University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES AT THE
UNIT LEVEL IN THE AIR FORCE: AN INNOVATION STUDY

by

Trevor Rosenberg

A Dissertation Proposal 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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Trevor Rosenberg

ii

Dedication
To my best friend and eternal companion Cheryl, who helps me learn and live these principles of
love and leadership every day together in developing our children. Cole (and Ariana), Bryce
(and Sarah), Maddie, Tad, and Ren, you are the joy of our lives.

To our Airmen, you deserve leaders that are competent, consistent, caring, and recognize that the
way they lead impacts the way you live.

iii

Acknowledgements
After an unexpected journey like this one, where do you start? If Bilbo Baggins had
written an acknowledgement in The Hobbit, he likely would have expressed appreciation for
Gandalf. I am grateful for the Gandalfs who helped me go “there and back again” (Tolkien,
1966, cover) along this amazing doctoral journey. Mark Skouson opened the door by asking,
“Why not you?” Dr. Kevin Basik infused energy and honed my attention on exploring leader
awareness, modeling, and environment. General Darren W. McDew left a legacy of modeling
and involvement, providing experiential opportunities, and cultivating a culture of learning.
At USC Rossier, I was repeatedly blessed by incredible professors who supported,
encouraged, and pushed our cohort to expand our understanding, horizons, and capacities. Dr.
Maddox, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Ott, Dr. Cash, Dr. Canny, and the many other professors at USC
Rossier, I cannot thank you enough for your dedication as educators to invite us to take
ownership of our own learning and open the door to growth and change. And, to our cohort,
especially our mini-c, thank you, for learning truly is social and collaborative (Hargadon, 2003).
To Dr. Ott and Dr. Bewley, my dissertation chair and assistant, I remain inspired by your
combined efforts to provide both hands-off latitude and hands-on guidance and support. You
modeled, as did Gandalf, the behaviors of a true coach, mentor, and leader.
To the eight rock-star squadron commanders and 81 outstanding Airmen who shared
thoughts, experiences, and passions, thank you. Your voice and examples will leave an impact.
Finally, to my family, wow… We did it! From my college kids and their spouses, three
of which graduated and another joined the college ranks since this journey began, to my beautiful
bride and our wonderful caboose Ren, I am forever reminded that our family is ordained of God,
and as with this doctoral journey, I will continue to strive to learn “how to be a better dad.”

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ viii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ix
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ........................................................................................................ 1
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................................. 1
Importance of Organizational Innovation ..................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................................... 3
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................................................... 3
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................................. 4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ...................................................................................... 5
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................................... 6
History of Leadership Development Theory ................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Leader and Leadership Development .................................................................................. 6
History and Growth of Leadership Development Theory and Practice .................................................... 7
Evolution of Leadership Development Research ...................................................................................... 8
Leadership Development through Experiential Learning ............................................................................. 8
Experiential & Action Learning ................................................................................................................ 8
Reflection and Meaning-making ............................................................................................................... 9
Identity Development and Leadership .................................................................................................... 10
Leader Modeling and Involvement ............................................................................................................. 10
Leader Involvement ................................................................................................................................ 10
Vicarious Learning and Leader Modeling of Developmental Behaviors ............................................... 11
Coaching and Mentoring in Development .............................................................................................. 11
Cultivating a Culture of Learning ............................................................................................................... 12
Learning Cultures and Learning Organizations ...................................................................................... 12
Learning Cultures Foster Development and Psychological Safety ......................................................... 13
Feedback in Learning Cultures ............................................................................................................... 13
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework .............................................................................. 14
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ........................................................ 14

v

Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................................................. 15
Leader involvement and modeling in people development. ............................................................... 15
Cognitive processing, experiential learning, and effective teaching. .................................................. 16
Awareness of impact on cultivating culture. ....................................................................................... 17
Motivation ............................................................................................................................................... 18
Self-efficacy theory and commanders ................................................................................................. 18
Expectancy-value theory. .................................................................................................................... 19
Goal orientation theory. ...................................................................................................................... 20
Organization ............................................................................................................................................ 21
General organizational theory. ............................................................................................................ 22
Cultural models. .................................................................................................................................. 23
Cultural settings. ................................................................................................................................. 25
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 29
Data Collection and Instrumentation .......................................................................................................... 32
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Findings and Results ................................................................................................................................... 35
Solutions and Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 42
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 42
Declarative conceptual knowledge solutions: Increase leader modeling and involvement ................ 45
Declarative conceptual knowledge solutions: Understand cognitive processing and experiential
learning in effective teaching .............................................................................................................. 46
Metacognitive knowledge solutions: Increase leader awareness and reflection on their impact ........ 47
Motivation Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 48
Increase self-efficacy of commanders ................................................................................................. 50
Increase commander interest and value in developing people ............................................................ 51
Model growth mindset and mastery goal orientation. ......................................................................... 52
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 53
Cultural model: Cultivate a culture of prioritizing and focusing on people development .................. 55
Cultural model: Cultivate a learning culture ....................................................................................... 57
Cultural setting: Emphasize people development in commander and leader evaluations................... 58
Cultural setting: Training and tools to improve development and culture .......................................... 59
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 60
References ................................................................................................................................................... 62

vi

Appendix A: Air Force Demographics ....................................................................................................... 87
Appendix B: Interactive Conceptual Model Examples of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences Interplay .................................................................................................................................... 88
Appendix C: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interviews and Surveys ................... 89
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix E: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix F: Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 100
Appendix G: Credibility and Trustworthiness .......................................................................................... 101
Appendix H: Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 103
Appendix I: Ethics .................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix J: Expanded Findings and Results ............................................................................................ 107
Appendix K: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................................. 148
Appendix L: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ........................................................................................ 161
Appendix M: Blended Evaluation Tool .................................................................................................... 162

vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .................... 28
Table 2: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ................................... 43
Table 3: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ................................... 48
Table 4: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................ 53
Table 5: Direct Report Perceptions of Leader Involvement and Modeling ......................... 110
Table 6: Direct Report Prioritization of How Leaders Spend Their Day ............................ 111
Table 7: Direct Report Perceptions of Leader Understanding of Experiential Learning .... 115
Table 8: Direct Report Feedback and Development Sessions with Their Commander ...... 117
Table 9: Reasons Why Direct Reports Like Working for Their Commander ..................... 121
Table 10: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .............. 149
Table 11: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ..................... 151
Table 12: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .................................................. 152
Table 13: Evaluation of Components of Learning for the Program .................................... 156
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ............................................. 157

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Interactive Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 30
Figure 2: Direct Report Perception of How Commanders Spend Their Day ...................... 111
Figure 3: Sample Leadership Development Initiatives Dashboard ..................................... 159

ix

Abstract
This study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework to an innovation
initiative for growing strong leaders in the United States Air Force. The purpose of this was to
examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for squadron
commanders to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Following a review of literature, the study employed an exploratory mixed methods design of
interviews with eight exemplary squadron commanders and surveys from 81 of their direct
reports. Analysis of interview and survey data triangulated to validate eight assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences identified in the literature review. Three key essentials
emerged from the findings: leader involvement and modeling, experiential learning, and a
supportive environment or culture of learning, combined with the foundational principle of
leader awareness of their role and impact. Utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), the study translates the evidence-based recommendations into
an actionable implementation and evaluation plan to address performance gaps. As a result, the
Air Force will be able to focus support, progress, and accountability towards achieving the
priority of growing strong leaders and create the conditions for squadron commanders to
implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.

Keywords: Leadership development, leadership, Air Force, commanders, military leadership

1

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
U.S. organizations spend over $164 billion in training and development each year
(Ferrazzi, 2015; Feser, Nielson, & Rennie, 2017) and organizations perennially list leadership
development as a top strategic priority (Karumathil, 2017). Nevertheless, only 11% of business
executives believe their leadership development initiatives are achieving intended results and
only 13% have confidence in their rising leaders (Beer, Finnstrom, & Schrader, 2016;
Fernández-Aráoz, Roscoe, & Aramaki, 2017). Similarly, in the United States Air Force,
research indicates an unfavorable view of leaders at the unit level concurrent with a call for
improved leadership development (Booz-Allen-Hamilton, 2017; Hoyer, 2017). The evidence
suggests the Air Force has yet to achieve its priority to grow strong leaders and meet the
Congressional mandate to enhance leadership development (General Accounting Office, 2013;
Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020). Bass (1990) and Goldfein (2001) argue leadership is the
single most critical factor in success or failure of organizations. Furthermore, leadership is at the
heart of organizational and individual vitality, affecting commitment, retention, customer
satisfaction, and profitability (Kochan, 2015; Zenger & Folkman, 2016). Therefore, growing
strong leaders is essential to organizational vitality at the unit level and success of the Air Force
mission and defense of this nation.
Organizational Context and Mission
President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, creating the
Department of the Air Force. Since its inception on September 18, 1947, the United States Air
Force operates worldwide in accomplishing its mission, “to fly, fight, and win” (U.S. Air Force,
n. d.). Headquartered at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, Air Force senior leadership,
consisting of a presidential appointed civilian secretary, military chief of staff, and chief master

2

sergeant, direct the Air Force mission with the assistance of the Air Staff. Additionally, ten
major commands oversee 147 Air Force wings stateside and abroad, and together with other field
agencies organize, train, and equip air forces (U.S. Air Force, 2019).
Currently numbered at 673,000 personnel, the Air Force Total Force is composed of 48%
active duty, 21% civilian, 16% Air National Guard, and 15% Air Force Reserve employees (Air
Force Personnel Center, 2020). Air Force demographics, in terms of race, gender, age, and
ethnicity, are available at Appendix A. Air Force personnel are organized into 1,984 squadrons
with an average of 187 individuals in each unit (Ausink, Matthews, Conley, & Lim, 2018).
Commanders and leaders at every level develop Airmen with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
to be the world’s greatest air force, “powered by Airmen, fueled by innovation” (Welsh, 2014).
Importance of Organizational Innovation
It is important to examine effective leadership development at the unit level for a variety
of reasons. There is a direct correlation between successful organizations and successful leaders.
Multiple studies point to leaders as the common factor in both organizational and individual
vitality, health, and performance (Gallup, 2017; Kochan, 2015; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons,
2012; Pincus, 2006; Lu, Xie, & Guo, 2018; Zenger & Folkman, 2016). Gallup (2017) estimates
employee vitality costs U.S. companies $483 to $605 billion in lost productivity a year.
Furthermore, research indicates direct supervisors may have a greater impact on an employee’s
health than even their family, friends, or doctor (Chapman & Sisodia, 2015; McKinsey.com,
2017; Pfeffer, 2018). Accordingly, leadership development starts and ends with leaders, as
employees tend to mimic what they observe, admire, and emulate (Day, Harrison, & Halpin,
2009; Popper, 2005; Zenger & Folkman, 2016). Organizational initiatives will continue to be

3

ineffective as long as commanders do not initiate, implement, and model effective leadership
development behaviors at the unit level.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal
of implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. 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 focused on in this analysis was the unit level leader, or
squadron commander.
The questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What are Air Force squadron commanders’ knowledge and motivation related to
modeling, integrating, and engaging in effective leadership development initiatives at
the unit level?
2. What is the interaction between Air Force culture and context and commanders’
knowledge and motivation to model, integrate, and engage in effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions for
commanders to model, integrate, and engage in effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level?
Organizational Performance Status
Air Force squadron commanders at the unit level are inconsistent in their leadership role
to deliberately develop their people as future leaders. Despite an ecosystem that arguably

4

produces good leaders, the Air Force lacks a comprehensive framework to consistently develop
leaders (Cooper et al., 2018). Furthermore, Stark (2018) contends the Air Force officer system is
not built to produce good leaders. Research, reporting, and seminal field studies indicate the Air
Force has yet to achieve congressional mandates and its priority to grow strong leaders (Booz-
Allen-Hamilton, 2017; Government Accounting Office, 2013; Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond,
2020). A comprehensive Air Force-wide study identified leadership development as the top need
in revitalizing the squadron (Booz-Allen-Hamilton, 2017). When leaders fail to focus on
developing their people or address knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers together, the
environment erodes, people suffer, and commanders get fired (Losey, 2018).
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal for the United States Air Force is based on their
vision to be the world’s greatest air force, “powered by Airmen, fueled by innovation” (Welsh,
2014). By June 2022, the Air Force will grow strong leaders by implementing effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level. The Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Chief
Master Sergeant of the Air Force established the goal to grow strong leaders as one of their five
key priorities (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020). In line with this priority, Air Force
Instruction 1-2, Commander’s Responsibilities, identifies leading people as one of four
commanders’ duties, with an emphasis on professional and personal development (Secretary of
the Air Force, 2014). The achievement of this goal will be measured by the results of revised
accountability systems for commanders, in conjunction with Defense Department unit climate
surveys (www.deocs.net). Current Defense Department unit climate surveys measure key
indicators of leadership: trust in leadership, organizational commitment, leadership cohesion, and
job satisfaction (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute [DEOMI], n.d.).

5

Description of Stakeholder Groups
Every Airman has the potential to influence and lead others, and thus is a
stakeholder in the Air Force. For the purposes of achieving effective leadership development at
the unit level, this study highlights three stakeholder groups: unit level commanders, unit level
supervisors, and Headquarters United States Air Force senior leadership. As the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force states, the squadron is the “beating heart of the Air Force” (Goldfein, 2016, p.2).
Squadrons are where the mission succeeds or fails, and where Air Force leaders develop, train,
and build Airmen. Squadron commanders lead and are instrumental to the health, vitality, and
success of their unit. Furthermore, the Air Force runs on the back of the non-commissioned
officer, or unit level supervisor, who executes the mission daily, guides teams, and develops
people. Lastly, Headquarters Air Force senior leadership set vision, direction, and priority for
Airmen through organization-wide policy and accountability systems.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
Each of the previously mentioned stakeholders are vital contributors to the achievement
of the overall Air Force goal of growing strong leaders. However, it is especially important to
understand the needs of unit level commanders as they fulfill their responsibilities to lead people,
improve the unit, manage resources, and execute the mission (Secretary of the Air Force, 2014).
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be unit level Air Force squadron
commanders. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by unit level supervisors and Headquarters
United States Air Force, is that by June 2022, 100% of Air Force squadron commanders will
integrate effective leadership development initiatives into their daily, weekly, and monthly battle
rhythm. As the literature review highlights, effective leadership development initiatives at the
unit level include leader involvement and modeling, cultivating a culture of learning and growth,

6

and providing opportunities for experiential learning combined with feedback for their Airmen
(Barsade & O’Neill, 2014; Beer et al., 2016; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012; Kolb, 1984;
Ready & Conger, 2003).
Review of the Literature
This literature review examines possible root causes of gaps in implementing effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force and in leader daily practices.
The review begins with general research on the history of leadership development theory and
initiatives in organizations. This history is followed by an overview of literature on leadership
development through experiential or action learning. Next, the review examines the discussions
by researchers on the impact of leader involvement and modeling in their daily practices.
Finally, the review concludes with current practices of cultivating a culture of learning in
organizations. Following the general research literature, the review utilizes Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis conceptual framework to explore the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences specifically on implementing effective leadership development
interventions at the Air Force unit level.
History of Leadership Development Theory
Definition of Leader and Leadership Development
Although used interchangeably, the terms leader development and leadership
development are different. Leader development is intrapersonal and targets increasing individual
human capital, or knowledge, skills, and abilities (Day, 2000). Meanwhile, leadership
development is interpersonal and aims to enhance social capital and the collective capacity of a
team, group, or organization (Day, 2000; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2013).
While this study focuses on developing the collective capacity of leadership across the Air Force,

7

the author will use the term leadership development to capture initiatives that include both
individual and collective capacity building.
Leadership development is people development, and people development is capacity
building (Dyer & Renn, 2010; Elmore, 2002; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Building the collective
capacity of an organization includes developing people and developing leaders at all levels
(Altman, Rego, & Steadman, 2010; Collins, 2001; Kegan & Lahey, 2016; Tichy, 2002). Thus,
the essence of leadership development is change, which is essential to learning and growth
(Boyatzis, 2008; McGowan & Miller, 2001; McGuire & Rhodes, 2009). Dewey (1933), Kolb
(1984), and Senge (1990) all emphasize that humans are naturally wired to seek, desire, and
thrive on learning, growth, and change. Organizations that capitalize on the basic human instinct
to adapt and change can help build the collective leadership capacity of its individuals and teams.
History and Growth of Leadership Development Theory and Practice
Teaching about leadership is not the same as creating leaders or increasing leadership
capacity (Erhard, Jenson, & Granger, 2012; Lunsford & Brown, 2017). Leadership development
goes beyond competency lists and teaching principles and the how of leadership (McGuire &
Rhodes, 2009; Snook, Nohria, & Khurana, 2012). Moreover, lasting leadership is not nurtured in
a classroom (Gurdjian, Halbeisen, & Lane, 2014; McCauley, Van Velsor, & Ruderman, 2010).
Rather, Couch and Citrin (2018) stress leadership development initiatives need to be
intentionally integrated into leaders and organizations day-to-day activities.
Hoyer (2017) argues that the Air Force’s traditional methods of teaching leadership
through lectures in classrooms creates cognitive dissonance, mental discomfort caused by
competing ideas or beliefs in conflict with each other (Festinger, 1957). When instruction is
separated from context, trial, and effort, learning transfer does not occur (Hoyer, 2017).

8

Similarly, leadership development practitioners affirm context in which leadership is developed
matters and that there is no cookie cutter approach to learning and leadership development (Beer
et al., 2016; Ferrazzi, 2015; Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Leboeuf, Emery, Siang, & Sitkin,
2012; Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palman, 2000). Leadership development
initiatives are expanding and focusing on collective capacity building in the context of
employees’ work environment (Ardichvili, Dirani, & Dirani, 2017; Day et al., 2013; Fulford,
2013).
Evolution of Leadership Development Research
While leadership theory is rich in literature and study, research on leader and leadership
development has been fairly nascent until the last two decades. Scientific and evidence-based
research is emerging to support effective leadership development initiatives (Day et al., 2013;
Smigowski, 2015). Nevertheless, there is no one universally accepted theory about how to
develop leaders (Avolio & Hannah, 2008; Day & Halpin, 2004). The same goes for developing
an organization’s collective capacity. Leadership development efforts are increasingly
integrating experiential learning and collective capacity building to impact to overall
organizational vitality (Lord, Day, Zaccaro, & Avolio, 2017). Likewise, leadership development
includes much more than case studies and focus on great leader characteristics (Bolman & Deal,
1994; Fulford, 2013). Successful leadership development initiatives move beyond the classroom
to a laboratory of learning, integral to which is life’s experiences.
Leadership Development through Experiential Learning
Experiential & Action Learning
Leadership development is a self-discovery journey, an iterative process that includes
action, observation, and reflection or meaning-making (Hammond, Clapp-Smith, & Palanski,

9

2017; Hughes et al., 2012; Kolb, 1984, 2009). Similar to education, experiential learning
increases knowledge retention from 10% to 66% compared to classroom instruction (Gurdjian et
al., 2014). Bolman and Deal (1994) argue most leadership lessons are learned from experience.
Furthermore, researchers found that challenging experiences and stretch job opportunities are
instrumental to developing leaders (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; McCall, Lombardo, &
Morrison, 1988; Wilson, 2008; Yip & Wilson, 2008, 2010). Nevertheless, not all experiences
have the same learning potential (McCauley & McCall, 2014).
Action learning complements experiential learning by integrating real problems, working
teams, and facilitators to guide the learning process (Faust, 2010; Ganz & Lin, 2012; Hanson,
2013; Rossett, 1999; Marquardt, 1999). Elmore (2002) emphasizes the integrative nature of
action learning, to train where employees work and work where employees train. Furthermore,
action learning integrates collective capacity building of teams and organizations (Hirst, Mann,
Bain, Pirola-Merlo, & Richter, 2004).
Reflection and Meaning-making
In a review of 25 years of research and theory on leadership development, Day et al.
(2013) conclude that experience becomes the master teacher and increases leadership
performance when combined with reflection and meaning-making. In applying adult learning
theory, key to the process of development is action followed by reflection (Dewey, 1933; Kolb,
1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Meaning-making and real learning occurs by associating
experiences and their implications (Hammond et al., 2017). For example, in a phenomenological
study of 14 U.S. Navy admirals’ strategic leadership development, Goff (2010) found that real
life experience combined with reflection and abstraction leads to greater learning, development,
and growth over institutionalized training. Reflection paves the way for transformative learning,

10

stimulating knowledge transfer and enduring change (LeBoeuf et al., 2012; Starkey & Hall,
2012). Furthermore, reflection, or sense-making, has a high correlation with leadership
effectiveness and development of leadership identity (Ancona, 2012).
Identity Development and Leadership
Leadership development involves the integration of personal, social, and professional
identities (Erhard et al., 2012; Lord & Hall, 2005; Munasamy, Ruderman, & Eckert, 2010). Self-
awareness, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-actualization are integral to leadership identity
development (Day, 2000; George, 2012; Petriglieri, 2012). Consequently, Hall (2004) concludes
identity is the most crucial aspect of leadership development. Experiential learning combined
with reflection can have positive implications for leadership identity development and initiatives
in organizations. While leaders have a greater chance of growth through experiential learning
and reflection, their development can be enhanced by leadership involvement and modeling.
Leader Modeling and Involvement
Leadership development initiatives suffer without leader engagement, involvement, and
modeling of development, such as coaching and mentoring (Cacioppe, 1998; Day et al., 2009).
Leaders who are involved and engaged give employees models of desired behaviors (Barsade &
O’Neill, 2014; Ganz & Lin, 2012; Hanson, 2013). Bullis (2009) contends what matters most to
organizations is leaders’ positive example and modeling of appropriate behaviors.
Leader Involvement
Multiple studies identify leaders as the common factor in both organizational and
individual vitality, health, and performance (Berger, 2014; Borgogni, Russo, & Lathan, 2011;
Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 2017; Lu et al., 2018; Rath & Conchie, 2009).
Leaders modeling integrity and ethical behavior has a significant positive impact on employee

11

trust, commitment, behavior, and performance (Leroy et al., 2012; Martin, Guillaume, Thomas,
Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016; Rodriguez, Green, Sun, & Baggerly-Hinojosa, 2017; Zenger &
Folkman, 2016). Positive leader engagement fosters initiative success (Cameron, Mora,
Leutscher, & Calarco, 2011; Seppala & Cameron, 2015). In research with 3,200 employees
across seven industries, Barsade and O’Neill (2014) found that leader involvement and modeling
“what right looks like” builds trust and enables vicarious learning, which Popper (2005) asserts
is the most effective way to develop leadership next to experiential learning.
Vicarious Learning and Leader Modeling of Developmental Behaviors
Vicarious learning is grounded in Bandura’s (1977) seminal work on social learning
theory, where individuals observe, admire, and emulate other’s behaviors (Day et al., 2009;
Hanson, 2013). Specifically, individuals learn better through competent models (Bandura,
1977). For example, Zenger and Folkman (2016) examined 360-degree assessments of high- and
mid-level managers and found significant correlation between 30 of 51 positive leader behaviors,
with developing self and others being the most predominant. Furthermore, the more effective
employees worked for more effective leaders (Zenger & Folkman, 2016). Leaders may better
support leadership development by modeling desired behaviors and genuine involvement in
organizational initiatives, including coaching and mentoring.
Coaching and Mentoring in Development
The role of leaders is to coach, mentor, support, and develop others (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999; Clifton & Harter, 2019; Ibarra & Scoular, 2019; McCauley et al., 2010; Schmidt,
Rosenberg, & Eagle, 2019; Senge, 1990). In case studies of successful organizations well known
for developing leaders, such as General Electric, PepsiCo, and Shell, Cacioppe (1998) discovered
that senior leader personal commitment and involvement in teaching, coaching, and mentoring is

12

instrumental to leadership development initiatives. Coaching is distinct from yet integral to
effective mentoring, and is grounded in asking inspired questions, unlocking potential, and
enabling others to make decisions and grow (Frankovelgia & Riddle, 2010; Wilson, 2008;
Wiseman, 2011; Wiseman, Bradwejn, & Westbroek, 2014). Furthermore, peer-based coach and
mentoring enhances involvement and expands collective capacity building (Altman et al., 2010;
Burgess, 2012). Organizations can reinforce the advantages of involvement and modeling on
leadership development initiatives by cultivating a culture of learning, growth, and change.
Cultivating a Culture of Learning
The research shows that leadership development initiatives foster lasting growth and
positive change in organizations with cultures and systemic processes that prioritize, cultivate,
and reward development (Beer et al., 2016; Hanson, 2013; Maxwell, 2006; McGowan & Miller,
2001; Ready & Conger, 2003; Williams, 2013).
Learning Cultures and Learning Organizations
Total learning organizations constantly improve (Senge, 1990). Organizational learning
is essential for collective capacity building (Jones, 2001). Learning organizations foster a culture
of inquiry and growth, moving beyond problem-solving to envisioning possibilities (Barrett,
1995; Dowd, 2005). As a result, employees actively and openly create, acquire and transfer
knowledge for real learning (Argryis & Schön, 1978; Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008;
Schein, 2017). Nevertheless, it is important to cultivate a learning culture before implementing
learning organizational initiatives (Edmondson & Woolley, 2003; Prewitt, 2003). Learning
cultures embrace caring and increase trust (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Barsade & O’Neill, 2014;
Schein, 2017; Von Krogh, 1998). As a result, learning organizations build community
(Mintzberg, 2012; Starkey & Hall, 2012).

