University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALIGNED LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES AND ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION:

AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Timothy Fretwell

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 2020

Copyright 2020 Timothy Fretwell

ii
Dedication
To my children Maddie and Ashton, this dissertation is for you. I hope that when you
read this one day, you come away with two lessons:
1) Achieving your dreams is as simple as aligning your actions and your goals.
2) You will need some help along the way, so never compromise your character or lose
your empathy.

iii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not be possible if the Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve
Affairs Department did not authorize and support my research. Specifically, I am grateful for the
initial General Officer approval by the Director, Manpower Management Division, MajGen
David Ottingnon; the human research protection program review by Ms. Leah Watson; and the
final survey approval by the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, LtGen
Michael Rocco. I would like to extend a special thank you to Majs Brandon Bowman and Kevin
Doherty for ushering me through the approval process.
I have an immense debt of gratitude to Dr. Ken Yates. As my dissertation committee
chair, his constant engagement over a two-year period at times validated and encouraged me to
progress and at other times crushed my tangents and extraneous efforts to keep me on track. His
humor, deliberate availability, and expertise made this a smooth, enjoyable process and journey
of growth and self-reflection. I am truly grateful.
Thank you to Dr. Kerry Fosher for taking your valuable time to sit on my dissertation
committee as well as provide numerous mentorship sessions. Your mentorship and efforts to
make my dissertation both academic and relevant to the Marine Corps showcase your superior
talents conducting and translating research in the Department of Defense.
Thank you to Dr. Adrian Donato for your timely, yet extremely thorough, feedback from
an academic perspective. Learning from your insights and incorporating the lessons into my
studies and dissertation were vital to my personal growth.
Elle Ekman is a treasure. When I was looking for someone who was a great academic
writer as well as an expert at the profession of arms, Elle immediately came to mind. Her editing
and insights made my dissertation more thoughtful, professional, and relevant. She is a humble,

iv
dedicated professional, and I truly cannot wait to see her ascend to the highest ranks of the
Marine Corps.
Thank you to Mr. George Dallas. You have supported my pursuit of education my entire
time at the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning. You listened to my ideas, read
my papers, and gave me sage advice on where the Marine Corps has come from and where it is
headed. It is about the people.
Last but surely not least, thank you to my beautiful, understanding, and supportive wife
Patricia. She has not only tolerated but encouraged my quest for knowledge throughout our
entire relationship. When she was in labor, I was outside the hospital room attending an online
class. When I was defending my dissertation proposal, she was keeping the children quiet
upstairs. When I needed support, she was there. When I needed time to write, she let me be “in
the zone.” I am forever in Patricia’s debt for these and so many other selfless deeds. I just hope
that our children Maddie and Ashton inherit their mom’s compassion, work ethic, and resilience.
She is without equal.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem......................................................................................................... 2
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 3
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 3
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................... 4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 5
Stakeholder Group of Focus ........................................................................................................ 6
Stakeholder Performance Goals .................................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Project and Questions .......................................................................................... 8
Methodological Framework ........................................................................................................ 8
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 13
Aligning Individual Attributes to Changing Organizational Goals .......................................... 13
Individual and Organizational Roles in Organizational Change ........................................... 14
Facilitating a Culture of Innovation through Diverse Attributes ........................................... 16
Marine Corps Practices Shaping Individual Attributes ......................................................... 17
The fitness report. .............................................................................................................. 19
Theoretical Frameworks for Aligning Organizational Change ................................................. 20
Competing Values ................................................................................................................. 20
Alignment .............................................................................................................................. 21
Beyond Performance Orientation .......................................................................................... 22

vi
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ................................................................... 23
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...................................... 23
Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................................ 23
Identify the attribute gap. ................................................................................................... 25
Alter the fitness report. ...................................................................................................... 26
Understand biases affecting attribute preference. .............................................................. 28
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 30
Expectancy value theory. ................................................................................................... 30
Goal orientation theory. ..................................................................................................... 32
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 34
Cultural models. ................................................................................................................. 35
Organizational willingness to change. ........................................................................... 35
Culture of organizational learning and self-improvement. ............................................ 36
Cultural settings. ................................................................................................................ 36
Institutional collaboration to determine effective officer attributes and gaps. ............... 37
Institutional advocacy to promote organizational buy-in. .............................................. 37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 43
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 43
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................................................... 44
Criterion 1. Manpower management process knowledge. ................................................ 44
Criterion 2. Command experience. ................................................................................... 44
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale .............................................................................. 45
Data Collection and Instrumentation......................................................................................... 46
Survey .................................................................................................................................... 47
Research questions to be answered. ................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 51
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 56

vii
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 56
Determination of Assets and Needs .......................................................................................... 57
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes ............................................................................ 58
Conceptual Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 58
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know the alignment between the 14
currently evaluated officer attributes and the ideal officer attributes to achieve the
organizational goal. ............................................................................................................ 58
Procedural Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 63
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know how to alter the evaluations to reflect
the ideal officer attributes. ................................................................................................. 63
Metacognitive Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 67
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know how leader biases affect attribute
preference. .......................................................................................................................... 67
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ............................................................................ 70
Utility Value .......................................................................................................................... 71
Influence 1. Manpower Management (MM) needs to see the value in altering the
evaluated officer attributes to align with the organizational goal. ..................................... 71
Goal Orientation .................................................................................................................... 74
Influence 1. MM should incorporate a mastery orientation to evaluation efforts to shift
from meeting standards to facilitating self-improvement in line with the organizational
goal. .................................................................................................................................... 74
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ......................................................................... 77
Cultural Models ..................................................................................................................... 77
Influence 1. There needs to be organizational willingness to change evaluated attributes
to reflect new organizational requirements. ....................................................................... 77
Influence 2. There needs to be a culture of self-improvement and organizational learning
in line with mastery goal orientation. ................................................................................ 81
Cultural Settings .................................................................................................................... 83
Influence 1. The organization needs institutionalized collaboration between MM and
commanders to inform changes. ........................................................................................ 83
Influence 2. The organization must have advocacy from within the institution to promote
organizational buy-in. ........................................................................................................ 85
Summary of Validated Influences ............................................................................................. 89
Knowledge ............................................................................................................................. 89
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 91
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 91

viii
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 93
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 93
Knowledge Recommendations .............................................................................................. 93
Introduction. ....................................................................................................................... 93
Increasing conceptual knowledge on ideal attributes and organizational alignment. ........ 96
Increasing procedural knowledge on how to alter the fitness report. ................................ 97
Increasing metacognitive knowledge on biases affecting attribute preference. ................ 99
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 100
Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 100
Increasing the perceived value of aligning the fitness report with the organizational goal.
.......................................................................................................................................... 101
Balancing the goal orientation between performance and mastery. ................................ 103
Organization Recommendations.......................................................................................... 104
Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 104
Altering the cultural model to support change and improvement.................................... 106
Creating cultural settings to increase collaboration. ........................................................ 107
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 109
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................... 109
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................................ 110
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 111
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 112
Critical behaviors. ............................................................................................................ 112
Required drivers. .............................................................................................................. 113
Organizational support. .................................................................................................... 115
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................. 116
Learning goals. ................................................................................................................. 116
Program. ........................................................................................................................... 116
Individual Marine stakeholder instruction. .................................................................. 117
Commander stakeholder instruction............................................................................. 117
The MM stakeholder instruction. ................................................................................. 118
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................. 120
Evaluation Tools .................................................................................................................. 120
Immediately following the program implementation. ..................................................... 120
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. ................................................. 121
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................... 121

ix
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 122
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 123
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 123
Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 124
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 125
References ............................................................................................................................... 127

Appendix A: Survey One Items .................................................................................................. 139
Appendix B: Survey Two Items ................................................................................................. 141
Appendix C: Immediate Post-Instruction Survey ....................................................................... 145
Appendix D: Delayed Instruction Evaluation ............................................................................. 148
Appendix E: Annual Dashboard ................................................................................................. 149

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 7
Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Influence
Assessments 29
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments 33
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influence and Assessment 38
Table 5: Assumed Influences, Research Questions, and Delphi Collection 47
Table 6: Survey Respondent Demographics by Round 57
Table 7: Conceptual Knowledge Themes 59
Table 8: Level of Endorsement for Conceptual Knowledge Findings 61
Table 9: Procedural Knowledge Themes 63
Table 10: Level of Endorsement for Procedural Knowledge Findings 65
Table 11: Metacognitive Knowledge Themes 67
Table 12: Level of Endorsement for Metacognitive Knowledge Findings 69
Table 13: Utility Value Themes 71
Table 14: Level of Endorsement for Utility Value Findings 73
Table 15: Goal Orientation Themes 74
Table 16: Level of Endorsement for Goal Orientation Findings 75
Table 17: Cultural Willingness to Change Themes 77
Table 18: Level of Endorsement for Cultural Willingness to Change Findings 79
Table 19: Culture of Self-Improvement Themes 81
Table 20: Level of Endorsement for Culture of Self-Improvement Findings 82
Table 21: Institutional Collaboration Themes 83
Table 22: Level of Endorsement for Institutional Collaboration Findings 84
Table 23: Organizational Advocacy Themes 86
Table 24: Level of Endorsement for Organizational Advocacy Findings 88

xi
Table 25: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 89
Table 26: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 91
Table 27: Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 91
Table 28: Summary of Validated Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 94
Table 29: Summary of Validated Motivation Influences and Recommendations 101
Table 30: Summary of Validated Organization Influences and Recommendations 105
Table 31: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 111
Table 32: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 113
Table 33: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 114
Table 34: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 119
Table 35: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 120

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Individual and Organizational Alignment 40
Figure 2: Delphi Study Structure for Data Collection and Analysis 51

xiii
Abstract
This study applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework to understand how the
Marine Corps’ current manpower management practices align with the organization’s goal of
preparing for future warfare. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which the
Marine Corps was meeting its goal to develop and assign its most talented officers possessing the
skills, performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future
operating environment. Additionally, this study sought to understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences affecting the organization’s current practices and
preferences. Data collection, via a modified Delphi technique of qualitative surveys, explored a
broad range of ideas generated from commanders who had previously served as a Marine Corps
selection board member. The participants ranged from lieutenant colonel to general and
represented every category of military occupational specialty. The findings indicated there is an
overall trust in the current manpower management practices’ fairness and rigor, but there are
gaps in evaluating character, promoting self-improvement, and communicating unique attributes
and skill sets beneficial to the organization but not conforming to traditional career paths and
standards. Based on the findings, the study offers research-based solutions and addresses the
implications for the various stakeholder groups.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Aligning strategic organizational goals with the evaluated attributes of future leaders
within the military’s officer ranks is key to evolving the organization’s culture, self-identity, and
openness to innovative changes, all of which are necessary for competitive advantage in an
increasingly complex security environment (Terriff, 2006). Kier (1997) pointed to current
military personnel structure as a key factor in slowing cultural change, as ascending to leadership
positions requires long-term membership and formidable organization assimilation. This
assimilation is evident in recent studies of United States Marine Corps (USMC) promotion
results and top-third evaluations that highlight the Corps’ strong organizational preference for
five specific attributes in promoting its leaders: mission performance, setting the example,
advanced education, combat experience, and physical fitness (Stolzenberg, 2017; Dunst, 2018).
Of the five attributes, four are directly related to delivery skills and a performance orientation,
while only advanced education is linked to creative discovery and a self-mastery orientation
associated with organizational learning and change. Over-representation of leaders with delivery
skills associated with management over discovery skills associated with creativity inhibits
organizational innovation and does not align with the future vision of warfare (Berger, 2019;
Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011; Mundy, Homiak, & Dyal, 2018; US Marine Corps, 2015;
US Marine Corps, 2016). As the military institution’s organizational culture determines whether
an innovation succeeds or fails (Nagl, 2002), leadership makeup and the resulting organizational
identity have a profound impact on whether innovations today will be effective and appropriate
for the future.

2
The Marine Corps Manpower Management Division’s (MM) system of evaluating,
developing, and promoting officers is the convergence of policy, stakeholder requirements, and
organizational makeup. As such, the purpose of this evaluation is to determine the extent to
which the individual officer attributes currently developed and rewarded by the MM align with
evolving Marine Corps goals focused on creativity, complexity, and organizational learning.
The evaluation will focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) support
influencing current MM practices, as well as those influences likely needed to better align
individual attributes with new organizational goals.
Background of the Problem
Numerous scholars concur that military organizations struggle to balance innovation and
perpetuation based on cultural self-identity (Terriff, 2006; Hill, 2015; Kollars, 2017; Kane, 2017;
Jungdahl & MacDonald, 2014; Vego, 2013; Davidson, 2010). Shultz (2012) summed up a
common theme among studies on military learning and innovation in his statement, “that
learning, innovation, and change comes hard to large organizations in general, and to military
ones in particular” (p. 12). Hill (2015) explained this innovative struggle as a manifestation of a
culturally formed “ideal combatant” that balances morality and violence, authority and
delegation, and variation and uniformity (p. 86). If an individual or idea is perceived as
disrupting these balances, resistance often manifests to protect the dominant organizational
culture (Hill, 2015). This resistance becomes a problem if current organizational behaviors are
not aligned with future operational goals or strategies. Terriff (2006) similarly reasoned that
military culture prefers its own methods, structure, and goals, causing organizations to resist
significant change and potentially pursue methods of warfare that are not compatible with
strategic or operational realities. These observations of military cultural resistance are reinforced
by Ariely’s “Not Invented Here” bias, according to which individuals and the organizations they

3
comprise discount ideas from unfamiliar sources, especially if the idea contradicts an existing or
favored belief (2010). These researcher observations of individual officer and collective
organizational resistance to significant change are a foundation from which to evaluate how the
Marine Corps’ manpower management practices affect the development of creative thinkers and
foster organizational innovation.
Organizational Goal
By September 2024, the Marine Corps’ goal is to develop its 21,500 active duty officers
to fill 16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment
(Berger, 2019). The Commandant of the Marine Corps established this goal in his initial
Commandant’s Planning Guidance (CPG), knowing that the addition of new technologies,
requirements for new capabilities, and budget fluctuations make evaluation, development, and
retention of the most qualified officers crucial to organizational success while also challenging to
define and execute (Berger, 2019). The achievement of this goal will be measured by comparing
attributes of present-day promoted officers to the attributes commanders deem necessary for
future mission accomplishment. This evaluation study focuses on how effective the current
fitness report is as the Marine Corps’ primary tool for multiple stakeholders to document,
measure, and interpret individual attributes to select the most qualified officers for education,
promotion, and selection to command.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the Marine Corps’ current manpower management practices’
effect on organizational culture and the development of innovative thinkers for a variety of
reasons. Despite the requirement for innovation to facilitate future successes in warfare, there
may be a systematic disconnect from individual creativity praised in the battlespace and

4
innovative leadership necessary to achieve organizational innovation. Connable (2016)
characterized this dualism as a struggle between conformity associated with discipline and
individualism necessary for improvising and adapting (2016). As this may be the result of a
structural misalignment of rewarded leadership traits and organizational objectives, change
cannot occur until structures and processes are altered (Davidson, 2010). Davidson provided
three explanations for organizational resistance to change: cognitive beliefs of powerful leaders,
organizational incentive structures that discourage creativity, and structural processes that block
the transmission of knowledge (2010). All three are linked to manpower management practices,
with the latter two structural, and the cognitive beliefs of leaders a symptom. The three
explanations together mold leaders that ultimately shape culture and define how a military
organization conducts war, including how it innovates, based on its sense of self-identity (Terriff,
2006). Evaluating the Marine Corps’ manpower management practices, specifically its methods
of evaluation, will enable stakeholders to gather formative data that can be used to alter the
culture, identity, and receptiveness to innovation, which are necessary for competitive advantage
in future operating environments.
Organizational Context and Mission
The USMC’s largest headquarters activity focuses on retaining the best Marines to meet
the Corps’ leadership and operational requirements (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018b). The MM
achieves this mission by planning, directing, coordinating, and supervising personnel
management for the entire Marine Corps (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018d). Located at Marine Corps
Base Quantico, along with many of the Corps’ other enterprise-level administrative activities, the
division aims to integrate a system to attract, develop, retain, and support Marines throughout
their careers, balancing Marines’ professional and personal goals (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018e).
The three dominant lines of effort within this system are assignments, promotion, and policy,

5
which serve over 184,000 active duty and 38,000 reserve component members (U.S. Marine
Corps, 2018a).
The MM serves the entire Corps, which is broadly divided up into the operating forces
and the supporting establishment (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c). A two-star general leads the MM,
but the key stakeholders are external to the organization, both in terms of individual and
organizational interests, as evidenced by the use of representatives from the various Marine
Corps communities to participate in promotion boards, education selections, key assignment
selections, and policy reviews (Holt, 2005). The inclusion of internal human resource
department stakeholders and external community of interest stakeholders is the representative
context needed for evaluating current and desired attributes in the Corps’ leaders. These
stakeholders range from commanders requiring innovative leaders, policymakers shaping the
force, and military educators developing necessary skill sets and attributes.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three key stakeholder groups directly contribute to and benefit from the Marine Corps’
achievement of its organizational goal. The first stakeholder group is the MM, which contributes
to the goal as the executor of the assignment, promotion, and policy processes. This Division
consists of eight branches responsible for ensuring the most efficient and economical use of the
Corps’ human resources.
The second key stakeholder group is a subgroup of the approximately 475 commanders
throughout the Marine Corps (this number includes lieutenant colonel commanders through
general officers and fluctuates based on annual command slate validation and joint billets).
Specifically, there are approximately 300 commanders who have previously sat on a Service-
level selection board in the last five years, providing them unique exposure to all three
stakeholder groups. This group is referred to as board-experienced commanders (BECs) and

6
serves as the research’s sample population due to the group’s unique insight into the KMO gaps
in the needs and practices of all three stakeholders. These officers are both a product of the
manpower management system (i.e., the system selected them for education and key
assignments), but more importantly, these individuals will achieve their assigned missions by
building their teams from the manpower management system’s future outputs, the individual
Marine. The system’s ability to identify individuals with the desired attributes and appropriately
assign them to the correct billets directly impacts a commander’s success in achieving the Corps’
organizational goal.
The third stakeholder is the individual Marine officer. This group of approximately
21,500 individuals is responsible for leading the organization at every level and requires specific
attributes to meet the Marine Corps’ requirements. This group will demand regulation to ensure
fairness and transparency in the manpower management process but will benefit from the
process’ responsiveness to human resource demand signals identifying and developing the
necessary individual attributes to achieve institutional improvement and change. The Marine
officer is the main contributor to achieving the Corps’ organizational goal as this group embodies
the organizational culture and provides the talent pool for future commanders and key positions
that shape the Marine Corps’ future. Table 1 displays the three stakeholder groups and their
relationship within the Marine Corps’ broader organizational performance goal.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the MM was evaluated as the group of focus due to its role as the central point in
managing the Corps’ personnel and identifying the attributes present in future organizational
leaders. Of the stakeholders, the MM sets the organizational conditions in which the motivations
and knowledge can manifest within the other two stakeholders. The MM’s stakeholder goal was

7
determined by applying actionable steps and reasonable timelines to the CPG to begin
implementation during his four-year tenure (Berger, 2019). The stakeholder goal is measured by
whether the fitness report is altered or not. The goal of altering the fitness report does not
prescribe what the correct balance of attributes are or what an update fitness report will look like,
as this requires additional research and inputs. Success is when the manpower management
system facilitates the alignment of future Marine Corps requirements and the attributes the Corps
develops and promotes within its officers. If the stakeholder goal is not achieved, the Corps will
constrain its ability to thrive in chaotic environments and respond creatively to demanding
situations. Failure to alter the fitness report will continue the institutionalized, perpetual self-
selection of attributes that may not align with the needs of the Marine Corps in conducting future
warfare.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1

Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
As America's expeditionary force in readiness since 1775, the Marines are forward deployed to
win our nation’s battles swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. They fight on land, sea and air,
as well as provide forces and detachments to naval ships and ground operations.
Organizational Performance Goal
By September 2024, the Marine Corps’ goal is to develop its 21,500 active duty officers to fill
16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment.
Manpower Management Board-Experienced
Commanders
Marine Officers
By October 1, 2021,
Manpower Management
Division implements an
updated fitness report that
By May 31, 2019, Board-
Experienced Commanders
generate a list of current and
desired attributes necessary for
By September 30, 2024,
Marine officers will
demonstrate critical thinking
skills in educational and

8
promotes and measures
individual attributes in
alignment with current Marine
Corps needs.
officers under their charge to
best accomplish their mission
in order to determine if gaps
currently exist in the
evaluation process.
professional environments,
showing improved
organizational collaboration,
innovation, and warfighter
effectiveness.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which the Marine Corps is
meeting its goal to develop its 21,500 active duty officers to fill 16,900 vacancies with the most
talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to
meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment. The analysis will focus on KMO
influences related to achieving the organizational goal. While a complete performance
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused
on in this analysis is the MM. As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. To what extent is the Marine Corps meeting its goal of developing and assigning
qualified officers?
2. What is the MM’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing an updated fitness
report that promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with future Marine
Corps needs?
3. What is the interaction between Marine Corps culture and the MM’s knowledge and
motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO
resources?
Methodological Framework
This project employed qualitative data gathering and analysis in the form of a single case
study framework focused on the Marine Corps’ evaluation system. The evaluation used a

9
modified Delphi technique to identify perceived influences affecting how manpower
management practices produce Marines with specific individual attributes in alignment with
evolving organizational goals (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The case study framework fits well
with this evaluation as a constructivist paradigm facilitates exploring the pluralistic viewpoints in
search of a propositional generalization in the form of explanations, recommendations, and
further research (Yin, 2003; Stake, 1995; Creswell, 2014). The Delphi technique is useful in
focusing responses from a field of experts on a specific topic into a consensus to inform goal
setting and policy investigation (Hsu & Sanford, 2007). Employing a series of sequential
surveys to converge on group consensus enabled the case study to identify themes and organize
them into patterns, theories, and generalizations based on the views of participants and refined
through multiple rounds of data collection and theme generation (Fink, Kosecoff, Chassin, &
Brook, 1984; Corbin & Strauss, 2007). This method enables a comprehensive recommendation
of research-based solutions.
This project’s case study framework focused on how the individual attributes currently
evaluated via manpower management practices align with the Marine Corps’ evolving
organizational goals. The method used the Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO gap analysis to
evaluate the presence of a misalignment, as well as the likely influences. As there are ample
quantitative data correlating individual attributes to organizational norms and preferences from
previous studies on promotions, evaluation rankings, and diversity (Marx, 2014; Stolzenberg,
2017; Dunst, 2018; Alexander, 2008; Foster, 2013), this project’s qualitative approach focused
on the “how and why” to provide context in the form of descriptions, meaning, and procedural
understanding (Creswell, 2014).
To achieve the desired qualitative outcomes, this project began by conducting the first
round surveys within Delphi technique for a purposeful sample of individuals whom have been

10
part of both of the two stakeholder groups: 1) current and former commanders charged with
employing individuals to achieve organizational goals and 2) current and former MM personnel
tasked to execute the manpower management processes and observe the results. Sequential
surveys were conducted to facilitate controlled questioning and historical information that could
systematically be coded for actionable themes from a dispersed participant population with
minimal researcher influence on response objectivity (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The intent was to survey a sufficient number of individuals to generate valid findings while also
limiting the participation to a purposeful population of stakeholders with meaningful knowledge
of the subject matter (Gibbs, 2007).
Upon completing the sequential survey response collection and analysis, the themes were
triangulated via additional document analysis, specifically items addressing organizational goals
and processes. The additional sources ensured validity through more coherent theme
justifications and better result descriptions (Creswell, 2014). The results were then compared
and contrasted with theories from the literature and member-checked by participants to assist in
generating a comprehensive recommendation.
Definitions
Advanced Education. Studies beyond the bachelor’s or first professional degree that are
devoted to the employment and advancement of knowledge (U.S. Marine Corps, 2019).
Board-experienced commander. Held a board-selected command billet and participated
in a formal selection board requiring the individual to screen and select other Marines for a
competitive outcome.
Combat experience. Served in a project/crisis code area as designated by the Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and announced by message from Joint Headquarters or Headquarters
Marine Corps as applicable (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c).

11
Complexity. Systems containing many highly interrelated elements, necessitating
solution processes involving information generation, information reduction, model building,
dynamic decision-making, and evaluation (Fischer, Greiff, & Funke, 2012).
Creativity. The production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group
(Amabile, 1988).
Culture. The accumulated shared learning of a group as it solves its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel, and behave in
relation to those problems. This accumulated learning is a dynamic pattern or system of beliefs,
values, and behavioral norms that come to be taken for granted as basic assumptions and
eventually drop out of awareness while involving with human agency (Schein, 2010).
Fitness report. Provides the primary means for evaluating a Marine’s performance to
support the Commandant’s efforts to select the best qualified personnel for promotion, career
designation, retention, resident schooling, command, and duty assignments (U.S. Marine Corps,
2018c). Fitness reports are often referred to as FITREPs.
Mission performance. Results achieved during the reporting period. How well those
duties inherent to a Marine’s billet (i.e., job), plus all additional duties, formally and informally
assigned, were carried out. Reflects a Marine’s aptitude, competence, and commitment to the
unit’s success above personal reward. Indicators are time and resource management, task
prioritization, and tenacity to achieve positive ends consistently (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c).
Organizational change. Any alteration or modification of organizational structures or
processes (Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney, 1999).
Organizational innovation. The successful implementation of the creative idea in the
organizational system (Amabile, 1988).

12
Organizational learning. Using new knowledge or understanding gained from
experience to adjust institutional norms, doctrine, and procedures in ways designed to minimize
gaps in performance and maximize future successes (Downie, 1998).
Physical fitness. The ability of a Marine to meet the physical demands of any combat or
duty situation without undue fatigue (U.S. Marine Corps, 2002)
Setting the example. The most visible facet of leadership: how well a Marine serves as a
role model for all others. Personal action demonstrates the highest standards of conduct, ethical
behavior, fitness, and appearance. Bearing, demeanor, and self-discipline are elements (U.S.
Marine Corps, 2018c).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provides the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in discussion of the Marine Corps’ manpower
management policies and outcomes. The chapter also introduces the organization’s mission,
goals, and stakeholders, as well as the evaluation framework. The second chapter provides a
review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of organizational
alignment, roles in organizational change, military culture and innovation, and the effect of
individual attributes on achieving organizational goals are addressed. The KMO elements, as
well as methodology related to participants, data collection, and analysis, are detailed in the third
chapter. The fourth chapter describes and analyzes the data and results. The final chapter
provides recommendations for practice, based on data and literature, as well as recommendations
for an implementation and evaluation plan.

