge, despite the
limited vocabulary, no gap was assessed in this area. However, to sustain growth in this area, it
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 91

is necessary for the Chiefs to deepen their conceptual knowledge of collaborative practices to
include a thorough theoretical knowledge. The study did not probe for procedural or
metacognitive knowledge, and so a recommendation could not be determined. Conceptual
knowledge recommendations for the Chiefs regarding collaborative practices are detailed in
Table 6.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Chiefs need to understand the
importance of culture of
inquiry and inclusion,
emotional intelligence, and
sense of belonging (C)
Managing intrinsic
load by segmenting
complex material
into simpler parts
and pre-training,
among other
strategies, enables
learning to be
enhanced (Kirshner,
Kirshner, & Paas,
2006).
Provide pre-training for each
component to present the
complex ideas in manageable
parts through modeling and
scaffolding.
Chiefs need to understand the
importance of commitment,
competence, and confidence.
(C)
Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner
in meaningful
learning and schema
construction
facilitates
effective learning
(Kirshner et al.,
2006).
Provide concrete examples
and case studies and
encourage the Chiefs to self-
explain or answer deep
questions regarding the
material
Chiefs need to understand the
importance of collective
responsibility for the future,
emergent process,
interdependence, joint
ownership of decision-
Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner
in meaningful
learning and schema
construction
Provide job aids that help
Chiefs connect new
knowledge to prior
knowledge and to construct
meaning

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 92

making, and solutions
emerging from constructive
differences. (C)
facilitates
effective learning
(Kirshner et al.,
2006).
Chiefs need to understand the
importance of knowledge
sharing as well as open and
honest communication. (C)
How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Break down complex tasks
and encourage individuals to
think about content in
strategic ways (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Increasing Chiefs’ conceptual knowledge for collaborative practices. In Krathwohl’s
(2002) knowledge framework, conceptual knowledge is knowledge of the interrelationships
amongst elements within a larger structure and the knowledge of classifications, categorizations,
principles, generalizations, theories, and models. As discussed in Table 2, Chiefs need to
understand the importance of culture of inquiry and inclusion, emotional intelligence, sense of
belonging, commitment, confidence, competence, collective responsibility for the future,
emergent process, joint ownership, interdependence, solutions emerging from differences, open
and honest communication, and knowledge sharing. Chiefs are not the only leaders in their
organizations, and the capacity to impact the overall retention rates amongst Airmen hinges upon
the adoption of the collaborative practices across the industry. Thus, it is imperative for lower
echelon leaders to adopt and model collaborative practices as well (Butler, 1999). The spread of
collaborative practices requires that Chiefs develop a depth of knowledge of the subject, beyond
just baseline skill practice, that can be passed to subordinates. Scaffolding and modeling the
complex collaborative practice conceptual knowledge during pre-training for the Chiefs can
provide the necessary segmentation to enable deeper understanding of the interrelationships
between the basic elements.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 93

Schraw and McCrudden (2006) stated that, to develop a level of mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills, have practice integrating them, and know the appropriate time for
skill implementation. Kirshner, Kirshner, and Paas (2006), expanded on this principle by adding
that managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-training
can improve training retention. The way that individuals organize knowledge influences how
they learn and apply that knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Furthermore, according to
Kirshner et al., engaging the Chiefs in meaningful learning and schema construction can
facilitate effective learning (2006). Providing the Chiefs with concrete examples and case
studies, during the pre-training, while encouraging them to self-explain or answer deep questions
regarding the material will ingrain the conceptual knowledge principles of collaborative
practices.
As discussed in Table 6, providing a job aid focuses on the steps of collaborative
practices. This improves the Chiefs’ conceptual knowledge by providing a go-by that
reinforces concepts, training, and implementation to smooth the transition from knowledge
acquisition to practical employment, which uses Mayer’s (2011) strategy that scaffolding
during performance enhances practices as well as Schraw and McCrudden’s (2006) to break
down complex tasks into simple ones and encourage individuals to think about the content in
strategic ways. Therefore, producing a job aid will reinforce strategies previously mentioned
and mitigate reversion to alternate methodologies in the moment of action.
Motivation Recommendations
The exploratory study found that the Chiefs had high self-efficacy, utility value, and
attainment value regarding collaborative practices. However, it is important to reinforce these
current motivational perspectives through a formalized training regimen so that they remain
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 94

stable and sustainable. The motivation recommendations are prioritized based on impact to the
problem of practice. These items are addressed below in Table 7 as a summary of motivational
influences and recommendations.
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Chiefs need to
see the value in
retaining
volunteers
through
collaborative
practices
Rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work
or learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).

Embedded training on the
correlation between Chiefs
personal usefulness of
collaborative practices and
volunteer retention.
Chiefs should
see being a
leader who
seeks
collaboration as
part of their
identity.
Activating personal interest through
opportunities for
choice and control can increase
motivation (Eccles, 2006).

Group discussions on the
role of a Chief as a
collaborative practitioner to
emphasize the importance to
oneself.
Chiefs need to
feel confident in
their ability to
integrate
collaborative
practices.
High self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation (Pajares, 2006).

Provide guided sessions in
real-world scenarios where
Chiefs can practice the skill
and receive immediate
feedback to understand the
importance.

Utility value. It is useful for Chiefs to see the value in retaining volunteers through
collaborative practices. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) asserted that rationales that include a
discussion of the importance of utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values. The recommendation to embed training on the correlation between Chiefs’
personal usefulness of collaborative practices and volunteer retention can enhance the utility
value of collaborative practices to Chiefs.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 95

Embedding training on the utility value of collaborative practices towards retention
throughout Chiefs’ required professional development can increase corporate depth of
knowledge and identification with the subject. Incorporating the training as an application of the
content throughout a career enhances the everyday value of the training (Kühn, Gleich, Lorenz,
Lindenberger, & Gallinat, 2014). In regards to Chiefs, by providing exposure at professional
development waypoints throughout their career, identification with the utility value of the
collaborative practices will sustain motivation to engage in those actions.
Attainment value. It is important for Chiefs to continue to see being a leader who
seeks collaboration as part of their identity. As stated by Eccles (2006), activating personal
interest through opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation. The
recommendation is to provide opportunities for group discussion on the role of a Chief as a
collaborative practitioner emphasizing the importance to oneself.
Group discussion provides an opportunity to feel social relatedness to the subject of
collaborative practices, a key component to developing attainment value according to Eccles
(2006). In their meta-analysis, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) illuminated group
discussion as an outgrowth of cooperative learning as the successful practice for enhancing
topic motivation and the culmination of 11 decades and over 1,200 research projects. Thus,
engaging the Chiefs in group discussion centered on the role of a Chief as a collaborative
practitioner can sustain the attainment value for Chiefs.
Self-efficacy. It is important for Chiefs to remain confident in their ability to integrate
collaborative practices. High self-efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006).
The recommendation is to provide guided sessions using real-world scenarios where Chiefs can
practice the skill and receive immediate feedback on their collaborative practices.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 96