13

Learning Cultures Foster Development and Psychological Safety
Leadership development initiatives fail without a culture that cultivates learning or
systemic processes that support and foster development. In three research initiatives involving
95 global corporations and 3,500 managers and executives, Ready and Conger (2003) maintain
that these seeds of development take root and are nourished by systemic processes that prioritize,
foster, and reward development (Williams, 2013). Therefore, learning organizations deliberately
develop leadership and collective capacity at all levels (Kegan & Lahey, 2016; McGowan &
Miller, 2001; O’Leonard & Loew, 2012). A learning culture also creates a safe space for
experimenting and failure, or stepping stones for growth (Catmull & Wallace, 2014; Slaughter,
2018). Edmondson (1999) terms this safe space psychological safety, which is instrumental to
team-focused learning, agility, innovation, and growth (Duhigg, 2016; Edmondson, 2018).
Additionally, organizations that foster psychological safety are more open to feedback.
Feedback in Learning Cultures
Feedback facilitates learning. Learning cultures accept, encourage, and seek feedback
(King & Santana, 2010). Heen and Stone (2014) argue leaders’ ability to receive feedback is the
top influence on learning cultures and key to thriving organizations. Feedback includes
measuring results and impact of initiatives in order to learn and grow, individually, and as an
organization (Gurdjian et al., 2014). Furthermore, Brown (2018) asserts vulnerability is essential
for learning organizations to engage in tough conversations, expand clear feedback, and foster
trust. Learning organizations that cultivate a culture of vulnerability and reciprocal feedback
improve potential for positive change and growth for leadership development initiatives.
Culture, leader involvement, and experiential learning separately may not ensure success.

14

Together, these three elements increase the probability of effective leadership development,
organizational and individual vitality, and employees adopting desired leadership behaviors.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provide an evidence-based, systematic framework to help
practitioners identify the root cause of performance gaps between an organization’s current and
desired state. The gap analysis framework examines the stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences hindering performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge
encompasses cognitive or mental structures and can be organized into four areas: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation
involves the interaction of individuals with their environment and is measured by active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, motivational influences of
self-efficacy, attributions, values, and goal orientation may impact performance gaps (Rueda,
2011). Lastly, Clark and Estes (2008) identify work processes, resources, and workplace culture
as organizational influences on stakeholder performance. Knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors affect each other and should not be considered in isolation, but holistically
in identifying organizational performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following review of current scholarly research focuses on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors necessary for Air Force squadron commanders to
effectively implement leadership development initiatives at the unit level and help the Air Force
grow strong leaders. The first section discusses the assumed knowledge and skill influences on
the achievement of the performance goal. The next section explores the assumed motivational
factors that impact achieving the stakeholder goal. Finally, the third section considers

15

attainment of effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level via assumed
organizational and social influences.
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge and skills are the first influences necessary for unit level leaders to achieve
their performance goal. Rueda (2011) stresses analyzing performance problems includes
examining knowledge and skills of stakeholders. Krathwohl (2002) organizes knowledge into
four areas: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is the
knowledge of facts, specific details, and terminology needed to accomplish a goal. Conceptual
knowledge is the ability to categorize and classify details and facts, and is the knowledge of
principles, models, theories, and structures of a specific domain (Rueda, 2011). Procedural
knowledge includes skills, techniques, methods, and knowledge of criteria when to apply
specific procedures (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and control
of one’s own cognitive processing or self-knowledge (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Research
indicates organizational performance increases with the increase of human capacity, or employee
knowledge and skills (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Identifying factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge influences will help Air Force squadron commanders narrow
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). This next section addresses three possible knowledge
influences in the areas of leader involvement and modeling, cognitive processing and
experiential learning, and cultivating a culture of learning and growth.
Leader involvement and modeling in people development. The first knowledge
influence that Air Force squadron commanders need to achieve their performance goal is the
declarative conceptual knowledge of modeling, involvement, and people development in
leadership roles. Few leaders may understand that Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory

16

translates directly to subordinates observing and mimicking behaviors of their peers, supervisors,
and leaders. Zenger and Folkman (2016) term this mirroring of behavior as the trickle-down
effect. Air Force squadron commanders need to understand they are walking, talking, and
behaving models. Research shows leaders modeling integrity and ethical behavior has a
significant positive impact on employee trust, commitment, behavior, and performance (Brown
& Trevino, 2014; Leroy et al., 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2017). Furthermore, research on leader-
member exchange theory finds positive leader involvement and modeling increases employee
engagement and commitment (Martin, 2010). As Air Force squadron commanders conceptually
understand social learning or cognitive theory, trickle-down effect, and leader-member exchange
theory on their role as leaders, they may be able to better apply procedural knowledge and skills
of leader development.
One critical element of leader involvement is the principle of coaching. Air Force
squadron commanders need to understand the conceptual knowledge of coaching, in order to
apply the procedural skills with subordinates while in command. The principles of effective
coaching correlate closely to effective teaching, cognitive processing, and experiential learning,
which will be discussed below.
Cognitive processing, experiential learning, and effective teaching. The second
knowledge influence that Air Force squadron commanders need to achieve their performance
goal of effective leadership development at the unit level is conceptually understanding cognitive
processing and the importance of experiential learning in effective teaching techniques. Leading
is essentially teaching, for both are about facilitating change (Mayer, 2011; McCauley et al.,
2010). Integral to teacher development is understanding cognitive processing and how people
learn. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) separate the information processing system into three

17

components: sensory, working, and long-term memory. While long-term memory has unlimited
capacity, working memory is limited and can be overloaded (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas,
2006). In order to reduce cognitive over-load and facilitate transfer of learning, teachers are
encouraged to provide new information in bite size chunks and help learners associate the new
information with prior knowledge (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Deans for Impact, 2015; Mayer,
2011). Similarly, in order to effectively develop their people, commanders need the conceptual
knowledge of adult learning to help individuals link new information with prior knowledge,
increase levels of responsibility incrementally, and create opportunities to practice and improve.
Awareness of impact on cultivating culture. The third knowledge influence that Air
Force squadron commanders need to achieve their performance goal is awareness of how their
own thoughts, beliefs, and actions impact the culture of their organization. Leaders are the chief
culture officers of their organization (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Peters (2018) concludes
cultivating culture is a leader’s top priority. Beyond the factual and conceptual knowledge of
what culture is and how to develop and change it, leaders must be metacognitive and aware that
their mindset, belief systems, and behaviors are at the heart of an organization’s culture
(Groysberg, Lee, Price, & Cheng, 2018; Schein, 2004; Warrick, 2017). Schein (2004) argues the
underlying foundation of culture includes an individual or group’s perceiving, feeling, and
thinking. Organizations take on, adopt, and instill the underlying values and beliefs of the
leaders that employees perceive are to their benefit or the employees depart (Schein, 2004,
2017). In organizations like the Air Force where members cannot easily choose to leave,
employees disengage and commitment decreases (Gallup, 2017). Thus, Air Force squadron
commanders’ awareness of and reflection on their impact in cultivating culture is instrumental to
organizational engagement and success.

18

Motivation
Motivation is the second dimension required for Air Force squadron commanders to
address in order to achieve effective leadership development at the unit level. Motivation is
often overlooked as organizations tend to focus on knowledge issues as root causes of
performance problems. Nevertheless, motivational influences account for nearly 50% of the gap
between current performance and goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section provides definitions
of motivation, explains why motivation is important, and describes three motivational constructs
possibly relevant to Air Force squadron commanders achieving their stakeholder goal.
Motivational theories attempt to understand what energizes individuals towards a goal or
activity (Pintrich, 2003). Defined, motivation is a process that initiates and sustains goal-
directed behavior (Mayer, 2011; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). Mayer (2011) further states
that motivation is personal, activating, energizing, and directed. Clark and Estes (2008)
characterize these components as three elements of motivation: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort. Motivation is influenced by internal and external factors, including the interaction
of individuals and their work environment (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Three
motivational influences that may be relevant to Air Force squadron commanders achieving their
stakeholder goal are self-efficacy, value, and goal-orientation. The next section applies the three
possible motivational influences and their aligned theories to Air Force squadron commanders
and effective leadership development at the unit level.
Self-efficacy theory and commanders. The first motivational influence relevant to
effective leadership development at the unit level is self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is the
belief in one’s ability to perform a desired behavior (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Bandura,
2000). Self-efficacy beliefs are foundational to human motivation, well-being, and personal

19

accomplishment (Pajares, 2006). Without the belief in one’s ability to accomplish a task,
motivation fades and people are unlikely to persist (Pajares, 2006). In addition to prior
experience, there are a number of influences on self-efficacy beliefs: enactive attainment or past
record of success or failure, vicarious experience, feedback and social persuasion, physiological
conditions, and personal context and outcomes (Pajares, 2006). For example, success fosters
positive perceptions of self and confirms high self-efficacy. Meanwhile, repeated failure
reinforces negative self-perceptions, leading to and confirming low self-efficacy (Bandura,
2000). Correspondingly, Air Force squadron commander self-efficacy beliefs influence their
choice to engage in leadership development at the unit, the level of effort they pursue, and their
thought patterns and emotional responses.
Expectancy-value theory. The second motivational influence related to effective
leadership development at the unit level is expectancy-value theory. The first element of this
theory involves the expectation of a successful outcome of one’s performance (Wigfield, 1994).
Next, individuals place value based on their perceived importance of performing a task (Eccles,
2009). People value that which they believe benefits them and reject what they perceive
obstructs them (Clark & Estes, 2008). Four constructs comprise perceived value: intrinsic
interest, attainment, utility, and cost (Eccles, 2009). Applying these constructs to Air Force
squadron commanders may provide insight into assessing value’s impact on achieving their
stakeholder goal.
Commander intrinsic interest in the enjoyment of performing a task. If Air Force
squadron commanders perceive engaging in leadership development at the unit level is
personally meaningful, they are more likely to value the task. Eccles (2009) concludes intrinsic
value and motivation are strong predictors of engagement and learning.

20

Commander attainment value and the congruence of performing a task with self-
image. If performing a task is consistent with one’s identity, conveys competence, and increases
social belonging, individuals are more likely to value the task (Eccles, 2009). Air Force
squadron commanders must feel their contributions and efforts are valued by their subordinates,
peers, and superiors to value engaging in leadership development initiatives.
Commander utility and cost value and the perceived benefit and cost of engaging in an
activity. An activity has utility if it helps attain long range goals or external rewards (Pintrich,
2003). Individuals weigh the cost or benefit derived at the expense of engaging in another
activity. If Air Force squadron commanders see the long-term benefits for themselves and their
people by initiating leadership development at the unit level despite the cost of engaging in other
activities, they will be more likely to value and be motivated to achieve their stakeholder goal.
Pintrich (2003) asserts expectancy and value are the most direct predictors of choice and
achievement performance. Expectancy-value theory recognizes the influence of psychological,
social, contextual, and cultural factors on active choice, persistence, and effort (Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010). Air Force squadron commanders who are intrinsically interested in, identify
with, perceive the benefit, and value developing people over other activities will be more likely
to engage in and be successful at leadership development initiatives in their unit.
Goal orientation theory. Goal orientation is the third motivational influence pertinent to
unit level commanders achieving their stakeholder goal. While goals are not a motivational
belief, they are closely aligned with motivation. Goals impact individual and group effort,
persistence, and direction of attention or active choice towards an activity. With goal orientation
theory, there are two types of goals: mastery and performance (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Similar to growth mindset (Dweck, 1999), mastery goals are intrinsically focused on learning,

21

self-improvement, and mastering a task. In performance goals, individuals orient externally in
comparison to, competition with, and outdoing others. Pintrich (2003) matrices the two types of
goal orientations with a focus to either approach or avoid. Therefore, mastery oriented
individuals approach goals to truly master some thing or avoid goals to avert misunderstanding.
Whereas, performance oriented individuals approach a goal to display more competence than
others, or avoid to escape appearance of incompetence.
Commanders and goal orientation. The Air Force’s competitive up or out promotion
system can create leaders who have been successfully performance goal oriented throughout
their career (Ausink et al., 2018). Nevertheless, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) highlight
that a professional community cannot thrive under competition. Moreover, Mayer (2011)
emphasizes individuals work harder when the goal is to master a skill or material. Therefore,
commanders need to be mastery goal oriented to cultivate a culture of professionalism,
development, learning, and growth (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; McCall, 2010). Nevertheless, when
external goals and intrinsic motivation align, individuals are more motivated and perform better
(Schultheiss, 2001). By addressing motivational influences, Air Force squadron commanders
will increase probability of implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit
level.
Organization
In addition to stakeholder knowledge and motivation, effective change relies on
organizational culture, systems, structure, and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically,
Clark and Estes (2008) maintain that an organization’s culture, resources, or policies and
procedures become barriers or assets to employees and organizations accomplishing their goals.
In the Air Force, multiple organizational issues intertwine with knowledge and motivation to

22

influence implementing effective leadership development at the unit level. This section begins
with general theory about organizational culture and reviews literature that focuses on
organizational cultural models and settings that specifically influence commanders implementing
effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
General organizational theory. Often seen as abstract and intangible alongside being
dubbed the panacea to organizational issues, organizational culture is real, palpable, and impacts
the core processes of organizations (Schein, 2010). Culture is a system of values, beliefs, and
behaviors that guide how people function in an organization (Schein, 2004). Furthermore,
Schein (2004, 2017) separates culture into three distinct lenses: artifacts, espoused values and
beliefs, and underlying assumptions. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) break these elements
into climate and culture, with climate being the visible artifacts and daily practices, policies, and
routines, and culture being the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values. Nevertheless, these
visible and invisible elements of culture are intertwined and influence perceptions and actions of
individuals and organizations. (Schneider et al., 1996).
Culture is a learned phenomenon, socially constructed, and evolves (Edmondson, 2012;
Schein, 2017). Through socialization and acculturation, where members sharing implicit
assumptions to new members, culture survives and thrives (Schein, 2017). While culture
provides stability to members in an organization, culture is not static (Senge, 1990). Leaders and
organizations that recognize culture’s adaptable nature can better help shape their organizational
culture and prepare their people to succeed in a complex, uncertain, and changing world
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2016; Scharmer, 2007; Schein, 2004; Senge, 1990). The following
sections further explore the visible and invisible aspects of organizational culture, described by

23

Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) as cultural models and settings and the influences on effective
leadership development at the unit level.
Cultural models. Cultural models are the often invisible and hidden underpinnings and
assumptions in an organization (Schein, 2004; Schneider et al., 1996). Cultural models are
shared mental schema of beliefs, values, and norms of how things work among individuals
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Rueda (2011) affirms cultural models are palpable and exist
within organizations, societies, and individuals, driving shared values, meaning, and goals.
Organizations with stronger shared mental models result in members possessing stronger cultural
identity, and thus commitment to that group (Schneider et al., 1996). Cultural models often go
unnoticed and are taken for granted until individuals are exposed to an organization, society, or
other individuals with a different cultural model (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Two cultural
models that may be barriers or assets to squadron commanders implementing effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level include a learning culture and a culture of leaders
prioritizing and focusing on people development.
Culture of leaders prioritizing and focusing on people development. Kegan and Lahey
(2016) assert individual development, learning, and growth are crucial to organizational
development and essential to organizational transformation and success. Likewise, Chapman
and Sisodia (2014) argue organizations that focus on people development tap into the one
business strategy with limitless potential. In order to achieve the organizational goal to drive
innovation alongside growing strong leaders (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020), the Air
Force needs to instill the paradigm of leadership where human flourishing, or growth and
development, lies at the center of organizing and leading (Boyd & Laske, 2018). By cultivating

24

a culture of leaders prioritizing people development, the Air Force will tap into the natural
human desire to learn (Senge, 1990) and foster a learning culture.
Learning Culture / Culture of leader involvement, modeling, coaching, and reciprocal
feedback. Senge (1990) maintains that outstanding performance requires outstanding learning.
Meanwhile, Deming (2018) contends that lingering industrial era organizational systems inhibit
the natural human curiosity to explore, learn, and grow. Conversely, in organizations that
cultivate a culture of learning employees constantly improve, create, acquire, and transfer
knowledge (Garvin et al., 2008). Cultures of learning become learning laboratories that foster
learning skills of awareness, observation, and reflection (Hughes et al., 2012; Kolb, 1984; Senge,
1990). In other words, people development thrives in learning cultures (Dalakoura, 2010). By
cultivating a learning culture, the Air Force influences commanders to implement effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Additionally, learning organizations in the Air Force foster a mindset of leader
involvement, modeling, coaching, and reciprocal feedback. Learning cultures build on the
collective social and moral responsibility of development of others (O’Toole, 2001). Martin
(2010) concludes workplace climate and peer support facilitate learning and training transfer. In
this culture of continuous improvement, feedback facilitates learning. Feedback is accepted,
encouraged, and sought after at all levels in thriving and learning organizations (Armstrong,
2017; Heen & Stone, 2014; Stone & Heen, 2014). This culture of reciprocal feedback
accelerates generative or double loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978), where members move
past band aid fixes for symptoms to seeking creative and lasting solutions to root problems
(Kezar, 2001). As a result, existing organizational goals, norms, and assumptions are open to
change (Argyris & Schön, 1978), and members are willing to modify cultural models, not simply

25

patterns of behavior, or cultural settings discussed below (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Senge, 1990).
To be a learning organization, the Air Force needs to create concrete learning processes,
or cultural settings, to enable continuous improvement, growth, and learning (Garvin et al.,
2008). The fertile soil of a learning culture is essential for seeds of individual development and
training to be planted (Beer et al., 2016). The seeds of development take root and are nourished
by systemic processes that prioritize, foster, and reward development (Ready & Conger, 2003).
The next section defines cultural settings and presents two cultural settings that may influence
commanders implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Cultural settings. Cultural settings are the social contexts where individuals play out
cultural models of shared beliefs and values (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings then are the visible
behaviors, rituals, and patterns of members with shared cultural models (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models in an organization are sustained by the alignment of
resources, policies, procedures, and routines of members in an organization (Kezar, 2001). The
following two cultural settings are intertwined with the cultural models above that influence
commanders implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Organization needs to emphasize people development in commander and leader
evaluations. The crux of the tension with leadership development for unit commanders is the
disconnect between what the Air Force tells commanders is important and what is measured
(Booz-Allen-Hamilton, 2017). Peter Drucker is credited for the adage, “What gets measured
gets managed” (as cited in Barnett, 2015, p. 5). While Air Force Instruction 1-2, Commander’s
Responsibilities (Secretary of the Air Force, 2014) emphasizes leading people involves people

26

development, commanders’ officer performance evaluations do not address people or leadership
development (Secretary of the Air Force, 2016).
Clear expectations and benchmarks are essential to successful self-regulation and self-
management (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Measurement is key to viable accountability systems
and lasting change (Langley et al., 2009; Moran & Brightman, 2000). By modifying
organizational policies to prioritize people development in evaluations, Air Force squadron
commanders may begin to understand the role of leaders is to foster learning, to facilitate
changing shared mental models (Senge, 1990). Accountability systems that align cultural models
and cultural settings facilitate leaders enacting and fostering patterns of behavior that reflect Air
Force stated priorities and values of leadership development (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond,
2020).
The structure of accountability systems significantly influences the progress and success
of organizations (Dubnick, 2014; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). As with any organization,
Air Force success hinges on effective accountability systems. For the Air Force to achieve its
goal of growing strong leaders, Air Force senior leaders need to take a closer look at the
accountability systems in place that are currently influencing unit commanders. In addition to
evaluating leaders on how well they develop their people, by providing training on tools and
resources that optimize and strengthen unit vitality, squadron commanders may shift attention
and time to implement leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Organization needs to provide training for commanders on climate surveys and tools to
improve development in their unit. In a similar disconnect to above, the Air Force is focused on
squadron vitality (Goldfein, 2016), but does not deliberately train unit commanders on how to
identify and improve factors influencing unit vitality. Interestingly, Borgogni et al. (2011)

27

identify key measures to employee vitality and performance that align with annual Department
of Defense unit climate surveys. The metrics capture trust in leadership, organizational
commitment, group cohesion, and job satisfaction (DEOMI, n.d.). These performance measures
of unit vitality essentially focus on collective social and moral responsibility for the development
of others (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Firestone & Shipps, 2005).
While the Air Force provides climate survey results to commanders, the Air Force does
not train commanders on how to utilize the results to identify gaps or how to improve
performance and vitality. However, DEOMI (n.d.) offers valuable researched-based resources
and practical tools to address these factors that influence measures of unit vitality. By increasing
awareness of and training on the available tools, the Air Force may remove an organizational
barrier and increase knowledge and motivation for squadron commanders to implement effective
leadership development at the unit level. When cultural models and settings align, organizations
and leaders increase trust, commitment, and loyalty, which lead to individual and organization
vitality and improved performance (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Kezar, 2001; Korsgaard,
Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Moran & Brightman, 2000). Only then may leaders and practitioners
find ways to overcome the knowledge, motivation, and organizational structure issues that inhibit
effective leadership development at the unit level.
Table 1
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Air Force is to fly, fight, and win… in Air, Space, and Cyberspace. The Air
Force priorities are to build the United States Space Force, modernize the Air and Space Forces
we need, grow strong leaders and resilient families, and strengthen our allies and partners.
Organizational Global Goal

28

By June 2022, the Air Force will grow strong leaders by implementing effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2022, 100% of Air Force squadron commanders will model, integrate, and engage in
effective leadership development initiatives for their Airmen in their daily, weekly, and monthly
battle rhythm.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative Conceptual: Leaders need to
understand the role of modeling, involvement,
and people development in leadership.
Conduct interviews and provide surveys with
multiple choice and open-ended questions to
identify principles and provide examples of
leader involvement and modeling.
Declarative Conceptual: Leaders need to
understand cognitive processing and experiential
learning in effective teaching techniques.
Conduct interviews with supervisees and
provide surveys to assess type of
opportunities and feedback given.
Metacognitive: Leaders need to be aware and
reflect on their impact to the culture of their
organization.
Conduct interviews and provide surveys with
open-ended questions for leaders to identify
their role in cultivating culture.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy: Commanders need to feel confident
they are capable of coaching and developing their
people.
Interview items: “How do you feel about
your ability to coach, mentor, and develop
your people as leaders? Why do you feel this
way?”
“What will be the talk, or your legacy, after
you leave your unit?”
Value: Commanders need the intrinsic interest,
attainment, utility, and cost value of developing
capacity in their people.
Interview items: “How has modeling right
and taking time to develop people influenced
you? Can you give specific examples?”
“Why is important for you to take the time to
coach, mentor, and develop your direct
reports?”
Goal orientation: Commanders need to cultivate a
learning culture by modeling growth mindset and
mastery goal focus.
Interview items: “What motivates you to
accomplish a task, maybe give some
examples?”
“How do you approach goals? When
avoiding a task or situation, what are you
trying to avoid? Maybe give some
examples.”
“How do you spend your day developing
your people?”
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: The organization
needs a culture that prioritizes people
development.
Interview and survey questions that gauge
priority and focus leadership places on
people development.

29

Interactive Conceptual Framework
The purpose of the conceptual framework is to create a structure or scaffolding that
integrates the most relevant concepts, theories, and their relationships that emerge in a study to
assist in answering research questions (Maxwell, 2013; Rocco & Palkhotnik, 2009). The
conceptual framework melds pertinent literature, life experiences, and reflective thought
experiments to narrow focus on the issue (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Utilizing Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis, the conceptual framework in this study depicts the interplay of the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) on Air Force
squadron commanders in order to achieve their goal to model, integrate, and engage in effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Cultural Model Influence 2: The organization
needs a culture that fosters leader involvement,
modeling, coaching, and reciprocal feedback.
Interview and survey questions about role of
leaders in modeling, coaching, and feedback.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: The organization
needs to emphasize people development in
commander and leader evaluations.
Interview and survey questions on how
evaluations could emphasize people
development.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: The organization
needs to provide training for commanders on
climate surveys and tools to improve development
in their unit.
Interview and survey questions on utility of
unit climate survey results and awareness of
available tools to improve unit culture.