13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examines the root causes of military manpower management
practices’ misalignment with the achievement of changing organizational goals. The review
begins with general research on military culture’s effect on innovation, followed by a section on
the impact of manpower management practices on shaping this military culture. The review then
presents an in-depth discussion on the importance of diverse individual attributes in achieving
organizational change. Following the general research literature, the review turns to the Marine
Corps’ MM, utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytical Framework to identify KMO
influences on the MM’s ability to update the Marine Corps’ performance evaluations to align
individual attributes with future Marine Corps needs.
Aligning Individual Attributes to Changing Organizational Goals
In today’s world, where change is constant and complexity is growing, individuals’
knowledge, skills, and abilities within an organization are crucial to maintain an organization’s
competitive advantage (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). To foster the appropriate skills to meet
changing organizational goals, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) have described how an
organization’s underlying culture and tensions, resulting from multiple competing internal and
external stakeholders, must be addressed by aligning beliefs, processes, and structure across the
organization. When institutions have competing stakeholders, there is a tendency to display
cultural preference for simple performance measures and bureaucratic compliance, decreasing
responsiveness to changing requirements and misaligning organizational practices and goals
(Burke, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 2013; Dyer & Christensen, 2011; Kane, 2017; Grossman &
Salas, 2011). This presents a challenge, as the nature of work changes, individuals are
increasingly required to develop a wide, adaptable set of skills that are essential to the success of

14
their organizations yet are evaluated based upon misaligned standards and goals (Grossman &
Salas, 2011). Multiple researchers have stated that this bureaucratic misalignment can be
overcome through a culture of inquiry focused on understanding current performance,
shortcomings, and applicable strategies for successful organizational learning and improvement
(Dowd, 2005; Quinn, Bright, Faerman, Thompson, & McGrath, 2014; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Based upon the literature review, potential strategies range from promoting more diverse
leadership in terms of background and perspective, altering evaluations to better measure
discovery task execution, accepting short-term setbacks for long-term breakthroughs,
incentivizing collaboration, and instilling an environment committed to human development
(Lim, Haddad, & Daugherty, 2013; Dyer, et al., 2011; Elmore, 2002; Kane, 2017). Successfully
understanding and implementing such strategies to align individual attributes to the achievement
of changing organizational goals can improve organizational innovation in response to evolving
requirements.
Individual and Organizational Roles in Organizational Change
To affect organizational change, a conceptual understanding of individual and
organizational roles in military innovation must form the foundation for evaluation and
alignment. Amabile (1988) authored seminal work on organizational change in stating that
creativity and innovation are similar but distinctly different. Creativity is the production of novel
and useful ideas by an individual or small group, whereas innovation is the implementation of
those creative ideas to improve an organization. She concluded that innovative change cannot
occur without the actual implementation. Kollars (2017) reinforced Amabile’s point from a
military perspective and stated that military innovation has two parts: ideas and implementation.
Jungdahl and MacDonald (2015) echoed these researchers and added a caveat of significance to
the definition; organizational innovation in military application has three distinct features: it

15
changes the manner in which military formations function, it is significant in scope and impact,
and it improves military effectiveness. These researchers represent a broad spectrum of
organizational and military theory, and all agree that an organization can fail to set the conditions
for significant innovation or organizational change despite having individuals with creative
ideas. Innovation requires an organization to have a receptive culture and an implementation
process.
Military Culture’s Influence on its Practices, Innovation, and Change
The United States (U.S.) military, specifically the Marine Corps, acknowledges the
importance of innovation yet its organizational culture resists ideas that conflict with prevailing
practice. Researchers on the topic of military innovation paint a picture of internal struggle. Hill
(2015) best explained this struggle in coining the term “ideal combatant,” stating that military
culture is a balance of morality and violence, authority and delegation, and variation and
uniformity. If proposed changes are perceived as a threat to this balance, dominant
organizational culture will prevail, and change will be resisted (Hill, 2015, p. 54). Terriff,
through his many case studies on military innovation predominantly focused on the Marine
Corps, concluded that the military’s cultural preferences and biases resist significant deviation
from dominant organizational ways of war (Terriff, 2006). He further stated that the
consequences of this cultural resistance to change may misconstrue operational realities,
compromising competitive advantage. Tying this idea to organizational learning theory focused
on individual attributes, the military, like many mature organizations, displays liberal
assimilationist notions; service members with diverse attributes subordinate their individualism
in order to fully participate, attain organizational inclusion, and maximize opportunity within
broader, dominant organizational norms (Banks, 2008). Haynie (2018), in research for the
Marine Corps’ Strategic Initiatives Group, observed the consequences of this assimilation

16
through the military’s promotion of relatively homogenous leaders with tendencies to favor their
preferences, closing off the organization’s deeper analysis and diverse perspectives. The
reviewed literature indicated a duality between a military organization’s need for innovative
changes while preferring predefined ideals and biasing against unfamiliar ideas. Organizational
learning theory provides some guidance to minimize biases and facilitate successful change.
Organizational culture can shift to better employ individual creativity attributes via
organizational practices that improve organizational learning, facilitate greater innovation, and
assist in achieving organizational goals.
Facilitating a Culture of Innovation through Diverse Attributes
Dawson and Andriopoulos (2017) have stated that leadership and organizational
structures either enable or inhibit a culture of creativity and innovation through their ability, or
inability, to facilitate learning from diverse experiences and critical reflection. This culture is
both externally apparent, as seen through organizational symbolism and official policy, as well
as present at deeper subconscious levels, as personally felt by individuals within an organization
(Dawson & Andriopoulos, 2017). To achieve creative culture, leaders must actively pursue
diversity, as a homogeneous workforce inhibits creative exchange and encourages groupthink,
the antithesis of creativity (Young, 2018). Failure to diversify pressures individuals not to doubt
groupthink and to silence their alternative viewpoints, which only cements a shared
organizational illusion and increases individual’s desires to validate arguments supported by the
majority (Janis, 1971).
Beyond reducing groupthink, a workforce with diverse strengths and attributes increases
individual efficiency and organizational productivity through collaboration, and fosters an
organization where members feel valued as complementary, not interchangeable (Eckel &
Grossman, 2005). To achieve diversity, Freire stated that leaders must not integrate diverse

17
members into the dominant structure, leading to the oppression of their thoughts but should
rather transform the structure to capitalize on their unique talents (1993). A diverse organization
that builds a strong team identity and celebrates diversity, in terms of attributes and thought,
opens access to unique capabilities and facilitates co-creation of knowledge through broader
ideas. Research across multiple disciplines and theories agreed that maximizing organizational
learning and innovation requires a structure and culture that accepts diverse individuals as part of
the organization, allowing the organization to benefit from diversity, not merely integrating them
into the dominant culture.
Marine Corps Practices Shaping Individual Attributes
Diversity is needed to promote creativity, but often organizational culture intervenes.
The Marine Corps’ culture and rigid human resource practices shape the behavior of the
organization’s individuals and therefore shape the organization as a whole; to change the
organization to align with new operational priorities, the human resources practices of evaluating
and developing individual attributes must support organizational changes that align to those new
long term goals. Human resource practices do not solely shape an organization. Schneider and
Guzzo (1996) stated that organizations are the people in them; if the people do not change, there
is no organizational change. They further argued that individuals view leaders across four
climatic dimensions (i.e., the nature of interpersonal relationships, the nature of the hierarchy, the
nature of work, and the focus of support and rewards), and these views affect the organization’s
climate and ability to change (Schneider & Guzzo, 1996). Gerras (2008) amplified the
importance of leaders on shaping an organization’s behaviors and climate by stating that leaders
must facilitate critical thinking by encouraging diverse attributes and challenging biases,
egocentric myopia, and egocentric blindness.

18
Successful organizational change can only be achieved when leadership leverages
individual attributes. Haynie’s (2018) study of the Marine Corps agreed with this notion and
concluded that fostering critical and creative thinking is not a smooth, sequential process but a
multidisciplinary approach that begins with recruiting diverse perspectives and incubating them
in a safe environment. Davidson (2010) expressed concern over the military’s lack of patience in
this creative process and stated that their current manpower management practices suppress a
culture of creativity and innovation through career structures that do not deviate from norms and
fail to reward new ways of thinking. She further attributed the military’s rigidity and
organizational resistance to innovation as the result of cognitive beliefs of powerful leaders,
organizational incentive structures that discourage creativity, and structural processes that block
the transmission of knowledge (Davidson, 2010). Kane (2017) reinforced this rigidity in
structure and processes by providing empirical evidence across the military services that showed
the military excels at cultivating a sense of purpose and values but performs poorly at aligning
jobs, promotions, and compensation to maximize the use of individual talents. Vego (2013) was
the harshest critic, stating this military bureaucratic hierarchy creates a level of anti-
intellectualism that breeds mediocrity. Although not as harsh, Wardynski and Colarusso (2010,
p. v) concluded in a study of U.S. Army officers that a potential mediocracy issue existed across
military services from retaining sufficient, rather than optimal officers, that may have “dire
consequences for the Army’s [military’s] future.” The ways in which the Marine Corps shapes
individual attributes through its development and evaluation practices are of utmost importance
to achieving its future organizational goals. Currently the Marine Corps' evaluates individuals
based on the fitness report. The fitness report is used by the MM as a manpower policy tool, and
commanders use the tool to rank members of their teams.

19
The fitness report. The fitness report is an evaluation typically written by a Marine’s
supervisor and reviewed by an additional senior officer, often the supervisor of the report’s
author. It is important to note that often one or both of the report’s contributors is a commander,
putting them in the commander stakeholder group. As a tool, the fitness report is an
academically-anchored standard evaluation well-designed as a medium for rating officers and
providing information to centralized human resource functions, which allows this study’s
evaluation to focus on content over design. It is also the dominant source document for deciding
which officers deserve education, promotion, and selection to command (U.S. Marine Corps,
2018c).
Fitness reports consist of 14 specific attributes that describe the whole Marine in terms of
capacities, abilities, and character (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c), and use performance-anchored
rating scales (PARS) to define the 14 attributes and to describe corresponding competency
levels. A narrative portion, of equal importance, is also included for evaluators to provide a
“word picture” of the rated officer and any clarification of quantified markings.
Milkovich and Boudreau’s (1988) seminal approach to personnel management is evident
in the fitness report design; the report’s PARS align academically with behaviorally-anchored
rating scales (BARS), which use specific descriptions of behaviors, referred to as anchors, for
each level of rating along the scale. Milkovich and Boudreau noted these BARS anchors helped
reduce errors found in other rating scales (1988). Grussing, Valuck, and Williams (1994)
disagreed that BARS is more accurate than traditional rating scales but do note the resulting
increase in development of positive attributes of performance. The authors stated this is likely
due to the included descriptions of behaviors in the rating anchors providing an expectation
guideline (Grussing, et al., 1994).

20
Synthesizing the research on the Marine Corps’ manpower practices and evaluation tool,
the literature has shown that the career and evaluation rigidity required to standardize leadership
development neglects the freedom for talent management and intellectual curiosity necessary for
fostering creativity and innovation. This is evident in a rigid, yet academically sound and
effective, fitness report and evaluation system. However, the Marine Corps’ imbalance of
structured conformity over responsiveness to change is evident in its manpower management and
necessitate an evaluation of how the fitness report’s content aligns to the Marine Corps’ more
innovative organizational goals. To inform the necessary evaluation, there are certain
frameworks from which to construct a holistic perspective.
Theoretical Frameworks for Aligning Organizational Change
Competing Values
The Marine Corps is a large, complex organization accountable to both internal and
external stakeholders with divergent interests; to understand the organization’s gap between
practices and goals, there must be a clear understanding of how competing values affect the
organization. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) identified that cultural tensions from multiple
stakeholders result in competing values and conflicting accountability types. Their research also
found that stakeholder competition could lead to a misalignment of values, decision rights, and
information symmetry from the organization’s requirements, potentially causing accountability
failure. Burke (2004) stated that such accountability failure in large, mature organizations is
often due to organizations’ inability to understand their competing values, focus on bureaucratic
accountability to maintain order, and neglect of values associated with responsiveness and
change. He also (2004) stated the most common characteristics in this form of bureaucratic
accountability were rewarded compliance and penalized deviation.

21
To understand the cultural tensions and potential gaps in organizational behavior
common to large, mature organizations, Quinn, Bright, Faerman, Thompson, and McGrath
(2014) provided a competing values framework to position an organization on a quadrant of
rational goals, human relations, internal processes, and open systems. This position prescribes
the correlating levels of organizational collaboration, creation, competition, and control
necessary to either maintain the position or shift the position to align with the organization’s goal
(Quinn, et al, 2014). Once a baseline of values for practices and goals establishes an
organization’s respective positions on the competing values quadrant, organizations can close the
gap by adjusting their practices to align with organizational goals (Quinn, et al, 2014). In large
organizations, competing values from multiple stakeholders create tension and may result in
practices that do not align with organizational goals (Henteschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Understanding the competing values and better aligning practices towards future goals may
result in more effective organizational change.
Alignment
Organizations successfully change by aligning their people, structure, and practices to
foster a culture in line with organizational goals. Elmore (2002) identified three fundamental
improvements to achieve this alignment: changing values and beliefs, structural conditions, and
work processes. All three of these fundamental improvements center on how people interact
with the organization. Schein (2010) addressed this interaction and resulting culture by
identifying the need to link individual behaviors to the organizational goals via reward and
discipline systems consistent with the organization’s way of thinking and working. Schein
(2010) further argued the effectiveness of said systems by stating the quickest and easiest way to
change individual attributes within an organization was to change what is rewarded and
punished. Milkovich and Boudreau (1994), in their seminal work on human resource

22
management, stated that these reward and punishment systems must evaluate core competencies
that link desirable employee behaviors to organizational goals. Collectively, these authors
argued that organizational alignment of people, structure and practices begins with linking the
correct individual attributes to organizational goals. Organizations can achieve this alignment by
emplacing structures that reward and develop desired behaviors in line organizational values and
goals.
Beyond Performance Orientation
Encouraging active participation, self-development, and creativity from individuals
within an organization results in innovation beyond current standards and goals. Armenakis,
Harris, and Feild (1999) stated that leaders most influence change by modifying formal
structures and human resource management practices, employing rites and ceremonies, diffusing
innovation through trials and pilot projects, and engaging employees in active participation.
Reichard and Johnson (2011) identified the value of these modifications by concluding that
organizations with strategies to support self-development and employee engagement benefit
from an exponential return on investment previously spent on managerial training focused on
performance. This change strategy centered on selecting leaders based on their propensity to
self-develop and engage their subordinates to participate (Reichard & Johnson, 2011). Kummel
and Soeters (2012) reaffirmed this viewpoint from a military perspective in stating organizations
benefit from member engagement and inclusion in the creativity process through increased local
participation, pragmatism, experimentation, and human inventiveness. This literature
synthesized that organizations maximize individual contributions to organizational innovation by
emplacing human resource structures and practices that create a safe environment for
experimentation, creativity, and self-development.

23
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provided a gap analysis framework to systematically study
stakeholder performance in achieving broader organizational goals. This problem-solving
process provides a means to evaluate the relationship of the stakeholder performance and goals
within the broader organizational goal. Once a gap is identified, the use of general theory,
context-specific literature, and organizational understanding assist in identifying any assumed
influences on stakeholder performance in the KMO dimensions. The following sections of the
literature review discuss the stakeholder-specific assumed KMO influences.
This review addresses Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO dimensions in terms of the Marine
Corps’ MM implementing an updated fitness report to promote and measure individual attributes
in alignment with future Marine Corps needs by October 1, 2021. The first section discusses the
assumed knowledge influences affecting stakeholder performance. The second section discusses
the motivation influences on stakeholder performance and goal achievement. The final section
explores the assumed organizational influences on stakeholder processes, resourcing, and culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008). All three dimensions are independently presented; however, they interact
to influence stakeholder performance and are evaluated as such through the methodology
discussed in the third chapter.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of current scholarly research focuses on three dimensions needed for the
Marine Corps’ MM to implement an updated fitness report that promotes and measures
individual attributes in alignment with future Marine Corps needs by October 1, 2021.
Knowledge and Skills
The first dimension of stakeholder influence required for the MM to implement an
updated fitness report is knowledge influences. Literature in the fields of individual and

24
organizational behavior, as well as leadership theory, have showed that deficiencies in leaders’
discovery skills, organizational failure to evaluate from multiple frames, and the organization’s
insufficient understanding of its biases due to competing values can negatively affect an
organization’s culture and ability to achieve its goals (Tuckman, 2006; Davidson, 2010; Dyer, et
al., 2011; Bohlman & Deal, 2013; Quinn, et al., 2014; Wilson, 2008). These three factors lead to
a performance problem that Clark and Estes (2008) stated can be addressed by closing the
knowledge gap between current performance and performance goals. Specifically, developing
and rewarding knowledge and skills that align with the broader organizational goal can reduce
this performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008; Tuckman, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
An assessment of the requisite knowledge influences, the corresponding knowledge
types, and the methods for gap assessment are required to evaluate the performance gap in MM’s
ability to implement a fitness report in line with the current organizational goal. Knowledge can
be broken down into three types applicable to this study, each with distinct objectives and
assessments (Krathwohl, 2002). The first type is the conceptual knowledge to aggregate these
facts into categories, principles, and structures that establish relationships and function
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The second type is procedural knowledge on how to use the
facts and concepts for appropriate evaluation or action (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Metacognitive knowledge is the final type and consists of a broader awareness of how cognitive
processes influence the problem’s context and condition (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Metacognition reveals the why (Rueda, 2011; Sinek, 2009). These three knowledge types
provide a means to categorize knowledge influences in evaluating the knowledge gap in a
performance problem.
Based on a review of the current research, three knowledge influences of the MM’s use
of the fitness report are discussed in the next section, followed by a categorization of these

25
influences into one of the three defined knowledge types. This categorization into knowledge
types help determine the methodology to assess any knowledge gaps the MM has in aligning the
fitness report to achieve the Marine Corps’ broader organizational goal. The three knowledge
influences that follow are to identify the attribute gap, alter the fitness report, and understand the
biases affecting attribute preference.
Identify the attribute gap. To achieve its performance goal, the MM needs to identify
the attribute gap, that is, the gap between what attributes are currently evaluated by the fitness
report and the attributes necessary to achieve the Marine Corps’ organizational goal. Marine
Corps policy in the Performance Evaluation System (PES) states the primary function of the
fitness report is to evaluate a Marine’s performance so that the best-qualified personnel can be
selected for promotion, career designation, retention, resident schooling, command, and duty
assignments (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c). To do this, the PES directs the evaluation of 14
specific attributes to describe the whole Marine in terms of capacities, abilities, and character
(U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c, p. 4-22). The last major update to the fitness report occurred in
1999. Since that time the Marine Corps has had eight different Commandants, the Global War
on Terror has been fought for nearly two decades, and massive changes to technology have
changed how the world interacts and conducts business. In 1999, only half of Americans had
access to the internet and the iPhone was eight years from being invented. Significant global
changes and the resulting expectations for the Marine Corps combined with a static human
resource policy create a gap between Marine Corps culture and requirements, and the personality
and behaviors of its leaders (Dyer, et al., 2011).
Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen (2011) provided a framework to assist in determining
the correct balance of individual attributes by separating these leadership qualities into delivery
and discovery tasks. Delivery tasks include planning, executing, managing, monitoring and

26
evaluating (Dyer, et al., 2011), which are in line with the 14 attributes on the fitness report that
are currently evaluated and consequently fostered within Marine Corps officers. Discovery tasks
are questioning, observing, networking, associating, and experimenting (Dyer, et al., 2011),
which align more closely to critical thinking and innovation. Bolman and Deal (2013) provided
an analytical framework for structure and team organization as a starting point to determine the
optimal leadership attributes based on positions, power, and ratio of individuals and groups
within the organization. These analyses showed that both delivery and discovery tasks are
required in an organization, necessitating the fitness report to evaluate both.
Alter the fitness report. The second knowledge influence the MM needs to achieve its
performance goal is the procedural knowledge of how it can alter the fitness report to identify the
correct officer attributes necessary to meet the organizational goal. Pfifer (2013) identified three
steps to achieving the correct attribute evaluation, which includes revising the PES, altering the
fitness report to contain the correct information, and educating Marines prior to implementation.
The challenge lies in maintaining a strong confidence level in the evaluation process while
altering the criteria to meet the requirements of the new organizational goal.
From a technical analysis, backed by studies including a comparison study with the
Army’s Officer Evaluation Report and surveys, Marines are confident in the fitness report’s
performance as an effective evaluation to inform key manpower decisions (Clemens et al., 2012;
Mann, 2011; Marx, 2014). Multiple studies have shown that the fitness report is a well-designed
human resource tool to quantify clearly-defined expectations and reduce bias in linking desired
officer attributes to organizational goals per Milkovich and Boudreau’s human resource
management principles (Clemens et al., 2012; Mann, 2011; Milkovich and Boudreau, 1997). As
discussed earlier, the fitness report achieves this linkage through the usage of PARS to define the
Marine Corps’ 14 desired attributes and to describe corresponding competency levels (USMC,

27
2018). Additionally, the fitness report’s requirement for evaluators to justify extremely low or
high markings, as well as its sliding relative value scores to account for evaluator tendencies,
reduces bias and provides promotion boards and manpower managers with quantifiable
performance data that is both holistic and by attribute (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995). Evaluator
accountability and accurate performance ratings lead to more standardized human resource
decisions.
The fitness report’s narrative portion is equally important for evaluators to provide a
word picture of the rated officer as well as provide clarification of quantified markings; however,
this portion is vulnerable to the evaluator’s ability to write and remain consistent with the rating
scale markings (Mathis & Jackson, 2003; Rigaut, 2017). Therefore, in knowing how to alter the
fitness report, MM must determine if aligning modified attributes should be placed in the PARS
section for standardized evaluation, the narrative section for a more qualitative assessment, or in
a manner completely different from the two current sections, such as a 360 or multiple viewpoint
evaluation (Hardison et al., 2015; Pfeifer, 2013; Mann, 2011).
This confirmation of the fitness report’s utility brings to question not the medium itself
but the knowledge of how to determine the method of evaluating the updated attributes. Within
the fitness report document, neither creativity nor innovation are an evaluated attribute, but the
adjective “innovative” is nested subjectively in broader descriptions of high markings for three
of the 14 evaluated attributes (i.e., performance, proficiency, and initiative) (U.S. Marine Corps,
2018c). In all three instances, the term is used in a manner to describe individual problem-
solving actions with no reference to developing discovery skills or a broader understanding
associated with the ability to lead and thrive in chaos. The fitness report also includes
“Professional Military Education (PME)” as an attribute, which specifically excludes civilian
education programs that do not “enhance a Marine’s leadership, warfighting acumen or MOS

28
[military occupational specialty] (job) skills” (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c, pp. 4-38). The PME
evaluation instead rewards military school attendance, professional certifications, military course
completion, and professional reading programs deemed to specifically enhance leadership and
warfighting aptitude. These exclusions of experience and education not directly linked to
enhancing leadership or warfighting, appear to maintain a systematic imbalance of key
individual attributes prohibiting the alignment of talent and the Corps’ goal to develop, retain,
and employ creative problem solvers. Recommendations from studies in this section, as well as
frameworks from the section identifying attribution gaps, can further inform this procedural
knowledge.
Understand biases affecting attribute preference. The third knowledge influence that
the MM needs to achieve is the metacognitive understanding of the biases current leaders and the
broader organization have in rewarding certain attributes over others. Knowledge of the
cognitive process is the first step to awareness and control (Mayer, 2011). Terriff (2006)
identified this knowledge gap in stating the military exuded cultural preferences and biases that
resisted significant deviation from dominant organizational ways of war. As such, the military
promotes relatively homogenous leaders with tendencies to favor their preferences while closing
off deeper analysis and diverse perspectives (Haynie, 2018). A RAND study reinforced this
possible self-selection problem in promotion and command selection, as individuals with
attributes most like their superiors enjoy higher evaluations (Clemens et al., 2012). Hill (2015)
argued this organizational behavior presents a challenge as attributes that do not align with or
that undermines an organization’s currently dominant warfare concepts will inevitably be
resisted, harming the organization’s efforts to learn. Terriff (2006) further reasoned that military
cultural preference and bias for set norms focused on the past can cause resistance to significant
change and potentially misconstrue operational realities and future organizational goals. Wilson

29
(2008) stated organizations see the maximum benefit when leaders can reflect-on-the-future with
an open mind. As the military is similar to education systems in terms of preferring quantifiable
accomplishment, Rodgers’ view on reflective thinking is a means of understanding biases when
addressing individual leadership and organizational improvement (2002). As a starting point,
Hemlin, Allwood, Martin, and Mumford (2013) provided an objective model for organizations to
better cultivate creative leaders able to stimulate innovation through the unbiased synthesis of
attributes focused on technical expertise and the ability to support creative knowledge
environments within the organization.
Table 2 illustrates the three assumed knowledge influences, identifies their knowledge
type, and provides the methods to assess any knowledge gaps in aligning the individual attributes
of Marine officers with the achievement of the Marine Corps’ organizational goal.
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
As America’s expeditionary force in readiness since 1775, the Marines are forward deployed
to win our nation’s battles swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. They fight on land, sea
and air, as well as provide forces and detachments to naval ships and ground operations.
Organizational Global Goal
By September 2024, the Marine Corps’ goal is to develop its 21,500 active duty officers to fill
16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 1, 2021, the Manpower Management Division (MM) implements an updated
fitness report that promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with future Marine
Corps needs.
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment

30
The MM needs to know the
alignment between the 14 currently
evaluated officer attributes and the
ideal officer attributes to achieve
the organizational goal.
Conceptual Qualitative Surveys
The MM needs to know how to
alter the evaluations to reflect the
ideal officer attributes.
Procedural Qualitative Surveys
The MM needs to know how leader
biases affect attribute preference.
Metacognitive Qualitative Surveys

Motivation
Motivation is the second dimension necessary for the MM to achieve its stakeholder goal
of updating the fitness report to align with the organizational goal. Clark and Estes (2008) stated
that motivation, above both knowledge and organizational structure, had the most profound
impact on organizational performance and goal achievement. Wigfield and Eccles (2000)
identified motivation’s importance to achievement as it influenced the choice to pursue a goal,
the persistence for completion, and the necessary effort to meet performance standards. Mayer
(2011) stated that motivation could be understood from the perspectives of interest, beliefs,
attributions, goals, and partnership. These five concepts are not mutually exclusive but vary in
their influence based on the individual or organization’s cognitions. Based on the literature,
expectancy value theory and goal-orientation theory appear most applicable to understanding
motivational influences for the MM to achieve long-range external rewards (Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefle, 1998). The two theories combine to provide the constructive basis for evaluating the
motivational influence affecting the MM’s stakeholder goal.
Expectancy value theory. Eccles (2006) used expectancy value theory to link active
choice to pursue a goal with the expectation for success and the value of achievement. In
alignment with Mayer’s five motivation concepts previously discussed, expectations and value