Bandura (2000) demonstrated that self-efficacy was the perception of one’s ability to
complete a task. The research of Shute (2008) furthered this premise by conducting research
engineered to uncover the features of formative feedback that are the most effective and
efficient in promoting learning and positive behavior change in the recipient. In her study,
Shure showed that outcomes could be improved for the recipient based on adaptive feedback
crafted to suit the necessary timing, objectives, and learning needs. A similar result could be
expected by engaging the Chiefs in real-world scenarios where they can receive immediate
feedback regarding their efforts.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational recommendations are described below in Table 8. The assumed
influences were validated and then prioritized based on level of impact to the problem of
practice. The influences were further tied, after research, to principles and context-specific
recommendations to mitigate the performance gap. These recommendations were rooted in the
concepts Clark and Estes (2008) discuss in their research of cultural settings (CS) and Cultural
Models (CM).
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 97

Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizational policies
and procedures need to
support the capacity
to embrace collaborative
practices (CS).
Top management must be
continually be involved in the
improvement process (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Use Chiefs in working groups
to access and alter current
policies to reflect collaborative
practices.
A culture of internal
competition exists
amongst employees
(CM).
Align the structures and
processes of an organization
with the goals with the goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Redefine the competitor as the
enemy and not as other units
within the same service
The hyper-competitive
nature of the promotion
system has bred distrust
amongst teams and may
hinder implementation of
collaborative practices.
(CM)
Teams with high levels of
cultural trust display
organizational citizenship
behavior (e.g., helping a co-
worker in need) (Starnes,
Truhon, & McCarthy, 2010,
p. 6)
Teach Chiefs that after setting
goals, allowing the team to
decide how the goal is
achieved builds trust

Aligning policies and procedures with collaborative practices. Organizational
policies and procedures need to support the capacity to embrace collaborative practices. As
stated by Clark and Estes (2008), top management must continually be involved in the
improvement process, as a strategy, the organization will use Chiefs in working groups to
access and alter current policies to reflect collaborative practices.
Working groups are collaborative teams of subject matter experts focused on a defined
area and empowered to design solution sets for the problem of practice. Chapman (1998)
found that working groups are the key to engaging top level management in process
improvement. The groups serve as a sounding board for leaders to see solution sets that can be
chosen to resolve the performance gap. Additionally, in Chapman’s (1998) case study,
working groups were essential in achieving high levels of compliance.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 98

Aligning the cultural setting with collaborative practices. A culture of internal
competition exists amongst employees. Clark and Estes (2008) posit that, in these instances, it
is necessary to align the structures and processes of an organization with the goals. In order to
do this, the organization must redefine the competitor as the enemy and not as other units
within the same service.
Redefining the focus of competition as an external rather than internal actor will serve
to remove barriers from collaborative practices and enhance teamwork. As stated by Jin, Yan,
Madigan, and Shiflett (2013), teamwork is predicated upon trust and a shift from competition.
The work of Frutiger (2002) forms the basis of understanding military cultural model
influences. The cultural setting of the military is derived from the organization’s purpose to
succeed in competition between countries through armed conflict. Competition, the opposite of
collaborative practices, activates fear of exploitation and desire to exploit others. Devaluation
of others becomes the comparison by which competitors can stand out. The motivation for
self-preservation to compete rather than collaborate entrenches confirmation bias and team
discord. By focusing the competitive atmosphere outside the service organization, the internal
competition will be reduced.
The hyper-competitive nature of the system has bred distrust amongst teams. Teams
with high levels of cultural trust display organizational citizenship behavior, such as helping a
co-worker in need (Starnes, Truhon, & McCarthy, 2010). In order to mitigate the performance
gap, the organization must teach Chiefs that after setting goals, allowing the team to decide
how the goal is achieved builds trust.
Increasing the team involvement in the decision processes will build trust by increasing
organizational transparency. Gilbert and Tang (1998) found that organizational trust is
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 99

proportionate to the levels of the antecedent organizational transparency. Honest, open
communication strategies and shared decision-making improved employee citizenship
behaviors, trust and retention (Butler, 1999; McAllister, 1995).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation framework is designed around Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model. The updated model, based on the original constructed
59 years ago, is founded on four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Level 1,
reaction, is comprised of engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Level 2, learning, is
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Level 4, behavior, is made up of
encouragement, rewarding, monitoring, reinforcing, and on-the-job training. Finally, level 4,
results, is developed through leading indicators and desired outcomes. Together, this four-fold
model constitutes the implementation and exploration framework for this program.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In order to assess the internal and external outcomes for the stakeholders to determine if
the Chiefs are achieving the desired results, several methods will be used. Soliciting data from
the military personnel system will show the level of FTA reenlisting versus previous levels and
indicate the volume outcome of the Chiefs’ desired result to increase the rate of retention
amongst FTA. Using the annual unit climate assessment will show the level of transparency in
communication versus previous year levels to show the employee engagement of Chiefs towards
increased transparency in communications. Additionally, using internal auditing to ensure
compliance of 100% of protocols will show the Chiefs’ compliance with collaborative practice
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 100

policies. Externally, to ensure the Air Force is satisfied with the level of FTA, the unit climate
assessment can be leveraged to indicate the level of satisfaction.
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric Method
Internal Outcomes
Volume: increased rate of
retention amongst First Term
Airmen
Level of First Term Airmen
reenlisting versus the previous
level
Solicit data from the Military
Personnel System
Employee engagement:
increased transparency in
communication
Level of transparency in
communication versus
previous level
Unit Climate Assessment
Compliance: implemented
policies and procedures in
accordance with collaborative
practices

Evaluate 100% of protocols
annually to determine
compliance
Internal auditing
Outcome Metric Method
External Outcomes
Customer satisfaction: Air
Force satisfied with the level
of FTA
Measure of satisfaction Unit Climate Assessment

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The Chiefs will need to complete the following critical behaviors
listed in Table 10 to meet the required internal and external outcomes. Chiefs will conduct
reviews of all procedures and policies to determine if they align with collaborative practices with
100% compliance on an annual basis through internal monitoring platforms. Additionally,
Chiefs will need to perform actions that evidence transparency and trust, which will be measured
annually through the unit climate assessment with an expected rate of 75% of Airmen holding
trust in their Chiefs. These ideas are presented in Table 10.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 101

Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Chiefs conduct
reviews of all
procedures and
policies to determine
if they are in
alignment with
collaborative practices
100% compliance
with collaborative
principles
Internal monitoring Annual
Chiefs perform
actions that evidence
transparency and trust
Organizational trust
evidenced by greater
than 75% of Airmen
trusting their Chiefs.
Unit Climate
Assessment
Annual