30

Figure 1. Interactive Conceptual Framework

31

This figure outlines the relationship between the factors influencing commanders
implementing effective leadership development initiatives in the workplace, both with each other
and in the larger context and culture of the Air Force, leading to achievement of the stakeholder
goal. Specifically, the largest outlining blue circle represent the United States Air Force as the
organization of study and the cultural models and settings that exist within. These organizational
influences include a culture of learning (Edmondson, 2012; Garvin et al., 2008; Senge, 1990),
shared mental models that prioritize people development (Boyd & Laske, 2018; Kegan & Lahey,
2016), evaluations that reflect the emphasis on people development (Hoyer, 2017), and training
for commanders on utilizing climate surveys and other tools to improve development (Borgogni
et al., 2011; DEOMI, n.d.). These cultural models and settings cultivate an environment to foster
the organization’s global goal to grow strong leaders (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020),
illustrated in the figure as a green circle. Within the global goal are the knowledge and
motivation influences that affect commanders’ implementation of effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level, as depicted in the black circles. The two-way arrows
highlight the simultaneous interactions of knowledge and motivation influences on each other,
and the resulting phenomenon of people development, illustrated in the purple oval.
The examples in Appendix B characterize the interplay of the organizational, knowledge,
and motivation influences necessary to accomplishing the stakeholder goal. As commanders
overcome the potential barriers and instead foster the key ingredients of people development,
they accomplish their stakeholder goal and help the Air Force grow strong leaders. Ultimately,
by narrowing the performance gap and accomplishing their goal, commanders help the Air Force
achieve squadron vitality, witnessed by increased trust, commitment, engagement, and
performance.

32

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The two primary methods of data collection for this study were interviews followed by
surveys. This exploratory mixed method approach enabled the researcher to gain deeper
understanding and descriptive insight into the way the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences interacted to impact squadron commanders implementing effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force. The qualitative, semi-
structured, open-ended interviews of squadron commanders helped to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational structure influences. Meanwhile, the quantitative surveys with
open-ended questions augmented insight into all three influences, but primarily organizational
structure. While not primary data collection methods, during interviews the researcher
conducted cursory observation and analysis of the setting and artifacts that added meaning and
context (Bowen, 2009). Decorative artifacts such as portraits, paintings, and memorabilia add to
the heritage of a unit, often influencing culture, identity, and performance. The following
sections discuss, in detail, the interview and survey methods used to collect data for this study.
Interviews
Interview Protocol. Interviews are purposeful conversations between two or more
individuals, guided by one to gather information from the other (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Interviews allow researchers to gather data they cannot directly observe, another person’s
perspective and observations (Patton, 2015; Weiss, 1994). Interviews also allow the researcher
to focus on deeper meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of prior leadership development events
and behaviors and increase understanding of the specific knowledge and motivational influences
for squadron commanders.

33

The interview guide and protocol at Appendix D provided the researcher both structure
and flexibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview guide acted as a roadmap with a
consistent set of questions (Patton, 2015) on the specific knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences identified for this study. The semi-structured, conversational style
interview helped increase trust, understanding, and mutual respect which, in turn, helped the
squadron commanders feel more comfortable and respond more openly and honestly (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). As a result, the researcher gained insight into the primary stakeholder’s feelings,
thoughts, intentions, and previous behaviors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) in relation to their
knowledge and motivational influences for implementing leadership development initiatives in
their unit. Additionally, the open-ended questions enabled the interviewees to express
themselves more freely, fostering greater dialogue and richer data (Patton, 2015).
Interview Procedures. In an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach (McEwan
& McEwan, 2003), the researcher conducted interviews with eight primary stakeholders first in
order to tailor a more meaningful follow-on survey instrument. The researcher conducted one
60-90 minute face-to-face, conversational style interview with each of the primary stakeholders
in or near their unit’s location. While a potential option, the researcher did not conduct any
follow up interviews, which Weis (1994) suggests is fruitful for clarification or to augment gaps,
likely via phone or digitally. Total interview time for all eight squadron commanders was 11
hours and 15 minutes.
While the researcher preferred to conduct interviews in the stakeholder’s environment to
enable residual observation and document and artifact analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), only two of the interviews were. Two commanders had recently
completed their command tours and were interviewed at neutral locations. Due to geographic

34

separation and scheduling challenges, the researcher conducted the other four interviews via only
video conference. Whether in person or online, the interviewee chose the location to ensure an
environment conductive to open and honest answers (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The interviewer
captured the data using digital audio recording, with notes as a backup and to capture key points
and the researcher’s own thoughts. The handwritten notes also acted as a map of the recording
for later review (Patton, 2015).
Surveys
Survey Instrument. The survey instrument consisted of 20 total items: two questions on
demographics, four questions to assess knowledge influences, four questions to assess
motivational influences, and ten questions to assess organizational influences (Appendix E).
Based on field testing, the survey took 5-10 minutes for the recipients to complete. The survey
data was used to triangulate, corroborate, and augment the interview findings. The survey placed
additional emphasis on organizational influences, given a survey instrument of direct reports had
limited ability to provide insight into the knowledge and motivation of commanders. The
quantitative survey augmented descriptive and inferential insight into relationships between the
influences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Survey Procedures. Using the exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, the
researcher adjusted and tailored the 20 pre-designed survey questions specific to the context of
leadership development for the direct reports of the interviewed commanders. The researcher
administered the surveys via an online link through Qualtrics. The researcher circulated the
survey link via individual emails to each of the 91 recipients between 17 October and 12
November 2019, with a request to complete the survey within 10 days. Given the geographically
separated locations of each of the interviewed commanders and their units, email was the most

35

efficient and cost-effective means to administer the surveys. Additionally, utilizing the Qualtrics
online platform eliminated the time-consuming phase of inputting survey responses and the
possibility of injecting errors (Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016; Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019).
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a process of making meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To make
meaning of the qualitative data collected in this study, the researcher utilized a systematic
process of coding and analysis. Initially, the researcher transcribed the interview recordings with
Otter.ai, followed by a manual review and correcting of the transcripts. During review of the
transcripts, the researcher relistened to each interview and took additional notes. The researcher
also exported the qualitative open-ended questions from the survey in Qualtrics.
The researcher coded the qualitative data in three phases of analysis. The first phase
employed open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the
conceptual framework. The second phase aggregated the empirical and a priori codes into
analytic or axial codes. The third phase of analysis identified patterns and themes that emerged
in relation to the conceptual framework, utilizing a codebook in Excel. The quantitative data
from the surveys triangulated the patterns and themes discovered in the qualitative data analysis.
The next section presents the themes and patterns identified in data analysis, addressing each of
the research questions.
Findings and Results
Interview findings and survey results showed the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders demonstrated the knowledge and motivation influences necessary to implement
effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. Interviewees and survey

36

respondents also identified the organizational influences necessary for the Air Force to achieve
its performance goal of growing strong leaders. Both interviews and surveys provided rich data
in order to validate all eight of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences identified in the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) and literature review.
Appendix J includes an expanded discussion of the findings and results for each of the
influences, as well as potential barriers. This section begins with a review of the participating
stakeholders before reporting on a summary of the findings and results.
Participating Stakeholders
The findings for this study are a triangulation of interviews with eight squadron
commanders and 81 survey responses from the interviewed squadron commanders’ direct
reports. Each of the interviewees had served at least one year in squadron command and had unit
climate survey results above the Air Force average for organizational effectiveness. Their names
are Eddie, Billy, Jimmy, Hap, Chappie, Bud, Pits, and Lazar (pseudonyms). Chappie was on his
second squadron command tour. Hap, Bud, and Lazar recently completed their two-year
command tours. The non-random selection of the eight squadron commanders performing above
the Air Force average for organizational effectiveness was to explore if they, as bright spots
(Heath & Heath, 2010), demonstrated the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
necessary to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. Beyond
time in command, there was no additional demographic information collected for the interviewed
squadron commanders.
Survey participants were direct reports of the interviewed squadron commanders.
Eighty-one of 92 total direct reports responded to the surveys for an overall 88% participation
rate. Eighty-four percent of respondents had worked with their respective commander for over

37

six months, with 56% serving over a year together, giving respondents adequate time to observe
their commander’s behaviors and actions. The only other demographic information collected
was rank; 59% of respondents were officers, 26% enlisted, and 15% civilian.
Findings and Results Highlights
Three key essentials to implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the
unit level resounded across the eight interviews and 81 survey responses. As identified during
the literature review, in order to integrate and engage in effective leadership development
initiatives squadron commanders need to understand leader involvement and modeling,
experiential learning which includes coaching and feedback, and a supportive environment or a
learning culture. Moreover, leader awareness is foundational to these three essentials. While
Appendix J discusses in detail each of the eight influences, below are highlights of the three key
essentials and their foundational element.
Leader involvement and modeling. Both interview findings and survey results
highlighted similar patterns of leader involvement and modeling, including work center presence
(often termed walk about leadership), approachability, listening, and taking care of people.
Interview findings. The majority of interviewees stated that leadership development was
deliberate, intentional, values driven, adaptable to individual and organizational contexts, and
aimed at collective capacity building. Lazar exemplified the intentionality, informality, and
consistency of leadership development in a commander’s daily, weekly, and monthly battle
rhythms, “It is all about getting around and talking to people. So, I will talk to my people every
day, and would make that more of a priority than any meeting on my schedule.”
Most commanders noted the impact of leader modeling and involvement earlier in their
career, influencing them to do similar. Chappie provides one example, “I learned from leaders,

38

picking up things from people I looked up to.” Hap shared similar, “It is fantastic to have this
leader you respect a lot never ask you to do what they are not willing to do. So, she is doing it. I
obviously have to follow through on that. I have to model instead of just preach.” Pits
reinforced the ripple effect of leader involvement and modeling, “When you build a passion for
leadership, others will follow.”
Survey results. Survey respondents echoed the importance of leader involvement and
modeling and the impression it had on them. Table 5 (see Appendix J, p. 110) shows that 95-
98% of respondents agreed that their commander took time to develop them, model right, and
was actively engaged with the Airmen. Respondents also reported that commanders spent 80%
of their day with direct subordinates, in work centers, with Airmen, or in developmental sessions
(see Figure 2 at Appendix J, p. 111).
Open-ended responses included terms such as engaged, listens, visible, makes time,
genuine, spends time with and gets to know Airmen, and walk about leadership. One respondent
stated, “He cared about his people, so it appeared he spent more time out from behind his desk
and more time visiting the work centers.” Another respondent highlighted the ripple effect of
leader involvement and modeling, “I could tell my leadership actually cared about me, and I
wanted to make a difference in my Airmen’s lives like they did in mine.” As Pits stated above,
leader modeling and involvement inspires subordinates to action. Along with leader
involvement and modeling, commanders fostered growth through experiential learning,
coaching, and feedback.
Experiential learning, coaching, and feedback. Both interview findings and survey
results emphasized the importance of experiential learning, coaching, and feedback in leadership
development.

39

Interview findings. Several interviewees specifically highlighted the learning, growth and
development that occurs through challenging experiences. Eddie stated, “It is experiential
environments, very tough, difficult, often physically and mentally demanding challenges that are
milestones for people to accomplish.” Lazar noted that early challenging experiences are
formative to developing commanders: “The times when I am at my best are when we are facing
difficult situations.” Lazar continued, “It only makes you better as a commander to go through
adversity and come out the other side.” The majority of commanders agreed that employees
needed space and be empowered to make decisions. Nevertheless, employees needed coaching
and feedback to continue to help them develop and improve performance.
Bud clearly stated that his role as commander was to coach and develop his people: “I
was going to be their biggest cheerleader, but I was going to coach them, too.” Interviewees
noted that coaching and feedback included asking questions, providing guidance, opportunities
to practice, and follow up. Lazar stated:
Get out of their way and let them practice. Check back on them… When they stumble
and fall, you say, “That is okay, keep going,” right? They are going to make mistakes
and they are going to stumble. That is the core underpinning of leadership development.
Bud emphasized coaching includes pushing and encouraging: “I do not think we use those words
(‘Good job, I am proud of you’) enough.”
Survey results. Respondents echoed similar themes as the interviewed commanders,
agreeing that 95-98% of commanders provided space for decision making and growth,
empowerment, and positive coaching and feedback (see Table 7 at Appendix J, p. 115). One
respondent commented on positive coaching and feedback: “Provided praise and acknowledged
success, as well as recognized how failure is a part of growth. This promoted an atmosphere of

40

encouragement and inspiration.” In terms of feedback, 83% of respondents reported at least two
feedback sessions a year (see Table 8 at Appendix J, p. 117). Moreover, 33% of respondents
received 10 or more feedback sessions with their commander, eight of which stated they received
feedback daily. Experiential learning, coaching, and feedback were all part of a supportive
environment.
Supportive environment, learning culture. The literature review identified cultivating
a culture of learning as instrumental to leadership development (Garvin et al., 2008; McGowan
& Miller, 2001). It was no surprise, then, that the majority of interviewed exemplary squadrons
commanders mentioned they had a supportive environment to develop their people.
Interview findings. Most commanders acknowledged being in an organization or under
leadership that supported their efforts to focus on people development and cultivate a learning
culture during command. Chappie emphasized the support he felt:
Being around Wing Commander level leadership, it is the best I have seen and had the
opportunity to work for. The team here is phenomenal. A lot of it is the leadership team
that I have here above me. From day one it’s been, ‘We are not afraid of failure. We are
not afraid to let people mess up.’
The supportive environment not only enabled Chappie to implement leadership
development initiatives at the unit level but foster a learning environment of creativity and
innovation. Pits echoed similar support, emanating from the top of the Air Force:
All the way from the Chief of Staff down, we have a positive culture of support and trust
getting pushed down to the squadron level to try something different. They even use
language like, ‘Break an Air Force Instruction (AFI). If it does not make sense, then do
not follow the AFI.’ Ten years ago, that was not okay.

41

People development thrives in a learning environment (Jones, 2001; Schein, 2017; Senge, 1990).
Being in a supportive environment with leadership that fostered initiative and growth, the
interviewed squadron commanders felt comfortable to do the same and cultivate a learning
culture.
Survey results. Over 60% of respondents specifically mentioned a supportive
environment that deliberately cultivated development. One respondent captured the principle,
“Cultivates an environment that encourages everyone to develop and explore new ideas and
alternatives. We were not afraid to fail.” Respondents confirmed that leaders are able to foster
creativity and growth by cultivating a learning environment. The ability for commanders to
cultivate a learning environment, create experiential learning opportunities, and understand
leader involvement and modeling begins with awareness.
Leader awareness. The literature review and findings and results were in alignment that
leader involvement and modeling, experiential learning, and a learning culture are essential to
implementing leadership development initiatives. Nevertheless, these three key essentials are
contingent on the foundation of leader awareness. The study clearly displayed that in order to
model, integrate, and engage in effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level,
squadron commanders need to be aware of their role and impact on the culture of their
organization. The majority of commanders were aware of their role with statements similar to
Bud, “Your job is to lead your squadron and to develop and care for Airmen.” Pits clearly
articulated his role as a commander, “My role is to set conditions to allow other people to do the
mission. And part of setting those conditions is to develop them.” Bud’s statement below
connects leader awareness with the importance of modeling, experience, and environment:

42

I just feel like if you create an environment where people love coming to work, where
people are cared for, and people connect with each other... In two years of command, I
had zero disciplinary issues. I don't think that is by mistake. I don't think that all of a
sudden, I just happened to have a squadron of 130 Airmen that were all perfect when
another squadron of equal size had seven Article 15s (military disciplinary action). How
does that happen? It happens by creating an environment where people love each other.
They love coming to work. They love the environment they are in and they don't want to
screw it up. There is no incentive to get in trouble.
The interview and survey data suggested commanders need the declarative knowledge of
leader involvement and modeling, as well as experiential learning in effective teaching
techniques that include coaching and feedback. Additionally, commanders need an
organizational cultural model of a supportive environment that cultivates a learning culture.
These three essential influences, combined with metacognitive knowledge, or leader awareness
of their role and impact on their organization’s culture, create the conditions for squadron
commanders to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. The
next section turns to solutions and recommendations to address the validated needs.
Solutions and Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The needs assessment validated the three assumed knowledge influences
identified in the literature review necessary for squadron commanders to model, integrate, and
engage in effective leadership development initiatives at the unit. The literature review
highlighted the importance of three themes: leader involvement and modeling, cognitive
processing and experiential learning in effective teaching, and leaders’ awareness of their own

43

thoughts, behaviors, and actions in cultivating culture. The data from qualitative interviews and
quantitative surveys validated the assumed knowledge influences as needs and potential barriers
inhibiting the Air Force from attaining the performance goal to grow strong leaders. The three
knowledge influences fall into the conceptual and metacognitive types of knowledge Krathwohl
(2002) suggests exists, the other two being factual and procedural. In their gap analysis
framework, Clark and Estes (2008) identify four types of assistance organizations can provide
employees to assist in knowledge development: information, job aids, training, and education.
Table 2 below outlines the validated knowledge influences, principles, and context-specific
recommendations based on the principles to address the knowledge gaps.
Table 2
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence

D-C = Declarative Conceptual
M = Metacognitive
Validated
as a Gap?

Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Ranking %

Stakeholder
Feasibility

Impact

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Leaders need to
understand the role of
modeling, involvement,
and people development
in leadership (D-C).

Y

Y
100%

Somewhat

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

Employing the use of
a trusted peer as a
model can enhance
learning (Denler et al.,
2014).

Provide guidance,
modeling, coaching,
and other scaffolding
during performance
(Mayer, 2011)
Provide ongoing
education and training on
coaching and people
development through
collaborative learning and
practice with peer to peer
mentorship opportunities.

Provide a visual job aid
(scaffolding) that clearly
shows individuals how
conceptual knowledge of
leader involvement and
modeling is critical to
people and leadership
development.

44

Leaders need to
understand cognitive
processing and
experiential learning in
effective teaching
techniques (D-C).

Y

Y

90%

Somewhat

Some
Acquiring skills for
expertise frequently
begins with learning
declarative knowledge
about individual
procedural steps
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

How individuals
organize knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Provide information in
the form of a visual aid
on learning theories to
include the information
processing system,
cognitive load, and
experiential learning and
how it applies to
leadership development.

Provide job aids in the
form of a visual concept
map that outline ways to
integrate experiential
learning opportunities in
their current work
environment.

Integrate cognitive
learning theories and
teaching and experiential
learning practices into
professional military
education (PME) and
leadership courses (i.e.,
Squadron Leader
Development Course,
Airman Leadership
School, and Non-
Commissioned Officer
Academy).
Leaders need to be aware
and reflect on their
impact to the culture of
their organization (M).

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat

High
The use of
metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker,
2009).

Self-regulatory
strategies, including
goal setting, enhance
learning and
performance (APA,
2015; Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler et
al., 2014)

Metacognition is
reinforced when the
learner is provided
opportunities to
engage in guided self-
monitoring and self-
assessment (Baker,
2009).
Provide metacognitive
job aids that invite
commanders to reflect,
set goals, and monitor
their impact on the
culture of their
organization.

Provide ongoing
education and training
opportunities for self-
awareness development,
to include goal setting
and reflection writing
assignments specific to
impact on unit culture.

45

Declarative conceptual knowledge solutions: Increase leader modeling and
involvement. The results and findings of this study indicated that squadron commanders need to
understand the role of modeling and involvement in leadership and people development. A
recommendation rooted in sociocultural and social learning theories will help close this
declarative conceptual knowledge gap. Scott and Palincsar (2006) found that social interaction
in cooperative contexts facilitates learning and construction of new knowledge. Furthermore,
Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009) suggest using a trusted peer as a model to enhance learning.
Additionally, Mayer (2011) advocates providing guidance, modeling, and other scaffolding in
performance. The recommendations are to provide scaffolding in the form of a visual job aid
and ongoing education and training through collaborative learning and practice with peer to peer
mentorship opportunities that clearly display ways for leaders to be involved, coach, and model
leadership development in their units.
According to Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and trickle-down effect (Zenger &
Folkman, 2016), subordinates observe and mimic behaviors of their peers, supervisors, and
leaders. Observing the models of others is termed vicarious learning, which Popper (2005)
found is the best way to develop leadership next to experiential learning. Research involving
interviews with 3,200 employees across seven industries revealed that leader involvement and
modeling builds trust and fosters learning (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). Moreover, Denler et al.
(2014) concluded that employing the use of trusted peers as models enhances learning. Helping
leaders connect the principles of leader modeling and involvement with job aids and vicarious
examples in their lives will accelerate their conceptual understanding of their role as leaders in
leadership development.

46

Declarative conceptual knowledge solutions: Understand cognitive processing and
experiential learning in effective teaching. The results and findings of this study indicated that
squadron commanders need to understand cognitive processing and experiential learning in
effective teaching techniques, including coaching and feedback. Information processing system
and cognitive load theories inform the recommendations to narrow this conceptual knowledge
gap. According to Clark and Estes (2008), acquiring skills for expertise frequently begins with
learning declarative know about individual procedural steps. Additionally, how individuals
organize knowledge affects how they learn and apply what they know (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). The recommendations are three-fold. First, provide information in the form of a visual
aid on learning theories to include information processing system, cognitive load, and
experiential learning and how they apply to leadership development. Second, provide job aids in
the form of a visual concept map that outline ways to integrate experiential learning
opportunities in their current work environment. Third, integrate cognitive learning theories and
teaching and experiential learning practices into professional military education (PME) and
leadership training courses.
In his seminal work on experiential learning, Kolb (1984) explained that learning and
development is essentially a self-directed process of action, observation, and reflection. Through
work with hundreds of businesses on training and development, Gurdjian et al. (2014) found that
experiential learning increases knowledge retention up to 60% over classroom instruction.
Similarly, 70% of all learning that improves job performance occurs on the job (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) add that providing new information in bite size
chunks reduces cognitive overload and facilitates transfer of learning. By providing information
on how cognitive processing and experiential learning relate leadership development in easily

47

digestible visual job aids and integrate into leadership courses, leaders will be able to more
successfully implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Procedural knowledge solutions. There were no identified procedural knowledge
influences for this study.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions: Increase leader awareness and reflection on
their impact. The findings in this study showed that commanders need to be aware of how their
thoughts, beliefs, and actions impact the culture of their organization. Social cognitive theories
combined with strategies targeting metacognition are valuable in addressing this metacognitive
knowledge gap. Baker (2009) concluded that the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates
learning. The self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring, and self-reflection,
enhance performance (American Psychology Association [APA], 2015; Dembo & Eaton, 2000;
Denler et al., 2014). Therefore, providing commanders strategies that encourage and
opportunities to engage in self-reflection may assist in commanders’ awareness and learning.
The recommendation for this metacognitive knowledge influence is twofold. First, provide
metacognitive job aids with questions that invite commanders to reflect, set goals, and monitor
their impact on the culture of their unit. Second, provide ongoing education and training
opportunities for self-awareness development, to include goal setting and reflection writing
assignments specific to impact on unit culture.
Multiple studies highlight the importance of both leaders’ metacognition and their impact
on their organization’s culture. In a review of 25 years of research and theory on leader and
leadership development, Day et al. (2013) determined that reflection and meaning-making
strategies have a high correlation with leadership effectiveness. Specifically, Starkey and Hall
(2012) discovered that critical self-reflection deepens leader empathy, enhances relationships,

48

and improves organizational culture. Moreover, leaders must be aware that their mindset, belief
systems, and behaviors are at the heart of an organization’s culture (Groysberg et al., 2018;
Warrick, 2017). Providing leaders with job aids and ongoing education and training
opportunities to reflect on their impact on cultivating culture will improve organizational
performance and success.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Clark and Estes (2008) identify three essential components of motivation:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Mayer (2011) further adds that motivation is
personal, describing the three components as activating, energizing, and directed. Performance
improves when these motivation components combine with knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The study validated the three assumed motivation influences necessary for squadron
commanders to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. The
literature review identified that squadron commanders need self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and
mastery goal orientation in order to model, integrate, and engage in people and leadership
development initiatives. Table 3 below outlines the validated motivational influences,
theoretical principles, and context-specific recommendations necessary to achieve the Air Force
performance goal to grow strong leaders.
Table 3
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?

Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Ranking %

Stakeholder
Feasibility

Impact

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Commanders need to feel
confident they are capable
of coaching and developing
their people (Self-efficacy).

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat

High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares,
2006)

Provide clear and
accurate feedback
to commanders on
coaching and
leadership

49

High impact Feedback and
modeling increase self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006)

Students’ perception
that they can
successfully complete
the specific tasks and
activities required for
learning promotes
learning outcomes
(Bandura, 1982)
development
competence.

