University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LACK OF MENTORSHIP 1

EXAMINING A LACK OF MENTORSHIP IN THE LARGE STATE MILITIA:
AN INNOVATION STUDY

by

Richard F. Mifsud II

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 Richard F. Mifsud II
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my family, thank you for your continuous support throughout this process that included
an eleven-month deployment overseas. Your encouragement and allowance of time to finish,
especially after I returned from deployment pushed me over the finish line.
To the Officers, NCOs, and Soldiers of my organization and especially my unit, your
support with this project has been incredible. I especially want to thank my Staff Officers and
NCOs during the deployment who displayed incredible patience while I tried to give guidance
during Friday morning Commanders Update Briefs after I had attended back to back classes from
0030 to 0600 with only three hours of sleep the night before. Your support and encouragement
will not be forgotten. For my current Commanders and Staff, thank you as well for your support
and patience during training when I seemed distracted. MAJ Bangloy your encouragement,
support, and recommendations were invaluable. BGs Smiley and Ducich, I want to personally
thank you for time, support, encouragement, and mentorship throughout this process and my
career.
To my committee members, Dr. Kenneth Yates, Dr. Maria Ott, and Dr. Susanne Foulk.
Thank you for you honest feedback and guidance throughout this process. Dr. Ott, thank you for
support and guidance in Leadership, especially pointing out why this study was innovative and not
an evaluation during the Leadership course. Dr. Foulk, thank you for guiding me through the
recommendations process and challenging me to see the connections in Building Capacity for
Organizational Change. Dr. Yates, step by step guidance, patience, and continuous positive
recommendations kept me on track through the latter half of my deployment up to the finish line
of this journey, thank you so much.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 3
To the brothers of the “Old School Frat,” Jordan, Erik, Trucker, Rob, and Todd, without
you guys, I truly do not think I would have made it. Your feedback throughout this journey has
been phenomenal, but more importantly, your support and friendship throughout, especially upon
my return from deployment and trying to balance it all, is why I have been able to complete this
journey. Thank you brothers! FIGHT ON!

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 10
Abstract 11
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 12
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 12
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Performance Status/Need 14
Related Literature 15
Importance of the Organizational Innovation 16
Organizational Performance Goal 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 19
Methodological Framework 20
Definitions 20
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
Mentorship as a Part of Leadership 22
Leadership 22
Defining Mentorship 25
Mentorship Within Leadership 28
The United States Military’s Views on Mentorship 30
Mentorship in the United States Army 30
Comparison Views on Mentorship from Sister Services 40
Mentorship and the Role of the Senior Officer 45
Knowledge and Experience of the Senior Officer 45
Benefits of Mentorship 47
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 49
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 49
Knowledge and Skills 50
Motivation 56
Organization 64
Conceptual Framework 67
Conclusion 71
Chapter Three: Methodology 73
Participating Stakeholders 73
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 74
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 74
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 75
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 76
Data Collection and Instrumentation 77
Surveys 77
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 5
Interviews 79
Documents and Artifacts 81
Alignment of Influences and Data Collection Methods 82
Data Analysis 88
Credibility and Trustworthiness 89
Validity and Reliability 90
Ethics 91
Limitations and Delimitations 93
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 95
Participating Stakeholders 96
Determination of Assets and Needs 100
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 101
Factual Knowledge 102
Conceptual Knowledge 107
Procedural Knowledge 111
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 115
Attribution 115
Self-Efficacy 120
Utility Value 124
Cost Value 128
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 132
Cultural Models 132
Cultural Settings 139
Summary of Validated Influences 145
Knowledge 145
Motivation 146
Organization 146
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation 148
Introduction and Overview 148
Purpose of the Project and Questions 148
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 149
Knowledge Recommendations 149
Motivation Recommendations 155
Organization Recommendations 160
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 166
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 166
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 167
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 168
Level 3: Behavior 169
Level 2: Learning 173
Level 1: Reaction 176
Evaluation Tools 177
Data Analysis and Reporting 179
Summary 183
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 184
Limitations and Delimitations 186
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 6
Future Research 187
Conclusion 189
References 193
Appendix A: Document Analysis Rubric 204
Appendix B: Survey Items 206
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 213
Appendix D: End of Training Survey 217
Appendix E: Post Program Survey 219

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 18
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment 55
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments 63
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments 66
Table 5: Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and
Organizational Influences 83
Table 6: Breakdown of Participant Ranks 97
Table 7: Gender of Participants 97
Table 8: Ethnicity of Participants 98
Table 9: Employment Status of Participants 98
Table 10: Years of Commissioned Service 99
Table 11: Battalion Command 99
Table 12: Brigade Command 99
Table 13: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s definition of mentorship 103
Table 14: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s roles of a mentor 103
Table 15: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s stages of mentorship 104
Table 16: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Existing Mentorship Resources in the
Army 105
Table 17: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the Impact of Mentorship on
Retention and Culture 107
Table 18: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the Impacts of Junior Officer
Mentorship 108
Table 19: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the Organization Benefits From
Mentorship 109
Table 20: Survey Results for Knowledge of the Army’s Mentorship Skills 111
Table 21: Survey Results for Knowledge on how to Conduct a Mentorship Meeting 112
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 8
Table 22: Survey Results for Knowledge on how to Conduct Mentorship 113
Table 23: Survey Results for Motivation on the Perceived Impacts on Retention Rates 116
Table 24: Survey Results for Motivation on how Uncontrollable Factors attribute to
Retention Rates 117
Table 25: Survey Results for Motivation on how Retention is not Attributed to Senior
Officers 118
Table 26: Survey Results for Motivation on the Self-efficacy of Senior Officers 120
Table 27: Survey Results for Motivation on the Confidence of Senior Officers to Mentor
Outside Their Branch 121
Table 28: Survey Results for Motivation on Confidence Level of Senior Officers With
Mentorship Resources 122
Table 29: Survey Results for Mentorship Adding Value to the Organization’s Goals 125
Table 30: Survey Results for Mentorship Adding Value to Senior Officer’s Career Goals 126
Table 31: Survey Results for Belief that Mentorship Contributes to the Culture of the
Organization 128
Table 32: Survey Results for Mentorship Yielding a Positive Impact on the Organization 129
Table 33: Survey Results for Effort and Impacts on Junior Officers and the Organizational
Culture 130
Table 34: Survey Results for Commitment of Senior Officers to Mentor 133
Table 35: Survey Results for Commitment of Senior Officers to attend Mentorship Training 137
Table 36: Survey Results for Commitment of Communications and Feedback 140
Table 37: Survey Results for Senior Leadership Acknowledgement 143
Table 38: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 145
Table 39: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 146
Table 40: Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 146
Table 41: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 150
Table 42: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 156
Table 43: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 162
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 9
Table 44: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 169
Table 45: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 170
Table 46: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 172
Table 47: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 176
Table 48: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 177
Table 49: Representative Questions from the End of Training Session Survey 178
Table 50: Representative Questions from the Post-Program Survey 179

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Interaction of stakeholder knowledge and motivation within organizational
models and settings. 69
Figure 2. Sample dashboard for monitoring LSM outcomes. 183