31
are influenced by cultural norms, experience, aptitude, and personal beliefs (Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefle, 1998). Experts on the Marine Corps, and the organization itself, expressed perceived
value in meeting future challenges through the development of Marines who thrive in chaotic
environments (USMC, 2015; USMC, 2016; Mundy, et al., 2018; Terriff, 2006). Notably,
Lieutenant General Mundy recently stated that more effectively fostering creative thinkers within
the Marine Corps requires attributes beyond the currently evaluated skills (Mundy, et al., 2018).
Terriff (2006) reinforced this point by arguing that identifying and developing the optimal
balance of attributes within the Marine Corps’ ranks is key to evolving the organization’s self-
identity and openness to change necessary for competitive advantage in an increasingly complex
security environment.
A key component to expectancy value theory is the expectation for success (Eccles,
2006). The Marine Corps’ beliefs and cultural norms influence the expectation for success and
may compete with the perceived utility value. Hill (2015) stated that military culture affects
initiatives to change from a perceived “ideal combatant” concept towards new ideals that more
effectively align to shifted organizational goals. This competitive struggle is evidenced in
current MM-written promotion board precepts that now include language demanding selection of
leaders who understand the importance of innovation and efficiency in order to retain an
adaptive, flexible, and efficient force, while the manpower management policy and practices
remain themselves unchanged. This collective efficacy issue stems from these potential changes
being perceived as disruptive to dominant cultural norms. Quinn et al. (2014) approached this
from an organizational behavior theory, emphasizing the complex, dynamic nature of competing
values in managing change initiatives, and provided a framework for acquiring a holistic
perspective to transcend the competing value paradox. Together, these perspectives illustrate the

32
need to evaluate the motivational influence of expectancy value in achieving the MM’s
stakeholder goal.
Goal orientation theory. Moving beyond achievement theory and value, the second
motivation influence details reasons why the MM would alter the fitness report. Goal orientation
theory categorizes goals as either mastery goals or performance goals (Yough & Anderman,
2006). Mastery goals focus on self-improvement and truly mastering a given task (Yough &
Anderman, 2006). The basis of comparison is not to others but to one’s own prior achievement.
Performance goals focus on demonstrating the ability to perform a task compared to others
(Yough & Anderman, 2006).
The primary focus of the current fitness report is to evaluate performance (U.S. Marine
Corps, 2018c). Self-improvement is referenced within the fitness report as a positive criterion
under “Setting the Example,” but improvement is also identified as a negative word when used
within the narrative, triggering a “red flag” (U.S. Marine Corps, 2018c, p. 4-35, 5-6). These
considerations place the fitness report in the performance goal orientation. Multiple studies
showed this goal orientation influences performance. A Barron and Harackiewicz (2003) study
of an academic setting requiring critical thinking, writing, and oral presentation showed
individuals benefit short-term from performance goals but eventually lose interest and fall behind
those with mastery skills who have developed deeper processing due to sustained interest. A
study by Elliot, Shell, Bouas Henry, and Maier (2005) showed performance goals improved
performance only when success was perceived as leading to future reward. Midgley, Kaplan,
and Middleton (2001) found that performance goals were best applied in predominantly
performance-oriented organizations when mastery goals were also encouraged. These studies
are relevant to the Marine Corps, in which only half of the officer population can be evaluated as

33
above average. The Corps’ reliance on performance goals to influence motivation can
discourage failure and potentially demotivate half the population (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
In determining the appropriate goal orientation to influence motivation, Mayer (2011)
wrote that “motivation is an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior” (p.
39). The previously referenced studies showed the Marine Corps’ long-term performance in
achieving its organizational goal could be influenced by incorporating mastery goals with the
organization’s current performance orientation to motivate individual self-improvement. Pfeifer
(2013) reinforced this sentiment in his criticism that the current fitness report’s focus on ranking
Marines does not motivate improvement. Pfeifer (2013) recommended encouraging self-
improvement by shifting from uncovering weaknesses to focusing on identifying strengths,
making use of the fitness report as a tool for performance improvement versus only evaluation.
Table 3 further illustrates how motivation influences the MM’s update of the fitness report to
align with future Marine Corps needs and the methods to assess any motivation gaps in
achieving the Marine Corps’ organizational goal.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
As America’s expeditionary force in readiness since 1775, the Marines are forward deployed to
win our nation’s battles swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. They fight on land, sea and air,
as well as provide forces and detachments to naval ships and ground operations.
Organizational Global Goal
By September 2024, the Marine Corps’ goal is to develop its 21,500 active duty officers to fill
16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment.
Stakeholder Goal

34
By October 1, 2021, Manpower Management Division (MM) implements an updated fitness
report that promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with future Marine Corps
needs.
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value – The MM needs to see the value in
altering the evaluated officer attributes to align
with the organizational goal.
Qualitative Surveys
Goal Orientation – The MM should incorporate a
mastery orientation to evaluation efforts to shift
from meeting standards to facilitating self-
improvement in line with the organizational goal.
Qualitative Surveys

Organization
Organizational support is the third dimension necessary for the MM to achieve its goal of
updating the fitness report to align individual attributes with the Marine Corps’ updated
organizational needs. Organizational support refers to the processes and resourcing that impact
organizational alignment, culture, and change (Clark & Estes, 2008). In particular,
organizational culture plays a significant role in organizational performance as it influences
behaviors requisite for organizational alignment and change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010;
Agocs, 1997). To understand the impact of organizational support on cultural models and
settings, cultural evaluation can be approached across multiple levels: the environment, the
group, and the individual (Clark & Estes, 2008). Researchers agreed that multiple levels of
evaluation are necessary as large, complex organizations balance competing values in their
processes and resourcing to meet the diverging interests of internal and external stakeholders
(Quinn, et al, 2014; Hentschke & Wholstetter, 2004; Agocs, 1997). Improving organizational
performance necessitates understanding how organizations support the core values, goals,
beliefs, and learned processes of various individuals and groups in the form of cultural models
and settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Bolman & Deal, 2013). Key shifts in

35
organizational support can alter culture to facilitate the knowledge and motivations necessary to
meet the organization’s performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following sections
examine organizational support of culture in the form of models and settings to understand the
assumed influences that affect manpower management practices within the Marine Corps.
Cultural models. Cultural models are shared normative understandings and behaviors in
an organization that code interpretations, values, ideals, interactions, and purpose (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models guide both individual and group perceptions and behaviors,
greatly affecting organizational performance. These models are often invisible to those that hold
them, and the resulting assumptions go unnoticed until holders are exposed to different models
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Of particular importance to this evaluation study are the
cultural models influencing organizational change and organizational learning.
Organizational willingness to change. A culture of change facilitates the process of
continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to meet
organizational goals (Moran & Brightman, 2000). As described in the general literature review,
the Marine Corps and the broader military culture struggle to change despite the desire and need.
Moran and Brightman (2000) stated that change is not about the organization but the people,
hence the importance of culture, and so three change drivers (i.e., purpose, identity, and mastery)
must be addressed. Agocs (1997) elaborated on these three drivers, stating that the misalignment
of culture and organizational practices causes resistance to change in the form of inertia,
perceived threats to power dynamics, unfavorable values and beliefs, conformity to norms, and
the inability to perceive alternatives. Organizations displaying these forms of resistance tend to
have a cultural model that favors social control and compliance and removes a sense of purpose
for creating something new (Coyle, 2018). To encourage change, cultural models identifying
employees as unique and needing developmental support can manifest in processes integrating,

36
aligning, and benefiting from the unique core capabilities within (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen,
2002). Once an organization shows a willingness to change, organizational support for
individual self-improvement and organizational learning can serve as a strategic function to
create competitive advantage.
Culture of organizational learning and self-improvement. A cultural model
encouraging organizational learning and self-improvement balances performance and mastery to
achieve the organizational goal. Kefalas and Vandergriff (2019, p. 261) stated that current
military culture and practices are remnants of Industrial Age warfare in which, “Soldiers are not
craftsmen who master their art but instead are considered mere technicians who perform rote
tasks.” The authors further state that future military organizational requirements cannot sustain
the interchangeable individual model and necessitate a cultural model that empowers individuals
by encouraging continued service and professional development. This ties in with Hansen et
al.’s (2002) research that highlighted the strategic importance of recognizing and encouraging
intrinsically motivated behaviors that translate into creativity and innovation, service beyond the
call of duty, and eagerness to change and move forward. Although these intrinsically motivated
behaviors are important to the individual, organizations that do not support such behaviors miss
the opportunity to fully capitalize on them in individual self-development and broader
organizational learning.
Cultural settings. Cultural settings are the visible manifestations of cultural models
within particular environments (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are the daily
activities, or lack of activities, that shape culture and the interconnected cultural models. In the
case of the Marine Corps, a cultural setting could be at a promotion board where individuals
discuss the positive and negative aspects of a Marine’s evaluation to determine future potential,
or in a battlespace where a platoon commander makes a key decision whether to maintain or

37
disagree with an organizational position and risk either great success or failure. These cultural
settings are two ends of the spectrum displaying culture’s effect on daily outcomes.
Institutional collaboration to determine effective officer attributes and gaps. To
improve organizational performance, cultural settings should encourage meaningful dialog
among stakeholders that results in understanding organizational goals and the individual
attributes necessary for achievement. Kefalas and Vandergriff (2019) stated that centralized
planning and control of military personnel management in isolation does not work the same as in
context. Bolman and Deal (2013) found that multiple realities within an organization produce
confusion and conflict that require broad participation and involvement to improve
understanding from multiple frames. Understanding stakeholder needs dictates decisions and
practices, such as whether individual attributes evaluated and developed should be consistent
across communities (e.g., an infantry officer must possess the same attributes as a logistics
officer) or if this singular practice creates gaps in certain communities achieving their
stakeholder goals. Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen (2011) stated that high performing teams
have different compositions of complementary skill sets based on their task and level in the
organization. The authors further stated there is no perfect composition as circumstances and
goals change, as should the attributes of the team. To achieve this dynamic alignment of
individual attributes and goal achievement, organizations require regular cross-functional
communication to identify the organization’s individual skill makeup and determine if it is in
line with organizational goals.
Institutional advocacy to promote organizational buy-in. Many researchers agree that
leadership and its involvement in processes have a strong effect on organizational culture.
Berger (2014) stated that the largest factor influencing organizational culture and performance is
the alignment of the strategic communication process in the organization’s culture, leadership,

38
and front-line supervisors. Hansen et al. (2002) supported this argument in stating the unique
value of employees combined with leadership’s advocacy for the integration, alignment, and
deployment of the employee’s value make up the organization’s capabilities. Their research
(2002) further stated that this alignment is a strategic function of the leader as it strengthens
behaviors important to the organization, specifically implicit behaviors such as differentiation
and uniqueness that are necessary for innovative change and advantage. Agocs (1997) built
upon the importance of strategic leadership advocacy from a buy-in perspective in stating
decision makers control the right to establish, change, enforce, or ignore organizational rules
based on their legitimation of power and authority. Leaders have the responsibility and authority
to create a cultural setting advocating for the alignment of individual attributes and behaviors to
organizational performance in order to increase the likelihood of organizational buy-in and long-
term achievement of the organizational goal.
Table 4 summarizes the assumed organizational influences related to the alignment of
individual attributes of Marine officers with the achievement of the Marine Corps’ organizational
goal.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influence and Assessment
Organizational Mission
As America’s expeditionary force in readiness since 1775, the Marines are forward deployed to
win our nation’s battles swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. They fight on land, sea and air,
as well as provide forces and detachments to naval ships and ground operations.
Organizational Global Goal
By September 2024, the Marine Corps’ goal is to develop its 21,500 active duty officers to fill
16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment.
Stakeholder Goal

39
By October 1, 2021, Manpower Management Division implements an updated fitness report that
promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with future Marine Corps needs.
Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
Culture Model Influence 1: There needs to be
organizational willingness to change evaluated
attributes to reflect new organizational
requirements.
Qualitative surveys that tease out willingness
to change; review of evaluation and selection
results to see if evaluated attributes have
changed.
Culture Model Influence 2: There needs to be a
culture of self-improvement and organizational
learning in line with mastery goal orientation.
Qualitative surveys about whether current
evaluated attributes facilitate leaders and an
organizational culture focused on learning
and self-improvement.
Culture Setting Influence 1: The organization
needs institutionalized collaboration between the
MM and commanders to inform changes.
Qualitative surveys about the desire to
collaborate and when in the evaluation
process this step would be most beneficial
and chronologically fit.
Culture Setting Influence 2: The organization
must have advocacy from within the institution to
promote organizational buy-in.
Qualitative surveys about knowing which
senior leaders are essential to the process and
how they should integrate to achieve
organizational goals.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to systematically link concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories to inform research (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This linkage is necessary as the previously described KMO influences do not act independently
but in an interactive relationship that must be modeled to ask the right questions, use the
appropriate methods, and maximize research validity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Maxwell, 2013).
This study’s conceptual framework narrows the broader research problem of aligning the
evaluated attributes of future leaders with evolving military organizational goals down to specific
research questions designed to evaluate the Marine Corps as an institution, individuals within the
Corps, and the MM as the stakeholder group of focus. This framework is constructed to build
upon the previous body of research on individual and organizational performance, military

40
culture, and organizational change theory to identify the convergence of influences affecting
current practices and the achievement of new organizational goals.
As this research problem addresses the alignment of individual attributes to
organizational goals, using a constructivist paradigm is most appropriate to obtain perspectives
based on the perception of each stakeholder (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). This approach combines
multiple viewpoints to understand the interaction among individuals to synthesize a circular
dynamic and propositional generalization to explain actions and outcomes (Creswell, 2014).
Synthesizing these viewpoints to understand the dynamic relationship of the KMO influences
and evaluating them simultaneously is necessary for effective performance gap analysis (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The conceptual framework in Figure 1 represents this constructivist approach to
meaning making and evaluates why the various stakeholders may not align in their actions and
goals.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Individual and Organizational Alignment

41

The figure outlines the relationship between the factors influencing individuals and the
organization, with the MM as the convergence of the two. This graphic shows how influences
on both the individual Marine and the broader Marine Corps institution affect the MM and their
stakeholder goal of aligning the Marine Corps’ manpower to meet the evolving Marine Corps
organizational goals. The left circle identifies what influences individual Marines to behave in a
certain manner and develop specific attributes, both in terms of personal goals and in response to
perceived organizational context. The right circle lists the cultural models shaping
organizational values, beliefs, and attitudes and the resulting cultural settings manifested in
goals, incentives, evaluation and feedback, policies, resourcing, and employee structure. The
overlap shows the stakeholder group of focus, the MM.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), it is not possible to use an individual’s work culture
to enhance performance, but an organization can improve performance by aligning its culture via
policies, procedures, and communication to emphasize core beliefs and goal achievement. This
is where the MM is vital to achieving the Marine Corps’ goal, as the MM can identify gaps in
attributes and performance, determine metacognitive biases that may result in organizational
behavior differing from organizational interests, and understand the values that motivate both the
individuals and organization. This conceptual framework, therefore, provides a tentative theory:
if the organizational culture of the Marine Corps can align the knowledge and motivation of the
individuals and the broader organization, the stakeholder goal displayed in the figure’s green
area can be achieved. This would collectively support the achievement of the broader, more
important organizational goal.

42
Conclusion
Reviewing broader conceptual literature as well as research specific to military
manpower management provides context and a conceptual framework to evaluate to what extent
the Marine Corps is developing and assigning qualified officers. A review of organizational
behavior literature linked the alignment of individual attributes and behaviors to successful
organizational change and goal achievement. The review also outlined the military culture’s
struggle to balance predefined ideals with organizational learning strategies to change and
innovate. It then identified the military culture’s effect on Marine Corps’ manpower
management practices, specifically the rigid officer career path that standardizes leadership
development and consequently reduced talent management and intellectual curiosity associated
with individual creativity and organizational innovation. Finally, the general literature section
reviewed theory on competing values, alignment, and performance orientation, concluding that
safe environments encouraging self-development and experimentation maximize the benefits
individuals provide to changing organizations.
Specific to the evaluation framework, the knowledge influences included a conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive understanding of gaps, processes, and biases affecting the current
personnel evaluation system. The motivation influences included the utility value of altering
officer evaluations to align with the organizational goal, as well as a stakeholder desire to shift
from purely performance goals to a mastery orientation facilitating individual self-improvement.
Finally, the organizational influences included the institution’s cultural willingness to change
how it evaluates individuals, views organizational learning, and advocates change initiatives.
This review enables a process for evaluating these influences in the third chapter.

43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the alignment of the Marine Corps’ manpower
management practices in identifying and developing individual Marine officer attributes with
future Marine Corps organizational goals that depend on warfighters who possess the skills,
performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future
operating environment (Berger, 2019). This study employed the gap analysis framework from a
constructivist perspective to build a holistic consensus on how assumed KMO influences may
affect the alignment of the Marine Corps’ future goals and manpower management practices
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell, 2014). Data collection via the Delphi technique systematically
explored a broad range of ideas from subject matter experts which were then focused into a
consensus of perceived gaps and actionable items. This chapter further described the research
design and methodology, data collection and instrumentation, and outlined the data analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was the MM, as this entity is where the
needs of the individual Marine and the organizational requirements for mission accomplishment
merge in the form of policy execution and leadership selection. The sample population within
this stakeholder group was not the administrative staff but the participants in the annual
manpower management process, notably the service-level board members who review
evaluations and other criteria to determine who is competitive for further development and
promotion. To maximize potential gap identification within the process from multiple
perspectives, the participants must have also served as commanders. This individual perspective
from multiple viewpoints aided in understanding the manpower management process and context
as well as the process’ output of promoted officers. The survey questions required participants to
know how the manpower management process worked, as well as how the process outcomes

44
affected individual behavior and a commander’s ability to achieve the organizational goal. To
identify themes from multiple perspectives, the recruited participants were required to have had
exposure to all three previously identified stakeholder groups so that they understood the input,
process, and output from a holistic viewpoint. Most of the approximately 475 currently serving
commanders had been on service-level boards. This meant the likely total population of the
board experienced commander sample population identified in Chapter 2 was approximately 300
individuals annually. The following details the criteria used for purposeful participant selection.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Manpower management process knowledge. The Marine must have
participated in a service-level selection board since 2015, whether it be a promotion board,
command selection board, or other competitive board requiring individuals to screen and select
other Marines for a competitive outcome. This criterion ensured that surveyed Marines not only
understood how policy shaped MM process, but cultural impacts on how board participants
interpreted policy and affected individual board outcomes. Service-level board participation was
key to understanding how divergent interests and viewpoints come together to evaluate and
reward individuals with certain attributes.
Criterion 2. Command experience. The Marine must have held a command billet in
which the individual was tasked to achieve an organizational goal, was required to evaluate and
mentor subordinates, and then was able to form an opinion on the attributes of subordinate
individuals that led to the success or failure in organizational goal achievement. This experience
provided context concerning the outcome of the manpower management system as the
commander was both a product of the MM process and the consumer of the process output (i.e.,
Marines chosen on boards would work for the commander and help or hinder the achievement of

45
their organizational goals). This command experience was key to evaluating the alignment of
individual attributes and the achievement of the organizational goal.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Marine officers listed as having attended the Lejeune Leadership Institute (LLI) and
documented on the MM Promotion Branch website as having served on a service-level board
since 2015 were invited to participate in the two-round Delphi survey. The 2015 date was
important as it was the year the Marine Corps prioritized future warfare capabilities, updating its
goal and vision via the Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025 and establishing priorities in the
subsequent Marine Corps’ Operating Concept. LLI teaches the Cornerstone Course to
individuals preparing to take command, providing a high probability that invited participants met
both sample criteria. The sampling strategy was a non-probability approach to maximize the
participation of a purposeful sample to answer the research questions. Due to the high-level of
sample participant dispersion and the sensitivity of the topic, the intent was to invite as many
participants who qualified as the response rate could be low. The goal sample size was 15
individuals who could provide in-depth qualitative data.
To reach the dispersed sample population, and informed by Christensen, Johnson, Turner,
and Christensen (2011), the sampling strategy was an open-ended survey via an online
application, which provided a simple means to increase response rate and facilitate theme
coding. Additionally, the initial open-ended survey format facilitated controlled questioning of
the dispersed sample population with minimal researcher influence on response objectivity
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using the Delphi method, the second round of
surveys focused on themes generated from the initial round and allowed participants to answer
structured questions that built consensus regarding manpower management gaps and items for
action. Using qualitative surveys facilitated responses from all over the Marine Corps,

46
increasing the diverse perspective and eliminating geographical constraints and biases. The
online qualitative survey medium maximized anonymous participation and reduced the
researcher influence on the respondents, improving sample validity. The researcher followed the
qualitative sampling with document analysis of previous quantitative studies on Marine Corps
promotions, evaluation rankings, and diversity to validate themes, provide additional context,
and more effectively inform recommendations in Chapter 5.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
To form a constructivist view of the research topic and answer the four research
questions, the data collection and the instruments used were designed to maximize the richness
and potential for consensus on data provided by subject matter experts. The technical nature of
this topic required subject matter experts to have experience in two key areas, narrowing the
sample population to a manageable number of potential participants. As this population resides
within the Marine Corps, a public institution, rosters of commanders and service-level board
participants were publicly available to cross-reference with organizational email addresses.
Emails that introduced the purpose of the study, the Delphi method, and a link to participate were
sent to all participants. Surveys were distributed and collected electronically via Qualtrics online
software. Open-ended responses to the first round of surveys were collected and coded for
themes across the four research questions and nine assumed influences as per Table 5. Identified
themes based on the collection and analysis from the first round generated the structured second
round questions. These questions were aimed at producing consensus via questions listed as
statements with the option for defined levels of endorsement. Both rounds remained open for
two weeks, with a brief period in between for coding and analysis. Reminder emails were sent
after the first week to incomplete and unopened surveys.

47
Survey
Qualitative survey data from subject matter experts were key to inform the stakeholder
population. The research questions focused on KMO influences on the stakeholder group of
focus, the MM, and were asked of the board-experienced commanders.
Research questions to be answered.
1. To what extent is the Marine Corps meeting its goal of developing and assigning
qualified officers?
2. What is the MM’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing an updated fitness
report that promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with future Marine
Corps needs?
3. What is the interaction between Marine Corps culture and context and the MM’s
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO
resources?
Table 5
Assumed Influences, Research Questions, and Delphi Collection
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Research
Question
Delphi Round 1 Delphi Round 2
The MM needs to
know the alignment
between the 14
currently evaluated
officer attributes and
the ideal officer
attributes to achieve
the organizational
goal.
RQ 2
RQ 4

RQ 3

3. If you could add to or replace
attributes to align the fitness
report with success in future
warfare, what would they be and
why?

4. In determining the ideal
officer for key billets within
your command, what are three
Consensus on ideal
officer attributes
aligning with the
future organizational
goal.

48

RQ 1
RQ 3
positive attributes that make an
officer appear more capable?

8. As a commander, when
Marine officers have come to
your command unqualified or
consistently underperformed,
were there common factors
leading to their poor
performance?
The MM needs to
know how to alter the
evaluations to reflect
the ideal officer
attributes.
RQ 2
RQ 4

RQ 1

RQ 4

RQ 1
RQ 2
RQ 4
1. Considering the Marine
Corps’ range of military
operations and future
requirements, describe the
strengths and weaknesses of the
fitness report in evaluating
qualified Marines.

2. Do you feel the use of current
fitness report results in the
selection of the most qualified
Marines? Yes/No/I don’t know.
Please explain your answer.

5. When rating an officer, what
challenges, if any, did you
encounter in representing their
strengths and weaknesses
accurately on the fitness report?
7. The Marine Corps is seeking
innovative Marines. Within the
fitness report, where do you
present evidence of innovation?
Consensus on the
state of the evaluation
process and potential
gaps.
The MM needs to
know how leader
biases affect attribute
preference.
RQ 2
RQ 3

RQ 1
RQ 3
RQ 4
6. In your time in command and
on selection boards, what most
influences how you evaluate
Marines?

9. Looking at your experience as
an individual Marine, what
factors have most affected your
career progression and
assignments?
Consensus on biases
present in current
leaders.

49
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Research
Question
Delphi Round 1 Delphi Round 2
Utility Value – The
MM needs to see the
value in altering the
evaluated officer
attributes to align
with the
organizational goal.
RQ 1

RQ 4

2. Do you feel the use of current
fitness report results in the
selection of the most qualified
Marines? Yes/No/I don’t know.
Please explain your answer.

5. When rating an officer, what
challenges, if any, did you
encounter in representing their
strengths and weaknesses
accurately on the fitness report?
Consensus on
whether there is value
in altering the fitness
report.
Goal Orientation –
The MM should
incorporate a mastery
orientation to
evaluation efforts to
shift from meeting
standards to
facilitating self-
improvement in line
with the
organizational goal.
RQ 3

RQ 1
RQ 3

4. In determining the ideal
officer for key billets within
your command, what are three
positive attributes that make an
officer appear more capable?

8. As a commander, when
Marine officers have come to
your command unqualified or
consistently underperformed,
were there common factors
leading to their poor
performance?
Consensus on
whether MM would
shift evaluations
towards self-
improvement
attributes.
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Research
Question
Delphi Round 1 Delphi Round 2
Culture Model
Influence 1: There
needs to be
organizational
willingness to change
evaluated attributes to
reflect new
organizational
requirements.
RQ 3
RQ 4

RQ 3
RQ 4
10. How does the broader
Marine Corps exhibit signs of a
willingness to change to meet
new requirements?

11. How has your unit changed
in response to meet the Marine
Corps’ future goals?
Consensus on the
Marine Corps’
willingness to change
in response to new
requirements.
Culture Model
Influence 2: There
needs to be a culture
of self-improvement
RQ 1
RQ 2
RQ 4

7. The Marine Corps is seeking
innovative Marines. Within the
fitness report, where do you
present evidence of innovation?
Consensus on what
individual attributes
are necessary to alter
the Corps’ culture.

50
and organizational
learning in line with
mastery goal
orientation.

RQ3
RQ4

12. Do you feel the fitness report
focuses more on achieving
performance goals or
encouraging self-improvement?
Culture Setting
Influence 1: The
organization needs
institutionalized
collaboration
between the MM and
commanders to
inform changes.
RQ 1
RQ 3
RQ 4

RQ 3
RQ 4

9. Looking at your experience as
an individual Marine, what
factors have most affected your
career progression and
assignments?