Provide
encouragement to
commanders,
helping them see
how their skills and
strengths apply to
successful
leadership
development.
Commanders need the
intrinsic interest, attainment,
utility, and cost value of
developing capacity in their
people (Expectancy-Value).

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat

High impact
Individuals are more
likely to engage in an
activity when it
provides value to them
(Eccles, 2009).

Be explicit about value
and relevance of the
learning task for the
learner (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).

Design
opportunities for
commanders to
write about and
reflect on previous
experiences of
development that
were personally
meaningful.

Engage
commanders in
discussions about
the relevance of
development on
organizational
success that helps
commanders see the
value of developing
capacity in their
people.
Commanders need to
cultivate a learning culture
by modeling growth
mindset and mastery goal
focus (Goal orientation).

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat

High impact
Focusing on mastery,
individual
improvement,
learning, and progress
promotes positive
motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006).

The promotion of
personal and social
responsibility and
provide a safe,
comfortable, and
predictable
environment increases
motivation (Pintrich,
2003).
Provide
organizational
structures that
encourage personal
responsibility for
people
development.

Adapt evaluation
and accountability
systems to focus on
mastery, progress,
and self-
improvement over
competitive
stratification
structures.

50

Increase self-efficacy of commanders. The exemplary squadron commanders in this
study demonstrated that commanders need to feel confident they are capable of coaching and
developing their people. Self-efficacy theory informs the recommendation proposed to close this
motivation gap. Pajares (2006) posits that high self-efficacy positively influences motivation
and that feedback and modeling increase self-efficacy. Bandura (1982) concurs and maintains
that individuals’ perception that they can successfully complete specific tasks promotes fruitful
outcomes. Based on these principles, squadron commanders would increase motivation if they
were to receive reinforcement in their ability to engage in leadership development initiatives at
their unit. The recommendation therefore is to provide commanders clear and accurate feedback
and encouragement, helping them see their skills, strengths, and competence to coach and
develop their people. This combination of feedback and encouragement during one-on-one and
group sessions strengthens self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy beliefs are foundational to human motivation, persistence, and
accomplishment (Pajares, 2006). In research involving over one million work teams and 30,000
interviews, Rath and Conchie (2008) concluded that investing in employee strengths and talents
increases employee engagement from 9% to 73%. Their evidence suggests that emphasizing
what people do right boosts their overall productivity by increasing an individual’s confidence in
their abilities (Rath & Conchie, 2008). In the context of leadership, Petriglieri (2012) found that
self-efficacy is integral to leadership identity development. Moreover, Avolio and Hannah
(2008) assert that positive self-efficacy accelerates leader development. This suggests by
emphasizing commanders’ strengths and abilities to coach and develop their people,
commanders will feel confident to engage in leadership development initiatives at the unit level.

51

Increase commander interest and value in developing people. The findings and
results of this study indicated that squadron commanders need the intrinsic interest, attainment,
utility, and cost value of developing capacity in their people. Expectancy value theory anchors
the recommendation proposed to narrow this motivation gap. Eccles (2009) found that
individuals are more likely to engage in an activity when it provides value to them. Therefore,
Shraw and Lehman (2009) advise being explicit in the value and relevance of a task for
individuals. Based on these principles, this study recommends designing opportunities for
commanders to write about and reflect on previous experiences of development that were
personally meaningful. Additionally, the recommendation is to engage commanders in
discussions about the relevance of development on organizational success and help commanders
explicitly see the value of developing capacity in their people.
Value, the importance one places on a task, their intrinsic interest in performing the task,
and desire to do well at the task, or attainment value, are all integral to individual motivation
(Eccles, 2009; Rueda, 2011). Pintrich (2003) adds utility value, the perceived usefulness of an
activity in attaining a future goal or reward. In a meta-study of 25 years of research on
leadership development, Day et al. (2013) found that leadership development initiatives are
considered long-term, without immediate payoff or visible return on investment. In research
involving 95 global corporations and 3,500 managers and executives, Ready and Conger (2003)
discovered leadership development efforts fail due to lack of senior leader support. Beer et al.
(2016) and Kivland and King (2015) concur and add that leader support wanes because no long-
term measures or return on investment are identified to help leaders see the value and benefit of
leadership development initiatives. This suggests that if squadron commanders perceive the

52

long-term benefits, are intrinsically interested, and value developing people over other activities,
they will be more likely to engage in leadership development at the unit level.
Model growth mindset and mastery goal orientation. The findings and results of this
study also indicated that squadron commanders need to cultivate a learning culture by modeling
growth mindset and mastery goal focus. Goal orientation theory grounds the recommendation
presented to eliminate this gap in motivation. Yough and Anderman (2006) found that focusing
on mastery, individual improvement, and progress promotes positive motivation. Pintrich (2003)
concurs and suggests using evaluation structures that promote mastery, learning, effort, progress,
and self-improvement standards and less relevance on comparison or norm-referenced standards.
Pintrich (2003) further advocates using organizational and management structures that encourage
personal responsibility and provide a safe, comfortable, and predictable environment. The
recommendations are to provide organizational structures that encourage personal responsibility
for development and to adapt evaluation and accountability systems to focus on mastery,
progress, and self-improvement over competitive stratification structures.
Similar to growth mindset, mastery goal orientation is intrinsically focused on learning,
self-improvement, and mastering a task (Dweck, 1999; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Conversely,
performance goal orientation is externally focused on comparing, competing, and outdoing
(Pintrich, 2003). Ausink et al. (2018) posit that the Air Force’s competitive up or out promotion
system creates leaders who are successfully performance goal oriented throughout their career.
The survey results of this study concurred, finding that the current Air Force evaluation system
pits teammates against each other, creating a negative competitive culture from the start of an
Airman’s career. Nevertheless, Johnson et al. (2007) maintain that a professional community
cannot thrive under competition. This would suggest that as squadron commanders have a

53

mastery goal orientation, they will be able to cultivate a learning culture and growth mindset to
enhance leadership development.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Before implementing any knowledge and motivation recommendations,
Clark and Estes (2008) advocate identifying organizational influences and integrating change
initiatives in concert with each other. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) provide a framework to
explore organizational culture in two distinct lenses of cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models are the invisible beliefs, values, and shared mental schema of an organization
and its people. Meanwhile, cultural settings are the social contexts where cultural models are
visibly manifest in behaviors and organizational policies, procedures, and rituals (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
The data collected in this study suggested significant barriers exist at the organizational
level. The study validated the four organization influences necessary for commanders to
implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. Table 4 below outlines
the validated cultural model and setting influences, theoretical principles, and context-specific
recommendations in order for the Air Force to achieve its performance goal to grow strong
leaders.
Table 4
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?

Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Ranking %

Stakeholder
Feasibility

Impact

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a
culture that prioritizes people
development.

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat
feasible
Org Change
Organizational
changes take root
when beliefs and
values within the
Align Air Force
accountability
systems (policies
and procedures)
and messaging to

54

High impact
organization are
shared among its
members (Schneider,
Brief, & Guzzo,
1996).

Leadership
Espoused values and
beliefs must align with
messages and concrete
practices (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Schein,
2004).

Org Change
Effective
organizations establish
organizational
policies, procedures,
rewards, and messages
to support
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
leaders with Air
Force priority to
grow strong
leaders.

Restructure
operations group
commander and
staff role as
organic base level
leadership
development leads.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs a
learning culture that fosters
leader involvement,
modeling, coaching, and
reciprocal feedback.

Y

Y

100%

Somewhat
feasible

High impact
Accountability
Building the capacity
of an organization is
crucial in improving
the institution and its
accountability systems
(Hentschke &
Wohstetter, 2004).

Learning organizations
constantly improve
(Garvin, Edmondson,
& Gino, 2008).
Create an environment
that fosters desirable
behaviors (Tuckman,
2009)
Org Change
Effective change
efforts are
communicated
regularly and
frequently to all key
stakeholders (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Clearly define that
the role of
commanders is to
coach and develop
the capacity of
their people by
cultivating a
learning culture
(psychological
safety).

Restructure
operations group
commander and
staff role to that of
people
development lead
for base.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to
emphasize people

Y

Y

75%

Very feasible

Org change
Effective
organizations establish
organizational policies
and procedures to
Revise
performance
evaluations by
integrating peers,
360-degree

55

development in commander
and leader evaluations.
Somewhat of
an impact
support organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Org change
Policies must reflect
the values and goals of
the institution and are
more successful when
crafted collaboratively
(Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schein, 2004).

Accountability
Accountability
measures should be
contextualized and
under constant review
as part of an evolving
process (Conner &
Rabovsky, 2011;
Darling-Hammond &
Snyder, 2015;
Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004).
surveys, and
climate assessment
survey results in
order to hold
leaders and
commanders
accountable to
institutional value
of growing strong
leaders.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to
provide training for
commanders on climate
surveys and tools to improve
development in their unit.

Y

Y
75%

Very feasible

Somewhat of
an impact
Org change
Effective change
efforts ensure the right
resources are in place
and aligned with needs
and organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Leadership
Organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders ensure
that employees have
the resources needed
to achieve the
organization’s goals
(Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003).
Enhance
commander and
leadership courses
to include training
on utilizing
climate assessment
survey results and
resources to
improve culture.

Provide recurring
training and
resources (i.e. best
practices and
practical
implementation
ideas) on
leadership
development and
culture building.
.
Cultural model: Cultivate a culture of prioritizing and focusing on people
development. This study revealed that the culture of deliberate focus on people development in
the exemplary squadron commanders’ units was an anomaly across the Air Force. As a result,
the Air Force needs to cultivate a culture of prioritizing and focusing on people development.

56

Organizational change theory drives the recommendation to close this organizational gap.
Schneider et al. (1996) posit that organizational changes take root when beliefs and values within
the organization are shared among its members. Furthermore, organizational effectiveness
increases when espoused organizational values and beliefs align with messages, policies, and
concrete practices (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004). Accordingly, the recommendations are
two-fold. The first recommendation is to align Air Force accountability systems (policies and
procedures) and messaging to leaders with the Air Force priority to grow strong leaders. The
second recommendation is to restructure the roles of the operations group commanders and their
staff as organic base level leadership development leads and coaches.
Education research provides a great example of the impact a culture of prioritizing and
focusing on people development has on institutions. Professional development of teachers
results in increased student commitment, engagement, and achievement (McMeeking, Orsi, &
Cobb, 2012; Wallace, 2009). Multiple studies found the most successful professional
development programs that positively impacted student achievement included three key
elements: sustained or ongoing; involved the whole school; and embedded in the classroom
(Bruce, Esmonde, Ross, Dookie, & Beatty, 2010; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2006). In other
words, sustained professional development initiatives aligned to organization-wide values,
implemented on-site, and directly connected to teacher’s work increased teacher efficacy and
resulted in higher student achievement. Similarly, aligning Air Force policy and procedures and
organizational restructuring to enable sustained leadership development initiatives Air Force
wide at every base that are immediately applicable for commanders will positively impact
Airmen commitment, performance, and achievement.

57

Cultural model: Cultivate a learning culture. Only 36% of respondents agreed that the
Air Force as an institution develops leaders to effectively coach and develop their people.
Hence, the Air Force needs a learning culture that fosters leader involvement, modeling,
coaching, and reciprocal feedback. Organizational change and accountability theories inform the
recommendations to narrow this performance gap. According to Hentschke and Wohlstetter
(2004), building the capacity of an organization is crucial in improving the institution and its
accountability systems. Learning organizations build capacity, constantly improve, and create an
environment that fosters desirable behaviors (Garvin et al., 2008; Tuckman, 2009). Additionally,
effective change efforts are communicated regularly and frequently to all key stakeholders (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The recommendation therefore is to clearly define the role of commanders is to
coach and develop the capacity of their people by cultivating a learning culture.
The new information age of rapid, disruptive change is also disrupting the roles of
managers, and leaders must adapt (Hess & Ludwig, 2017). In a decade of ongoing research with
organizations, Ibarra and Scoular (2019) found that many of the roles of managers are being
automated and contend leaders’ priority roles need to shift to supporting, coaching, and
developing their people. Coaching, people development, and reciprocal feedback thrive in
learning organizations (Dalakoura, 2010; Heen & Stone, 2014). Currently, the Air Force is
experimenting at Mountain Home Air Force base with eliminating operations group commanders
and administrative staffs from the operational chain of command to flatten and speed decision-
making (Pawlyk, 2018). The Air Force could capitalize on this shift, apply the principles of
leader as coach, and restructure operations group commanders and staff as lead for people
development and capacity building to cultivate learning cultures at every base.

58

Cultural setting: Emphasize people development in commander and leader
evaluations. One hundred percent of the interviewed squadron commanders and 94% of survey
participants were in alignment that the current Air Force evaluation system does not effectively
evaluate leaders on how well they develop their people. Clearly, the Air Force needs to
emphasize people development in commander and leader evaluations. Organizational change
and accountability theories guide the recommendation to address this organizational performance
gap. Clark and Estes (2008) maintain that effective organizations establish organizational
policies and procedures to support organizational goals and values. Moreover, policies must
reflect the values and goals of the institution and are more successful when crafted
collaboratively (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004). Similarly, accountability measures should
be contextualized and under constant review as a part of an evolving process in learning
organizations (Conner & Robovsky, 2011; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2015; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). The recommendation, therefore, is to revise performance evaluations to hold
commanders and leaders accountable to the institutional value of people development by
integrating peers, 360-degree surveys, and climate assessment survey results.
Combining accountability principles with evidence-based research can enhance leader
evaluations and corresponding performance. Moran and Brightman (2000) concluded that clear
expectations and benchmarks are essential to successful self-regulation, self-management, and
long-term survival of organizations in an ambiguous, complex, and changing environment. In
their 2009 study, McGuire and Rhodes found a high-tech manufacturer successfully overhauled
their talent management system by integrating peer reviews and coaching to become more
innovative, creative, and adapt to a changing environment. In another case study involving the
US Army Ranger School, Kane (2017) concluded that integrating peer level evaluations

59

promotes excellence and eliminates potential toxic leaders that are cancerous to cultivating
learning cultures. Similarly, in a review of 25 years of leadership development research, Day et
al. (2013) discovered that feedback from multiple sources, including 360-degree feedback
processes, accelerates development. Their evidence suggests that by integrating feedback from
peers, organizational climate assessments, and 360-degree reviews, the Air Force will hold
squadrons more accountable and align cultural models and settings to prioritize leadership and
people development.
Cultural setting: Training and tools to improve development and culture. All eight
of the interviewed squadron commanders and nearly two-thirds of the survey recipients agreed
the Air Force needs to significantly increase training, tools, and resources to improve climate,
culture, and development in the unit level. Both organizational change and leadership theories
anchor the recommendations to narrow this organizational performance gap. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure the right resources are in place and aligned with
needs and organizational priorities. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) concur and maintain
that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders ensure that employees have the
resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals. Resources include skills training and tools.
Accordingly, the recommendations encompass two elements. First, enhance commander and
leadership courses to include training on utilizing climate assessment survey results and
resources to improve culture. Second, provide recurring training and resources (i.e. best
practices and practical implementation ideas) on leadership development and culture building.
While the Air Force is focused on improving squadron vitality (Goldfein, 2016), the Air
Force does not deliberately train unit commanders or leaders on how to identify and improve
factors influencing unit vitality. Unit climate surveys identify key organizational performance

60

measures. The Defense Department offers valuable evidence-based resources and practical tools
to address these factors that influence unit vitality and culture building (DEOMI, n.d.). None of
the eight interviewed squadron commanders or 81 survey respondents remembered receiving any
training nor were familiar with the DEOMI resources. A few interviewees also recommended
best practices or practical ideas be offered at current commanders’ courses. By increasing
awareness of and training on the available tools, the Air Force may remove an organizational
barrier and hopefully increase knowledge and motivation for squadron commanders to
implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Conclusion
The purpose of this innovation study was to identify the resources necessary to reach the
Air Force goal of growing strong leaders by implementing effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level. Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework, the
study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting squadron
commanders through a literature review, interviews, and surveys with organizational
stakeholders. Analysis of the interview findings and survey results validated the influences as
needs, resulting in evidence-based recommendations. Utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), the study offers a multi-prong implementation and
evaluation plan (see Appendix K) to integrate the recommendations into a digestible and easily
applicable approach for the Air Force to focus progress, support, and accountability towards
achieving their goal.

61

The study revealed three key essentials and one foundational principle to successfully
implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. First, squadron
commanders need to understand the role of modeling, involvement, and people development in
leadership. Second, leaders need to understand cognitive processing and experiential learning in
effective teaching techniques, including coaching and feedback. Third, squadron commanders
need a supportive environment, a learning culture that cultivates people development. Finally,
leaders need to be aware of their role and impact on the culture of their organization. As the Air
Force holistically integrates the recommendations through the discrete lenses of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences, squadron commanders will successfully implement
effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.

62

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451-474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Air Force Personnel Center. (2020). Air Force demographics. Retrieved from
http://www.afpc.af.mil/About/Air-Force-Demographics/
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personal Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Altman, D. G., Rego, L., & Steadman, D. H. (2010). Democratizing leader development. In E.
Van Velsor, C. McCauley, & M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership
handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.) (pp. 221-250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National
Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Amer Educational Research Assn.
American Psychological Association (APA), Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 principles from Psychology for pre-K-12 teaching and learning.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. Snook, N. Nohria,
& R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, being (pp.
3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

63

Ardichvili, A., Dirani, K., & Dirani, K. (2017). Leadership development in emerging market
economies. Leadership development in emerging market economies. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58003-0_1
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Armstrong, M. (2017). Reinventing performance management: Building a culture of continuous
improvement. London: Kogan Page. Chapter 3: Effective Performance Management;
Appendix A: Case Study Gap Inc; Appendix B: Case Study Microsoft.
Asencio, H., & Mujkic, E. (2016). Leadership behaviors and trust in leaders: Evidence from the
US federal government. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 156-179.
Ausink, J. A., Matthews, M., Conley, R. E., & Lim, N. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of Air
Force squadron commanders. RAND Corporation.
Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader
development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331.
Baker, L. (2009). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(1),
122-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
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
Barnett, P. (2015). If what gets measured gets managed, measuring the wrong thing matters.
Corporate Finance Review, 19(4), 5.

64

Barrett, B., Goldfein, D. L., & Raymond, J. W. (2020, February 26). Department of the Air Force
priorities. Retrieved from https://www.usafa.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/2128045/department-of-the-air-force-priorities/
Barrett, F. J. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures, Organizational Dynamics, 24(2),
36-49.
Barsade, S., & O’Neill, O. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the
culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care
setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551-598.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214538636
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and stogdill’s handbook of leadership, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-
optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9-21.
Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails-and what to do
about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1), 1-17.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party's report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96.

65

Booz-Allen-Hamilton. (2017). United States Air Force CSAF priority: Revitalizing squadrons,
final Report, peer to peer and focus group field data analysis, AFDW-USAFE. Booz,
Allen & Hamilton.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), pp. 27-40.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Leadership development from a complexity perspective. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 298-313.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.298
Boyd, G., & Laske, O. (2018). Human developmental processes as key to creating impactful
leadership. In N. Chatwani (Ed.), Distributed leadership: The Dynamics of balancing
leadership with followership, pp. 205-241. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work, tough conversations, whole hearts. New York, NY:
Random House.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role
modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,
122(4), 587-598.

66

Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained
classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student
achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1598-1608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.011
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Bullis, R. C. (2009). The NFP strategic leader. The US Army War College Quarterly:
Parameters, 39(1), 32-44.
Burgess, T. (2012). The company command professional forum: Peer-to-peer leadership
development in the US Army. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The
handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, being (pp. 369-386). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Cacioppe, R. (1998). Leaders developing leaders: An effective way to enhance leadership
development programs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(4), 194-
198.
Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Effects of Positive Practices on
Organizational Effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 266–
308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310395514
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration. New York, NY: Random House.
Chapman, B., & Sisodia, R. (2015). Everybody matters: The extraordinary power of caring for
your people like family. New York, NY: Portfolio / Penguin.

67

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clifton, J., & Harter, J. (2019). It’s the manager. Omaha, NE: Gallup Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap, and some don’t. New
York, NY: Harper Business.
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 93-112.
Cooper, D., Gunther, K., Anarumo, M., Price, J., Pratt, C., Rosenberg, T., Clementi, D., Castille,
K., & Mills, C. (2018). Critique of AF leadership development series, paper two: Identity
theory and normative re-education change model to develop leaders. Randolph Air Force
Base, TX: Air Education and Training Command.
Couch, M. A., & Citrin, R. (2018). Retooling leadership development. Strategic HR Review,
17(6), 275-281.
Covey, S. R., & Merrill, R. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dalakoura, A. (2010). Differentiating leader and leadership development: A collective
framework for leadership development, Journal of Management Development, 29(5),
432-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039204
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2015). Meaningful learning in a new paradigm for
educational accountability: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(7).

68

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,
11(4), 581-613.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2013). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.
Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Growing leaders for tomorrow: An introduction. In D. V.
Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming
organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis Group, LLC.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader
development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Deans for Impact (2015). The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
Deming, W. E. (2018). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge,
MA: MIT press.
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). (n.d.). DEOMI organizational
climate surveys (DEOCS): Assessment to solutions. Retrieved from
https://www.deocs.net/public/index.cfm
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/

69

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dewey, J. (1933). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Duhigg, C. (February 25, 2016). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team.
New York Times Magazine. Accessed at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what--‐google--‐learned--‐from--‐its--‐
quest--‐to--‐build--‐the--‐perfect--‐team.html?_r=0
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.95.2.256
Dyer, K. & Renn, M. (2010). Development programs for educational leaders. In E. Van Velsor,
C. McCauley, & M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (3rd ed.) (pp. 177-196). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley
Imprint.

70

Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the
knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Edmondson, A. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the
workplace for learning, innovation and growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Edmondson, A. C., & Woolley, A. W. (2003). Understanding outcomes of organizational
learning interventions. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (pp. 185-211). London, U.K.:
Blackwell Publishing.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement.
Erhard, W., Jensen, M. C., & Granger, K. L. (2012). Creating leaders: An
ontological/phenomenological model. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The
handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, being (pp. 245-262). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1681682
Faust, D. (2010, May 25). 2010 Baccalaureate service: Living an unscripted life. Retrieved
from https://www.harvard.edu/president/speech/2010/2010-baccalaureate-service-living-
unscripted-life

71

Fernández-Aráoz, C., Roscoe, A., & Aramaki, K. (2017, November-December). Turning
potential into success: The missing link in leadership development. Harvard Business
Review, 86-93.
Ferrazzi, K. (2015, July 31). 7 Ways to improve your people development programs. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/07/7-ways-to-improve-employee-
development-programs
Feser, A., Nielsen, N., & Rennie, M. (2017). What's missing in leadership development?
McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com
Festinger, L. A. 1957. Theory of cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81–91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Frankovelgia, C. C., & Riddle, D. D. (2010). Leadership coaching. In Velsor, C. McCauley, &
M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (3rd ed.) (pp. 125-146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
Fulford, M. D. (2013). Practice what you preach: Using an experiential learning approach to
teach leadership. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 10(1), 81-86.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace report, 2017. Retrieved from
http://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx

72

Ganz, M., & Lin, E. S. (2012). Learning to lead: A pedagogy of practice. In S. Snook, N.
Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing,
being (pp. 353-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (March 2008). Is yours a learning organization?
Accessed at: https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
General Accounting Office. (2013). Joint military education: Actions needed to implement DOD
recommendations for enhancing leadership development. GAO 14-29 DOD’s 2013 JPME
Study. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658527.pdf
George, B. (2012). Authentic leadership development. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana
(Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, being (pp. 313-328).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goff, L. (2010). Strategic leadership development in the U.S. navy: A phenomenological study of
navy rear admirals. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305244778).
Goldfein, D.L. (2001). Sharing success – owning failure: Preparing to command in the 21st
century air force. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press.
Goldfein, D.L. (2016). CSAF focus area: The beating heart of the Air Force…squadrons!
Retrieved from
https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/csaf/letters/CSAF_Focus_Area_Squadrons.pdf
Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., & Cheng, J. (2018). The leader’s guide to corporate culture.
Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44-52.