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 11
ABSTRACT
This study examined the lack of mentorship in a military organization. Using the Clark and Estes
gap analysis framework, this study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impeding the Large State Militia (LSM) from achieving its goal of mentoring 100% of
its junior officers. Data collected from Army publications and internal documents were analyzed
and used to survey 155 participants. Then, 10 participants were selected for interviews to
provide further insight. Findings revealed that senior officers need to close the gap on
understanding the Army’s definition of mentorship, impacts of mentorship on junior officer
retention, and how to provide quality mentorship to junior officers. In addition, senior officers
need to take ownership for the lack of mentorship of junior officers and believe in their own
abilities to provide quality mentorship. Moreover, this study found a lack of commitment exists
amongst senior officers to attend mentorship training, affect change, and formally mentor junior
officers as part of its culture. This study can be used as a baseline for military organizations to
determine gaps in mentorship of junior officers that lead to retention issues.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 12
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This dissertation addresses the current concern for the lack of mentorship in the United
States military. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22 (Department of the Army,
2012) defines mentorship as “the voluntary, developmental relationship that exists between a
person of greater experience and a person of lesser experience that is characterized by mutual
trust and respect” (p. 7-11). The fact that studies show less than 50% of men and women in the
U. S. Navy have received mentorship from senior leaders (Johnson & Anderson, 2010)
demonstrates that this is a problem. The evidence highlights that the U.S. Marine Corps
switched from a voluntary mentorship program in the 1990s to a formal, mandatory approach to
mentorship in 2006 (Thomas & Thomas, 2015). The lack of mentorship of junior leaders leads
to readiness and retention problems in the military (Ryckman, 2017). This study examined
mentorship in one specific branch of the military and recommends a solution to the lack of
mentorship in the organization.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Large State Militia (LSM, a pseudonym) is a reserve component force of the United
States Military headquartered in the state’s capital city with 90 armories and three training bases
spread throughout the state. The LSM is made up of ready personnel and equipment that support
the nation’s warfighting operations and civil support operations inside the United States. The
mission of LSM is to provide trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and local
emergencies while adding value to communities by providing resources, services and educational
programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people the militia serves (Watts, 2017). LSM has
been in existence since the creation of the state from a territory in the 1800s. LSM is one of 54
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 13
organizations throughout the United States but closely compares to three other militias of similar
size and construct. The militia is made up of four departments: Army, Air Force, state military
reserve (volunteers) and youth and community programs (state employees). The LSM website
(n.d.) states over 20,000 personnel make up the force.
The four departments of the LSM are comprised of a mix of military, civilian and
volunteers, totaling to 24,615 personnel. The LSM currently has one division headquarters and
nine brigades along with several specialty companies in the Army, while the Air Force has five
wings comprised of cyber, remote-piloted aircraft, fighters and troop transport. The workforce
profile is further broken down by full-time employees and traditional militia. Among the full-
time employees, there is a mix of federal and state employees along with contractors. Currently,
according to a study by Watts (2017), 1,616 personnel are full-time Army/Air Force working
directly for subordinate units (Brigades and Wings), and 2,142 federal technicians work within
the state headquarters and various maintenance shops that support the field (Watts, 2017). In
addition, Watts states 600 state employees work for the militia as uniformed service members,
and 250 state civil service employees work inside the state headquarters providing administrative
support. The traditional force is made up of 14,113 Army personnel, 4,489 Air Force personnel
and 1,210 state military reserves (Watts, 2017).
The Recruiting and Retention Report shows the LSM as a diverse organization with a
wide range of ages, genders, races and ethnicities (Wall, 2018). The age range of service
members in the LSM is 18 to 60, in compliance with federal service age requirements. Service
members can enlist at the age of 18 and must be removed from service at the age of 60. The
LSM demographics report (Department of Defense, 2015) states the enlisted-to-officer ratio is
6.7 to 1. Furthermore, the ratio of male officers and enlisted to female officers and enlisted is
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 14
81% to 19%. In addition, among the enlisted ranks, 41% are Hispanic, 32% are White, 12% are
African American, 8% are Asian, and 7% are other or unknown (Department of Defense, 2015).
Lastly, the report indicates the officer ranks contain the following: 61% are White, 18% are
Hispanic, 10% are African American, 4% are Asian, and 7% are other or unknown. The enlisted
ranks of the LSM are representative of the state’s population demographics; however, the officer
ranks are not aligned demographically with the enlisted ranks nor the state’s population
demographics.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The mentorship problem in the military has a ripple effect in the LSM. Junior officers
are leaving the LSM after their 8-year military service obligation due to a lack of mentorship
from senior leaders. This study examined mentorship in the LSM to recommend a solution to
the lack of mentorship in the organization. Mentorship is a key component to the LSM fulfilling
its mission to provide ready and trained forces and equipment in response to national, state, and
local emergencies. Failure of senior officers to provide mentorship to junior officers adds to the
difficulty of understanding the required tasks, levels of readiness in personnel and equipment,
and types of support missions needed to fulfill response requests from the state. The lack of
mentorship from senior officers further adds to the frustration levels of junior officers at not fully
understanding their role in the organization and future opportunities, thus contributing to the
decreasing retention rates in the officer corps. The LSM needs to train its senior officers to
mentor its junior officers through a formal mentorship program and hold the senior officers
accountable for mentorship. Currently, no such training program or accountability program
exists within the organization.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 15
Related Literature
Literature and studies show that most successful leaders have received mentorship
throughout their career. Jahnke (2008) reported that successful executives who had a mentor
when they started out made more money, had more growth opportunities, and were educated at
younger ages in comparison to executives without mentors. For example, Wendy’s Restaurant
founder, Dave Thomas, received mentorship from Harlan Sanders, the founder of Kentucky
Fried Chicken (Cole, 2012). This is particularly true within the military community. Most
successful senior leaders in the military have had mentors at one time or another during their
time of service, according to Johnson and Anderson (2010). A survey conducted by Johnson and
Anderson on 691 active and retired flag officers states 67% had at least one mentor, and some
reported having had multiple mentors throughout their career in the United States Navy. In the
military, those with high rank are considered successful high performers. Hunsinger (2004) adds
that successful senior leaders who mentor subordinates increase the mentee’s likelihood of
success. Research found that the lack of mentorship among junior officers challenges retention
rates within the military (Prevosto, 2001; Ryckman, 2017).
Junior officers’ retention rates are affected by mentorship in the military. A study
conducted in 2015 by the United States Army on its junior officers’ retention rate from three
different commissioning sources states 38% of West Point officers, 43% of Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) officers and 55% of Officer Candidate School (OCS) officers remain in
the U.S. Army past their 8-year military service obligation (Lopez, 2015; Ryckman, 2017).
Furthermore, the junior officers’ retention rate in the U.S. Army has been publicized for years,
causing a level of concern at the top levels of the Army’s leadership. A study conducted on 760
officers at the Army’s Command and General Staff College at FT Leavenworth, Kansas,
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 16
suggested the existence of leadership issues, which prompted more in-depth research (Martin,
Reed, Collins, & Dial, 2002). The research revealed the lack of mentorship and leader
development from senior officers as the reason so many junior officers leave the Army after their
8-year military service obligation. Junior officers who receive mentorship have a stronger
tendency to remain in the military beyond their obligation. Lyle and Smith (2014) conducted a
10-year study that points to junior officers who served under high-performing mentors (44%)
increased their chance of early promotion by 29% in comparison to officers (56%) without a
mentor. Additionally, Lyle and Smith’s research states that captains who are promoted early to
the rank of major tend to have higher retention rates compared to their year group of peers who
go to the promotion board one to two years later, further highlighting the benefits of mentorship.
Importance of the Organizational Innovation
It is important for the organization to implement a formal mentorship training program
for senior officers for several reasons. The organization needs to give clear guidance to senior
officers about what mentorship means to the organization. Furthermore, the training will
establish a mentorship baseline and set clear expectations for senior officers. The formal
mentorship training will teach senior officers how to mentor junior officers to a standard level
and instill a culture of mentorship within the organization. Failure to implement a formal
mentorship training program will keep the organization at status quo. Thus, less than 50% of the
junior officers will receive quality mentorship, and the organization will continue to lose trained
and ready junior officers once they complete their 8-year military service obligation. Lastly, the
low retention rate among junior officers within the organization affects federal funding,
organizational readiness, and future potential of the organization’s leadership.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 17
Organizational Performance Goal
The LSM has established the goal that it will achieve 100% mentorship of junior officers
by October 2025. This goal will involve quarterly counseling that will be documented on Officer
Evaluation Report (OER) Support Forms pertaining to unit business and annually in a one-page
Goal Analysis Paper pertaining to personal, career, and academic goals. This goal was
established during the Adjutant General’s Executive Working Group (AGEWG) in September of
2017 by the senior leadership of the LSM. During the AGEWG meeting, as the adjutant general
discussed developing a program that picked the best and brightest of the force for future senior-
level positions, the issue concerning the lack of mentorship across the force arose. It was
determined at that moment to establish a mentorship training program with a benchmark of a
20% increase in mentored junior officers by 2021 with the goal of 100% by 2025.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The LSM has three stakeholders: junior officers, senior officers, and the command group.
The junior officers that require and desire mentorship, consist of second lieutenants to captains
(O1 to O3). Lieutenant colonels and colonels (O5 to O6) are considered senior officers and are
the required mentors as commanders and senior leaders. Some general officers, such as brigadier
generals (O7) and major generals (O8) also crossover into senior officers and the command
group. The command group consists of the adjutant general (O8), the deputy adjutant general
(O7), and the remaining general staff are responsible for oversight of the organization’s goals.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 18
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The Large State Militia provides trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and
local emergencies. The LSM adds value to our communities by providing resources, services
and educational programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people we serve.
Organizational Performance Goal
By October 2025, 100% of the Large State Militia’s junior officers will have received
mentorship by senior officers.
Senior Officers Junior Officers Command Group
By October 2021, the senior
officers will demonstrate
mentoring skills from the
formal mentorship training
program with a minimum of
four mentees.
By March 2022, the junior
officers will demonstrate the
implementation of mentorship
through an increase in
requests for military
education, broadening
assignments, and one-year
tour opportunities.
By October 2020, the
command group directs and
oversees a formal mentorship
training program for senior
officers.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
All three stakeholder groups will collectively be needed to achieve the organization’s
overall goal of 100% of all junior officers mentored by 2025. The senior officers will be the
stakeholder group of focus for this innovation study. The senior officers are responsible for
mentorship of junior officers. As senior leaders and commanders, they possess the knowledge
and experience to be passed onto juniors. During the AGEWG in September of 2017, the
command group determined that a formalized mentorship training program was needed to train
senior officers on how to mentor junior officers. It was further decided during the meeting that
the training program needed to be in place no later than October of 2020 to meet the goals of
20% mentored in 2021, 50% mentored in 2023 and 100% in 2025. Additionally, senior officers
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 19
needed to have a minimum of four mentees by October 2021. This goal was established to stress
the importance of mentorship as a leader. Because senior officers are responsible for
mentorship, they will be responsible for designing and implementing the formal mentorship
training program that encompasses the tools and skills required to successfully mentor junior
officers. In addition, senior officers will be required to track and update the command group on
progress through quarterly commander training briefs. If senior officers do not take ownership
of the formal mentorship training program through its design and implementation, the message
communicated to mid-level and junior officers will continue to be one of poor mentorship.
Furthermore, if senior officers do not meet the goal of mentoring no fewer than four mentees, it
leaves junior officers seeking mentorship elsewhere outside the organization. Failure to provide
mentorship to junior officers adds to the increasing retention issue of junior officers leaving
service after their 8-year obligation. Retention of quality junior officers is necessary to shape the
leadership and force structure of the future LSM.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to
examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder to be focused on
in this analysis is LSM’s senior officers. The questions that guided this study are listed below.
1. What are the knowledge and motivation required by senior officers to create and
implement a program to mentor 100% of junior officers in the Large State Militia?
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 20
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and senior officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can
assist with junior officer mentorship?
4. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was adapted for needs analysis. Assumed knowledge,
motivation and organizational needs were generated based on personal knowledge and related
literature. These needs were validated by using surveys, focus groups and interviews, literature
review and content analysis. Research-based solutions are recommended and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Leadership: The process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and
motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (Department of the Army,
2012).
Formal mentorship: A structured process based on specific objectives tied to the
organization with established goals and measured outcomes. Relationships generally dissolve
after the goals are accomplished (Inzer & Crawford, 2005).
Informal mentorship: A process with very little structure, loosely based upon chemistry
between two partners to be involved in the mentoring relationship. The informal mentorship does
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 21
not have specific goals, involves self-selection, and the relationship often develops into long-
term friendship (Inzer & Crawford, 2005).
Mentee: The person who is being mentored in the relationship. Also known as a protege
Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Mentor: Someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often
younger person (Merriam-Webster, n.d.; Renkin, 2015)
Mentorship: The voluntary developmental relationship that exists between a person of
greater experience and a person of lesser experience that is characterized by mutual trust and
respect (Department of the Army, 2017).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the lack of mentorship by
senior officers to junior officers. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as
the initial concepts of gap analysis adapted to needs analysis were introduced. Chapter Two
provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of leadership,
mentorship, culture and training programs, current policy, and the effects on retention will be
addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this study as well as methodology when
it comes to the choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature,
for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review examines the contributing factors to a lack of mentorship within the
military. This is important to study because it directly impacts the LSM, a military organization,
and its retention of junior officers. This chapter first reviews the literature connecting leadership
and mentorship. Next, the chapter discusses the evolution of the United States Army’s definition
of mentorship followed by a brief description of the LSM’s procedural relationship to the United
States Army. It then provides a review of the mentorship role between senior officers and junior
officers, followed by an explanation of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
used in this study. Lastly, this chapter reviews the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that directly impact senior officers of the LSM and how the lack of mentorship has a
direct impact on the future of the organization. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
conceptual framework is used to illustrate the connections between the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences, senior officers, and the LSM’s mission and goals.
Mentorship as a Part of Leadership
Leadership
Organizations succeed because of the effectiveness of people and the leadership behind
them, which can come in many forms and styles. Northouse (2015) defines leadership as a
process where an individual influences a group of individuals to accomplish a common goal.
However, the definition of leadership has evolved over the years starting from 1900 where it first
appeared (Northouse, 2015). From 1900 to 1929 leadership was associated with domination
with an emphasis on the centralization of power and control (Northouse, 2015). The 1930s saw
the emergence of traits such as personality and domination was replaced by influence
(Northouse, 2015). Thirty years later (1970s), according to Northouse (2015), organizational
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 23
behavior approach emerged in leadership focusing on organizational goals, and eventually
segueing into traits, transformation, and influence by the 1980s (Northouse, 2015). Twenty
years into the 21st Century and leadership is still defined differently by researchers, thus, in
Northouse’s seventh edition of Leadership: Theory and Practice (2015), he defines 14
approaches to leadership: trait approach, skills approach, behavioral approach, situational
approach, path--goal theory, leader-member exchange theory, transformational leadership,
authentic leadership, servant leadership, adaptive leadership, psychodynamic approach, team
leadership, gender and leadership, and culture and leadership. The five most common
approaches to leadership are: trait approach, skills approach, authentic leadership, servant
leadership and transformational leadership. Lastly, of the 14 leadership approaches, Team
leadership, gender and leadership, and culture and leadership are new approaches in this century
according to Northouse (2015). Effective leaders understand themselves as well as their
environment and adapt styles as necessary to fit the situation.
In today’s fast-moving environment, it is essential for leaders to understand themselves,
their leadership style, and the tools available to them to make themselves effective in their
organizations. Effective leaders know how to utilize the leadership tools they possess, such as
mental models, to guide them through leading organizations. According to Bolman and Deal
(2013), mental models are broken into four major frames: structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic. The structural frame focuses on organizations, the accomplishment of established
goals and objectives through personnel in the right roles and relationships (Bolman & Deal,
2013). Whereas the human resource frame focuses on the human side of organizations with
personnel motivation and needs, investment in employees, essentially people first (Bolman &
Deal, 2013). Next, the political frame sees organizations as coalitions with decision making and
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 24
power, a political arena of leaders fighting for resources. Finally, the symbolic frame focuses on
an organization’s culture through traditions, values, vision, etc., symbolism is the driving factor.
Understanding these frames and relating them to a leader’s environment and style makes the
leader effective states Bolman and Deal (2013). In addition, the authors place importance on a
leader’s ability to reframe one’s leadership style to be adjustable to situations, thus using the
right frame for the right situation. The varying views on leadership are not just related to the
corporate world, the Army has adapted different styles for the changing environment.
The Army has been adapting its leadership to fit the appropriate environment since World
War 1. History has shown that the Army has taken losses in the initial start of a conflict, then
has adapted to the environment to lead its formations to victory, as displayed by both World War
1 (France) and World War II (North Africa). Purvis (2011) conducted research on the Army’s
evolution of leadership from 1983 to 2011, finding the Army focused on tactical leadership from
1983 to 1999. Tactical leadership is also known as direct level leadership because it is focused
directly on the immediate organization. According to Purvis (2011), both operational and
strategic level leadership existed, however they were not clearly defined, causing confusion
enabling senior ranking leaders reverting to what was comfortable: tactical level leadership.
Purvis (2011) adds, strategic leadership began to be defined in doctrine during the 1999
timeframe and appears separate from tactical and operational level leadership in current doctrine.
ADRP 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2012) defines leadership “as is the process of influencing
people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve
the organization” (p. 1-1). ADRP 6-22 further defines the attributes and competencies that make
up an Army leader, as well as the roles and responsibilities of leaders both in the officer corps
and non-commissioned officer corps. Field Manual (FM) 6-22 Leader Development
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 25
(Department of the Army, 2015) similarly defines leadership but focuses more on developing
leaders and the implementation of leadership development programs. As Purvis (2011) stated,
doctrinal manuals on leadership have been in existence in the Army for decades, however it was
not until the last decade that leadership has been specifically defined and development captured
in doctrine. Thus, the Army is no different than the corporate and academic worlds with multiple
definitions of leadership over decades. Additionally, most Army leaders are considered
transformational leaders because the Army’s definition of leadership is similar to that of
transformational leadership by influencing others to achieve a common goal for the organization.
Literature shows that leadership comes in many forms and styles, and effective leaders utilize
these forms and styles to successfully lead their organization or units. Most successful leaders
attribute their success to the teachings and advice they received through mentorship.
Defining Mentorship
The mentorship concept has been in existence for over a thousand years within
organizations. Mentorship comes from the Ancient Greece story of Odysseus’ son Telemachus
who sought guidance and experience from Mentor who was Odysseus’ older friend (Cox, 2009).
The story explains how Odysseus asked Mentor to guide his son (who was an infant at the time)
in his absence while he was away at war. Similar to leadership, mentorship has evolved over
time and can mean different things to different people in various contexts. The prominence of
today’s mentorship is seen in management in business organizations (Brown, 2010).
According to Inzer and Crawford (2005), two components of mentorship exist: formal
and informal. Formal mentorship is defined as process/program developed by the
organization/workplace for mentoring to occur. The relationship is paired (not natural) and is
usually short-term. Informal mentorship, on the other hand, is defined as a natural process when
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 26
the mentor and mentee share common interests and come together personally and professionally,
a long-term relationship usually develops as a result. Ragins, Cotton, and Miller’s (2000) study
in 1999 found that informal mentorship relationships were better than formal mentorship
relationships because mentors engage with mentees in positive psychosocial activities such as
friendship, social activities, and role modeling in conjunction with counseling. Inzer and
Crawford further add that the results of the study could be that mentors and mentees identify
with each other better in informal mentorship relationships. Furthermore, a study of formal
mentorship programs conducted by Raabe and Beehr (2003) reveals that mentors need to spend
more than two hours a month with their mentees. Most of the mentees felt that the relationship
yielded negative results toward job satisfaction and development (Inzer & Crawford, 2005).
Inzer and Crawford further suggests that it is possible that the mentors in this study may not have
been qualified for the role in mentorship, which is a different issue. Inzer and Crawford agree
that informal mentorship may be seen as the best form of relationship; however, Inzer posits that
formal mentorship has its place in the workforce as it is intended to promote the mentee’s career
and create an environment of mentorship where informal mentorship relationships increase.
Mentorship has a number of components that are defined differently by different organizations.
There are both differences and similarities between the private sector and the Army with
regards to the components that make up mentorship. To begin with, Inzer and Crawford (2005)
researched 23 corporations and government agencies, such as AT&T, Liz Claiborne, Pitney-
Bowes, Exxon, Southwest Airlines, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, and determined
that mentorship is made up of four components: the mentor, protege, the relationship and the
environment in which they operate. In addition, for mentorship to exist, the mentor should
promote learning, share experiences through storytelling, provide career advice and encourage
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 27
professional and personal development, and promote a joint venture of responsibility for the
relationship (Inzer & Crawford, 2005). Lastly, Stewart and Harrison (2016) describe mentorship
as two-way communication that improves a mentee’s communication and leadership traits while
simultaneously improving an organization’s culture, engagement and trust. The Army has the
same similarities in its view of the relationship between the mentor and protege. ADRP 6-22
Army Leadership (Department of the Army, 2012) states that mentors should be good
communicators, build trust in the relationship and focus efforts on providing guidance and
support with goals in both personal and professional development, similar to the components
researched by Inzer and Crawford. However, the differences between the two surface in FM 6-
22 Leader Development (Department of the Army, 2015) with the roles of the mentor. FM 6-22
defines four core roles for the mentor: the mentor provides, shares, encourages, and serves.
These four roles cover the span of responsibilities for advice, guidance, candid feedback, two-
way communication, and personal experiences, just to name a few. ADRP 6-22 (Department of
the Army, 2012) defines mentorship as “the voluntary developmental relationship that exists
between a person of greater experience and a person of lesser experience that is characterized by
mutual trust and respect” (p. 7-11). Mentorship in the workplace is important now more than
ever with the largest generation gap in history.
The passing of experiences and guidance from senior leaders to junior leaders benefits
leadership, organizations, and closes generational gaps. Brown (2010) examined whether the
American Council of Education (ACE) fellows’ mentorship experiences aided in career benefits,
leadership development, and the achievement of goals. Using a mixed-methods approach,
Brown (2010) first surveyed two cohorts consisting of 73 former fellows, with a 35.6% (26)
participant response rate. The second part of the mixed-methods approach utilized interviews of
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 28
nine former fellows (Brown, 2010). The study concluded that mentorship experiences resulted
in leadership development and organizational leadership traits.
With the retirement age increasing, today’s workforce has the largest generation gap in
history. The large generation gap requires mentorship in organizations, with Millennials as the
least engaged generation at 71% not engaged or actively disengaged while at work (Stewart &
Harrison, 2016). According to a 2015 Gallup poll of employee engagement in the United States,
50.8% of employees are not engaged at work, and 17.2% are actively disengaged. Furthermore,
Stewart and Harrison’s (2016) research argues that financial and government institutions have
the highest number of disengaged employees and the highest turnover rate. Mentorship becomes
a testing ground in the workplace with Millennials considering quality management and growth
opportunities in an organization as a priority for employment (Stewart & Harrison, 2016).
Mentorship in organizations builds trust amongst superiors and subordinates, improving culture,
and those organizations that do not invest in mentorship, whether formal or informal, suffer from
a high turnover rate. Mentorship has been in existence for hundreds of years, and, whether
mentorship is formal or informal, it adds value to an organization’s culture while closing the
generation gap. Mentorship of subordinates is vital to the future of organizations; thus, it
becomes a key component of effective leadership.
Mentorship Within Leadership
Mentorship is a part of leadership, successful leaders mentor and advise their
subordinates to help them succeed. The two leadership traits of servant leadership and
transformational leadership incorporate mentorship. Shek and Lin (2015) confer that both
servant leadership and transformational leadership stress the importance of value and
appreciation of people. Transformational and servant leaders empower, teach, listen and mentor
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 29
followers. Furthermore, mentorship behavior is encouraged in both transformational and servant
leadership traits, as both types of leaders need to know how to use a variety of coaching and
mentor-mentee approaches to improve leadership competencies (Shek & Lin, 2015).
Transformational leaders influence followers to utilize effort beyond self-interest in favor of
collective group goal (Berson & Avolio, 2004). Furthermore, Parolini, Patterson, and Winston
(2009) concluded that transformational leaders are more likely to focus on the organization’s
goals than servant leaders and use vision and inspiration as methods of influence in the process.
According to Ehrhart (2004), servant leadership and transformational leadership share many
characteristics, but there are marked differences in that the focus of servant leaders is to accept a
moral responsibility to serve all stakeholders, especially subordinates, while achieving
organizational and personal goals. In addition, servant leaders are more likely than
transformational leaders to make service to their followers their top priority (Parolini et al.,
2009).
Servant leaders are considered top candidates for model mentors. Beck (2014) conducted
sequential explanatory mixed-methods research on 499 community leadership programs for
servant leadership. Beck’s research resulted in 100% of the participants believing that a positive
role model mentor played a significant part in their development as a leader. Ninety-two percent
believed that their own self-awareness and self-efficacy came from the model mentorship of
others. The results of Beck’s study suggest that the role of a mentor, self-awareness, and self-
efficacy contribute to the knowledge that servant leadership behavior can be developed through
modeling and training. Furthermore, servant leaders serve as role models through service. A
study by Schneider and George (2011) focused on servant leadership versus transformational
leadership for volunteer organizations utilizing eight voluntary service clubs. The authors had a
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 30
33% response rate with 110 surveys, that resulted in close comparison and correlation of the two
leadership approaches. However, servant leadership resulted in higher ratings among club
members’ attitudes for volunteer hours and empowerment of others in comparison to
transformational leadership, meaning that servant leaders were a better fit as leaders for non-
profit volunteer organizations.
A correlation exists between self-efficacy, mentorship and transformational leadership.
A study of 270 firefighters found that transformational leadership influenced perceptions of unit
performance and commitment through self-efficacy, acknowledging that transformational
leadership positively influenced group members in the initial stages of group formation (Pillai &
Williams, 2004). Chopin, Danish, Seers, and Hook (2013) conducted a study on the relationship
between mentoring and leadership self-efficacy with 260 business graduate students using a
mixed-methods approach. The results of the study indicate that a higher quality mentoring
relationship was associated with increased leadership self-efficacy by a 6.1% variance, thus
highlighting the importance of the mentor-protege relationship in leadership development. Even
though mentorship has existed for centuries in organizations throughout the world, the aspect of
mentorship as a part of leadership in the military is relatively new. Mentorship has existed in the
military for some time; however, various branches of the U.S. military do not view mentorship
the same.
The United States Military’s Views on Mentorship
Mentorship in the United States Army
The U.S. Army has changed its definition of mentorship and the importance of it several
times over the last 40 years. The U.S. Army has focused on leadership manuals since the 1970s,
predominantly on tactical or direct leadership. According to Purvis (2011), the Army’s manuals
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 31
broke leadership into direct and indirect, meaning direct was tactical at the battalion and lower,
while indirect focused on anything above battalion. Field Manual (FM) 22-100 Military
Leadership (Department of the Army, 1999) gave guidance on various techniques of leadership
at the lower level, but it made no mention of forward thinking at the operational or strategic
level. This means leaders were not focusing on how to advance the organization. The issue was
recognized in the early 1990s with the levels of operations broken into tactical, operational, and
strategic. It was also recognized during this time that tactical and operational level leaders
needed to use multiple leadership traits to build, coach, and train a fighting unit, however the
manuals did not change. Purvis (2011) notes that Army Regulation (AR) 600-100 Army
Leadership (Department of the Army, 1987) and FM 22-101 Leadership and Counseling
(Department of the Army, 1985) were developed in the late 1980s to guide leaders, yet none of
the changes in FM 22-100 (Department of the Army, 1999), FM 22-101, and AR 600-100
(Department of the Army, 1987) address mentorship. The manuals focused on leadership
development and were not aligned with the Army’s emerging doctrine of leader assessment.
While the business focused on formal mentorship programs in the workplace, the Army moved
forward under a “Be, Know, Do” tactical leadership mentality and authors such as Dr. Kathy
Kram published research studies on the importance of mentorship and organizational behavior in
the mid-1980s. From the 1970s up to the events of 9/11, the Army remained focused on the
tactical leadership of battalion and below, despite the needs to develop its senior leaders as well
as junior leaders. Though the early 1980s saw the birth of mentorship in the workplace and
common language, the U.S. Army focused on tactical leadership until the millennium.
Mentorship defined before the Global War on Terror. Before the Global War on
Terror in the Fall of 2001, the U.S. Army viewed mentorship as a nice bonus to leadership.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 32
During a brief to all Army leaders in 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army GEN John Wickham
Jr. challenged all leaders to be mentors and makes leadership of the Army a priority (Hunsinger,
2004). Again, this is contrary to the leadership manuals published at this time. Furthermore,
Hunsinger addressed a survey directed by the Wickham that revealed of 14,000 surveyed
officers, 88%, agreed that mentorship is an officer’s responsibility, yet 59% had never received
mentorship.
Though the Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 600-80, Executive Leadership
(Department of the Army, 1987), discusses mentorship, the definition is not clear and is confused
with other leadership traits. The idea of mentorship varies among leaders and is not
conceptualized in leadership manuals; therefore, confusion emerges as to what mentorship does
and how the process works (Hunsinger, 2004). Martin et al. (2002) state that the 34th Chief of
Staff of the Army GEN Eric Shinseki made observations similar to those of GEN Wickham in
2001 regarding the issues between leaders in the Army and mentorship, noting that change
needed to occur. More senior leaders of the Army agreed with the assessment, adding that the
lack of mentorship issue was damaging future leaders. Furthermore, a survey of 64 essays on
mentorship from the 2002 graduating class of the U.S. Army’s War College, revealed 71% of the
papers viewed mentorship in the negative perspectives. FM-22-100, published again in 1999,
still focused on “Be, Know, Do,” leadership but makes a mention of mentorship as a trait of
leadership to develop junior leaders professionally (Martin et al., 2002). Furthermore, FM 22-
100 calls on leaders to invest time in junior leader development but does not associate it with
mentorship. Martin et al. (2002) state that the author of FM 22-100 was told not to mention
formal or voluntary (informal) mentorship by senior officials at Army Headquarters because
voluntary mentorship gives connotations of favoritism. Two decades passed with leader manuals
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 33
not defining mentorship nor associating it with leadership, even though senior leaders of the
Army were publicly commenting on mentorship issues. The Global War on Terror brought it to
center stage.
Mentorship in the middle of chaos. The Army discovered it had a mentorship issue
within its ranks during the height of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Catchings (2013) explored
the benefits and initiatives that mentoring can provide to Army officers upon or after initial entry
into military service. Catchings’ qualitative phenomenological study used an open-ended
questionnaire on 24 junior officers with less than eight years of experience at FT Knox,
Kentucky. Ninety-two percent of the participants had received further military education beyond
the initial Officer Basic Course, with 60% of the participants stating they had not received any
form of mentorship upon completion of the course. Additionally, 42% of the participants did not
know about mentorship in the Army nor where to find the resources (Catchings, 2013). Results
of the study indicated that junior officers believed that the Army should do a better job in
advertising mentorship programs. Furthermore, they believe participants would use mentorship
programs to develop themselves and further their career. Finally, participants indicated that
senior officers need to mentor junior officers at the onset of their career.
Catchings (2013) research discussed the Army’s movement from FM 22-100
(Department of the Army, 1999) to FM 6-22 in October 2006 with a revision to AR 600-100 in
March 2007. Both manuals make references to mentorship, except FM 22-100 focuses on
mentorship as part of counseling and leader development with no guidance on how to mentor an
individual. FM 6-22 outlines a mentorship program in detail but states that mentorship is
voluntary and not mandated. According to Melanson (2007), the Army offers professional
development throughout an officer’s career, but not formal mentorship. Mentorship in the Army
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 34
is not consistent; thus, officers do not develop mentoring skills to become effective leaders.
Melanson (2009) further adds the lack of mentorship opportunities for military officers impacts
their development of effective leadership skills. Catchings (2013) concludes that the Army
should focus on mentorship in all of its mid-level to senior-level schools: from Captains Career
Course to the Army War College.
The Army began to emphasize mentorship as part of leadership and culture in 2005 with
the development of the Army Mentorship Handbook and the development of online tools to help
with mentorship and a community dedicated to mentorship assistance (Nieberding, 2007). A
study of the Army’s online mentorship program conducted by Nieberding in 2007 found that the
program failed to gain traction. At the time of the study, 1.9 million users were available, yet
only 1,292 users made an account in the mentorship community. Only 573 (44.3%) out of 1,292
account users filled out a profile sheet (Nieberding, 2007). Less than half of the account users
filled out the sheet. Far worse, though, is the fact that only .068% of the total user population
took interest in the program, making it totally ineffective. Mentorship requires effort on the part
of the senior leader and the care necessary to provide guidance and counseling for subordinates
(Nieberding, 2007). The fact that the online program was not easy to use and took time and
effort to build a profile added to a lack of participation, especially from senior officers.
Nieberding further states that mentorship is about caring for soldiers beyond the day-to-day
activities and that mentoring can take place anywhere and anytime.
In 2009, the Army implemented a mentorship strategy with a published definition that
aligned mentorship with the Army Values so that it was inclusive instead of exclusive (Cox,
2009). The Army still views mentorship as voluntary, yet it is every leader’s responsibility to
mentor, sending a contradictory message to the force. Cox (2009) stated that, because the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 35
mentorship is still voluntary, thus making it exclusive, the Army needed to release a definition
indicating inclusion. According to Cox, mentorship should be part of leadership development
and not separate. The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC, 2010) posits
mentorship is involuntary between junior and senior ranks. The MLDC, posing the question of
whether the formal program is working in the Marine Corps, further comments that all services
have a form of mentorship programs that are approved by senior leaders and visible in websites,
letters of instruction, and directives. All forms of mentorship, whether informal or formal, in the
services are beneficial according to the MLDC’s research of 2009. A decade of war forced the
Army to change its policy on mentorship from voluntary to one of senior leader oversight.
Mentorship and the challenge of diversity in the Army. The United States has grown
diverse over the years, yet the U.S. Army’s Officer Corps has remained constant. The Army
should be representative of the population that it serves. According to Godbolt (2013), the
enlisted ranks of the U.S. Army are representative of the U.S. population, yet a 2010 Military
Leadership Diversity Commission found that the senior leadership of the U.S. Military was not
an adequate representation of the forces or the population. The Army is made up of three
categories: combat arms, combat support, and combat service support. A RAND study by Lim,
Marquis, Hall, Schulker, and Zhuo (2009) found that 80% of the Army’s senior leadership comes
from combat arms. The reason for this is the nature of the occupation: leading soldiers in less
than desirable conditions under extreme stress. The Army considers combat arms officers
“proven leaders.” A gap exists between the number of White officers and African American
officers who choose combat arms as their profession. The RAND study (Lim et al., 2009)
asserts that, in 2006, 22% of the colonels (O-6) in combat arms were African American
compared to White colonels at 46%. In contrast to combat arms, 69% of the colonels in combat
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 36
service support were African American compared to White colonels at 39%. The number of
African Americans who have branched combat arms has decreased over the last 10 to 15 years,
while Combat Service Support has increased (Godbolt, 2013).
African Americans seeking a commission in the Army tend to choose branches that can
transfer to a civilian career. Smith (2010) states many African Americans enter the service to
gain skills that transfer into the civilian sector. This same mindset applies to African American
cadets and junior officers, who leave active service once their obligation is complete, unless the
Army adds value to their lives. According to Arbiter (2014), African Americans are severely
underrepresented in the combat arms branches of infantry, armor, and field artillery, where most
of the Army’s senior leadership is derived (65% of senior leaders come from combat arms
branches). Yet, African Americans are overrepresented in signal, logistics, and air defense, all
branches that can transfer to civilian life according to community and academic studies. The
development of marketable skills is a key motivation for African Americans seeking a
commission in the Army. Cadets and candidates look for career fields that have transfer value,
thus combat arms branches become eliminated (Vanden Brook, 2014). Currently, African
American officers make up 12% of the Army’s officer corps, less than 6% total are infantry,
armor, or field artillery officers (Vanden Brook, 2014). The fact that 65% of the senior leaders
coming from combat arms and less than 6% of combat arms are African American officers adds
a layer of difficulty to change the diversity of the senior leadership quickly. Combat arms does
not appeal to African American officers because of its lack of civilian skillsets unless the officer
is planning a long-term career in the Active Army. The lack of mentorship to African American
cadets and junior officers contributes to the combat arms’ diversity void.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 37
The Army has recognized that a lack of mentorship is one of the reasons for the lack of
diversity in its senior leadership. Recently, the U.S. Army held a diversity symposium to
determine ways to diversify senior leadership, one of the recommendations was the increased
opportunities for mentorship of African American officer candidates through universities and
colleges (Lopez, 2015). The United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point graduates
over 1,000 students annually, and 99% of them are commissioned into the Army, yet only 10.8%
of those are African Americans (Lesinski, Pinter, Kucik, & Lamm, 2011). Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) programs at universities and colleges collectively commission over
2,000 officers into the US Army, double the amount of the USMA at West Point. The USMA at
West Point traditionally gets the Army’s best and brightest instructors (mentors) for its cadets,
while ROTC usually receives mediocre instruction, thus most ROTC cadets branch combat
support and combat service support (Lopez, 2015). One of the issues at colleges and universities
could be that most of the instructors sent to ROTC assignments are predominantly White while
African American officers sent to ROTC assignments go to all Black colleges and universities.
However, according to Major General Ronald Lewis, an African American Apache pilot, young
officers should not be concerned with the color of the mentor and should seek mentorship from
combat arms leaders (Vanden Brook, 2014). Mentorship is a problem in the Army, and it is no
surprise that it contributes to the lack of diversity. The issue of a lack of mentorship has existed
for years in the Army but is just now getting recognition.
The Army’s current view of mentorship. The Army changed its stance on mentorship
again after 2011 to one of command emphasis. The Army’s latest publication of ADRP 6-22
(Department of the Army, 2012) is a change in Army doctrine with a much clearer definition of
mentorship (Thomas & Thomas, 2015). The Army’s newest perspective on mentorship is that it
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 38
is conducted on a personal level with informal relationships that are a commitment between
mentor and mentee. It is the responsibility of senior leaders to develop and guide junior leaders
with the process still considered voluntary, although it does have command emphasis from the
Department of the Army. This change adds a responsibility to leaders to devote personal time to
mentor a select few. It is not mandated or an assignment of duties to leaders, and it is not a
formal program but does reflect the years of requests from soldiers to have an informal,
voluntary focus on mentorship. Today’s soldiers entering service are predominantly Millennials,
with Generation Xers as mid-level to senior leaders, and the remaining senior leaders are Baby
Boomers. Army senior leaders speak of mentorship as an assigned duty and not as a voluntary
personal developmental relationship that is now written in doctrine. This confusion with the
senior leaders’ understanding mentorship as it was meant to be hinders them from helping
subordinates understand the process. Thomas and Thomas (2015) suggest that it may not be
ideal for subordinates to seek mentorship from those superiors in their direct supervision chain,
as it fosters the perception of favoritism and cronyism. This is a direct contradiction of the
Army’s previous definitions of mentorship.
According to Lyle and Smith (2014), commanders are viewed as high-performing
officers in the Army, such as battalion, brigade, and division commanders. These commanders
are the stakeholder group of focus for this study. Lyle and Smith’s (2014) study spanned over 10
years from 1998 to 2008 and focused on mentorship from high-performing officers and its effect
on junior officers’ promotion rates. The Army promotes 70% of its captains to major annually,
with averages of 8% promoted early or below the zone. Lyle and Smith’s study covered 4,142
company commanders (captains) serving under battalion commanders (lieutenant colonels). Of
the junior officers who were promoted early, 44% of them served under high-performing
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 39
mentors. Only 5.7% of the company commanders in the study had more than one mentor.
Additionally, 21% of all company commanders are non-White and are less likely to be promoted
early due, in part, to the lack of diversity in combat arms (Lim et al., 2009). Battalion
commanders are responsible for development of platoon leaders (2nd and 1st lieutenants, while
brigade (colonels) are responsible for the development of company commanders. Thus, almost
half of the junior officers who were promoted early served under high-performing mentors.
Finally, Lyle and Smith (2014) noted that 70% of the Fortune 500 companies have some form of
a formalized mentorship program that pairs senior high performers with junior executives.
In the last decade, one doctrinal manual and one field manual have been produced that
discuss mentorship as part of leader development: ADRP 6-22, published in August 2012, and
FM 6-22 Leader Development published in June 2015. Both publications have dedicated
sections on mentorship’s importance as part of leader development. ADRP 6-22 defines
mentorship on pages 7-11 to 7-12 with parameters of the Army’s concept and characterization.
FM 6-22 delves deeper into mentorship with six dedicated pages (3-17 to 3-22) that focus on the
roles and responsibilities of the mentor. Furthermore, the publication breaks down the
mentorship relationships and characteristics between traditional mentoring and peer mentoring.
In addition, time, self-perception, trust, and respect are discussed as attributes of the mentorship
relationship. FM 6-22 dedicates part of the section on mentorship to the skills needed to provide
effective mentorship, such as active listening, asking the right questions, providing feedback,
hold back judgements, and resisting distractions. Without a clear definition of mentorship from
the start, the Army struggled for four decades to recognize mentorship as part of leadership.
Now that mentorship is clear, the Army can move forward and improve its mentorship program.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 40
The U.S. Army is not the only service that struggled with mentorship over the years, as each of
the sister services have also had difficulty defining mentorship.
Comparison Views on Mentorship from Sister Services
The United States Marine Corps, the United States Air Force, and the United States Navy
all have mentorship strategies, but there are differences across each of the services. Each has
official mentoring initiatives that are supported by senior leadership. Similar to the Army, all
three services have senior-level supported documents such as directives, letters of instructions,
and manuals. Furthermore, the services have a variety of mentoring tools such as mentoring
websites to help service members access information about mentoring as well as establish
mentoring relationships. A significant difference among the services is their views on formal
and informal mentorship. Most mentoring in the military occurs through informal relationships,
with formal mentorship programs of paired mentors and mentees being compared to “blind
dating” (Johnson & Anderson, 2010). There is a level of concern among leaders that formal
mentoring relationships are not as beneficial to both parties as informal mentoring relationships.
According to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (2010), both formal and informal
mentoring relationships can provide benefits to both parties. According to Ragins et al. (2000),
the distinction between formal and informal mentoring relationships is not as clear as many
believe, for example, the status of the relationship may not be as important to a mentee as the
actual relationship itself. Therefore, a formal program that is well-designed can be more provide
more mentoring benefits than an informal relationship (Military Leadership Diversity
Commission, 2010).
Mentorship in the Marine Corps. The United States Marine Corps has changed its
stance on mentorship, like the United States Army, but the Marine Corps has always had
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 41
command influence with mentorship. In the 1990s, the Commandant of the Marine Corps
directed that mentorship be a voluntary program (Martin et al., 2002). The Marine Corps
changed its stance on voluntary mentorship to directed mentorship in the mid-2000s. The
Marine Corps Mentorship Program is defined by the U.S. Department of the Navy’s (2006a) The
Marine Corps Mentorship Program and a supporting publication from the U.S. Department of
the Navy Marine Corps, 1500.58 The Marine Corps Mentorship Program Guidebook. The
formalized program assigns mentor-mentee relationships with specific interaction requirements
such as the development of organizational leadership (Jahnke, 2008). The handbook directs
mentor-mentee relationships should occur within the chain of command as supervisor-
subordinate relationships. Furthermore, the handbook states that every marine deserves a
mentor, but each mentor should not have more than five mentees assigned.
The Marines believe that mentorship is not just vertical, as stated in the handbook, but
horizontal with peer-to-peer relationships. Cole (2012) states the Marine Corps is divided on the
topic of mentorship. Some in the Marine Corps believe that mentorship is a science that needs to
be formalized while others state that it is not possible to formalize mentorship because it is an art
(Cole, 2012). The Marine Corps uses manuals and directives as job aids or mentoring tools for
mentorship but does not have an online mentorship program similar to the one in the Army
described earlier in this study. The Marine Corps does have a website where mentoring tools can
be downloaded, and instructions are provided on how to maintain and sustain a mentorship
relationship. As previously stated, though, beliefs about the effectiveness of the program are
divided. According to the MLDC (2010), the results of the 2007 Marine Corps Command
Climate Survey briefed to the MLDC in November 2009 indicate that less than 50% of the
respondents agreed with the statement “My mentor has had a positive impact on my life in the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 42
Marine Corp” (p. 4). The Command Climate Survey results have the MLDC posing the question
of whether the formal program is working in the Marine Corps (MLDC, 2010). The Marine
Corps moved from a strong informal mentorship program to a mandated formal program aligned
with the chain of command, like that of the U.S. Air Force.
Mentorship in the Air Force. The United States Air Force’s mentorship program
mirrors that of the Marine Corps, but it is even more formalized. Mentorship directives and a
formalized program first appeared in Air Force written doctrine in 1996 (Budd, 2007). The
directive at that time mandated mentorship as a responsibility of all Air Force supervisors.
Furthermore, the directive provided instructions to unit leaders on how to establish formal
programs (Contreras, 2008). The mentorship program seemed focused more on career
management than leader development (Budd, 2007). Additionally, Budd (2007) states that,
though emphasis was placed on mentorship by senior leaders, it was a leadership behavior that
was practiced only when time was available. Finally, though publications on formal mentorship
programs existed, few leaders were aware that the regulations existed feeding the perception that
military leaders rarely support formal mentoring practices (Contreras, 2008). With the events of
9/11, the Air Force realized that it needed a change in its mentorship program to one that focused
more on leadership development than career management.
The Air Force revitalized manuals to give leaders instructions on how to conduct
mentorship of subordinates. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3401 Air Force Mentoring (2003)
mandates direct mentorship of subordinates by supervisors with clear expectations in a
formalized process. Furthermore, mentorship is listed as “daily business” with command
emphasis placed on mentorship programs (Cole, 2012). The Air Force has also implemented
web-based tools, such as My Development Plan, which is a flexible program that allows for
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 43
peer-to-peer mentorship as well as supervisor-subordinate mentorship relationships (MLDC,
2010). However, Budd’s (2007) mentorship study of 10 managers and 80-plus employees on an
Active Duty Air Base resulted in many of the mentors stating they did not have enough time to
mentor, and 60% of the mentees mentioned that they had not communicated with their mentor
within the last 60 days. Additionally, Contreras (2008) conducted a quantitative study of an
Active Duty Air Force Wing (7,000 personnel) with a 55% response rate of 275 participants out
of 500 possible participants. Results from the study were that, out of the 275 participants, 164
(59.6%) had mentors and 111 did not have mentors; this means almost half of the participants
did not have mentors in a mandated formal mentorship program. The Air Force’s formalized
mentorship focuses on the supervisor-subordinate relationship, which is in contrast to the U.S.
Navy’s views on mentorship.
Mentorship in the Navy. The United States Navy views mentorship differently than the
other three services. Most mentorship in the Navy is informal, with mentorship of officers
beginning in the Naval Academy with midshipmen (Oakes, 2005). Personnel in the Navy seek
out mentors with the best match for their professional development (Johnson & Anderson, 2015).
In a study of senior naval officers by Johnson and Anderson (2015), 91% of the participants had
been mentored as junior officers and expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their careers.
Furthermore, Oakes’ (2005) research on 148 officers at the Naval Academy adds to the strength
of the Navy’s mentorship program with 94 (63.5%) of the junior officers providing mentorship
to midshipmen. Of those, 69.6% had been proteges earlier. Oakes (2005) further states that the
Navy is mentoring more with 63.5% of its midshipmen than the Army, which mentors 57% of its
cadets at West Point. The Navy believes its program is successful and does not use a formal
process, yet their program changed like the other services in the mid-2000s (Cole, 2012).
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 44
Post 9/11, the Navy changed its mentorship program to focus more on leader
development (Johnson & Anderson, 2015). The Navy placed five areas of focus at the front of
their mentorship program: chain of command, enterprises/communities, Navy affinity groups
(e.g. National Naval Officers Association), social networking, and one on one mentoring that can
be formal or informal (MLDC, 2010). According to the MLDC (2010), the Navy’s current
mentorship strategy is a hybrid of formal and informal volunteer and mandatory mentoring
programs focused on developing leaders and retaining talent and is evidenced by Navy Personnel
Command (NAVPERSCOM) Instruction 5300.1 (2009). Additionally, the Navy is also using
web-based tools, such as a mentor-mentee matching site that assists mentees with finding the
right mentor in their specific career field. Johnson and Anderson’s (2010) sample of naval
officers over five years states that officers who are mentored, whether formally or informally, are
more likely to remain in the Navy as a career.
The Navy currently views mentorship as a formal and informal process, yet it does stand
firm on the idea that the best mentorship is done when it is voluntary and not in the direct chain
of command. The Navy is creating multiple mentoring programs across various enterprises and
different from other services and requires mentors and mentees to sign on to mentoring
relationships with a minimum number of meetings per month (MLDC, 2010). Finally, this
study’s research did not find NAVPERSCOM 5300.1 (2009) but did find Navy Personnel
Command Instruction (NAVPERSCOMINST) 5400.1A Commander, Navy Personnel Command
Organization Manual (2015), which had mentor and mentoring as commander responsibilities
under each branch of the Navy. Each service varies on their views of mentorship, but all
services agree that the senior officer has a prominent role in mentorship. Mentorship is two-way
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 45
communication and requires input from both mentor and mentee, however, the bulk of the
responsibility lies in the efforts of the senior officer.
Mentorship and the Role of the Senior Officer
Senior officers in all four of the services play a significant role in the mentorship process.
Leadership in the military includes mentorship of subordinates and their professional
development through top-down management style (Contreras, 2008). Each of the services listed
previously places emphasis on mentorship from senior officers inside the organization.
However, Budd (2007) states that all organizations need to hold leaders accountable to a set of
defined leadership competencies that includes mentoring and developing their subordinates. FM
6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015) directs that mentors (senior officers) have specific roles to
provide, share, encourage, and serve. Responsibilities associated with these four roles are listed
in Table 3-2 Mentor roles and responsibilities on page 3-18. Excellent mentors are deliberate
and select mentees with the intent to grow the force (Johnson & Anderson, 2015). Senior
officers possess a wealth of knowledge and experience that should be passed onto to junior
officers to not only improve the organization but to retain the future leaders of the organization.
Knowledge and Experience of the Senior Officer
Senior officers provide junior officers with the knowledge and experience to navigate
their personal and professional lives. The importance of this can be seen in the history of the
Army. The most famous of these mentorship relationships starts with General “Blackjack”
Pershing, the General of the Armies in World War I. General Pershing provided mentorship to
Major General Fox Conner during the Mexico Expedition in 1916. Conner met Patton at this
time, who was serving as Pershing’s Aide de Camp. Conner later went on to work for Pershing
during WWI and provided mentorship to General George S. Marshall. Conner also provided
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 46
mentorship to Patton and Eisenhower. Marshall would later provide prominent mentorship and
influence to both Eisenhower and Patton throughout their careers. Pershing, Marshall, and
Eisenhower all served as Chiefs of Staff of the Army in their careers (Hunsinger, 2004). It is
important for senior officers to pass on their knowledge and experience to junior officers.
Brigade commanders (colonels) mentor company commanders (captains) and battalion
commanders (lieutenant colonels) mentor platoon leaders (2nd and 1st Lieutenants). Mentorship
blends leadership development with professional and personal guidance (Lyle & Smith, 2014).
This leader development and guidance builds the next generation of leaders.
Human capital theory has a strong connection to the military, dating back to its inception
(Albrecht, 1976). Albrecht’s RAND study (1976) of human capital in relation to military
manpower issues defines human capital as three elements: durable and malleable labor skills,
productivity contributes to earnings and better productivity in the future, and lastly, that
education is aligned with wages. Wolfson and Mathieu (2018) define human capital in the new
millennium as the knowledge, skills and abilities of an individual in relevance to the
achievement of economic outcomes. Additionally, Wolfson and Mathieu state effectively
managed human capital is major proponent of sustained competitive advantage as an
organization. Developing personnel within an organization with knowledge, skills, and abilities
gives the organization an edge over its competition (Jahnke, 2008). Thus, the investment of
time, effort, and cost into personnel, grows and retains personnel.
The Army’ human capital is its greatest resource, and the human dimension is the
strongest value of leader development, so the Army’s ability to communicate is critical (Cole,
2012). When senior officers communicate, results happen with leadership development.
According to Lyle and Smith (2014), junior officers who serve under a high-performing mentor
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 47
are 29% more likely to be selected for early promotion to major. Mentors shape the careers of
their proteges (Lyle & Smith, 2014). Junior officers seeking guidance have had a negative
connotation in Army culture as one associated with not seeking self-improvement.
Communication between senior and junior leaders, specifically in regard to mentorship, is a sub-
task of leader development (Cole, 2012). Additionally, senior leaders must have open
discussions with junior leaders to build a culture of mentorship (Cole, 2012). Leader
development is critical for the future of the organization; thus, mentorship by senior officers is a
necessity and not an option for building the future leadership. Literature demonstrates that the
mentorship provided by senior officers to junior officers has an effective impact on junior
officers’ careers. The knowledge and experience that senior officers pass on to junior officers
provides the guidance that is beneficial to the organization’s end game.
Benefits of Mentorship
Mentorship of junior leaders provides long-term benefits to the mentors, mentees, and the
organization. Mentoring creates enthusiasm, camaraderie, and professionalism; it impacts the
entire culture of the organization positively, promoting organizational values, norms, and
standards (Inzer & Crawford, 2005). Furthermore, Inzer and Crawford (2005) reveal that
mentored individuals enjoy more opportunities within the organization then non-mentored
individuals as well as higher salaries because mentoring promotes the norms, politics, standards,
values, ideology, and the history of the organization. Mentoring has been found to be an
effective area for personal growth and learning that contributes directly to individual outcomes
of continuous learning and psychological career success (Mcateer, 2016). Mentorship grows
talent individuals within an organization as indicated previously by the mentorship of Conner,
Patton, Eisenhower, and Marshall by General Pershing. The results of Contreras’ (2008)
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 48
research on an Air Force Wing reveal that the investment of formal training in their employees
by an organization reduces turnover rates. Contreras further credits Raytheon’s retention rates to
progressive mentorship programs within the organization. The Army’s doctrine on leader
development details the benefits of mentorship for the mentor, mentee, and the organization.
The psychological and professional support resulting in promotion, motivation, and
retention are directly related to the concepts in FM 6-22 Leader Development (Department of the
Army, 2015), including an officer’s ability to influence others, and develop personal leadership
skills of themselves and their subordinates (Mcateer, 2016). The benefits of mentoring in the
Army are described on pages 3-19 and 3-20 of FM 6-22 and broken down by mentor, mentee,
and organization. According to FM 6-22, a mentor improves his/her own professional
development, knowledge, personal satisfaction, and sharpened skills. Also, the mentor expands
professional contacts by being a mentor. In addition, FM 6-22 states that a mentee gains self-
awareness through feedback, builds confidence, a better understanding of the organization, a role
model, greater career satisfaction, and visibility in the organization through challenging
opportunities. Mentorship programs provide the organization and the Army with increased
commitment and retention of mentees, improved performance, leader development, leader
succession, and recruitment (Department of the Army, 2015). Mentorship is critical to an
organization’s survival, yet with so much literature available on the benefits of mentorship, how
to be a mentor, and how to ask for mentorship, why is it not being done? To study this further,
the Clark and Estes performance improvement model will be adapted as an innovation needs
assessment.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 49
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Gaps exist between the organizational and stakeholder performance goals and the actual
level of performance within the LSM. Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework identifies these gaps
through the stakeholder’s knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences that
impact the achievement of performance goals. The elements of the gap analysis conceptual
framework are addressed in this study in relation to the senior officers’ knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences to meet their performance goal of demonstrating their
mentoring skills received from formal training by having a minimum of four mentees by October
2021. The assumed knowledge and skills influences on the attainment of stakeholder’s
performance goals are discussed in the first section. The next section will contain the assumed
motivation influences on the attainment of the stakeholder’s goal. The following section
explores the assumed organizational influences on the stakeholder’s attainment of performance
goals. Lastly, the study examines the conceptual framework diagram illustrating the interactive
relationships among the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, the stakeholders,
the formal training and the goal. Each of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that are presumed to affect performance are further examined through the
methodology discussed in Chapter Three.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
The literature review in this paper focuses on two dimensions, knowledge and
motivation, of what is needed for the LSM senior officers to achieve their stakeholder goal. The
literature utilizes studies conducted on organizations similar to the LSM. The stakeholder goal
of the LSM is that the senior officers will demonstrate their mentoring skills from the formal
mentorship training program and have a minimum of four mentees by October 2021.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 50
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge influences is the first dimension the LSM senior officers need to address to
achieve their goal. The stakeholder goal for the senior officers is considered a performance goal
that cascades down from the LSM’s global goal of 100% mentorship of junior officers by
October 2025. Knowledge and skills is one of three performance gaps identified during the
analysis of goal attainment, according to Clark and Estes (2008). Furthermore, Clark and Estes
posit that it is important to validate whether people know not just the “what,” but the “how” and
“when” necessary to achieve their performance goals. Influences in employee performance can
be attributed to a lack of knowledge and skills that are required to perform the functions
necessary that enable the organization to achieve its performance goals. Communication is
another aspect of knowledge that contributes to influences in performance, specifically if goals
are not communicated clearly. In addition, employees may not be utilizing prior knowledge that
can assist in performance goals. Knowledge influences can be further divided into knowledge
types for gap analysis.
For the leadership of the LSM to assist its senior officers in achieving its performance
goal, it is necessary to identify gaps in knowledge by type. Four types of knowledge exist,
according to Krathwohl (2002). Factual knowledge is the first type. Factual knowledge can be
defined as basic facts in a discipline required to solve issues within it (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). Simply stated by Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011), factual knowledge is terminology,
elements, and definitions related to specific disciplines. The second type of knowledge is
conceptual. Both Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) define conceptual knowledge as the
knowledge of theories, models, classifications, generalizations, structures or principles of a
particular area. Furthermore, conceptual knowledge focuses on what employees must know
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 51
about performance issues. Procedural knowledge is the third type of knowledge influence.
According to Rueda (2011), procedural knowledge is how employees do something, such as
implementing procedures to solve problems. In addition, Krathwohl (2002) states that
procedural knowledge is not only knowing how to implement procedures, but when to do it as
well. The fourth type of knowledge is metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is
awareness of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002) further
adds that metacognitive knowledge is an employee’s self-knowledge about performance tasks.
A review of the literature revealed three knowledge influences that can be used to
identify gaps in knowledge for the LSM’s senior officers’ performance goal. These knowledge
influences have a direct impact, not just of the achievement of the senior officers’ performance
goal, but the organizational global goal as well. The three types of knowledge will be used in the
next section to categorize and discuss the senior officers’ knowledge influences.
Senior officers need to know the definition of mentorship. This knowledge influence
falls into the category of factual knowledge. For the LSM’s senior officers to meet their
performance goal, they must first understand the definition of mentorship includes professional
development, career guidance, and personal guidance with established goals. As simple as this
may sound, it is complicated because mentorship is defined differently throughout literature.
Nieberding (2007) states that mentorship is defined throughout literature, including Webster’s
Dictionary, as everything from coach, tutor, and teacher, to instructor, counselor, and master, but
not associated with leader. Because of this, the author believes that the Army’s view of
mentorship needs revising with an emphasis on leadership. Furthermore, the Army’s definition
has changed over the years to mean various things to different people; thus, the concept causes
confusion amongst leaders (Martin et al., 2002). According to Catchings (2013), the Army’s
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 52
training doctrines and leadership models did not include mentorship as a cornerstone of
professional development prior to 2005. This is significant because the senior officers in the
LSM were all commissioned before 2000 when mentorship was a buzzword in the military.
Field Manual (FM) 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015), ADRP 6-22 (Department of the
Army, 2012), and Army Regulation (AR) 600-100 Army Profession and Leadership Policy
(Department of the Army, 2017) provide guidance on mentorship and have been recently revised
since 2007. To assess if a factual influence exists among the senior officers, a survey with 10
open-ended questions concerning the definition of mentorship was sent to the LSM’s senior
officers. Responses were compared to the mentorship definitions listed in the current versions of
FM 6-22, ADRP 6-22, and AR 600-100.
Senior officers need to understand the impacts of mentorship on culture and
retention. This knowledge is categorized as conceptual knowledge. The second knowledge
influence that senior officers of the LSM need to achieve their performance goal is understanding
the impact of mentorship on the culture of the organization and retention of junior officers.
Mcateer (2016) comments that mentorship in the Army is already a problem and that adding the
integration of women into combat roles further adds to culture obstacles. Mcateer (2016) further
states that it is imperative for leaders to understand how to best support mentoring relationships
in this changing environment. Targeted mentorship creates an environment of where diversity is
connected to the organizational mission and goals and helps correct the Army’s minority
underrepresentation in the senior ranks, according to a study by Godbolt (2013). Godbolt also
mentions that the Army must concentrate on focused mentorship to create the quantities of
minorities needed to diversify the Army’s senior ranks and culture. Army leaders should
communicate diversity and create an environment where diverse individuals share organizational
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 53
values and goals (Godbolt, 2013). In addition to understanding how mentorship impacts culture,
senior officers must understand how it is linked to retention of junior officers as well.
Mentorship has a direct impact on the retention of junior officers in the LSM. According
to Ryckman (2017), a study conducted in 2015 found that, out of the Army’s three
commissioning sources (i.e., USMA West Point, ROTC, and Officer Candidate School) there
was a 38%, 43%, and 55% retention rate respectively, past the 8-year military service obligation
for junior officers. According to Harris (2008), mentorship in organizations has been
consistently shown to enhance organizational performance, to include a 66% improvement in the
attrition rate of Army basic trainees. Prevosto (2001) states that a lack of knowledge from not
learning through mentorship resulted in job dissatisfaction and lower performance appraisals
which negatively affected retention among Army nurses (junior officers). Mentored nurses,
however, experienced a positive effect and were more inclined to stay, according to Prevosto’s
study in 2001. Senior officers in the LSM must consider how mentorship affects both diversity
and retention in the organization. Conceptual knowledge focuses on both theories and
generalizations about culture and retention within the organization. The method to assess
whether a conceptual knowledge gap exists was interviews (Clark & Estes, 2008) with senior
officers of the LSM. The interviews would focus the understanding of knowledge regarding
mentorship impacts on organizational culture and retention of junior officers.
Senior officers need to know how to mentor junior officers. This knowledge
influence is categorized as procedural knowledge. The third knowledge influence that the
LSM’s senior officers need to achieve their performance goal is knowing how to mentor junior
officers within the organization. It is imperative for senior officers to know how to mentor
junior officers for the organization’s future. Budd (2007) claims mentorship is more than ill-
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 54
prepared questions such as “Where do you see yourself in five years?” (p. 16), and mentorship is
more than sponsorship of junior officers to ensure that they are promoted early or receive the
best assignments. Mcateer (2016) states that effective mentorship occurs when both parties
make a long-term investment in the relationship focused on professional advice. Additionally,
Nieberding (2007) states that mentoring is more than teaching and coaching; it is a subjective
process between a senior leader and junior leader involving candid dialogue, career advice,
support and commitment, that includes assignment assistance. Lastly, Catchings (2013), Budd
(2007), and Mcateer (2016) all mention emotional intelligence as a critical component of
mentorship on behalf of the senior leaders towards junior leaders. It is important that senior
officers within the LSM understand how to effectively mentor the organization’s junior officers.
Their ability to successfully mentor subordinates shapes the future of the organization and
implements a change in the organization’s culture to one of mentorship. Therefore, the method
to assess whether a procedural knowledge gap exists was surveying (Clark & Estes, 2008) the
LSM’s senior officers. The survey included open-ended questions that gauge the senior officers’
overall understanding of how to mentor subordinates in comparison to Army Doctrine and
related literature. Table 2 illustrates an overview of how three of the knowledge influences of
the LSM’s senior officers, corresponding knowledge types, and methods to assess any
knowledge gaps that impact the stakeholder goals, organizational goals, and the mission of the
organization.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 55
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The Large State Militia provides trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and local
emergencies. The LSM adds value to our communities by providing resources, services and
educational programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people we serve.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2025, 100% of the Large State Militia’s junior officers will have received mentorship by
senior officers.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2021, the senior officers will demonstrate mentoring skills from the formal mentorship
training program with a minimum of four mentees.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Senior officers need to
know the definition of
mentorship in the Army
and that it includes
professional
development, career
guidance, and personal
guidance with
established goals
Factual Survey - “I understand the Army’s
definition of mentorship encompasses
career guidance, professional and
personal development goals.” (Strongly
Disagree - Strongly Agree).