13. Please provide examples
where you observed that
collaboration between the MM
and commanders were necessary
within the evaluation process?
Consensus on
perceived stakeholder
communication gaps.
Culture Setting
Influence 2: The
organization must
have advocacy from
within the institution
to promote
organizational buy-in.
RQ 1
RQ 3
RQ 4

RQ 3
RQ 4
9. Looking at your experience as
an individual Marine, what
factors have most affected your
career progression and
assignments?

14. Looking at Marine Corps-
wide policy changes in recent
years, what leadership actions do
you recall facilitating broader
policy acceptance throughout the
organization?
Consensus on the
state of advocacy and
areas of strength and
weakness.

Data Analysis
Qualitative validity and participant confirmation of accurate data analysis were built into
the Delphi method design (Habibi, Sarafrazi, & Izadyar, 2015). As such, data analysis began
during data collection as depicted in Figure 1. Detailed coding and synthesis were conducted
within NVivo software after the first round to document thoughts, concerns, theme generation,
and initial conclusions in relation to the conceptual framework, research questions, and authoring
of the second round of questions centered on consensus building. This analysis initially used
open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual

51
framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted to aggregate empirical and a priori codes
into analytic/axial codes. The third phase of data analysis focused on identifying pattern codes
and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions. Finally,
documents were analyzed based on previous quantitative studies for evidence consistent with the
concepts in the conceptual framework and as a means of triangulation.

Figure 2: Delphi Study Structure for Data Collection and Analysis
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research necessitated a level of credibility and trustworthiness in the
researcher and methodology in order to produce meaningful results (Maxwell, 2013). As
qualitative research cannot eliminate researcher bias, recognizing the potential areas where bias
may occur, and providing information and utilizing protocols to mitigate these biases were key to
maintaining credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This section described the steps implemented
throughout the research process to reduce the effects of bias and increase the research credibility
and trustworthiness

52
The first step to developing trust was to maintain transparency in the rational flow from
problem context to research design and lastly to the final data collection and analysis. Every step
in this study was derived from the prior step and explained to maximize the information
available to the reader in order to provide a means to critique the study based one’s interpretation
of the methods and data. The study began with the organizational goal, which drove the
literature review. The literature generated the KMO influences, which fed the research questions
and shaped the conceptual framework and data collection (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
transparent flow of information provided the basis for a systematic data collection and analysis
process.
The next step to maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness was creating a systematic
data collection and analysis process. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) cautioned that reflexivity, or
how the researcher’s role and influence affect each step in the research process, can negatively
affect the research credibility. To mitigate this, the data collection and analysis maintained a
transparent information flow, as the research questions generated the data collection protocol.
The two-round modified Delphi technique allowed for an anonymous initial collection of open-
ended answers to minimize the researcher leading responses and influencing outcomes. The
second round of questions took the subject matter expert-generated responses and tested for
consensus to use in analysis and proposed recommendations (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The
researcher included the initial survey questions, and the response data and generated themes, as
well as the Round Two survey questions to ensure transparency in how participant responses
translated to the researcher’s analysis and findings.
The third step to maintaining trustworthiness and credibility was to analyze additional
sources to increase research validity through triangulation. Upon completing document
collection and analysis, the researcher cross-checked the results with previous quantitative

53
studies on Marine Corps promotions and evaluations identified in the literature review to
increase the validity of proposed recommendations and provide richer context to inform resulting
decisions (Maxwell, 2013; Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Ethical principles were applied throughout this study to protect human subjects while
constructing a holistic understanding of the MM’s practices based on the perspective of
individuals with experience across the multiple stakeholder groups. Ethics were vital to this
study as the participants were actively part of the manpower management process, have
employed and evaluated the process output, and have been personally affected by the process.
To ensure participants were given the opportunity to provide their unbiased perspectives in a
manner that was voluntary, anonymous, and protected their rights and interests, this study
conformed to both the University of Southern California and the USMC Institutional Review
Board (IRB) guidelines.
To provide sufficient information for potential participants to consent to answering the
multiple rounds of survey questions, it was the ethical responsibility of the researcher to identify
their role as a researcher and minimize confusion regarding their relationship to this study
(Glesne, 2011). As a current active duty Marine officer, there was the potential for bias through
my relationship with the stakeholder group of focus, as the members perform as my human
resource department, deciding my career competitiveness for promotion and assigning me to job
openings throughout the broader Marine Corps organization. I had not held command nor
participated as a member on a service-level selection board, so my first-hand knowledge of this
research topic was limited to the individual Marine stakeholder perspective, and I had no
obligation or affiliation to any stakeholder groups. I am currently a staff member at the Marine
Corps University (MCU) located on the same base as the MM. The MCU is also the parent

54
organization to the LLI, which provides the prerequisite Cornerstone Course for incoming
commanders prior to assuming command. In my current role, I am not in charge of any potential
participants, nor could I affect their career based on their choice to participate or based on their
responses. My current status has been disclosed to both IRBs and potential participants,
providing transparency and key information prior to participation.
As a researcher, it was my responsibility to eliminate unnecessary risks to the participants
(Glesne, 2011; Rubin and Rubin, 2012). To further minimize risk, I provided a means to obtain
informed consent via research objectives and qualifier questions at the beginning of my online
surveys and allowed the option to withdraw at any time voluntarily. I also collected only the
necessary qualifier data to meet research criteria with no identifying names or specific military
units or places. At no time did I present data to the MM, the MCU, or any other interested party
without ensuring confidentiality, identity protection, and the removal of raw content or
identifying information that could negatively affect a participant’s professional reputation or
career (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Limitations and Delimitations
This study contained adherent limitations and delimitations. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), finite items including time, resources, and research scope, and the resulting
choices to address them can produce inaccurate or unrepresented data. Attempts to control or
account for such limitations and delimitations were implemented, methodology explained, and
survey questions rationalized; however, this section aimed to provide research transparency into
the potential influences affecting the data. Some specific limitations to this study include:
- The qualitative, constructivist nature of this study is specific to the research problem of
practice, making the methodology unvalidated by prior research.

55
- The non-probability participant recruiting does not represent the broader organization.
- The data analysis and results are dependent on the truthfulness of the participants.
Decisions on the framework and conduct of this study result in delimitations and their
corresponding implications:
- The focus on the specific stakeholder group of board-experienced commanders and no
other stakeholder groups may limit perspective.
- The multiple round nature of the Delphi technique may result in participants not
completing the entire data collection process.
- Using the KMO influences as the lens of evaluation bounds the study and may preclude
areas affecting organizational alignment external to this framework.

56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research to identify the KMO
influences affecting the Marine Corps’ ability to evaluate and promote individual attributes that
align with its future organizational needs. This study utilized the gap analysis framework from a
constructivist perspective to build a holistic consensus on what influences affect the alignment of
current manpower management practices and the Marine Corps’ future goals (Clark & Estes,
2008; Creswell, 2014). The researcher gathered experiences and perspectives from subject
matter experts via a two-round Delphi technique to first generate a broad range of ideas on
assumed influences and then to focus the results to a consensus of actionable influences from
which to analyze and build recommendations. This chapter outlines the following elements of
the research study: participating stakeholders, qualitative survey results, and findings.
Participating Stakeholders
This study used a purposeful sampling approach to select 50 board-experienced
commanders as potential participants to represent the broader population estimated to be
approximately 300 individuals. All individuals were active duty officers ranging in rank from
lieutenant colonel to general. Each potential participant was screened to ensure they had both
held command and participated in a service-level selection board in the last five years. Of those
50, 14 were lieutenant colonels, 23 were colonels, and 13 were generals. The participants’
military experiences ranged from 15 years up to 30+ years. The participating stakeholders
represented three MOS categories: 16 aviation, 16 combat arms, and 18 combat service support.
Four potential participants were female; however, the participants were not asked to provide
gender data in their responses to avoid the potential for participant identification. The four of
fifty ratio is representative of the current eight percent female population within the broader

57
Marine Corps (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018). The response rate for both Round One and
Two was 34%, with detailed demographics shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Survey Respondent Demographics by Round
Respondent Rank Round 1 Round 2
Lieutenant Colonel 35% 41%
Colonel 41% 41%
General 24% 18%
Respondent Career Field Round 1 Round 2
Aviation 24% 24%
Combat Service Support 35% 52%
Combat Arms 41% 24%
Respondent Experience Round 1 Round 2
15-20 Years 29% 18%
21-25 Years 12% 6%
26-30 Years 41% 59%
31+ Years 18% 17%

Determination of Assets and Needs
The use of qualitative data collection in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework
required specific inclusion criteria to determine if a finding was an asset or need within its
broader KMO influence. In the case of this study’s Delphi technique, the first test to include
assets or needs was whether a coded comment was discussed in the Round One open-ended
survey by at least three participants. The asset or needs began as synthesized themes based on
three or more Round One responses and was displayed in survey response tables corresponding
to their broader influence. These tables presented the researcher-generated theme as well as

58
direct quotes from participants as supporting evidence. The theme was then simplified into a
concise statement in the Round Two survey for the respondent population of subject matter
experts to endorse. Each concise statement was operationalized by the researcher as an asset or
need based on whether the finding was a gap to address or an asset from which to build upon in
addressing gaps. All Round Two statements with a level of endorsement greater than 70% were
included as findings and identified as an asset or need by the researcher within their respective
influence category in this chapter.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Most survey respondents agreed the Marine Corps’ current selection tools and processes
result in the selection of the most qualified Marines. However, the participants overwhelmingly
stated the manpower management system could be improved to better align the current
evaluation process to support the Marine Corps’ future requirements. The surveys generated 120
coded comments ranging from perspectives on evaluated attributes, process fairness, biases, and
perceived challenges across each knowledge category. The following sections list each
knowledge category, influence, finding, whether the finding is an asset or need, and the finding’s
level of endorsement from the respondent population.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know the alignment between the 14
currently evaluated officer attributes and the ideal officer attributes to achieve the
organizational goal.
Survey results: Round One. Nearly all respondents provided recommendations on how
to better align evaluated attributes to future organizational warfare. In most cases, the
respondents provided recommendations on no less than three of the 14 total attributes. The

59
open-ended responses to this knowledge influence varied, providing a wide range of information.
Specific trends could be extracted and generated into statements for endorsement in Round Two.
The themes generated from the Round One survey are provided below in Table 7.
Table 7
Conceptual Knowledge Themes
Theme Evidence
Courage in its current form on the
evaluation may not align with
future Marine Corps requirements.
Courage is not an independent attribute. When you are effective under
stress, show initiative, and decisively make decisions, you are showing
courage.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Courage for officers should only be recognized in combat with
valor...and this would be evident from an award with a Combat "V"
device. If valor was not at play, the fitness report still requires an
annotation that one served in a combat environment and then the fitness
report would be considered in that context.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

How do you discern the courage mark from garrison to combat when
they have equal weight in our system and the reality of them not even
being close to equal?
- Aviation General

Courage should be Moral Courage. Leaving it just courage leaves it
wide open to interpretation with some only considering combat or
dangerous situations. Moral courage is much more important.
- Combat Arms General

Courage is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Making
the hard decision, speaking up, not following, but leading.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel
The current evaluation lacks the
ability to explicitly measure
humility.
Humility: This indicates a level of likely self-sacrifice and putting other
people's needs before one's own. This is also the type of person I want to
see keep getting promoted because it suggests an appreciation or at least
an inclination for servant-leadership.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Humility. It is not about you, and many officers have forgotten that
attribute. Be humble enough to ask for help.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Courage and humility could be combined, both draw similar paths to
supporting others and doing the right things.
- Aviation General

The question is not if we add humility can we improve team-building
and collaboration? Rather, the real question, "Is this s quality that aids in
determining the best and fully qualified?" I would agree it is - but we
have to recognize limitations in thinking we can modify behavior.
- Combat Arms General

60
Ensuring Well-Being of
Subordinates could be altered or
removed.
Ensure well being of others - redundant. Tied to leadership, setting the
example, leading the subordinates. Would you mark a Marine high in
Leading Subordinates when they fail to ensure well being of others?
- Combat Arms Colonel

Developing and ensuring well-being of subordinates is redundant to
leading subordinates.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Leading/Developing/Ensuring Well Being of Subordinates should all be
dropped. For a Marine officer to perform his/her job they need to do
these things. They are inherent in performance.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Ensuring well being of subordinates is also wide open to varying
interpretation and can sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions.
- Combat Arms General
To better align leaders with the
organization’s goal, teamwork
should be evaluated.
Teamwork: Gotta be able to work with people, I want to know if we're
promoting folks who play well with others.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Teamwork. Ability to execute within intent. These are very important in
combat.
- Combat Arms General

Ability to get along with peers.
- Combat Arms General

Team building and collaboration.
- Aviation General

It is not about subject matter expertise; it is about thinking, building a
team, collaborating, and executing.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel
Measuring adaptability and
situational awareness could
improve success in uncertain
conditions associated with future
warfare.
Adaptable, work ethic, ability to understand a situation.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

I think adaptability would be value-added in the context of the
uncertainty of war, distributed operations, and the future operating
environment.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

The ability to learn and perform in a variety of situations.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel
There is a need to measure critical
thinking ability in the evaluation.
PME needs to have more meat behind it aside from merely completing
the required PME school for grade; Ability to think critically; Common
sense.
- Combat Arms General

Including something with critical thinking would be more appropriate.
PME can be replaced by self-development or intellectual growth to be
more encompassing.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

Their day-to-day actions and ability to think critically and recover from
adversity. Are they well rounded?
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

61
I'm not certain leaders need to be innovative; however, our future
leaders need a level of flexibility and ability to creatively think through
problem sets without strict dogmatic responses to situations.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Ability to think outside the party line and develop effective solutions.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel
Empathy is a necessary individual
attribute to alter the Corps’ culture.
Professionalism / Charisma / Empathy
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Allowing them to fail in training but not punishing them.
- Combat Arms Colonel

I have also seen briefers who didn't want to be there, and if they didn't
like the Marine they were briefing, they didn't put effort into selling
them to the board. Additionally, an entire Marine’s career is hinged on
three minutes. How do you effectively understand who a Marine is and
what they can provide the Marine Corps in three minutes?
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

I have been given deployments, assignments, and a career path because I
am expendable without children. The discrimination has been so bad
that I believe it has severely affected my career. I have had to work
harder than officers with children because that was expected: to quote
two COs,' "It’s not like you have a life, you don't have children."
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Level of Endorsement for Conceptual Knowledge Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
The attribute of Courage in its current state is vague
and limited to combat. The attribute of Courage
should be altered to Moral Courage to encourage and
reward deliberation, risk tolerance, and forthrightness.
Need 100%
Adding Humility, specifically the ability to positively
respond to feedback as well as focus on the needs of
others, as an evaluated attribute could encourage and
reward self-sacrifice, team building, and
collaboration.
Need 94%
Ensuring Well-Being of Subordinates is redundant Need 82%

62
and is covered in multiple other attributes currently on
the fitness report and can be replaced.
Team Building is a necessary individual attribute to
alter the Corps’ culture.
Need 94%
Adaptability is a necessary individual attribute to alter
the Corps’ culture.
Need 94%
Critical Thinking is a necessary individual attribute to
alter the Corps’ culture.
Need 94%
Situational Awareness is a necessary individual
attribute to alter the Corps’ culture.
Need 100%
Empathy is a necessary individual attribute to alter the
Corps’ culture.
Need 94%
Humility is a necessary individual attribute to alter the
Corps’ culture.
Need 100%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. Conceptual knowledge findings regarding the alignment gap between
individual attributes currently measured in the fitness report and the attributes perceived as
necessary for the Marine Corps to achieve its future goals focused heavily on the need to
measure character traits, interpersonal skills, and critical thinking. Collectively, these soft skills
appear to be a major gap in the performance-centric fitness report and may result in the selection
of leaders deficient in attributes the Marine Corps desires but does not encourage nor evaluate.
Additionally, the focus on performance over soft skills and self-development may explain
identified metacognitive and value needs as noted in subsequent paragraphs, as the fitness report
shows a heavy goal-orientation over a personal growth and mastery orientation.

63
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know how to alter the evaluations to
reflect the ideal officer attributes.
Survey results: Round One. Open-ended responses on procedural knowledge identified
gaps and proposed solutions for a more holistic evaluation process. Round One analysis resulted
in 51 unique codes ranging from noting procedural fairness and rigor, identifying process gaps,
and proposing ways to evaluate character and intellectual traits beyond the scope of the current
evaluation system. Specific trends could be extracted and generated into statements for
endorsement in Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One survey are provided
below in Table 9.
Table 9
Procedural Knowledge Themes
Theme Evidence
The method for measuring the PME
attribute must be altered to provide
more meaningful information about
individual development and
capability.
PME should be a "yes" or "no". Is the Marine PME complete? Who
cares how many books someone read? Marines who care will read;
those who don't, won't.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

PME can be replaced by self-development or intellectual growth to be
more encompassing.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

PME needs to have more meat behind it aside from merely completing
the required PME school for grade; Ability to think critically; Common
sense.
- Combat Arms General

PME: This should be just a block like the rifle/pistol. There is such a
broad spectrum of PME and it cannot be accurately evaluated with the
current system. I.e. if a Marine continues academic degrees or training
that directly relate to their MOS this is not reflected under the current
system.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel
The evaluation should be altered to
evaluate character.
character, bearing, example
- Aviation General

Character...key attribute of an effective leader… Require feedback on
the character of the individual being evaluated.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

64
Difficult to address character because senior leaders are limited by their
experiences and are not willing to change the system because it worked
for them. How can we expect someone to measure character when they
cannot do so themselves?
- Combat Arms Colonel

The systems will always have gaps in evaluating a person's character.
The onus must be on the RS to get to know the officer and the RO to
validate the RS's assessment. What happens if the RS who has written
numerous reports is found to have character flaws during his career?
Look at the recent incidents involving Colonels who have gone to the
brig after being court-martialed. The system doesn't pull all of the
reports they RS’d or RO'd.
- Combat Arms General
The method of evaluation must be
altered to reduce inflation and
accurately reflect a Marine’s
attributes and potential.
The way in which each letter is described is sub-par. Aside from the
extreme ends of the letter ratings, the language used to describe the
letter ratings (generally speaking) are just synonyms for each other and
subjective...The FITREP needs to have a letter marking that is below a
"B" but does not make the report adverse. By the design of the report, a
"B" Marine is meeting the mark. Anything short of that makes the report
adverse and requires so many more steps: (1) counselings, (2)
remediation periods, etc. etc. We need to have a category that fits, "you
are NOT meeting my expectations and you are on a fine line of
becoming adverse" - but not yet.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Current Fitness report does not allow negative remarks which inflate
overall marks....average with peers, requires outside support to complete
tasks. Report also does not allow a 360 review, only a top-down
evaluation that does not create an overall picture.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

There is still a great deal of inflation in the reports for anyone not
getting an adverse report. As a board member, you frequently have to
try and read "between the lines" to get at what is really being said about
someone based off of both what is actually said, and what is not said.
- Combat Arms General

Because of the stringent criteria that make a report adverse, reporting
officials are left with making a case by what they don't say or by the
"velvet knife" of the relative value... Additionally, the audience for a
fitrep is a board. Except for the fitrep, there is no other way to
communicate with a board.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

The reports don't necessarily facilitate highlighting strengths and
weaknesses. they also don't have accurate scales (e.g. a 2-month report
yields RV equal to a 12-month report even though the job descriptions
may vary as well---no "lindy factor" or degree of difficulty much like
scoring in diving).
- Aviation General
The fitness report could be
modified to provide a holistic
depiction of a Marine to a selection
board, specifically in character
I believe we need work achieving a 360-degree view of our individuals
to ensure we select the best and most fully qualified… need to
implement a 360-degree review of the cadre of potential commanders at
the LtCol and Col levels (assuming the entire Marine Corps is still too
hard to do). This review should help inform the board prior to slating of
any potential commander.
- Aviation General

65
evaluation.
The system is based almost entirely on fitness reports - a top-down look
that tends to miss a lot. We have a rigorous selection process, but when
the only things you have to go off of in determining who gets selected
(for promotion or command) are the reports from above the Marine in
question, it is not a comfortable feeling. This is particularly the case
when someone self-destructs in command or after promotion and those
who know that person well are not surprised by it. The only response in
this case has been, "I wish I had known more." All this said, it is still a
good system, but one that can certainly be improved ...We need to find a
way to get to 360-degree evaluations.
- Combat Arms General

[The Fitness] Report also does not allow a 360 review, only a top-down
evaluation, which does not create an overall picture.
- Combat Service Support Colonel
Altering officer training and
education on the fitness report and
board process could improve
outcomes.
Younger officers need to know how a board works.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Lieutenants write the most FITREPs on Sergeants. This means that our
population that knows the least about FITREPs is writing FITREPs on a
population that doesn't know anything about FITREPs.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Officers spend 6 months at TBS and less than 1% of that time is
learning about performance evaluation - yet when they get to the fleet
they spend a lot of time on FITREPs; this needs to be adjusted.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

As a former instructor at the Basic School FITREPs were the #1
complaint from the fleet.
- Combat Arms Colonel

The challenge is that the sections requiring writing as well as trying to
document items not covered in the rating scales are subjective and can
be biased by the rating officer's writing skills.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 10.
Table 10
Level of Endorsement for Procedural Knowledge Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
PME could be altered to a “yes” or “no” checkbox
with the evaluated attribute altered to Growth Mindset
to focus on self-development, adaptability, and critical
thinking.

Need

94%

66
The current process has a gap in evaluating character.
Specifically, it is difficult to document character
attributes, both beneficial and detrimental to future
leadership potential.

Need

88%
The system in its current form results in report
inflation, necessitating indirect remarks about
weaknesses and the need for improvement in order to
avoid adverse reports.
Need 82%
The fitness report as a top-down (RS/RO) view of an
evaluated individual results in potential gaps in a
holistic depiction of a Marine to a selection board,
specifically in character evaluation.
Need

71%

Current officer training and education on the fitness
report and board process could be improved to
identify and select the most qualified Marines.
Need

100%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. Procedural knowledge findings indicate there are gaps in the current process
beginning with the training and education of those who provide evaluation process inputs and
extending to the use of the current fitness report to document officer attributes. The evaluation
process selects the most qualified officer based on the current model for performance evaluation,
yet the process overlooks key intellectual and character attributes previously identified in this
study to align with the Marine Corps’ future goals. Based on the identified gaps, there is
potential benefit in addressing the evaluation process, specifically in improving fitness report
instruction, modifying input methodology, and altering communication between evaluators and
board members.

67
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 1. Manpower Management needs to know how leader biases affect
attribute preference.
Survey results: Round One. The open-ended responses resulted in 34 unique codes
regarding biases and how personal views affect the evaluation process. Key themes emerged
regarding the preference for traditional career paths, conformity to standards, and the influence
of having a mentor throughout one’s career. Specific trends could be extracted and generated
into statements for endorsement in Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One
survey are provided below in Table 11.
Table 11
Metacognitive Knowledge Themes
Theme Evidence
Personal views and experiences
affect the evaluation and selection
process.
Promotion boards are supposed to follow a precept, but the precept is
just guidance, little of it is hard and fast rules. Having sat on several
boards I have seen one member sway the entire board. I have also seen
briefers who didn't want to be there and if they didn't like the Marine
they were briefing they didn't put effort into selling them to the board.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

All boards are different, and the composite of a board can greatly
influence the outcome.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

In your time in command and on selection boards, what most influences
how you evaluate Marines? The word picture from people that I respect
and are familiar with how they think.
- Aviation General

The difficulty is trying to write a FITREP to a board member that has no
clue what that Officer does in their MOS. This leads to generalization of
their performance, so it reaches the broadest group of officers.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

So often the RO of a report does not know much about you, and he
relies on the comments of others to determine your markings.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel
There is a bias favoring certain
billets and career timing.
As a commander, I rated officers based on their billet, responsibility and
actions.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

I got Bn XO by sheer luck in timing and turnover as well as proven

68
performance. Luck has a lot to do with it. I know amazing officers who
have not had opportunities at key billets solely due to bad luck in timing
within their career.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Timing is a huge factor. Some Marines excel just based off of when they
showed up to a unit while other Marines struggle in a pool of successful
Marines.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

Other Officers (senior to me) looked out for me and got me into the
right types of billets. Perhaps a third of this was timing, a third was hard
work on my own part, and a third was previous fitreps/reputation. I
really only controlled about 1/3 of what led to my success.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

The Marine Corps has yet to value highly specialized skills and the
requirement for those Marines to remain within their MOS and not
spend time away at SDA.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

I was fortunate because I was afforded time in key billets - 2 yrs
company command, Bn OpsO in combat, TLS, Joint Staff.
- Combat Arms Colonel
The system creates a bias for
conformity over innovation.
Captains through Colonels are closely watched while we wait for them
to make a mistake so we can cull them from the herd. Operating this
way (& the officers know it occurs) - breeds conformity, style over
substance, & total risk aversion; not the leaders our Marine & Sailors
deserve.
- Combat Arms General

Most innovators do not conform to the norm & based on our culture
they will not excel when a below average Marine who conforms &
never takes risks will be encouraged, rewarded, & selected.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

We are letting average officers with perfect records become below
average LtCols and Colonels.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Conformity is the key. Every senior leader reached his or her position
because of conforming to what the USMC expects. Taking risks &
respectfully disagreeing (when you are right) is not rewarded or
encouraged.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

My observation is that the population that knows enough to inform
change and is not drinking the Kool Aid with total disregard is at the O4
level. Yet, these are not "made men," they still need one more
promotion - so pushing against the grain is not advisable. If you want
change, O4's should be rewarded for being contrarians.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel
Mentors are a key influence on
evaluation and selection.
As a Major, my CO told me where to go (SAW) and what my future
would most likely look like. Officers need constantly mentoring and
guidance and I failed to seek or have that for my first 10 yrs.
- Combat Arms General

I have been fortunate to have mentors and supervisors put me in the
right spots for my professional growth and to maximize my utility to the
unit.