73

Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail.
McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 121-126.
Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. V. Day, S. J.
Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations:
Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 153-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammond, M., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Beyond (just) the workplace: A theory
of leader development across multiple domains. Academy of Management Review, 42(3),
481-498.
Hanson, B. (2013). The leadership development interface: Aligning leaders and organizations
toward more effective leadership learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
15(1), 106-120.
Hargadon, A. (2003). The social side of innovation (chap. 3). In How breakthroughs happen:
The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Boston Harvard University Press.
Heath, C., & Heath, Dan. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard (1st ed.).
New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Heen, S., & Stone, D. (2014). Find the coaching in criticism: the right ways to receive feedback.
(Managing yourself). Harvard Business Review, 92(1-2), 108–111.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R.L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present, and future,
Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-33.
Hess, E. D., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Humility is the new smart: Rethinking human excellence in
the smart machine age. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

74

Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., & Richter, A. (2004). Learning to lead: The
development and testing of a model of leadership learning. The Leadership Quarterly,
15(3), 311–327.
Hoyer, S. (2017). Experiencing leadership: The praxis of Air Force leader development
(Master’s thesis). Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of
experience (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Ibarra, H., & Scoular, A. (2019). The leader as coach: How to unleash innovation, energy, and
commitment. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-
leader-as-coach
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2006). A study of the effect of sustain, whole-school
professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 00(0), 1-12.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: Is organizational learning a
key? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91-98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713769590
Kane, T. (2017). Total Volunteer Force: Lessons from the US Military on Leadership Culture
and Talent Management. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

75

Karumathil, A. (2017). A leadership development program that worked. Training: The Source
for Professional Development. Retrieved from https://trainingmag.com
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An everyone culture: Becoming a deliberately developmental
organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25-58.
King, S. N., & Santana, L. C. (2010). Feedback intensive programs. In E. Van Velsor, C.
McCauley, & M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (3rd ed.) (pp. 97-123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley
Imprint.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Kivland, C., & King, N. (2015). Six reasons why leadership training fails. Leadership Excellence
Essentials, 32(1), 5-8.
Kochan, T. (2015). The leaders' choice. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 69-73.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to
management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of management
learning, education, and development, 42-68.

76

Korsgaard, M. Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312-319.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary
things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P.
(2009). The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational
performance (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LeBoeuf, J. Emery, J., Siang, S., & Sitkin, S. B. (2012). Developing leaders of consequence. In
S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership:
Knowing, doing, being (pp. 227-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Leroy, H., Palanski, M., & Simons, E. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as
drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3),
255-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-01 1-1036-1
Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2017). Leadership in applied
psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3),
434-451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure, and the development of leadership
skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591-615.

77

Losey, S. (2018, October 31). Three commanders fired from Laughlin flying training wing for
failing to stop misconduct. Air Force Times. Retrieved from
https://www.airforcetimes.com
Lu, X., Xie, B., & Guo, Y. (2018). The trickle-down of work engagement from leader to
follower: The roles of optimism and self-efficacy. Journal of Business Research, 84, 186-
195.
Lunsford, L. G., & Brown, B. A. (2017). Preparing leaders while neglecting leadership: An
analysis of US collegiate leadership centers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 24(2), 261-277.
Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations, Leadership Quarterly,
12(1), 389-418.
Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for
world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Martin, H. J. (2010). Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 87–104.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20038
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member
exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
69(1), 67-121.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, W. J. (2006). Leaders developing leaders. (leadership and succession planning).
Human Resource Planning, 29(4), 5-7.

78

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3(1), 3-19.
McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M., & Morrison, A. (1988). The lessons of experience: How
successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McCauley, C. D., & McCall Jr, M. W. (2014). Using experience to develop leadership talent:
How organizations leverage on-the-job development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons.
McCauley, C. D., Van Velsor, E., & Ruderman, M. (2010). Introduction: Our view of leadership
development. In E. Van Velsor, C. McCauley, & M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-26). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001, November). Management vs. leadership. School
Administrator, 58(10), 32–34.
McGuire, J. G., & Rhodes, G. (2009). Transforming your leadership culture. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
McKinsey.com. (2017). Wellness at work: The promise and pitfalls. McKinsey Quarterly.
Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-
insights/wellness-at-work-the-promise-and-pitfalls

79

McMeeking, L. B., Orsi, R., & Cobb, R. B. (2012). Effects of a teacher professional
development program on the mathematics achievement of middle school students.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 160-182.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mintzberg, H. (2012). Developing naturally: From management to organization to society to
selves. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching
leadership: Knowing, doing, and being (pp. 197-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change, Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
Mumford, M., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2000).
Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. The Leadership Quarterly,
11(1), 87–114.
Munasamy, V. P., Ruderman, M. N., & Eckert, R. H. (2010). Leader development and social
identity. In E. Van Velsor, C. McCauley, & M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.) (pp. 147-176). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
O’Leonard, K., & Loew, L. (2012). Leadership development factbook 2012: Benchmarks and
trends in U.S. leadership development. Bersin & Associates.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Lead and disrupt: How to solve the innovator's
dilemma. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

80

O’Toole, J. (2001). When leadership is an organizational trait. In W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, &
T. G. Cummings, (Eds), The Future of Leadership. (pp. 158-74). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Pawlyk, O. (2018). Air combat command wing removes group, vice commanders in experiment.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/05/18/air-combat-command-wing-removes-
group-vice-commanders-experiment.html
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Peters, T. J. (2018). The excellence dividend: Meeting the tech tide with work that wows and jobs
that last. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run companies. New York, NY: Warner.
Petriglieri, G. (2012). Identity workspaces for leadership development. In S. Snook, N. Nohria,
& R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, being (pp.
295-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck. New York, NY: Harper Business.

81

Pincus J. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance. Human
Communications Research, 12(2), 395–419.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Popper, M. (2005). Main principles and practices in leader development. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 62-75.
Prewitt, D. (2003). Leadership development for learning organizations. Leadership and
organization development journal, 24(2), 58-61.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership. New York, NY: Gallup, Inc.
Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why Leadership-Development Efforts Fail. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 44(3), 83-88.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120-130.
Rodriguez, R. A., Green, M. T., Sun, Y., & Baggerly‐Hinojosa, B. (2017). Authentic leadership
and transformational leadership: An incremental approach. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 11(1), 20-35.
Rossett, A. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class
organizational learning. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 1100-1101.

82

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). (pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schmidt, E., Rosenberg, J., & Eagle, A. (2019). Trillion dollar coach: The leadership handbook
of silicon valley’s Bill Campbell. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,
NY: Basic books.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/interest/

83

Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schultheiss, O. (2001). An information processing account of implicit motive arousal. In P. R.
Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions
in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 1–41). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Secretary of the Air Force. (2014). Air Force instruction 1-2: Air force culture, commander’s
responsibilities. Retrieved from https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/csaf/afi1_2.pdf
Secretary of the Air Force. (2016). Air Force instruction 36-2406: Officer and enlisted
evaluation systems. Retrieved from https://static.e-
publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2406/afi36-2406.pdf
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7-23.
Seppala, E., & Cameron, K. (2015). Proof that positive work cultures are more productive.
Harvard Business Review, 12(1), 44-50.
Slaughter, J. (2018). Unit 5.4 Discussions With Guests: Reflections. Retrieved from University of
Southern California Virtual Academic EDUC 603: http://vac.usc.edu.
Smigowski, H. (2015). A phenomenological study on leadership development over the career of
senior U.S. military leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 3733627)

84

Snook, S., Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (2012). The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing,
doing, and being. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stark, N. (2018, July 31). Commentary: The Air Force is not designed to produce good leaders.
Air Force Times. Retrieved from https://www.airforcetimes.com
Starkey, K., & Hall, C. (2012). The spirit of leadership: New directions in leadership education.
In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership:
Knowing, doing, being (pp. 81-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback
well. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Tichy, N. (2002). The Leadership engine: How winning companies build leaders at every level.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1966). The hobbit: Or there and back again. Boston, MA: Houghton.
Tuckman, B. (2009). Operant conditioning. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/ article/operant-conditioning/
U.S. Air Force. (n.d.). Air Force Mission. Retrieved June 23, 2018, from
https://www.airforce.com/mission
U.S. Air Force. (2019). The Book. Retrieved from https://www.af.mil/About-Us/The-Book/
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C., & Ruderman, M. (2010). The Center for Creative Leadership
handbook of leadership development: 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved
from http://www.ciando.com/ebook/bid-496640
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133-
53.

85

Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices,
and student achievement. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in
Education.
Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business
Horizons, 60, 395-404.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on pupil achievement. A working paper.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Welsh, M. A. (2014). Global vigilance, global reach, global power for America: The world's
greatest air force-powered by airmen, fueled by innovation. Air University, Maxwell
AFB, AL: Air Force Research Institute.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Williams, R. (2013). Why leadership development fails to produce good leaders. Psychology
Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-
success/201310/why-leadershipdevelopment-fails-produce-good-leaders.
Wilson, M. (2008). Developing future leaders for high-growth Indian companies (Tech. Rep.)
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

86

Wiseman, L. (2011). Intelligence multipliers: How smart leaders double the power of their
workforce for free. Leader to Leader, 2011(59), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.456
Wiseman, M., Bradwejn, M., & Westbroek, M. (2014). A new leadership curriculum: The
multiplication of intelligence. Academic Medicine, 89(3), 376–379.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000146
Yip, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2008). Developing public service leaders in Singapore (Tech. Rep.).
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Yip, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2010). Learning from experience. In E. Van Velsor, C. McCauley, &
M. Rudman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (3rd ed.) (pp. 63-95). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2016). The trickle-down effect of good (and bad) leadership. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/01/the-trickle-down-effect-of-
good-and-bad-leadership

87

Appendix A: Air Force Demographics

Age

Average age: Officers- 35, Enlisted- 28

46% of enlisted are < 26
13% of officers are < 26

Gender

79.1% male
20.9% female

Race

71% white
15% black / African American
4.2% Asian
0.7% American Indian / Native American
1.2% Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander
4.4% identified more than one race
3.6% declined to respond

Ethnicity

15.2% Hispanic or Latino
80.6% Not Hispanic or Latino
4.2% declined to respond

(Air Force Personnel Center, 2020)

88

Appendix B: Interactive Conceptual Model Examples of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences Interplay
Without a clear understanding of the role of leader involvement and modeling in people
development, commanders may never see the value and utility of developing capacity in their
organization (McCauley et al., 2010). As a result, commanders will not devote time in their
daily, week, and monthly battle rhythms to develop people. However, as the Air Force cultivates
a culture that prioritizes people development with evaluations that reflect this emphasis,
essentially integrating people development into its accountability system, commanders goal
orientation motivation may shift to people development, and a mastery focus over simply
performance focus. Additionally, as commanders understand the conceptual knowledge of
cognitive processing and experiential learning in effective teaching techniques, they increase in
self-efficacy to coach and develop their people. Lastly, there is a reciprocal influence between
commanders’ metacognition or awareness of how their actions impact their unit culture and
training the Air Force can provide on how to use climate surveys and tools to improve
development. In some cases commanders may become aware and seek out the training.
Conversely, the cultural setting of the climate survey tools training may prompt a commander’s
metacognition and awareness of their ability to impact culture.

89

Appendix C: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interviews and Surveys
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is unit level squadron commanders. There
are nearly 2,000 squadron commanders in the Air Force (Ausink et al., 2018). Commanders
typically serve two years in a command assignment, with about half rotating out each year
(Ausink et al., 2018). This study looked at experienced commanders with at least one year in
command and strong unit vitality, as measured by their unit climate surveys (DEOMI, n.d.). In
addition to interviewing the primary stakeholders, the researcher sent a survey to all the direct
reports of the interviewed squadron commanders to ensure multiple sources of evidence, rule out
alternative explanations, and identify common themes (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Squadron commanders. The research question asked what the knowledge
and motivation of squadron commanders are related to implementing effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level. Thus, the sampling criterion began with the population
of the stakeholder of focus, Air Force squadron commanders.
Criterion 2. Over one year of command experience. In order to understand the
knowledge and motivation of the primary stakeholders, it was important to select squadron
commanders from the population with sufficient time on the job. The experienced squadron
commanders had time to implement initiatives, and observe, be aware of, and reflect on their
impact.
Criterion 3. Above Air Force average organizational effectiveness indicators.
Squadron commanders with strong unit vitality measures on their climate surveys represent
bright spots (Heath & Heath, 2010) who may be doing something different than the majority of
the Air Force. The unique, atypical environments (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) revealed visible

90

behaviors and underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs driving the phenomenon of interest
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the bright spot commanders brought added insight to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to implementing effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy for this study was a non-probability purposeful sampling of
participants. In line with a qualitative approach, small purposeful sampling elicited rich
information to expose deeper meaning, context, and processes (Johnson & Christensen, 2014;
Patton, 2015). Purposeful sampling enabled the researcher to target participants with the
competence and expertise reflective of the purpose of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions allowed the researcher to
probe for additional insight and details (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Johnson & Christensen,
2014). To enable deep, rich sampling, the researcher interviewed eight experienced
commanders, in a snowball or network sampling method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton
(2015) encourages a minimum and optimum sample size, stressing much beyond which would
reach saturation for a nonrandom, purposeful interview data collection method. By conducting
interviews with the primary stakeholders first in an exploratory sequential mixed methods
approach (McEwan & McEwan, 2003), the researcher was able to craft a more tailored and
meaningful survey instrument with questions specific to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on leadership development at the unit level.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Direct reports. Direct reports typically have greater day to day interaction
with squadron commanders than do other subordinates in a unit or the commander’s supervisor.

91

Thus, direct reports added insight and understanding into the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on commanders implementing effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy for the survey was a census of all the direct reports of the
interviewed squadron commanders. Other survey sampling criterion were considered, such as
having served at least six months with the experienced commander and having served under
multiple commanders to provide perspectives with comparison experiences. However, Creswell
and Creswell (2018) suggest that if one can sample the entire population, the researcher will
gather more holistic perspectives and understanding. Given the small population size of direct
reports, five to fifteen per commander, the census was 92 total participants. The intramethod
mixed questionnaire (Johnson & Christensen, 2014) included both structured and unstructured
components to capture both quantitative data and gather qualitative insights into their thoughts,
feelings, attitudes, and perceptions.
Explanation for Choices
As Johnson and Christensen (2014) highlight, mixing and weaving of data collection
methods create a stronger design. The sequential use of interviews and surveys in a mixed
methods approach appropriately met the intent of this study to explore the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on commanders implementing effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level. While a powerful data collection method for an
ethnography, observation does not expose an individual’s motivation or metacognitive awareness
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Nor is observation sufficient to understand shared mental
models of an organizational culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004).

92

Had the study included observation data collection method, the sampling strategy would
have included observation of interviewed squadron commanders in their naturalistic setting with
their direct reports. Optimally, the researcher would have observed commanders in coaching,
mentoring, feedback, and leadership development situations to gather any visible knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on implementing leadership development initiatives at
the unit level.

93

Appendix D: Interview Protocol
The study used a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide on the topic of leadership
development initiatives at the unit level. The interview guide acted as a roadmap with a
consistent set of questions for each respondent (Patton, 2015). The semi-structured, open-ended
interview protocol provided the interviewer the opportunity to probe and explore (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the open-ended question enabled the interviewee to express
themselves more freely, fostering greater dialogue and richer data (Patton, 2015).
Interview Guide
Thank you for taking time today to participate in my research on leadership development
initiatives at the unit level. I know your time is precious, especially in command. You could be
spending this time in other similar one on one engagements to develop your people.
Nevertheless, your insights and experience will provide rich data to help generate
recommendations to improve leadership development efforts across the Air Force. Definitely an
exciting opportunity to be involved in innovative work with such a long-term impact.
I appreciated receiving your signed consent form that included the purpose and standards
for this study. As a reminder, your participation is completely voluntary and you can withdraw
at any time. Before we begin, would you mind if we record this session? The recording will
ensure your responses are captured accurately. To maintain confidentiality, you will remain
anonymous, and I will store the recording and transcript in a password protected folder on my
computer, which I will delete upon completion of the final dissertation. The dissertation will be
published and available for all. Additionally, I intend to present the findings and
recommendations to senior Air Force leadership.

94

I will now ask you several questions during this session focused on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on leadership development at the unit level in the Air
Force. I look forward to hearing your perspective and insight.
Research Question 1: What are Air Force squadron commanders’ knowledge and motivation
related to modeling, integrating, and engaging in effective leadership development initiatives
at the unit level?
Transition
/ Setup
Connection question: Remind me, how long have you been in command?
1. So, tell me, what has it been like in command? (KC, KM, MV, MG)
- Probe: Can you expand on that?
2. Tell me about a time when you were at your best as a leader. (KC, KM)
- Probe: What behaviors were you exhibiting?
- Probe: How did you feel? What were your feelings? (MS, MV)
- Probe: What prepared you to lead? (KC, CM1/2)
3. How would you define “leadership development”? (KC)

- Probe: Walk me through an experience or example of what development
looks like.
4.
What does “right look like” in terms of leadership development at the unit level?
(KC, KM)
- Probe: Where have you seen this? Who have you seen model this behavior?
5.
How has “modeling right” and taking time to develop people influenced you?
(MV, KM)
- Probe: Can you give specific examples?
- Probe: What prepared you to develop leaders? (CM1/2)
6. How do you spend your day developing your people? (KC, MS, MV, MG)
- Probe: What does that look like? Can you share with me an example?
- Probe: What do you expect to garner from this activity?
7. How do you feel about your ability to develop your people as leaders? (MS)
- Probe: Why do you feel that way?

- Probe: Why do some commanders not take the time to develop their people?
(MS, MV, MG, CM)

- Probe: What barriers could inhibit commanders from developing their
people? (CM1/2, CS1/2, MG)
8. What does coaching look like to you? (KC, CM1/2)
- Probe: Tell me about at time when this played out.
9.
How have you seen the Air Force performance feedback form used? (KC,
CM1/2)

95

- Probe: Can you give an example of how it was used to help coach and
mentor?
- Probe: How have you used this form with your subordinates?
Research Question 2: What is the interaction between Air Force culture and context and
commanders’ knowledge and motivation to model, integrate, and engage in effective
leadership development initiatives at the unit level?
10. What type of training have you received on performance feedbacks? (CS2, CM2)
- Probe: On this feedback form specifically?
Transition
/ Setup
Now we are going to ask some questions about organizational culture. Culture is
who we are, something you feel, sense, or observe as you walk through the halls
of a unit.
11. If I walked through your unit, what would I see? (KM, CM1)
- Probe: What could or would I feel?
Setup
We talk about legacy, what we leave behind. Everything we do leaves a ripple
effect, an echo. Suppose we were able to be a fly on the wall, observe the chatter
in the unit.
12.
What do you imagine would be the talk at the water cooler, smoke pit, gym or
elsewhere after you left?
- Probe: What would they say about you? (KM)
13. How do you feel the Air Force prioritizes people development? (CM1/2, CS1/2)
- Probe: How have you seen this play out in your career?

- Probe: What examples do you have of observing or being developed by
someone?
- Probe: What did you appreciate about what they did? (MV)
14.
How have you used your climate survey to help improve the climate and culture
of your unit? (CS2, KM, MS)

- Probe: What type of training have you received on how to use climate survey
results?

- Probe: What resources are you familiar with that assist with using climate
surveys to improve the unit?
Research Question 3: What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational
solutions for commanders to model, integrate, and engage in effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level?
15.
Who else should I be talking to about this topic (modeling leadership
development)?

- Probe: This is the first of a few interviews. Is there another squadron
commander that is modeling right that you would recommend I interview?
16. What other questions should I be asking on this topic?
- Probe: What didn’t you get asked that you hoped you would?
17.
What other input or advice do you have on implementing effective leadership
development at the unit level?

96

(KC=Knowledge Conceptual, KM=Knowledge Metacognitive, MS=Self-Efficacy, MV=Value, MG=Goal
Orientation, CM=Cultural Models, CS=Cultural Settings)

Thank you again for taking the time today. Your responses have provided deep, detailed
information for the study. Do you have any other questions? Please do not hesitate to reach out
if you have any questions.

97

Appendix E: Survey Protocol
Survey Items
Knowledge Influences
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the statements below
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, neither agree nor disagree).
1. My commander takes the time to help me develop professionally.
Or: 1. My commander has held ____ (how many) feedback and/or development sessions with me
during the past year.
2. My commander deliberately provides opportunities to learn and grow through experience.
2a. My commander (check all that apply)
a) allows her/his people to make decisions on their own
b) lets people act on their own decisions
c) encourages creative
d) invites collaborative decision-making
e) creates a safe place for people to learn and grow

3. I like working with my commander because she/he (check top two or three that apply)

a) has a positive attitude
b) acts in harmony with her/his attitudes, values, and words
c) develops people
d) cultivates culture
e) Other (fill in the blank)

Or: 3. My unit’s culture is more positive (i.e. cohesive/consistent) than most units because of my
commander’s attitude and actions.

4. Compared to other commanders, what is it that your commander does differently to develop a
positive culture (of growth and learning) in your unit? (open-ended)

Motivation Influences
5. My commander is committed to unit member’s growth and development.
6. Prioritize the list below based on how your commander spends her/his day? (1-most, 5-least)

98

a) attending staff meetings
b) meeting with her/his immediate subordinates
c) holding developmental sessions
d) visiting work centers
e) spending time with Airmen outside the office or work centers

7. Despite work demands, my commander takes the time to help unit members learn and grow.
8. Based on how you answered the above questions, what have you personally witnessed or
experienced that makes you feel that way? Please provide examples. (open-ended)
OR: 8. What does effective leadership development at the unit level look like to you? What do
you feel is holding commanders back from doing these things? (open-ended)
Organizational Influences
9. My leadership deliberately schedules development opportunities for the Airmen in our unit.
10. My leadership models “what right looks like”.
11. My leadership is actively involved with our Airmen.
12. The Air Force develops leaders to effectively coach (i.e. ask inspired questions, improve
performance, unlock potential) their people.
13. My leadership cultivates an environment where it is safe to provide feedback to leaders
without repercussion.
14. Air Force evaluations (EPRs/OPRs) effectively evaluate how well leaders develop their
people.
15. The Air Force provides valuable training on how to use climate survey results.
16. The Air Force provides training on tools to improve culture and development in the unit.
17. What recommendations do you have to improve performance evaluations (EPRs/OPRs) or
training on culture building? (open-ended)

99

18. Give the findings of this study will be shared with Headquarters Air Force, what other
insights about leadership development would you like to share? (open-ended)
Demographics
19. In what category are you?
a) Civilian (GS-12 and below)
b) Civilian (GS-13 and above)
c) Enlisted
d) Officer

20. How long have you or did you work for your commander?
a) Less than six months
b) Six to twelve months
c) Greater than 12 months

100

Appendix F: Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher should be aware of any limitations and delimitations prior to conducting a
study. Limitations are factors outside the researcher’s control. Limitations for this study known
to the researcher included:
• The truthfulness of the respondents for both interviews and surveys;
• Snowball or network sampling may result in sampling bias;
• Snowball or network sampling may limit exposure to bright spot examples;
• The inability to observe commanders in action developing their people;
• The study will be conducted during a compressed window with limited resources,
preventing a larger sample size;
• Survey respondents may limit their openness or participation rate due to the rank
difference and that they are rated by the commander about which they are
responding.
Delimitations involve decisions or boundaries the researcher makes that may impact the
study. The delimitations that may have implications for this study included:
• The limited number of interviews may not guarantee representativeness of the
sample population;
• The study focuses on positive examples of leadership development and excludes
lessons that might be learned from exposure to the other end of the spectrum;
Only direct reports will be surveyed. Other members of the unit may have different perspectives
and understanding.

101

Appendix G: Credibility and Trustworthiness
This study employed multiple strategies to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, given
the researcher is the primary data collection instrument in qualitative research (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher conducted the interviews with participants and coded and
analyzed the data collected. It was important, then, to recognize and account for researcher bias
and potential influence on the collection, coding, and analysis of the data (Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019). This section outlines strategies the researcher employed to increase credibility
and trustworthiness and minimize inherent bias throughout this study.
The first strategy used to increase credibility and trustworthiness was reflexivity. The
researcher strived first to be aware of his own positionality and recognize that data is always
being interpreted and does not stand alone (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Robinson & Firth Leonard,
2019). The researcher was mindful of reactivity and sought to understand his influence on the
interviewee as well as conduct and conclusions of the study (Maxwell, 2013). To aid in
reflexivity and clarify bias, the researcher maintained a journal to document thoughts throughout
the collection and analysis phase.
The second strategy the researcher employed to increase credibility and trustworthiness
was triangulation. Triangulation increases credibility and limits researcher bias by purposefully
seeking out multiple sources and sampling methods (Bowen, 2009; Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Denzin, 1978; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the researcher
interviewed multiple geographically separated squadron commanders, utilized cursory
observation in conjunction with the interviews, and tailored open-ended questions from the
interview data used in surveys of the commanders’ direct reports. These triangulation techniques
helped to corroborate data and findings.

102

In addition to the strategies of reflexivity and triangulation, the researcher integrated
further measures to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the study. As Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013) suggest, the researcher checked interpretations with
participants to reduce misinterpretation, sought peer input on preliminary findings, and looked
for data that may support alternative explanations. Member checks also help to clarify meaning
(Maxwell, 2013). By providing preliminary findings to peer graduated squadron commanders,
outside perspectives helped clarify researcher bias and identify alternative explanations. By
combining the above strategies and measures, the researcher outlined the rigor necessary to
provide a credible and trustworthy study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The validity of the study
and its findings rest on this trustworthiness.