Interviews “How do you define
mentorship?”
Senior officers need to
understand the impacts
that mentorship has on
the culture of the
organization and
retention of junior
officers
Conceptual Survey - “Mentorship has an impact on
the retention of junior officers and the
culture of the organization.” (Strongly
Disagree - Strongly Agree)

Interviews - “Describe your
understanding of how mentorship
impacts the retention of junior officers
and the culture of the organization.””

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 56
Table 2,continued
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Senior officers need to
know how to mentor
junior Officers
Procedural Survey - “I have a procedure for
mentoring junior officers.” (Strongly
Disagree - Strongly Agree).

Interviews - “Walk me through how
you mentor junior officers seeking
mentorship.”

Motivation
The second dimension needed for the LSM’s senior officers to achieve their stakeholder
goal is motivation. Rueda (2011) describes motivation as beliefs a person develops related to
factors to be described, to learning tasks and activities, and to themselves as learners. Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that three types of motivational processes can affect employees in the work
environment with regards to performance and goal accomplishment. The three types of
motivational processes or “indexes” (p. 80) are active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Active choice is essentially defined as a person choosing to start a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Persistence takes the choice to start a goal one step farther by a person’s determination to
complete the goal despite distractions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Lastly, the authors state that, after
a person chooses to start a goal, then persists past distractions, they still require an investment of
mental effort to accomplish key goals. In addition, knowing how to do something does not
necessarily mean that the person wants to do it or will do it (Rueda, 2011). Lastly, Rueda
comments that motivational beliefs are developed by social interactions with others, making
motivational beliefs cultural. By understanding the motivational issues in employees,
organizations can close the gap on performance goals.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 57
The LSM can increase its ability to accomplish the organizational goal by examining the
motivation of its senior officers to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. A review of
literature suggests that motivational influences exist in military organizations. These
motivational influences impact the achievement of unit/organizational goals. Understanding the
motivational influences that are present in the environment is critical for the LSM to achieve
success. The four motivational theories of attributions and control beliefs, self-efficacy, utility
value and cost-benefit value of expectancy value will be explored in the next section. As part of
attributions and control beliefs, self-efficacy, and expectancy value theories, the motivational
issues of attributions, self-efficacy, utility value and cost-benefit value will be examined in the
context of military organizations.
Attributions and control beliefs theory. Senior officers believe the failure of junior
officers’ retention rates is attributed to uncontrollable factors. Rueda (2011) states the
attributions and control beliefs theory is the perceptions that an individual has about why a task
was successful or a failure and to the degree to which the individual had control in affecting the
outcome. Rueda further adds that attributions have three dimensions: stability, locus, and
control. Stability focuses on whether attributions are permanent or temporary, with unstable
attributions leading to different outcomes on another attempt. Locus focuses on attributions that
are either internal or external in relation to the individual. Lastly, control is centered on the idea
of things that are controllable and uncontrollable by the individual. The motivational influence
of attribution is focused on one’s ability to question performance on a task and determine
whether the outcome in the future can be changed through choice, persistence, and mental effort.
A review of literature points to the existence of the attribution motivational principle regarding
mentorship.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 58
Mentorship gaps that exist in the military can be attributed to motivational issues within
the organizational culture and the officer corps. The Army’s mentorship challenges reflect the
societal challenge of workplace effective mentorship, according to Mcateer (2016). Mcateer
further adds that research indicates a growing performance gap in workplace mentorship due to
climate, competition, and technology. Mcateer (2016) refers to Kahle-Piasecki’s (2011) study of
mentorship in Fortune 1,000 companies which found the top two forms of mentorship, formal
and informal, had performance gaps. Formal mentoring measured at 74% effective and used
only 64% of the time, and informal mentoring was 72% effective but was used 74% of the time.
Kahle-Piasecki’s results concluded that, even though more mentorship is occurring, it is
challenged by a changing environment (technology, competition and distance between
employees). In other words, leaders simply choose not to mentor, using excuses of work-related
issues in line with Rueda’s (2011) stability and control attributions. In the military, work-related
issues, specifically time and pace, are called operation(s) tempo (OPTEMPO). OPTEMPO is
defined by the Department of Defense as the pace of an operation or operations in terms of
equipment and manpower usage (Garamone, 1999). OPTEMPO can impact a unit’s readiness in
terms of personnel and equipment.
Contreras (2008) states the U.S. Air Force has a Directive (Air Force Personnel Survey
Program, 2003, as cited in Contreras, 2008) that provides instructions how to establish formal
mentorship programs. However, most officers claim they are unaware of the directive during
interviews. Furthermore, the few leaders that support formal mentorship programs place blame
on cultural barriers within the military for the lack of mentorship. Budd’s (2007) study
contradicts the military’s anti-formal mentorship culture, Budd (2007) asserts that mentoring
should be kept informal with the only exception being documented performance outcomes to
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 59
demonstrate that mentoring is happening in an effective manner. Budd further adds that the
danger of informal mentorship is that it is only occurring in the minds of the mentor, not the
mentee. Budd also states that too many mentors resist organized mentoring processes in the
military. The methodology to assess stakeholder motivation based on attribution motivation
influence was initial interviews with open-ended questions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
information gathered from the interviews was used to construct surveys to capture larger
quantitative data of the stakeholder group.
Self-efficacy theory. Senior officers are not confident they can provide quality
mentorship to junior officers. According to Rueda (2011), self-efficacy touches the attributions
theory and all four components of the expectancy value theory (attainment, intrinsic, utility, and
cost). Rueda further adds that self-efficacy is the concern the individual has to complete the task
based on prior experiences, knowledge, feedback from others and previous failures and
successes. Self-efficacy is not to be confused with self-esteem. Self-efficacy is how an
individual believes in oneself and abilities in completing the task, whereas self-esteem is how an
individual feels about oneself in general.
Self-efficacy is part of the motivational gaps that exist within the military. Senior
officers feel that their experiences, knowledge, and other characteristics may not provide the
proper tools for effective mentorship. Brown’s study of ACE Fellows (2010) revealed that
mentors learn a great deal about their own leadership by being engaged in the mentorship
process. Brown further states that the fellows in his study indicated that experience gained from
previous mentorship led to heightened self-efficacy for future mentorship relationships.
Individuals with high self-efficacy have a greater assurance in their capabilities and the
willingness to undertake and complete tasks (Poon, 2006). High self-efficacy gives an individual
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 60
greater persistence to overcome obstacles and resilience while engaged in challenging tasks
(Pajares, 2002; Poon, 2006). Poon (2006) further adds that a study of 270 firefighters found
transformational leadership influenced a unit’s self-efficacy in performing difficult tasks.
Mentors should use transformational style leadership as well as be comfortable and aware of
themselves to raise both the mentor and mentee to new levels, and open communication is
critical in the relationship (Inzer & Crawford, 2005). Cole (2012) adds that senior and junior
leaders must feel comfortable in their roles to have the open communication necessary for
effective mentorship to take place. With the Army’s increasing diversity, mentors and mentees
should be honest with themselves, as honesty along with communication is essential in cross-
racial mentorship relationships (Cho, 2013). As diversity increases amongst junior officers,
more cross-racial mentorship will occur, making self-efficacy amongst senior officers critical.
The methodology to assess stakeholder motivation based on self-efficacy motivation influence
consisted of initial interviews with open-ended questions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The information
gathered from the interviews was used to construct surveys to capture larger quantitative data of
the stakeholder group.
Expectancy value theory. Senior leaders need to see the value that mentorship brings to
the organization and the positive impact it has on the organization’s culture. Eccles and Wigfield
(2002) state the expectancy value theory simply asks individuals “Can I do the task?” and “Do I
want to do the task?” with answers leading to the individuals’ motivation. Eccles and Wigfield
subdivide expectancy value into four separate dimensions: intrinsic value, attainment value,
utility value, and cost value. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment one feels doing or completing the
task. Attainment value is defined as one’s own identity and preferences with respect to the task;
essentially, how much importance an individual places on the task. Rueda (2011) defines utility
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 61
value as how well the task fits into the individual’s psychological needs, goals, and plans.
Lastly, cost value (perceived cost) is the cost of participating in the activity in relation to time,
effort, and other dimensions. A review of literature in relation to the stakeholder documents
utility value and cost value as a performance gaps in mentorship.
Senior officers believe that mentorship does not add value to their careers or the
organization’s goals. The dimension of utility value appears in various forms throughout
research as a potential reason for mentorship gaps in the military. Hunsinger’s (2004) study of
services suggests that mentorship programs cover both career and psychosocial aspects. Jahnke
(2008) further adds that development of people within an organization gives the organization a
competitive advantage over the competition. Within the military, mentorship is considered a
combat multiplier as it builds trust and candid, continuous communication between senior and
junior leaders. However, Thomas and Thomas (2015) state the confusion between the latest
Army doctrine of mentorship being a leader’s responsibility and senior leaders believing
mentorship is an assigned additional duty gives the process a negative mark. Additionally,
Thomas and Thomas suggest the avoidance of assigned or formalized mentee-mentor
relationships within chains of command due to the possibility of the mentor purposely giving the
mentee irrelevant or inaccurate advice to protect his/her position or exploiting the mentee for
personal gain. Cole’s (2012) research on leader development points to a lack of emphasis over
the years in the Army prior recent changes that produced senior leaders with less than desirable
mentorship attributes. Nieberding (2007) discusses the failure of the Army’s online mentorship
website, suggesting that leaders must find value in mentorship for such a tool to be successful
and dedicate the necessary effort.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 62
Senior leaders need to see the cost of time and effort put into mentorship yields a reward
of a positive impact on the organization and its culture. The motivation influence of cost value,
specifically time, is listed in multiple studies as the number reason for mentorship gaps in the
military. Budd (2007) states the most precious commodity is time; good mentors make time for
mentees and listen to their concerns and questions. During interviews while conducting a study
on leadership, several mentors stated they were available to mentees yet rarely had time to sit
down and map out the mentee’s career in a formal structured manner. Mcateer (2016) noted that,
during interviews with 10 participants, the issue of time and availability to mentor while
balancing professional and personal lives was extremely difficult. Time was the continuous
theme addressed as a critical limited commodity in mentorship. Furthermore, Mcateer’s study
revealed that, though participants understood the Army’s message of emphasis on mentorship,
their responsibility to mentor or seek mentorship was not prioritized against the other
requirements that demand a leader’s time. Cho (2013) discussed that, for cross-racial mentoring
relationships to succeed in the Army, time is needed for both mentor and mentee to learn and
understand each other’s cultural backgrounds. The increased OPTEMPO with continuous
deployments, leadership demands, and balance of personal life take time away from leaders to
properly mentor junior officers.
The methodology to assess stakeholder motivation gaps regarding motivation influence
utility value and cost value was initial interviews with open-ended questions. The information
gathered from the interviews was used to construct surveys to capture larger quantitative data of
the stakeholder group. Table 3 illustrates an overview of how two of the motivation influences of
LSM’s senior officers and the methods to assess any motivation gaps impact the stakeholder
goals, organizational goals, and the mission of the organization.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 63
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The Large State Militia provides trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and local
emergencies. The LSM adds value to our communities by providing resources, services and
educational programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people we serve.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2025, 100% of the Large State Militia’s junior officers will have received mentorship by
senior officers.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2021, the senior officers will demonstrate mentoring skills from the formal mentorship
training program with a minimum of four mentees.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions – Senior officers
believe the failure of retention
rates of junior officers is attributed
to uncontrollable factors.
Written Survey – “I believe that the retention rates of officers
are affected by factors outside of my control.” (Strongly
Disagree – Strongly Agree)

Interview – “Walk me through the variables of junior officer
retention rates and its impact on the organization.”
Self-Efficacy - Senior officers
are not confident they can
provide quality mentorship to
junior officers.
Written Survey - “How confident are you that you can
provide quality mentorship to junior officers right now?.”
(Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree) 5-point scale.

Interview - “Tell me about how confident you feel about
providing effective mentorship to junior officers right now?”
Utility Value - Senior officers
believe that mentorship does not
add value to their career goals or
the organization’s goals.
Written Survey - “I feel that my mentorship of junior officers
pays dividends to my career goals.” (Strongly Disagree -
Strongly Agree).

Interview - “Describe your feelings about the mentorship of
others and what value or impacts it has on your career and
that of the organization.”

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 64
Table 3, continued
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Cost Value – Senior leaders need
to see the cost of time and effort
put into mentorship yields a
reward of a positive impact on
the organization and its culture.
Written Survey – “I feel that mentorship of junior officers is
worth my effort and time.” (Strongly Disagree - Strongly
Agree).

Interview - “Describe how your time and effort into
mentorship is value added.”

Organization
General theory. Organizational influences are the final dimension the LSM senior
officers need to address to achieve their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) state work
processes, material resources, value chains and streams, and an organization’s culture can add to
performance gaps. Clark and Estes define work processes as the way that materials, equipment,
and people interact to produce a desired goal over time. Processes that are not properly aligned
with an organization’s goals result in failure. Material resources are the tools and equipment
needed to achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). An organization cannot achieve its goals if it
does not have the material resources necessary to equip its employees with knowledge. How an
organization’s divisions and departments interact and the processes they implement through the
interaction is described as value streams by Clark and Estes. Value streams analyze the work
processes for cost effectiveness along with which processes are more influential than others in
achieving the organization’s goals. According to Clark and Estes, value chains utilize
information gathered from value streams to gauge the way processes achieve goals for internal
and external customers to the organization. Lastly, organizational culture can impact the
achievement of performance goals.
The beliefs, emotions, values, and processes that develop over time are considered
culture, which is powerful for performance but difficult to identify and influence (Clark & Estes,
2008). Schein (2017) adds that culture is developed through a group’s accumulated shared
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 65
learning of beliefs, emotions, values, and processes that become the invisible norm. Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001) categorize the concept of culture into cultural models and cultural
settings. Cultural models are the processes, or the way things are done that are the invisible
norms of the organization. Cultural settings, on the other hand, are the visible behaviors, such as
a lack of communication or trust in the organization that create the cultural model (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Stakeholder-specific factors. A cultural model exists within the military to conduct
mentorship informally rather than formally (Budd, 2007). Johnson and Anderson (2015) point to
documented issues and resistance that exist with formal mentorship programs within the military.
The resistance of formal mentorship programs leads to another cultural model in the military: the
willingness to attend mentorship training. Officers attend leader development training
throughout their careers in order to make the next rank, so training combined with workload and
work-life balance tends to make mentoring obsolete (Catchings, 2013). Catchings further adds
the unspoken cultural rule in the military is that officers are self-developing, so junior officers do
not seek assistance or mentorship. These two cultural models have developed over time out of
two cultural settings that stems from the military’s history of customs, courtesies, and leadership.
The first cultural setting is the top-down communication based on authoritarian
leadership, also known as autocratic leadership. The military is a bureaucratic organization and
does not allow for tremendous communication from the bottom (subordinates) up to leaders,
based on customs and courtesies (Catchings, 2013; Cox, 2009). Furthermore, researchers
(Catchings, 2013; Nieberding, 2007; Purvis, 2011) show that communication, feedback and
mentorship as part of leadership are not mentioned in Army Doctrine until 2007. The
development of senior leaders through these traditions and outdated doctrine adds to the visible
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 66
lack of transparency. The second cultural setting is the lack of role models. Cox (2009)
mentions that, though senior officers go through similar leadership development, not all senior
officers are qualified to be mentors in the classic sense. In addition, the face of the military has
changed since World War II, with more ethnicities and genders in the military than ever before.
There is a lack of strong role models to match the diversity of junior officers currently in the
Army (Cho, 2013; Godbolt, 2013; Mcateer, 2016; Smith, 2010). Table 4 illustrates an overview
of how the two cultural models and two cultural settings influences of LSM’s senior officers and
the methods to assess any organizational gaps that impact the stakeholder goals, organizational
goals, and the mission of the organization.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The Large State Militia provides trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and local
emergencies. The LSM adds value to our communities by providing resources, services and
educational programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people we serve.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2025, 100% of the Large State Militia’s junior officers will have received mentorship
by senior officers.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2021, the senior officers will demonstrate mentoring skills from the formal mentorship
training program with a minimum of four mentees.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There is a culture of commitment amongst
senior officers to mentor junior officers
formally (commitment not just informally
(occasional)).
Written Survey – “There is a culture of
commitment amongst senior officers to mentor
junior officers formally I feel that mentorship
should be formal” (Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree).

Interview – “Tell me about the senior officers’
commitment to formal mentorship?”

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 67
Table 4, continued
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 2:
There is a culture of commitment amongst the
senior officers to attend mentorship training
and effect change.
Written Survey – “Senior officers are
committed to designing and attending a formal
mentorship training program.”
(Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)

Interview – “Tell me about your commitment
to attend mentorship training.”
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Senior officers are committed to providing
communication and feedback to junior officers
to build transparency within the organization.
Written Survey – “Senior officers
communicate and provide feedback to junior
officers on a regular basis”
(Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree)

Interview – “Describe a routine engagement
with junior officers involving
communication.”
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Senior leadership acknowledges senior officers
who promote enthusiasm, competence, and
positive behavior.
Written Survey – “Role models currently exist
within the organization.”
(Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree)

Interview – “Describe the use of role models
within the organization.”

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a visual description of the interaction and relationships among
factors, concepts, and/or variables in a study (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, Maxwell (2013)
describes the conceptual framework of a study as the model that ties experience, existing theory,
exploratory research and thought experiments together to build upon previous research. The
conceptual framework presented in this study considers previous research conducted on
mentorship within all four branches of the Armed Forces. The framework then packages the
influences drawn from previous research and literature into pending innovation that best supports
the LSM’s senior officers in achieving their stakeholder goal, thus allowing the LSM to achieve
its organizational goal. The constructed framework is built on the combination of two
worldviews.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 68
This study utilizes a combination of the constructivist and pragmatic worldview to gain a
personal insight into senior officers’ understanding of mentorship while looking at the historical,
political, and situational influences on senior officers and mentorship. According to Creswell
(2014), constructivists seek to understand and make sense of the world that they live in.
Furthermore, Creswell describes researchers in constructivism using qualitative methods of
open-ended questions to gain further insight into how individuals interpret the historical, cultural,
and personal experiences in conjunction with their own. The pragmatic worldview, on the other
hand, focuses on actions, situation, and solutions (Creswell, 2014). Pragmatism does not focus
on one theory but several theories or approaches, if that is what is necessary to find a solution.
Furthermore, pragmatist researchers look at the intended consequences and base the “what” they
are going to research and “how” they will accomplish it on these consequences. The
constructivist worldview and pragmatic worldview combine to form this constructed framework.
The knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences affecting the LSM presented
earlier in this section are not stand-alone influences. The influences interact with one another
and, thus, must be addressed simultaneously for the senior officers of the LSM to achieve their
goal of demonstrating the skills learned from a formal mentorship training program by have a
minimum of four mentees by October 2021. Clark and Estes (2008) state that knowledge,
motivational, and organizational gaps must be addressed concurrently for organizations to meet
their achievement goals. Figure 1 below illustrates the concept framework of this study.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 69

Figure 1. Interaction of stakeholder knowledge and motivation within organizational models and
settings.

The conceptual framework diagram shows the interactive relationship between
knowledge and motivational influences that affect the senior officers within the organization
leading to the achievement of the LSM stakeholder goal. As previously mentioned, the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences do not operate independent of each
other; rather, the influence relationships are interactive (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, the large
oval depicted in blue represents the LSM as an organization. The organizational influences are
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 70
cultural in nature and broken into cultural models and cultural settings as described by Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001). Senior officers’ willingness to mentor and attend a formal mentorship
training program are two cultural model influences that exist within the organization (Budd,
2007; Catchings, 2013; Johnson & Anderson, 2015). Research points to resistance within the
military culture to formal mentorship and mentorship training because all officers attend schools
designed for leadership development throughout their career. These two invisible influences
were derived from two visible cultural settings: top-down communication and a lack of role
models. Communication and feedback has previously not been considered part of leadership in
Army Doctrine until 2007 (Catchings, 2013; Nieberding, 2007; Purvis, 2011). Furthermore, lack
of role models to represent the increasing diversity of the modern-day military adds to
organizational issues (Cho, 2013; Godbolt, 2013; Mcateer, 2016; Smith, 2010).
Within the organization are the knowledge and motivational influences that are by-
products of the cultural models and cultural settings. The knowledge and motivational
influences are depicted in the green squares. The knowledge influences include factual,
conceptual, and procedural as senior officers mentor junior officers. The factual knowledge gap
exists when senior officers do not understand the definition of mentorship within the newly
revised Army Doctrine (Catchings, 2013; Martin et al., 2002; Nieberding, 2007). The conceptual
knowledge gap exists when senior officers do not understand the impact of mentorship on the
future of junior officers and the organization (Godbolt, 2013; Harris, 2008; Mcateer, 2016;
Prevosto, 2001; Ryckman, 2017). The procedural knowledge gap exists when senior officers do
not know how to mentor junior officers (Budd, 2007; Catchings, 2013; Mcateer, 2016;
Nieberding, 2007). The senior officer motivational influences are attributions and cost value.
The attributions of senior officers are understanding that choosing to mentor junior officers pays
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 71
long-term dividends not just to junior officers but themselves and the organization (Budd, 2007;
Contreras, 2008; Mcateer, 2016; Rueda, 2011). The cost value of the senior officers’ time put
into motivation creates a positive culture that changes the organization’s culture to one of
mentorship (Budd, 2007; Cho, 2013; Mcateer, 2016; Rueda, 2011). Knowledge and
motivational influences are constantly interacting, so this continuous interaction is depicted by
the double ended arrow in black.
The interaction among the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences creates
the need for innovation. The purpose of this study was to show, through research, the need for a
formal mentorship training program in the LSM. The interaction arrow depicted in grey leads to
the formal mentorship training program in the brown circle. The training program assists the
senior officers, the stakeholders of this study, in achieving their performance goal of
demonstrating mentorship skills with a minimum of four mentees by October 2021. An
interactive grey arrow shows the combination of all influences flow through the formal
mentorship training program to the stakeholder goal in the red rectangle. If the training program
takes into account all the knowledge, motivational, and organization influences, then the senior
officers will achieve their performance goal.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a performance gap analysis to examine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that impact the LSM in its achievement of
having 100% of its junior officers receive mentorship by October 2025. This chapter presented
theoretical literature, case studies, and doctrine regarding the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting this the achievement of this goal. This chapter further
presented the senior officers’ specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 72
could impede the achievement of both the stakeholder and organizational goals. Lastly, this
chapter presented the conceptual framework guiding this study. Chapter Three will present the
study’s methodological approach.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this innovation study was to examine the lack of mentorship in the LSM.
Specifically, the study identified gaps through the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that inhibit the LSM from accomplishing the goal of 100% of its junior officers
receiving mentorship by its senior officers by October 2025. A mixed-methods design was
utilized validate and triangulate qualitative and quantitative data gathered in this innovation
study to answer the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Four questions guided this
study:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation required by senior officers to create and
implement a program to mentor 100% of junior officers in the Large State Militia?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and senior officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can
assist with junior officer mentorship?
4. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
This chapter begins with a brief description of the participating stakeholders, followed by
the design method used for this study and the sampling criteria and rationale used for both
quantitative and qualitative phases. Lastly this chapter outlines the data collection,
instrumentation, and the data analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for this study is the senior officers of the LSM. The
ranks of lieutenant colonel (Grade O5) to major general (Grade O8) are considered senior
officers in the LSM. Currently, 1,372 officers are in the LSM, with 155 (11.7%) as senior
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 74
officers. For the purposes of this study, senior officers must have 15 years or more of service as
an officer in the military because of the knowledge and experience that is expected to be gained
from time and positions as officers. The senior officers make for a narrow and specific
stakeholder population of focus, so an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used
for data collection. An initial survey was distributed to the population to gather quantitative
data. Afterwards, selective interviews further explained the answers collected from the survey
(Creswell, 2014). Surveys were sent to all lieutenant colonels, colonels, and general officers
within the LSM (155 possible participants). The results of the survey data analysis were used to
build the qualitative instrument. Purposive sampling was used to interview 10 senior officers
with the rank of lieutenant colonel or above to further explain the quantitative results.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1: Senior officers. Senior officers range from lieutenant colonels (O5) to
major generals (O8). Senior officers are the stakeholder group for this study and necessary for
data collection.
Criterion 2: Experience. Senior officers need to have at least 15 years of commissioned
service. Senior officers with 15 years of commissioned service are necessary to collect data that
reflects experience and skills in various leadership roles.
Criterion 3: Character. Participants need to be in good standing with the LSM.
Participating senior officers need to be of good character as mentor candidates. Data collected
from senior officers in conflict with the LSM has the potential to reflect biases.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy for this study is nonprobabilistic. Nonprobabilistic sampling is
also referred to as purposive sampling and the most common in qualitative studies when
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 75
researchers seek to gain an understanding or insight into the problem of practice (Chein, 1981;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, the total population of 155 senior officers was used to
gain a solid understanding of what knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers are
keeping the LSM from achieving its performance goal. As stated previously, the senior officer
population is narrow and focused, as it comprises 11.7% of the total officer population in the
LSM. The survey was the first phase of two phases in this explanatory sequential mixed-
methods study. It was anticipated that 50% of the participants would respond to the survey, and
73 senior officers responded for a response rate of 50.3%. Ten of the 155 possible participants
were no longer in the LSM at the time the survey instrument was issued. The survey was issued
at the beginning of the data collection process just after document analysis and sent out to the
participants at the beginning of August. Historically, most LSM units conduct annual training
during the months of June, July, and August, so most senior officers would be part of the annual
training or just returning from it, allowing for maximum participation in the initial data
collection process.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1: Commanders. Brigade commanders are considered ideal mentors due to
their years of experience (20+), skills, and leadership roles. Colonels, or those of higher rank,
who have been in brigade command positions are considered successful senior officers with
leadership experience and skills. Six senior officers were interviewed, ranging from colonel
(O6) to major general (O8) who are now or have previously been brigade commanders. Forty-
two colonels (27%), five brigadier generals (3%), and three major generals (1.9%) made up 50
(31.9%) of the 155 senior officers in the LSM.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 76
Criterion 2: Staff officers. Staff officers are non-commanders and have different levels
of experience and skills than commanders. Most colonels in the LSM have held at least battalion
command but may not have had brigade command. Four colonels who have not held brigade
command or equivalent positions were interviewed. General officers did not meet this criterion
because brigade command is a prerequisite for promotion to general officer. Lieutenant colonels
can also be used in place of colonels, as many have not held battalion command and have spent
most of their time as staff officers (career staff).
Criterion 3: Full-time officers. Senior officers who work for the LSM in one of three
capacities: state active duty (SAD), technician (General Services Federal Employee), or active
guard/reserve (AGR), are considered full-time manning. The 10 senior officers selected for the
interviews were full-time officers. Full-time officers have greater access to resources available
for mentorship than traditional (one weekend a month) militia senior officers because many of
the systems in the LSM require access through government computers and common access cards.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy used in this study was convenience purposeful sampling. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) describe convenience purposeful sampling as occurring when a sample is
selected based on time, location, availability of respondents, availability of sites, and money.
Johnson and Christensen (2015) further add that purposive sampling cites specific characteristics
of a population and then searches for subjects that meet those characteristics. Ten senior officers
meeting the above specified criteria were interviewed to further clarify answers to the survey.
According to Creswell (2014), explanatory sequential mixed-methods research is conducted in
two phases of data collection. The interview process is considered phase two. The interviews
were designed from the data collected from the phase one surveys and used to clarify answers to
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 77
knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers that are impeding the LSM from meeting
its performance goal. Furthermore, interviews elicited the assets available and required to create
a mentorship training program as well as potential solutions to the performance gaps. The
interviews took place three weeks after the conclusion of the surveys, allowing enough time to
conduct an analysis of the data and refine the interview questions. The 10 selected senior
officers were subset of those surveyed in addition to having met the above criteria.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Two qualitative methods and one quantitative method were used to assist in answering
the research questions. The use of three methods is part of triangulation that answers the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell further adds that triangulation uses multiple
methods to check on one another to ensure that different limitations and strengths support a
single conclusion. This study utilized document analysis, a survey instrument, and interviews to
triangulate the data to answer the research questions and increase the credibility of the study.
First, document analysis was utilized to validate whether or not the LSM had mentorship
resources. Second, the survey instrument was built from the data collected from document
analysis. Finally, the interviews were used to clarify data received from the survey. The survey,
interviews, and document analysis methods listed below gave the researcher insights into how
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact the LSM in regard to the
mentorship of its junior officers.
Surveys
The survey instrument was distributed to the stakeholder population from early August to
late August. This timeframe was selected because the survey instrument follows the document
analysis regarding knowledge, and several questions measured the participants’ knowledge with
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 78
regards to mentorship. The timeframe was also selected because of the availability of the
stakeholder population. Annually, the LSM conducts its annual training at two camps located in
the center of the state throughout the summer. Over 50% of the senior officers in the
organization were in one location, making it the perfect time to initiate the survey instrument.
The survey instrument was administered electronically through email to all 155 participants,
even though some of the participants were not at the annual training. The reason for the
electronic distribution through email resides in the fact that all senior officers in the LSM have
organizational email accounts and government-issued phones attached to their accounts. Weekly
emails were sent to participants for encouragement of maximum participation along with in-
person reminders by the researcher at the annual training. The timing of the electronic
distribution of the survey instrument to the entire stakeholder population relative to their physical
location classifies the population sample as nonprobability or convenience (Creswell, 2014).
The survey instrument consisted of 40 questions focused on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. An emphasis on experience/behavior, opinion/values, and
demographics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015) was embedded in the questions.
Furthermore, multiple questions extracted data pertaining to the participants’ knowledge, skills,
and experience with mentorship within the organization. These types of questions are directly
connected to the knowledge portion of the conceptual framework. Less than half of the 40
questions (10) were focused on knowledge to assist the researcher with better insight into the
LSM mentorship performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Eleven questions were focused on
motivation influences with a focus on value. Organizational influence questions were
straightforward, so only four questions were used in the survey instrument. Nine questions were
based on demographics (rank, gender, race, years of service, command, etc.) to allow for
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 79
nominal data collection as necessary for trend analysis (Salkind, 2017). Lastly, three questions
were a subset of a cultural setting focused on communication were utilized to further identify a
gap.
Interviews
The interview protocol was a semi-structured approach. Furthermore, the interviews
utilized a neo-positivist style during the conduct of the interviews. A semi-structured interview
contains some structured questions that are open-ended and flexibly designed to produce rich
data, but they are not so structured that they are predetermined or necessarily ordered (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). A neo-positivist style interview utilizes good questions to generate rich,
quality data that produce valid findings while reducing biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Because the interviewees in this study were peers and superiors of the researcher and had similar
backgrounds, a semi-structured approach was necessary to draw unfiltered and undetermined
data from them. Five of the interviewees were subordinates and were interviewed by a third-
party subordinate who also used the semi-structured approach.
The types of questions that were asked focused on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Questions focused on knowledge were centered on affirmation of
document analysis and the survey data regarding factual and procedural influences (Patton,
2015). Most of the interview questions focused on motivation and organizational influences.
These questions were a mix of Patton’s (2015) six types of questions: experience/behavior,
opinion/values, feeling, and demographics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The intent with these
questions was to extract a deeper clarification of data from the stakeholder population regarding
the motivation and organizational influences. These data heavily involve opinions, behavior and
feelings. Furthermore, it was necessary to ask probing questions to extract this kind of rich data
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 80
which was analyzed and applied to the research questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state
probing questions are an exploration into previously asked questions that provide clarity,
examples, and dive further into the information.
The interviews were conducted from late August 2019 to late September 2019. This
timeframe was utilized for two reasons. The first reason is that the interviews were to follow
analysis of survey data within two weeks. In actuality, the analysis was completed within eight
days and the interviews began early. The second reason for this time frame is that most, if not
all, of the units in the LSM had completed annual training by the end of August. The stakeholder
population for the interviews all had returned to their full-time employment. The interviews
followed both document analysis and the survey instrument. As phase two of explanatory
sequential mixed-methods research, the interviews were used to explain the quantitative results
in further detail (Creswell, 2014).
The researcher conducted a total of 10 interviews, once with each participant. One hour
was planned for each interview and a total of 15 anticipated hours were needed to reach
saturation across all participants. Nine of the 10 interviews were less than 50 minutes long and
lasted 84 minutes for a total of 7 hours and 16 minutes of interview time. One follow-up
interview was conducted to gain additional insight after the initial interview with Participant 2.
Interviews were both formal and informal, dependent upon the rank of the participants.
Interviews with peers were informal, but interviews conducted with general officers were more
formal, per military protocol. The five subordinate interviews (lieutenant colonels) were
conducted by the third-party subordinate (lieutenant colonel) who was a peer of the interviewees.
The third-party subordinate is also a student in the same program.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 81
Most interviews took place at the headquarters of the LSM, except for one that was
conducted at the division headquarters on the other side of the state. The two locations were
utilized for convenience and access to the participants. All but one of the participants were full-
time members of the LSM working in one of the two previously stated locations. Furthermore,
both locations offered quiet conference rooms that acted as a neutral place to conduct the
interviews. Lastly, the interviews were audio recorded with permission from the participants.
Recordings were transcribed through Rev.com transcription services. The researcher utilized a
notepad during the interviews as a backup; however, the researcher focused on the interviewee in
order to detect the tone of the interview and probe as necessary for more data. According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), audio recordings of the interviews with transcription is the preferred
method compared to the researcher transcribing notes during or after the interview. In addition,
the researcher noted the participant’s body language during the interview and recorded it on the
notepad.
Documents and Artifacts
Researchers utilize document analysis in conjunction with other qualitative research
methods as part of triangulation to add credibility to the research and avoid single source or
single biased accusations (Bowen, 2009). The researcher collected a variety of the Army
manuals utilized by the LSM for doctrine and training. These manuals are known as FMs,
training circulars, Army doctrine publications (ADPs), and ADRPs. Older and newer versions of
the manuals were obtained, including the Army Mentorship Handbook (2005). In addition, the
researcher obtained OERs from 1992 to present. The purpose for the analysis of these
documents was to identify the differences in the explanation and definition of mentorship over
the last 30 years in the Army. These documents have direct correlation to the knowledge and
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 82
skills influence in the conceptual framework, specifically the factual and procedural elements.
Furthermore, analysis of these documents answered one of the research questions: what
resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can assist with
junior officer mentorship? The Army’s Digital Library has both older and current editions of the
manuals and OERs needed for document analysis. The documents used for this qualitative
research are government manuals and are considered public records (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Alignment of Influences and Data Collection Methods
Table 5 provides a summary of the data collection methods, document analysis, survey
instrument, and interviews that were used to assess the assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences impacting the LSM’s goal of 100% mentorship of all junior officers by
October 2025. This table demonstrates the alignment between the assumed influences and the
data collection methods.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 83
Table 5
Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The Large State Militia provides trained and ready forces to respond to national, state, and local emergencies.
The LSM adds value to our communities by providing resources, services and educational programs that
reflect the diverse needs of the people we serve.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2025, 100% of the Large State Militia’s junior officers will have received mentorship by senior
officers.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2021, the senior officers will demonstrate mentoring skills from the formal mentorship training
program with a minimum of four mentees.
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interview Document
Analysis