69
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

They also probably lacked mentors who might have been able to push
them to achieve more or at least strive to achieve more.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Mentors can provide sound career guidance on billets and schools.
- Combat Arms General

Other Officers (senior to me) looked out for me and got me into the
right types of billets.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

What factors have most affected your career progression and
assignments? Having a good mentor that advised me properly.
- Aviation General

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 12.
Table 12
Level of Endorsement for Metacognitive Knowledge Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
Personal views of board members can sway an entire
board.
Asset 82%
Billet and timing greatly affect an officer’s
competitiveness on selection boards.
Need 100%

In the present evaluation process, conformity is
rewarded more than innovation.
Need 76%

A mentor plays a key role in career success. Asset 94%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. Despite board precepts and organizational guidance updated annually to
reflect the Marine Corps’ situation and talent management needs, the metacognitive knowledge

70
findings indicate personal views and experiences strongly affect the evaluation process. The
strong endorsement for the importance of conforming to set career paths and the informal yet
influential role of mentorship in perceived officer success indicates a high level of personal bias
exists in the manpower management process external to the use of a fitness report. The
requirement for “luck” in career and billet timing, having an effective mentor, and the varying
personal views of selection board members all impact selection outcomes. These findings
indicate that both the Marine Corps’ senior commanders and board members’ individual
attributes, as well as their interaction with the organization, greatly affect how the manpower
management practices evaluate and select future leaders in practice, and whether the attributes of
these leaders align with the organization’s broader goals.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The survey responses identified motivation influences in the form of 21 unique codes
divided among perceived value and the evaluation process’ goal orientation. The respondents
identified a misalignment of values and the execution of the process, specifically in the perceived
value to understand individuals more holistically and evaluate individual character. The
respondents also endorsed an orientation shift to document an individual's self-improvement to
supplement the fitness report’s performance orientation with mastery goals aimed at improving
individual development over documenting strengths and weaknesses in comparison to others.
The below sections list each motivation category, influence, finding, whether the finding is an
asset or need, and the finding’s level of endorsement from the respondent population.

71
Utility Value

Influence 1. Manpower Management (MM) needs to see the value in altering the
evaluated officer attributes to align with the organizational goal.
Survey results: Round One. The respondents valued the current system’s fairness but
identified gaps in the fitness report’s ability to provide a holistic depiction of an individual’s
character as well as document beneficial attributes outside of traditional career paths and skill
sets. The open-ended responses to this motivation influence varied, providing a wide range of
information. Specific trends could be extracted and generated into statements for endorsement in
Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One survey are provided below in Table 13.
Table 13
Utility Value Themes
Theme Evidence
The current system is fair and
promotes the most qualified, but
there is value in addressing gaps.
79% of respondents agreed that the use of current tools and processes
results in the selection of the most qualified Marines.

Our promotion process and evaluation process is strong but I believe we
need work achieving a 360-degree view of our individuals to ensure we
select the best and most fully qualified.
- Aviation General

We have a rigorous selection process, but when the only things you have
to go off of in determining who gets selected (for promotion or
command) are the reports from above the Marine in question, it is not a
comfortable feeling.
- Combat Arms General

Rigorous standards and pre-selection checklists help inform the
selection of personnel with the aptitude to tackle the Corps' future
challenges. Weaknesses: Rigorous standards and pre-selection checklists
MAY essentially preclude some individuals with the types of skill sets
that would support future operating environment challenges
- Combat Service Support Colonel

The Marine Corps has a very clear system in selection and what needs to
be completed to be competitive for the next rank.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel
There is value in addressing the
limitations of rigorous standards
and career milestones.
The Marine Corps spends an immense amount of time investing in
growing junior enlisted Marines but Officers often get forgotten in this
process. We just expect them to somehow be amazing right out of TBS
and if they fail senior officers do nothing to help them succeed. they just
give them subpar fitreps and send them on their way.

72
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

DOPMA is what is causing the lack of well-roundedness that officers of
an earlier age had due to the amount of time they spent in grade. When
you only have a limited amount of time in grade and have to get in that
key billet for your MOS in grade, it severely limits your options for
career broadening jobs that would open people to the types of broader
experiences that would be truly beneficial in the current and anticipated
OE.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Rigorous standards and pre-selection checklists MAY essentially
preclude some individuals with the types of skill sets that would support
future operating environment challenges.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

The Marine Corps does not value education and specialization. The
process and criteria for promotion are based on infantry Marines or
ground combat arms…. We cannot expect to move towards a more
specialized force while those on the board continue to promote the status
quo of who meets a specific MOS's traditional career path.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

The Marine Corps says in the board precept that diverse career paths
should be considered on equal with normal career paths. This simply
isn't the case when competing against a majority that has a "normal"
career path.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel
There is value in identifying the
character of key leaders prior to
selection.
Attention to duty is a key aspect also - we have been sliding away from
this throughout the chain of command over the past decade or more and
it is a very disturbing trend that must be countered… Too many leaders
are willing to look the other way and are thereby establishing a new,
lower standard. This is a serious downhill and very slippery slope.
- Combat Arms General

Consistently underperforming Marines commonly have weak moral
character.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

Consistently underperforming Marines commonly have a poor attitude
& willingness to blame anyone & everything but themselves. They
make any environment worse.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

I believe the consistent factor was maturity. Those that recognized the
cost of doing business is human life and that how we operate in garrison
directly reflects performance in combat have been successful.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Look at the recent incidents involving Colonels who have gone to the
brig after being court-martialed.
- Combat Arms Colonel

The character of a person doesn't change that much over time. Senior
officers who got in trouble due to poor decisions based on character just
finally got caught.
- Combat Arms General

73
Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 14.
Table 14
Level of Endorsement for Utility Value Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
Despite gaps, the current process promotes the most
qualified Marines.
Asset 100%
Rigorous standards and career milestones may
preclude individuals with the types of skills that would
support future operating environment challenges.
Need 71%
Character is the greatest area of risk as one ascends
rank; proficiency is assumed.
Need

82%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The strong unanimous endorsement that the current evaluation process is fair
and selects the most qualified Marines provides an asset to build upon in addressing the
alignment gap between valued individual attributes and attributes currently measured. This gap
in utility value lies in the need to expand beyond evaluating individual performance to also
document character traits desired in the evolving organization’s future leaders. The latter two
findings indicate a stakeholder desire for additional information on evaluated individuals to
better inform the selection process. This additional information specifically relates to unique
skill sets and character traits external to traditional career paths and milestones, but potentially
beneficial to achieving future organizational goals. The perceived value in addressing identified

74
gaps comes in maximizing the usage and unique potential of each individual within the
organization and aligning their increased utility to better achieve organizational goals.
Goal Orientation
Influence 1. MM should incorporate a mastery orientation to evaluation efforts to
shift from meeting standards to facilitating self-improvement in line with the
organizational goal.
Survey results: Round One. The open-ended responses identified two specific gaps in
how the current evaluation process is oriented. The first theme is synthesized from more senior
respondents who collectively state a 360 evaluation was necessary to move beyond the fitness
report’s performance orientation to holistically view a leader’s character from multiple
viewpoints, particularly leaders competing for command selection. The second theme identified
the fitness report’s inability to showcase self-improvement and personal growth as anything but
positive, which results in an adverse report in an officer’s record. Adverse reports are viewed as
punitive and effectively end an officer’s career. Specific trends could be extracted and generated
into statements for endorsement in Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One
survey are provided below in Table 15.
Table 15
Goal Orientation Themes
Theme Evidence
The performance-oriented fitness
report may benefit if it included a
more holistic orientation, such as a
360 view.
I believe we need work achieving a 360 degree view of our individuals
to ensure we select the best and most fully qualified… need to
implement a 360 degree review of the cadre of potential commanders at
the LtCol and Col levels (assuming the entire Marine Corps is still too
hard to do). This review should help inform the board prior to slating of
any potential commander.
- Aviation General

The system is based almost entirely on fitness reports - a top down look
that tends to miss a lot. We have a rigorous selection process, but when
the only things you have to go off of in determining who gets selected

75
(for promotion or command) are the reports from above the Marine in
question, it is not a comfortable feeling. This is particularly the case
when someone self destructs in command or after promotion and those
who know that person well are not surprised by it. The only response in
this case has been, "I wish I had known more." All this said, it is still a
good system, but one that can certainly be improved.
- Combat Arms General

Report also does not allow a 360 review, only a top down evaluation
which does not create an overall picture.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

360 reviews are great to 0-5 an above in command billets and should be
mandatory for all GOs. I did one at the National War College and it was
very informative.
- Combat Arms General
There is a gap in evaluating and
encouraging self-improvement
within the performance-oriented
evaluation system.
We just expect them to somehow be amazing right out of TBS, and if
they fail, senior officers do nothing to help them succeed. they just give
them subpar fitreps and send them on their way.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

I understand that a fitrep is not a counseling tool and a Marine should
not find out about an area in which they need to improve at this time but
not sure why telling someone that they need to improve makes a report
adverse.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

The FITREP needs to have a letter marking that is below a "B" but does
not make the report adverse. By the design of the report, a "B" Marine is
meeting the mark. Anything short of that makes the report adverse and
requires so many more steps: (1) counselings, (2) remediation periods,
etc. etc. We need to have a category that fits, "you are NOT meeting my
expectations and you are on a fine line of becoming adverse" - but not
yet…. This "New B" or something lower than a "B" that is not adverse
needs to be seen as not punitive, merely an area that needs significant
development. An adverse report will kill an officer's career - I'm okay
with that; however, we need a way to express that they are failing
without killing them.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Remove the idea of an adverse report...except for legal infractions...just
write an accurate report and let the reader interpret.
- Combat Arms General

Leaders cannot always accurately portray an MRO's weaknesses b/c the
report will be adverse. We have only given ourselves a hammer when a
stapler may be more effective.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 16.
Table 16

76
Level of Endorsement for Goal Orientation Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
There is a recognized need by former Service-level
board members to implement some form of 360
review within the evaluation system.
Need

76%
There is a need to encourage and evaluate self-
improvement in the fitness report.
Need

82%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The fitness report leans heavily towards a performance goal orientation. This
focus on performance over encouraging the identification of strengths and areas that can be
improved upon for future potential motivate certain behaviors in the officer ranks. The
motivation findings indicate a need to supplement the evaluation of the current behaviors and
resulting performance of officers with holistic depictions of an officer’s character. This holistic
depiction should include candid remarks documenting failures and growth in a non-punitive
manner viewed as self-improvement, not a weakness in comparison to peers. The “zero defect
mentality” is a direct result of the performance orientation of manpower management practices.
As there is no such thing as zero defect, the current evaluation process results in flawed data by
omitting character judgments and less-than-positive fitness report remarks. The lack of balance
between performance and self-improvement is not conducive to encouraging and selecting future
leaders with character attributes in alignment with the future of the organization and achieving its
goal.

77
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The survey responses identified organizational influences in the form of 78 unique codes
divided among the Marine Corps’ cultural models and setting. The respondents painted an
organizational culture where stakeholder collaboration often focused on compliance over
improvement, and where advocacy at the most senior levels in the form of strategic
communication was clear but not sufficiently supported to produce a culture of change. The
following sections list each organizational category, influence, finding, whether the finding is an
asset or need, and the finding’s level of endorsement from the respondent population.
Cultural Models
Influence 1. There needs to be organizational willingness to change evaluated
attributes to reflect new organizational requirements.
Survey results: Round One. The synthesized themes from the initial open-ended
responses indicate the Marine Corps has gaps in its cultural willingness to change. There are
signs the Marine Corps can change, but there are multiple perceived obstacles to implementation.
The respondents identified a few culture gaps in transforming strategic communication and
guidance into organizational change. Specific trends could be extracted and generated into
statements for endorsement in Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One survey
are provided below in Table 17.
Table 17
Cultural Willingness to Change Themes
Theme Evidence
The implementation of some recent
initiatives shows the Marine Corps’
willingness to change
Merit reorder was a good first step… also acceptance of women in
certain additional MOS's.
- Aviation General

I highly doubt we are going to have a Space officer as a GO anytime
soon because we don't see the value. - A positive note, merit reordering

78
sends a message to our younger officers that top performers will be
provided increased opportunities to lead.
- Combat Arms Colonel

All I can think of is allowing females into Infantry units. I had female
Marines at the Regimental and Battalion level but thought nothing of it
because they fell into the same bins as the male Marines - performers
and non-performers.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Broader Marine Corps is willing to change given a clearly better
alternative.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

There is a cultural gap between
strategically communicating
change and executing the stated
change.
Bureaucracies do what they know and not necessarily what is
appropriate or needed. We have it everywhere that we have people who
have been in their jobs for a long time. Many are doing exactly what we
need them to do to keep the beast functioning, but many also resist
change with passive aggressive measures designed to wait out the
change agent... To make change happen and keep us from reversion
takes a great deal of effort and persistence, then the ability to
institutionalize the change so it sticks.
- Combat Arms General

The Marine Corps promotion and billet selection system continues to
remain the same despite several commandants pushing for change in the
talent management system.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

I don't think we are an innovative organization or actually value
innovation. The last time we did anything innovative was when Brute
Krulak came up with the idea of integrating helo-borne operations inside
of the MAGTF.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

The CPG has us pivoting to the Pacific. That said, the strategic direction
to pivot to the Pacific began circa 2010. It has taken us a decade to get a
concept on paper? Even still III MEF remains the most undermanned of
MEFs. We can tell ourselves we are willing, but we are a deeply
traditional organization - this does not lend itself to being willing to
change. We only truly change/adapt when we have to and that is when
the bullets begin to fly.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Unit-level change efforts seldom
gain traction.
My current unit is trying to make massive and required changes for the
Marine Corps. My previous unit was limited by its structure and
unwilling to change.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Attempted to become a more lethal force by investing the time, energy,
& effort to determine what our Marines were doing, how long it took
them to do it, & how could we do it differently. The idea was to give
time back to small unit leaders to train their Marines in weapons
proficiency or other skills. This idea gained zero traction with mid-level
management, higher headquarters, & HQMC.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

My unit has discussions and is very aware of changes to future goals.
However, actual action and results have not come to fruition.

79
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

We have conducted a major reorganization that is still underway and is
very detailed. We have also changed out several members of the
leadership team to get the type we need to drive and sustain change over
time. We are also identifying those resistant to change and taking the
necessary measures to cause them to adapt and "get on board" or find
employment elsewhere.
- Combat Arms General

It is not only HQMC that inhibits change but middle management as
well; the SNCOs & Bn Commanders who we have made risk averse to
anything. Why would they endorse change unless it makes them look
good & their peers look bad?
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Time constraints often limit change
efforts.
...but many also resist change with passive aggressive measures
designed to wait out the change agent (who is normally in uniform and
will PCS in anywhere from 1-3 years).
- Combat Arms General

In my experience, GS employees "slow roll" initiatives they don't favor.
They can wait out a Commander's tenure to bring change to a standstill.
- Aviation General

It hasn't. We are stuck in the old way of thinking and models we have
made.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

It takes time.
- Combat Arms Colonel

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 18.
Table 18
Level of Endorsement for Cultural Willingness to Change Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
Initiatives such as merit reordering and opening all
MOSs to female Marines show the Marine Corps has
the ability to respond to change efforts.
Asset

82%

80
The Marine Corps communicates the desire for change
in strategic documents and vision but shows a gap in
altering processes to achieve the stated change.
Need

82%
Efforts for change and reform at the unit level seldom
gain traction at the HQMC level.
Need

82%
The necessary time to implement change is often the
limiting factor.
Need

82%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The Marine Corps appears to have the ability to change when strategic
communication sufficiently aligns with a cultural model encouraging change. The findings
indicate the gaps in the culture model are in generating efficacy and buy-in. Respondents
indicated they had seen successful change; these incidents involved initiatives deemed necessary
by Marine Corps leaders or external stakeholders and were supported by messaging that the
successful change was possible and a better alternative. The challenge in replicating this model
is the identified competing values of multiple stakeholders within the Marine Corps’ large
organization. The high turnover of senior leadership makes change efforts challenging from a
time perspective, necessitating rapid implementation or buy-in from successive leaders.
Additionally, the perceived risk to upsetting power dynamics and norms creates a population of
risk-averse stakeholders who do not assist or even actively resist change efforts. The gap lies in

81
creating a culture where change efforts transcend competing values and there is a culture open to
change and willing to accept risk knowing success is possible and beneficial.
Influence 2. There needs to be a culture of self-improvement and organizational
learning in line with mastery goal orientation.
Survey results: Round One. The themes generated from the respondents’ open-ended
surveys indicate there is a gap in Marine Corps’ cultural acceptance of mastery orientation to
augment the strong performance orientation. The mastery orientation gaps specifically manifest
in culturally encouraging self-improvement by viewing perceived weaknesses without attribution
and valuing diverse intellectual development. Specific trends could be extracted and generated
into statements for endorsement in Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One
survey are provided below in Table 19.
Table 19
Culture of Self-Improvement Themes
Theme Evidence
Documented weaknesses and
resulting self-improvement on an
individual’s fitness report could be
viewed as a positive.
The need to encourage and evaluate self-improvement in the FitRep is
valid. However, the Boards need to appreciate the remarks and not
consider those remarks with prejudice. I recommend ensuring that self-
improvement comments must be associated with remarks or marks
relative to assessment of future potential. I.e., don't talk about self-
improvement positively and then make the reader/board member have to
read elsewhere about assessment of future potential to serve at higher
rank. Otherwise, we risk a perception of the Marine not being ready
because when you talk about self-improvement, I believe it can carry a
negative connotation.
- Combat Arms General

While we say an individual’s ability to overcome adversity is a positive
attribute - we'd just prefer to not have adversity at all. That said,
mistakes will be made and we need to be able to determine if the issue is
a matter of a "one off" or a "pattern of misconduct." We need to be
accepting of the one off issues.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

I can deal with weaknesses that were documented in a FitRep (for which
the Officer overcame) when he or she is a junior Company Grade. I
think I would have more difficulty getting over documented weaknesses
(that an Officer nonetheless overcame) once they were field grade
Officers.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

82

Documented self-study and
development outside of those
covered by the current PME
attribute are necessary for a culture
of self-improvement.
I have always had a strong desire to read/study my profession due to the
desire to push back that time when my mental toolbox will be
insufficient to meet a complex challenge. This has enabled me to
perform well in assignments, which has led to continued promotion and
assignments to key training and command billets. As I have gotten more
senior, the desire to read/study has only gotten stronger because the
challenges are bigger and more complex. When I am not able to keep
up, I need to find another line of work.
- Combat Arms General

The Marine Corps does not value education and specialization… The
Marine Corps has yet to value highly specialized skills and the
requirement for those Marines to remain within their MOS and not
spend time away at SDA.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

There is such a broad spectrum of PME and it cannot be accurately
evaluated with the current system.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

1. Industry (writing to professional journals, preparing PME lectures,
etc.) 2. Intellectually athletic (advanced education is an indicator of
related capacity) 3. Technically proficient in MOS (history of successful
tours in previous MOS billets)
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 20.
Table 20
Level of Endorsement for Culture of Self-Improvement Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
As a board member, I would look positively at
documented weaknesses and resulting self-
improvement on an individual’s fitness report.
Asset

88%
As a board member, I would prefer to see additional
evidence of an individual’s self-study and development
outside of those covered by the current PME attribute.
Asset

75%

83
Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The respondents strongly endorsed that they, as active participants in the
evaluation process, are willing to alter their orientation on items of self-improvement. These
findings are assets in altering the Marine Corps’ cultural model to further encourage individuals
to openly identify weaknesses in a non-attributional manner and reward education not directly
attributed to traditional career paths. Two narratives likely transferable from the respondents to
the broader cultural model are that “one-time mistakes” indicate pushing boundaries and
overcoming adversity, and that a broad spectrum of education prepares leaders for complex
challenges. Incorporating these two narratives into the Marine Corps’ cultural model could
further encourage a culture of self-improvement and organizational learning.
Cultural Settings

Influence 1. The organization needs institutionalized collaboration between MM
and commanders to inform changes.
Survey results: Round One. The respondents provided inputs on gaps associated with a
collaborative cultural setting. The open-ended responses generated themes regarding the
challenge in communicating specialized individual attributes external to the current evaluation
system as well as a perceived limitation in collaboration between commanders and the MM.
Specific trends could be extracted and generated into statements for endorsement in Round Two.
The themes generated from the Round One survey are provided below in Table 21.
Table 21
Institutional Collaboration Themes

84
Theme Evidence
There is a challenge in
communicating highly specialized
skills that may benefit the
organization.
It can be a challenge to articulate the officer's accomplishments and
attributes in the rating scales. This is an issue because the score from the
rating scales is arguably the most important aspect in a centralized
evaluation process.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

We cannot expect to move towards a more specialized force while those
on the board continue to promote the status quo of who meets a specific
MOS's traditional career path.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

How can we possibly manage talent when commanders (O6 & above)
cannot get the right people into the right billets at the right time?
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Only because officers will not take the time to clearly articulate these
skills and/or credentials or because they are such terrible and/or lazy
writers they cannot.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Effective communication between a
commander and Manpower
Management is largely limited to
administrative functions.
I have seen where something triggers an automatic MM response based
on policy or SOP, and the Marine is forced to have the commander write
a letter to clarify something or advocate on their behalf. In the
assignment process, I have seen efforts to affect slating, but the pull of
individuals is not absolute in influencing monitors.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

The only time that comes to mind was when the unit was relieving a
MGySgt and MM was consulted to ensure that the adverse report was
written administratively perfect to negate any loopholes that could be
exploited later by the Marine to have the report pulled. To be clear MM
did not assist in writing the report or the content. Rather, they took a
look for administrative correctness.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

I've consulted MM several times but usually WRT adverse FitReps. I
required their advice to help ensure the comments were appropriate and
in compliance with evaluation standards.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

Only communicate during the process to help a Marine get a correction
to their record.
- Aviation General

Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 22.
Table 22
Level of Endorsement for Institutional Collaboration Findings

85
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
There is a challenge in communicating highly
specialized skills or credentials to selection boards.
Need

76%
Communication between a commander and Manpower
Management is largely limited to correcting records or
seeking advice on adverse material.
Need

76%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The findings indicate the prevailing cultural models in the Marine Corps
produces cultural settings in which a commander sharing pertinent yet unique information that
could affect the selection and utilization of individuals is subordinated to administrative
questions to ensure compliance. This cultural setting indicates a potential need for shifting a
prevailing view of the MM from that of a compliance and policy organization to an organization
able to facilitate collaboration and positively influence selection outcomes to better align
individual attributes with organizational goals.
Influence 2. The organization must have advocacy from within the institution to
promote organizational buy-in.
Survey results: Round One. Nearly all respondents provided short narratives on both
positive and negative cultural settings involving advocacy within the Marine Corps. The
prevailing themes synthesized from these responses indicate that advocacy is important but is
culturally viewed as unsystematic and one of many decision inputs versus a major force affecting

86
change. Specific trends could be extracted and generated into statements for endorsement in
Round Two. The themes generated from the Round One survey are provided below in Table 23.
Table 23
Organizational Advocacy Themes
Theme Evidence
Increased mentorship and advocacy
for individual Marines could
improve performance and the
Corps’ talent management.
The collaboration comes when someone at my level identifies a
subordinate with certain talents that may not be fully recognized and
intervenes to get them into a job best suited for their talents. We do not
manage talent well, but we do it to a limited degree.

Show me a successful $48B civilian corporation that does not allow its
high to senior executive hand-select its chiefs of staff & key
subordinates - It does not happen.
- Combat Arms General

As I have progressed in rank, putting individuals in key positions is
crucial to success, so I have been fortunate to have mentors and
supervisors put me in the right spots for my professional growth and to
maximize my utility to the unit.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

In the assignment process, I have seen efforts to affect slating, but the
pull of individuals is not absolute in influencing monitors.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

Advocacy for change to current
evaluation processes is not
sufficient to achieve desired results.
To make change happen and keep us from reversion takes a great deal of
effort and persistence, then the ability to institutionalize the change so it
sticks…. We have conducted a major reorganization that is still
underway and is very detailed. We have also changed out several
members of the leadership team to get the type we need to drive and
sustain change over time. We are also identifying those resistant to
change and taking the necessary measures to cause them to adapt and
"get on board" or find employment elsewhere.
- Combat Arms General

The Marine Corps promotion and billet selection system continues to
remain the same despite several commandants pushing for change in the
talent management system… Lots of talk but no changes to fitreps or the
promotion board process.
- Aviation Lieutenant Colonel

This is changing with the CMC's current efforts at fulfilling the CPG
and the Force Design effort. Major changes are coming, but they will be
resisted by the naysayers who are too comfortable with the status quo.
They are in for heavy rolls.
- Combat Arms Colonel

The new CPG shows that nothing is off the table in making the
organization better at achieving its future vision. That stated, time will
tell if this translates into the actual implementation of bold initiatives…
3 and 4-star advocacy and the support of resourcing are major indicators
whether a change will succeed.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

87

I believe it is too early to tell the organizational change to the CPG.
Much of the CPG remains conceptual. Until there is some refinement in
the concept of operation the outcome is unknown.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

I remember attending two Field Grade Officer / Senior SNCO train the
trainer events on big issue policy changes. The first was the repeal of
Don't Ask Don't Tell. The second was Gender integration. Aside from
this, I don't recall any leadership action taken to assist in smooth policy
transitions.
- Combat Arms Lieutenant Colonel

Advocacy within the Manpower
Management process exists but
could be better.
The collaboration comes when someone at my level identifies a
subordinate with certain talents that may not be fully recognized and
intervenes to get them into a job best suited for their talents. We do not
manage talent well, but we do it to a limited degree.
- Combat Arms General

Mentors that are also advocates play a bigger role in a Marine's success
as they rise through the ranks. Advocacy is essentially the determining
factor for selection to and through the general officer ranks.
- Aviation General

M&RA (not the DC but those who work for him) has ALL the power in
determining who goes where and when. If those in the Marsh Center
want to do something they will; if they don't, they won't. The rest of the
USMC has zero leverage with M&RA to get them to support the
commanders. This is unsatisfactory.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

In the assignment process, I have seen efforts to affect slating, but the
pull of individuals is not absolute in influencing monitors.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

Tough resource decisions are a
major influence on advocacy for
change.
We have reorganized and had many frank and candid discussions to
work on priorities within limited resources, and then accepted some
risks in other areas.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

3 and 4-star advocacy and the support of resourcing are major indicators
whether a change will succeed.
- Combat Service Support Lieutenant Colonel

We play with "house money". No officer in any position writes a payroll
check to anyone from their personal account. No officer decides on what
new equipment to field based on spending their money. Additionally, if
we need more Marines, we whine & complain about not having enough
when we blatantly mismanage those we do have because we don't take
the time, energy, & effort to determine what exactly our Marines need to
do, we don't measure how they do it (other than proficiency & conduct
marks or fitreps) & we won't admit that we don't know how to
responsibly use what we have.
- Combat Service Support Colonel

88
Survey Results: Round Two. The results of the Round One survey provided the
language for each item in the Round Two survey in which consensus was sought. The findings
and the respondents’ level of endorsement are provided in Table 24.
Table 24
Level of Endorsement for Organizational Advocacy Findings
Finding Asset/Need Level of Endorsement
Increased mentorship and advocacy for individual
Marines could improve performance and the Corps’
talent management.
Need

88%

Advocacy for change to current evaluation processes is
not sufficient to achieve desired results.
Need

76%

Advocacy within the Manpower Management process
exists, but individual influence is not absolute.
Asset

94%

Advocacy for change is limited by tough resource
decisions.
Need

82%

Interview findings. No interviews were conducted for this influence.