Required drivers. In order to action the necessary critical behaviors, Table 11 covers the
required drivers. In order to reinforce the behavior, the unit will produce a monthly transparent
communication work review checklist. The checklist will serve as an aid to determine if the
work being conducted is in accordance with collaborative practices. The unit will also annually
provide information that shapes the conceptual understanding of the relationship between
collaborative practices and retention rates for Airmen. The unit will also provide a job aid that
focuses on the steps of collaborative practices for use during real-time activities. Additionally,
the unit will focus on Chiefs’ reflection and self-regulatory capacity by instituting 360-degree
feedback
To encourage necessary behavior, the unit will hold monthly group discussions on the
role of a Chief as a collaborative practitioner to emphasize the importance to oneself. The unit
will also conduct bi-monthly feedback and coaching from team leader. In order to reward use of
the critical behaviors, the unit will hold quarterly recognition of early adopters and semi-annual
embedded training on the correlation between Chiefs personal usefulness of collaborative
practices and volunteer retention. This is displayed in Table 11.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 102

Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Transparent communication work review checklist Monthly 1
Provide information that shapes the conceptual
understanding of the relationship between
collaborative practices and retention rates for
Airmen.
Annual 2
Provide a job aid that focuses on the steps of
collaborative practices.
Annual 1
Focus on Chiefs’ reflection and self-regulatory
capacity by instituting 360-degree feedback.
Annual 2
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching from "team" leader Bi-monthly 2
Group discussions on the role of a Chief as a
collaborative practitioner to emphasize the
importance to oneself.
Monthly 2
Rewarding
Recognize early adoption of transparency Quarterly 1
Embedded training on the correlation between Chiefs
personal usefulness of collaborative practices and
volunteer retention
Semi-annual 2
Monitoring
Provide guided sessions in real-world scenarios
where Chiefs can practice the skill and receive
immediate feedback to understand the importance.
Quarterly 2
Use Chiefs in working groups to access and alter
current policies to reflect collaborative practices.
Annual 1
Redefine the competitor as the enemy and not as
other units within the same service
Annual 2
Teach Chiefs that after setting goals, allowing the
team to decide how the goal is achieved builds trust
Annual 1

Organizational support. The 60th MW will support the stakeholders’ critical behaviors
of conducting reviews of all procedures and policies to determine if they are aligned with
collaborative practices as well as performing actions that evidence transparency and trust. The
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 103

organization will do this by conducting internal and external monitoring of the critical behaviors.
The 60th MW will also reinforce the behaviors by developing a transparent communication work
review checklist, providing information that shapes conceptual understanding of the relationship
between collaborative practices and retention rates for Airmen, providing a job aid that focuses
on the steps of collaborative practices, and focusing on Chiefs’ reflection and self-regulatory
capacity by instituting 360-degree feedback.
The organization will further support the critical behaviors by encouraging feedback and
coaching from a team leader and group discussions on the role of a Chief as a collaborative
practitioner to emphasize the importance to oneself. They will also support the critical behaviors
by rewarding early adoption of transparency and embedding training on the correlation between
Chiefs personal usefulness of collaborative practices and volunteer retention
The 60th MW will further support the critical behaviors by monitoring guided sessions in
real-world scenarios where Chiefs can practice the skill and receive immediate feedback to
understand the importance. Additionally, they will use Chiefs in working groups to access and
alter current policies to reflect collaborative practices as well as redefining competitors as the
enemy and not as other units within the same service. Furthermore, the unit will teach Chiefs
that after setting goals, allowing the team to decide how the goal is achieved builds trust.
Level 2: Learning
The learning goals described below are built into the overall training program to
maximize the potential impact of the lessons on the necessary critical behaviors. The learning
goals implement the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations to change the
cultural setting to improve FTA retention.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 104

Learning goals. In order to effectively implement the program, Chiefs will be required
to meet a series of learning goals. These goals are aligned with building a culture of
collaborative practices and are scaffolded to create a depth of understanding as a cultural anchor.
The learning goals are listed below:
1. Chiefs will explain the purpose, necessity, and fundamental practices of transparent
communication. (D)
2. Chiefs will articulate cross-departmental communication impact and techniques. (P)
3. Chiefs will redefine the nature of interdepartmental relationships from competitive to
collaborative. (M)
4. Chiefs will adopt a view that the competition is external actors and unfriendly nations.
(M)
5. Chiefs will articulate the steps of how to integrate collaborative practices into policy
writing. (P)
Program. The program will be conducted initially over the course of a year and
subsequently across the career of each Chief at each preexisting professional military education
interval. The program will be delivered in three phases to ensure adequate depth of knowledge
acquisition and cultural shift. In the initial phase, Chiefs will be presented with in-depth research
tailored to the situation to digest and analyze. Afterwards, a guided discussion with the Chiefs
and subject matter experts will be held to expose any latent questions or concerns. A month
later, scenario-based training will serve to reinforce real-life application of the principles. A job
aid with relevant responses and actions based on scenarios will be presented for Chiefs to take to
their individual work sections to be used when a situation is presented. Finally, post-course
monitoring will be conducted by the unit to determine training efficacy.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 105

Evaluation of the components of learning. The program will assess the conceptual
knowledge as well as attitude, confidence, and commitment of the Chiefs towards collaborative
practices. The declarative knowledge will be promoted during post-course discussion groups
where the composition of collaborative practices will be covered. Procedural knowledge will be
developed as Chiefs demonstrate how to implement collaborative practices during scenario
training. In order to assess the attitudes of the Chiefs’ towards the subject matter, observers will
monitor the Chiefs during the training. The confidence of the Chiefs will be assessed by asking
the participants if they are confident that they can employ collaboration. Finally, to ensure the
Chiefs, have a commitment to implementing and promoting collaborative practices, the Chiefs
will sign a statement to that effect which will be mailed to them after 3 months. This
information is presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or Activities Timing
Conceptual Knowledge “I know it.”
Discussion groups on what collaborative practices are Summative
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrate how to implement collaborative practices during
scenario training
During training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observe if the participants believe in the benefit of collaborative
practices
During training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Ask Chiefs if they are confident that they can employ collaboration During training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Have Chiefs sign a statement to promote collaborative practices Summative

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 engagement will be measured through continuous instructor observation
throughout the course and intermittent pulse checks during the training. Relevance will be
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 106

checked through a post-course survey as will the customer satisfaction. Table 13 addresses these
elements.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Instructor observation Continuous throughout course
Pulse check Intermittently throughout course
Relevance
Course Survey Post-Course
Customer Satisfaction
Course survey Post-course