Factual - Senior
officers need to know
the definition of
mentorship in the
Army and that it
includes professional
development, career
guidance, and
personal guidance
with established goals
Survey and
interview
questions
determine the
knowledge
level of
senior
officers with
the Army’s
definition of
mentorship
“Identify all
of the
elements of
Army
Mentorship.
Check all that
apply”
A-E.
“Tell me the
Army’s
definition of
mentorship,
including the
elements.”
Mentorship
Handbook
ADRP-6-2
FM 6-22
DA 67-9 and DA
67-10 older
versions vs newer
versions
Conceptual - Senior
officers do not
understand the
impacts that
mentorship has on the
culture of the
organization and
retention of junior
officers
Survey and
interview
questions
determine the
conceptual
knowledge of
senior
officers with
the Army’s
definition of
mentorship
“Mentorship
is important
for the
following
reasons?”
Check all that
apply
A-E
“Describe
your
understanding
of how
mentorship
impacts the
retention of
junior officers
and the
culture of the
organization.”
Mentorship
Handbook
ADRP-6-22
FM 6-22
DA 67-9 and DA
67-10 older
versions vs newer
versions

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 84
Table 5, continued
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interview Document
Analysis

Procedural - Senior
officers do not know
how to mentor junior
Officers
Survey and
interview
questions
address
senior
officers
procedural
knowledge of
how to
mentor junior
officers
Scenario –
“Junior
officer
requests your
mentorship
about
benefits of
full-time
employment
in LSM and
what career
track should
he/she take to
get to the
rank of COL.
Choose one
of the five
choices.
“Walk me
through how
you mentor
junior officers
seeking
mentorship.”
Mentorship
Handbook
ADRP-6-22
FM 6-22

Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interview Document
Analysis
Attributions – Senior
officers believe the
failure of retention
rates of junior officers
is attributed to
uncontrollable factors
Survey and
interview
questions
address
senior
officers
motivation
with
mentorship of
junior
officers
“I believe
that junior
officer
retention
rates are
attributed to
the following
factors:
Check all that
apply, if
other type in
factors.”
“Walk me
through the
variables and
impacts of
junior officer
retention rates
that you see”

Exit interviews
from junior
officers

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 85
Table 5, continued
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interview Document
Analysis
Self-Efficacy - Senior
officers are not
confident they can
provide quality
mentorship to junior
officers
Survey and
interview
questions
address senior
officers self-
efficacy to
mentor junior
officers.
“If you were
asked to
mentor a
junior
officer in
various
aspects, how
confident
are you that
you can
mentor the
officer on
the areas
below?’
“career
management
?”
“military
education?”
“civilian
education?’
“personal
goals?”
“full-time
employment
opportunitie
s in the
LSM?”
Likert scale
0-100
“Tell me about
how confident
you feel about
providing
effective
mentorship to
junior officers
right now?”
N/A
Utility Value - Senior
officers believe that
mentorship does not
add value to their
career goals or the
organization’s goals.
Survey and
Interview
questions
address value
with regards
to senior
officers and
junior officer
mentorship
“My
mentorship
of junior
officers
adds value
to the
organization
’s goals”
(Strongly
Disagree –
Strongly
Agree)-6-
point scale
“Describe
your personal
opinion about
the
mentorship of
others and
what value or
impacts it has
on your career
and that of the
organization”
FM 6-22
Mentorship
Handbook

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 86
Table 5, continued
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interview Document
Analysis
“My
mentorship
of junior
officers
adds value
to my career
goals.”
(Extremely
– none at
all)-5-point
scale

Cost Value – Senior
leaders need to see the
cost of time and effort
put into mentorship
yields a reward of a
positive impact on the
organization and its
culture.
Survey and
Interview
questions
address value
with regards
to senior
officers and
junior officer
mentorship.
“The time
and effort
that I put
into
mentorship
yields a
reward of a
positive
impact on
the
organization
”
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)

“The time
and effort
that I put
into
mentorship
yields a
positive
impact on
the culture
of the
organization
.”
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)

“Describe
how your time
and effort into
mentorship is
value added”

FM 6-22

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 87
Table 5, continued
Organizational Influences
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organization
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interviews Document
Analysis
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
There is a culture of
commitment
amongst senior
officers to mentor
junior officers
formally
(commitment not just
informally
(occasional).
Survey and
interview
questions focus
on the cultural
model of the
organization
and the senior
officers’
perception of
the culture
“There is a
culture of
commitment
amongst
senior
officers to
mentor
junior
officers
formally.”
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)
“Tell me about
the senior
officers’
commitment to
formal
mentorship?”
5-year
Organization
Strategic Plan
Strategic
Leader
Development
Trifold
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
There is a culture of
commitment amongst
the senior officers to
attend mentorship
training and effect
change.
Survey and
interview
questions focus
on the cultural
model of the
organization
and the senior
officers’
perception of
the culture
“There is a
culture of
commitment
amongst the
senior
officers to
attend
mentorship
training and
effect
change.”
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)
“Talk to me
about your
commitment to
attending
mentorship
training.”
5-year
Organization
Strategic Plan
ADRP 6-22
FM 6-22
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Senior officers are
committed to
providing
communication and
feedback to junior
officers to build
transparency within
the organization.
Survey and
interview
questions
focus on the
senior
officers
perception
of cultural
setting
within the
organization
“Senior
officers are
committed
to providing
communicat
ion and
feedback to
junior
officers to
build
transparency
within the
organi-
zation”
“Describe a
routine
engagement with
junior officers
involving
communication.”
5-year
Organization
Strategic Plan

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 88
Table 5, continued
Organizational Influences
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organization
Influence
Assessment
Survey Interviews Document
Analysis
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)

Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Senior leadership
acknowledges senior
officers who promote
enthusiasm,
competence, and
positive behavior.
Survey and
interview
questions
focus on the
senior
officers
perception
of cultural
setting
within the
organi-
zation.
“Senior
leadership
acknowledg
es senior
officers who
promote
enthusiasm,
competence,
and positive
behavior.”
(Disagree
Strongly to
Agree
Strongly)
“Describe the
use of role
models within
the
organization.”
Webpage
Social Media
Print Production
medium

Data Analysis
Data analysis began with document analysis and continued through both the survey and
interviews. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe data analysis as the process of making sense
out of data, which is the consolidation, reduction, and interpretation of what subjects said and
what researchers have seen and read. Data analysis began through document analysis as the
researcher mined data that could directly answer the research questions and/or add to the analysis
of data collected from the survey and interviews. Upon receipt of the surveys, descriptive
statistical analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies and median. Data analysis of
interviews began during the data collection. The researcher took some notes and utilized a voice
recorder as the primary tool during the interviews. The notes documented answers tied to the
conceptual framework. The recordings were transcribed and then coded. In the first phase of
analysis, the researcher applied a priori codes to the conceptual framework (knowledge,
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 89
motivation, and organizational needs and assets of the LSM) and open codes to all others (items
outside of the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs and assets of the LSM). A
second phase of analysis was conducted where a priori and open codes were aggregated into
analytic/axial codes. The third phase of data analysis identified pattern codes and themes that
emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions. Previously mentioned
documents were analyzed for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual
framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
For this study, it was essential to increase credibility of the data and maintain the
trustworthiness of both the data and the researcher. According to Maxwell (2013), credibility in
qualitative research has always been controversial. The researcher’s intent throughout the study
was to maintain trustworthiness of himself and the data through transparent communication to
the command group and the stakeholders in the LSM. In order to accomplish this, the researcher
employed three strategies that increased credibility of the study. Credibility is how relative the
findings are of a study to reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The first strategy employed by the
researcher was reflexivity or researcher’s position. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state researchers
affect and are affected by the researcher process; therefore, researchers should explain their
dispositions, assumptions, and biases. The researcher is a member of the senior officer
stakeholder population and was completely transparent during the research process.
Triangulation was the second strategy employed by the researcher. Triangulation was previously
mentioned and utilized document analysis, data collected from a quantitative survey instrument,
and rich data collected from 10 interviews that added clarification to the data from the survey
instrument. Lastly, the researcher utilized member checks (also called respondent validation) to
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 90
increase credibility of the study. Member checks are defined as feedback from some of the
interviewed participants about the preliminary findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher solicited feedback on the preliminary findings from several peers and superiors. This
strategy maintained the trustworthiness of the researcher through displayed transparency of the
initial findings and added credibility by allowing superiors to view findings ahead of the study’s
completion through a briefing to the command group.
Validity and Reliability
Data that are measured correctly from a survey instrument as it was intended to do are
considered to yield validity (Salkind, 2017). Reliability is the consistency of the data from the
instrument in multiple uses (Creswell, 2014). The survey instrument was created by the
researcher. Prior to electronic distribution to the stakeholder population, two pilot surveys were
utilized. The first pilot was seen by the researcher’s peers and dissertation committee chair for
feedback. After edits were completed, the second pilot survey was tested on four senior officers
who work in the same location as the researcher to get results on the pilot survey in a timely
manner. Ten questions focused on the three knowledge components from the conceptual
framework. The focused questions (three per knowledge component with a scenario for
procedural) increased the validity of the instrument through a check and balance of the
participants’ knowledge of mentorship within the LSM.
Demographic questions fell into categories and were measured as nominal variables.
Data collected from the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence questions utilized
interval levels of measurement. The intent was to visually display knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps that exist amongst the stakeholder populace in relation to what is perceived
by the command group in the LSM. Response rates were monitored electronically by the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 91
researcher’s office. The researcher’s office distributed, monitored, and received the survey
instruments. The researcher collected the data, analyzed the data, and created the interview
questions for further clarification of survey answers.
Ethics
The importance of acting ethically during this study was a priority of the researcher.
Several ethical considerations were prominent with this study due to the daily interactions with
the stakeholder group. According to Glesne (2011), daily interactions with research subjects and
the data make ethical considerations inseparable. The researcher was responsible for informing
the participants of the study’s purpose, ensuring participation was voluntary, gaining their
consent to participate, and maintaining the confidentiality and security of the data. An essential
consideration of the institutional review board’s (IRB) process was informed consent (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). During the survey portion of this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, a
statement was issued about the purpose of the study, that it was voluntary and confidential, and
that participants were to return the consent form along with the questionnaire to the specified
drop box. During follow-up interviews, participants were reminded of the informed consent and
voluntary participation. Furthermore, the researcher gained consent to record, reminded
participants that the interviews were confidential and did not pressure participants to answer
questions (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Pseudonyms were used for interviewees as necessary to
maintain confidentiality. Data were secured off site of the LSM in a fireproof safe.
The researcher is a full-time member of the LSM, working in the headquarters in close
proximity of several subjects from the stakeholder group. Furthermore, the researcher is the
direct supervisor of eight participants, senior ranking to 90 participants by one rank/grade, a peer
to 31 other participants, and subordinate to eight participants. As a member of the organization
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 92
and part of the stakeholder group, the researcher has an obligation to be completely transparent
during the study. The LSM command group has recognized that a mentorship issue with junior
officers exists within the organization and endorsed the innovative study. In addition, the LSM
command group has asked the researcher to brief leadership on progress and findings on a
regular basis. The survey instrument was generated from the directorate of strategic plans and
policies of the LSM, who have been tasked by the command group to develop a program that
improves mentorship and career management across the organization. As stated earlier, the
researcher continuously communicated to the stakeholder group the purpose of the study and the
researcher’s role as a student during the process to mitigate confusion between the researcher’s
role as a student and as a member of the LSM and stakeholder group.
Patton (2002) states that carefully selected and worded questions that are arranged in a
manner to take each interviewee through the same process are considered to make up a
standardized open-ended interview. This type of interview was used with 10 randomly selected
participants ranging from lieutenant colonels (O5) to major generals (O8) to gather rich data
about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact mentorship in the
LSM. This standardization was used to mitigate the researcher’s rank and role in the
organization. In addition, the researcher probed as necessary to answer knowledge, motivation
and organizational influencers from the conceptual framework. Furthermore, the researcher
avoided offering opinions as necessary to mitigate the biases and assumptions that exist because
of the researcher’s experience, direct ties to the organization, and the need for completion of the
study. Rubin and Rubin (2012) caution interviewers to not engage in opinion activity or agree
with interviewees as it is best to listen to get their facts and opinions on the subject, then probe
for further elaboration as necessary to gather rich data. Lastly, because the LSM is a government
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 93
organization with military structure and protocols, the researcher maintained transparency and
reminded all interviewees that the process was voluntary and there was no pressure to respond to
questions regardless of rank, position, or other factors.
Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations and delimitations are associated with this study. Limitations are the
elements of the study that the researcher cannot control, while delimitations are choices that the
researcher makes that have implications on the data collected. The first limitation is the size of
the stakeholder group in comparison to the organization. The senior officer stakeholder
participants comprise 11.7% of the overall officer population in the LSM. Though the survey
instrument was sent to all 155 senior officers, not all responded. This leads to the second issue
about truthfulness on the survey instrument and interviews. The stakeholder population
members are the primary leaders of the organization and, thus, a level of confidence and
perceptions exist amongst the group. The researcher could not control the truthfulness of the
answers from the participants. The last limitation with the study is the researcher’s affiliation to
the organization. The researcher is a member of the stakeholder group and holds a position of
authority within the organization. The researcher maintained confidentiality to protect the
participants and the data while continuously stressing his role as a student and researcher for this
study.
The first delimitation associated with this study is the narrowness of the stakeholder
populace. Only senior officers (O5-O8) were surveyed and interviewed, not junior officers (O1-
O3), mid-grade officers (O4), or senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs E7-E9). A further
study should be initiated to gather the beliefs and opinions of the other stakeholders in regard to
mentorship. Second, the length of time chosen and specific dates meant the researcher had to
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 94
ensure data collection was prominent in the purview of the organization and did create a sense of
urgency. This had the potential to be part of the above-mentioned limitations.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 95
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that are affecting the senior officers of the LSM from achieving their
goal of 100% of junior officers mentored by October 2025. The questions that guided this study
were
1. What are the knowledge and motivation required by senior officers to create and
implement a program to mentor 100% of junior officers in the Large State Militia?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and senior officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can
assist with junior officer mentorship?
4. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were derived from
the related literature in Chapter Two in conjunction with reviews of LSM operations.
Knowledge influences assumed senior officers need to know (a) the Army’s definition of
mentorship, (b) the impacts of mentorship on the culture of the organization and retention of
junior officers, and (c) how to mentor junior officers. Motivation influences assumed senior
officers believe (a) the failure of junior officer retention is attributed to uncontrollable factors,
(b) they are not confident they can provide quality mentorship, (c) mentorship does not add value
their career goals or the organization’s goals, and (d) cost of time and effort does not have a
positive impact on the organization’s culture. Lastly, the assumed cultural models and settings
focused on the commitment of senior officers to mentor junior officers, attend a formalized
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 96
mentorship training program, provide communication and feedback, and for senior leaders to
recognize senior officers who model mentorship behavior.
As previously discussed in Chapter Three, a mixed-methods approach was used in this
study (Creswell, 2014). The mixed-methods approach combined quantitative and qualitative
data with document and artifact analysis to triangulate and validate data to answer the research
questions and validate the assumed influences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis of
current FMs, ADRPs, and OERs were utilized to build the knowledge questions of the survey
instrument. The survey instrument was administered to the senior officers of the LSM. Upon
analysis of the survey instrument, questions were designed, and qualitative interviews were
conducted. The results and findings of the data collected using these three methods is presented
in the form of knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The senior officers of the LSM are the stakeholder group of focus for this study, and
155senior officers made up of lieutenant colonels, colonels, brigadier generals and major
generals were available as participants. The survey was sent to the 155 potential participants,
and 10 return responses were received in relation to no longer being an active member of the
LSM, leaving 145 senior officers as potential participants. Seventy-three senior officers
responded to the survey out of the 145 potential participants for a 50.3% response rate. Table 6
shows the breakdown of participants by rank with most participants being lieutenant colonels.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 97
Table 6
Breakdown of Participant Ranks
Rank Number of Participants Percentage
Lieutenant Colonel (O5) 49 67.12%
Colonel (O6) 19 26.03%
Brigadier General (O7) 4 5.48%
Major General (O8) 1 1.37%

Table 7 displays the gender of the senior officers with the majority of the participants
being male.
Table 7
Gender of Participants
Gender Number of Participants Percentage
Male 67 91.78%
Female 4 5.48%
Prefer not to say 2 2.74%

The participants’ ethnicities are displayed in Table 8 and closely resemble the actual
ethnicity of the senior officer population of the LSM.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 98
Table 8
Ethnicity of Participants
Ethnicity Number of Participants Percentage
African American 1 1.39%
Asian 3 4.17%
White 52 72.22%
Hispanic 6 8.33%
Other 2 2.78%
More than one 4 5.66%
Prefer not to say 4 5.66%

Participants’ employment status is presented in two categories as full-time LSM
employees and M-Day (traditional militia), as displayed in Table 9. Most of the participants
(70%) were full-time employees.
Table 9
Employment Status of Participants
Status Number of Participants Percentage
Full-time Employee 49 70%
M-Day 21 30%

Table 10 displays the years of commissioned service amongst the senior officer
participants in four categories ranging as low as 15 years to as high as 32 years of commissioned
service as an officer.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 99
Table 10
Years of Commissioned Service
Year Category Number of Participants Percentage
15 years to 20 years 22 31.43%
21 years to 25 years 23 32.86%
26 years to 30 years 23 32.86%
More than 30 years 2 2.85%

Table 11 and Table 12 display whether or not the participants had or were currently
serving in battalion command and brigade command, respectively. Most participants had or
were serving in battalion command, as only 14 of the 73 (19.44%) participants have had or were
serving in brigade command.
Table 11
Battalion Command
Battalion Command Number of Participants Percentage
Yes 47 65.28%
No 25 34.72%

Table 12
Brigade Command
Brigade Command Number of Participants Percentage
Yes 14 19.44%
No 58 80.56%

At the end of the survey, participants were asked to leave contact information if
interested in participating in the interviews. Twenty-nine of the 73 (39.7%) participants
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 100
volunteered to be interviewed. Ten participants were selected based upon the interview sampling
criteria discussed in Chapter Three with three variations. Five O6s or above were selected
instead of six from Criterion 1 due to volunteer rate and availability. Five O5s who are
considered staff officers, instead of four O5s or O6s from Criterion 2, were selected due to
availability. The five participants are part of Table 11 with no battalion command experience.
Lastly, one participant was an M-Day (part-time) senior officer instead of all 10 full-time
employees from Criterion 3. A qualified and vetted lieutenant colonel interviewed the O5s while
the author interviewed the O6s and above to eliminate any undue influence due to rank. All 10
participants volunteered and agreed to participate in the interviews to assist with this study.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study was informed by a survey instrument, interviews, and document analysis.
Document analysis covering Army publications, OERs, and internal websites and publications to
the LSM were analyzed first to build the items in the survey instrument (see Appendix A for
document analysis rubric). This analysis of both external and internal organizational documents
substantiated assumed influences as assets or needs. Document analysis built a large portion of
the survey instrument (20 of the 40 survey items) and was used to support all the knowledge
questions and portions of both the motivation and organizational questions during the interviews.
Cut scores were used for both the survey instrument and interviews. A cut score is the lowest
score needed to meet an acceptable level of knowledge or performance based on its importance
to an organization (Zieky, Perie, & Livingston, 2006). The survey instrument utilized cut scores
of 85% for the survey items while the interview questions were given cut scores of 90%, 80%,
and 70% based upon the importance of the item in terms of knowledge or performance to the
LSM meeting its organizational goal. The answers given by participants during the survey
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 101
instrument and interview above the cut score deemed the item an asset, while scores below the
cut score were deemed a need.
The survey instrument posed 40 questions to 73 senior officers focused on confirming 11
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and needs that influence the senior officers’
ability to mentor junior officers (see Appendix B for survey instrument). A cut score of 85%
was used as the threshold for an item being deemed as an asset for all the items in the survey
instrument. Results from the survey instrument were used to design the interview questions.
The design of the interviews also focused on confirming 11 knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assets and needs. Eleven core questions were posed to 10 volunteer participants
who met the previously mentioned criteria by an independent interviewer and the author (see
Appendix C for interview protocol). Cut scores were given to the questions based upon the
importance and greatest impact to the organization. A cut score of 90% was used as the
threshold for two of the questions being an asset. A cut score of 70% was used as the threshold
for one of the questions being an asset. The remaining eight questions used a cut score of 80%
as the threshold for the questions being an asset. It was deemed unnecessary to interview more
than 10 participants because saturation of themes had been reached by the ninth participant.
Furthermore, due to the data gathered from document analysis in combination with the strong
responses from both the survey instrument and the interviews, triangulation of two qualitative
and one quantitative method yielded the necessary results.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
This study has assumed factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge influences affect
the LSM senior officers’ ability to provide quality mentorship to junior officers. Specifically, it
has assumed that senior officers need to know the definition of mentorship in the Army and that
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 102
it includes professional development, career guidance, and personal goals with established goals
(factual knowledge). In addition, this study assumed senior officers do not understand the
impacts that mentorship has on the culture of the organization and retention of junior officers
(conceptual knowledge). Finally, this study assumed senior officers do not know how to mentor
junior officers (procedural knowledge). The results and findings presented below are organized
in accordance with these assumptions.
Factual Knowledge
Senior officers need to know the definition of mentorship in the Army and that it
includes professional development, career guidance, and personal guidance with
established goals.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their knowledge of the Army’s definition
of mentorship through three questions with the intent that 85% would answer correctly to meet
the threshold of factual knowledge being an asset. In Question 13, senior officers were to
identify their knowledge by answering three elements of Army mentorship from FM 6-22
(Department of the Army, 2015) out of a list of five choices. The accuracy in answering the
question ranged from scores as low as 72.6% for one item and as high as 89% for another item,
as displayed in Table 13. Two items of the three correct answers were above the 85% threshold,
but all three of the answers needed to be above 85% to be considered an asset. Thus, knowledge
of the Army’s definition of mentorship is a need.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 103
Table 13
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s definition of mentorship
# Factual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
13 Identify all the elements of Army Mentorship
13a Career Goals 87.6% 64
13b Below the Zone Promotions 19.1% 14
13c Professional Goals 89.0% 65
13d Personal Goals 72.6% 53
13e Army writing 27.3% 20
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22 and the Army Mentorship Handbook
Question 14 asked the senior officers to identify their knowledge about what the Army
considers as the roles of a mentor. Six items were presented in the question with four items
being the correct answer from FM 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015). The accuracy in
answering the question ranged from scores as low as 49.3% for one item to as high as 89% for
another. One item answered was above the 85% threshold (89%) while the other three were
below 85% (49.3%, 67.1%, and 82.1%), as displayed in Table 14. All four items need to be
above 85% for this factual knowledge to be considered an asset, so their knowledge of what the
Army considers the role of mentors is a need.
Table 14
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s roles of a mentor
# Factual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
14 According to the Army, what are the roles of a mentor?
14a Leads 56.1% 41
14b Provides 67.1% 49
14c Shares 82.1% 60
14d Encourages 89.0% 65
14e Guides 87.6% 64
14f Serves 49.3% 36
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22 and the Army Mentorship Handbook
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 104
Question 15 asked the senior officers to identify the stages of mentorship. Five items
were presented with four of the items as the correct stages per the Army Mentorship Handbook
(2005). The accuracy in answering the question ranged from scores as low as 52% for one item
to as high as 84.9% for another item, as displayed in Table 15. None of the four items’ answers
broke the 85% threshold for understanding the Army’s four stages of mentorship; thus, it is
considered a need.
Table 15
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of the Army’s stages of mentorship
# Factual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
15 The stages of mentorship include all of the following:
15a Prescriptive Stage 52.0% 38
15b Role Modeling Stage 69.8% 51
15c Persuasive Stage 43.8% 32
15d Collaborative Stage 84.9% 62
15e Confirmative Stage 56.1% 41
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22 and the Army Mentorship Handbook
Question 16 asked the senior officers to identify resources that currently exist within the
organization that define mentorship in the Army. Five of the seven items listed were the correct
answers, as these items contain the definition, elements, stages of mentorship, and career
management of officers in the Army. Furthermore, Question 16 directly answers Research
Question 3 about existing available resources. The accuracy in answering the question ranged
from scores as low as 43.8% for two items to as high as 71.2% for one item, as displayed in
Table 16. None of the five correct items were answered met the 85% threshold for identifying
resources that currently exist in the organization that define and assist with mentorship in the
Army. Thus, factual knowledge of existing resources is a need for knowledge.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 105
Table 16
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of existing mentorship resources in the Army
# Factual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
16
What resources exist in the organization that defines
mentorship in the Army?