Observation. No observations were made for this influence.

Document analysis. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.

Summary. The findings indicate advocacy is viewed as important to a culture of change
in the Marine Corps, but there are both assets and needs that must be addressed to improve
cultural settings and their outcomes. Cultural settings where strategic communication is backed
by champions advocating change efforts were identified as important factors in affecting critical

89
policy implementation and resource decisions necessary for change. Respondents noted
advocacy cannot be a single individual but numerous senior stakeholders willing to accept risk
and lead the organization through resistance. The findings indicate cynicism in the
organization’s ability to overcome organizational resistance and alter the evaluation process.
Specific to MM practices, senior general officer advocacy coupled with sufficient resourcing will
likely be key factors in generating a cultural setting with sufficient buy-in in the form of
organizational urgency and efficacy.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 25, 26, and 27 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as
an asset or a need.
Knowledge
Table 25
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Conceptual Knowledge Asset/Need
The attribute of Courage in its current state is vague and limited to combat.
The attribute of Courage should be altered to Moral Courage to encourage and
reward deliberation, risk tolerance, and forthrightness.
Need
Adding Humility, specifically the ability to positively respond to feedback as
well as focus on the needs of others, as an evaluated attribute could encourage
and reward self-sacrifice, team building, and collaboration.
Need
Ensuring Well-Being of Subordinates is redundant and is covered in multiple
other attributes currently on the fitness report and can be replaced.
Need
Team Building is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’ culture. Need
Adaptability is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’ culture. Need
Critical Thinking is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’ culture. Need
Situational Awareness is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’
culture.
Need

90
Empathy is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’ culture. Need
Humility is a necessary individual attribute to alter the Corps’ culture.

Need
Procedural Knowledge Asset/Need
PME could be altered to a “yes” or “no” checkbox with the evaluated attribute
altered to Growth Mindset to focus on self-development, adaptability, and
critical thinking.
Need
The current process has a gap in evaluating character. Specifically, it is
difficult to document character attributes, both beneficial and detrimental to
future leadership potential.
Need
The system in its current form results in report inflation, necessitating indirect
remarks about weaknesses and the need for improvement in order to avoid
adverse reports.
Need
The fitness report as a top-down (RS/RO) view of an evaluated individual
results in potential gaps in a holistic depiction of a Marine to a selection
board, specifically in character evaluation.
Need
Current officer training and education on the fitness report and board process
could be improved to identify and select the most qualified Marines.
Need
Metacognitive Knowledge Asset/Need
Personal views of board members can sway an entire board. Asset
Billet and timing greatly affect an officer’s competitiveness on selection
boards.
Need
In the present evaluation process, conformity is rewarded more than
innovation.
Need
A mentor plays a key role in career success. Asset

91
Motivation
Table 26
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Utility Value Asset/Need
Despite gaps, the current process promotes the most qualified Marines. Asset
Rigorous standards and career milestones may preclude individuals with the
types of skills that would support future operating environment challenges.
Need
Character is the greatest area of risk as one ascends rank; proficiency is
assumed.
Need
Goal Orientation Asset/Need
There is a recognized need by former Service-level board members to
implement some form of 360 review within the evaluation system.
Need
There is a need to encourage and evaluate self-improvement in the fitness
report.
Need

Organization
Table 27
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Cultural Models Asset/Need
Initiatives such as merit reordering and opening all MOSs to female Marines
show the Marine Corps has the ability to respond to change efforts.
Asset
The Marine Corps communicates the desire for change in strategic documents
and vision but shows a gap in altering processes to achieve the stated change.
Need
Efforts for change and reform at the unit level seldom gain traction at the
HQMC level.
Need
The necessary time to implement change is often the limiting factor. Need

92
As a board member, I would look positively at documented weaknesses and
resulting self-improvement on an individual’s fitness report.
Asset
As a board member, I would prefer to see additional evidence of an
individual’s self-study and development outside of those covered by the
current PME attribute.
Asset
Cultural Settings Asset/Need
There is a challenge in communicating highly specialized skills or credentials
to selection boards.
Need
Communication between a commander and Manpower Management is largely
limited to correcting records or seeking advice on adverse material.
Need
Increased mentorship and advocacy for individual Marines could improve
performance and the Corps’ talent management.
Need
Advocacy for change to current evaluation processes is not sufficient to
achieve desired results.
Need
Advocacy within the Manpower Management process exists, but individual
influence is not absolute.
Asset
Advocacy for change is limited by tough resource decisions. Need

In Chapter Five, this dissertation offers recommendations to assist the Marine Corps in
developing and utilizing its most talented officers who possess the skills, performance, future
potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future operating environment. The
proposed recommendations are based on empirical evidence to address the influences identified
during the Delphi technique multi-round survey. Chapter Five also addresses the implications
for the various stakeholder groups. Finally, the chapter offers recommendations for further
research in this area of study.

93
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter systematically transitions the validated KMO influences identified in
Chapter Four into an integrated evaluation and implementation plan. The first sections analyze
each of the KMO influences utilizing an evidence-based theory and provide a context-specific
recommendation for each. The latter sections utilize the Kirkpatrick New World Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to build these individual recommendations into a single
program with four levels of evaluation and associated training and education. The four levels are
Level 1 (Reaction), Level 2 (Learning), Level 3 (Behaviors), and Level 4 (Results) (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1: Reaction describes the degree of satisfaction, engagement, and
relevance experienced by the participant. Level 2: Learning describes the degree to which the
participant has acquired the confidence and commitment intended from the instruction. Level 3:
Behavior describes the skills performed on the job after the instruction. Level 3 also requires
organizational drivers to monitor, reinforce, encourage, and reward learned behaviors
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 4: Results describes the degree to which the
organization’s desired outcomes were achieved. To ensure the levels are nested and mutually
supporting, the evaluation and implementation follow the New World Kirkpatrick Model of
planning in reverse, beginning with the Level 4: Results as the starting point and working
backward to design the supporting lower levels. To establish the basis for evaluation and
implementation, the next section discusses the recommendations for each of the KMO
influences.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 28 include a consolidated list of assets
and needs validated by a minimum of 70% of survey respondents through the Delphi two-round

94
survey technique of data collection and analysis. The knowledge influences coincide with
Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge types, as described in Chapter Two. The conceptual knowledge
influences relate to the MM determining the gap between the attributes currently evaluated by
the fitness report and the attributes necessary to achieve the Marine Corps’ organizational goal.
The procedural knowledge influences focus on how the MM can alter the fitness report to
balance the officer attributes necessary to meet the organizational goal. The metacognitive
knowledge influences address the understanding of biases current leaders and the broader
organization possess in terms of preferring specific attributes over others. The influences
displayed in Table 28 are the foundation for generating recommended solutions based on
theoretical principles and literary support.
Table 28
Summary of Validated Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
The attribute of Courage in its current state is
vague and limited to combat. Courage should be
altered to Moral Courage to identify and reward
deliberation, risk tolerance, and forthrightness in
all situations. (C)
Information learned
meaningfully and connected
with prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and remembered
more accurately because it is
elaborated with prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Provide the MM new conceptual
knowledge of Moral Courage to
expand upon previous combat-focused
conceptions of Courage.

Adding Humility, specifically the ability to
positively respond to feedback as well as focus on
the needs of others, as an evaluated attribute,
could identify and reward self-sacrifice, team
building, and collaboration. (C)
Creating a schema
helps learners organize
conceptual knowledge in a
domain (Schraw, Veldt, &
Olafson, 2009).
Provide the MM a definition of
Humility and spectrum of evaluation
in line with supporting individual and
organizational growth.
Team Building, Adaptability, Critical Thinking,
Situational Awareness, and Empathy are necessary
individual attributes to alter the Corps’ culture. (C)
Knowledge influences are
more meaningful when
individuals identify and
understand important points
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

Provide the MM conceptual
knowledge on validated individual
attributes that augment current
performance-centric fitness report
measures to better align with the
organization’s desired culture.
Ensuring Well-Being of Subordinates is redundant
and is covered in multiple other attributes
currently on the fitness report and can be replaced.
(C)
How individuals organize
knowledge influences how they
learn and apply what they
know (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide the MM conceptual
knowledge on how Ensuring Well-
Being of Subordinates is captured by
the desired attributes of Team Building
and Empathy.

95

Provide the MM conceptual
knowledge on the redundancy of
Leading, Developing, and Ensuring
Well-Being of Subordinates as
separate measurements of leadership.
The current process has a gap in evaluating
character. The heavy reliance on the fitness report
as a top-down view is not a holistic depiction.
Specifically, it is difficult to document character
attributes, both beneficial and detrimental to future
leadership potential. (P)
Effective observational
learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors, then
enacting them overtly (Mayer,
2011).
Provide the MM new evaluation
strategies by modeling character
evaluation methods and demonstrating
how they augmentation the current
fitness report.
PME could be altered to a “yes” or “no” checkbox
with the evaluated attribute altered to Growth
Mindset to focus on self-development,
adaptability, and critical thinking. (P)
Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and performance
(Denler, Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).
Provide the MM with models,
guidance, and feedback on how to alter
PME evaluation in a manner that
expands beyond current evaluations
limits.
The system in its current form results in report
inflation, necessitating indirect remarks about
weaknesses and the need for improvement in order
to avoid adverse reports. (P)
Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar (e.g.,
gender, culturally appropriate),
and the behavior has functional
value (Denler et al.,
2009).
Model the process for MM participants
to allow negative remarks in fitness
reports without requiring adversity in
order to facilitate honest, direct
feedback on individual weaknesses
and potential for self-improvement.
Current officer training and education on the
fitness report and board process could be
improved to identify and select the most qualified
Marines. (P)
Providing opportunities for
learners to check their progress
and adjust their learning
strategies improves self-
efficacy, learning, and
performance (Denler et al.,
2009).

Provide officers with supplemental
career development information, such
as job aids and instruction within the
PME continuum, to reinforce and build
upon rank-appropriate knowledge and
information about the Marine Corps’
manpower policies and initiatives
designed to support their process
understanding and improve their
performance within the process.
Personal views of board members can sway an
entire board. (M)
As individuals improve their
metacognition, their thinking
and information processing is
enhanced (Krathwohl, 2002).
Provide board members opportunities
to reflect on their self-regulatory skills
for mitigating bias and heightening
alignment to desired organizational
outcomes.
Billet and timing greatly affect an officer’s
competitiveness on selection boards. (M)
Participants engaging in
reflective work need to have
complete and accurate
information about the topic for
discussion, be free from bias,
and meet in an environment of
acceptance, empathy, and trust
(Mezirow, 1997).
Provide board members opportunities
for exposure to new ideas, discussions
about current work-related research
and theory, and reflection on personal
biases to facilitate behaviors beneficial
to the organization.

96
In the present evaluation process, conformity is
rewarded more than innovation. (M)
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are
knowledgeable about and are
consistently learning about
themselves and their
organization (Waters, Marzano
& McNulty, 2003).
Provide evaluators with self-regulation
job aids to improve their awareness on
whether their grading behaviors reflect
organizational goals, interests,
efficacy, effectiveness, and strategy.
A mentor plays a key role in career success. (M)
Guidance can maximize
individual potential by helping
individuals acquire component
skills, practice integrating these
skills into their work, and help
them understand when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Provide officers with mentors who
model, coach, and provide other
scaffolding means of knowledge
sharing designed to help them make
sense of and master the information
learned to better guide their career
decisions and maximize potential.
*Indicates knowledge type for each influence listed: (C)onceptual, (P)rocedural, (M)etacognitive
Increasing conceptual knowledge on ideal attributes and organizational alignment.
The validated conceptual knowledge influences listed in Table 28 indicate a need for the MM to
understand further the applicable definitions and benefits of individual Marine officer attributes
that better align with achieving future organizational goals. Information processing theory
serves as the foundation for addressing this knowledge gap. Specifically, Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) asserted that knowledge must build upon the current schema and organize in
a way that facilitates learning and application. This suggests the need to provide information to
the MM’s leaders to establish commonly understood definitions of attributes identified as
beneficial to future warfare, as well as a precise understanding of how these attributes augment
current evaluations. The recommendation is then to provide the MM’s Promotion and Records
and Performance Branches information and education that discusses how identifying key
character traits, interpersonal skills, and critical thinking can augment current performance-
centric evaluations to better select officers for promotion and key billets. An example is
providing the MM materials showing the 14 currently evaluated traits on Dyer, Gregersen, and
Christenesen’s (2011) discovery-delivery skill matrix compared to an altered skill matrix with

97
additional character attributes and definitions that rebalance discovery and delivery skills in line
with the Marine Corps’ desire for forces with aptitude to meet future uncertainty.
The goal of altering the fitness report is to better align individual Marine officer attributes
with future organizational goals. For the MM to better understand the gap between currently
evaluated attributes and those deemed necessary for the Marine Corps to succeed in future
warfare, the MM must understand the effects evaluating certain behaviors and excluding certain
behaviors has on the organization’s culture and performance (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004;
Burke, 2004; Quinn, et al., 2014). Schein (2010) addressed these effects on organizational
culture by stating the need to understand and link individual behaviors to the organizational goals
via reward and discipline systems consistent with the organization’s way of thinking and
working. In the Marine Corps, the fitness report is a vital part of the reward and discipline
system as it is the primary means to select the best-qualified personnel for promotion, career
designation, retention, resident schooling, command, and duty assignments (U.S. Marine Corps,
2018c). Providing information to the MM on ideal attributes and alignment in a manner that
connects prior knowledge to new knowledge encourages meaningfulness and organizes learning
into a more applicable configuration (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The evidence shows that
providing the MM information on the newly proposed evaluation attributes and their effects on
organizational alignment in comparison to the current fitness report will increase the likelihood
of understanding and application.
Increasing procedural knowledge on how to alter the fitness report. The validated
procedural knowledge influences in Table 28 indicate a gap in understanding how to accurately
and holistically evaluate key attributes in the current fitness report. Social cognitive theory
informs a practical recommendation to address this gap. According to Denler et al. (2009),
modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and

98
performance. Mayer (2011) suggested using models, guidance, and feedback to provide
opportunities to demonstrate new behaviors and increase the likelihood of behavior adoption.
The recommendation then is to provide the MM an updated Performance Evaluation System
(PES) policy model and associated training materials to incorporate the evaluation of character,
growth mindset, and self-improvement into the fitness report. An example would be providing
the MM draft PES paragraphs with updated guidance discussing the importance of measuring
additional attributes and supporting methods of evaluation successfully implemented in
analogous organizations. To reinforce this modeling and guidance, the MM would require
additional training to provide at set times within a Marine officer’s career to ensure continuously
updated instruction based on feedback and to build upon rank-appropriate knowledge and
information.
How the MM alters the fitness report is key to whether it will successfully align
individual Marine officer attributes with the organization’s future goals. Denler et al (2009) state
that modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted if the model is credible, similar, and the
behavior has functional value. Pfeifer’s (2013) study on Marine Corps’ fitness reports indicated
the model for successful change is simple in theory: revise the PES, alter the fitness report, and
educate (train) Marines before implementation. The challenge lies in showing the new behavior
is credible and has functional value during the training portion of the change. This study found
that 79% of respondents believe the current evaluation system is rigorous and fair. Additionally,
multiple studies have confirmed the fitness report is an effective human resource evaluation tool
(Clemens et al., 2012; Mann, 2011; Milkovich and Boudreau, 1997). Therefore, the procedural
knowledge must convey a process that has clear tasks linked to goals, is shown to enhance
performance, and is challenging but achievable (Denlar et al., 2009). The evidence shows that
changing the fitness report via a combination of clear manpower management policies combined

99
with training at set career intervals can improve the MM’s efficacy, learning, and performance in
accurately and holistically evaluating key attributes aligned with the Marine Corps’ future goals.
Increasing metacognitive knowledge on biases affecting attribute preference. The
validated metacognitive knowledge influences in Table 28 indicate Marines involved in the
evaluation process need increased self-awareness of their biases affecting process outcomes,
particularly strong preferences for structured careers, conformity, and mentor-influence.
Information processing theory forms the basis for closing this metacognitive knowledge gap.
Mezirow (1997) stated that participants engaging in reflective work need to have complete and
accurate information about the topic for discussion, be free from bias, and meet in an
environment of acceptance, empathy, and trust. The first step in improving this cognitive
process is awareness and control (Mayer, 2011). This would suggest that providing selection
board members with self-regulatory skills instruction to aid them in identifying biases and
focusing on aligning their personal goals with desired organizational outcomes may improve
their self-awareness and alter their behaviors to better support the organization. The
recommendation then is to provide board members opportunities for exposure to new ideas,
discussions about current work-related research and theory, and reflection on personal biases to
facilitate behaviors beneficial to the organization. An example is prior to beginning a selection
board, board members receive self-regulation education and job aids to improve self-reflection
on whether their behaviors align with organizational goals, interests, efficacy, effectiveness, and
strategy.
Stakeholders who strive for metacognitive knowledge can identify their biases, how those
biases affect their behaviors, and if those behaviors align with or hinder the organizational goal.
The survey respondents identified a strong bias for conformity, which is in line with Terriff’s
(2006) observation that the military exudes cultural preferences and biases that resist significant

100
deviation from dominant organizational ways of war. As such, the military promotes relatively
homogenous leaders with tendencies to favor their preferences and closing off more in-depth
analysis and diverse perspectives (Haynie, 2018). Selection boards can decrease biases towards
similar perspectives and affect the resulting selection outcomes by creating a safe environment to
communicate prior knowledge, beliefs, associations, and assumptions in a manner that explains
why certain behaviors exist and reduces misconceptions (Baker, 2006). In sum, evaluations and
board deliberations can both decrease attribute biases and improve organizational outcomes
through improved self-reflection, focus on organizational goals over self-interests, and
facilitation of a trustful, accepting environment.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 29 include a consolidated list of assets
and needs validated by a minimum of 70% of survey respondents through the Delphi two-round
survey technique of data collection and analysis. The motivation influences are in order based
on the two motivation influences of expectancy value theory and goal orientation theory. The
expectancy value influences relate to the MM determining the value in altering the current
evaluation system, both in terms of expectation for success, as well as the perceived value of
implementing an alternative approach. The goal orientation influences focus on understanding
the Marine Corps’ preference for measuring individual performance in comparison to others
versus a mastery orientation aimed at individual self-improvement and reaching one’s potential.
The influences displayed in Table 29 are the foundation for generating recommended solutions
based on theoretical principles and literary support.

101
Table 29
Summary of Validated Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Despite gaps, the current process promotes the
most qualified Marines. (V)
The more a person values a
task and thinks they are likely
to succeed at it, the greater
their motivation to do it
(Wigfield & Eccles 2000).
Provide the MM models that evidence
usefulness in building upon
established processes to improve gaps
while not reducing the identified assets
of rigor and fairness.
Rigorous standards and career milestones may
preclude individuals with the types of skills that
would support future operating environment
challenges. (V)
Removing the fear of rocking
the boat or presenting an
unpopular argument enhances
creative thinking and access to
untapped human resources
(Quinn, et al., 2014).
Provide the MM a balanced evaluation
system model that targets increasing
individual attributes valued as
supporting overcoming challenges in
innovative ways.
Character is the greatest area of risk as one
ascends rank; proficiency is assumed. (V)
The more a leader acts in a way
that followers feel is
appropriate ethical leader
behavior, the more a leader
will be trusted (Van den Akker,
Heres, Lasthulzen, & Six,
2009).
Provide the MM a model to augment
the current evaluation process with
additional evaluation elements focused
on a leader’s character, at a minimum,
for key positions of trust, such as
command.
There is a recognized need by former Service-
level board members to implement some form of
360-review within the evaluation system. (G)
To shift from performance to
mastery orientation, use task,
reward, and evaluation
structures that promote
mastery, learning, effort,
progress, and self-improvement
standards and less reliance on
social comparison or norm-
referenced standards (Pintrich,
2003).
Provide the MM a model to identify
future leaders’ propensity for learning
and growth.
There is a need to encourage and evaluate self-
improvement in the fitness report. (G)
Focusing on mastery,
individual improvement,
learning, and progress
promotes positive motivation
(Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Provide the MM training on the
importance of learning from one’s own
errors by accepting mistakes as
opportunities to learn.
*Indicates motivation type for each influence listed: (V)alue or (G)oal Orientation
Increasing the perceived value of aligning the fitness report with the organizational
goal. The validated motivation influences in Table 29 indicate the fitness report, in its current
form, is valued as fair and rigorous by individuals. However, this may not align with what the
organization values in more holistically understanding individual character traits and unique skill
sets. Expectancy value theory provides a principle to address this motivation gap. Wigfield and
Eccles (2002) found the more a person values a task and thinks they are likely to succeed at it,

102
the greater their motivation to do it. This would suggest that to increase the stakeholder’s
motivation to alter the fitness report, there is a need to establish value by providing materials and
activities that are useful, connected to current understanding, and based on real-world tasks
(Pintrich, 2003). The recommendation then is to model evaluation tools that build upon the
current fitness report to maintain the valued rigor and fairness, while addressing the
organization’s need for a more holistic character depiction. To provide an opportunity to
determine the new model’s value, initial implementation can be limited in scope to key positions
of trust, such as command billets. If the model is deemed useful, then the MM’s leaders can
decide whether to expand the implementation to all officers. As an example, the MM can test a
360-evaluation tool on officers competing on command boards, to augment the fitness report
with additional character trait and skill set data to inform selection decisions better. The data can
then be compared over time with previous command selections to determine if there was value in
utilizing the new tool.
Eccles (2006) stated that an active choice to pursue a goal is based on the expectation for
success and the value of achievement. Since 2015, the Marine Corps’ general officers have
consistently identified value in having Marine leaders with attributes beyond those currently
evaluated as a key element for future warfare success (Berger, 2019; Mundy, Homiak, & Dyal,
2018; USMC, 2015). The motivation variable does not come from leadership’s perceived utility
value, but in relation to the broader organization seeing that successful achievement is possible
and worth the change efforts. Quinn et al. (2014) stated this internal conflict stems from
organizational behavior theory, emphasizing that the complex, dynamic nature of competing
values within an organization can negatively impact change initiatives. To overcome these
competing values and potential organizational misalignment, a model to foster a holistic
perspective must transcend the competing value paradox to align choices, efforts, and goals.

103
Specifically, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) stated the need to align the three dimensions of
values, decision rights, and information to balance the centralized and decentralized governance
of a large, consequential, yet deeply personable, organizational change effort.
Balancing the goal orientation between performance and mastery. The validated
goal orientation influences in Table 29 indicate the fitness report’s heavy focus on measuring
performance creates a gap in identifying mastery goals necessary to encourage long-term self-
improvement and intrinsic motivation to master a task, versus merely performing the task better
than others. Yough and Anderman (2006) stated that focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and progress promotes positive motivation. This would suggest there is
a need to shift evaluations from performance to mastery orientation to balance self-improvement
efforts with current social comparisons based on norm-referenced standards (Pintrich, 2003).
The recommendation then is to provide the MM a model to identify positive future leaders who
enjoy work they learn from, even if they make mistakes, including problems that make them
think and challenging tasks involving risk, and conversely to identify negative future leaders who
want to do better than their peers, avoid challenging tasks that may expose weaknesses, and
focus on avoiding the risk of failure. As an example, provide the MM a model to weigh
challenging assignments, highlight and reward unique skill sets and traits beyond requirements,
and reward risks, while allowing failure in pursuing challenging tasks. This could look like
different fitness report formats throughout a career, such as company grade officer evaluations
that accept failure and positively weigh potential, growth mindset, and adaptability. While a
field grade officer fitness report may focus more on character, teamwork, and innovation traits
valuable to leading learning organizations. The key is to identify individuals with a goal to get
better, not get promoted.

104
As goals motivate and direct individuals, addressing goal orientation is key to impacting
effort, persistence, attention, planning, and standards (Pintrich, 2003). Midgley, Kaplan, and
Middleton (2001) found that performance goals are best utilized in predominantly performance-
oriented organizations when mastery goals are also encouraged. Pfeifer’s (2013) study identified
the current fitness report’s heavy performance focus of ranking Marines as detrimental to
motivating improvement and that the fitness report must be altered to improve performance
versus only evaluating it. Pfifer (2013) further stated the way to encourage self-improvement is
to shift from uncovering weaknesses to identifying strengths. The benefits of mastery orientation
in the form of identifying self-improvement and strengths is supported by other studies claiming
that critical thinking tasks may be performed better by individuals motivated by performance
goals in the short-term. However, these individuals eventually fall behind those motivated to
improve via mastery goals, as the latter tend to develop deeper processing due to sustained
interest (Barron and Harackiewicz, 2003; Elliot, Shell, Bouas Henry, & Maier, 2005). From a
theoretical perspective, then, it would appear the Marine Corps could benefit from balancing
goal orientation in the evaluation process by augmenting performance goals focused on standards
and competition with mastery goals focused on self-improvement and learning.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organizational influences in Table 30 include a consolidated list of
assets and needs validated by a minimum of 70% of survey respondents through the Delphi two-
round survey technique of data collection and analysis. The organizational influences are in
order based on whether they are a cultural model or a cultural setting. According to Rueda
(2011), cultural models are often invisible, shared mental representations of the organization’s
structures, values, practices, and policies that develop within the specific work settings. The
cultural models influence the organization’s ability to provide an environment of trust and

105
openness to change. Rueda (2011) defined cultural settings as the visible characteristics of the
who, what, when, where, why and how of the daily workings in an organization. These cultural
settings influence the organization's ability to overcome perceived barriers to change through
demonstrated activities and environments, manifesting the necessary trust and communication.
The influences displayed in Table 30 are the foundation for generating recommended solutions
based on theoretical principles and literary support.
Table 30
Summary of Validated Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Initiatives such as merit reordering and opening all
MOSs to female Marines show the Marine Corps
has the ability to respond to change efforts. (M)
Adapting effective practices
and testing them as change
efforts on a small scale before
full-scale implementation
improves the likelihood of
success (Langley, et al., 2009).