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following program implementation. Following the program
implementation, evaluation at Level 1 and 2 is necessary to understand the quality and relevance
of the training in the course and group discussions. In this way, the Chiefs can provide near real-
time data on the information and their understanding of the need for the cultural shift. This level
of evaluation is geared to focus on the core declarative and procedural knowledge of the Chiefs
as well as their capacity to take that knowledge back to their work centers for application.
Observation during the course by instructors, pulse checks throughout the discussions, and post-
course surveys will serve to address these components and ensure an accurate gauge of the
training effectiveness is understood.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After the initial training and
group discussions, an implementation period of one year will be instituted to afford the Chiefs
the opportunity to engage the new knowledge within their work centers. Subsequently, data will
be collected on the level of implementation and procedural as well as declarative knowledge
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 107

gaps. The long-term data will assess the enduring commitment, relevance, and confidence of the
Chiefs towards the program as well as the impact to the unit organizational goal of improved
FTA retention. This evaluation will be conducted through post-course surveys, third party policy
reviews, and unit climate assessments. Appendix F presents an example of potential Level 1, 2,
3, and 4 evaluation questions.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The benefit of shifting culture towards a collaborative practices model and further from
an interdepartmental competition can have a positive impact on FTA retention by enhancing
loyalty through teamwork, trust, and a sense of belonging. Chiefs can demonstrate conceptual
and procedural knowledge of collaborative practices as well as implemented policy changes to
reflect the cultural shift within their individual duty sections. As shown in Appendix F, Chiefs
can acknowledge the benefit of collaborative practices, their level of confidence in shifting
towards those practices, and sign a commitment to conducting collaborative practices that will be
later mailed to them 90 days after program completion.
The final evaluation will indicate the level at which Chiefs disseminated the new
knowledge and cultural shift throughout their individual work centers to effect a thorough
change across the domain. Appendix F shows the evaluation tool for Level 1, 2, 3, and 4
questions that can be asked through surveys, pulse checks, and instructor observation to assess
the level of efficacy of the training and implementation. These data elements can be further used
to mold future training iterations to meet the precise needs of the community towards shifting the
culture in the desired manner. As the data points are relevant to the Chiefs, unit of assignment,
and U.S. military, the data will be shared with all the key stakeholders to ensure understanding
and application of the information is widely known.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 108

The metrics gathered in data collection will relate to the conceptual and procedural
knowledge of collaborative practices, Chiefs’ attitudes, confidence, relevancy, and commitment
towards collaborative practices, and the results based on the collaborative practices as well as
program satisfaction. Level 1 and 2 data will be available immediately following the course
based on collection methods and timelines. The long-term data will be assessed annually and
semi-annually, but will be presented to the stakeholders through the same mechanisms. As the
data is analyzed, it will be shared with the stakeholders through existent mechanisms such as the
monthly “leadership standup” meetings and quarterly information calls. The information will be
placed in an infographic that describes both the activities conducted and impact on the attendees.
The long-term data will be presented in those same forums with charts depicting the relative
impact on the organizational goal of improving retention. By presenting in these forums, the
potential for asking more in-depth analytical questions, understanding the role of outside factors
on the efforts, and initiating changes to the process can be easily identified and implemented.
Summary
I used the four levels of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model to guide
my recommendations to optimize the stakeholder goal of the 60th MW to increase FTA retention
to 60% by August 2020. The expectation is to implement collaborative practices as a method for
fostering teamwork, unit cohesion, and loyalty by improving a sense of belonging in a culture of
trust. By using the recommendation of integrating discussion groups and training iterations
throughout the existing professional military education lifecycle, it increases the efficacy of the
training as well as the value of the return investment.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 109

Any methodological approach has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis approach is no different in this than any other system. The strength of Clark
and Estes’ methodology lies in the targeted approach to problem definition, analysis, and
solution building. The framework provided a solid foundational lens through which to assess
individual and organizational barriers and influences in terms of impact on the problem of
practice, in this case study, increasing collaborative practices in the military to improve FTA
retention.
The methodology was appropriate for this problem of practice as it defined a broad
problem into manageable subsections that were primed for research and literature review. The
use of a case study was less effective or appropriate in this situation, as such a delicate topic
could not be fully investigated without potentially negatively impacting those personnel involved
in the study. In this case, removal of the organization would afford the researcher an opportunity
to study the problem of practice in a context free from the limiting factors of professional
repercussions to participants and the researcher.
The KMO framework did, however, provide a strong advantage to understanding the
performance of the organization and Chiefs involved in the study. By incorporating a holistic
framework that draws upon behaviors and context, the researcher was able to better define the
true nature of the problem of practice and available solutions. The broad inclusion of all factors
did demand greater resources in terms of time, social capital, and personnel than would
otherwise be necessary. Due to the limited time available to collect and analyze data, this
presented a unit barrier to the completion of the study. Specifically, stakeholder participation
was limited, and a low response rate was incurred as a direct effect of the length of the study
period and limited data collection period.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 110

Future Research
There are areas that the researcher deems appropriate to consider for future research on
the topic of increasing collaborative practices to impact FTA retention. These future research
considerations are based upon the limitations of the study, data derived from the research in
Chapter Four, and further evaluation of solutions to the problem of practice. A strong
quantitative for the research was laid by Vadell (2008) and Forsyth (2016), and this current
research has expanded on those results through a limited qualitative study. However, to more
fully understand the topic and broaden the field, additional in-depth research is required.
In the design and implementation of the study, a limitation of the current study was a lack
of breadth and length. To more fully capture the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences effecting the implementation of collaborative practices to improve FTA retention,
further study is necessary to address these shortfalls. It is recommended that future research
include Chiefs from across the Air Force rather than the specific domain of one organization
within the 77 Air Force Bases and more than 3,000 Chiefs in the service. A larger representation
of the Chiefs and locations could yield richer results regarding implementation strategies,
knowledge, motivation, and influences. It is also recommended that future studies incorporate
procedural and metacognitive knowledge protocol items to assess subject knowledge from a
broader perspective.
Additionally, as Chiefs represent the culmination of an enlisted career path and the most
positive aspects of a leadership trajectory, including different ranks could provide a more in-
depth analysis of how the total force views the problem of practice. Including members in
pursuit of the rank of Chief, such as senior master sergeants and below, as well as supervisors of
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 111

Chiefs, such as company grade or field grade officers, could reveal different perspectives on the
problem of practice.
Another topic for consideration of future research is the cultural impact of promotion
systems across services beyond the Air Force as well as the officer systems and impact thereof.
Understanding how this motivational factor affects the knowledge and motivation of service
members outside the Air Force could benefit the overall body of research regarding
implementation of collaborative practices and demonstrate best practices. Understanding the
broad effects of these different promotion practices could present informative results on how to
best implement these programs while developing a culture of collaboration.
Conclusion
The original organizational problem of practice was the low FTA retention rates as a
result of a hyper-competitive environment with minimal collaborative practices. After careful
and extensive literature review, it was determined that a relationship existed between trust,
collaborative practices, and retention. Chiefs were chosen as the stakeholder group for the study,
since they are primarily responsible for the health, morale, and welfare of the enlisted Airmen in
a unit.
The KMO framework provided a conceptual lens through which to examine influences
and barriers both internal and external on the problem of practice. The qualititative analysis of
docments and interviews revealed that, although the policies of the organization are predisposed
towards internal competition, there is an understanding amongst the Chiefs as to the importance
of the components of collaborative practices. Although the Chiefs did not explicityly associate
some of the components of collaborative practices with the precise terminilogy utilized in
acdemic research regarding the subject, they demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 112