16a ADP 6-22 Army Leadership 65.7% 48
16b ADRP 6-22 Army Leadership 68.4% 50
16c FM 6-22 Leader Development 71.2% 52
16d The Army Mentorship Handbook 43.8% 32
16e AR 600-100 Army Profession and Leadership Policy 43.8% 32
16f The California Army National Guard Personnel Handbook 20.5% 15
16g
DA PAM 600-3 Commissioned Officer Professional
Development and Career Management
54.7% 40
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22 and the Army Mentorship Handbook
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about their knowledge of the Army’s
definition of mentorship to include the four elements (provides, shares, encourages, and serves)
with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering correctly to meet the threshold of
factual knowledge being an asset. All 10 participants were unable to recite the Army’s definition
from FM 6-22 or AR 600-100. Participant 5 stated “I can’t recite the definition verbatim,” with
similar responses from Participants 1, 3, and 6. Five of the 10 participants, however, were very
familiar with the Army’s definition and put it in their own words. Participant 9, for instance,
said,
The elements, I can’t rattle them off to you, I am not a dictionary, but what I will tell
though is mentorship in its simplest form is two humans interacting on a personal level,
and there’s a choice involved, which is different than leadership.
Similarly, Participants 7 and 10 knew which Army publications contained the Army’s definition,
as Participant 10 stated, “Not without going and looking at 6-22, I mean, for the definitive
answer that you’re looking for, but I have 6-22 over there.” Six participants were able to
articulate a definition of mentorship similar to the Army’s definition even though it was not
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 106
verbatim. Five of those participants were able to list the resources that contained the Army’s
mentorship definition. Less than 80% of the participants could describe the Army’s definition of
mentorship. Therefore, it is considered a need for factual knowledge.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed the
definition of mentorship has been in existence since 2005 and first published in the Army
Mentorship Handbook (2005). The definition has remained unchanged through the publication
of Army Regulation 600-100 Army Profession and Leadership Policy (Department of the Army,
2017). The four elements of mentorship or roles and responsibilities of a mentor are listed in
Table 3-2 on page 3-18 of FM 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015). A macro version of FM 6-
22, referred to as ADRP 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2012), also contains the definition of
mentorship but does not go into the same detail as FM 6-22. Because these publications exist
and are easily accessible as resources for senior officers, these documents are considered an asset
for factual knowledge.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers need to know the definition of
mentorship in the Army and that it includes professional development, career guidance, and
personal guidance with established goals was determined to be a need through the survey and
interviews. The assumed influence was considered an asset through document analysis because
definitions are clearly explained, making the documents a resource to senior officers. However,
even though the resources for mentorship exist as exhibited by the document analysis of four of
the Army’s publications, less than 85% of the senior officers who took the survey could identify
that professional development, career guidance, and personal guidance with established goals are
part of mentorship. Furthermore, less than 80% included any mention of professional
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 107
development, career guidance, and personal guidance with established goals in their version of
the Army’s definition of mentorship. Therefore, this factual knowledge influence is deemed a
need.
Conceptual Knowledge
Senior officers do not understand the impacts that mentorship has on the culture of
the organization and retention of junior officers.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their conceptual knowledge of the
impacts mentorship has on the retention rates of junior officers and its impact on the
organization’s culture through three questions with the intent of 85% of them answering
correctly to meet the threshold of conceptual knowledge being an asset. Question 17 asked the
senior officers to identify the benefits an organization receives from mentorship. Six items were
presented in the question with five items being the correct answer from FM 6-22 (Department of
the Army, 2015). The accuracy in answering the question ranged from scores as low as 50.6%
for one item to as high as 95.8% for another. Three items answered were above the 85%
threshold (87.5%, 91.7%. and 95.8%) while the other two were below 85% (79.4% and 50.6%),
as displayed in Table 17. All five items need to be above 85% for this conceptual knowledge to
be considered an asset. Thus, their knowledge of what the Army considers an organizational
benefit of mentorship is a need.
Table 17
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the impact of mentorship on retention and culture
# Conceptual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
17 Mentorship benefits the organization for the following reasons.
17a Leadership succession 79.4% 58
17b Increased retention 87.6% 64
17c Recruitment 50.6% 37
17d Improved performance 91.7% 67
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 108
Table 17, continued
# Conceptual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
17e Leader development 95.8% 70
17f Teamwork 72.6% 53
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22
Question 18 asked the senior officers to identify how mentorship junior officers impacts
organizations in the Army. Four of the five items listed were the correct answers from FM 6-22
(Department of the Army, 2015). The accuracy in answering the question ranged from scores as
low as 78.8% for one to as high as 94.5% for another item, as displayed in Table 18. Only one
of the four correct items that were answered met the 85% threshold for identifying how
mentorship of junior officers impacts organizations in the Army. Therefore, senior officers
conceptual knowledge of the impacts of junior officers with regards to the organization is a need.
Table 18
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the impacts of junior officer mentorship
# Conceptual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
18 Mentorship of junior officers impacts the organization how?
18a
Informs junior officers of the organization’s goals, values,
and expectations
80.8% 59
18b Informs junior officer of the next level of responsibility 80.8% 59
18c Enhances job satisfaction 78.8% 57
18d
Helps junior officers find their best fit within the
organization
94.5% 69
18e Assists with promotions 56.1% 41
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22
Question 19 asked the senior officers to identify the ways an organization benefits from
mentorship. Six items were presented in the question with all six items being the correct answers
from FM 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015). The accuracy in answering the question ranged
from scores as low as 72.6% for one item to as high as 93.1% for another. Two items answered
were above the 85% threshold (90.4% and 93.1%) while the other four were below 85% (72.6%,
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 109
80.8%, 82.1%, and 83.5%), as displayed in Table 19. All six items need to be above 85% for
this conceptual knowledge to be considered an asset, so their knowledge of what the Army
considers as organizational benefits from mentorship is a need.
Table 19
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of the organization benefits from mentorship
# Conceptual Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
19 Organizations benefit from mentorship in several ways.
19a Increased commitment from mentees 82.1% 60
19b Retention 83.5% 61
19c Enhanced job satisfaction 80.8% 59
19d Reduction in reasons to leave the organization 72.6% 53
19e Improved performance 93.1% 68
19f Culture of the organization 90.4% 66
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about their understanding of how
mentorship impacts the retention of junior officers and the culture of the organization, with the
intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering correctly to meet the threshold of conceptual
knowledge being an asset. All 10 participants discussed their idea of mentorship to junior
officers. However, only participant 9 described the impact a lack of mentorship has on retention
and the overall culture with
If we don’t invest now and across those that are willing, because here’s what scares me.
We don’t want to invest our time, resources for whatever reason, the top captains leave,
and we still need two majors, so we get the next two captains which are not the best. And
so, the impact on the organization is your talent pool could trend downward because the
top candidates are leaving.
Participant 8 took a different approach to the impacts of mentorship stating, “I think that’s
unfortunate; I think it’s evident that there’s a lack of mentorship that is happening. If it is
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 110
happening, then it is a positive impact on the organization, if it isn’t, then it is detrimental.”
Additionally, an increase in mentorship will have an increased impact on the culture as
participant 1 stated “I believe that mentorship will have a positive impact on our culture, if the
amount of mentorship and the quality of mentorship is increased.” Nine of the 10 participants
truly discussed the impacts that mentorship has on retention and the culture of the organization.
Thus, with less than 80% of the participants describing the impacts mentorship has on junior
officer retention and the culture of the organization, it is considered a need for conceptual
knowledge.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed the
impacts of mentorship on retention and the culture of the Army exist in two manuals. The Army
Mentorship Handbook (2005) lists the impacts on pages 6 and 7 under impacts of mentorship to
the Army. Field Manual 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015) lists the impacts of mentorship as
organizational benefits on pages 3-19 to 3-20. Because these publications exist and are easily
accessible as resources for senior officers, these documents are considered an asset for
conceptual knowledge.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers do not understand the impacts that
mentorship has on the culture of the organization and the retention of junior officers was
determined to be a need through the survey and interviews. The assumed influence is considered
an asset through document analysis because two publications describe the impacts of mentorship
on the organization making these documents a resource to senior officers. However, even
though the resources for mentorship exist as exhibited by the document analysis of two of the
Army’s publications, less than 85% of the senior officers who took the survey could identify the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 111
benefits and impacts on mentorship on both the organization and junior officers. Furthermore,
less than 80% of the participants interviewed discussed the benefits and impacts of mentorship
on the organization and junior officers. Therefore, this conceptual knowledge influence is
deemed a need.
Procedural Knowledge
Senior officers do not know how to mentor junior officers.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their procedural knowledge of how to
mentor junior officers through three questions with the intent of 85% of them answering
correctly to meet the threshold of procedural knowledge being an asset. In Question 20, senior
officers were to identify their knowledge of how to mentor junior officers by identifying five
skills. The question provided six items to choose from, and five of the items were the correct
skills from FM 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015). The accuracy in answering the question
ranged from scores as low as 71.2% for two items and as high as 97.2% for another item, as
displayed in Table 20. Two items of the five correct answers were above the 85% threshold.
However, all five of the answers needed to be above 85% to be considered an asset. Thus,
knowledge of the Army’s mentorship skills is a need.
Table 20
Survey Results for Knowledge of the Army’s Mentorship Skills
# Procedural Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
20 What should a mentor do when talking to a mentee?
20a Listen actively 97.2% 71
20b Hold back judgements 71.2% 52
20c Ask the right questions 82.1% 60
20d Provide feedback 93.1% 68
20e Resist distractions 71.2% 52
20f Relate Stories 49.3% 36
Bolded items are the correct items from FM 6-22
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 112
In Question 21, senior officers were given a brief scenario and asked how to conduct a
mentorship meeting with a junior officer. The question provided 10 items to choose from, and
all of the items were the correct actions to perform during the meeting from The Army
Mentorship Handbook (2005). The accuracy in answering the question ranged from scores as
low as 41% for one item and as high as 94.5% for another item, as displayed in Table 21. Two
items of the 10 correct answers were above the 85% threshold, but at least eight of the 10
answers needed to be above 85% to be considered an asset. Thus, knowledge of how to conduct
a mentorship meeting is considered a need.
Table 21
Survey Results for Knowledge on how to Conduct a Mentorship Meeting
# Procedural Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
21
Scenario: A junior officer asks you to provide mentorship and
give him/her guidance on the officer’s career path. The junior
officer has a different Military Occupation Specialty than you,
and no functional area or other specialties. What do you do?

21a Schedule a time to meet 84.9% 62
21b Review previous OERs and ORB 79.4% 58
21c Consult AR 600-2 with junior officer 56.1% 41
21d Consult your own experience 53.4% 39
21e Ask questions from the junior officer 86.3% 63
21f Listen 94.5% 69
21g Set goals for the junior officer 60.2% 44
21h Lay out a plan 68.4% 50
21i Document the conversation 41% 30
21j Schedule a follow-up conversation 73.9% 54
Bolded items are the correct items from The Army Mentorship Handbook
In Question 22, senior officers were asked how to give mentorship guidance to junior
officers. The question provided six items to choose from, and all the items were the correct
items for giving mentorship guidance from the Army Mentorship Handbook (2005). The
accuracy in answering the question ranged from scores as low as 69.8% for one item and as high
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 113
as 94.5% for another item, as displayed in Table 22. Four of the six correct answers were above
the 85% threshold, but at least five needed to be above 85% to be considered an asset. Thus,
knowledge of how to conduct a mentorship meeting is considered need.
Table 22
Survey Results for Knowledge on how to Conduct Mentorship
# Procedural Knowledge Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
22 Mentors give guidance to the junior officers on the following.
22a Personal Goals 69.8% 51
22b Education 86.3% 63
22c Professional Goals 94.5% 69
22d Career 91.7% 67
22e Promotions 71.2% 52
22f Future Assignments 93.1% 68
Bolded items are the correct items from The Army Mentorship Handbook
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about their understanding of how to
mentor junior officers seeking mentorship, with the intent of 90% (nine out of 10) of the senior
officers answering correctly to meet the threshold of procedural knowledge being an asset. Four
participants admitted that they did not know how to mentor junior officers. Multiple methods
exist in how to mentor others, such as an individual development plan (IDP) as described in the
Army Mentorship Handbook (2005). Participant 1, for example, knows about IDPs but has never
used it stating, “I have not really gone into a whole lot of an individual development plan [IDP]
with career, family, and school tracks for them.” Participant 3 did not know that the Army had
resources that discuss how to mentor others and responded with “Absolutely not. I am trying to
Google it” when asked about his knowledge of the resources. Additionally, participant 6 had a
similar response when asked how to mentor junior officers: “I can say that I’m not, I don’t have
them in my pocket, but I need to have those other products, and I need to research them, and look
at what they have so I am better prepared.” The six participants who stated that they could
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 114
mentor junior officers were able to walk through the details of how they conduct mentorship.
For instance, Participant 7 stated, “I have enough tools I can reach out. I walk them through a
timeline of their entire career using the tools.” Participant 9 reiterated the use of resources while
conducting mentorship, stating, “But I know where to go to find the information and I go there
first. I look at it. It makes sense to me. I read it and then we have a dialogue with the officer.”
With less than 90% of the participants being able to describe how to mentor junior officers,
procedural knowledge is, therefore, considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed
procedures (guidance) on how to conduct mentorship in two manuals. The Army Mentorship
Handbook (2005) describes procedural guidance on how to conduct mentorship on pages 21 to
36. The manual details four stages of the process, describes the use of communication, listening,
and feedback while also detailing the suggested mannerisms to use as the mentor. Field Manual
6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015) lists the responsibilities and skills required of mentors on
pages 3-20 to 3-21. Because these publications exist and are easily accessible as resources for
senior officers, these documents are considered assets for procedural knowledge.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers do not know how to mentor junior
officers was determined to be a need through the survey and interviews. The assumed influence
is considered an asset through document analysis because two publications describe how to
conduct mentorship of others, making these documents a resource to senior officers. However,
even though the resources for mentorship exist, as exhibited by the analysis of two of the Army’s
publications, less than 85% of the senior officers who took the survey could identify the
procedures for conducting a mentorship meeting, the topics that could be discussed, and the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 115
mannerisms of a mentor during mentorship meetings. Furthermore, less than 90% of the
participants interviewed could describe how to mentor junior officers. Therefore, this procedural
knowledge influence is deemed a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
This study also assumed motivation influences derived from attribution theory, self-
efficacy, and expectancy value theory in the form of utility value and cost value that affect the
senior officers’ ability to provide quality mentorship to junior officers. The hypothesis of this
study was that senior officers believe the failure of junior officers’ retention rates are attributed
to uncontrollable factors. Furthermore, senior officers are not confident they can provide quality
mentorship to junior officers. These beliefs lead senior officers into assuming that mentorship
does not add value to their career goals or the organization’s goals. Lastly, senior officers need
to see the cost of time and effort put into mentorship yields a reward of a positive impact on the
organization and its culture. The results and findings associated with these assumed motivation
influences are discussed in the sections that follow.
Attribution
Senior officers believe the failure of retention rates of junior officers is attributed to
uncontrollable factors.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief that the failure of retention
rates of junior officers is attributed to uncontrollable factors through three questions with the
intent of 85% of the senior officers answering correctly to meet the threshold of motivation
attributions being an asset. Question 23 asked senior officers to identify their belief of what
uncontrollable factors are attributed to of junior officers’ retention rates. Five items were listed,
all of which are controllable by leadership, and a sixth choice allowed participants to fill in an
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 116
answer. Table 23 shows number participants out of 73 that checked each of the controllable
items. Forty participants checked “other” and gave responses of toxic leadership, family,
organizational culture, career management, job satisfaction, and OPTEMPO. Of note, answers
23b through 23e are part of OPTEMPO. With regards to the filled-in responses, family is the
one factor that leaders in the organization cannot control which and to which junior officer
retention is attributable. Seven (9.6%) participants answered the question of “other” with this
answer. All the responses, with the exception of family, are controllable attributions through
leadership, mentorship and communication. Thus, attributions for motivation causes is
considered a need.
Table 23
Survey Results for Motivation on the Perceived Impacts on Retention Rates
# Motivation - Attribution Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
23
I believe that junior officer retention rates are attributed to the
following factors: (Check all that apply).

23a Upward mobility 65.8% 48
23b MUTA 8s 35.6% 26
23c Civil Support Missions 47.9% 35
23d Deployments 57.5% 42
23e Civilian Occupation 78.1% 57
23f Other 57.8% 40

In Question 24, senior officers were asked their belief about factors beyond their control
which are attributed to junior officers’ retention rates. The question provided six items on a
Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any
form of Agree believe that factors beyond their control affect junior officer retention rates,
whereas those participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that factors that affect
junior officer retention rates are controllable. Forty-six (63%) participants checked a form of
Agree, believing that factors beyond their control affect junior officer retention rates. Twenty-
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 117
seven (37%) participants checked some form of Disagree, as displayed in Table 24. More than
half of the participants believe uncontrollable factors affect junior officer retention rates; thus, it
is considered a need.
Table 24
Survey Results for Motivation on how Uncontrollable Factors attribute to Retention Rates
# Motivation - Attribution Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
24 I believe that factors beyond my control attribute to retention
rates.

24a Strongly Disagree 6.9% 5
24b Disagree 13.9% 10
24c Somewhat Disagree 16.7% 12
24d Somewhat Agree 31.9% 23
24e Agree 19.4% 14
24f Strongly Agree 11.1% 8
Bolded items are the correct items for controllable factors
In Question 25, senior officers were asked their belief about the attributions of junior
officers leaving the organization. The question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging from
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Agree believe that
reasons junior officers leave the organization are not attributed to them, whereas those
participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that factors that reasons junior officers
leave the organization are attributed to them. Twenty-three (32%) participants checked a form of
Disagree, believing that reasons junior officers leave the organization are attributed to them.
Forty-nine (68%) participants believe that junior officers leave the organization for reasons not
attributed to them, as displayed in Table 25. Thus, senior officers believing junior officers leave
the organization for reasons not attributed to senior officers is considered a need.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 118
Table 25
Survey Results for Motivation on how to retention is not attributed to senior officers
# Motivation - Attribution Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
25 Junior officers leave the organization for reasons that are not
attributed to me.

25a Strongly Disagree 4.2% 3
25b Disagree 5.6% 4
25c Somewhat Disagree 22.2% 16
25d Somewhat Agree 25% 18
25e Agree 27.8% 20
25f Strongly Agree 15.3% 11
Bolded items are the correct items for attribution
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about their belief that the failure of the
junior officers’ retention rates is attributed to uncontrollable factors with the intent of 70%
(seven out of 10) of the senior officers answering correctly to meet the threshold of motivation -
attribution being an asset. Seven of the 10 participants blamed the low junior officers’ retention
rates on a combination of factors. Participant 3, for instance, stated,
Well, there’s a number of them. I’ll start with the economy. Anytime the economy is
good, talent can go elsewhere. At a certain point, it’s called the point of diminishing
returns. We ask so much of an individual that it starts to impact their personal lives and
their economic well-being and their job.
Participant 8 expanded on the economic and personal life factor adding,
I think some of the variables are the civilian workforce, employment, pay, the time and
OPTEMPO, depending on the organization. The other variable is the success of the
leader, usually guys that are successful in the organization they might have a successful
career on the outside too which is competing.
The mention of OPTEMPO was the most common theme from six of the 10 participants.
Participant 1 attributed the retention rate to state missions:
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 119
I hear a lot of discussion about the impact of civil support responses, over and over and
over. I believe that there is probably validity to that argument and that concern that
certain units are impacted negatively because of repetitive civil support responses.
With less than 70% of the participants believing that the factors mentioned were controllable,
motivation - attribution is, therefore, considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed no
mention of controlling factors for low officer retention rates. Furthermore, the LSM recruiting
and retention office keeps exit interviews on file for enlisted service members as they leave the
LSM. No such interviews are done for officers after they decide to resign their commission
before or after their 8-year service obligation. Because documents do not exist to track and
research officer resignations, document analysis for motivation attribution is considered a need.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers believe the failure of junior
officers’ retention rates is attributed to uncontrollable factors was determined to be a need
through the survey, interviews, and document analysis. Less than 85% of the senior officers who
took the survey could disagree that the reasons junior officers leave the organization are due to
factors that senior officers cannot control. Furthermore, less than 70% of the participants could
make the link between the factors they believe are attributed to low junior officer retention rates
and controllability. Lastly, document analysis determined that the LSM does not conduct exit
interviews for junior officers leaving the organization. Therefore, this motivation attribution
influence is deemed a need.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 120
Self-Efficacy
Senior officers are not confident they can provide quality mentorship to junior
officers.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their level of confidence to provide
quality mentorship to junior officers through three questions with the intent of 85% of the senior
officers answering correctly to meet the threshold of motivation - self-efficacy being an asset.
Question 26 asked senior officers to identify their level of confidence in giving mentorship to
junior officers in a variety of topics where known resources exist in the LSM. The five items
listed were the most sought mentorship topics from the Army Mentorship Handbook (2005).
Table 26 shows the number of participants and the mean score for each topic of mentorship. The
level of confidence in the various topics of mentorship ranged from the lowest mean of 7.20 for
Personal Goals to the highest mean of 8.92 for Military Education. One item was above the 85%
threshold with a mean score of 8.92. The other four items were below the threshold with scores
of 8.42, 8.32, 7.58 and 7.20, respectively. Therefore, the self-efficacy of senior officers to
provide quality mentorship is a need for the LSM.
Table 26
Survey Results for Motivation on the Self-efficacy of Senior Officers
# Motivation - Self-efficacy Item Mean Count
26 If you were asked to mentor a junior officer in various
aspects, how confident are you that you can mentor the officer
on the areas below? (0 as the lowest and 10 as the highest in
confidence.

26a Career Management 8.42 72
26b Military Education 8.92 72
26c Civilian Education 8.32 72
26d Personal Goals 7.20 70
26e Full-time employment opportunities in the LSM 7.58 72

In Question 27, senior officers were asked about their level of confidence in providing
mentorship to junior officers outside of their branch. The question provided six items on a Likert
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 121
scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of
Agree believe that they can provide mentorship to junior officers who are not in the same branch
of the LSM as themselves. Senior officers who checked any form of Disagree believe that they
cannot provide mentorship to junior officers outside their branch. Table 27 shows that 1 (1.3%)
participant checked a form of Disagree, believing that they could not mentor a junior officer
outside of their branch. Seventy-one (98.6%) participants checked some form of Agree,
believing that they could mentor outside of their branch. Most participants believe that they can
mentor junior officers outside of their branch, so it is considered an asset for the LSM.
Table 27

Survey Results for Motivation on the Confidence of Senior Officers to Mentor Outside Their
Branch

# Motivation - Self-efficacy Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
27 I can provide mentorship to junior officers outside my branch
right now.

27a Strongly Disagree 1.3% 1
27b Disagree 0% 0
27c Somewhat Disagree 0% 0
27d Somewhat Agree 19.4% 14
27e Agree 44.4% 32
27f Strongly Agree 34.7% 25
Bolded items are the correct confidence level for self-efficacy
In Question 28, senior officers were asked if they were confident they knew where to
find resources to assist with mentorship. The question provided six items on a Likert scale
ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Agree
believe that they know where to find resources to assist with mentorship, whereas those
participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that they cannot find resources to assist
with mentorship. Table 28 shows that eight (11.1%) participants checked a form of Disagree,
believing that they do not know where to locate resources to assist with mentorship. Sixty-four
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 122
(88.9%) participants believe that they can find the resources necessary to assist with mentorship.
Most participants believe that they can find the resources to assist with mentorship; thus, it is
considered an asset for the LSM.
Table 28
Survey Results for Motivation on Confidence Level of Senior Officers with Mentorship Resources
# Motivation - Self-efficacy Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
28 I know where to find resources to assist with mentorship
28a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
28b Disagree 4.2% 3
28c Somewhat Disagree 6.9% 5
28d Somewhat Agree 19.4% 14
28e Agree 36.1% 26
28f Strongly Agree 33.3% 24
Bolded items are the correct confidence level for self-efficacy
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about their level of confidence in
providing quality mentorship to junior officers with the intent of 90% (nine out of 10) of senior
officers answering positively about their confidence to meet the threshold of motivation - self-
efficacy being an asset. Six of the 10 participants were very confident in their abilities to provide
quality mentorship to junior officers. Participant 9 demonstrated his confidence when he said,
I do it all the time. I use resources, and look at ORBs, OERs, DA Photos. I am confident.
I have administered mentorship to 11s, to 19s, to JAGs, to Field Artilleryman, whoever.
Because I’m committed and willing to invest, but it takes work. It takes personal
investment on the leader’s part and the mentor’s part to figure it out.
Additionally, Participant 8 expressed his level of confidence with “I feel very confident
providing mentorship to junior officers, it’s one of the things I love to do.” However, four
participants were not that confident about their abilities to provide quality mentorship.
Participant 6, for instance, stated he was confident but admitted he did not know what goes into a
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 123
command packet: “I do it all the time, I am always talking to people, but as far as the stuff within
the military department, like what goes into a battalion command packet, no idea.” Similarly,
participant 3 wavered on his confidence level, stating, “I think I could do it, and I could
definitely muddle through it. Confidence is medium let’s say.” With less than 90% of the
participants believing that they can provide quality mentorship to junior officers, motivation -
self-efficacy is, therefore, considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. After review of manuals, OERs, and internal training documents to
the LSM, no evidence exists that displays, adds to, or builds the level of confidence in senior
officers to provide quality mentorship to junior officers. Therefore, document analysis for self-
efficacy in senior officers to mentor junior officers is considered a need, and an internal
document should be created that assists senior officers in building self-efficacy to mentor junior
officers.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers are not confident they can provide
quality mentorship to junior officers was determined to be a need through interviews and
document analysis. More than 85% of the senior officers answered two of the three questions
that expressed a high level of confidence in mentoring junior officers, resulting in an asset for the
survey questions. However, less than 90% of the participants expressed their level of confidence
in their abilities to provide quality mentorship in the interviews. The lack of confidence during
the interviews negates the survey questions because four of the 10 of interview participants
stated they needed assistance or could not provide mentorship to others outside of their comfort
zone. Lastly, document analysis determined that the LSM does not display nor possess any
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 124
documents or artifacts that build or add to the senior officers level of confidence to provide
quality mentorship. Therefore, this self-efficacy influence is deemed a need.
Utility Value
Senior officers believe that mentorship does not add value to their career goals or
the organization’s goals.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief that mentorship adds value to
their career goals or the organization’s career goals through two questions with the intent of 85%
of them answering correctly to meet the threshold of motivation - utility being an asset.
Question 29 asked senior officers to identify their belief that mentorship of junior officers adds
value to the organization’s goals. The question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging from
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Agree believe that
mentorship of junior officers adds value to the organization’s goals. Senior officers who
checked any form of Disagree believe that mentorship of junior officers does not add value to the
organization’s goals. Table 29 shows that 1 (1.4%) participant checked a form of Disagree,
believing that mentorship of junior officers does not add value to the organization’s goals.
Seventy-one (98.6%) participants checked some form of Agree, believing that junior officer
mentorship adds value to the organization’s goals. Most participants believe that mentorship of
junior officers adds value to the organization’s goals, thus it is considered an asset for the LSM.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 125
Table 29
Survey Results for Mentorship adding Value to the Organization’s Goals
# Motivation - Utility Value Item (n = 73) Percentage Count
29 My mentorship of junior officers adds value to the
organization’s goals.

29a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
29b Disagree 1.4% 1
29c Somewhat Disagree 0% 0
29d Somewhat Agree 1.4% 1
29e Agree 36.1% 26
29f Strongly Agree 62.5% 45
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for utility value
In Question 30, senior officers were asked whether they believe that the mentorship of
junior officers added value to their own career goals. The question provided six items on a
Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any
form of Agree believe that mentorship of junior officers adds value to their own career goals.
Participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that junior officer mentorship does not
add value to their own career goals. Table 30 shows that three (4.3%) participants checked a
form of Disagree, believing that junior officer mentorship does not add value to their own career
goals. Sixty-seven (95.7%) participants checked some form of Agree, believing that junior
officer mentorship adds value to their own career goals. Most participants believe that
mentorship of junior officers adds value to their own career goals, so it is considered an asset for
the LSM.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 126
Table 30
Survey Results for Mentorship adding Value to Senior Officer’s Career Goals
# Motivation - Utility Value Item (n = 70) Percentage Count
30 My mentorship of junior officers adds value to my career
goals.

30a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
30b Disagree 4.3% 3
30c Somewhat Disagree 0% 0
30d Somewhat Agree 11.4% 8
30e Agree 50% 35
30f Strongly Agree 34.3% 24
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for utility value
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked to describe how the mentorship of others
impacts their own career and that of the organization, with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of
them answering positively about the value of mentoring others being an asset. Nine of the 10
participants stated that mentorship of others had a positive impact on both the organization and
their own career. Participant 2, for instance, believes that mentorship adds value to the
organization when stated “For the organization it’s important because I think the organization
grows more depth and more curated emotional intelligence for who is leading their organizations
and who can fill capabilities.” Participant 8 added to the point of the impact mentorship has on
the organization, stating, “I think the development and the mentorship and coaching of our young
officers is the most important thing we can do, it leaves the biggest impact or the most important
legacy with the organization.” Participant 9 focused his comments about the reward he feels
from mentorship to others, adding,
So, for me it was personally rewarding to have people come back and then dialogue. I
love talking, just getting that interaction personally and professionally. It’s rewarding to
see them succeed because what it does for me is add legacy.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 127
With more than 80% of the participants describing the positive impacts of the mentorship of
others on their own careers and the organization, motivation utility value is, therefore, considered
an asset.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed the value
mentorship adds to the careers of the mentor, mentee, and the Army in two manuals. The Army
Mentorship Handbook (2005) describes the value mentorship of others has on the careers of both
mentor and mentee as well the impact it has on the Army on pages 5 to 6 of the manual. Field
Manual 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015) lists the value of mentorship in the form of
benefits to the mentor, mentee, and the Army on pages 3-19 to 3-20. Because these publications
exist and are easily accessible as resources for senior officers, these documents are considered
assets for motivation utility value.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers believe that mentorship does not
add value to their career goals or the organization’s goals was determined to be an asset through
the survey, interviews, and document analysis. More than 85% of the senior officers who took
the survey agreed that the mentorship of junior officers added value to the organization’s goals
and their own careers. Furthermore, more than 80% of the senior officers interviewed stated
mentorship of junior officers created a legacy for the organization as well as brought value and
reward to their own careers. Lastly, document analysis determined that two Army publications
emphasize the value that mentorship of others adds to the careers of the mentor, mentee, and to
the Army. Therefore, this motivation utility value influence is deemed an asset.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 128
Cost Value
Senior leaders need to see the cost of time and effort put into mentorship yields a
reward of a positive impact on the organization and its culture.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify the cost value of time and effort put into
mentorship as yielding a reward of positive impacts on the organization and its culture through
three questions with the intent of 85% of them answering correctly to meet the threshold of
motivation - cost value being an asset. Question 31 asked senior officers to identify their level of
belief that their mentorship of junior officers contributes to the culture of the organization. The
question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Participants who checked any form of Agree believe that their mentorship of junior officers
contributes to the culture of the organization. Participants who checked any form of Disagree
believe that their mentorship of junior officers does not contribute to the culture of the
organization. Table 31 shows that 0 (0%) participants checked a form of Disagree, and all
checked some form of Agree, believing that junior officer mentorship contributes to the culture
of the organization. All participants believe that mentorship of junior officers contributes to the
culture of the organization, so it is considered an asset for the LSM.
Table 31
Survey Results for Belief that Mentorship Contributes to the Culture of the Organization
# Motivation - Cost Value Item (n = 70) Percentage Count
31 My mentorship of junior officers contributes to the culture of
the organization.

31a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
31b Disagree 0% 0
31c Somewhat Disagree 0% 0
31d Somewhat Agree 1.4% 1
31e Agree 42.9% 30
31f Strongly Agree 55.7% 39
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for cost value
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 129
In Question 32, senior officers were asked their belief about the time and effort put into
mentorship yield a reward of a positive impact on the organization. The question provided six
items on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who
checked any form of Agree believe that their time and effort put into mentorship yields a positive
impact on the organization. Participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that the time
and effort they put into mentorship does not positively impact the organization. Table 32 shows
that one (1.3%) participant checked a form of Disagree, believing that their time and effort put
into mentorship does not positively impact the organization. Seventy-one (98.6%) participants
checked some form of Agree, believing that their time and effort put into mentorship yields a
positive impact on the organization. Most participants believe that their time and effort put into
mentorship yields a reward of a positive impact on the organization; thus, it is considered an
asset for the LSM.
Table 32
Survey Results for Mentorship Yielding a Positive Impact on the Organization
# Motivation - Cost Value Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
32 The time and effort that I put into mentorship yields a reward
of a positive impact on the organization.

32a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
32b Disagree 0% 0
32c Somewhat Disagree 1.3% 1
32d Somewhat Agree 4.2% 3
32e Agree 47.2% 34
32f Strongly Agree 47.2% 34
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for cost value
In Question 33, senior officers were asked their belief about their efforts into mentorship
and the impacts on both the junior officer and the organizational culture. The question provided
six items on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who
checked any form of Agree believe that their efforts put into mentorship impact junior officers
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 130
and the organizational culture. Participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that their
efforts put into mentorship does not impact junior officers and the organizational culture. Table
33 shows that 0 (0%) participants checked a form of Disagree, all checked some form of Agree,
believing that their efforts put into mentorship impacts junior officers and the organizational
culture. All participants believe that their efforts put into mentorship impact both the junior
officer and the organizational culture, so it is considered an asset for the LSM.
Table 33
Survey Results for Effort and Impacts on Junior Officers and the Organizational Culture
# Motivation - Cost Value Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
33 The effort I put into mentorship impacts the junior officer and
the organizational culture.