Study previous initiatives to inform an
MM pilot of actions to test, collect
feedback, and modify prior to full-
scale change effort implementation.
The Marine Corps communicates the desire for
change in strategic documents and vision but
shows a gap in altering processes to achieve the
stated change. (M)
Setting clear, concrete, and
measurable goals, aligned with
the organization’s vision
increases organizational
effectiveness (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Provide the MM a complete
implementation plan to accompany
high-level messaging when the change
is announced. This plan should consist
of both short-term and long-term
goals, priorities, key measurements
and deadlines, and a method for
progress feedback.
Efforts for change and reform at the unit level
seldom gain traction at the HQMC level. (M)
Communicating why change is
needed and then addressing
organizational barriers
improves the effectiveness of
the change process (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
Provide commanders training and
encouragement to communicate a
vision, establish a collaborative
approach, and align their change
initiative messaging with the broader
organizational goal.
The necessary time to implement change is often
the limiting factor. (M)
Establishing cultural trust tends
to improve organizational
results due to highly motivated
employees. These employees
are more likely to enjoy their
work, take the time to do their
jobs correctly; make their own
decisions; take risks; innovate;
embrace the organization’s
vision, mission, and values;
and display organizational
citizenship behavior (Colquitt,
Scott & LePine, 2007).
Provide the MM leadership and
commanders formal education on how
to build understanding and
commitment, team efficacy, a sense of
urgency, and a safe environment to
take risks for the sake of successful
change.

106
There is a need to better document and reward
self-improvement, specialized skills, and self-
study beyond the current fitness report. (M)
Ensuring that organizational
messages, rewards, policies
and procedures that govern the
work of the organization are
aligned with organizational
goals and values increases
organizational effectiveness
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
Conduct an informal audit of MM
documents to determine if policies,
procedures, and messages interfere
with change efforts to increase the
focus on attribute evaluation in line
with the organization’s goals.
Increased mentorship and advocacy could improve
individual performance and the Corps’ evaluation
process. (S)
When individuals perform
difficult tasks in partnership
with others, such as with social
interaction and cooperative
learning, this facilitates the
construction of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006).

Effective change efforts ensure
that all key stakeholders’
perspectives inform the design
and decision-making process
leading to the change (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Establish set opportunities for
commanders and the MM to discuss
ideas and supporting evidence,
concerns, and stakeholder priorities
and goals to increase involvement,
consensus, and information sharing
throughout the evaluation process.
Advocacy for change is limited by tough resource
decisions. (S)
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders ensure
that employees have the
resources needed to achieve the
organization’s goals. If
shortages exist, resources
should be aligned with
organizational priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Prior to beginning change efforts, have
MM’s leaders establish priorities and
obtain consensus so when resourcing
limitations arise, guidance is already in
place.
*Indicates culture type for each organization influence listed: (M)odel or (S)etting
Altering the cultural model to support change and improvement. The validated
cultural model influences in Table 30 indicate a gap in generating organizational efficacy and
buy-in to support successful change and improvement efforts. Clark and Estes (2008) found that
organizations improve their effectiveness by ensuring their messages, rewards, policies, and
procedures governing the work of the organization are aligned with organizational goals and
values. This suggests the Marine Corps must accompany its strategic messaging with specific
actions addressing organizational barriers to improve the effectiveness of the change process
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The recommendation, then, is to informally audit cultural barriers to
change in the form of policies, procedures, and messaging that may not align with the
organization’s goals and then provide education and training to key influencers to overcome

107
these identified barriers. An example of this is to identify policies and unwritten rules counter to
goal achievement and then provide incoming commanders training and encouragement to
overcome these obstacles by communicating a vision, establishing a collaborative approach, and
aligning their change initiative messaging with the broader organizational goal.
Cultural models are shared normative understandings and behaviors in an organization
that code interpretations, values, ideals, interactions, and purpose (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). As described in Chapter Two, the Marine Corps and the broader military culture resist
change despite the desire and need (Hill, 2015; Terriff, 2006). Agocs (1997) stated that the
misalignment of culture and organizational practices causes resistance to change in the form of
inertia, perceived threats to power dynamics, unfavorable values and beliefs, conformity to
norms, and the inability to perceive alternatives. Organizations displaying these forms of
resistance tend to have a cultural model that favors social control and compliance and removes a
sense of purpose for creating something new (Coyle, 2018). To encourage change, cultural
models must empower employees as drivers of change and support their development with
processes integrating, aligning, and benefiting from the unique core capabilities within the
organization (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen, 2002). Once the organization fosters a willingness to
change, organizational support for individual self-improvement and organizational learning can
alter the cultural model to serve as a competitive advantage.
Creating cultural settings to increase collaboration. The validated cultural setting
influences in Table 30 indicate advocacy and mentorship occur but not in a manner that
positively influences outcomes and resource decisions in alignment with organizational goals.
Cognitive diversity theory provides a framework to address this gap. Specifically, Clark and
Estes (2008) stated that effective change efforts must ensure that all key stakeholders’
perspectives inform the design and decision-making process leading to the change. This would

108
suggest that creating cultural settings that systematically expose individuals to diverse thinkers
and people with different networks can facilitate idea sharing and feedback necessary to increase
knowledge creation and improve decision making. The recommendation, then, is to establish set
opportunities for commanders and the MM to discuss ideas and supporting evidence, concerns,
and stakeholder priorities and goals to increase involvement, consensus, and information sharing
throughout the evaluation process.
An example of this recommendation would be to have outgoing commanders identify and
submit to the MM positive and negative influences affecting their goal achievement six months
prior to leaving command. The MM could then compile these inputs to identify trends and host a
meeting with these commanders to discuss evidence-based solutions and inform future priorities
and resource decisions. The goal would be to establish future MM priorities and obtain
consensus from both stakeholder groups before incoming commanders take charge. The
outcome would be informed mentorship from outgoing commanders to incoming commanders in
alignment with an established MM advocacy schedule in the form of annual feedback and
collaboration aimed at improving the evaluation process.
Cultural settings are the visible manifestations of cultural models within particular
environments, such as the daily activities, or lack of activities, that shape culture and the
interconnected cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Berger (2014) stated that the
largest factor influencing organizational culture and performance is the alignment of the strategic
communication process in the organization’s culture, leadership, and front-line supervisors.
Bolman and Deal (2013) highlighted the need for collaboration and consensus-based alignment
in stating that large, complex organizations have multiple realities that produce confusion and
conflict requiring broad participation and involvement to improve understanding from multiple
frames. Hansen et al. (2002) put this responsibility on leadership by stating leaders across the

109
organization must advocate for integration, alignment, and deployment of employees’ value to
maximize an organization’s capabilities. Finally, Clark and Estes (2008) narrow these concepts
to cultural settings in stating that organizational performance increases when individuals
communicate regularly and candidly to others about plans and processes. The researchers
together synthesize the argument that organizations benefit from cultural settings where
collaboration across multiple viewpoints align individual attributes and behaviors to
organizational performance to improve decision making, create buy-in, and achieve
organizational goals.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This study’s implementation and evaluation plan uses the New World Kirkpatrick Model
as a framework to combine the implementation and evaluation steps into an actionable package
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This New World Kirkpatrick Model is the successor to the
seminal based Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels model of evaluation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006). The new model’s novel aspect is that implementation planning is done in
reverse order, starting with the endstate in mind. The Marine Corps commonly refers to this as
backward planning. As such, the training and evaluation implementation occurs in the following
order: Level 4: Results, Level 3: Behavior, Level 2: Learning, and Level 1: Reaction. Level 4:
Results is the degree that targeted outcomes occur as a result of learning events and subsequent
reinforcement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The results are continuously measured using
leading indicators to track critical behaviors. Level 3: Behavior is the degree participants apply
what they learned on the job. Level 3 is evaluated by monitoring identified critical behaviors,
required drivers, and on-the-job learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 2: Learning is
the degree participants acquire intended knowledge, skills, and attitudes through participation in

110
the learning events. The intended outcomes are measured in formative and summative
assessments. Level 1: Reaction is the degree participants favor the learning events. Reactions
are measured in terms of engagement, relevance, and satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Creating the implementation and evaluation framework based on the New World
Kirkpatrick Model positions the organizational goal as the systematic driver of recommended
solutions throughout the entire change process (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The Marine Corps’ purpose is to serve as America's expeditionary force in readiness,
forward deployed to win our nation’s battles swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. To
achieve this purpose into the future, the Marine Corps must develop its 21,500 active duty
officers to fill 16,900 vacancies with the most talented officers possessing the skills,
performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future
operating environment. The challenge in achieving this goal is the fitness report, the primary
tool to evaluate officers, has not been updated since 1999. As such, the MM must implement an
updated fitness report that promotes and measures individual attributes in alignment with current
Marine Corps needs. This project examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers preventing the MM from updating the fitness report. The proposed solution, a
comprehensive training and education program, related on-the-job supports, and a shift in
incentivized behaviors should produce the desired outcome for the Marine Corps to develop and
assign the most talented officers capable of winning the nation’s battles in the future operating
environment.

111
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4: Results is the degree that targeted outcomes occur as a result of learning events
and subsequent reinforcement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 31 shows the proposed
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods tracked
by the MM for both the Marine Corps’ external and internal outcomes. If the internal outcomes
are met as a result of the training and education and accompanying organizational support for an
updated fitness report, then the external outcome should also be realized.
Table 31
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcome
1. Increased readiness to fight
and win the nation’s battles in
the future operating
environment.
The Marine Corps’ combat readiness
scores reported to the Department of
Defense and Congress.

Solicit data on emerging threats based
on intelligence assessments and track
the speed and quality of the Marine
Corps’ implemented solutions to
defeat them. This can be tested and
scored through analytic wargaming
and reported through DRRS-MC.
Internal Outcomes
1. Increased knowledge on
what officer attributes align
with organizational goal
achievement.
1a. The number of updated attribute
mentions in evaluations.

1b. The number of officer adverse
fitness reports for performance and
misconduct.
1a. Report annual feedback from the
MM’s Records and Performance
Branch on common attribute mentions
divided out by tiers of performance
and rank. Compare the most common
attributes over time for trends.

1b. Track the number of adverse
officer fitness reports annually across
rank. Compare causation with attribute
scores to detect trends.
2. Increased understanding on
how to alter the fitness report.
The number of updates to the
Performance Evaluation System (PES)
Manual.

Track the number of changes to the
manual and the associated training
events to communicate changes to
stakeholders.
3. Increased metacognition of
biases affecting attribute
preference.
The frequency of self-reflection on
biases.
Conduct a survey for incoming
commanders at the Cornerstone
Course and for board members prior to
selection boards. Conduct an
additional survey at the end of
command tours or upon PCS for O-5s
and above to compare over time.

112
4. Increased awareness of the
value in altering the fitness
report.
4a. The frequency of communication in
support of fitness report alteration.

4b. The amount of funding allocated to
support fitness report alteration.
4a. Track fitness report mentions in the
MM’s priority lists and situation
reports.

4b. Track fiscal year budget items to
determine the amount of funding for
fitness report alteration activities.
5. Increased focus on self-
improvement and learning to
balance comparative
performance evaluation.
The ratio of evaluator comments
discussing self-improvement versus
comparing to others.
Solicit annual feedback from the
MM’s Records and Performance
Branch on common Section I trends
divided out by tiers of performance.
Key items to watch are the weight of
challenging assignments, highlighting
unique skill sets, and rewarded risk
taking.
6. Increased support for
organizational change.
The number of change efforts
successfully implemented.
Track newly appointed commanders’
change efforts and their level of
implementation over their tenure.
Compare over time.
7. Increased opportunities for
collaboration and information
sharing.
The frequency of meetings between
stakeholders.
Track the frequency of cross-
functional meetings for both recurring
requirements and specific task-
organized working groups.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3: Behavior is the degree participants apply what they learned
on the job through critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). In this case, there is a need to monitor the behaviors of the key stakeholders
participating in the manpower management process. The first critical behavior is that the MM’s
staff recognizes the necessary individual attributes to achieve the organization’s goals. The
second critical behavior is that the MM staff demonstrates the ability to alter the fitness report in
response to organizational needs. The third critical behavior is that the Reporting Seniors and
Reviewing Officials (RSs/ROs) writing the evaluator portion of fitness reports reflect on their
biases and how they affect attribute preferences and markings. The final critical behavior is that
the MM staff increases its cross-functional collaboration to make the evaluation process more
transparent and responsive to stakeholder needs. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for
each of these outcome behaviors appear in Table 32.

113
Table 32
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. The MM collects
feedback to inform
decisions on the
necessary individual
attributes to achieve
organizational goals.
The number of
recommendations for
fitness report
alteration.
Director, MM shall track
fitness report alteration
recommendations and their
progress.
Director, MM receives a
quarterly update.
2. The MM
demonstrates the ability
to alter the fitness report
based on organizational
needs.
The number of active
and completed MM
projects related to the
fitness report.
Director, MM shall track
active projects and progress
related to altering the fitness
report.
Director, MM receives a
quarterly update.
3. Evaluators self-reflect
on biases.
The percentage of
evaluators reporting
participation in
reflective activities
Officers shall discuss
reflection with a mentor and
document reflection activities
as part of the fitness report
writing process.
Evaluators (RS/RO) have
quarterly reflection
meetings with a mentor
outside their chain of
command. Evaluators also
document reflective
activities prior to
authoring a fitness report.
4. MM conducts cross-
functional collaboration
to document priorities
and required actions.
The frequency of
meetings with
manpower
management process
stakeholders.
Director, MM shall track
meetings and outputs on
recurring and one-time
improvement projects.
Director, MM and other
participating functional
directors receive a
monthly activities report.

Required drivers. The MM, as the executor of the assignment, promotion, and policy
processes for over 21,500 officers, requires support from leadership, external stakeholders, and
the organization to implement change. Required drivers provide an additional level of support
and accountability to ensure the implementation of the proposed solutions through
reinforcement, monitoring, and encouragement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational reinforcement drivers are used to remind and assist individuals of learned
behaviors and, when necessary, provide follow-on training and guidance. Organizational
encouragement and rewarding drivers can occur in a formal or informal setting and can be used
to support, instill confidence, and stimulate desired behaviors. Finally, organizational
monitoring drivers incorporate a system of accountability through a process of monitoring and

114
feedback that allows individuals to report on training implementation efforts. Table 33 indicates
the recommended drivers that support the critical behaviors required of MM personnel
participating in the manpower management process.
Table 33
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
Periodic refresher training on
discovery versus delivery skills and
their effect on an organization.
Ongoing at The Basic School and
follow-on formal schools
1,2
Job aids with attribute definitions
and associated behaviorally-
anchored rating scales.
Ongoing 1,2
Skill matrix tool to compare the
effect of altered individual attributes
with organizational values and
priorities
Ongoing 1,2
Executive modeling of evaluation
policy and methods utilized in other
organizations to inform updated
PES execution and guidance.
Quarterly 1,2,4
Periodic refresher training on
reflection, biases, and their effect on
personal preferences and behavior.
The Basic School and at formal
schools throughout a career
3

Encouraging

Assign officers a mentor and
conduct regular mentoring sessions.
Ongoing, quarterly minimum 3,4
Director, MM provides feedback on
priorities, resources, and progress.
Quarterly 1,3,4
Rewarding
Director, MM recognizes and
rewards cross-functional
collaboration for commanders and
staff contributing to change efforts.
Ongoing 2,4
Director, MM sponsors a writing
competition to solicit and reward
useful recommendations.
Semi-Annually 1,4

Monitoring

Survey commanders regarding their
satisfaction with officer quality in
their units as well as soliciting
recommendations on areas needing
improvement.
Semi-Annually 1,2,3,4
Key performance indicators, to
include the number of officer
adverse fitness reports and their
Ongoing 1,2,3,4

115
causation, the number of firings and
causation, resigning officer exit
survey trends, and measuring the
most pronounced attributes of
officers both selected and not
selected on boards.

Organizational support. The broader Marine Corps organization must provide the
necessary resources and support to increase the MM’s chances of success. Before beginning
change efforts, the organization must work with the MM’s leaders to establish consensus on
priorities and resources. Prior to full-scale execution, the organization must build upon previous
change initiatives to inform expectations and to identify and pilot implementation methods,
collect feedback, and modify the implementation strategy. When beginning the change
implementation, the organization must support MM with accompanying high-level messaging to
generate buy-in and momentum. This messaging must state short-term and long-term goals,
priorities, key measurements and deadlines, and a method for progress feedback. To accompany
this messaging, the organization must ensure commanders can communicate the vision, provide
feedback, and align their messaging with the broader organizational goal. This likely requires
the MM to provide key stakeholders formal education on how to build understanding and
commitment, team efficacy, a sense of urgency, and a safe environment to take risks for the sake
of successful change. Throughout the implementation process, the organization must actively
identify and address policies, procedures, and messages interfering with change efforts. Lastly,
the organization must establish set opportunities for commanders and the MM to discuss ideas
and supporting evidence, concerns, and stakeholder priorities and goals to increase involvement,
consensus, and information sharing throughout the evaluation process.

116
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Level 2: Learning is the degree participants acquire intended
knowledge, skills, and attitudes through participation in the learning events (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Upon completion of the learning events in the recommended solutions, the
stakeholders will be able to:
1. Identify the individual attributes that align with organizational goals and values. (C)
2. Demonstrate the ability to alter the fitness report to reflect organizational needs. (P)
3. Explain the effect of officer biases in the evaluation process. (M)
4. Value altering the fitness report to meet organizational goals. (V)
5. Demonstrate a shift in focus from evaluating comparative performance to monitoring
self-improvement and learning. (G)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved through a
systematic training and education program that increases stakeholder knowledge and motivation
to understand the Marine Corps’ organizational needs, to identify what individual attributes are
necessary to fulfill these needs, to improve the evaluation process’ collaboration and
responsiveness to change, and to identify organizational barriers and recommend strategies to
overcome these barriers to support the alignment of the evaluation process and organizational
goal. To develop the manpower management practice participants’ knowledge and skills, the
participants will be provided education in formal schools, training before key evaluation events,
and support via mentors and job aids to reinforce on-the-job training and application. As the
average officer rotates jobs every three years, and commanders rotate every two years, the
program will be ongoing. The integration of this training and education into formal schools and
key events provides a systematic way to ensure consistent reinforcement over an officer’s career.

117
Individual Marine stakeholder instruction. The early instruction periods will focus on
the individual Marine as a stakeholder. The instruction will be incorporated into formal schools
beginning at The Basic School and progressing throughout an officer’s career. At The Basic
School, lieutenants and warrant officers will receive instruction focused heavily on the Marine
Corps’ mission, how this translates into the need for individuals with specific attributes, the
importance of their role as evaluators in informing the evaluation process, and how to write
fitness report evaluations to ensure a holistic depiction of the Marine being reported on. The
intent of this instruction is to provide a standard level of knowledge and skills to improve the
evaluation inputs into the system to reduce errors and better track manpower management trends.
The officers will be assigned mentors and provided job aids to take with them to the Fleet to
support their knowledge application and reinforce the lessons learned.
The advanced instruction for the individual Marine will be incorporated into intermediate
and top level formal schools and will focus on how mid-level and senior leaders can identify
changes in the organization’s behavior and needs, can identify methods and opportunities to
collaborate with the MM to inform changes and maintain transparency, and can observe how
their experiences and beliefs create biases that may not align with the organization’s goals, as
well as means to mitigate these biases. This instruction intends to move beyond the skills of
writing an evaluation into becoming an active participant tracking the organization’s changing
goals and building collective efficacy to provide manpower management solutions for achieving
these goals. The officers will be assigned as mentors to junior officers and provided job aids and
supplemental asynchronous training to reinforce their learned behaviors as well as to support
them in teaching their subordinates in the Fleet.
Commander stakeholder instruction. The commanders, a much smaller but more
influential stakeholder group, will require training before, during, and after taking command.

118
The training will consist of communication instruction on vision, providing feedback, and
aligning their messaging with the broader organizational goal. The commanders will understand
the importance of learning organizations and key elements to facilitating one, specifically how to
build understanding and commitment, team efficacy, a sense of urgency, and a safe environment
to take risks for the sake of successful change. Lastly, commanders will learn their obligation
and opportunities to take part in a two-way feedback loop with the MM to share ideas, collect
supporting evidence, identify challenges, and advocate stakeholder priorities in the evaluation
process. This instruction intends to ensure commanders are not just consumers of the manpower
management process but active participants who assist the organization in maintaining
alignment. To support this instruction, the commanders receive a point of contact list, a schedule
of meeting opportunities, and a framework for identifying competing values affecting the
organization’s alignment.
The MM stakeholder instruction. The MM stakeholders, specifically the selection board
members, require training focused on metacognition before serving on boards. This instruction
consists of identifying biases, self-reflection, and self-regulation to alter behaviors to align with
organizational goals, interests, efficacy, effectiveness, and strategy. The intent is to provide
board members opportunities for exposure to new ideas, discussions about current work-related
research and theory, and reflection on personal biases to facilitate behaviors beneficial to the
organization. This instruction will be accompanied by self-reflection surveys, both before and
after board commencement, to track behavior shifts and perceived effects on outcomes. The end
goal of this instruction and accompanying assessment is to aid board members in identifying
their biases and focusing on aligning their personal goals with desired organizational outcomes.
Evaluation of the components of learning. To apply what is learned to better align
individual leader attributes with the Marine Corps’ organizational goal, stakeholders must have

119
the knowledge, skills, and motivation to achieve their supporting stakeholder goals. Therefore, it
is essential to assess learning for the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
learning outcomes. It is also important that the stakeholders value change and a shift in goal
orientation to encourage self-improvement and organizational learning. The learners across the
organization must be confident and committed to utilizing their learned knowledge and skills and
applying them to their daily role in the manpower management process. As such, Table 34 lists
the evaluation methods and timing for these learning components.
Table 34
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Conceptual Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks by instructors. Routinely, while attending formal schools.
Assessments prior to selection boards. Upon assignment to a Service-level board.
Assessments prior to writing a fitness report. Annually, in conjunction with fitness reports.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Practical application to demonstrate procedural knowledge. Routinely, while attending formal schools.
Feedback from assigned mentors. Quarterly, during mentoring sessions.
Participation in manpower management working groups. Periodically, during established group sessions.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Participation and feedback during pre-command
instruction.
Periodically, prior to taking command and after
command when turning over.
Participation and feedback during pre-board instruction. Periodically, after receiving pre board instruction
but before commencing the board.
Discussions on the value of understanding biases. Periodically, during advanced instruction and prior
to selection boards.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Feedback and engagement from instructors during
practical application.
Routinely, during and after the learning period.
Encouragement and appreciation from mentors during task
completion.
Periodically, to coincide with fitness report writing.
Feedback from supervisors during task completion. Periodically, to coincide with fitness report writing.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Ask the attendees to write down and share
how they will implement what they have
learned on the job.
After each of the formal periods of instruction.
Discussions with the MM’s working group participants. After working group sessions.
Discussions with mentors. Quarterly, during mentoring sessions.

120
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1: Reaction is the degree participants favor the learning events measured in terms
of engagement, relevance, and satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is important to
determine how the participants react to the learning event to confirm that the quality of the
learning event was acceptable. As such, Table 35 lists the methods to measure participant
reactions across the components of engagement, relevance, and participant satisfaction.
Table 35
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Stakeholder Survey Annually
Counseling and Mentoring Sessions Periodically, quarterly minimum
Workshop Assessment and Feedback Periodically
Pre and Post Command Surveys Periodically
Pre and Post Selection Board Surveys Periodically
Relevance
Stakeholder Survey Annually
Workshop Assessment and Feedback Periodically
Pre and Post Command Surveys Periodically
Pre and Post Selection Board Surveys Periodically
Participant Satisfaction
Stakeholder Survey Annually
Pre and Post Command Surveys Periodically
Pre and Post Selection Board Surveys Periodically

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. The learning program
participants will be asked to complete a survey following the training and education periods of
instruction (Appendix C). The generic survey is designed to measure and provide program
feedback pertaining to all dimensions of participants’ Level 1: Reaction to the instruction, to
include their engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. Additionally, the survey evaluates the
Level 2: Learning based on the perceived on-the-job application of knowledge, attitude, and
confidence in the ability to apply the information presented. The survey consists of multiple

121
forms of Likert-like scales to rate reactions, knowledge change, and attitudes, as well as includes
a few open-ended questions for the participants to provide any additional feedback for the
evaluators.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately three months
after the period of instruction, the participants will be requested to participate in a second survey
(Appendix D) that uses a blended evaluation approach to measure the effectiveness of all four
levels of the learning program. The Level 1: Reaction assessment of this survey will measure
participants’ understanding and thoughts of the learning program after having had time to
observe and apply the instruction to their manpower management role. The Level 2: Learning
assessment portion of the survey will assess participants’ knowledge, skills, confidence, attitude,
commitment, and value of the learning program related to their application in the manpower
management process. The Level 3: Behaviors survey questions will assess participants’
observations of behavior changes related to the instruction. Level 4: Results survey questions
will assess participants’ understanding and observations pertaining to the impact and results that
the instruction has on the manpower management process.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The goal of this learning program is to produce Level 4: Results, and ultimately, develop
and assign the most talented officers possessing the skills, performance, future potential, and
special aptitudes to position the Marine Corps to fight and win in future conflict. To accomplish
this, participants in the manpower management process must have the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational support required to alter the fitness report to align with the organization’s
evolving needs. The New World Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model used for this study starts with
the desired Level 4: Results. These desired results are the key measurable goals used in exploring
the effectiveness and overall success of this learning program. Therefore, annually, a dashboard

122
report (Appendix E) will be provided to the Marine Corps’ Director of Manpower Management
that reflects the measured health for each of the Level 4: Results as compared to the desired
goals. Additionally, after each period of instruction, to monitor the program’s progress, the
learning program coordinators will utilize similar dashboards to evaluate, measure, and make
needed program adjustments to the desired instructional results for each of the Level 1, 2, and 3
desired objectives.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model and its four levels of evaluation were instrumental in
the development of this study’s implementation and evaluation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The plan’s goal is to produce what Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) refer to as Level
4: Results. Supported in reverse order by the remaining three levels, behavior, learning, and
reaction, the New World Kirkpatrick Model and this plan provide an evaluation framework that
is flexible and practical for addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting the Manpower Management Division’s ability to alter the fitness report to align with
the Marine Corps’ needs. The plan starts by identifying, addressing, and measuring the degree to
which participants react to their instructional experience and perceive its relevance to their role
in the manpower management process. Next, the plan measures the instruction’s effectiveness in
transferring the desired knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment to participants.
The third level assesses the on-the-job behaviors to determine the degree to which participants
can apply what they have learned to their role in the process. Here the required drivers for
reinforcing, encouraging, and monitoring behaviors are also identified and implemented.
Finally, implementation begins as the plan identifies the desired internal and external outcomes,
as well as the desired organizational support and accountability requirements of the instruction.
Through the implementation of this four-level training and education evaluation plan, the Marine

123
Corps will benefit from an integrated framework that creates a mutually-supporting program of
instruction for all participants, continuously validates the value of the plan through continuous
feedback, and ensures resources and efforts are focused on achieving the desired behaviors and
results.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis model along with the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model provided a comprehensive method for
identifying, organizing, and validating influence gaps, as well as implementing and evaluating
recommendations to mitigate the validated gaps. However, combining the two models proved
challenging in application to the Marine Corps’ manpower management practices. Specifically,
these models were designed with educational institutions in mind, where there are teachers and
students. Based on the Marine Corps’ stakeholder groups and levels of the organization, the
recommended learning program was not as simple as providing instruction to teachers and
evaluating the effect on students. The nature of the Marine Corps meant there was a need to
simultaneously train and educate individuals on multiple topics as their roles frequently change.
This challenge was the reason for creating three different types of instruction based on an
individual’s role at the time, as a person’s role is fluid within the Marine Corps. Overall, the
models were sufficient for implementation; however, the models’ strong reliance on training and
education and generating buy-in may be offsetting to leadership wanting a smooth
implementation, efficient institutionalization, and rapid improvement.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study contained adherent limitations and delimitations. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), finite items including time, resources, and research scope, and the resulting
choices to address them can produce inaccurate or unrepresented data. Attempts to control or

124
account for such limitations and delimitations were implemented, methodology explained, and
survey items rationalized; however, this study had some specific limitations:
- The qualitative, constructivist nature of this study is specific to the research problem of
practice, making the methodology and recommendations hard to generalize more broadly.
- The small sample of research participants does not represent the broader organization.
- The data analysis and results are dependent on the truthfulness of the participants.
Decisions on the framework and conduct of this study result in delimitations and their
corresponding implications:
- The focus on the specific stakeholder group of board-experienced commanders and no
other stakeholder groups may limit perspective.
- The qualitative surveys may have limited the richness of data and resulting findings.
- Using the KMO influences as the lens of evaluation bounds the study and may preclude
areas affecting organizational alignment external to this framework.
Future Research
This study looked at nine influences affecting the MM’s ability to alter the fitness report.
The 17 surveyed board-experienced commanders represent only a sliver of the Marine Corps’
184,000 active duty force. As time and resources were constrained in the conduct of the study,
the research was done by a single individual independently from the Marine Corps but with its
permission. Future research efforts should integrate with the MM’s current initiatives to assist in
broadening the research scope beyond qualitative surveys and provide richer data to better
inform recommendations in line with the organization’s established lines of effort. Additionally,
as the findings were limited to the Marine Corps, future studies of other organizations in
government and beyond could assist in determining the suitability of external best practices to

125
better inform a Marine Corps solution in terms of resources, time, and other practical
considerations. Lastly, expanding beyond the officer ranks to ensure the Marine Corps has the
right enlisted Marine attributes could have an even more profound impact on the Corps’ future
success. The large scale, complexities in trying to understand such a diverse group, and the
challenges of an enterprise-wide evaluation and implementation would require significant
resourcing and time far beyond a doctoral dissertation.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which the Marine Corps was
meeting its goal to develop and assign its most talented officers possessing the skills,
performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to meet the uncertainty of the future
operating environment. Additionally, this study sought to understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences affecting the organization’s current practices and
preferences. Data collection, via a modified Delphi technique of qualitative surveys, explored a
broad range of ideas generated from commanders who had previously served as a Marine Corps
selection board member. The participants ranged from lieutenant colonel to general and
represented every category of military occupational specialty. The findings indicated there is an
overall trust in the current manpower management practices’ fairness and rigor, but there are
gaps in evaluating character, promoting self-improvement, and communicating unique attributes
and skill sets beneficial to the organization but not conforming to traditional career paths and
standards. Based on the findings, the proposed solution of a comprehensive training and
education program, related on-the-job supports, and a shift in incentivized behaviors should
produce the desired outcome for the Marine Corps to develop and assign the most talented
officers capable of winning the nation’s future battles. The world is changing, the Marine Corps’

126
ability to identify and develop the innovative talents of its future leaders will be critical to
maintaining a competitive advantage in the future operating environment.