nevertheless. Further, the Chiefs also showed a high degree of belief that collaborative practices
were importance.
There is evident knowledge and motivation to incorporate collaborative practices within
the domain, provided the organizational policies that remain as barriers are removed. The
implications of this study and the applicability aross domains are broad. Introducing training on
collaborative practice implementation and rewardnig those practices could impact interservice
rivalries, internal competitive practices that reduce efficiencies, and focus the efforts of the
governmental organizations towards the public good with more precision. The application
would profoundly impact the alignment of organizational resources towards the mission, vision,
and values of the organization by reducing the unnecessary internal practices aimed at pitting one
unit or person against another.
It could also serve to redefine the nature of a leader within the military. Rather than the
promotions being based on the singular accomplishments of an individual, they could be
leveraged against the production of the team towards the organizational goal. The emphasis on
collaborative practices could widen the lens through which success within an organization is
measured, not in individual terms or in terms of what is best for each person, but in terms of
what is best for the organization and, by extension, is best for the individual.

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 113

REFERENCES
Abraham, S. (2012). Job satisfaction as an antecedent to employee engagement. SIES Journal of
Management, 8(2), 27–36.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Air Force Instruction 36-2618. (2018). The Enlisted Force Structure. Retrieved from
https://www.e-publishing.af.mil
Air Force Instruction 36-2406 (2016). Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. Retrieved from
https://www.e-publishing.af.mil
Air Force Personnel Center. (2016). Retrieval applications website. Retrieved from
https://w45.afpc.randolph.af.mil/afpcsecurenet40/CheckPortal.aspx
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210158529
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management
Perspectives,24(2), 48–64.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1996). Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the
Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
49(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 114

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Center for Psychology in Schools and Education. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, J. A. (2005). Trust in managers: A study of why Swedish subordinates trust their
managers. School of Management and Economics, 14(4), 392–404.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2005.00420.x
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects
of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics,
13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
Anshel, J. R. (2007). Visual ergonomics in the workplace. AAOHN Journal, 55(10), 414–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990705501004
Arsenyan, B., Büyüközkan, G., & F e y z io ğ lu, O. (2015). Modeling collaboration formation with
a game theory approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2073–2085.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.010
Asch, B., & Hosek, J. (2000). Military Compensation Trends and Policy Operations. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 115

Asch, B., Hosek, J., Arkes, J., Fair, C., Sharp, J., & Totten, M. (2002). Military Recruiting and
Retention After Fiscal Year 2000 Pay Legislation, Summary (RAND, MR- 1532-OSD).
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/MR1532
Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005). Managing talent for competitive advantage: Taking a systemic
approach to talent management. Strategic HR Review, 4(5), 28–31.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14754390580000819
Aubrey, W. D. (2013). Operationalizing the construct of toxic leadership in the United States
Army (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (3578574)
Bailey, K. (2017, July 31). AF offers high year of tenure extension to retain experienced Airmen.
U.S. Air Force News. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/News/Article-
Display/Article/1262389/af-offers-high-year-of-tenure-extensions-to-retain-experienced-
airmen/
Bailey, M. (2016). Perceptions of interdisciplinary collaboration and communication: A
comparative study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (10172481)
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes
in public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(3), 256–277.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3380574
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 116

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baum, F. (1999). Social capital: Is it good for your health? Issues for a public health agenda.
Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(4), 195–196.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.4.195
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global “war for talent.”. Journal of International
Management, 15(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2009.01.002
Bendor, J., Kramer, R. M., & Stout, S. (1991). When in doubt... Cooperation in a noisy
prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(4), 691–719.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002791035004007
Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The
role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 1129-1148.v
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Berbarry, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, 40(33), 55–59.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 117

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and
Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
Berger, B. (2014). READ MY LIPS: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communication. The Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identification, and
relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284973
Berta, N., Julien, L. A., & Tricou, F. (2012). On perfect competition: definitions, usages and
foundations. Cahiers D'Économie Politique/Papers in Political Economy, 63, 7-24.
Bluedorn, A. (1978). A taxonomy of turnover. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 647–651.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257553
Bluedorn, A. (1982a). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 1, 75–128.
Bluedorn, A. (1982b). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations,35(2),
135–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678203500204
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 118

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Brann, P., & Foddy, M. (1987). Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating common resource.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(4), 615–630.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002787031004004
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 558–
583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393738
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Suphan, A. (2013). The stress potential of social media in the
workplace. Information Communication and Society, 16(10), 1639–1667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.710245
Burt, R. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(97)00003-8
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a
conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643–663.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700307
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation
effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 217–238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199242005
Buzzetta, M., Hayden, S., & Ledwith, K. (2017). Creating hope: Assisting veterans with job
search strategies using cognitive information processing theory. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 54(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12054
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 119

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An introduction. The
Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232
Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and
organizational determinants. Administration & Society, 23(4), 471–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979202300404
Chapman, R. J. (1998). The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment
techniques. International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), 333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00015-5
Chapman, R. L., & Corso, M. (2005). From continuous improvement to collaborative
innovation: The next challenge in supply chain management. Production Planning and
Control, 16(4), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280500063269
Chen, Y., Chen, Y., & Chen, J. (2010). The influence from the dynamics of training and
volunteers’ characteristics on volunteers’ retention in non-profit organizations.
International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 8(1), 33–43.
Choi, K. (2006). A structural relationship analysis of hotel employees’ turnover intention. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), 321–337.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660600931150
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., Turner, L. A., & Christensen, L. B. (2011). Research methods,
design, and analysis. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Christensen Hughes, J., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving
employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 743–757.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110810899086
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 120

Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial.
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), 205–224.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<205::AID-JOB792>3.0.CO;2-V
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation
process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 409–422.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119574
Cohen, P. N. (2013). The persistence of workplace gender segregation in the US. Sociology
Compass, 7(11), 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12083
Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial
Intelligence, 42(2-3), 213–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90055-5
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach
(pp. 151–161). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160
Crow, R. (1995). Institutionalized competition and its effects on teamwork. Journal for Quality
and Participation, 18(3), 46.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 121

Dake, M. D. (2008). The 2007 Charles T. Dotter lecture—Our rock and our hard place: Getting
beyond competition to collaboration. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology,
19(6), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.013
Darabi, H. R., & Mansouri, M. (2013). The role of competition and collaboration in influencing
the level of autonomy and belonging in system of systems. IEEE Systems Journal, 7(4),
520–527. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2013.2256972
Deery, M. (2008). Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792–806.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110810897619
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denning, S. (2005). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative (Vol. 269). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Department of Defense. (2014). 2014 Demographics profile of the military community. Retrieved
from http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2014-Demographics-
Report.pdf
Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
Department of The Air Force. (2017). Air Force Handbook 1. Retrieved from http://static.e-
publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afhandbook1/afhandbook1.pdf
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust and leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–
628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 122

DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805
Duffield, C., Roche, M., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Catling-Paull, C., & King, M. (2009). Staff
satisfaction and retention and the role of the nursing unit manager. Collegian (Royal
College of Nursing, Australia), 16(1), 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2008.12.004
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(3), 371–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.01.003
Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2014). Reading the
mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective
intelligence equally well online and face-to-face: E115212. Public Library of Science.,
9(12), e115212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115212
Feinberg, B. J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. W. (2005). The role of within-group agreement in
understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78(3), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26156
Feyerherm, A. E., & Rice, C. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance: The
good, the bad and the ugly. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4),
343-362.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 123

Fleming, J. (2012). Changing the way we do business: Reflecting on collaborative practice.
Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 375–388.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2012.673291
Fletcher, R. E. (2005). Job embeddedness: A construct of organizational and community
attachment utilized to assess voluntary turnover (Unpublished master’s thesis), Air Force
Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
Forsyth, J. (2016). The relationship between trust, commitment, and leader actions with intent to
leave the United States Army (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (10024300)
Frank, F. D., & Taylor, C. (2004). Talent management: Trends that will shape the future. People
and Strategy, 27(1), 33–41.
Friedman, A., & Waggoner, A. S. (2010). Subcultural influences on person perception. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510389002
Frutiger, R. L. (2002). Unified leadership and organizational climate within American military
services: Eliminating the roadblocks to true jointness (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3068414)
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free
Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World
Quarterly,22(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/713701144
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 124

Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., & Rock, A. (2012). Mapping talent development: Definition, scope
and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211192601
Garner, J. T., & Garner, L. T. (2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and
volunteer retention in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly,40(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010366181
Gerken, H. K. (2007). Rashomon and the Roberts Court. Ohio State Law Journal, 68(4), 1213-
1237. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lft&AN=5025
48164&authtype=sso&cuslid=s8983984
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.
Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 321–338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700303
Gilbert, J., Yan, J., & Hoffman, S. (2010). A WHO report: Framework for action on
interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Journal of Allied Health, 39(Suppl
1), 196–197.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20039
Glaeser, E., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J., & Soutter, C. (2001). Measuring trust. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926
Glesne, C. (2011). In Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 125

Govaerts, N., Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Baert, H. (2011). Influence of learning and working
climate on the retention of talented employees. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(1),
35–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621111097245
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Editorial: work-life balance: a matter of choice? Gender, Work
and Organization, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00429.x
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Grosz, B. J., & Kraus, S. (1999). The evolution of SharedPlans. In M. J. Wooldridge & A. Rao
(Eds.), Foundations of rational agency (pp. 227–262). Dordrecht: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9204-8_10
Halpin, S. (2011). Historical influences on the changing nature of leadership within the military
environment. Military Psychology, 23(5), 479–488.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.600138
Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based
leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 291–310.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022283
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation:
Capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management
Review,36(4), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.65554674
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 126

Harskamp, E., & Ding, N. (2006). Structured collaboration versus individual learning in solving
physics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1669–1688.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560829
Harvey, J. (1988). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational
Dynamics, 17(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90028-9
Heinen, J. S., & O’Neill, C. (2004). Managing talent to maximize performance. Employment
Relations Today, 31(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20018
Henneman, E., Lee, J., & Cohen, J. (1995). Collaboration: A concept analysis. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 21(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1995.21010103.x
Hinde, R. A., & Groebel, J. (1991). Cooperation and prosocial behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Houston, S., Hyndman, J., McLean, J., & Jamal, A. (2010). The methods and meanings of
collaborative team research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(4), 285–297.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800409346411
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Communitition: The tension
between competition and collaboration in c om m uni t y ‐ based design contests. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 20(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8691.2011.00589.x
Hyde, M. K., Dunn, J., Bax, C., & Chambers, S. K. (2016). Episodic volunteering and retention:
An integrated theoretical approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 45–
63.d oi:10.1177/0899764014558934
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 127

IBM. (2008). Unlocking the DNA of the Adaptable Workforce, the IBM Global Human Capital
Study. Milwaukee, WI: IBM.
Jenkins, A. J. (2009). Keeping the talent: Understanding the needs of engineers and scientists in
the defense acquisition workforce. Acquisition Review Journal, 16(1), 19–32.
Johnson, C., & Gonzalez, A. (2014). Learning collaborative team behavior from observation.
Expert Systems with Applications, 41(5), 2316–2328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.09.029
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
Kahneman, D., & Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (Vol. 1). New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Kang, C., Huh, S., Cho, S., & Auh, E. Y. (2015). Turnover and retention in nonprofit
employment: The Korean college graduates’ experience. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 44(4), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014553032
Kipnis, D. (1998). Can social behavior be influenced by events that we are unaware of? The
American Psychologist, 53(9), 1079–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1079
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600306
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 128

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. The Journal of Applied
Psychology,76(5), 698–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.698
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenges (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
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_2
Krosgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.312
Kühn, S., Gleich, T., Lorenz, R. C., Lindenberger, U., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Playing Super Mario
induces structural brain plasticity: Gray matter changes resulting from training with a
commercial video game. Molecular Psychiatry, 19(2), 265–271.
https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.120
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M., & Moeyaert, B. (2009). Employee retention:
Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations and Learning, 2(3), 195–215.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-009-9024-7
Lafferty, C. L., Wagoner, C. W., & Levin, S. L. (1999). Organizational trust in an Air Force
Reserve squadron: An inquiry using the Management Behavior Climate Assessment.
Proceedings form the Conference on Human and Organizational Studies. George
Washington University: Washington DC.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 129

Lawrence, P. (2015). A best practice model for the effective deployment of 360° feedback.
Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal. 29. 13-16.
10.1108/DLO-02-2015-0012.
Lawton, D. S., & De Aquino, C. T. E. (2015). Diversity in the workplace and the impact of work
values on the effectiveness of multi-generational teams. I-Manager’s. Journal of
Management, 10(3), 20–28.
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-
analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
Lencioni, P. (2004). 5 dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levin, S. L. (1999). Development of an instrument to measure organizational trust (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (9920326)
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). New York, NY: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review, 16(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.001
Li, M., Nguyen, B., & Yu, X. (2016). Competition vs. collaboration in the generation and
adoption of a sequence of new technologies: A game theory approach. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, 28(3), 348–379.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1095290
Li, Y., Savage, M., Tampubolon, G., Warde, A., & Tomlinson, M. (2002). Dynamics of social
capital: trends and turnover in associational membership in England and Wales: 1972-
1999. Sociological Research Online, 7(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.750
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 130