103

Appendix H: Validity and Reliability
While the quantitative survey instrument added insight and understanding to the study,
the researcher ensured validity and reliability of the data through proper design, testing, and
potential redesign. Validity refers to how correctly the questions measure the intended items and
the relationship of the findings to reality (Maxwell, 2013; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019;
Salkind, 2017). The American Educational Research Association, American Psychology
Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014) also clarify validity as
how well evidence supports the interpretations and use of results. Reliability focuses on the
consistency of the collection method to return similar responses over time (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Salkind, 2017). The researcher integrated multiple measures to counter threats to validity
or possibility of errors (Maxwell, 2013) in this study.
Census sampling contributes to validity and reliability. Sampling the entire population of
direct reports of interviewed commanders reduced selection bias, increase validity, and resulted
in richer data and more holistic perspectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Krueger & Casey,
2009). The researcher achieved an 88% participation rate, receiving 81 of 92 survey responses.
The greater number and percentage of participants contributed to validity (Johnson &
Christenson, 2014). A potential threat to validity includes participants not responding with their
actual views due to contamination or diffusion, the communication among participants during
the collection phase (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013). To reduce this possibility, the
researcher limited the survey window to three weeks and included a statement asking the
participants not to discuss the survey and their responses until after the window closes.
For reliability, standardization and quality of instrumentation are essential. To increase
reliability, the researcher piloted the survey to experts in the field. The pilot survey helped

104

eliminate any unclear items and ensured consistency in understanding the questions (Robinson &
Firth Leonard, 2019). Additionally, the researcher sent the survey simultaneously to each of the
recipients with standardized instructions, requesting completion within ten days. The researcher
sent a reminder email two days prior to the suspense date. For participants who had not
completed by the suspense date, the researcher sent a follow up personal email asking for
completion with a three-day extension. Nevertheless, to avoid the potential pressure to
participate, the researcher explained there was no monetary compensation.
By using an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, the researcher was able to
tailor survey questions specific to the context of leadership development for the direct reports of
the interviewed commanders. Additionally, to increase reliability, the researcher piloted the
survey questions to experts in the field for input and clarity (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
The above combined efforts of instrument design, testing, and controlled implementation
minimized threats and maximized validity and reliability of the quantitative survey data.

105

Appendix I: Ethics
Researchers have a responsibility to consider ethics in research planning (Glesne, 2011).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert the trustworthiness of a study is contingent upon the
credibility of the researcher. The following paragraphs outline the researcher’s approach to
avoid potential ethical issues from procedure, relationships, or situation for this study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher adhered to the ethical guidelines of informed consent, avoiding harm, and
confidentiality in this study (Glesne, 2011). In order to ensure the safety and protection of
human subjects, the researcher submitted the study to the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. Additionally, the researcher provided informed
consent forms to each participant identifying any potential risks at the outset of each engagement
and verbally stated that participation was voluntary and that individuals had the right to withdraw
at any time (Glesne, 2011). Furthermore, the researcher requested permission to record the
interviews, explained that conversations were kept strictly confidential, secure audio files and
transcripts in password protected folders on the researcher’s computer, and assured participants
that no identifying details would be shared in order to protect identities.
Patton (2015) urges researchers to clearly explain the purpose of the study and any
benefits for the participants, in other words reciprocity. The researcher clarified to participants
that no tangible incentives would be offered. Nevertheless, the researcher highlighted the
intangible benefits of participants’ having their voices heard and the opportunity to provide a
lasting impact on improving Air Force leadership development initiatives.
To avoid potential ethical pitfalls in terms of relationships, the researcher heeded Rubin
and Rubin’s (2012) advice of respect, no deceit, straightforward dialogue, and honored promises

106

with participants. The researcher was a former squadron commander not in the same unit or
hierarchy as the interview participants, who were peers currently in command. Despite no
supervisor or subordinate relationship concerns with participants, the researcher explicitly stated
his role as a researcher for the study. Some survey participants, while not subordinate, were of a
lower rank. To avoid any potential undue influence or pressure to participate (Rubin & Rubin,
2012), the researcher selected a survey instrument instead of a focus group.
Researchers must be aware of and consider their own assumptions and biases and the potential
impact on data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher recognized his
own views on leadership development had been shaped not only by 25 years of Air Force
models, experience, and culture, but through a lifetime of exposure to multiple family, faith, and
community models, experiences, and cultural settings and opportunities. Despite different
contexts, the literature review of this study reinforced that many leadership development
principles are enduring and extend across organizations (Day, 2000; Snook, Nohria, & Khurana,
2012; Van Velsor, McCauley, & Rudman, 2010). Nevertheless, the researcher did not simply try
to remain unbiased. Rather, the researcher attempted to recognize bias pitfalls such as
confirmation and halo bias, and instead openly listened and received and captured the
information provided to avoid contaminating the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Remembering
that research is a privilege (Weiss, 1994), the researcher carefully reflected on the ethical
responsibilities outlined above before, during, and after the study to not only protect against
harm of participants, but to leave all involved better than before.

107

Appendix J: Expanded Findings and Results
The purpose of this innovation study was to identify the resources necessary to reach the
Air Force goal of growing strong leaders by implementing effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level. This section reports on the findings of the interviews and results of
surveys as they relate to the project’s research questions. The findings and results are shared
through the discrete lenses of the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences identified
in the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) and literature review.
Research Question 1
What are Air Force squadron commanders’ knowledge and motivation related to
modeling, integrating, and engaging in effective leadership development initiatives at the unit
level?
Conceptual and Metacognitive Knowledge
This study explored two categories of the knowledge influence: declarative conceptual
and metacognitive. Conceptual refers to the knowledge of principles, models, theories, and
structures (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) of both leader modeling and cognitive processing,
experiential learning, and teaching in people development. Metacognitive knowledge is
awareness of commanders’ own cognitive processing and the impact of their thoughts, beliefs,
and actions on the culture of their organization (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Metacognition
allows commanders to know when and why to do something.
Knowledge influence 1: Leader involvement and modeling in people development.
The data suggested that the interviewed exemplary squadron commanders had good declarative
conceptual knowledge of modeling, involvement, and people development in leadership roles.
Both interview findings and survey results highlighted similar patterns of leader involvement and

108

modeling, including work center presence and availability (often termed walk about leadership),
approachability, listening, and taking care of people.
Interview findings. Three themes of needs emerged from the interviews surrounding
knowledge influence one: conceptual understanding of leadership development, leader
involvement, and leader modeling.
Understanding of leadership development. When asked how they defined leadership
development and what development looked like, the majority of interviewees stated that
leadership development was deliberate, intentional, and consistent, whether planned or
unplanned. Examples of what Bud termed, “very active, deliberate, and scheduled” leadership
development opportunities included monthly Airmen breakfasts, quarterly tier sessions by rank,
weekly Friday afternoon gatherings, reading groups, one-on-one sessions, weekly huddles, and
outsourcing speakers and trainers. Other interviewees stated leadership development was values
driven, adaptable to the context and needs of the unit, and included sharing real life situations
and challenges to reflect upon and discuss. Whatever the form, the goal was collective capacity
building, through individual and team development opportunities.
Leadership involvement. Interviewees described their understanding of the above
leadership development principles through actions of leader involvement and modeling.
Statements of leader involvement included walk about leadership, being in the work centers vice
in a meeting or behind a desk, time, visibility at recognition ceremonies and special events, and
scheduled and impromptu one-on-ones. Bud exemplified leadership by wandering around:
I would spend a good portion of my day just walking around and hanging out with my
Airmen. I would say to my execs or someone above me, ‘If something pops up just come
get me, I am walking around the squadron.’

109

Weekly individual and group sit-down sessions included questions such as, “What is
working? What is not?” Lazar emphasized the importance of consistent informal involvement
beyond weekly engagements. “Daily, I think it is all about getting around and talking to people.
So, I will talk to my people every day, and would make that more of a priority than any meeting
on my schedule.” Additionally, leader involvement included clearly and consistently articulating
vision, priorities, and values as well as communicating commitment and caring through example
and actions of modeling.
Leadership modeling. The majority of interviewed squadron commanders conveyed the
concept that the most impactful leadership development was modeling, or informal observation
and time, learning from the good and bad examples of prior leaders. Pits stated, “I have seen
both good and bad examples of leadership engagement or disengagement, of trust or distrust, that
have influenced my approach to leadership development.” Chappie echoed the trickle-down
effect principle (Zenger & Folkman, 2016), “This is how I want to do feedback, because this is
how they did feedback.” Chappie continued, “I learned from leaders, picking up things from
people I looked up to and said, ‘Wow, that is really good, I like that.” Hap had a similar
experience of being influenced by model leaders, “I love to develop people and I love seeing
them succeed. I think that is because of the people that helped me and gave me those
opportunities.” Hap shared another example of positive leader modeling that instilled a desire to
be a model as a leader:
My wing commander read a new book with every Airman Leadership School class. It
was amazing she found time. It is fantastic to have this leader you respect a lot never ask
you to do what they are not willing to do. So, she is doing it. I obviously have to follow
through on that. I have to model instead of just preach.

110

Leader modeling included displaying attributes and behaviors desired in leaders (Brown
& Trevino, 2014; Leroy et al., 2012). Most commanders mentioned taking care of people and
caring. Other attributes included character or living values, vulnerability, openness, self-care,
and making family a priority. Reinforcing the importance of modeling leadership development
and the resulting ripple effect, Pits stated, “When you build a passion for leadership, others will
follow.”
Interestingly, a few of the interviewees shared a potential misperception that leadership
development was only some structured, formal event. This potential misperception highlights
the need for leaders to understand role of modeling, involvement, and people development in
leadership.
Survey results. In open-ended questions about leader involvement and modeling, direct
reports responded with terms like engaged, listens, makes time, visible, genuine, personable,
approachable, spends time with and gets to know Airmen, walk about leadership, and visits work
centers. Table 5 shows similar positive direct report perceptions of leader involvement and
modeling. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent of respondents felt their commander took time to
develop them, model right, and was actively engaged with the Airmen.
Table 5
Direct Report Perceptions of Leader Involvement and Modeling
Survey Item
My commander:
Total Percentage of Direct Reports
who Agree or Strongly Agree
Takes time to develop me professionally 95%
Models “what right looks like” 98%
Is actively involved with our Airmen 96%

Respondents reported that their commanders spend 80% of their day with their direct
subordinates, in work centers, with Airmen, or in developmental sessions as compared to 20%

111

spent in staff meetings, as shown in Figure 2. Table 6 displays respondents prioritizing how their
commanders spend their day.

Figure 2. Direct report perception of how commanders spend their day
Table 6
Direct Report Prioritization of How Leaders Spend Their Day
Overall
Ranking
Survey Item:
Prioritize how your commander spends their day
Percentage prioritized
1, 2, or 3
1 Meeting with immediate subordinates 96%
2 Visiting work centers 73%
3 Attending staff meetings 57%
4 Holding development sessions 47%
5 Spending time with Airmen outside work centers 27%

Open-ended responses echoed similar perceptions of leader involvement and modeling.
One respondent stated, “He cared about his people, so it appeared to me he spent more time out
from behind his desk and more time visiting the work centers.” Another respondent continued:
He would walk around the unit and into the work centers to get a pulse of the unit’s
mission and the morale and welfare of the unit members, to include military, civilian and
63%
17%
20%
Meeting with subordinates,
visiting workcenters, with
Airmen outside office
Holding development
sessions
Attending staff meetings

112

contractors. He always made time to talk to someone whether it was private or open
discussions. He would listen with both ears.
A third respondent reinforced the impact of leader modeling on the development of individuals:
“I started caring more about my development as a future leader because I could tell my
leadership actually cared about me, and I wanted to make a difference in my Airmen's lives like
they did in mine.” Leader modeling people development caused a ripple effect, inspiring direct
report ownership of their own development and that of their subordinates.
Based on interview findings and survey results, the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders demonstrated the need for commanders to understand modeling, involvement, and
people development in leadership roles. An aspect of interviewed commanders’ leader
involvement included coaching, which is described as a part of the next knowledge influence.
Knowledge influence 2: Cognitive processing, experiential learning, and effective
teaching. The data suggested that interviewed exemplary squadron commanders had good
declarative conceptual knowledge of cognitive processing and experiential learning in effective
teaching techniques. Commanders’ understanding of cognitive processing was conveyed
through their connecting the why to what the Airmen do, setting clear expectations
incrementally, and communicating frequently focus and vision. Commanders displayed an
understanding of experiential learning by providing challenging experiences, empowerment, and
space for decision making and reflection. Commanders also utilized the effective teaching skills
of coaching and feedback.
Interview findings. Interviewees described an understanding of cognitive processing,
experiential learning, and effective teaching techniques including coaching and feedback. A few
of the commanders emphasized the importance of providing guidance, setting clear expectations,

113

and explaining the why or purpose to the Airmen’s role, mission, or task. Interviewees also
emphasized frequently communicating consistent focus on one to three priorities. Most of the
remaining comments on this influence focused on experiential learning, coaching, and feedback.
Experiential learning. The majority of interviewees noted the importance of experiential
learning relative to leadership development. A few interviewees repeatedly spoke about
learning, growth, and development through challenging experiences. Lazar stated, “The times
when I am at my best are when we are facing difficult situations. It is easy to be a leader when
everything is hunky dory.” Eddie reinforced this sentiment of challenging experiences being
more valuable to learning than a classroom:
There is definitely an art and a science that goes with leadership development, just like
there is with leadership. I think of the idea that I cannot train a cop to be good enough by
talking in a classroom about how to be a good cop. So, that is oftentimes how I feel
about leadership development that is classroom-based instruction. I do not think that is
how anyone learns. How do you develop leaders? When we come down to it, it is
experiential environments, very tough, difficult, often physically and mentally demanding
challenges that are milestones for people to accomplish, that not only give them
leadership opportunities, but build more resilient Airmen along the way.
Lazar provided a great reasoning as to why challenging experiences are essential to
leadership development. “Day to day, leadership is easier than when things are tough and when
people are upset and angry and emotional. That is when you earn your money as a leader.”
Lazar shared an example when one of his Airmen committed suicide. “It made me more aware.
I think that it only makes you better as a commander to go through adversity and come out the
other side.” Lazar grew as a leader through experience and awareness.

114

Other key phrases interviewees mentioned included empowerment and providing space
for members to take ownership, make their own decisions, and to reflect on both successes and
failures. Lazar expanded on these words:
I think you empower the people beneath you and around you. You give them clear left
and right limits or maybe not even left or right limits, maybe just a direction to travel.
You give them space, and you trust them, and you follow up with them. But I think it
starts with trust and safety. Do they feel safe making decisions? Then, giving them
something to make decisions about so that they feel like they are doing something that
makes a difference.
Similarly, half of the interviewees indicated Airmen needed a safe place to fail in order to
grow. Jimmy reinforced the importance of failure on growth, “Some of the best lessons that you
do not repeat are the ones where you messed up and you failed.”
Coaching and feedback. The statements above bleed over into coaching, as effective
teaching involves skills of effective coaching and feedback (Ibarra & Scoular, 2019; McCauley
et al., 2010). Interviewee comments on coaching included asking questions, providing guidance
and direction, opportunities to practice, and follow up. One example was Lazar:
Get out of their way and let them practice. Check back on them. If they need help, you
can guide them as they need it. But make sure that when they stumble and fall, you say,
‘That is okay, keep going,’ right? They are going to make mistakes and they are going to
stumble. That is the core underpinning of leadership development.
Effective coaching involves positive reinforcement and recognition (Frankovelgia & Riddle,
2010). Bud echoed these sentiments:

115

My job as a squadron commander was to be their coach and their cheerleader. I was
going to be their biggest cheerleader, but I was going to coach them too. When a flight
commander comes into your office and they feel like they screwed up, you do not bench
them. You do not kick them off the team. You help put them back in, practice little more.
I look at leadership as coaching from the aspect of you just got to continue to push them,
guide them, develop them, mentor them, and put them back in when they are ready. Then
turn around and tell them, ‘Good job, I am proud of you.’ I do not think we use those
words enough.
Positive reinforcement and recognition as Bud mentions are forms of feedback (Heen &
Stone, 2014). Feedback is an essential part of coaching (Schmidt et al., 2019). The majority of
interviewees discussed feedback. Chappie followed up every week with specific questions,
“Okay, where are you at with this? How are you doing? How is this going? It is tough to hold
back in certain areas, and then give them feedback.” Other themes surrounding feedback
included time to talk one-on-one, customized, positive reinforcement and being supportive,
holding individuals accountable, and inviting reflection (before, in, and on action) (Schön, 1983).
Lazar spoke of the importance of feedback to “bridge the performance gap.”
Survey results. As shown in Table 7, exemplary squadron commanders displayed an
understanding of the importance of experiential learning in people development.
Table 7
Direct Report Perceptions of Leader Understanding of Experiential Learning
Survey Item
My commander:
Total Percentage of Direct Reports
who Agree
Allows people to make their own decisions 96%
Lets people act on their own decisions 98%
Encourages creativity and risk taking 95%
Invites collaborative decision-making 96%

116

Creates a safe place for people to learn and grow (failure) 95%

Ninety-six percent of direct reports agreed their commander deliberately provides
opportunities to grow through learning and experience. And, 95% of respondents agreed their
commanders take time to coach and help their members learn and grow. When asked why they
felt that way, respondents centered on three themes similar to their commanders: space for
decision making and growth, empowerment, and positive coaching and feedback.
Space for decision making and growth. Commanders encouraged and provided space for
decision making, trial and error, and failure with the necessary top-cover: “created space and
opportunity for all of his subordinates to better themselves as well as the mission,” “allows his
Airmen the freedom to make decisions,” “let people make decisions; he owned failure and
shared success,” “allows leaders to make decisions at the unit level, which is great for everyone’s
growth and development.” Another respondent stated:
Let people make decisions and was engaged. Provided top-cover when we screwed up,
corrected us but made sure that we were taken care of when the decisions we made were
wrong in the end. Trusted and pushed us.
Empowerment. Providing space and trusting Airmen are integral to empowering others.
More than a third of respondents referenced some form of empowerment. Comments included:
“empowers and trusts leaders,” “empowers senior non-commissioned officers and company
grade officers to take full ownership of their people and programs,” “empowered the section to
own the process but had the good judgement to step in before things come completely off the
rails or when needed and feasible, allow the person to fail for growth and accountability.” The
following comment highlighted how that empowerment affected culture, “Building an
empowered culture of leaders. What is most effective is that they actually follow through with

117

the empowerment.” Respondents noted that commanders did not just use the word empower but
showed their trust by providing space and allowing members to make their own decisions and
feel ownership.
Coaching and feedback. Providing space and empowering others are instrumental to
coaching (Frankovelgia & Riddle, 2010). Respondents reported that commanders stayed
involved with one-on-one coaching, development, and feedback. One respondent commented:
Provided praise and acknowledged success, as well as recognized how failure is part of
growth. This promoted an atmosphere of encouragement and inspiration to take the
necessary chances required to achieve success, without the typical fear attributed to
failure.
As shown in Table 8, 83% of respondents reported that commanders held two or more
feedback sessions a year with their direct reports. Responses ranged from zero to 200 plus, with
a mean of 12 feedback sessions per year. Nearly half (49%) of commanders held two to nine
feedback sessions a year and another 32% of commanders held up to one feedback session a
week. One respondent stated, “daily discussion focused on unit success and bi-weekly
discussion on personal development.” Eight respondents commented, “Daily feedback.”
Table 8
Direct Report Feedback and Development Sessions with Their Commander
Survey Item

0 1 2-5 6-9 10-52 200+
How many feedback or development
sessions did your commander hold
with you in the past year?
5% 12% 44% 5% 32% 1%

Based on interview findings and survey results, the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders demonstrated the need for commanders to understand cognitive processing and the

118

importance of experiential learning, to include provide space, coaching, and feedback in order to
implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Knowledge influence 3: Awareness of actions in cultivating culture. The data
suggested that interviewed exemplary squadron commanders were aware of how their own
thoughts, beliefs, and actions impacted the culture of the organization. While the findings relied
heavily on the interviewees’ own thoughts for this metacognitive influence, survey results with
direct reports supported the interview findings.
Interview findings. The majority of the interviewed squadron commanders focused on
awareness of their own actions, their role, and their potentially lasting impact on the culture of
the organization and their people.
Awareness of own actions. All of the interviewed commanders spoke of their example
and its influence on the organization. Most shared comments similar to Eddie, “We are leading
every single day when we walk in, when we say hi to someone, when we shake their hand. That
is all leadership.” Eddie, Billy, Jimmy, Chappie, and Lazar spoke of the need to be genuine,
authentic, a “good dude,” breaking the trend, and stopping the negative ripple effect.
Understanding the trickle-down effect (Zenger & Folkman, 2016) of a leader’s example, Billy
said, “I need to ask myself, am I being a good person and doing what is right?”
Awareness of impact on culture and people. When asked what will be their legacy, or the
talk after they leave, the majority spoke of caring, genuineness, and love. Lazar commented,
“People would say, ‘He cared about us as people as much as anything. He gave us space. He
trusted us. He loved us.’” Pits, Bud, and Chappie mentioned cultivating a culture of belonging.
Bud stated:

119

I just feel like if you create an environment where people love coming to work, where
people are cared for, and people connect with each other... In two years of command, I
had zero disciplinary issues. I don't think that is by mistake. I don't think that all of a
sudden, I just happened to have a squadron of 130 Airmen that were all perfect when
another squadron of equal size had seven Article 15s (military disciplinary action). How
does that happen? It happens by creating an environment where people love each other.
They love coming to work. They love the environment they are in and they don't want to
screw it up. There is no incentive to get in trouble.
Awareness of their role. Additionally, the majority of interviewed commanders were
aware of their role with statements similar to Bud, “Your job is to lead your squadron and to
develop and care for Airmen.” Like Bud, Pits clearly understood and articulated his role as a
commander:
My role is to set conditions to allow other people to do the mission. And part of setting
those conditions is to develop them. I am trying to get whatever incremental change we
can to improve their impact to enable them to do the mission.
Pits compared this awareness of one’s role to that of a sister squadron commander, “He is
still mentally in the fighter squadron and is treating command as an additional duty. I do not
know what caused that kind of failure to step into the leader role and do development.” Pits
likened the squadron commander’s role to that of a gardener, emphasizing the need to transition
from an executor to a cultivator of culture. “By cultivating, by planting seeds, by watering the
seeds, by pulling the weeds, if I can do those things that makes the garden grow, it is a lot better
than just trying to pound sunshine. That is leadership.”