33a Strongly Disagree 0% 0
33b Disagree 0% 0
33c Somewhat Disagree 0% 0
33d Somewhat Agree 5.6% 4
33e Agree 44.4% 32
33f Strongly Agree 50% 36
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for cost value
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked to describe how their time and effort put
into mentorship is value added with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering
positively about their time and effort into mentorship being an asset. Eight of the 10 participants
stated that the time and effort put into mentorship added value to the organization. Participant 2
believes his efforts into mentorship benefit the organization long-term while building a network:
“My time in mentorship is value added because it affords the organization an opportunity to have
a deeper branch of qualified personnel that I have contact and trust with.” Participant 4 believes
time spent on mentorship adds value to the organization by making people feel part of the
organization, which, in turn, adds to retention: “It makes people feel valued in the organization,
that you take the time to at least say that, and if they don’t feel valued, this younger generation
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 131
doesn’t stay.” Additionally, Participant 8’s response focused on time on mentorship equals
quality organization: “The amount of time you invest in your leaders will translate and transcend
to the quality of the organization.” With 80% of the participants describing the positive impacts
of time and effort put into the mentorship of others, motivation cost value is, therefore,
considered an asset.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of several of the Army’s publications revealed the value
mentorship adds to the Army in two manuals. The Army Mentorship Handbook (2005) describes
the impacts mentorship of others has on the Army on pages 5 to 6 of the manual. Field Manual
6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015) lists the value of mentorship in the form of benefits to the
Army on pages 3-19 to 3-20. Because these publications exist and are easily accessible as
resources for senior officers, these documents are considered assets for motivation cost value.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers need to see the cost of time and
effort into mentorship yields a reward of a positive impact on the organization and its culture was
determined to be an asset through the survey, interviews, and document analysis. More than
85% of the senior officers who took the survey agreed that the time and effort put into the
mentorship of junior officers yielded a positive impact on the culture, the organization, and the
junior officer. Two of the three survey questions yielded results of 100% agreement on the
positive impacts. Moreover, 80% of the senior officers interviewed stated their efforts and time
put into mentorship yielded positive impacts on the organization. Lastly, document analysis
determined that two Army publications describe the benefits and impacts of mentorship to the
Army. Therefore, this motivation cost value influence is deemed an asset.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 132
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
In addition to knowledge and motivation influences, this study assumed that
organizational influences affect the senior officers’ ability to provide quality mentorship to junior
officers. According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), cultural models are the processes, or
way things are done, that are the invisible norms of the organization. Furthermore, Gallimore
and Goldenberg state cultural settings create the cultural model. These settings have created
processes (models) which have potentially impacted the mentorship of junior officers, leading to
low retention rates. This is the framework from which the assumed organizational influences
were derived. For cultural models, this study assumed that a culture of commitment exists
amongst senior officers to formally mentor junior officers and to attend mentorship training and
affect organizational change. For cultural settings, this study further assumed that senior officers
are committed to providing communication and feedback to junior officers to build transparency
within the organization and that senior leadership acknowledges senior officers who promote
enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior. The results and findings that follow are
organized in accordance with these assumed cultural model and setting influences.
Cultural Models
There is a culture of commitment amongst senior officers to mentor junior officers
formally (commitment not just informally; occasional).
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief in a culture of commitment
amongst the senior officer corps to mentor junior officers through one straightforward question
with the intent of 85% of the senior officers answering correctly to meet the threshold of cultural
model being an asset. Question 34 asked senior officers to identify their level of belief that a
culture of commitment to mentor junior officers exists amongst senior officers,. The question
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 133
provided six items on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Participants who checked any form of Agree believe that a culture of commitment to mentor
junior officers exists amongst senior officers. Participants who checked any form of Disagree
believe that a culture of commitment to provide mentorship of junior officers does not exist
amongst senior officers. Table 34 shows that 28 (38.9%) of the participants checked a form of
Agree, believing that a culture of commitment to mentor junior officers exists amongst senior
officers. Forty-four (61.1%) participants checked some form of Disagree, believing that a
culture of commitment to mentor junior officers does not exist amongst senior officers.
Therefore, a culture of commitment to mentor junior officers is considered a need for the LSM.
Table 34
Survey Results for Commitment of Senior Officers to Mentor
# Cultural Model - Influence 1 Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
34 There is a culture of commitment amongst senior officers to
mentor junior officer formally.

34a Strongly Disagree 11.1% 8
34b Disagree 25% 18
34c Somewhat Disagree 25% 18
34d Somewhat Agree 22.2% 16
34e Agree 11.1% 8
34f Strongly Agree 5.6% 4
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for a culture of commitment
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about the commitment of peers to
conduct mentorship with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering positively about
the commitment mentorship being an asset. Nine of the 10 participants stated in various forms
that there is a lack of commitment to mentor junior officers amongst senior officers. The
participants were divided over issues with the commitment to conduct mentorship, as some cited
lack of command emphasis focusing senior officers on other priorities. Participant 9 responded
citing an obvious lack emphasis quoting the colonel response rate to the survey item:
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 134
A candid answer is I would tell you is you have 17 colonels in your formation and,
whatever the other number is, subtract it from 42, and those are the dudes drawing a
paycheck. So, what shows is the level of importance placed on mentorship. It’s not
prioritized or important to the organization. Clearly, if it was, they would have
responded.
Additionally, Participant 3 cited emphasis on training versus mentorship: “As a senior
officer, if you’re going to commit to it, it now has to be an organizational priority, that means
maybe we can’t do 15 warfighters and seven NTC rotations in the next five years.” Some of the
participants believe that the command group should make mentorship a formalized program.
Participant 5 believes that, if it is not formalized, senior officers will fake it, stating, “So, I think
that, until it is a formalized program from the top, I think that other senior officers aren’t going to
participate, just wordsmith it.” However, though every participant agreed that mentorship should
be a priority with command emphasis, some were skeptical about formalizing mentorship into a
set program. Participant 10 was very much against a formalized program stating that it diminish
mentorship:
So, you’ve got to be really careful about getting such a formalized process. That’s why
I’ve been kind of fearful when we’ve had these discussions about this. If you
bureaucratize it so badly it will falter, it will fail, it won’t last the length of time. And,
instead, I want to have really great leaders. And, so, can we make really good leaders
who mentor? Because I understand that they’re grooming up the future great leaders.
And, if we can do that triad, then we probably going to be way better for it than some
new process out there or a new document about mentorship. Because 6-22 is already laid
out the framework. It’s there. They just need to learn it, live it, follow it, stay on the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 135
attributes as laid out in Chapter 6. So, I’d be very careful about how you articulate
formalization of mentorship. And be very careful of making it so bureaucratic that it
turns into just another OER Support Form which is worthless.
With less than 80% of the participants stating that senior officers are committed to mentoring
junior officers, this cultural model influence of commitment to mentorship is, therefore,
considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of the LSM’s internal documents revealed a Strategic
Leader Development trifold (2013) with a three-paragraph section dedicated to defining
mentorship for the LSM. The opening sentence of the mentorship section states, “Mentorship is
critical to the success of the LSM.” However, the rest of the section focuses mentorship in
relation to building strategic thinkers and leaders. The Strategic Leader Development trifold was
developed and published in 2013. When senior officers were asked if they had seen it, the
response was negative. The existence of the trifold adds value to the LSM mentorship
commitment. However, because it is not dedicated to mentorship and focused more on the
development of strategic leaders and because no one is aware that the trifold exists, this
document is considered a need for this cultural model influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that there is a culture of commitment to formally
mentor junior officers amongst senior officers was determined to be a need through the survey,
interviews, and document analysis. Less than 85% of the senior officers who took the survey
could agree that the commitment to mentor junior officers formally exists within the
organization. Furthermore, less than 80% of the participants believe that there is a culture of
commitment amongst senior officers in the LSM to mentor junior officers. Lastly, document
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 136
analysis determined that the LSM does have a trifold handout with a commitment to mentorship
from the command group, but it is focused on the development of strategic thinkers and leaders
and no senior officer participant knew the document existed. Therefore, this cultural model
influence is deemed a need.
There is a culture of commitment amongst the senior officers to attend mentorship
training and effect change.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief in a culture of commitment
amongst the senior officer corps to attend mentorship training and effect change through one
straightforward question with the intent of 85% of them answering correctly to meet the
threshold of cultural model being an asset. Question 35 asked senior officers to identify their
level of belief that a culture of commitment exists amongst the senior officer corps to attend
mentorship training and effect change. The question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Agree believe
that a culture of commitment exists amongst senior officers to attend mentorship training.
Participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that a culture of commitment does not
exist amongst senior officers to attend mentorship training. Table 35 shows that 26 (36.1%)
participants checked a form of Agree ,believing that a culture of commitment exists amongst
senior officers to attend mentorship training. Forty-six (63.9%) participants checked some form
of Disagree, believing that a culture of commitment does not exist amongst senior officers to
attend mentorship training. Therefore, a culture of commitment of senior officers to attend
mentorship training is considered a need for the LSM.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 137
Table 35
Survey Results for Commitment of Senior Officers to attend Mentorship Training
# Cultural Model - Influence 2 Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
35 There is a culture of commitment amongst the senior officers
to attend mentorship training

35a Strongly Disagree 12.5% 9
35b Disagree 29.2% 21
35c Somewhat Disagree 22.2% 16
35d Somewhat Agree 20.8% 15
35e Agree 9.7% 7
35f Strongly Agree 5.6% 4
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for a culture of commitment
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked about the commitment of peers to attend
mentorship training, with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering positively about
the commitment to attend mentorship training being an asset. Six of the 10 participants
answered positively they would attend training. Participant 8, for instance, was very excited
about the potential for mentorship training, stating, “Yeah, I would totally be willing to do it, in a
heartbeat.” Participant 9 echoed a similar response, calling out those who responded negatively,
stating, “Yeah, I would do it yesterday. Why aren’t we doing it already? Anyone who answered
no should question why they are in the [LSM], especially at the O6 level. Mentorship is
important, it’s a pillar.” Participant 4 started out positively about attending mentorship training
replying “Well, I mean my attitude is that I can learn something everywhere, so I would want to
go,” but then relayed his concern about the conduct of the training, stating, “I think that it would
be important to find speakers that garner respect from peers, if the person that you’re putting up
there is the wrong person, then I think it’ll lose the interest of the audience that’s there.”
Four of the interview participants were not positive about the commitment of senior
officers to attend training due to the conduct of the training. Participant 7 believes that the
training would be conducted by the wrong senior officers:
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 138
I’d say I’d have a difficult time right now if the organization created such a training event
because there’s people who truly believe that they’re great mentors and they’re not, and
they would be the one putting on the training.
Participant 7 continued further to discuss the potential of the training by comparing it to another
state’s leadership conference:
I would say I saw what those events could be, I was asked to speak at Middle State
Militia Leadership Conference, and I was totally taken aback about the quality caliber of
speakers and structure and the approach of the Middle State Militia. Ours are not like
that. To me, ours are a complete waste of time and resources with death by PowerPoint.
Participant 10 echoed similar thoughts of the training turning mentorship into a bureaucratic
process, stating,
That individualistic connection that you make by trying to formalize a process over here
in such a way that it becomes so bureaucratic, it turns into nothing more than a new FM
or something nobody reads. And I think that’s what is more important about mentorship
than anything. I don’t think a mentorship program where every single person, every
brigade commander, and every general officer, and everyone actually follows the exact
same process as I do, the exact same thing I do. I think bureaucracy would set in, and the
thing would just become another mythology that would just fail.
With less than 80% of the participants stating that senior officers are committed to attend
mentorship training, this cultural model influence is therefore considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of the LSM’s internal documents revealed no
documents that discuss mentorship training. The only two documents that discuss how to mentor
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 139
are the two previously mentioned Army publications: the Army Mentorship Handbook (2005)
and FM 6-22 (Department of the Army, 2015). However, both publications do not discuss a
mentorship training program and are merely resources to be used in such a program. No internal
documents within the organization exist for senior officer commitment to mentorship training;
therefore, this is considered a need for this cultural model influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that there is a culture of commitment amongst the
senior officers to attend mentorship training and effect change was determined to be a need
through the survey, interviews, and document analysis. Less than 85% of the senior officers who
took the survey could agree that the commitment of senior officers to attend mentorship training
exists within the organization. Furthermore, less than 80% of the participants interviewed
believe that senior officers are committed to attending a mentorship training program. Lastly,
document analysis determined that the LSM does not have internal documents that emphasize
nor discuss mentorship training. Therefore, this cultural model influence is deemed a need.
Cultural Settings
Senior officers are committed to providing communication and feedback to junior
officers to build transparency within the organization.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief of commitment amongst the
senior officer corps to provide communication and feedback to junior officers through one
straightforward question with the intent of 85% of the senior officers answering correctly to meet
the threshold of this cultural setting influence being an asset. Question 36 asked senior officers
to identify their level of belief that there is a commitment amongst senior officers to
communicate and provide feedback to junior officers and build transparency within the
organization. The question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 140
to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Disagree believe that a commitment to
provide communication and feedback to junior officers does not exist amongst senior officers.
Participants who checked any form of Agree believe that a commitment to provide
communication and feedback to junior officers does exist amongst senior officers. Table 36
shows that 35 (48.6%) participants checked a form of Disagree, believing that a commitment
does not exist amongst senior officers to provide communication and feedback junior officers.
Thirty-seven (51.4%) participants checked some form of Agree, believing that a commitment
exists amongst senior officers to provide communication and feedback to junior officers. With
just over half of the senior officers believing that a commitment exists to provide communication
and feedback to junior officers to build transparency within the organization, it is considered a
need for the LSM.
Table 36
Survey Results for Commitment of Communications and Feedback
# Cultural Model - Influence 1 Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
36 Senior officers are committed to providing communication and
feedback to junior officer to build transparency within the
organization.

36a Strongly Disagree 9.7% 7
36b Disagree 16.7% 12
36c Somewhat Disagree 22.2% 16
36d Somewhat Agree 36.1% 26
36e Agree 9.7% 7
36f Strongly Agree 5.6% 4
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for a commitment of communications
Interview findings. Senior officers were asked to describe engagements with junior
officers involving communication, with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of the senior officers
answering positively about communication between junior and senior officers being an asset.
Seven of the 10 participants answered positively about their communication and belief in the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 141
organization’s communication with junior officers. However, a common theme throughout the
interviews stressed a lack of clear communication between senior officers, the organization, and
junior officers. Several participants stated that junior officers thirst for knowledge and
communication, and senior officers are not providing it. Participant 9, for instance, mentioned
that junior officers want the why and not the what, stating,
My communications with them, it’s not that they don’t get it, I think senior officers don’t
get. I think we talk past Millennials because we say they don’t get it so why am I going
to waste my time. Millennials don’t want task; they want a purpose.
Participant 8 echoed similar beliefs with his response: “These young company grade officers,
very confident, very bright, very willing to tackle any task, that is different from the junior
officers I think I saw in Iraq when I was a battalion XO.” Participant 1 believes the organization
is struggling to communicate with the younger generation: “I think we are struggling, probably
have been struggling for the last 10 years to at least understand and relate to the latest generation
of Millennials. Millennials require more engagement, more discussion.” The discussion of poor
communication and priorities became evident in several participants, especially with Participant
1 stating,
This organization has an issue with trust, and I believe mentorship increased will help
that problem. It will increase trust. The quality of communication and the content of the
communication matters. I feel that it is an element of trust. Now, there’s so much static
in our communications and it is less frequent.
With less than 80% of the participants stating that communication is positive between junior and
senior officers, this cultural setting influence is therefore considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 142
Document analysis. An analysis of the LSM’s internal documents revealed no
documents that discuss communication and feedback as part of transparency within the
organization. The LSM has a 2015–2018 strategic plan that addresses “Foster a culture of trust,
integrity, and service” as a focus area sub-component to one of the five priorities: effective
organization. However, the definition of the above stated focus area makes no mention of
communication as part of building trust. Therefore, this is considered a need for this cultural
setting influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior officers are committed to providing
communications and feedback to junior officers to build transparency within the organization
was determined to be a need through the survey, interviews, and document analysis. Less than
85% of the senior officers who took the survey could agree that senior officers are committed to
providing communication and feedback to junior officers. Furthermore, less than 80% of the
participants interviewed believe that senior officers are communicating enough with junior
officers that builds trust within the organization. Lastly, document analysis determined that the
LSM does not have internal documents that emphasize nor discuss communication and feedback
dialogue between senior and junior officers. Therefore, this cultural setting influence is deemed
a need.
Senior leadership acknowledges senior officers who promote enthusiasm,
competence, and positive behavior.
Survey results. Senior officers were to identify their belief of the acknowledgement of
senior officers who promote enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior by senior leadership
through one straightforward question with the intent of 85% of them answering correctly to meet
the threshold of cultural setting being an asset. Question 37 asked senior officers to identify their
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 143
level of belief that senior leaders acknowledge senior officers who promote enthusiasm,
competence, and positive behavior. The question provided six items on a Likert scale ranging
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants who checked any form of Disagree
believe that a senior officer acknowledgement does not exist. Participants who checked any
form of Agree believe that senior officer acknowledgement does exist within the organization.
Table 37 shows that 29 (40.8%) participants checked a form of Disagree, believing that senior
officer acknowledgement by senior leaders does not exist. Forty-two (59.2%) participants
checked some form of Agree, believing that senior officer acknowledgement by senior leaders
does exist. With just over half of the senior officers believing that senior leaders do
acknowledge senior officers who promote enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior, it is
considered a need for the LSM.
Table 37
Survey Results for Senior Leadership Acknowledgement
# Cultural Setting - Influence 2 Item (n = 72) Percentage Count
37 Senior leadership acknowledges senior officers who promote
enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior.

37a Strongly Disagree 7% 5
37b Disagree 18.1% 13
37c Somewhat Disagree 15.5% 11
37d Somewhat Agree 36.6% 26
37e Agree 15.5% 11
37f Strongly Agree 7% 5
Bolded items are the correct level of belief for acknowledgement

Interview findings. Senior officers were asked to describe the use of role models within
the organization with the intent of 80% (eight out of 10) of them answering positively about the
use of role models (model mentors) being an asset. No participants answered positively about
the use of role models (model mentors) within the organization. All participants noted that the
organization does not champion role models, specifically model mentors. Participant 3 affirmed
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 144
the lack of role models stating, “I don’t think we champion anyone in this organization as a role
model, to be perfectly honest.” Other participants mentioned that promotion ceremonies is the
only time that they can recall someone thanking another person for mentorship. Participant 4
said, “ Promotions are the only time somebody ever says how someone was a mentor or role
model.” Participant 7 had the same observation about the organization and discussed branding
issues:
No, I think we are horrible at that. Only at awards ceremonies, and that is only a brief
snapshot in time. We don’t brand ourselves well like a sports team, say the Chicago
Bears with Walter Payton as a humanitarian off the field. I just don’t see that in our
organization and the start point should be the topmost leader.
Lastly, Participant 8’s insight about mentorship being word of mouth is why this study was
undertaken by the author when he said,
I think it’s word of mouth. I don’t recall ever hearing anything that’s very public about it.
You do hear from leaders that they’ll talk about mentorship and that it is important, but it
tends to be one of those standard things that a leader will put out as leadership
philosophy.
With less than 80% of the participants positively stating that role models (model mentors) are
used in the organization, this cultural setting influence is, therefore, considered a need.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this study.
Document analysis. An analysis of the LSM’s internal documents revealed no
documents that discuss the use of role models or model mentors. However, the LSM has its own
website, Facebook page, and a quarterly publication that can be used to promote mentorship
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 145
behavior and model mentorship. Because this media is not being used to promote model
mentorship, this is considered a need for this cultural setting influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that senior leadership acknowledges senior officers
who promote enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior was determined to be a need
through the survey, interviews, and document analysis. Less than 85% of the senior officers who
took the survey could agree that senior leadership acknowledges senior officers who promote
enthusiasm, competence, and positive behavior. Furthermore, less than 80% of the participants
interviewed believe the role models are utilized within the organization. Lastly, document
analysis determined that the LSM does have several forms of media to promote model mentors
but does not use them. Therefore, this cultural setting influence is deemed a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 38, 39, and 40 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Knowledge
Table 38
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Asset or Need?
Senior officers need to know the definition of
mentorship in the Army and that it includes
professional development, career guidance, and
personal guidance with established goals
Declarative
(Factual)
Need
Senior officers need to understand the impact that
mentorship has on the organizational culture and
the retention of junior officers.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Need
Senior officers need to know how to mentor
junior officers
Procedural Need

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 146
Motivation
Table 39
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Type Asset or Need?
Senior officers believe the failure of retention
rates of junior officers is attributed to
uncontrollable factors
Attribution Need
Senior officers are not confident they can
provide quality mentorship to junior officers
Self-efficacy Need
Senior officers believe that mentorship does
not add value to their career goals or the
organization’s goals.
Utility Value Asset
Senior leaders need to see the cost of time
and effort into mentorship yields a reward of
a positive impact on the organization and its
culture.
Cost Value Asset

Organization
Table 40
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Type Asset or Need?
There is a culture of commitment amongst senior
officers to mentor junior officers formally
(commitment not just informally; occasional).
Cultural Model
Influence 1
Need
There is a culture of commitment amongst the
senior officers to attend mentorship training and
effect change.
Cultural Model
Influence 2
Need
Senior officers are committed to providing
communication and feedback to junior officers to
build transparency within the organization.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
Need
Senior leadership acknowledges senior officers
who promote enthusiasm, competence, and
positive behavior.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2
Need

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 147
Chapter Five focuses on research-based recommendations that support the senior
officers’ goal of demonstrating mentoring skills from the formal mentorship training program
with a minimum of four mentees. The recommendations are organized around the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs and assets that have been identified in Chapter Four.
Chapter Five explains the recommendations and utilizes the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to layout out an implementation and evaluation plan to assist
the senior officers of the LSM in achieving their goal.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 148
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION
Introduction and Overview
This study analyzed senior officer knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting the mentorship of junior officers. Chapter Four presented the results and findings from
analysis of qualitative data collected from documents and interviews and of quantitative data
gathered through a survey to validate the 11 assumed influences. Chapter Five discusses
recommendations for each knowledge, motivation, and organizational validated influence. First,
Chapter Five gives a recap of the organizational context, mission, and performance goals,
followed by a description of the stakeholder groups, the stakeholder group of focus’ goal, then
the purpose of the project and questions. This brief summary of Chapters One and Two helps the
reader tie the results and recommendations back to the purpose of the study. Chapter Five then
displays each of the influences by category (knowledge, motivation, and organizational), and
gives a theoretical recommendation to assist the senior officers in achieving their goal.
Following the recommendations, Chapter Five discusses the implementation of a mentorship
training program for senior officers. Using the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) evaluation framework, a sample evaluation plan is presented as a basis to
measure senior officer progress. Lastly, this chapter discusses the strengths and weaknesses of
this study, the limitations and delimitations, and future research related to this study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to
examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs’
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 149
analysis would have focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder of focus
in this analysis were LSM’s senior officers. The questions that guided this study are listed below.
1. What are the knowledge and motivation required by senior officers to create and
implement a program to mentor 100% of junior officers in the Large State Militia?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and senior officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can
assist with junior officer mentorship?
4. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Table 41 lists the assumed knowledge influences used for this study and
whether the assumed knowledge influences were validated. Furthermore, Table 41 specifies
whether or not the assumed knowledge influence is a priority to the achievement of the LSM’s
stakeholder’s goal. The three assumed knowledge influences are factual, conceptual, and
procedural, following Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2002) framework of four types of knowledge.
Factual and conceptual influences are considered declarative, focusing on the knowledge of what
is mentorship, while the procedural influence focuses on the knowledge of how to mentor. All
three were validated as a gap and are a priority for achievement of stakeholder success. Factual
and procedural knowledge influences were chosen as having a greater impact on the senior
officers achieving their goal than the conceptual knowledge influence because it more important
understand mentorship and know how to do it at this point in time.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 150
Table 41 lists recommendations for implementation based on theoretical principles. Two
theoretical principles are prominent in the assumed influences: information processing system
and social cognitive theory. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state that information processing
theory is derived from the 1930s information processing model made from three components
consisting of sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory. Social cognitive
theory refers to the learning that occurs in a social context, and much of what is learned is
through observation (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). All three recommendations incorporate
aspects of Clark and Estes’ (2008) types of knowledge and skill enhancement, which include
information, job aids, training, and education.
Table 41
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Senior officers
need to know
the definition
of mentorship
in the Army
and that it
includes
professional
development,
career
guidance, and
personal
guidance with
established
goals. (D)
V Y 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).

*****
Social interaction, cooperative
learning, and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as
reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006).

*******

Integrating visual information
maximizes working memory
capacity (Mayer, 2011)
Meaningfully
information that builds
on prior knowledge
presented in the form of
discussion panels to
senior officers about
Army’s current
definition and construct
of mentorship.

*******
A panel made up of
model senior officers
teach the Army’s
mentorship definition to
other senior officers
through social
interaction and
cooperative learning.

*******
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 151
Table 41, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Reinforce information
with a job aid in the
form of a trifold that
contains mentorship
definitions, tips, and
links to resources.
Senior officers
do not
understand the
impact that
mentorship
has on the
culture of the
organization
and retention
of junior
officers. (D)
V Y Providing scaffolding and
assisted performance in a
person’s ZPD promotes
developmentally appropriate
instruction (Scott & Palincsar,
2006).
Educate senior officers
about the impact of
mentorship of junior
officer retention using
scaffolding from model
senior officers through
multiple social
engagements (breakouts
during mandatory
meetings).
Senior officers
do not know
how to mentor
officers. (P)
V Y Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves learning, and
performance (Denler et al.,
2006).

*****

Continued practice promotes
automaticity and takes less
capacity in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

*****
Feedback that is specific and
timely enhances performance
(Shute, 2008).
Training that
Demonstrates effective
mentorship techniques
and promotes model
behavior through
mentorship
opportunities by model
senior officers.

*****

Senior officers
demonstrate mentorship
procedures through
practice with model
mentors.

*****

Feedback regularly
provided to senior
officers on their
demonstration and
practice of applied
mentoring skills by
modeled mentors.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 152
Increasing senior officers’ knowledge of the Army’s definition of mentorship. This
study found that most of the senior officers in the LSM do not understand that the Army’s
current definition of mentorship includes professional development, career guidance, and
personal guidance with established goals. This is important because knowledge of the Army’s
definition of mentorship standardizes mentorship for mentors and mentees and dispels gaps
between career management, leader development and mentorship. A recommendation that stems
from information process theory and sociocultural theory will assist in closing the gap in
declarative knowledge.
According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), meaningful learned information that
connected with prior knowledge is stored faster and is more accurately remembered because it is
elaborated with prior learning. This theory suggests that any new meaningful information on
mentorship that is connected with senior officers’ prior knowledge of mentorship enables the
senior officers to better store and remember the information. Scott and Palincsar (2006) state
that construction of new knowledge can be created through social interaction, cognitive
apprenticeships, and cooperative learning. Therefore, the recommendation is that the LSM
utilize panel discussions made up of known senior officers who model mentor behavior to
inform the stakeholder group about what mentorship means in the Army. Panel discussions will
build upon the senior officers pre-existing knowledge of mentorship and the social interaction
between the panel and the senior officers will facilitate the construction of new knowledge.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) describe two implications for effective learning. The
first implication focuses on automaticity that enables limited resources in working memory to
prioritize words for encoding. The second implication uses relevant prior knowledge to assist in
the encoding and long-term memory retrieval process. New knowledge is built upon relevant
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 153
existing knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Mayer
(2011) states that integration of visual information maximizes the working memory capacity.
Mayer also adds that integration is the connections between representations (visual and audio) in
the working memory to prior existing knowledge in the long-term memory. In addition, Scott
and Palincsar (2006) posit that learners working together in a social setting internalize the effects
of working together and new knowledge is obtained from the interaction specifically between
novices and experts. Catchings’ (2013) research of 24 junior officers lacking mentorship at Ft
Knox claims that senior officers are confused between leader development, career counseling,
and mentorship because the Army’s doctrine leadership models did not include mentorship as a
part of the professional development foundation prior to 2005. Thus, using a panel discussion of
knowledgeable senior officers to deliver information to the key stakeholder group through a
question and answer process, with visual information as reinforcement, will build upon the
senior officers’ prior knowledge about mentorship, including leader development, career
counseling, career management and professional development. The information session will
enable the senior officer stakeholder group to gain a complete understanding of the Army’s
definition of mentorship and the differences between mentorship, leader development, career
counseling, career management, and professional development.
Teaching senior officers how to mentor junior officers. Evidence from this study
showed that senior officers in the LSM do not know how to mentor junior officers.
Recommendations that align with procedural knowledge from social cognitive theory will assist
the LSM senior officers in achieving their stakeholder goal. Denler et al. (2006) state that, if a
model is credible, similar, and the behavior has functional value, then the modeled behavior is
more likely to be adopted. In addition, Shute (2008) says specific and timely feedback enhances
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 154
performance. It is recommended that stakeholder group receive training by model mentor senior
officers who will demonstrate modeled mentorship behavior. Stakeholder group senior officers
will demonstrate their learning of the modeled behavior and receive specific and timely
feedback.
People learn through observation is one of the core concepts of social cognitive theory
(Denler et al., 2006). Furthermore, Denler et al. (2006) state that modeling is the demonstration
of the desired behavior by an instructor or peer. Denler et al. (2006) claim an effective use of
modeling occurs when the instructor verbalizes his/her thoughts while demonstrating a process
or skill. Additionally, Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state continued practice promotes
automaticity, which takes less capacity in working memory. Automaticity frees limited
resources that can be used for connecting new information to old information in the memory and
makes it easier to allocate these resources to the task at hand (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Behavioral learning is furthered reinforced when students receive feedback. According to Shute
(2008), feedback used in an educational context is crucial to improving the acquisition of
knowledge and skills. Budd (2007), Catchings (2013), and Mcateer (2016) findings of
mentorship in the Armed Forces reveal the importance of emotional intelligence, mentorship
knowledge, and communication as critical components of effective mentorship. Therefore,
training demonstrations conducted by senior officers, who model mentorship behavior, in
conjunction with personal demonstrations by stakeholder senior officers will improve the senior
officers’ procedural knowledge of mentorship. The demonstrations of modeled behavior
combined with continued practice that is supported with specific feedback will be retained in the
senior officers’ working memory.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 155
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Table 42 lists the assumed motivation influences used for this study and
whether the assumed motivation influences were validated. In addition, Table 42 specifies
whether or not the assumed motivation influences are a priority to the achievement of the LSM’s
stakeholder’s goal. The four assumed motivation influences are attributions, self-efficacy, utility
value, and cost value from Rueda’s (2011) motivational variables. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), motivation dictates how much effort to put into tasks. Furthermore, Clark and Estes state
that three facets of motivated performance exist in the workplace: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort, essentially meaning that employees actively choose to pursue a goal. Once started,
persistence pushes them past distractions towards the goal, and the mental effort put towards the
task is enough to complete it. Attributions and self-efficacy were validated as gaps and are a
priority for achievement of stakeholder success. Both utility value and cost value were found to
be assets and are also a priority for achieving stakeholder success. Lastly, Table 42 lists
recommendations for implementation based on theoretical principles. Three theoretical
principles are prominent in the assumed influences: attributions, self-efficacy, and expectancy
value theory. Attributions theory is based on Wiener’s work that focuses on three dimensions of
motivation: locus, stability, and control (Rueda, 2011). Bandura (2000) states that self-efficacy
is one’s belief in one's own abilities to accomplish a task. Expectancy value theory asks
individuals “Can I do the task” and “Do I want to do the task” with answers leading to an
individual's motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). All four recommendations incorporate
aspects of information and modeled behavior.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 156
Table 42
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence

Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Attributions -
Senior officers
believe the failure
of retention rates
of junior officers
is attributed to
uncontrollable
factors.
V Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals attribute
success or failure to
effort rather than
ability (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006)
Demonstrate through
information briefs that
are specific to senior
officers that success or
failures of retention is
controllable through
effort.
Self-efficacy -
Senior officers are
not confident they
can provide
quality mentorship
to junior officers
V Y High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006)