127
References
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 917-931.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Alexander, C. (2008). Racial diversity within the marine corps. (Master’s Thesis). Monterey,
CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Ariely, D. (2010). The upside of irrationality: The unexpected benefits of defying logic at
work and at home (1st ed.). New York, NY: New York, NY: Harper.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model
for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 12). New York: JAI.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://education.com/reference/article/matecognition/ on January 25, 2020.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age.
Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of
performance-approach goals in the college classroom. Exploring the role of goals in
advanced college courses. International Journal of Education Research, 39, 357–374.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations
of strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1).

128
Berger, D. (2019). Commandant’s planning guidance: 38th commandant of the marine corps.
Washington, DC.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5
th

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., Turner, L. A., & Christensen, L. B. (2011). Research
methods, design, and analysis. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clemens, A., Malone, L., Phillips, S., Lee, G., Hiatt, C., & Kimble, T. (2012). An evaluation
of the fitness report system for marine officers (Report No. DRM-2012-U-001003).
Arlington: CNA Analysis and Solutions.
Colquitt, J., Scott, B., & Lepine, J. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a
meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.4.909
Coyle, D. (2018). The culture code: The secrets of highly successful groups. Bantam.
Connable, A. B. (2016). Warrior-maverick culture: The evolution of adaptability in the U.S.
marine corps (Doctoral Thesis). London: King’s College London
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Council on Foreign Relations (2018). Demographics of the U.S. military. Retrieved from

129
https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military
Coyle, D. (2018). The culture code: The secrets of highly successful groups. Bantam.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the DELPHI method to
the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
Davidson, J. (2010). Lifting the fog of peace: How americans learned to fight modern war.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.236784
Dawson, P., & Andriopoulos, C. (2017). Managing change, creativity and innovation (3
rd
edition ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dunst, W. L. (2018). Evolution of the marine officer fitness report: A multivariate analysis
(Master’s Thesis). Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
Assess community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts,
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Downie, R. D. (1998). Learning from conflict: the US military in Vietnam, El Salvador, and
the drug war. Praeger Publishers.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the
five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.

130
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5
th
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 371–392.
Elliot, A. J., Shell, M. M., Bouas Henry, K., & Maier, M. A. (2005). Achievement goals,
performance contingencies, and performance attainment: An experimental test.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 630–640.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and
-achievement
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984). Consensus methods:
characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health, 74(9),
979–983. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.74.9.979
Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems.
Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1): 19-42.
Foster, M. D. (2013). The marine corps’ challenges in creating a diverse force. (Master’s
Thesis). Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Continuum.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gerras, S. J. (2008). Thinking critically about critical thinking: A fundamental guide for
strategic leaders.

131
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage qualitative
research kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Grussing, P. G., Valuck, R. J., & Williams, R. G. (1994). Development and validation of
behaviorally-anchored rating scales for student evaluation of pharmacy instruction.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58(1), 25-37.
Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2015). Delphi technique theoretical framework in
qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(4), 8–13.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34, 64-72.
Hardison, C. M., Zaydman, M., Oluwatola, T., Saavedra, A. R., Bush, T., Peterson, H., &
Straus, S. G. (2015). 360-degree assessments: Are they the right tool for the US
military?. Santa Monica, CA: Rand National Defense Research Institute.
Haynie, J. A. (2018). The struggle to think: Critical and creative thinking in the marine
corps. Washington: U.S. Marine Corps Strategic Initiatives Group.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., Martin, B. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Creativity and
leadership in science, technology, and innovation New York: Routledge.
Hentschke, G. C. & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University
of Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
Hill, A. (2015). Military innovation and military culture. Parameters, 45(1), 85.
Holt, M. S. (2005). Evolution of the marine corps officer promotion system: A re-evaluation

132
of the current marine corps officer promotion system. Quantico, VA: Marine Corps
University. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA506899
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment, 12, 1–8.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jungdahl, A. M., & Macdonald, J. M. (2015). Innovation inhibitors in war: Overcoming
obstacles in the pursuit of military effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Studies, 38(4),
467-499. doi:10.1080/01402390.2014.917628
Kane, T. (2017). Total volunteer force: Lessons from the US military on leadership culture
And talent management (1st ed.). Chicago: Hoover Institution Press.
Kefalas, H., & Vandergriff D. (2018). The personnel system for mission command. In D.
Vandergriff, & S. Webber (Eds), Mission command: The who, what, when, where, and
why an anthology II (pp. 253-271). Virginia, USA: CreateSpace.
Kier, E. (1997). Imagining war: French and British military doctrine between the wars.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick W., K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kollars, N. (2017). Genius and mastery in military innovation. Survival, 59(2), 125.
doi:10.1080/00396338.2017.1302193
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

133
Kummel, G., & Soeters, J. (2012). Conclusions and prospects: The military on their way to
the future. New wars, new militaries, new soldiers: Conflicts, the armed forces and the
soldierly subject. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Langley, G., Moen, R., Nolan, K., Nolan, T., Norman, C., & Provost, L. (2009). The
improvement guide (2nd ed.). pp. 15–47.
Lim, N., Haddad, A., & Daugherty, L. (2013). Implementation of the DOD Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan: A framework for change through accountability (RAND
National Security Research Division Report).
Mann, P. (2011). Breaking the mold: Identifying and developing top talent using a new
officer evaluation. Defense Technical Information Center. doi:10.21236/ADA545254
Marx, A. (2014). Rethinking marine corps officer promotion and retention. Washington DC:
Brookings Institute. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/rethinking
-marine-corps-officer-promotion-and-retention/.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson J. H. (2003), Human resource management (10
th
ed.), Mason,
Ohio: Thomson South-Western, 355-356.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works. In Applying the science of learning (pp. 13–37,
44–49). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mero, P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and
favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517-524.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

134
Continuing Education, 1997: 5-12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for
what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.
Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1988). Personnel/human resource management: A
diagnostic approach. Business Publications.
Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Human resource management (7
th
ed.). Burr
Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin Inc.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change, Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
Mundy, C., Homiak, T., & Dyal, J. (2018). Innovating to meet the uncertainty ahead. Marine
Corps Gazette, 102(1), 11-15.
Nagl, J. A. (2002). Counterinsurgency lessons from malaya and vietnam: Learning to eat
soup with a knife. London: Praeger.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pfeifer, P. D. (2013). Performance evaluation system update: Choosing the right force for an
austere future. Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University.
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.
Quinn, R. E., Bright, D., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R.
(2014). Becoming a master manager: A competing values approach. 6th edition. John
Wiley & Sons.

135
Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development as organizational strategy.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 33-42.
Rigaut, P. E. (2017). A text analysis of the marine corps fitness report (Master’s Thesis).
Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4
th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schraw, G., Veldt, M., & Olafson, L. (2009). Knowledge. In E. M. Anderman & L. H.
Anderman, (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning (pp. 527-529). Detroit, MI: Gale
Publishing.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Shultz Jr, R. H. (2012). Organizational learning and the marine corps: The
counterinsurgency campaign in iraq. Newport, RI: Naval War College.

136
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stolzenberg, M. (2017). Exploring marine corps officer quality: An analysis of promotion to
lieutenant colonel (Master’s Thesis). Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Terriff, T. (2006). Warriors and innovators: Military change and organizational culture in the
US marine corps. Defence Studies, 6(2), 215-247. doi:10.1080/14702430601056139
Tuckman, B. (2006). Operant conditioning. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/operant-conditioning/.
United States Marine Corps. (2002). Marine corps order P6100.12 marine corps physical
fitness test and body composition program manual. Washington, DC.
United States Marine Corps. (2015). Marine corps vision and strategy 2025: Implementation
planning guidance. Washington, DC.
United States Marine Corps. (2016). Marine corps operating concept: How an expeditionary
force operates in the 21st century. Washington, DC.
United States Marine Corps. (2018). Almanac. Retrieved from
http://www.candp.marines.mil/almanac
United States Marine Corps. (2018). Concepts and programs: Focus area 1: People.
Retrieved from http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-1-People/
United States Marine Corps. (2018). Marine corps order 1610.7f performance evaluation
system. Washington, DC.
United States Marine Corps. (2018). Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.candp.marines.mil/organization
United States Marine Corps. (2018). Human resources and organizational management.
Retrieved from https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/hrom/New-Employees/

137
About-the-MarineCorps/Organization/Headquarters-Marine-Corps-Staff-Agencies/
Manpower-and-ReserveAffairs/
United States Marine Corps. (2019). Marine corps order 1524.1 marine corps graduate
education program. Washington, DC.
Van den Akker, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K. M., & Six, F. E. (2009). Ethical leadership and
trust: It's all about meeting expectations. International Journal of Leadership Studies,
5(2), 102-122.
Vego, M. (2013). On military creativity. Joint Force Quarterly, 70(3), 83-90.
Wardynski, C., Lyle, D. S., & Colarusso, M. J. (2010) Towards a US army officer corps
strategy for success: retaining talent. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://crss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/McRel-Study.pdf
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: A chronological consideration of reflective
practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2),
177–184. doi: 10.1080/14623940802005525
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Young, L. D. (2018). The conservative colonel; how being creative killed your career in the
ADF. Australian Defence Force Journal, (203), 47-56.

138
Zorn, T., Christensen, L. T., and Cheney, G. (1999). Do we really want constant
change?. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

139
APPENDIX A: SURVEY ONE ITEMS
Survey 1 Question Block

Introduction
The Commandant's Planning Guidance states that need to retain and develop the most talented
officers possessing the skills, performance, future potential, and special aptitudes to meet the
uncertainty of the future operating environment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the
alignment of individual Marine officer attributes and future Marine Corps organizational goals
that depend on warfighters who “think critically, innovate smartly, and adapt to complex
environments and adaptive enemies.”

This study design is a Delphi method that seeks to compare and synthesize the opinions of
subject matter experts. This initial survey will take 15-30 minutes to complete and will remain
open for the next two weeks.

Your participation is completely voluntary, and you can withdraw at any time. You can also save
and return to the survey via the link in your email if needed.

Your survey responses will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have questions at any
time about the survey or procedures, you may contact Tim Fretwell at 831-920-7353 or by email
at tfretwel@usc.edu. You can also contact my dissertation committee chair: Kenneth Yates, EdD
at kenneth.yates@usc.edu.

We want to thank you in advance for completing the survey.

Proceeding with the survey will demonstrate your voluntary consent to participate.

10 U.S.C. 613(a) Prohibition on Disclosure. The proceedings of a selection board convened
under section 573, 611, or 628 (officer promotion selection boards and special selection boards)
of this title may not be disclosed to any person not a member of the board, except as authorized
or required to process the report of the board. This prohibition is a statutory exemption from
disclosure, as described in section 552(b)(3) of title 5.

We want to thank you in advance for completing the survey.
Proceeding with the survey will demonstrate your voluntary consent to participate.
Qualification/Demographic Questions:
a. Have you served in a command role at the company level or higher?
b. Have you participated in a HQMC service-level selection board since 2015 (e.g.,
promotion, education, command)?
c. What is your current Marine Corps rank?
d. How many years of experience do you have in the Marine Corps?
e. Which field is your primary MOS? Combat Arms, Combat Service Support, Aviation.

Survey Questions:
1. Considering the Marine Corps’ range of military operations and future requirements,
describe the strengths and weaknesses of the fitness report in evaluating qualified

140
Marines.

2. Do you feel the use of current fitness report results in the selection of the most qualified
Marines? Yes/No/I don’t know. Please explain your answer.

3. If you could add to or replace attributes to align the fitness report with success in future
warfare, what would they be and why?

4. In determining the ideal officer for key billets within your command, what are three
positive attributes that make an officer appear more capable?

5. When rating an officer, what challenges, if any, did you encounter in representing their
strengths and weaknesses accurately on the fitness report?

6. In your time in command and on selection boards, what most influences how you
evaluate Marines?

7. The Marine Corps is seeking innovative Marines. Within the fitness report, where do you
present evidence of innovation?

8. As a commander, when Marine officers have come to your command unqualified or
consistently underperformed, were there common factors leading to their poor
performance?

9. Looking at your experience as an individual Marine, what factors have most affected
your career progression and assignments?

10. How does the broader Marine Corps exhibit signs of a willingness to change to meet new
requirements?

11. How has your unit changed in response to meet the Marine Corps’ future goals?

12. Do you feel the fitness report focuses more on achieving performance goals or
encouraging self-improvement?

13. Please provide examples where your observed that collaboration between Manpower
Management and commanders were necessary within the evaluation process?

14. Looking at Marine Corps-wide policy changes in recent years, what leadership actions do
you recall facilitating broader policy acceptance throughout the organization?

15. Please provide any additional feedback on the fitness report and Board process you feel
might help improve the selection and assignment of qualified Marine officers.

141
APPENDIX B: SURVEY TWO ITEMS
Survey 2 Question Block

Introduction
This is the second and final survey in the study to evaluate the alignment of individual Marine
officer attributes and future Marine Corps organizational goals that depend on warfighters who
“think critically, innovate smartly, and adapt to complex environments and adaptive enemies.”

The purpose of this final round is to provide validation that I have accurately interpreted key
themes and that they are supported by the panel as a whole. It should take between 5 and 10
minutes to complete.

For each of the statements derived from Round 1 data analysis, please provide your level of
endorsement and comments based upon the following endorsement ratings:

a. “not endorsed” - Complete disagreement and/or no experience with the topic.
b. “moderately endorsed” - Agreement with minor but important modifications.
c. “strongly endorsed” - Full agreement with the statement as it is written.

Your participation is completely voluntary, and you can withdraw at any time. You can also save
and return to the survey via the link in your email if needed.

Your survey responses will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have questions at any
time about the survey or procedures, you may contact Tim Fretwell at 831-920-7353 or by email
at tfretwel@usc.edu. You can also contact my dissertation committee chair: Kenneth Yates, EdD
at kenneth.yates@usc.edu.

We want to thank you in advance for completing the survey.

Proceeding with the survey will demonstrate your voluntary consent to participate.

10 U.S.C. 613(a) Prohibition on Disclosure. The proceedings of a selection board convened
under section 573, 611, or 628 (officer promotion selection boards and special selection boards)
of this title may not be disclosed to any person not a member of the board, except as authorized
or required to process the report of the board. This prohibition is a statutory exemption from
disclosure, as described in section 552(b)(3) of title 5.

Survey Questions
**** Derived based on the research questions and responses from Survey Round 1.

Ideal Officer Attributes to Align with Future Marine Corps Goals
The initial survey indicated that of the 14 current attributes, some were repetitive, required
adjustment, or did not cover down on valued qualities in Marine Corps leaders. Key themes are
below:

142
1. The attribute of Courage in its current state is vague and limited to combat. The attribute
of Courage should be altered to Moral Courage to encourage and reward deliberation,
risk tolerance, and forthrightness.

2. PME could be altered to a “yes” or “no” checkbox with the evaluated attribute altered to
Growth Mindset to focus on self-development, adaptability, and critical thinking.

3. Adding Humility, specifically the ability to positively respond to feedback as well as
focus on the needs of others, as an evaluated attribute could encourage and reward self-
sacrifice, team building, and collaboration.

4. Ensuring Well-Being of Subordinates is redundant and is covered in multiple other
attributes currently on the fitness report and can therefore be replaced.

The State of the Evaluation Process and Potential Gaps:
The initial survey indicated the current evaluation system is perceived as rigorous and fair, but
gaps exist.

1. Despite gaps, the current process promotes the most qualified Marines.

2. The current process has a gap in evaluating character. Specifically, it is difficult to
document character attributes, both beneficial and detrimental to future leadership
potential.

3. The system in its current form results in report inflation, necessitating indirect remarks
about weaknesses and the need for improvement in order to avoid adverse reports.

4. The fitness report as a top-down (RS/RO) view of an evaluated individual results in
potential gaps in a holistic depiction of a Marine to a selection board, specifically in
character evaluation.

5. Current officer training and education on the fitness report and board process could be
improved to identify and select the most qualified Marines.

Biases in Current Leaders
The initial survey showed diverse opinions on what affects one’s career path. There were a few
themes identifying biases regarding a Marine’s career and competitiveness:

1. Personal views of board members can sway an entire board.

2. Billet and timing greatly affect an officer’s competitiveness on selection boards.

3. In the present evaluation process, conformity is rewarded more than innovation.
4. A mentor plays a key role in career success.

Value in Altering the fitness report

143
The first survey identified some items deemed important to address in the fitness report and
Manpower Management process:

1. There is a need to encourage and evaluate self-improvement in the fitness report.

2. Rigorous standards and career milestones may preclude individuals with the types of
skills that would support future operating environment challenges.

3. Adverse fitness reports should be limited to conduct. Proficiency and performance
aspects should be observed truth and left to the selection board for interpretation.

4. Character is the greatest area of risk as one ascends rank; proficiency is assumed.

Willingness of Manpower Management to Shift Evaluations Towards Self-Improvement
Attributes
Nearly all initial surveys stated the fitness report focused on performance goals over self-
improvement. In follow-on responses, participants identified a willingness to shift evaluations in
the below themes:

1. There is a recognized need by former Service-level board members to implement some
form of 360 review within the evaluation system.

2. As a board member, I would look positively at documented weaknesses and resulting
self-improvement on an individual’s fitness report.

3. As a board member, I would prefer to see additional evidence of an individual’s self-
study and development outside of those covered by the current PME attribute.

The Marine Corps’ Willingness to Change in Response to New Requirements
The prevailing theme identified in the first survey shows the Marine Corps does well at
articulating future vision, but corresponding change efforts are usually unsuccessful.

1. Initiatives such as merit reordering and opening all MOSs to female Marines show the
Marine Corps has the ability to implement change.

2. The Marine Corps communicates the desire for change in strategic documents and vision
but shows a gap in altering processes to achieve the stated change.

3. Efforts for change and reform at the unit level seldom gain traction as the HQMC level.

4. The necessary time to implement change is often the limiting factor.

Individual Attributes Necessary to Alter the Corps’ Culture
Below are attributes identified in the previous survey as necessary to alter the Corps’ culture:
1. Teambuilding
2. Adaptability

144
3. Critical Thinking
4. Situational Understanding
5. Empathy
6. Humility
Perceived Stakeholder Communication Gaps
The initial survey indicates little formal communication occurs between commanders and
Manpower Management Division.

1. There is a challenge in communicating highly specialized skills or credentials to selection
boards.

2. Communication between a commander and Manpower Management is largely limited to
correcting records or seeking advice on adverse material.

State of Advocacy and Areas of Strength and Weakness
Advocacy for change and the belief it will result in positive change trended low in responses and
generated the below themes:

1. Increased mentorship and advocacy for individual Marines could improve performance
and the Corps’ talent management.

2. Advocacy for change to current evaluation processes is not sufficient to achieve desired
results.

3. Advocacy within the Manpower Management process exists, but individual influence is
not absolute.

4. Advocacy for change is limited by tough resource decisions.

145
APPENDIX C: IMMEDIATE POST-INSTRUCTION SURVEY
1. Please indicate your level of knowledge about the following:

Very
Poor
Poor Fair Good
Very
Good
The topic prior to the start of the instruction.
The topic upon completing the instruction.
How the topic applies to the manpower
management process prior to the start of the
instruction.

How the topic applies to the manpower
management upon completing the instruction.

2. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following:

Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Your overall experience.
The quality of materials.
The quality of the examples and
practical application.

The level of instructor
knowledge on the topic.

The timing of the instruction in
relation to performing your role
in the manpower management
process.

Please offer any comments you may have on your satisfaction level with the instruction.

146

3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree

Strongly
Agree
Prefer
Not to
Answer
The instruction’s objectives
were clear to me.

The content helped me to
meet the objectives.

The content made me think
critically about the topic.

The examples illustrated the
applicability of the content.

The practical application
deepened my understanding.

I was engaged throughout
the instruction.

I am confident I can apply
what I learned.

The topics covered in the
course were relevant to my
role in the manpower
management process

If you selected Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree for any of the
topics, please explain your answer.

147

4. Would you add, modify, or take away anything from the course content?
a. Yes, I would add something. Please explain what you would add below.
b. Yes, I would modify something. Please explain what you would modify below.
c. Yes, I would remove something. Please explain what you would remove below.
d. No, I would leave the course content the way it is.
What would you change?

5. Please provide any additional feedback on the course that you feel was not covered in this
survey.

148
APPENDIX D: DELAYED INSTRUCTION EVALUATION
Instructions: A few months ago you participated in instruction related to manpower management
practices. This survey is an assessment to determine the value of your experiences applying what
you have learned.
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree

Strongly
Agree
Prefer
Not to
Answer
I remember most of what I learned
during the instruction.

I applied what I learned in my role in
the manpower management process
and it helped me.

The Manpower Management
Division provided the necessary
resources described in the instruction.

I was provided with adequate support
from my supervisor and/or mentor.

I found the job aids provided during
instruction useful.

I remain confident I can apply what I
learned.

I see improvement to the manpower
management process since the
learning program was implemented.

Please provide any additional comments regarding your experiences applying what you learned.

149
APPENDIX E: ANNUAL DASHBOARD
Key Measurements Goal Actual Dashboard
Status
The Marine Corps’ DRRS-MC readiness percentage related to
manpower.
>95% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage decrease in officer adverse fitness reports. >10% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The number of manpower management process participant-
generate recommendations for fitness report and PES
alteration.
10 XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The number of recommendations for fitness report and PES
alteration that became Manpower Management projects.
5 XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The number of active Manpower Management projects. 5 XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The number of significant process alterations resulting from
Manpower Management projects.
3 XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of fitness report evaluators reporting
participation in reflective activities.
100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of officers assigned a mentor. 100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of selection board members receiving pre-
board instruction on biases and methods to mitigate it.
100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The number of cross-functional meetings between manpower
management process stakeholder groups.
12 XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of TBS students receiving basic fitness report
instruction and job aids.
100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of EWS and CSC students receiving advanced
fitness report instruction and job aids.
100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩
The percentage of commanders providing manpower
management practice effectiveness feedback to the Manpower
Management Division during their tenure.
100% XX
⇧ ⇔ ⇩

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership selection within public safety: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Maintaining alignment between strategic and tactical goals in an innovative healthcare organization

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Officer performance appraisal program management: an evaluative case study

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

Asset Metadata

Creator Fretwell, Timothy Carroll (author)

Core Title Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/01/2020

Defense Date 03/10/2020

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

Tag 360,career paths,Character,Communication,culture,evaluation,fitness report,FITREP,future warfare,gap analysis,human resources,innovation,leadership,manpower,manpower management,Marine Corps,Military,OAI-PMH Harvest,OER,organizational behavior,organizational change,self-improvement,talent management

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Fosher, Kerry (committee member)

Creator Email tfretwell@alumni.usc.edu,tfretwell85@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-278137

Unique identifier UC11673150

Identifier etd-FretwellTi-8237.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-278137 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FretwellTi-8237.pdf

Dmrecord 278137

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fretwell, Timothy Carroll

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