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence and trust: Problems and alternatives. In D.
Bambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking co-operative relations (pp. 94–107).
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining nursing turnover intent:
Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199805)19:3<305::AID-JOB843>3.0.CO;2-N
Lumley, E. J., Coetzee, M., Tladinyane, R., & Ferreira, N. (2011). Exploring the job satisfaction
and organisational commitment of employees in the information technology environment.
Southern African Business Review, 15(1), 100–118.
Luzipo, P., & Van Dyk, G. (2018). Organisation climate mediation of the relationship between
hardiness, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction among military followers. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 28(3), 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2018.1475461
Mascia, D., Di Vincenzo, F., & Cicchetti, A. (2012). Dynamic analysis of Interhospital
collaboration and competition: Empirical evidence from an Italian regional health system.
Health Policy (Amsterdam), 105(2-3), 273–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.02.011
Mathews, J. (2006). Leader relations model: An alternative approach to the traditional process of
leadership. The Journal of Business Perspective, 10(4), 37–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097226290601000403
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 131

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrated model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect and cognitive based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century: Help your
company find, develop, and keep its strongest workers. Journal for Quality and
Participation,29(4), 4–7.
McCrae, J. (2017, March 30). Air Force addresses pilot shortage. U.S. Air Force News. Retrieved
from http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1135435/af-addresses-pilot-
shortage/
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milligan, P. K. (2003). The impact of trust in leadership on officer commitment and intention to
leave military service in the U.S. Air Force. Dissertation Abstracts 1- 79. (UMI No.
3123495).
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 132

Muir, W. M. (2013). Genetics and the behavior of chickens: Welfare and productivity. In T.
Grandin (Ed.), Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (2nd ed., pp. 265–298).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nancarrow, S., Booth, A., Ariss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013). Ten principles
of good interdisciplinary team work. Human Resources for Health, 11(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-19
Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155–162.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1907266
Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21(1), 128.
Nash, J., Nagel, R., Ockenfels, A., & Selten, R. (2012). The agencies method for coalition
formation in experimental games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 109(50), 20358–20363.
Naskrent, J., & Siebelt, P. (2011). The influence of commitment, trust, satisfaction, and
involvement on donor retention. Voluntas, 22(4), 757–778.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9177-x
Northouse, P. (2015). In leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39).
New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 133

Perrachione, B. A., Petersen, G. J., & Rosser, V. J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary
teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. Professional Educator, 32(2), 1–
17.
Perry, R. W., & Mankin, L. D. (2007). Organizational trust, trust in the chief executive and work
satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 36(2), 165–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600703600205
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. The Journal of Applied
Psychology,59(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335
Díaz, J. C. P. (2015). Estrategias derivadas de la teoría de juegos en un héroe literario
castellano (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria).
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. [JDM]. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(4),
13–22. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i4.4966
Prins, S. (2010). From competition to collaboration: Critical challenges and dynamics in
multiparty collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3), 281–312.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310369885
Ramm, J., Tjotta, S., & Torsvik, G. (2013). Incentives and creativity in groups. (CES info
Working Paper, No. 4374). Munich, Germany: Center for Economic Studies and Info
Institute.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 134

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. New York, NY: Gallup.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Samuel, M., & Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational
variables as a panacea. African Journal of Business Management, 3(9), 410–415.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM09.125
Schlosser, R. P. (2003). Officer trust in army leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning
disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 201–209.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.201
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 135

Secretary of the Air Force. (2017, September 13). Air Force announces 100 percent promotion
opportunity to major. U.S. Air Force News. Retrieved from
http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1309770/air-force-announces-100-
percent-promotion-opportunity-to-major/
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-
189.
Social cognitive theory. (2009). In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of
classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 833–839). Detroit, MI: Macmillan.
Starnes, B. J., Truhon, S. A., & McCarthy, V. (2010). Organizational trust: employee-employer
relationships. In V. McCarthy & S. Truhon (Eds.), A Primer on Organizational Trust:
How trust influences organizational effectiveness and efficiency, and how leaders can
build employee-employer relationships based on authentic trust (pp. 1–15). Milwaukee,
WI: ASQ.
Statistic Brain. (2016). Demographics of active duty U.S. military. Retrieved from
http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military
Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. New York, NY:
Random House.
Tan, H., & Tan, C. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241–260.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231482545/
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 136

Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management? Industrial and
Commercial Training, 43(5), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851111145853
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on me ta‐ anal ytic findings. Personnel
Psychology,46(2), 259–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing
and use in group decision-making: Cooperation, competition and group decision-making.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455–467.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12191
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Civilian labor force by age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_301.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2017). Women in the labor force in 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm
U.S. Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. (2016). Diversity strategic plan.
Retrieved from
http://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=diversity&query=diversity%20strategic%20plan
Vadell, J. (2008). The role of trust in leadership: U.S. Army officers’ commitment and intention
to leave the military (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University,
Minneapolis, MN.
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H., & Collings, D. (2012). Talent management decision making.
Management Decision, 50(5), 925–941. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227663
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 137

Walker, J. W., & LaRocco, J. M. (2002). Talent pools: The best and the rest. (Perspectives).
Human Resource Planning, 25(3), 12–15.
Wang, D. S., & Hsieh, C. C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and
employee engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(4), 613–624.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.613
Watson, G., & Papamarcos, S. (2004). Social capital and organizational commitment. Human
Relations, 57(12), 1523–1545.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory,
research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.
https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225
Yip JA, Coˆte´ S (2013) The emotionally intelligent decision maker: Emotion-understanding
ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk taking. Psychol Sci 24: 48–55.
doi:10.1177/0956797612450031.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 138

APPENDIX A
Recruitment Letter
APR 2018
Dear interview participant,
Hello, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California Rossier School of
Education, studying increasing collaborative practices in the U.S. Air Force. In this study, I hope
to achieve a baseline for a better understanding of leadership and its impact on military retention
of enlisted Airmen. Potential benefits of this study include a better understanding of the level of
trust that exists between senior leaders and how that may impact a decision to remain in the Air
Force or to seek alternative employment. I hope you agree that both knowledge and learning are
critical to change and agree to complete this interview. Your participation in this interview is
completely voluntary; I offer no incentive for participation. Responses will be kept confidential.
I am the only person with access to the interview material. If you have questions regarding this
research feel free to contact my dissertation chair, Dr. Helena Seli at,
helena.seli@rossier.usc.edu, or the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern
California, University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) Credit Union Building (CUB)
Third Floor 310, MC 0702 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702; Telephone: (213) 821-5272.
I look forward to receiving your responses and sincerely appreciate your participation in this
study.
Respectfully,

JOSHUA T. LACKEY
Doctoral Candidate
USC, Rossier School of Education
+49(0) 711-729-5525
jlackey@usc.edu
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 139

APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
I would like to first begin with expressing my gratitude for agreeing to participate in my
study. Thank you taking some time out of your extremely busy schedule to meet with me and
answer some questions. This interview will take about an hour, although we have allocated an
hour and half for some cushion on time.
I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and am conducting a study on
increasing collaborative practices in the military. Today, I am not here as an employee of this
organization to make a professional assessment or judgment of your performance as a leader. I
would like to emphasize that today I am only here as a researcher collecting data for my study.
The information you share with me will be placed into my study as part of the data collection. In
addition, this interview is completely confidential and your name or responses will not be
disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this study and will be known only to me
specifically for this data collection. While I may choose to utilize a direct quote from you in my
study, I will not provide your name specifically and will make the best effort possible to remove
any potential identifying data information. I will gladly provide you with a copy of my final
product upon request.
During the interview, I will be utilizing a recording device to assist me in capturing all of
your responses accurately and completely. This recording will not be shared with anyone
outside the scope of this project. The recording will be transferred to my password-protected
files on a cloud file storage account and deleted from the recording device immediately upon
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 140

transfer. The recording will then be destroyed after two years from the date my dissertation
defense is approved.
With that, do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, I
would like your permission to begin the interview. May I also have your permission to record
this conversation?
1. As you know, the Air Force culture is in a constant state of flux. Most of my
interview probes for your perceptions on the move to integrate collaborative
practices. To begin, I’d like to talk about what parts of your career helped get you
selected to Chief. (K)
2. Could you tell me about the leadership traits you find most influential? (K, M)
3. What do you believe the Air Force values as leadership characteristics? (O)
4. In what ways do you cultivate leadership with your Airmen? (K)
5. How do you think leaders drive Air Force and unit culture? (K)
6. Do you think there are relationships between unit culture and retention? (O)
7. What do you believe is the role of competition and collaboration on force-shaping?
(K, M)
8. How do you feel competition and collaboration each influence unit cohesion? (K)
9. What factors do you feel enhance interpersonal trust between leaders and
subordinates? (K)
10. How can leaders build trust on a team? (K)
11. In what ways do you believe collaborative practices are impacted by trust? (K)
12. How you would change current organizational practices to align more with
collaboration? (K)
INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 141

13. Could you describe some leadership practices that might limit collaborative practices?
(K)
14. Can you talk about your level of confidence to leverage collaborative practices to
develop leaders? (M)
15. Finally, what do you think is essential for the fraternity of arms? (M)

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 142

APPENDIX C
Document Analysis Protocol
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406 Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Prompts:
1. What is the purpose of AFI 36-2406?
2. What specific guidance does the instruction give on the competitive forced
distribution junior enlisted promotion statements?
3. What specific guidance does the instruction give on the competitive, limited Senior
Rater Endorsement on enlisted performance evaluations?
4. What specific guidance does the instruction give on the competitive, restricted
quantity Senior Noncommissioned Officer stratification process?
5. Are there elements of the instruction that reflect equitable treatment of all enlisted
personnel?

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 143

APPENDIX D
Evaluation Tools, Level 2
Evaluation Tools
Level 2: During and immediately following the program implementation
Declarative Knowledge Item
Knowledge checks using group discussion Discuss the theories related to the
implementing collaborative practices (open
ended group discussion).
Procedural Knowledge
Demonstrate procedural knowledge during
scenario training

Implement collaborative practices during
solution formulation for scenarios derived from
real-life events (observation)
Attitude
Observe if the Chiefs’ believe in the benefit
of collaborative practices
Evaluate through continuous observation in the
training if the participants believe in the benefit
of collaborative practices (observation)
Confident
Discussions following practice Are you confident that you can employ
collaborative practices in your daily job?
Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Commitment
Conduct a post-course commitment
statement that will be mailed to the Chief
three months later.
I commit myself to promote and participate in
collaborative practices.
(assessment)

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 144

APPENDIX E
Evaluation Tools, Level 1
Evaluation Tools
Level 1: During and immediately following the program implementation
Methods or Tools
Engagement Item
Pulse check
Instructor observation
Participants are actively using collaborative practices

Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree
Relevance
Post-course survey I believe that collaborative practices are relevant to
my job responsibilities.
Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree
Customer Satisfaction
Post-course survey Was this training worthwhile?
Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree

INCREASING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES IN THE MILITARY 145

APPENDIX F
Evaluation Tools, Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4
Blended Evaluation Tools
Level 1, 2, 3, and 4: Delayed for a period after the program implementation
Evaluation Item
Annual Survey
Scale: Strongly Agree - Strongly Disagree
L1:
Reaction
The embedded training successfully allowed me to integrate collaborative
practices into my daily job
L2:
Learning
I was able to effectively discuss and explain collaborative practices with my
unit
L3:
Behavior
I used collaborative practices to interact with my peers, subordinates, and in
policies.
L4: Results I was able to successfully utilize collaborative practices with (1, 2, 3, 4+)
policies
L4-Results I was found to be in compliance with 100% of the protocols.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The 60th Missile Wing located at Mythical Air Base, both pseudonyms, provides a mission-ready intercontinental ballistic missile force. Over the course of the past three years, First Term Airmen retention rates have fallen below the sustainable levels due to multivariate factors. The qualitative study was constructed around the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences framework. The guiding research questions to address the problem of practice through the exploratory study were the following: 1) What is the Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation related to integrating collaborative practices into the organization to improve the retention of First Term Airmen, 2) What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Chiefs’ knowledge and motivation, 3) What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions. Chiefs were selected as the participants for the interview protocols. Chiefs, as the highest enlisted Air Force rank, are charged by Air Force instruction with the management and mission-readiness of the enlisted force. Interview data were triangulated with a thorough document analysis of related Air Force instructions regarding promotion and performance-based reporting to explore the organizational influences present that impact the problem of practice. Analysis of the data through the KMO lens revealed pervasive informal knowledge and high motivation related to implementing collaborative practices to improve retention. There were significant organizational barriers discovered as well in the form of policies and procedures aligned with internally competitive practices. The most significant recommendations based on the findings are to implement a career-long formal training program to embed collaborative practices within the service culture and revision of applicable policies and procedures to reflect collaborative rather than competitive practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Retaining female field grade officers in the USAF: an evaluative study

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Theory-practice gap: MBA curricula as preparation for business practice in marketing

PDF

Gender inequity and leadership in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Using mastery learning to address gender inequities in the self-efficacy of high school students in math-intensive STEM subjects: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lackey, Joshua Thomas (author)

Core Title Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 01/30/2019

Defense Date 12/04/2018

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

Tag affective trust,Air Force,attainment value,attitudes,Chiefs,cognitive trust,collaboration,collaborative practices,collective responsibility,commitment,commons dilemma,Communication,competence,competition,conceptual knowledge,confidence,constructive differences,culture,culture of inquiry,declarative knowledge,emergent process,emotional intelligence,game theory,honest,individual trust,interdependence,joint ownership,Knowledge,knowledge sharing,leadership,loyalty,Management,metacognitive knowledge,Military,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,open,organizational barriers,organizational trust,prisoner's dilemma,procedural knowledge,retention,sense of belonging,structure,team,team building,team work,Trust,utility value

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email jlackey@usc.edu,joshuatlackey@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-114518

Unique identifier UC11676926

Identifier etd-LackeyJosh-7029.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-114518 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LackeyJosh-7029.pdf

Dmrecord 114518

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lackey, Joshua Thomas

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 a...

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