120

Interviewed commanders stated that their ability to cultivate culture was dependent on a
supportive environment with group and wing commanders whose roles are to coach and develop
leaders. Pits stated, “It is also environmental, and what I mean by that is, I have a group and
wing commander that fully supports things that I am doing. They understand that I spend 99%
of my time on people and 1% on mission.” The organizational influences findings with cultural
models and cultural settings discuss more on a supportive environment (see p. 134).
Survey results. People judge themselves by intent, but judge others by their actions
(Covey & Merrill, 2006). Given direct reports could not read their leaders’ minds, assessing the
leaders’ metacognition was relegated to observed actions. In addition to the other two
knowledge influence observations by direct reports, open-ended survey comments related to the
metacognitive influence focused on leaders cultivating a culture of caring, family, and positive
morale. Repeatedly, direct reports mentioned their leaders’ actions that indicated and drove the
unit’s culture:
This commander really did know everyone in the unit, their family, pets, what they were
going through. He actually spent time to hand write holiday cards to every person’s
family, not just a card with a signature but a real paragraph about that person. All of the
interactions were genuine, nothing ever seemed fake or forced.
He knew every single person in the squadron; not just names, but families, what was
going on in their lives, and would constantly be going to their work centers to talk about
both work and just small talk.
In the business of leadership, actions speak louder than words, and “show me” counts more than
“tell me” (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). Another respondent stated:

121

The commander created an environment in which individuals were driven to learn, act,
and grow to their full potential because he actively led (listened), engaged (sought people
out), and individually encouraged (professionally and personally) not only the leaders
directly under him, but at all echelons of his followers and leaders.
One respondent specifically reflected on their commander’s metacognition, “The boss must have
recognized his impact on the people.” Accordingly, 90% of respondents felt their unit’s culture
was more positive (cohesive and consistent) because of their commander. Table 9 displays the
top reasons why respondents felt their culture was more positive and liked working for their
commander.
Table 9
Reasons Why Direct Reports Like Working for Their Commander
Survey Item
I like working for my commander because she/he:
(check top two or three that apply)
Percentage of Direct Reports who
selected as top two or three
Has a positive attitude 90%
Acts in harmony with her/his attitudes, values, and words 88%
Develops people 80%
Cultivates culture 77%

The commanders’ attitude, actions, and apparent beliefs on developing people and culture had a
significant impact on respondents’ view toward their unit’s culture. Therefore, based on both the
interview findings and survey results, the interviewed exemplary squadron commanders
demonstrated the need for commanders’ awareness of and reflection on their impact in
cultivating culture for organizational engagement and success.
Motivation
The three categories of the assumed motivation influences in this study were self-
efficacy, expectancy-value, and goal orientation. Self-efficacy refers to the interviewee’s belief

122

in their ability to engage in modeling, involvement, and leadership development while in
command (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000). Expectancy-value includes a commander’s intrinsic
interest, likelihood of a successful outcome, and perceived utility of engaging in people
development and capacity building (Eccles, 2006). Goal orientation refers to a commander’s
internal focus on learning, self-improvement, and mastery over external comparison and
competition of performance goals (Pintrich, 2003).
Motivation influence 1: Commander self-efficacy. Primarily through interview data,
interviewed exemplary squadron commanders demonstrated confidence in their ability to lead
and develop people. Survey results with direct reports supported the interview findings.
Interview findings. Interestingly, the majority of the commanders displayed humility when
asked directly how they felt about their ability to develop people. Bud was the anomaly, clearly
articulating his self-efficacy, “I feel like people development and growth is probably my number
one strength. Connecting, guiding, coaching, and mentoring are the things I am most passionate
about and I think they are the things I am best at.” Nevertheless, each of the commanders’ belief
in their abilities in the context of leadership development was evident through discussions of
courage and consistency, humility and vulnerability, and preparation for command.
Courage and consistency. Interviewees displayed efficacy as they emphasized the need
to be courageous, consistent, and willing to take risks. Chappie said, “If you do not want to
upset the boat, you are probably not making things better. Do not be afraid to say, ‘Hey, I do not
agree with that, or is there a better way to do that?’” Lazar called it, “[being] comfortable
dealing with friction,” from a boss that has opposing views. Lazar said the confidence grows
while in command, compared to at the beginning:

123

Starting out as a commander, how confident are you in pushing back to somebody that is
senior in rank to you and not giving trust to you? How comfortable are you and how
much does that take out of you to be able to give trust to your people to be able to make
mistakes in front of those people?
Pits provided a specific situation when new in command required “a little bit of courage.”
Pits fought to retain and develop an Airman despite facing opposition from his group and wing
command leadership. Pits said his leadership told him, “Just think about how that portrays you
as a new commander… this looks bad on you.” Pits and Lazar displayed confidence in pushing
back on counter-culture pressures as they both realized what Bud stated, “Command is not about
you.” Pits would also reflect, “Are you listening to outside voices?” Most of the interviewed
commanders spoke of courage and confidence to be consistent, to stick to their values. Hap even
admitted, “I knew I had the competence; I just needed the confidence.”
Humility and vulnerability. In addition to displaying humility during the interviews,
some of the commanders spoke of the need for humility in seeking and receiving feedback, and
vulnerable in admitting mistakes. Pits stated, “I am comfortable saying I need help. It is a
balance of confidence in my abilities.” Pits, Bud, and Lazar emphasized the need to ask for
feedback, which lends to a culture of learning spoken of later in the organizational influences
(see pp. 137-138).
Jimmy displayed humility in reflecting on mistakes, “I know where I screwed it up in the
past, where I did not listen or where I made assumptions. What prepared me was screwing up in
the past, on a smaller scale.” Bud, Chappie, Lazar, and Jimmy emphasized the importance of
being vulnerable in admitting mistakes. Bud said:

124

I could not be afraid of that whole new vulnerability piece or being afraid to show
emotion or using my own life experiences to help them get through theirs. It has made
me better. I think those were times where I was at my best because I was not afraid to
show emotion.”
For Bud, being vulnerable strengthened his efficacy to lead and develop people. Another by-
product of humility and vulnerability is a mastery goal orientation, discussed separately below
(see pp. 128-130).
Preparation for command. Eddie, Bud, Pits, and Lazar mentioned preparation for
command as an essential element in building their efficacy to lead and develop people. Eddie
and Bud both spoke of prior challenging experiences that helped prepare them, as mentioned
above with experiential learning. Bud, reflecting on his whole career, said, “There was 14 years
of preparation to command.” Eddie went back further, “Developing interpersonal relationships,
how to form a team, that sort stuff I have been doing since I was 15 years old.” By taking time
to reflect on their preparation for command, interviewees strengthened their confidence and
motivation to lead.
Survey results. While self-efficacy is difficult to assess in others, responses can be
interpreted to indicate commanders had strong self-efficacy or were committed to developing
their people. In fact, 98% of direct reports agreed that their commander is committed to unit
members’ growth and development. Previously mentioned open-ended comments about their
commander’s behaviors (see pp. 110-112, 115-117) reflected this commitment and align with
interviewee responses. Therefore, the interview findings and survey responses indicate the
interviewed squadron commanders demonstrated the need for commanders to be confident in
their ability to coach and develop their people.

125

Motivation influence 2: Commander expectancy-value of developing people. It was
evident that all eight interviewed exemplary squadron commanders attached value to developing
their people. Interviewees expressed intrinsic interest, enjoyment, usefulness, and the return on
investing in developing their people. The majority of interviewed squadron commanders also
deliberately scheduled and committed a significant portion of their day to developing their
people. Survey results supported the interview findings.
Interview findings. Interviewee responses centered around intrinsic interest (Eccles,
2006) or joy in seeing people grow, commitment to development in daily routine, and the utility
value of people development.
Intrinsic interest: Joy in seeing people grow. Most commanders mentioned the joy they
felt developing their people. Bud stated:
I love to see people succeed. I love to see people grow to their max capacity. I think
probably the thing that I get most joy out of is seeing the impact that you can have like
growing coaching, mentoring, developing and then having that individual see that they
can accomplish things that they never thought they could accomplish.
Hap echoed Bud’s joy in seeing people become more, “What makes me feel good is, I can still
see faces of E-7s and O-3s after they did something really well.”
Commitment to development in daily routine. Billy, Pits, Lazar, Bud, and Chappie
expressed commitment to development as a significant portion of their daily routine. Pits stated,
“It is not what we treat as what you do in the margins. That is what we do every day.” More
specifically, Pits said, “I spend 99% of my time on people.” Lazar commented on daily routine:
Every day I get up in the morning, about five o'clock, and work out. Then I would sit and
think, ‘Who haven't I talked to recently? Who's doing what project? Where are we at

126

with these projects? Are we moving in the right direction? Had I given them the right
guidance?’ And if I didn't, then I would make a point of going to them that day and
talking to them, whoever I felt like I was shortchanging and say, ‘Hey, how are we
doing? What do you think about this?’ It is a constant process. Continuous.
Lazar’s comments above also reflect his mastery goal orientation, a continuous process of
correcting, improving oneself as well (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Pits and Chappie had similar
patterns to Lazar with morning reflection on development. Chappie would ask himself, “Who
am I developing?” Then, Chappie said, “It was a constant one-on-one interaction that I would get
to sit down and have development opportunities.”
Utility Value. Lazar gave an example of seeing the value in investing in and developing
people with handwriting birthday cards to every member of his squadron:
It was something that took a lot of time, but I would not have given that up. It was as
rewarding for me to sit down and write those letters as it was for them to get them
because it made me feel good.
Chappie similarly stated, “It just takes time for those things to develop. At times, things really
have come full circle, and I have seen fruition of the hard work that we put into it.” Bud also
reflected on seeing the fruition of hard work, “It was a great, high five moment for me to see that
the things that I was trying to instill in them was taking shape and happening.” Seeing the value
of investing in people, Lazar, Chappie, and Bud were motivated to continue to develop their
people. Jimmy, Pits, and Chappie similarly stated, “You show what you value by committing
time, money, and resources to it,” as they each did with leadership development initiatives in
their unit. And, Chappie finished with, “My advice to anybody else is don’t not do it. It will
cost you. It only costs our Air Force greatly if we are not taking the time to develop leaders.”

127

The interviewed squadron commanders demonstrated their expectancy-value of developing their
people, and their direct report survey responses validated the interview findings.
Survey results. Survey responses indicated commander commitment, investment, and
dedication of time. In addition to 98% of direct reports agreeing their commander is committed
to unit members’ growth and development, open-ended survey responses included the term
investment. One respondent stated, “Chooses to invest time into Airmen and develop each
individual along with the entire unit’s culture… simultaneously.” Another respondent
commented, “Invests in people and shows the human aspect of caring which, in my opinion, is
one of the most important aspects of a commander.” A third direct report said, “I see my
commander intentionally invest his time into people and their personal and professional
development.”
While not using the term investment, many more comments were similar to this
respondent, “The first time in seven years in the Air Force that I have witnessed a squadron
commander take significant amount of time to offer or actively seek opportunities to provide
leadership development and push people development.” Another respondent reinforced this type
of focus on people development is not the norm:
Made direct and active involvement in my growth and development. I interact with the
members of four other squadrons and their commanders. I have not heard of any other
commanders taking nearly as much interest in their subordinate leaders as he did. I have
also been in nearly ten years, in 11 squadrons, and observed 12 other squadron
commanders.

128

Furthermore, as Figure 2 previously displayed (see p. 111), respondents reported their
commanders spend 80% of their day in people development activities compared to 20% in
administrative staff activities.
Based on interview findings and survey results, the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders demonstrated the need for commanders to value people development in order to
engage in and be successful at leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Motivation influence 3: Commanders and mastery goal orientation. The data
suggested that interviewed exemplary squadron commanders had a mastery goal orientation
towards self and people development over performance goal orientation. Survey results
triangulated and supported interview findings.
Interview findings. The majority of the interviewed squadron commanders displayed a
goal orientation towards growth mindset (Dweck, 1999) and capacity building.
Growth mindset and humility. Growth mindset is an essential element to a culture of
learning (Dweck, 1999; Edmondson, 2018) which is discussed below in cultural models (see p.
137). Additionally, as mentioned above in the self-efficacy influences (see p. 122), humility is
essential to a growth mindset. Jimmy, Chappie, Bud, Pits, and Lazar all mentioned the need to
be humble, hold oneself accountable, and have a growth mindset. Bud stated, “I think we all can
improve in some areas.” Lazar commented that growth and learning is a constant, continuous
process. Jimmy continued that leaders must be willing to learn from mistakes, to grow and go.
In speaking of holding himself accountable to help make the organization better, Chappie
said, “The biggest thing for me is taking the time to educate myself along the way.” Chappie
described growth mindset and mastery goal focus by learning from mistakes:

129

You are not always going to be perfect. Some things will go wrong. And you will learn
from those and you pick yourself up and you try again. And you keep trying to move the
stick or flag a little bit further down the field to make life better for our Airmen who are
going to go do the job every single day. If you can look at yourself in the mirror and say,
‘Hey, I am trying to do the best job for my team,’ that is winning.
Capacity building. The majority of interviewed squadron commanders carried the
growth mindset and mastery goal orientation over to the organizational level to focus on
collective capacity building (Day, 2000; Day et al., 2013). Lazar utilized the term sustainability:
We focused on sustainability. Leadership development is about sustainability. Not,
‘What is my legacy?’ Because if it is your legacy, it is going to disappear. It should be,
‘What is our squadron going to be? What do you guys believe that we should be?’
Lazar spoke of sustainability in the context of collective capacity building, which is what
Day (2000) calls leadership development over leader development. Chappie also spoke of
capacity building in the context of making the organization better and “life better for the
Airmen.” Furthermore, Pits connected collective capacity building and making life better to
squadron vitality and growth, “We are building relationships and team readiness. We are
actually getting healthier and performing better.”
Survey results. Survey responses regarding mastery goal orientation centered on time
commitment and focus on people development versus simply performance. Despite work
demands, 95% of respondents agreed commanders take the time to help unit members learn and
grow. Respondent statements above (see pp. 115-117) about commanders’ understanding of
experiential learning and creating space for decision making, failure, and reflection denote
commanders’ mastery goal orientation over performance goals and mission. For example, one

130

respondent acknowledged the commander’s willingness to allow Airmen’s release from mission
in order to attend development opportunities, “Our commander was not afraid to break
scheduling norms and allow time for our Airmen to not be on constant shift work. This directly
enabled time for learning and growth within our unit while still covering the mission.”
Another respondent provided an example of their commander’s mastery goal focus on
development, “Lets the people that need to attend meetings go attend them and he takes care of
his people when it is not required that he attend the meeting.” Nevertheless, the mastery goal
focus was not just on development of their people, but included commanders’ self-development,
a witness of growth mindset: “He was always handing out books for people to read on leadership
or other things for ways to get more education for himself and the unit.” More examples of
growth mindset and cultivating a learning culture are shared below in cultural model influences
(see p. 136).
Based on interview findings and survey results, the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders demonstrated the need for commanders to be mastery goal oriented to cultivate a
culture of development, learning, and growth.
Research Question 2
What is the interaction between Air Force culture and context and commanders’
knowledge and motivation to model, integrate, and engage in effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level?
Organization
The two categories of the organizational influence are culture models and cultural
settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The two cultural models identified for this study are a
culture that prioritizes people development, closely in line with a culture of leader involvement,

131

modeling, coaching, and reciprocal feedback. The two cultural settings are commander
evaluations that emphasize people development and training on climate surveys and tools to
improve development. Cultural models and settings can be barriers or assets to organizations
achieving their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For each of the organizational
influences, the findings and results highlighted the interviewed squadron commanders’ units as
bright spot (Heath & Heath, 2010) examples where these influences exist. However, the study
also found multiple barriers inhibiting the Air Force as an institution from effectively
implementing leadership development initiatives at the unit level. The barriers, which centered
around the lack of appropriate accountability systems, are discussed in each of the separate
organizational influence sections that follow.
Cultural model influence 1: Culture of leaders prioritizing and focusing on people
development.
Interview findings. All eight interviewed squadron commanders indicated the need for a
shared mental schema of a culture that prioritizes people development to successfully implement
leadership development initiatives at the unit level. Throughout the interviews the idea of having
a supportive environment emerged as critical to cultivating a culture of people development at
the unit level. Meanwhile, interviewees identified multiple barriers at the Air Force institutional
level hindering a culture of people development.
Supportive environment. For squadron commanders to successfully cultivate a culture
that prioritizes people development in their unit, those commanders needed to be in a supportive
environment. Most commanders acknowledged being in an organization or under leadership that
supported their efforts to focus on people development during command. For example, Hap
reflected on the influence of her senior leadership:

132

The colonel cared enough about me that he was going to stick his neck out for me. That
was huge for him to do that for me. I knew I had the competence; I just needed the
confidence.
Hap’s leadership was not only supportive but built up Hap’s self-efficacy to develop people.
Similarly, Chappie emphasized the support he felt under his current leadership:
Being around Wing Commander level leadership, it is the best I have seen and had the
opportunity to work for. The team here is phenomenal. A lot of it is the leadership team
that I have here above me. From day one it’s been, ‘We are not afraid of failure. We are
not afraid to let people mess up.’
The supportive environment not only enabled Chappie to implement leadership
development initiatives at the unit level but foster a learning environment of creativity and
innovation. Pits echoed similar support, emanating from the top of the Air Force:
All the way from the Chief of Staff down, we have a positive culture of support and trust
getting pushed down to the squadron level to try something different. They even use
language like, ‘Break an Air Force Instruction (AFI). If it does not make sense, then do
not follow the AFI.’ Ten years ago, that was not okay.
People development thrives in a learning environment (Jones, 2001; Senge, 1990). As
the interviewed commanders felt they were in a supportive environment with leadership that
fostered initiative and growth, they felt comfortable to do the same. Lazar even reflected on his
replacement not having supportive leadership and thus Lazar’s replacement did not feel
comfortable to enact the same leadership development initiatives. Therefore, the lack of a
supportive environment become a barrier. Additional barriers are addressed below.

133

Organizational barriers to people development. Despite the above bright spot (Heath &
Heath, 2010) examples, the interviewed squadron commanders identified cultural model barriers
inhibiting the Air Force from cultivating a culture of people development. The barriers included
lack of prioritization, inadequate models, or wrong mindset to develop people.
In terms of lack of prioritization for leadership development, Jimmy said, “I think the Air
Force says a lot about it, but in terms of actual prioritization, it is lacking.” Furthermore, Hap
stated:
People can say all day long that we care. People do not respond to that. Some people do
not make the time because they do not think that is the priority. Until we not just give it
lip service, but some sort of act or incentive structure that rewards that behavior, I do not
think it will stick.
In addition to prioritization and incentives, Bud spoke on the lack of models, or
examples, of leaders deliberately focusing on leadership development:
I think that they have probably grown up over the last 15 years and they have not had
squadron level development themselves. So you know, active developmental mentoring
professional development at the squadron level. They do not know what it looks like.
By not having or experiencing a culture of leadership development in their career, Bud added,
“They never have been shown or taught the skills they need to do it.”
As a result of the above environmental barriers, interviewed squadron commanders also
identified commanders’ own mindsets as a barrier. The minutia and details of command
saturated commanders’ mental capacity to focus on developing their people. Bud, Pits, Eddie,
Billy, and Chappie all referenced, as well, the inability for most commanders to turn the mental
switch from the tactical to leading and developing people. Bud commented:

134

People are so focused on mission as young officers. Then, all of a sudden, you are given
the keys to the Ferrari as a squadron commander saying, ‘Go lead this organization.’
They cannot get out of the tactical in the weeds, mission mindset, and realize that is no
longer your job.
Pits also mentioned, “Competing demand signals hinder commanders from making the transition
to develop people. Something has to fall off to enable them.”
Survey results. Direct reports’ open-ended responses indicated the interviewed squadron
commanders demonstrated a shared mental schema of cultivating a culture that prioritizes people
development. Respondents conveyed the similar theme of a supportive environment. As well,
when focusing on the Air Force as an institution, survey respondents repeated identical barriers
as interviewees: lack of prioritization, inadequate models, or insufficient mindset to develop
people.
Supportive environment. Over 60% of respondents specifically spoke of a supportive
environment that deliberately cultivated development. As an example, one respondent stated,
“Cultivates an environment that encourages everyone to develop and explore new ideas and
alternatives. We were not afraid to fail because the commander would always support anyone
working to improve our unit.” Another respondent wrote, “He always demonstrated that people
are not their mistakes and there is always a way back if you put in the work and earn it.”
The commanders created the supportive environment through their caring, repeated 25
times in open-ended responses. One respondent stated, “Genuine in his care and believes we are
doing our best each day. That faith makes us want to make him proud.” Another respondent
continued:

135

I have only had two commanders in my 10 years in the Air Force that I could tell they
truly cared for their subordinates. My commander was one of those two. Being able to
tell the leader ACTUALLY cared about you as a person greatly developed a positive
culture that inspired others to be like him.
The commanders’ examples were key to cultivating a culture of people and leadership
development. Nevertheless, the respondent above noted that their commander’s example was the
exception, not the norm for the Air Force. Many of the respondents highlighted a number of
barriers inhibiting the Air Force as an institution from cultivating a culture of people and
leadership development.
Barrier: Lack of prioritization. Speaking of leadership development, one respondent’s
comment was repeated often, “Air Force talks a lot about it… but does not invest time or
resources.” Another respondent stated, “The Air Forces needs to invest more time, resources,
and energy in deliberately developing leaders.” One respondent alluded to how the lack of
prioritization made leaders seem disingenuous, “Senior headquarters Air Force level leaders need
to actually care about their people. Most of them do it for show, but in reality, do not really
care.” Multiple respondents spoke of time, administrative responsibilities, meetings, and
competing requirements from high headquarters that become higher priorities than developing
people. Almost 20% of respondents specifically mentioned placing mission requirements above
people, family, or human requirements.
Barrier: Inadequate development models. Multiple respondents echoed interviewed
squadron commanders’ comments that many leaders never experienced development by other
leaders earlier in their career. One respondent stated:

136

Leadership development derives from the experiences lived as a subordinate. We
emulated, good or bad, those who have been in leadership above us. there needs to be a
better way on finding, keeping, and promoting those who exhibit the traits we want our
future leaders to mimic.
Another respondent more clearly emphasized the impact of not having models of what
right looks like, “Commanders have never experienced leadership development for themselves.
What is holding them back is themselves. They do not know what they do not know. Or, they
do not know what good leadership looks like.” As this respondent stated, the failure to have
appropriate models, early and throughout a career, leads to mindset barriers.
Barrier: Own mindset. Just like the interviewed squadron commanders, respondents
noted commanders’ own mindset as a barrier, “The only thing holding other commanders back
from doing these things are themselves.” At least 22 respondents agreed on one aspect of the
mindset barrier, fear of risk taking. One respondent explained:
The Air Force culture has not encouraged most officers to take risk their entire career, so
it is a total mindset shift once they take squadron command. The biggest thing holding
commanders back right now is their lack of ability to take risk, make a decision, and
stand by it.
Barrier: Competitive culture erodes team environment. A few respondents wrote about
the toxic environment created by a competitive evaluation system which pits teammates against
each other and leads to performance goal orientation over mastery goal focus. One respondent
stated, “Eliminate the competitive culture beginning at the youngest level.” Another respondent
wrote, “Stratifications are a waste of time.”

137

Based on interview findings and survey results of both exemplary interviewed squadron
commanders’ cultures and existing institutional gaps, the Air Force needs to cultivate a culture of
leaders prioritizing people development in order to implement effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level.
Cultural model influence 2: Culture of leader involvement, modeling, coaching, and
reciprocal feedback.
Interview findings. Each of the eight interviewed squadron commanders cultivated a
culture of leader involvement, modeling, and reciprocal feedback as discussed in the knowledge
influences findings (see pp. 108-110, 115-117). As such, the interviewed exemplary squadron
commanders cultivated a learning culture, prioritizing people development and fostering an
environment of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). Commanders emphasized coaching
and reciprocal feedback, to include executive coaching and the role of group commanders as
coaches.
Psychological safety. Organizations with psychological safety create a safe space for
experimenting, failure, and open communication in order to innovate and grow (Duhigg, 2016;
Edmondson, 2018). The majority of commanders emphasized creating a “safe place” for their
people to try or “not being afraid of failure.” Jimmy emphasized this principle with the
statement, “Some of the best lessons that you do not repeat are the ones where you messed up
and you failed.” Bud combined psychological safety with pushing decision making down to
lower levels to facilitate learning and growth:
If you do not learn how to make decisions as a young officer, you will never make them
when you are in command. I want you to get used to it now and see that whether you
make a decision or whether it's right or wrong, we can grow forward from it. We can

138

learn from it. Nobody is ever going to make the right decision 100% of the time. So, let
us figure it out, now.
Bud created a safe space for people to make mistakes, to admit and come talk about them, and
learn and grow together. A learning culture also includes coaching and reciprocal feedback
(Brown, 2018; King & Santana, 2010; Stone & Heen, 2014).
Coaching and feedback. As discussed in the knowledge influences, the majority of the
interviewed squadron commanders displayed a commitment to coaching and developing their
people. For example, Billy said, “I think we have got to make a strong committed choice to
[developing people] from day one.” Jimmy called coaching, “Taking time one on one.
Feedback on a specific issue. Leadership, mentoring, coaching.” Chappie highlighted the
importance of coaching and feedback especially if employees are young, “If you have an
Airman, that guy needs feedback every day.”
Bud emphasized reciprocal feedback, “The mentor-mentee relationship is a two-way
street, each grows from that. As a squadron commander you need to be actively seeking out ways
to get better. Have a coach. Who is your coach in command?”
Executive coaching and group commander roles. In terms of modeling coaching and
reciprocal feedback, Bud and Pits suggested commanders need executive coaches. Pits
explained why commanders need coaches, “Coaching helps bring clarity,” and everyone needs
help with gaining clarity. Pits and Lazar both also suggested coaching commanders is the role of
group and wing commanders. Pits commented on his group commander:
My group commander came in day one of his command and said, ‘My job is to pour into
our squadron commanders and squadron superintendents so that you can do your mission
and take care of people. My mission is to support the wing and coach you.’ Our wing

139

commander is very much on board for the coaching and development of squadron
commanders. He is passionate about that, which has not been the case in the past. I
wonder if other wing commanders view their role that way.
Bud reflected that the coaching role ripples all the way down, that if commanders were
taught to coach as lieutenants, captains, and majors, they would coach and develop others when
in command. However, Bud stated, “They have never been shown or taught the skills they need
to do it.”
Eddie carried the thought one step further, “In the Air Force we have created this idea
that leadership is devoid of my career path or what I do. Like, hey, I need leadership academics.”
Instead Eddie and the other interviewed squadron commanders reinforced that leadership
development involved cultivating a culture of leader modeling and involvement, experiential
learning, and a learning environment.
Survey results. Overwhelmingly, 100% of respondents agreed that their leadership
cultivates a learning environment, where it is safe to provide feedback to leadership without
repercussion. As discussed in the knowledge influences (see pp. 108-121), direct reports
explained why they felt that way in the open-ended responses with themes such as collaborative
learning culture, leader involvement and modeling, sets expectations, willing to listen, and
reciprocal feedback. Examples of collaborative learning, reciprocal feedback, and a barrier to
cultivating a learning environment follow.
Collaborative learning. Respondents spoke of and valued the environment of
collaborative learning. One respondent expressed appreciation for, “A climate where regardless
of where the good ideas came from, they were incorporated. A culture of teamwork and
openness to listening.”