Feedback and
modeling increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006)
Provide senior officers
with mentorship
demonstrations,
modeling, and practice
opportunities. Utilize
modeling and feedback
for senior officers
through repeated
demonstrations and
practice.
Utility Value -
Senior officers
believe that
mentorship does
not add value to
their career goals
or the
organization’s
goals.
N Y Rationales that
include discussion of
the importance and
utility value of the
work can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006)
Inform senior officers of
the value of mentorship
through current
examples within the
organization of how
mentored officers add to
senior officer credibility
and followership, while
growing the
organization
professionally.
Cost Value -
Senior leaders
need to see the
cost of time and
effort into
mentorship yields
a reward of a
positive impact on
the organization
and its culture
N Y Motivation is
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).
Visually inform senior
officers of the value of
mentorship through past
and current examples of
success within the
organization.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 157
Increase belief in the control of retention factors. Data collected in this study showed
that many senior officers believe the failure of junior officers’ retention rates is attributed to
uncontrollable factors. A recommendation that will assist senior officers in closing the gap in the
belief in control of retention factors comes from attributions theory. Anderman and Anderman
(2006) claim that learning and motivation are increased when individuals believe that success or
failures are associated with effort as opposed to ability. It is, therefore, recommended that the
senior officers of the LSM receive information through discussions about the amount of effort
required to retain junior officers through mentorship. In addition, demonstrations that involve
the use of effort will reinforce the learned information about junior officer retention and the role
of mentorship.
Attributions theory focuses on the beliefs that one has about the reason a task succeeded
or failed (Rueda, 2011). In addition, many theorists state attributions follow three dimensions
founded by Bernard Weiner (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011). According to
Weiner (2005), the three dimensions are stability (temporary or permanent conditions), locus
(internal or external to oneself), and control (what one can control). Attributions that focus on
effort are considered unstable because effort is temporary, internal, and controllable (Rueda,
2011). Similar to the Army Mentorship Handbook (informal program), the U.S. Air Force
created a directive that establishes a formal mentorship program to force mentorship (Contreras,
2008). Because many officers resist formalized mentorship programs, Budd (2007) claims that a
formalized program adds a layer of accountability and goals to mentorship. Therefore, the LSM
needs to connect senior officers with the data to inform senior officers that junior officers’
retention rate is controllable with the amount of effort that is put into mentoring them.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 158
Increase self-efficacy in senior officers. The results of this study were that senior
officers are not confident they can provide quality mentorship to junior officers. A
recommendation from self-efficacy theory will assist the LSM with increasing self-efficacy
amongst its senior officers. High self-efficacy can have a positive influence on individuals’
motivation (Pajares, 2006). Higher self-efficacy amongst senior officers will increase
confidence levels to provide quality mentorship. It is recommended that senior officers be
provided demonstrations that model quality mentorship. It is further recommended that senior
officers be afforded opportunities to practice mentorship in an environment that allows for
feedback and refinement.
Self-efficacy beliefs provide the basis for human motivation, personal accomplishment,
and well-being (Pajares, 2006). Pajares (2006) further states self-efficacy beliefs shape the
outcome one anticipates; thus, confident individuals expect successful outcomes. Individuals
who believe that they can succeed at a task will do the task and are more motivated than others
who do not anticipate a successful outcome (Pintrich, 2003). Rueda (2011) adds that these
beliefs are influenced by factors such as prior knowledge, experience, and feedback related to the
task. Brown’s (2010) study of the ACE Fellows Program revealed that mentors learn about their
own leadership by being engaged in the mentorship process. Furthermore, the experience from
mentorship experiences led to heightened self-efficacy for future mentorship relationships.
Therefore, senior officers who attend the mentorship demonstrations and practice mentorship
sessions with effective feedback will increase self-efficacy for future mentorship relationships.
Increase senior officers belief in the value of mentorship. This study found that senior
officers of the LSM believe that mentorship does add value to their career goals and the
organization’s goals. A recommendation from expectancy value theory will help the LSM
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 159
capitalize on this asset and achieve its stakeholder goal. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) state
rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the work can help
learners develop positive values. Senior officers need to see immediate value of their efforts in
their own goals in addition to the organization’s goals. Therefore, it is recommended that senior
officers be informed regularly of how mentored officers add to senior officer credibility and
followership while growing the organization professionally. This can be achieved through
highlighting current examples within the organization.
Utility value refers to one’s belief in the usefulness of a task or activity towards the
achievement of a future goal (Rueda, 2011). Pintrich (2003) further defines utility value as the
perception of usefulness in the concept or task to individuals, adding that value tasks predict
choice behavior. Choice behavior is what is meant by Eccles and Wigfield’s (2002)
interpretation of utility value as “Do I want to do the task?” Jahnke (2008) points to the
development of an organization’s people as an advantage for that organization over its
competitors. In the military, mentorship is a combat multiplier because it both builds trust
between leaders through candid communication and builds growth through the organization with
a solid succession plan. Informing senior officers about the credibility and followership gained
through quality mentorship by presenting successful examples from within the organization will
demonstrate the value in mentorship. Thus, motivation to mentor junior officers in the
organization will increase as senior officers understand its value.
Promote the positive impacts of mentorship. The results of this study were that senior
officers see the cost of time and effort put into mentorship yields a reward of a positive impact
on the organization and its culture. A recommendation from expectancy value theory will assist
the senior officers in utilizing the asset of the cost of time and effort put into mentorship.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 160
According to Eccles (2006), motivation is enhanced if the learner values the task. Senior officers
need to see the value of their efforts in mentorship to increase motivation amongst others as well
as themselves. Thus, it is recommended that senior officers, who model mentorship behavior,
visually inform other senior officers of the value of mentorship through past and current
examples of success within the organization that resulted from mentorship.
Eccles (2006) states that cost can be viewed in terms of the loss of time and energy that
could be put towards other activities. Eccles further adds people have limited time and energy
and cannot do everything they want; thus, they must choose the activities they want. Mcateer’s
(2016) study of mentorship of female officers in the Army noted that all 10 interviewed
participants regarded time as the most critical commodity and mentorship. Further adding that
time for mentorship has to be balanced against unit priorities. Rueda (2011) claims the important
motivational principle is that, the higher an individual values a task, the more the individual
chooses, persists, and engages in the task. Budd’s (2007) study of mentorship in the Air Force
also noted a common theme about the commodity of time among participants to sit down and
formally mentor individuals. Budd concluded, however, that good mentors see the value in
mentorship and, thus, make time for their mentees. Understanding that time for mentorship must
be balanced against other organizational requirements, visually showing senior officers the value
of time and effort put into mentorship through successful examples that exist in the organization
will motivate senior officers to mentor junior officers.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 43 lists the assumed organizational influences used for this study
and whether the assumed organizational influences were validated. Table 43 specifies whether
or not the assumed motivation organizational influences are a priority to the achievement of the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 161
LSM’s stakeholder’s goal. The four assumed organizational influences are two cultural models
and two cultural settings from Gallimore and Goldberg’s (2001) concept of culture. According
to Gallimore and Goldberg (2001), a cultural model is the shared normative understanding how
the world works. Gallimore and Goldberg (2001) further add cultural models are so familiar
they are often invisible to those that practice them within an organization. Rueda (2011)
describes cultural settings as the who, what, when, where, why, and how of daily life in the
organization. Furthermore, Rueda (2011) states cultural models and cultural settings influence
each other and through interaction change over time. All four assumed organizational influences
were validated as gaps and are a priority for achievement of stakeholder success. Lastly, Table
43 lists recommendations for implementation based on theoretical principles. Seven theoretical
principles are prominent in the assumed influences from three themes: organization, leadership,
and communication. All seven recommendations incorporate aspects of communication and
modeled behavior.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 162
Table 43
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural
Model 1:
There is a
culture of
commitment
amongst
senior officers
to mentor
junior officers
formally
(commitment
not just
informally;
occasional).
V Y Effective change
efforts are
communicated
regularly and
frequently to all
key stakeholders.
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
************

Effective change
efforts utilize
feedback to
determine when/if
improvement is
happening.
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
LSM leadership and
model senior officers
influence stakeholder
group to commit to
mentorship through
regular communication
about mentorship goals
and encourage junior
officers to seek mentors.

Model senior officers
monitor mentorship
goals and provide
feedback to stakeholder
group.
Cultural
Model 2:
There is a
culture of
commitment
amongst
senior officers
to attend
mentorship
training and
affect change.
V Y Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders are
knowledgeable
about and are
consistently
learning about
themselves and
organization.
(Waters, Marzano,
& McNulty, 2003).

************

Implement mentorship
training program to
senior officers and mid-
level officers.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 163
Table 43, continued
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Effective leaders
are aware of the
influence of
motivation as it
relates to
communication
and its role in
organizational
change.
(Gilley, Gilley, &
McMillan, 2009)
Model senior officers
assist in mentorship
instruction through
modeling and
demonstrations and
communicate the need
for change as part of
instruction.
Cultural
Setting
Influence 1:
Senior
officers are
committed to
providing
communicatio
ns and
feedback to
junior officers
to build
transparency
within the
organization.
V Y Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders encourage
open lines of
communication.
(Pincus, 2006)

***********
Effective leaders
know how to
create and manage
good working
relationships with
stakeholders.
(Lewis, 2011)
Senior officers
communicate openly
with junior officers and
provide constructive
feedback.

Senior officers
communicate openly to
both command group
and junior officer
stakeholders.
Cultural
Setting
Influence 2:
Senior
leadership
acknowledges
senior officers
who promote
enthusiasm,
competence,
and positive
behavior.
V Y Effective leaders
are aware of the
power of influence
and its impact on
the change process
within an
organization.
(Lewis, 2011)
Provide public
recognition of model
mentorship throughout
the organization that
includes multimedia.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 164
Increase the commitment amongst senior officers to attend mentorship training.
This study found a lack of commitment amongst senior officers of the LSM to attend a
mentorship training program. A commitment to attend mentorship training is the most
significant cultural model in the organization. Recommendations from both leadership and
communications theories will help the LSM achieve its stakeholder goal. According to Waters,
Marzano, and McNulty (2003), organizational effectiveness is increased when leaders are
knowledgeable about themselves and their field and continue the learning process. Additionally,
Gilley, Gilley, and McMillan (2009) state that effective leaders are aware of the roles that
motivation and communication play in organizational change. Senior officers should commit to
attending formal mentorship training. Therefore, it is recommended that a formal mentorship
training program be implemented that targets lieutenant colonels (O5) and majors (O4) and is
instructed by colonels (O6) who model mentorship behavior. Colonels will communicate the
need for change during the training and utilize modeling and demonstrations for effective
instruction.
Budd’s (2007) research on mentorship in the U.S. Air Force revealed a culture within the
officer corps of conducting mentorship in an informal manner with resistance to formal
mentorship programs. Catchings (2013) adds that the cultural model of self-development
amongst the officer corps of the Army further adds to the resistance of formal mentorship
programs. Waters et al.’s (2003) leadership study of 2,894 schools comprised of approximately
1.1million students and 14,000 teachers found that principals who increased the leadership
abilities through learning, translated to higher student achievement. Thus, a formal mentorship
training program will increase senior officers’ knowledge and understanding of the importance
of mentorship in the effectiveness of the organization. Furthermore, Waters et al. (2003) found
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 165
change becomes a non-priority when it is not obvious how it will make things better; change
requires stakeholders to learn new approaches. According to Gilley et al. (2009), organizational
leaders who address communication and motivation issues are more likely to affect successful
organizational change. Additionally, effective leaders translate their motivation and
communication skills to influence change. For the LSM to successfully implement a change in
its culture to one of mentorship, senior officers need to attend a mentorship training program that
is taught by colonels who model mentorship behavior. Furthermore, the colonels must use their
motivation and influence to effectively communicate the need for change and its relevance to an
effective organization.
Increase the commitment of senior officers to communicate and provide feedback to
junior officers. This study highlights a lack of communication and feedback among senior
officers and junior officers of the LSM. A commitment to communicate and provide feedback to
junior officers is the most significant cultural setting in the organization. Recommendations
from both leadership and communications theories will help the LSM achieve its stakeholder
goal. Research conducted by Pincus (1986) revealed that organizational effectiveness increases
when leaders open lines of communication. Additionally, Lewis’ (2011) research on
communication and organizational change substantiated the importance of leaders creating
effective working relationships with stakeholders. A commitment amongst senior officers needs
to exist to communicate openly with junior officers and provide effective feedback that builds
transparency in the organization. Therefore, it is recommended that senior officers increase the
amount of communication that occurs with junior officers and provide timely constructive
feedback. Furthermore, senior officers will act as the conduit between the command group and
junior officers to build and strengthen transparency within the organization.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 166
The studies by Cox (2009) and Catchings (2013) reveal difficulties in communication
within the military are due in part that it does not allow for bottom-up communication to leaders
based on customs and courtesies. A study of 327 field nurses conducted by Dr. David Pincus in
1986 resulted in findings that communication between leaders and subordinates leads to stronger
job satisfaction and job performance. This can be translated into an increase in effective
organizations. Additionally, Lewis’ (2011) efforts focus on communications and change stating
that stakeholder relationships and communication is necessary for a positive change to take
effect. Connectors are needed to link stakeholders groups together and maintain open
communication lines between them. Thus, the senior officer stakeholder group must increase its
communication with junior officers that includes timely and constructive feedback.
Furthermore, the senior officer stakeholder group must be the connector between the command
group stakeholder group and the junior officer stakeholder group for communication change to
take effect within the organization.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This study utilizes the implementation and evaluation framework developed from the
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model is derived from
the original Kirkpatrick Model developed for evaluation of training programs 60 years ago. Four
levels make up the original model. The New World Kirkpatrick Model uses the same four
levels, only in reverse. Thus, the New World Kirkpatrick Model starts with Level 4 down to
Level 1. Level 4 (Results) consists of leading indicators which are short-term observations and
measurements that propose that critical behaviors are on track to achieve results. Level 3
(Behavior) consists of the critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning that is
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 167
learned in training and applied on the job. Behavior is necessary for the organization to achieve
its goals. Level 2 (Learning) is the stage at which participants obtain the attitude, skills,
knowledge, commitment, and confidence based upon their participation in the learning event.
Lastly, Level 1 (Reaction) is the level of satisfaction, relevance and engaging that participants
find the training in relation to their jobs.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is used in
conjunction with the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) in this study of the LSM. The
four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model are similar to the military’s use of backwards
planning for operations thus making the implementation of the evaluation framework
understandable by the command group and the stakeholder group of focus: the senior officers.
Establishing the results first enables the senior officers to see the goal and, subsequently, a
campaign plan towards achievement.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of the LSM is to provide trained and ready forces to respond to national,
state, and local emergencies while adding value to communities by providing resources, services,
and educational programs that reflect the diverse needs of the people the LSM serves (Watts,
2017). This mission is jeopardy of failure due in part to junior officers’ retention rates. The lack
of quality officers affects the future senior leadership of the organization while the lack of
quantity affects the future force structure of the organization. Junior officer retention is directly
linked to the lack of mentorship provided to junior officers by senior officers. Thus, a goal was
established by the command group of the LSM for 100% of the junior officers to receive
mentorship by 2025. The senior officers of the LSM have a direct impact on the organization’s
goal and mission and are the stakeholder group of focus.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 168
The goal of the senior officers of the LSM is to demonstrate the mentoring skills from the
formal mentorship training program with a minimum of four mentees by October 2021. This
goal was selected because, by 2021, 20% of the junior officers should have received mentorship
from senior officers. The formal mentorship training will be developed and implemented by
October 2020. Thus, the senior officers’ participation in the training, their mentoring of no fewer
than four mentees, and their modeling mentorship behavior have a direct impact on the LSM
achieving its goal of 100% mentorship of all junior officers by 2025. Mentorship has a direct
impact on the retention of junior officers, which impacts the future of the overall organization
with regards to mission accomplishment. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) will assist the LSM with the implementation and evaluation of the
recommendations and assist with closing these performance gaps.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators are depicted below in Table 44 as outcomes,
metrics, and methods of the LSM’s evaluation of training and implementation. The outcomes
are divided into two categories: external and internal. External depicts how the organization will
look to the outside if it achieves its goals, and internal depicts those items, such as retention, that
when the organization achieves success directly benefit the organization (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Results and Leading Indicators are a measure of whether or not the
LSM is achieving its goal of having all junior officers mentored by October 2025.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 169
Table 44
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased number of
junior officers applying
for combatant command
tours.
The number of applications for
adjutant general release letters to
conduct tours.
Gather data quarterly from
Army G3 and G1
2. Increased requests for
participation of senior
officers at ROTC events
The number of requests by
ROTC Battalions.
Gather data quarterly from the
seven brigade operations
officers.
3. Increased community
outreach from
corporations on
mentorship best practices
The number of requests by
outside agencies and
corporations to talk about
mentorship
Gather data quarterly from
Government Affairs/External
Affairs office.
4. Public recognition for
mentorship
The number of inquiries by
media, Department of the Army,
National Guard Bureau, etc.,
about mentorship.
Gather inquiry data quarterly
from command group and
public affairs office.
Internal Outcomes
5. Increased retention of
junior officers
The number of junior officers
that stay in the Large State
Militia past their service
obligation
Gather inquiry data from G1
about decreased officer
resignations
6. Increased transparency
within the organization
The percent of junior officers
that discuss open
communication between senior
and junior leaders
Gather inquiry data from annual
Command Climate Survey
targeted towards transparency
and communication
7. Increased emphasis on
career management
The number of officer selections
two to four years out for
command and critical staff
positions.
Results of each functional
advisory committee are
published and communicated
with planned succession of
commanders and critical Staff
positions.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. There are three critical behaviors that senior officers of the LSM
need to demonstrate for the group to successfully achieve its goal, adding to the success of the
organization’s goal. First, senior officers will need to demonstrate a willingness to attend the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 170
mentorship training program. Second, senior officers will communicate regularly and provide
candid feedback to junior officers. Lastly, senior officers will mentor model mentorship
behavior regularly that leads to junior officer retention. Table 45 lists the metrics, methods, and
timing that measures whether or not the critical behaviors are being enacted by the senior
officers of the LSM.
Table 45
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Senior officers
demonstrate the
willingness to attend
mentorship training
program
The number of senior
and mid-grade officers
(O4) that attend the
mentorship training
program.
Army G1 tracks the
number of officers that
attend the program
Army G3 tracks
curriculum and makes
updates as necessary.
Semi-annual report is
sent to Command
Team on the
attendance and the
curriculum of the
mentorship training
program.
2. Senior officers
will communicate
and provide feedback
to junior officers
The number of junior
officers that report open
communication between
senior and junior
officers.
Commanders track reports
through Office of
Inspector General from
specific questions tied to
communication in the
Command Climate Survey.
Annual survey report
from Command
Climate Survey.
3. Senior officers
will model
mentorship behavior
The number of junior
officers that report
receiving mentorship.
The number of outside
agencies that request
senior officers to speak
about mentorship.
Commanders track reports
through the Office of
Inspector General from
specific questions tied to
mentorship in the
Command Climate Survey.
Command Team tracks the
number of recognized
mentors in the
organization.
Command Team tracks the
amount of requests guest
speaker engagements
through commanders and
offices of government
affairs and public affairs.
Annual survey report
from Command
Climate Survey.
Senior Leader reports
of model mentorship
from the field
gathered through
Battlefield
Circulation.
Semi-annual report
briefed to Command
Team on the number
of requests received
for speaker
engagements.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 171
Required drivers. Required drivers are the most difficult to execute, yet they are the
most critical to success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), the four drivers are an integrated package working together, not mutually
exclusive, to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor the critical behaviors. Table 46 below
lists the required drivers that support the senior officers’ critical behaviors. Reinforcing drivers
include a memorandum for record from the adjutant general placing command emphasis on
mentorship, job aids that explain the Army’s definition of mentorship and how to conduct
mentorship, and regular discussion panels between senior officers on mentorship best practices.
Encouraging drivers include informing senior officers of past and current mentorship success,
briefings to senior officers about the junior officer retention numbers and briefing senior officers
on the 1 -year tours available to junior officers that benefit both the organization and the junior
officer. The rewarding driver is the immediate feedback that will be provided to senior officers
during mentorship demonstrations. The monitoring drivers include dashboards to verify the
completion of training, meetings with senior commanders to discuss the progress of mentorship
goals, and an annual survey on mentor performance.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 172
Table 46
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Memorandum for record that details the
importance of mentorship within the
organization and the assurance of command
emphasis.
At the point of implementation of the
mentorship training program,
quarterly thereafter.
1, 2, 3
Job aid that details the elements of mentorship
that focus on two-way communication
Ongoing 2,3
Job aid that details the procedures of
mentorship from Army manuals.
Ongoing 2,3
Senior officer discussions with model mentors
on best practices and lessons learned about
mentorship.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Senior officers are informed of past and
current mentorship success within the
organization
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
G1 briefs to senior officers the current
retention numbers of junior officers
Semi-Annually 2,3
G3 briefs the status of overseas, Pentagon,
and National Guard Bureau 1-year tours to
senior officers and command group
Quarterly 2,3
Rewarding
Senior officers are provided on the spot
feedback after mentorship demonstration
During Mentorship Training Session 1
Monitoring
Dashboard to verify completion of training Quarterly 1
Meeting with senior commanders to discuss
progress of mentorship goals
Quarterly 2,3
Conduct surveys on mentor performance Annual 2,3

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 173
Organizational support. The supporting drivers listed in Table 46 and the accountable
drivers in monitoring will need additional support from the organization to achieve success. The
organization-supported need is time to mentor junior officers. Literature reviewed in this study
revealed that time is a resource needed for quality mentorship to occur (Budd, 2007; Mcateer,
2016). Additionally, analysis of the data collected during this study also revealed that allocating
time to conduct mentorship was a common theme in the surveys and interviews. The
organization must reduce the number of priorities considered mandatory by the command group
and the Department of the Army for senior officers to perform and allow time in order to mentor
junior officers. Next, the organization can support the efforts of senior officers by utilizing
continuous command emphasis placed on mentorship. Command emphasis in the military is like
a scorecard, requiring senior officers to perform duties that will be checked and reported. Lastly,
the efforts of mentorship need to be communicated regularly throughout the organization. This
continuous message builds the confidence, trust, and transparency between senior and junior
officers.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the formal mentorship training program, senior
officers of the LSM will be able to perform the functions listed below. These functions are from
the validated gaps in knowledge and motivation influences listed in Chapter Four.
1. Exemplify the Army’s current definition of mentorship, including the four elements
(Declarative Knowledge).
2. Understand the impacts of mentorship on the culture of the organization and the retention
of junior officers (Declarative Knowledge).
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 174
3. Execute mentorship to junior officers utilizing known mentorship resources (Procedural
Knowledge).
4. Senior officers attribute failure of retention rates to controllable factors at the senior
officer level (Attributions).
5. Senior officers are confident they can provide quality mentorship (Self-efficacy).
6. Senior officers believe that mentorship adds value to their career goals and those of the
organization (Utility Value).
7. Senior officers know the cost of time and effort put into mentorship positively impacts
both junior officers and the organization’s culture (Cost Value).
Program. The learning goals listed above will be achieved in the formal mentorship
training program. This training program will be taught quarterly for the first year as part of
already planned training events. Utilizing existing events that are calendared for the year
demonstrates the willingness of the LSM to reduce the number of priorities that contribute to the
motivation influences that inhibit junior officer mentorship, as validated through qualitative
analysis discussed in Chapter Four. Command emphasis will be placed on attendance at the
training program so that senior officers know that the command group supports mentorship. The
mentorship training program will be designed by senior officers and administered through the
regional training institute. Senior officers, ranging from major to lieutenant colonel, will attend
the training twice the first year to first ensure that everybody is trained and to build redundancy
and confidence in mentorship. The program will continue quarterly for the second year as well
to ensure that all majors and lieutenant colonels have been trained.
The mentorship program will cover the Army’s definition of mentorship, how to conduct
mentorship, and where to find mentorship resources. The resources discussed will include Army
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 175
and LSM mentorship publications, links to websites that offer career options, full-time positions,
overseas tours, and other opportunities. Furthermore, discussions about the importance of
mentorship, its impacts on the retention of junior officer, impacts on the culture, and the future of
the LSM will be conducted with panels of model mentors from the organization. Lastly, hands-
on training with demonstrations that include model mentor feedback will be incorporated in each
of the training sessions. All attendees will be part of the demonstrations to build confidence in
performing mentorship. As stated, panel discussions, job aids in the form of handouts, and
demonstrations will all involve senior officers who are recognized as the organization’s model
mentors.
Evaluation of the components of learning. The literature review in Chapter Two
discussed the importance of both knowledge and motivation contributions to improving the
senior officers’ stakeholder goal. In addition, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe the
components of Level 2 (Learning) as the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment that participants acquire in the training at this phase. The five elements of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model are in direct correlation to the knowledge and motivation contributions
with knowledge and skills belonging to declarative and procedural knowledge and the attitude,
confidence, and commitment belonging to motivation’s attribution, self-efficacy and utility and
cost value. Table 47 lists the methods and timing that will be used to evaluate the components of
the formal mentorship training program.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 176
Table 47
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge assessment survey that contains the
Army’s elements of mentorship
At the end of each training program.
Verbal knowledge checks during the training
sessions
Periodically throughout each training
session
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Group activity that involves model mentor
demonstrations of mentorship.
At the beginning of the training sessions.
Demonstration by senior officers during sessions
to model mentors.
Periodically throughout each training
session, documented with mentor
feedback.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Group activity at the end-of-training session
focused on retention innovation
Near the end of each training program.
Survey with open-ended questions Pre and Post training sessions.
Panel discussion with command group During Soldier of Year meeting
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions during demonstrations and feedback
sessions.
Individually with model mentors
following demonstrations.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Creation of individual goal that supports
stakeholder goal.
At the completion of training program.

Level 1: Reaction
The degree to which participants find training engaging, relevant, and satisfying are the
basis of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These three
components are critical to the success of the formal mentorship program. Table 48 lists the
methods and timing used for the Level 1 (Reaction) evaluation to the formal mentorship training
program. Candid feedback from senior officers is necessary for the program to achieve success.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 177
Table 48
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance At the beginning of each session
Observation by a dedicated observer (model
mentor)
Throughout the entire session.
Willingness to participate in the mentorship
demonstration exercise
Ongoing during each session of the mentorship
training program
Training program evaluation At the end of each session
Relevance
Check in with senior officers through a
discussion
After each training module during each session
Training program evaluation At the end of each session
Customer Satisfaction
Check in with senior officers through a
discussion
After each training module during each session
Training program evaluation At the end of each session

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Upon completion of the last day
of each two-day training session, a survey will be administered to the participants. This survey
will be used to evaluate the program to gauge how satisfied participants were with training,
whether they felt engaged throughout the training session, and the level of relevance the training
adds to their functions in the LSM. Additionally, this survey will measure the participants’
commitment to implementing the mentorship learning in their position as senior officers in the
LSM. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 1 and Level 2 categories from Table 47 and
Table 48 will be evaluated in this survey. The Level 2 categories of declarative and procedural
knowledge, attitude, and confidence will be evaluated throughout the training sessions as
depicted in Table 47. Table 49 below is a sample of the survey questions that will be asked at
the completion of each training session, Appendix D contains the end-of-training survey.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 178
Table 49
Representative Questions from the End-of-Training Session Survey
Kirkpatrick
Level
Type of Question Sample Question

1
Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your opinion about the
overall training:
a) I felt the training kept me engaged
b) I can apply the training that I received in this
session to my mentorship of junior officers
c) I learned something about mentorship that I
didn’t know
d) The training by peers and model mentor senior
officers was well organized.
e) The mentorship training was time well spent.
2 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your level of
commitment to mentorship:
f) I will seek out mentees
g) I will build a mentorship file
h) I will always be available to mentor
i) I am committed to mentorship of junior
officers

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. According to Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016), the Blended Evaluation® Approach utilizes multiple evaluation levels,
instead of just one level. Furthermore, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick state that all evaluations
should be blended because much data can be obtained, and it prevents survey fatigue. The
survey will be blended, utilizing a comprehensive approach to effectively evaluate the
mentorship program. Because, during the first year, training will take place quarterly with senior
officers attending at least twice for reinforcement, the survey will be sent out electronically
within 60 days of completion of each training session of the mentorship training program.
Senior officers’ satisfaction with the training program will be evaluated at Level 1. Their
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 179
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment will be evaluated at Level 2. Their
behavior will be evaluated at Level 3, and the results of the training and the senior officer
stakeholder goal will be measured at Level 4. Table 50 lists sample questions from the post-
program and Appendix E contains the actual survey.
Table 50
Representative Questions from the Post-Program Survey
Kirkpatrick
Level
Type of Question Sample Question

1
Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The information that I received during the mentorship
training program about resources helps me mentor
junior officers.
2 Open-ended What are the elements of the Army’s definition of
mentorship?
3 Open-ended How have you adapted what you learned to your
mentorship program?
4 Open-ended How will this program help you mentor junior
officers?

Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goals for the LSM, as previously depicted in Table 44, are to demonstrate an
increase in the number of junior officers applying to 1-year combatant command tours, an
increase in the number of requests for senior officers to speak about mentorship at ROTC,
corporations, and local organizations, increased junior officer retention, increased transparency,
and career management of the officer corps as demonstrated through succession planning critical
command and staff positions. It is important to measure these goals after the mentorship training
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 180
sessions are complete. A baseline will be established as the training sessions begin ,with the first
measurement occurring six months after the completion of the training session. Figure 2 depicts
a sample of the dashboard that will measure the Level 4 goals. Similar dashboards will be used
to measure Level 3, Level 2, and Level 1 goals.

10
15
18
20
28
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Prior to Implementation of Mentorship Training
Program
6 Months after 1st Mentorship training Session
1 Year after 1st Mentorship Training Session
18 Months after 1st Mentorship Training Session
2 Years after 1st Mentorship Training Session
# of Junior Officers applying for COCOM Tours
3
3
4
6
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Prior to Implementation of Mentorship Training
Program
6 Months after 1st Mentorship training Session
1 Year after 1st Mentorship Training Session
18 Months after 1st Mentorship Training Session
2 Years after 1st Mentorship Training Session
# of Requests for Senior Officer Participation at ROTC
Events
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 181

0
1
4
5
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prior to Implementation of Mentorship Training
Program
6 Months after 1st Mentorship training Session
1 Year after 1st Mentorship Training Session
18 Months after 1st Mentorship Training Session
2 Years after 1st Mentorship Training Session
# of Requests for Mentorship Best Practices to
Community Organizations/Corportations
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Prior to
Implementation of
Mentorship Training
Program
1 Year after 1st
Mentorship training
Session
18 Months after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
2 Years after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
3 Years after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
Public Recognition for Mentorship
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 182

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Prior to
Implementation of
Mentorship Training
Program
1 Year after 1st
Mentorship training
Session
2 Years after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
3 Years after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
4 Years after 1st
Mentorship Training
Session
# of Junior Officer Resignations Annually
25%
75%
LSM Transparency
Lack of Trust in Senior Leadership Trust in Senior Leadership
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 183

Figure 2. Sample dashboard for monitoring LSM outcomes.
Summary
The recommendations in this study used the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016) to establish manageable, realistic goals for the LSM that were informed by
the results and findings. The recommendations listed for all levels will assist the LSM in
achieving its stakeholder goal of providing mentorship to all junior officers. Level 4 focuses on
external and internal outcomes that result from increased mentorship of junior officers. The
metrics applied to the external and internal outcomes alert the command group as to the progress
of goal achievement. Level 3 requires the senior officers of the LSM to exhibit three critical
behaviors to achieve its goal: demonstrate the willingness to attend the mentorship training
program, communicate and provide feedback to junior officers, and model mentorship behavior.
Four drivers are required to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor these critical behaviors.
In order for the senior officers to enact these critical behaviors, Level 2 establishes learning
goals that assist senior officers with these critical behaviors. These learning goals arrive in the
6
5
Succession Plans for Career Management
Brigades with Succession
Plans
Brigades without
Succession Plan
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 184
form of the recommended establishment of a mentorship training program that give senior
officers the declarative (factual and conceptual) and procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence,
and commitment to mentor junior officers. Lastly, Level 1 measures the senior officers’
engagement, relevance, and satisfaction with the mentorship training program. With the use of
Clark and Estes (2008) Conceptual Framework in conjunction with the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), this study identified knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps with actionable recommendations that will close those gaps and enable
senior officers of the LSM to achieve its mentorship goals.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework used in this study was a definitive
strength. To begin with, the structured framework steered the study into specific areas of gap
analysis through knowledge, motivation, and organization. The gap analysis framework assisted
in narrowing the study to a specific set of stakeholders, which then allowed assumed influences
to be identified from the review of literature and internal knowledge and experience in the
organization itself. With a narrowed focus, the appropriate resources of time and human capital
could be applied to gap analysis validation. The ease of the gap analysis framework was ideal
for the LSM because it is an organization that wants to see immediate results and be presented
with those results in a practical manner with quantitative data.
The gap analysis framework, however, is not without its faults. Though time was critical
in getting results to the LSM before it implements its own “Band-Aid” to the mentorship, time
was also a weakness. More time allocation would allow for richer data to further validate the
gaps in mentorship within the LSM, specifically with regards to the lower ranking senior officer
stakeholder group. The narrowness of the study focused on one stakeholder only (senior
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 185
officers) leaving out different views of the assumed influences from the other two stakeholder
groups (command group and junior officers). The Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) contains similar strengths and weakness in support of this study.
The utilization of the New World Model on the validated gaps produced manageable
solutions to assist the senior officers in evaluating their progress towards their goal. In addition,
the New World Model, similar to the gap analysis framework, is user friendly and works
backwards from Level 4 to Level 1, focusing organizations on the critical steps beyond the initial
training or retraining of personnel and on the results and behaviors necessary to achieve the
desired results. Furthermore, the New World Model establishes required drivers such as
reinforcing and encouraging methods to support the critical behaviors. Because the LSM is
accustomed to backwards planning, the New World Model aligns nicely with the organization’s
solution-planning methods.
However, the New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is not without its
challenges. The model’s structure focuses predominantly on knowledge and skills. which ties in
well with knowledge influences, but the LSM only has three validated knowledge-based gaps out
of nine. The other six gaps pertain to motivation and organizational. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), training will not fix motivation and organizational issues. Lastly, Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) state most organizations stop at Level 1, which is why the New World Model
was created in reverse order. As the LSM is not any different from other corporations with an
endless stream of deadlines, high turnover, and unexpected tasks, there is no guarantee that the
organization would not stop at Level 1 or Level 2 and focus on its core mission.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 186
Limitations and Delimitations
As previously mentioned in Chapter Three, limitations are the elements of the study that
the researcher cannot control while delimitations are choices that the researcher makes that have
implications on the data collected. Several limitations are associated with this study. The first
limitation was mentioned earlier in Chapter Three prior to data collection but will be expanded
upon further: the size of the stakeholder group in comparison to the organization and the number
of participant response. The senior officer stakeholder group comprised 11.7% (155) of the
overall officer population in the LSM. The survey instrument was sent to all 155 senior officers,
and 10 return responses of “no longer associated with the LSM” were received. Only 73 (50.3%)
responses out of 145 were received, and only 17 (40.4%) out of the 42 possible colonels
responded to the survey instrument.
A larger participation of colonels would have provided greater insight into the validated
gaps existing at the entire senior officer level or just at the lieutenant colonel level of the senior
officer stakeholder group. This leads to the second issue of time. The survey instrument was
open for 30 days. A greater response rate might have resulted if the survey instrument had been
open for an additional 15 days and another reminder email had been sent. However, due to time
constraints, the survey instrument needed to close and be analyzed for additional probing
questions for the interviews.
The researcher’s affiliation with the stakeholder group of focus is the last limitation. The
researcher holds a position of authority within the organization and is well known throughout the
stakeholder group. Though the researcher put the appropriate protocols in place to protect
confidentiality about the participants in the survey and interviews, one participant commented
about the possibility of being tied to unfavorable comments about the organization if they told
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 187
the truth and feared repercussions for participation. This begs the question of how many others
felt this way and whether these feelings had an impact on the participation rate.
The narrowness of the stakeholder populace is the first delimitation associated with this
study. Only senior officers (O5–O8) were surveyed and interviewed in this study. Junior
officers (O1–O3), the target stakeholder group of mentorship, were not surveyed or interviewed,
neither were mid-grade officers (O4). The narrowness focused the study on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps in mentorship for the senior officers, but it did not get the
perspective of the second lieutenants (O1) to majors (O4), the recipients of mentorship. Lastly,
the specific dates chosen for data collection were a delimitation. Specific dates were chosen
(June to August) to bolster maximum participation amongst senior officers. However, the dates
caused a time limitation (as stated above), as the data needed to be analyzed in a timely manner
to prepare for the qualitative data collection portion of the study. The limitations and
delimitations of this study are a basis for future research.
Future Research
Recommendations for future research on the lack of mentorship in the LSM should focus
on four areas. The first focus area, junior officer stakeholder group, was previously identified in
the above section as a delimitation. An expansion of the study to the junior officer stakeholder
group, also the majors (O4s), will add a different perspective to why mentorship is not being
conducted in the LSM. The junior officers are the primary recipients of the mentorship within
the organization and comprise the bulk of the officer corps with 1,217 (88.7%) officers,
including 224 majors. This could also enlighten the command group on the transparency issues
that were partially discussed in the section on organizational gaps and which appear on the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 188
annual command climate surveys conducted by brigades and battalions. The transparency issue
leads into the next expanded focus area of communication.
Further research should be focused on communication within the LSM. This study
explored and validated a gap amongst senior officers to communicate with junior officers. As
stated above, transparency is part of the communication issues within the organization. A
common theme throughout the interviews was the lack of communication between senior
officers and junior officers, between the command group and senior officers, and bottom-up
communication. An immediate assumption is the generational gap between stakeholders, but
that seems to be the go-to rationale that every corporation uses to sidestep communication gaps.
An expanded study focused on communication throughout the entire organization would benefit
the LSM in long run, and it would add value to the implementation plan mentioned in this
chapter. This study identified an additional gap that surfaced during both the qualitative and
quantitative processes.
The survey instrument and interviews used in this study identified a gap in mentorship
knowledge and understanding between lieutenant colonels and colonels. It was evident in the
findings from Chapter Four that most of the lieutenant colonels who took the survey did not
understand mentorship, meaning the benefits, procedures, and concepts. Most also did not know
where to find resources. This was also very evident during the interviews after the interviewer
probed beyond the initial questions. However, the colonels who participated in both the survey
and interviews clearly understood mentorship. In fact, those who volunteered to be interviewed
could articulate step by step how they conduct it. Further research focused on this gap could
assist the LSM in identifying why the gap exists, how to close the gap, and how to prevent the
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 189
gap from reappearing in the future. Finally, the study exposed the gap in diversity amongst not
just senior officers, but also junior officers in the LSM.
The LSM has identified that a gap in diversity exists amongst the officer corps in
comparison to the enlisted ranks as previously mentioned in this study. Further research in the
LSM should be conducted due the large gap in gender and ethnic diversity. The senior and
junior officers of the LSM currently do not represent the diverse population of the state that the
LSM represents. Research literature utilized in this study recommends focused mentorship of
ROTC cadets to choose a combat arms branch as a way of changing the diversity of senior
officers in the Army. This recommendation focuses on the diversity of combat arms branches
only, and does not identify the root causes of the lack of diversity in the officer corps. This gap
should be explored in the LSM further as a means to increase the diversity of the officer corps to
better represent the population of the State for which it serves.
Conclusion
In September of 2017, it was determined during a senior leadership meeting that a lack of
mentorship existed within the LSM. It was also determined during this same meeting to
establish a goal of a 20% increase in junior officer mentorship by October 2021 and an
organizational goal of 100% mentorship of all junior officers by October of 2025. This study
explored an innovative training program to assist senior officers while examining the barriers
that could impede the LSM from accomplishing its goal. The research questions driving this
study were
1. What are the knowledge and motivation required by senior officers to create and
implement a program to mentor 100% of junior officers in the Large State Militia?
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 190
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and senior officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What resources exist within the organization that senior officers already utilize that can
assist with junior officer mentorship?
4. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was the model used during this study
to identify potential gaps in the mentorship process centered into knowledge, motivation, and
organizational categories. A review of literature in conjunction with the researcher’s personal
knowledge and experience within the organization revealed 11 assumed influences. Three
knowledge influences (factual, conceptual, and procedural), four motivation influences
(attributions, self-efficacy, utility value, and cost value), and four organizational influences (two
cultural models and two cultural settings) were examined through document analysis, a survey
instrument, and interviews to validate gaps.
The data collection and analysis resulted in the validation of eight of the 11 assumed
influences as needs. All three knowledge gaps were identified as needs and added validity to an
innovative mentorship training program for senior officers. Two of the motivation gaps
(attributions and self-efficacy) were identified as needs, while the other two motivation
influences (utility value and cost value) were identified as assets and can be leveraged as part of
the training program. Lastly, both cultural model influences and both cultural setting influences
were identified as needs requiring training, command emphasis from senior leadership, but most
importantly, model mentorship behavior from senior officers.
Recommendations from the results and findings of this study were derived using theory
and empirical research. An implementation and evaluation plan to assist the senior officers in
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 191
reaching their goal was derived using the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model uses a reverse implementation plan like the military’s use of
backwards planning, making it ideal for the LSM. Recommendations begin with Level 4,
focusing on the external and internal indicators of how the LSM will look upon completion of its
goals. Next, Level 3 depicts the critical behaviors that must be exhibited by senior officers for
goal achievement. Level 3 is the most difficult to execute and utilizes four drivers (reinforcing,
encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring) mutually to support the critical behaviors.
Furthermore, an increase in communication must occur between the command group, senior
officers and junior officers for Level 3 to succeed and create transparency. Learning goals that
teach senior officers to model critical behaviors make up Level 2. Lastly, Level 1 evaluates the
mentorship training program, ensuring that the instruction is engaging, relevant, and meeting the
needs of both the senior officers and the program. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework, combined with the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
has given the LSM a comprehensive approach to finding gaps in the mentorship of junior
officers and solutions to close those gaps and achieve their organizational goal of 100%
mentorship of all junior officers by 2025.
As shown through a review of literature, a lack of mentorship exists throughout the
military. This lack of mentorship impacts the military through low junior officers’ retention
rates and long-term effects on future leadership of the organizations. All services, including both
active and reserve components, are working towards solutions. Meanwhile, potential future
commanders exit the service. This study examined the LSM’s mentorship gaps and validated
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that are impeding the mentorship process
between senior and junior officers. Implementation of a senior officer mentorship training
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 192
program arms LSM senior officers with the resources necessary to provide quality mentorship to
junior officers within the organization. With an increase in mentorship awareness throughout the
organization and the display model mentorship by senior officers, the organization’s culture will
change to one of mentorship.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 193
REFERENCES
Albrecht, M. J. (1976). A discussion of some applications of human capital theory to military
manpower issues. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Arbiter, P. (2014, September 18). Don’t blame my army for the lack of black officers in combat
commands. Best Defense. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/18/don't-
blame-my-army-for-the-lack-of-black-officers-in-combat-commands
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299–314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814529993
Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of
organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(5), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.003
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brown, K. C. (2010). Leadership in the 21
st
century: Effectiveness of mentorship for
development of senior leaders for U.S. education. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3418000).
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 194
Budd, F. C. (2007). Mentoring in the U.S. air force: A cornerstone for success through
organizational transformation. Performance Improvement, 46(3), 16–22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.112
Catchings, J. D. (2013). Forward, march: A qualitative phenomenological study for developing
army officers through a formal mentorship program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3574619).
Chein, I. (1981). Appendix: An introduction to sampling. In L. H. Kidder (Ed.), Sellitz,
Wrightman & Cook’s research methods in social relations (4th ed., pp. 418–441). Austin,
TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cho, H. J. (2013). Mentoring and diversity. Journal of the American Society of Military
Comptrollers, 58(4), 17–19.
Chopin, S. M., Danish, S. J., Seers, A., & Hook, J. N. (2013). Effects of mentoring on the
development of leadership self-efficacy and political skill. The Journal of Leadership
Studies, 6(3), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21253
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cole, A. (2012). Improving mentorship and leader development in the us army. (Unpublished
master’s thesis). United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA.
Contreras, R. H. (2008). Military command and control leadership style and the impact of senior
leaders support of mentorship. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
database. (UMI No. 3399956).
Cox, E. (2009). The mentorship dilemma continues. Military Review, 89(6), 99–103.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 195
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Department of Defense. (2015). Demographics report. Washington DC: Author.
Department of the Air Force. (2003). Air Force mentoring (Air Force Instruction 36-3401).
Washington, DC: Author
Department of the Army. (1985). Leadership counseling (Department of the Field Manual 22-
101). Washington, DC: Author.
Department of the Army. (1987). Executive leadership (Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-
80). Washington, DC: Author.
Department of the Army. (1999). Army leadership (Field Manual No. 22-100). Washington, DC.
Department of the Army. (2005). Army mentorship handbook. Rosslyn, VA: Author
Department of the Army. (2012). Army leadership (Army Doctrine Reference Publication No. 6-
22). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html
Department of the Army. (2015). Leader development (Field Manual No. 6-22). Washington,
DC: Author. https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html
Department of the Army. (2017). Army profession and leadership policy (Army Regulation No.
600-100). Washington, DC: Author. https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html
Department of the Navy. (2006). Marine Corps mentoring program (MCMP) (Marine Corps
Order 1500.58). Washington, DC: Author.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 196
Department of the Navy. (2006). Marine Corps mentoring program (MCMP) guidebook
(NAVMC Directive 1500.58). Washington, DC: Author.
Department of the Navy. (2009). Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) mentoring
program (NAVPERSCOM Instruction 5300.1) Millington, TN: Author.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. Retrieved from http://outreach.mines.edu/cont_ed/Eng-
Edu/eccles.pdf https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gallup Poll. (2015). Employee engagement in the United States. Retrieved from
https://news.gallup.com/poll/188144/employee-engagement-stagnant-2015.aspx
Garamone, J. (1999). Optempo, perstempo: What they mean. DoD News. Retrieved from
https://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42131
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20039
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 197
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Godbolt, R. O. (2013). Targeted mentorship: is it still relevant today? (Unpublished master’s
thesis) United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA589323
Harris, C. M. (2008). Mentorship fosters career commitment: the influence mentors have on US
army service members (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database. (UMI
No. 3330688).
Hunsinger, N. (2004). Mentorship: Growing company grade officers. Military Review, 84(5),
78–85.
Inzer, L. D., & Crawford, C. B. (2005). A review of formal and informal mentoring: Process,
problems, and design. Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1), 31–50.
https://doi.org/10.12806/V4/I1/TF2
Jahnke, J. A. (2008). “Building the bench” – army national guard mentoring. (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Carlisle, PA: United States Army War College.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Johnson, W. B., & Anderson, G. R. (2010). Formal mentoring in the U.S. military; research
evidence, lingering questions, and recommendations. Naval War College Review, 63(2),
114–125.
Johnson, W. B., & Anderson, G. R. (2015). Mentoring in the U.S. navy; Experience and attitudes
of senior navy personnel. Naval War College Review, 68(5), 76–90.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 198
Kahle-Piasecki, L. (2011). Mentoring: What organizations need to know to improve performance
in the 21st century workplace (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database.
(UMI No. 3474769)
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Large State Militia. (n.d.). Large state militia organization portal. Retrieved March 13, 2018
from https://ngcasp16.ng.army.mil/
Lesinski, G., Pinter, J., Kucik, P., & Lamm, G. (2011). Officers accession flow model (ORCEN
Technical Report No. DSE-TR-1103). West Point, NY: Operations Research Center of
Excellence.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Lim, N., Marquis, J. P., Hall, K. C., Schulker, D., & Zhuo, X. (2009). Officer classification and
the future of diversity among senior military leaders: A case study of the Army ROTC.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Lopez, T. (2015). To become ‘force of future,’ army must fix personnel churn. Retrieved from
https://www.army.mil/article/151308/To_become__force_of_future___Army_must_fix_
personnel_churn/
Lyle, D. S., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). The effect of high-performing mentors on junior officer
promotion in the U.S. army. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(2), 229–258.
https://doi.org/10.1086/673372
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 199
Martin, G. F., Reed, G. E., Collins, R. B., & Dial, C. K. (2002). The road to mentoring: Paved
with good intentions. Parameters, 32(4), 115–127.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mcateer, H. N. (2016). Mentorship of women in the United States Army: a qualitative case study.
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database. (ProQuest No. 10242247).
Melanson, M. A. (2007). Mentors and protégés: Simple rules for success. U.S. Army Medical
Department Journal, 4, 29–36.
Melanson, M. A. (2009). The mentoring spectrum. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 4,
37–39.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010, April). Mentoring programs across the
services (Issue Paper No. 33). Retrieved from http://mldc.whs.mil/
Nieberding, R. J. (2007). Effectiveness of the army mentorship program. (Unpublished master’s
thesis). United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Oakes, B. W. (2005). The propensity for mentorship at the united states naval academy: a study
of navy and marine corps junior officers. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 200
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational
leadership and servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
30(3), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910949544
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 17(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530584
Pincus, D. J. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 3(12), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2958.1986.tb00084.x
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 201
Poon, R. (2006, August). A model for servant leadership, self-efficacy, and mentorship. Paper
presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved from
http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_
roundtable/2006/pdf/poon.pdf
Prevosto, P. (2001). The effect of “mentored” relationships on satisfaction and intent stay of
company-grade U.S. army reserve nurses. Military Medicine, 166(1), 21–26.
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/166.1.21
Purvis, J. K. (2011). Four decades and five manuals: U.S. Army strategic leadership doctrine
1983-2011. FT Leavenworth, KS: United States Command and General Staff College.
Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker
relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(3), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.193
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of
mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177–1194.
Renkin, L. (2015). Mentorship: understanding a leader’s investment. From one leader to
another (Vol. II). FT Leavenworth, KS: United States Command and General Staff
College.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.,
pp. 85–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 202
Ryckman, O. J. (2017). Retention, mentorship, and servant leadership: an analysis for retaining
2050’s generals in today’s army (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of San Diego,
San Diego, CA.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational leadership
in voluntary service organizations. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
32(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111099283
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Shek, D. L., & Lin, L. (2015). Leadership and mentorship: Service leaders as mentors of the
followers. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(4), 351–359.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0456
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Smith, I. (2010). Why black officers still fail. Parameters, 40, (3). Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-252944134/why-black-officers-still-fail
Stewart, J., & Harrison, T. (2016). Top 3 advantages of mentorship in the workplace. Armed
Forces Comptroller, 61(4), 14–16.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 203
Thomas, J., & Thomas, T. (2015). Mentoring, coaching, and counseling toward a common
understanding. Military Review, 95(4), 50–57.
Vanden Brook, T. (2014, September 11). Army commanders: white men lead a diverse force.
USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/
11/army-officer-corps-dominated-by-white-men/14987977/
Wall, C. D. (2018). Directors personnel readiness view: Diversity report. Sacramento, CA:
Large State Militia.
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. Aurora, CO: Mid-
Continent Regional Educational Lab. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/
LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf
Watts, I. A. (2017). Large State militia organizational excellence program. Large State Militia,
Capitol City, Large State.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence
and Motivation (pp. 73–84). New York: Guilford.
Wolfson, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (2018). Sprinting to the finish: Toward a theory of human
capital resource complementarity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(11), 1165–
1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000323
Zieky, M., Perie, M., & Livingston, S. (2006). A primer on setting cut scores on tests of
educational achievement. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 204
APPENDIX A
Document Analysis Rubric
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influences Document Analysis Triangulation Present
Y/N
Comments
Factual - Senior officers need
to know the definition of
mentorship in the Army and
that it includes professional
development, career guidance,
and personal guidance with
established goals
The presence or absence of
definitions in the manuals that give
senior officers the Army’s policy
on the definition of mentorship

Conceptual - Senior officers do
not understand the impacts that
mentorship has on the culture
of the organization and
retention of junior officers
The presence or absence of
examples of how mentorship
impacts the organization’s culture
and retention rates.

Procedural - Senior officers do
not know how to mentor junior
officers
The presence or absence of
examples of how to mentor others
and what resources are available.

Motivational Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences Document Analysis Triangulation Present
Y/N
Comments
Attributions – Senior officers
believe the failure of retention
rates of junior officers is
attributed to uncontrollable
factors
The presence or absence of
examples of retention rates linked
to a lack of mentorship.

Self-Efficacy - Senior officers
are not confident they can
provide quality mentorship to
junior officers

Utility Value - Senior officers
believe that mentorship does
not add value to their career
goals or the organization’s
goals.
The presence or absence of
examples of mentorship in the
achievement of an individual's
career goals or the organization’s
goals.

Cost Value – Senior leaders
need to see the cost of time and
effort into mentorship yields a
reward of a positive impact on
the organization and its culture.
The presence or absence of
examples of mentorship within the
organization creating a positive
impact on culture.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 205
Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Document Analysis Triangulation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There is a culture of
commitment amongst senior
officers to mentor junior
officers formally (commitment
not just informally
(occasional)).
The presence or absence of
examples of senior officers
willingness to mentor junior
officers in a formal process.

Cultural Model Influence 2:
There is a culture of
commitment amongst the senior
officers to attend mentorship
training and effect change.
The presence or absence of
examples of senior officers
voluntarily attending a training that
improves the organization.

Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Senior officers are committed
to providing communication
and feedback to junior officers
to build transparency within
the organization.
The presence or absence of
examples that senior officers are
providing constructive and
transparent feedback to junior
officers.

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Senior leadership
acknowledges senior officers
who promote enthusiasm,
competence, and positive
behavior.
The presence or absence of
examples of acknowledgement of
senior officers who act as
mentorship role models.

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 206
APPENDIX B
Survey Items

Demographics
1. What is your current rank?
a. LTC
b. COL
c. BG
d. MG
2. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Prefer not to say
3. What is your Race/Ethnicity?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Other (fill in blank)
f. More than one
g. Prefer not to say
4. Are you Full-Time or MDay Guardsman?
a. Full-Time
b. MDay
5. In response to Q4, if you are Full-Time, what is your status? If MDay choose N/A
a. AGR Title 32
b. AGR Title 10
c. SAD
d. FED Tech
e. GDOS
f. Other
g. N/A
6. How Many years of commissioned service do you have?
a. Fill in answer
7. What is your Commissioning Source?
a. Federal OCS
b. State OCS
c. West Point
d. ROTC
e. Direct Commission
8. Have you had Battalion Command?
a. Yes
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 207
b. No
9. Have you had Brigade Command?
a. Yes
b. No
10. Did you have a mentor through your career thus far? If so how many?
a. None
b. One
c. Two
d. Three
e. Other (fill in)
11. If you had mentorship in your career, when did it start?
a. Beginning
b. Company Grade
c. Field Grade
d. Senior Field Grade
e. None at all
12. If you sought military career advice, where did you seek it? (Check all that apply).
a. Mentor
b. Peers
c. Superior in rating chain
d. Sought out own advice
e. Other (fill in)
f. None at all
Knowledge

13. Identify all the elements of Army Mentorship. (Check all that apply).
a. Career Goals
b. Below the Zone Promotions
c. Professional Goals
d. Personal Goals
e. Army writing
14. According to the Army, what are the roles of a mentor? (Check all that apply).
a. Leads
b. Provides
c. Shares
d. Encourages
e. Guides
f. Serves
15. The stages of mentorship include all of the following: (Check all that apply).
a. Prescriptive Stage
b. Role Modeling Stage
c. Persuasive Stage
d. Collaborative Stage
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 208
e. Confirmative Stage
16. What resources exist in the organization that defines mentorship in the Army? (Check all that
apply).
a. ADP 6-22 Army Leadership
b. ADRP 6-22 Army Leadership
c. FM 6-22 Leader Development
d. The Army Mentorship Handbook
e. AR 600-100 Army Profession and Leadership Policy
f. The California Army National Guard Personnel Handbook
g. DA PAM 600-3 Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career
Management
17. Mentorship benefits the organization for the following reasons. (Check all that apply).
a. Leadership succession
b. Increased retention
c. Recruitment
d. Improved performance
e. Leader development
f. Teamwork
18. Mentorship of junior officers impacts the organization how? (Check all that apply).
a. Informs junior officers of the organization’s goals, values, and expectations
b. Informs junior officer of the next level of responsibility
c. Enhances job satisfaction
d. Helps junior officers find their best fit within the organization
e. Assists with promotions
19. Organizations benefit from mentorship in several ways. (Check all that apply).
a. Increased commitment from mentees
b. Retention
c. Enhanced job satisfaction
d. Reduction in reasons to leave the organization
e. Improved performance
f. Culture of the organization
20. What should a mentor do when talking to a mentee? (Check all that apply).
a. Listen actively
b. Hold back judgements
c. Ask the right questions
d. Provide feedback
e. Resist distractions
f. Relate stories
21. Scenario: A junior officer asks you to provide mentorship and give him/her guidance on the
officer’s career path. The junior officer has a different Military Occupation Specialty than
you, and no functional area or other specialties. What do you do? (Check all that apply).
a. Schedule a time to meet
b. Review previous OERs and ORB
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 209
c. Consult AR 600-3 with junior officer
d. Consult your own experience
e. Ask questions from the junior officer
f. Listen
g. Set goals for the junior
h. Lay out a plan
i. Document the conversation
j. Schedule follow-up conversation
22. Mentors give guidance to the junior officers on the following. (Check all that apply).
a. Personal Goals
b. Education
c. Professional Goals
d. Career
e. Promotions
f. Future Assignments
Motivation

23. I believe that junior officer retention rates are attributed to the following factors: (Check all
that apply).
a. Upward mobility
b. MUTA 8s
c. Civil Support Missions
d. Deployments
e. Civilian Occupation
f. Other _________ (Fill in)
24. I believe that factors beyond my control attribute to retention rates
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
25. Junior officers leave the organization for reasons that are not attributed to me.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
26. If you were asked to mentor a junior officer in various aspects, how confident are you that
you can mentor the officer on the areas below? 0 as the lowest and 10 as the highest in
confidence.
a. career management? 0 – 10
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 210
b. military education? 0 – 10
c. civilian education? 0 – 10
d. personal goals? 0 – 10
e. full-time employment opportunities in the LSM? 0 – 10
27. I can provide mentorship to junior officers outside my Branch right now.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
28. I know where to find resources to assist with mentorship
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
29. My mentorship of junior officers adds value to the organization’s goals
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
30. My mentorship of junior officers adds value to my career goals.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
31. My mentorship of junior officers contributes to the culture of the organization
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
32. The time and effort that I put into mentorship yields a reward of a positive impact on the
organization.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 211
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
33. The efforts I put into mentorship impacts the junior officer and the organizational culture
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
Organization

34. There is a culture of commitment amongst senior officers to mentor junior officers
formally.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
35. There is a culture of commitment amongst the senior officers to attend mentorship training
and effect change.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
36. Senior officers are committed to providing communication and feedback to junior officers
to build transparency within the organization.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
37. Senior leadership acknowledges senior officers who promote enthusiasm, competence, and
positive behavior.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Somewhat Disagree
d. Somewhat Agree
e. Agree
f. Strongly Agree
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 212
38. How often do you communicate with your Company Grade Officers? (Choose one answer).
a. None at all
b. Less than once a month
c. Once a month
d. Once a week
e. 2-3 times a week
f. 4-5 times a week
g. Daily
39. How do you communicate with your Company Grade Officers? (Check all that apply).
a. Face to Face
b. Voice (phone)
c. Text (includes messaging Apps)
d. Email
e. Social Media
f. None at all
Interview Participation

40. If you are interested in being an interview participant, fill in the blank with your email
address and I will reach out to you. Interviews are also completely voluntary.
a. Fill in the blank

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 213
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
1. Introduction
I want to start by thanking you for serving our organization, and for taking the time to
meet with me today to discuss mentorship. I will be asking several questions about mentorship
and its role in the organization. I appreciate the time that you have set aside for participation in
this study. The interview should take no more than one hour.
Before we get started, let me tell you about what we will be discussing today and answer
any questions you might have about participating in this study. Today’s discussion will be about
mentorship in our organization. During an Adjutant General’s Executive Working Group
(AGEWG) in September 2017, the adjutant general (TAG) identified a lack of mentorship within
the organization. He subsequently tasked the J5 (Strategic Plans and Policies) Directorate with
creating a training program to teach mentorship with the goal of 100% of our junior officers will
have received mentorship by October 2025. I will be talking with several of our peers and
superior officers trying to gain a holistic view of the influences that impact mentorship within the
organization and the needs and assets necessary to implement a formal mentorship training
program. Today’s conversation will assist in the design and implementation of a mentorship
training program that will assist with the organization’s goal of 100% of junior officers
mentored. I am the Principal Investigator (PI) for this study, which fulfills part of the degree
requirements of the Doctor of Education - Organizational Change and Leadership program
offered through the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. Do you
have any questions about the study or purpose of today’s conversation?
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 214
I want to assure you that everything discussed in today’s conversation will be strictly
confidential. All of the data collected for this study will be reported in the aggregate. If I use a
quote from an interview or conversation like this one, I will indicate that it is from a senior
officer within the organization. Your name will not be used in the study and you will remain
anonymous as well as the organization will be covered by a pseudonym. Furthermore, I will not
share the data collected from this conversation with our peers, subordinates or superiors. The
data will be used strictly for the study and the design and implementation of the training
program. Do you have any questions for me thus far?
If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have
concerns or suggestions and want to talk to someone other than me about the study, please call
University of Southern California IRB Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. You can
reference IRB# UP-19-00385. In addition, if you feel in any way uncomfortable with
participating in this study, or wish to withdrawal your consent, you may do so at any time. You
also do not have to answer any questions that you are not comfortable answering.
The last thing I would like to cover is the logistics of the interview. I have brought a
recorder with me so that I can accurately capture the data provided by today’s conversation. The
recorder helps me focus on our conversation and not taking notes, this way you have my
undivided attention. If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder you can push this button and
you may make comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects of data collection is
completely voluntary. May I have your permission to record and get started?

Begin recording, mention time, date, and location.
II. Interview - Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 215
I would like to start the interview by capturing some basic background information.
1. How long have you been commissioned in the organization?
a. Have you had Brigade or Battalion Command?
I would know like to explore your thoughts and experiences with mentorship.
2. Tell me the Army’s definition of mentorship, including the elements.
a. Probe for specific elements
3. Describe a routine engagement with junior officers involving communication.
a. Probe for specific examples
4. Describe your personal opinion about the mentorship of others and what value or impacts it
has on your career and that of the organization
5. Describe how your time and effort into mentorship is value added
a. Probe for specific examples
6. Describe the use of role models within the organization.
a. Probe for examples of the organization’s recognized role models
b. Probe for current public acknowledgement of role models
7. Walk me through the variables and impacts of junior officer retention rates that you see.
a. Probe for specific impacts
8. Describe your understanding of how mentorship impacts the retention of junior officers and
the culture of the organization
9. Tell me about how confident you feel about providing effective mentorship to junior officers
right now?
a. Probe for an example with a scenario
10. Walk me through how you mentor junior officers seeking mentorship.
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 216
a. Note: if example is similar in #9
11. Talk to me about your commitment to attending mentorship training.
12. Tell me about the senior officers’ commitment to formal mentorship?
a. Probe for specifics about formal mentorship
b. Probe for personal opinion
III. Closing and Follow-up
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today, I really appreciate your time and
willingness to share your knowledge and experience about mentorship within our organization.
Everything we have discussed is very relevant to the design and implementation of a formal
mentorship training program and my dissertation. If I find myself with any follow-up questions,
would I be able to reach out to you for further discussion? Just to remind you again that all the
data that I have collected through this conversation is confidential. Again, thank you for
participating!

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 217
APPENDIX D
End-of-Training Survey
Kirkpatrick
Level
Type of Question Sample Questions

1
Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your opinion about the
overall training:
a) I felt the training kept me engaged
b) I can apply the training that I received in this
session to my mentorship of junior officers
c) I learned something about mentorship that I
didn’t know
d) The training by peers and model mentor senior
officers was well organized.
e) The mentorship training was time well spent.
f) I am satisfied with the mentorship training
program
2 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your level of
commitment to mentorship:
g) I will seek out mentees
h) I will build a mentorship file
i) I will always be available to mentor
j) I am committed to mentorship of junior
officers
2 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your level of
declarative knowledge of mentorship:
k) I know the four elements of the Army’s
definition of mentorship
l) I know where to find mentorship resources
m) I know that mentorship contributes to
retention
2 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your level of
Procedural Knowledge of mentorship:
n) I know how to mentor junior officers
o) I can set up a mentorship program in my unit
LACK OF MENTORSHIP 218
2 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Help the organization improve the mentorship
training program by providing your level of
confidence to provide mentorship:
p) I am confident I can provide effective
mentorship
q) I know that I can mentor officers from
different branches and different backgrounds
2 Open-ended Describe in what ways this training on mentorship
adds value to your career?

In what ways does the time and effort put into
mentorship benefit the organization?

LACK OF MENTORSHIP 219
APPENDIX E
Post Program Survey
Kirkpatrick
Level
Type of Question Sample Question

1
Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The information that I received during the mentorship
training program about resources helps me mentor
junior officers.
1 Likert scale: Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The demonstrations that I performed during the
mentorship training program helps me better mentor
junior officers.
2 Open-ended What are the elements of the Army’s Definition of
Mentorship?
2 Open-ended How will you layout your mentorship program?
3 Open-ended How have you adapted what you learned to your
mentorship program?
3 Open-ended How often are you providing effective feedback to
your junior officers?
4 Open-ended How will this program help you mentor junior
officers?
4 Open-ended How will you communicate opportunities to junior
officers?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mentorship challenges for occupational therapy clinicians transitioning into academia: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Maximizing leadership development in the U.S. Army: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

An evaluation study of the retention of company grade officers in the Western Volunteer Rifles

PDF

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Gender inequities in behind-the-camera positions of power in the film industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Missed opportunities: lack of advancement of African American females  into senior executive healthcare leadership

PDF

Universal Wellness Network: a study of a promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Structured leadership development in the judicial system to enhance public service: an executive dissertation evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing the effectiveness of African-American male mentorship

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership engagement to promote employee retention and career paths within the senior assisted living industry

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the benefits of senior nutrition programs as a cost savings to Medicare: a promising practice study

Asset Metadata

Creator Mifsud, Richard Francis, II (author)

Core Title Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/27/2020

Defense Date 02/20/2020

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

Tag leadership,leadership development,mentor,mentorship,Military,OAI-PMH Harvest,senior officers

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth Anthony (committee chair), Foulk, Susanne (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email mifsud@usc.edu,richardmifsud@att.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-277161

Unique identifier UC11673198

Identifier etd-MifsudRich-8232a.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-277161 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MifsudRich-8232a.pdf

Dmrecord 277161

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mifsud, Richard Francis, II

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