140

Reciprocal feedback. Multiple respondents spoke of their commander’s willingness to
provide and seek feedback. For example, one respondent stated, “Creates an environment where
feedback to him, even constructive feedback is welcome and encouraged. Makes people feel like
their opinion matters and that they are valued. Too many feedback sessions to count.” Another
respondent appreciated that their commander, “Takes advice from the Enlisted force.”
Barrier: Fear of failure. Conversely, despite having a learning culture at their unit,
respondents felt differently about the Air Force as an institution. Only 36% of respondents
agreed that the Air Force develops leaders to effectively coach and develop their people. Open-
ended comments elaborated on the Air Force not cultivating a learning culture. Specifically,
commanders were afraid of failure. As mentioned in the barriers section of cultural model
influence one (see pp. 135-136), 22 respondents referenced a culture that is risk adverse and
afraid to fail. One respondent stated, “Many commanders are afraid of failure and letting
subordinates make decisions.” Another respondent explained commanders were performance
goal oriented instead of mastery goal oriented: “Fear that their unit level leaders making mistakes
will affect their potential for promotion.” Again, many other respondents commented, “Afraid to
trust and afraid of failure.”
A learning culture accepts, seeks, and enables people to grow through failure (Senge,
1990, Edmondson, 2018) with leader involvement, coaching, and reciprocal feedback. Based on
the findings and results, in order to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the
unit level, the Air Force needs to foster a learning culture. The shared cultural models of
prioritizing people development and a learning culture set the stage for cultural settings,
behaviors, and patterns to further implement leadership development initiatives at the unit level.

141

Cultural setting influence 1: Evaluations need to emphasize people development.
Interview findings. All eight of the interviewed squadron commanders were in
alignment that the current Air Force evaluation system does not effectively evaluate leaders on
how well they develop their people. Hap clearly stated the need for an incentive:
I am pretty sure there is not one bullet in an OPR (officer performance evaluation) that
says that person did something that furthered someone else’s career. The system is not
set up to incentivize mentoring or developing people. We have to have a forcing
function, where it forces us commanders to make time to do these things.
The incentive Hap suggested is what an organizational accountability system does, encourage
commitment to specific performance objectives or behaviors. Chappie and Bud introduced the
concept of involving peers into the accountability system to strengthen commitment. Chappie
said:
What motivates you to commit? It is that peer group coming together. One of the biggest
pressures is peer pressure. When I talk to my fellow squadron commanders, the peer
level here is, ‘Am I all in? Am I committed to my team; my squadron commander peers?’
Chappie continued by saying that peers are able to hold each other accountable to
standards, for peers are able to see and evaluate each other more clearly than a supervisor. Bud
integrated peers in evaluations as he set an expectation for them to get along:
I would bring all my officers in to give them feedback and I would ask them to stratify
their peers and then tell me where they fit amongst their peers. In the beginning they
were kind of skeptical. But, they were very honest about their performance, and almost
to a tee spot on. I am a firm believer that if you put five people in a room, it will take
about five minutes for people to know who the dude is everybody else is going to follow.

142

Bud used performance feedback sessions with his direct reports to clarify expectations and
evaluation criteria. Bud augmented the Air Force evaluation with direct report self-reflection
and peer input, based on his own experience growing up. Bud said, “I would get a stratification
and think that is pretty awesome. I guess I am meeting my boss’s expectations. But, I had no
idea why I received that stratification.” Additionally, Bud was not alone in his experience of not
receiving feedback, an essential part of an evaluation system.
The majority of the interviewed squadron commanders could remember receiving
performance feedback only one or two times in their whole career. And, Chappie clarified, “If
you are relying on the feedback form, you are missing the boat.” While the interviewed
squadron commanders displayed effective leader involvement, coaching, and feedback as
described in the knowledge influences findings above (see pp. 108-110, 115-117), they grew up
in a culture that did not prioritize, train, or effectively hold leaders accountable to providing
feedback. All of the interviewed squadron commanders reinforced the need for constant
communication, setting clear expectations, and candid feedback for more effective evaluations.
Survey results. Only 6% of respondents agreed that Air Force evaluations effectively
evaluate how well leaders develop their people. Whereas, an overwhelming 53% of respondents
strongly disagreed, stating that Air Force evaluations do not evaluate people development well at
all. Open-ended comments suggested integrating peers, 360-degree surveys, and climate
assessments survey results in leader evaluations. Two respondents affirmed: “Include a
percentage of peer evaluations, kind of like 360 feedback,” and “the Air Force needs to take a
serious look at implementing 360-degree leadership evaluations even if they are not a formal part
of a commander's records.” Another respondent explained the reason for recommending
integrating climate assessment survey results in leader evaluations, “The Air Force needs to

143

evaluate leaders, including me, on the culture of the unit. Climate assessments should play a
more important role in evaluating effective units.” Other respondents suggested similar to the
following comment, “a deliberate inclusion on the rating forms for leaders of how much effort
they took in this area.”
One direct report did not have a solution but summed up the sentiment of most
respondents, “There needs to be a better way on finding, keeping, and promoting those who
exhibit the traits we want our future leaders to mimic.” Based on the findings and results the Air
Force needs to take a closer look at the accountability systems in place influencing unit
commander and modify leader evaluations to prioritize and assess people development.
Cultural setting influence 2: Training on climate surveys and tools to improve
development.
Interview findings. All of the eight interviewed squadron commanders agreed the Air
Force needs to significantly increase training, tools, and resources to improve climate, culture,
and development in at the unit level. Only one of eight interviewed squadron commanders
remembered ever receiving any training on unit climate surveys. None of the interviewees were
aware of the Defense Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS) Assessments to Solutions
website (www.deocs.net) that provides tools, training, and resources on how to prepare for and
utilize climate survey results. In addition to the barrier of inadequate training, interviewees
recommended a number of resources and training to help improve development at the unit level.
Barrier: Inadequate development training. Speaking on the lack of deliberate training
that focuses on leadership development, Jimmy said:

144

I do not know that the way we do our command courses really sets you up for success. If
we are not talking about how to develop and where best to spend that time, we are kind of
saying all the right things, but we are not doing the right thing.
Chappie, Bud, Jimmy, and Lazar stated that the Air Force as an institution does not have a
formal process to develop or model leadership development. Chappie said, “We kind of just
have the officers figure it out as they go. It is a lot more informal, and I think it is base
dependent. Maybe you are at a base where a wing commander feels it is important, then there is
some sort of professional development curriculum.” Jimmy echoed the sentiment of no formal
or prioritized development framework:
In terms of taking time to think about leading or what that looks like, that never really
happened. It would have been great if somebody emphasized reading and things like that
sooner in my career. Rather, it has been some of my own experiences, taking time to
read and figure out there is a whole lot more knowledge out there.
Bud summed up well the lack of priority, structure, or training for leadership development:
I keep hearing, ‘Develop and grow.’ But I would challenge any senior leader in the Air
Force to show me. Where is the program for developing our leaders? And do not tell me
it’s the squadron commander’s responsibility. I went to a week-long course to prepare me
for squadron command. That was a waste of time. There was nothing practical about it.
Practical culture and leadership development ideas. Pits, Bud, and Chappie requested
the Air Force provide practical culture and leadership development guides on how to implement
leadership development at the unit level. Pits suggested the Air Force regularly highlight best
practices, examples of identity and culture building for squadron commanders. Chappie

145

requested squadron commander courses include practical leadership development tools. Others
suggested culture building training be integrated at all levels of professional military education.
Squadron Leader Development Course and PACE. Pits, Jimmy, Billy, and Bud
highlighted a number of recent initiatives targeted at addressing Air Force climate and culture
building. Pits, Jimmy, and Bud reported positive feedback from attendees at the new Squadron
Leader Development Course (LDC) at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Pits, Jimmy, Billy,
and Bud also applauded the efforts of the Profession of Arms Center of Excellence (PACE) to
help strengthen Air Force identity and culture. Besides these Air Force level initiatives,
interviewees only mentioned isolated base level efforts.
Survey results. Direct report survey responses clearly aligned with interviewed squadron
commander findings. Seventy-three percent of respondents did not agree that the Air Force
provides valuable training on how to use climate surveys. And, 58% did not agree that the Air
Force provides valuable training on tools to improve culture and development at the unit level.
Open-ended survey responses mirrored squadron commanders’ inadequate training barrier and
recommendations for LDC, PACE, and more tools and recurring training. Multiple respondents
also highlighted squadron commanders as the key to culture and development at the unit level
and the need to hold them accountable.
Barrier: Inadequate development training. Survey responses mirrored interviewed
squadron commander responses on sub-par leadership development training. Many comments
reflected this respondent’s thoughts, “The Air Force can do a better job of developing leaders.
Air Force professional military education does not develop leaders.” Another respondent
continued, “Development programs are lacking or non-existent. You cannot only rely on
professional in-residence courses.” A third respondent’s comment clarified the inadequacy of

146

existing formal training, “The enlisted academies teach some of the supervisory administrative
skills, but not how to lead, effectively communicate, or mediate difficult conversations.”
One respondent echoed interviewed squadron commanders’ comments on the lack of a
deliberate leadership development process, “The biggest problem with the Air Force is there is
no formal program for ‘continuous leadership development.’” In addition to formal training, this
respondent spoke of leadership development outside of a classroom. Another respondent
commented on the lack of ongoing, on the job developmental leadership experiences, “We fail
our officers by not providing them deliberate opportunities when they are young.”
Leader Development Course and PACE. Similar to some of the interviewed squadron
commanders, 10 respondents specifically mentioned LDC and PACE as positive examples of
training focused on leadership development and culture building. One respondent stated, “There
has been an increased emphasis on leadership development in the last few years, with courses
like PACE and LDC at Maxwell, the PACE, etc.... I think this is good and needs to continue.”
Another respondent echoed, “The best course that I have been to that addressed leadership
development was the Leadership Development Course for Squadron Command at Maxwell.” A
third respondent commented, “The LDC is a good start to teach culture building.” Many
respondents wished they had learned culture building and people development skills earlier in
their careers.
Recurring training on culture building. Some respondents had never experienced or
were unaware of training or resources to develop culture. A few comments were like this
respondent, “Leaders are not given any training on understanding what "culture" is and how it
operates in a society and organization.” Multiple respondents encouraged early, often, and
recurring training on development and culture building throughout a member’s career. One

147

respondent provided an analogy, “If you learn a foreign language and do not use it, you lose it. If
the Air Force wants better leaders, they need to either require, promote, and/or offer continuation
training in leadership at least annually.”
Leader accountability: While 90% of respondents felt their current unit’s culture was
more positive (cohesive and consistent) because of their commander, many had different prior
experiences. As a result, some respondents recommended improved accountability systems for
leaders: “Hold leaders accountable that do promote the culture the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
wants. This has to take place before any training on culture can really stick in the Air Force.”
These respondents recognized leaders are the key to unit climate, culture, and vitality. Another
respondent emphasized the ripple effect and impact of leader modeling, “Culture building begins
with the right leadership team at the squadron level. Get that right, and the rest will just happen.”
Based on the interview findings and survey results, the Air Force needs to increase
awareness of and training on tools available to improve climate, culture, and development.
When the Air Force removes these organizational barriers in line with increasing the identified
knowledge and motivation influences earlier, squadron commanders will be able to implement
effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.

148

Appendix K: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides the
structure for this study’s implementation and evaluation framework. Adapted from the original
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation of training programs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006), the model presents the four levels in reverse order, beginning with the end in mind. Level
Four (Results) utilizes leading indicators as regular checkpoints along the path towards the
targeted outcome. The framework then moves through the original other three levels: critical
behaviors (Level Three), learning (Level Two), and reaction (Level One). The New World
Kirkpatrick Model shifts the focus to successful organizational goal attainment by bridging the
gap from training to transfer of learning by integrating support and accountability measures
(monitor, reinforce, encourage, and reward) (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Informed by the
New World Kirkpatrick Model, this study’s implementation and evaluation plan intentionally
aims to help squadron commanders successfully implement effective leadership development
initiatives at the unit level.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The United States Air Force established a priority to grow strong leaders in order to
achieve its mission “to fly, fight, and win” (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020; U.S. Air Force,
n.d.). Having yet to achieve this priority (Booz-Allen-Hamilton, 2017; GAO, 2013; Stark,
2018), the organizational performance goal for the Air Force is to grow strong leaders by
implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. This study examined
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for the primary stakeholder,
squadron commanders, to successfully meet the organization’s goal. The recommendations of

149

the study consist of a comprehensive training program, associated supports, and organizational
adjustments designed to close any performance gaps and enable squadron commanders to model,
integrate, and engage in effective leadership development initiatives in their daily, weekly, and
monthly battle rhythm.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators help the organization monitor progress toward achieving desired
results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 10 shows the proposed Level Four Results and
Leading Indicators, presented as the external and internal outcomes, metrics, and methods for
squadron commanders to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level.
Table 10
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased Airmen recruitment
and retention
Recruitment rates/percentages
Retention rates/percentages
Air Force recruitment numbers
Increased demand in the work
force for prior military leaders
Frequency of transition and placement
rates in leadership roles in private
sector
Air Force job placement tracking
Improved perception of
military culture and leadership
Trust in military percentages

Reduced number of self-destructive
behaviors (suicide attempts, DUIs,
sexual assault)
Edelman Trust Barometer

Air Force reporting statistics
Internal Outcomes
Increased leader modeling and
involvement.
Employee engagement numbers

Trust in leadership numbers
Unit climate survey assessments

Unit climate survey assessments
Increased leader understanding
of cognitive processing and
experiential learning.
Job satisfaction numbers

Group cohesion numbers

Commander communication patterns
Unit climate survey assessments

Unit climate survey assessments

Increased leader awareness and
reflection on their impact on
their organization’s culture.
Organizational commitment numbers

Organizational performance numbers

Organizational processes numbers
Unit climate survey assessments

Unit climate survey assessments

Unit climate survey assessments

150

Increased commander
confidence in coaching and
developing their people.
Number of coaching & feedback
sessions with direct reports
Self-tracking and report on coaching &
feedback sessions quarterly
Increased commander interest
and value in developing people.
Percentage of time scheduled on
commander’s calendar for connecting
with Airmen

Number of development sessions
Commander’s calendar

Unit calendar of events
Increased organizational
prioritization of people
development.
Number of group commanders’ roles
restructured to focus on coaching and
developing leaders
Requests to reorganize operations
group staffs to base leadership
development leads
Cultivate a learning culture /
Increased organizational focus
on learning organization.
connectedness numbers

Frequency of reference to
psychological safety

Unit climate survey assessments

Comments in unit climate surveys on
“not afraid to fail / or not risk adverse”

Increased emphasis on people
development in leader
evaluations
Percentage of performance evaluation
that focuses on leader development

Number of source inputs (peer, 360,
climate survey results) integrated into
leader evaluations
Updated performance evaluations
online

Increased training and tools to
improve climate, culture, and
development in units.
Percentage of time allocated to culture
& development in leadership courses

Number of recurring training
opportunities offered that focus on
culture and development

Frequency of communication
highlighting available tools to improve
culture and development
Review commander and leadership
course curriculum

Review training opportunities posted
on portal, via email, in organizations

Track emails blasts and social media
posts by HQ AF, Wings, and units

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level Three is the most essential part of the implementation and
evaluation plan that connects learning to results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Three
supports and holds the primary stakeholders of focus, unit level squadron commanders,
accountable for their behaviors to ensure goal achievement. These behaviors include leader
involvement and modeling, coaching and developing Airmen, engaging in self-awareness and
self-reflection, and cultivating psychological safety (i.e. learning culture). Table 11 below
outlines each of these critical behaviors, their related metrics, methods, and timing.

151

Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Leaders are
involved and model
right.
The number of times
leaders walkabout their
units and are present in
work centers.

The amount of time
commanders spend with
their Airmen outside of
meetings or the office.
Inputted in daily/weekly
commander activity log.

Direct report feedback and
input to commander
evaluations.

Collected via time tracking
tool or outlook schedule.

Monthly

Semi-annually

Monthly
2. Leaders coach and
develop their
people.
The number of one-on-one
sessions with direct
reports.

Number of times direct
reports are allowed to
make decisions on their
own.
Direct report feedback and
input to commander
evaluations.

Direct report feedback and
input to commander
evaluations.
Semi-annually

Semi-annually
3. Leaders engage in
self-awareness and
self-reflection.
The number of reflections
written using a self-
reflection tool, in a
journal, or in external
communication.
Submitted self-reflections in
feedback sessions with
commanders’ supervisors.

Analyze articles written and
distributed.
Quarterly

Quarterly

4. Leaders cultivate
psychological safety
(i.e. learning
culture).
Number of times Airmen
are allowed to experiment,
explore, or create new
procedures or processes.

Number of times
commanders allow and
defend failures in their unit
to external stakeholders.
Direct report feedback and
input to commander
evaluations.

Direct report feedback and
input to commander
evaluations.
Semi-annually

Semi-annually

Required drivers. Squadron commanders require the support of their supervisors,
peers, direct reports, and the organization to apply what they learn in order to implement
effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. Required drivers reinforce,
monitor, encourage, and reward performance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reinforcement

152

reminds commanders what they learned and provides refresher training. Encouragement is a
formal way to coach and mentor. Rewarding provides incentives for critical behaviors. Finally,
monitoring guarantees accountability by tracking commander performance. Table 12 outlines
the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of squadron commanders.
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Visual job aid that shows how leader
involvement and modeling is critical to people
and leadership development.
Ongoing 1
Visual aid on learning theories (information
processing system, cognitive load, and
experiential learning) and how it applies to
leadership development.
Ongoing 2
Visual concept map outlining ways to integrate
experiential learning opportunities in command.
Ongoing 2
Refresher training on cognitive learning theories
and experiential learning practices during
professional military education and leadership
courses (i.e. Squadron Leader Development
Course, Airman Leadership School, and Non-
Commissioned Officer Academy)
Ongoing 2
Metacognitive job aids that invite commanders
to reflect, set goals, and monitor their impact on
the culture of their organization.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Writing assignments for commanders to reflect
on previous experiences of development that
were personally meaningful.
During PME and
leadership courses

Ongoing
1, 2, 3, 4
Chief culture officer training integrated into
commander and leadership courses.
During PME and
leadership courses
Ongoing
1, 2, 3, 4
Training on utilizing climate assessment survey
results to improve culture.
During PME and
leadership courses
Ongoing
3, 4
Refresher training and resources (i.e. best
practices and practical implementation ideas) on
leadership development and culture building.
During PME and
leadership courses

1, 2, 3, 4

153

Ongoing
Encouraging
Collaborative peer to peer mentorship
opportunities to practice coaching and people
development.
Quarterly 1, 2, 4
Clear and accurate feedback to commanders on
their coaching and leadership development
competence.
Semi-annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Feedback to help commanders see how their
skills and strengths apply to successful
leadership development.
Semi-annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Roundtable discussions about the relevance of
development on organizational success to help
commanders see the value of developing
capacity in their people.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Air Force portal, newsletters, and leadership
courses highlight bright spot examples of
effective unit level leadership development
initiatives.
Quarterly and ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Supervisors, peers, and direct reports nominate
commanders for leadership development impact
award.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Track commander involvement and modeling
via activity log and schedules.
Monthly 1, 2
Commanders share weekly self-reflection
assignments with supervisors during feedback
sessions.
Quarterly 3
Peer feedback, 360-degree surveys, and unit
climate assessment results feed into commander
performance evaluations.
Semi-annually 1, 2, 3, 4

Organizational support. The study’s findings and results clearly identified that
organizational support to squadron commanders is vital to achieving the stakeholder goal. In
addition to developing processes necessary to enable the required drivers in Table 12, the Air
Force will initiate specific organizational and structural changes to eliminate barriers to
achieving their goal to grow strong leaders. First, the Air Force will align accountability systems
(policies and procedures) and messaging to leaders with the Air Force priority to grow strong

154

leaders. Second, the Air Force will clearly define that the role of commanders is to coach and
develop the capacity of their people by cultivating a learning culture (psychological safety).
Third, the Air Force will restructure operation group commander and staff roles as organic, base
level leadership development leads. Fourth, the Air Force will revise performance evaluations
by integrating peers, 360-degree surveys, and climate assessment survey results in order to hold
commanders and leaders accountable to the institutional value of growing strong leaders. These
four significant organizational adjustments combined with support for the required drivers will
create the conditions for commanders to successfully implement effective leadership
development initiatives at the unit level.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, squadron commanders
will be able to:
1. Explain the role and impact of modeling, involvement, and people development in
leadership (Declarative conceptual knowledge).
2. Describe cognitive processing and experiential learning in effective teaching techniques.
(Declarative conceptual knowledge).
3. Be aware of and reflect on the impact of their own thoughts, beliefs, and actions to
cultivate a learning culture (Metacognitive).
4. Be confident in their ability to coach and develop their people (Self-Efficacy).
5. Value developing capacity in their people (Value).
6. Cultivate a learning culture by modeling growth mindset and mastery goal focus (Goal
orientation).

155

Program. Based on interviews with the exemplary squadron commanders and surveys
with their direct reports, the best approach to closing the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational gaps identified in the study consist of: 1) integrating learning and motivation
principles from Tables 2, 3, and 4 (see pp. 43, 48, and 53) into professional military education
and leadership courses (i.e., Air University, Wing/Group/Squadron Commanders’ Courses,
Squadron Leader Development Course, Airman Leadership School, and Non-Commissioned
Officer Academy); and 2) recurring training available via mobile training teams and organic base
level leadership development leads. The learning goals will be integrated into and enhance
existing professional military education and leadership courses to reinforce the Air Force priority
to grow strong leaders (Barrett, Goldfein, & Raymond, 2020) across all leadership curriculum.
The restructured operations group commanders and their staff, once initially trained by
either mobile training teams or attending training at Air University, will provide the recurring
training modules in face-to-face workshops. As organic leadership development training cadre
at every base, the operations group commanders and their staff will seamlessly weave Level Two
Learning with Level Three Behavior support and accountability (see Table 12, p. 152) into a
cohesive messaging of institutional commitment to the initiatives.
Cadre for both the ongoing education and recurring training will provide the job aids for
leader involvement and modeling, cognitive processing and experiential learning, reflection, and
coaching. Participants will be able to apply what they have learned through discussions,
presentations, and peer modeling. In addition to the job aids as take-aways, short videos of each
of the principles will supplement education and training as follow-on reminders periodically in
the work environment. As a learning organization and to support continued learning and check

156

for understanding, operations group staff will facilitate collaborative learning opportunities, peer
to peer mentoring, and coaching sessions.
Evaluation of the components of learning. As squadron commanders attempt to model,
integrate, and engage in effective leadership development initiatives in their units, it is important
they have not only the knowledge, skills, and attitude, but confidence and commitment to do so.
Table 13 lists the evaluation methods and timing for all five of these components of learning
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussions, think in pairs
and shares, and other individual/group activities
During in-person workshops and
follow-on collaborative learning
opportunities
Teach to unit personnel After
Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”
Role play scenarios with peers in collaborative learning
environment
During and after
Checklist of observation During
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Roundtable discussions of value and applicability During
Discussion of issues During
Reflective assignment on value During and after
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion of application concerns or barriers During and after
Mentorship, coaching, or peer check-ins After
Question and answer in pairs During
Reflective assignment on self-efficacy, include survey
scale about their ability
During and after
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Creation of individual action plans of how to
implement
At the end of training
Reflective assignment on commitment and self-reports
of the progress
After

157

Level 1: Reaction
In Level One, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend measuring three
components of reaction: engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. Table 14 below list the
methods and timing to measure participant reaction to the learning events.
Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance During workshops and follow-on collaborative
learning opportunities
Observation of participant interaction and
responses
During
One-on-one interviews with participants for
impressions
During and after
Relevance
Pulse-checks with participants via
discussion
During workshops, after breaks or before
beginning a new module or principle
Workshop evaluation Six weeks after the workshop.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-checks with participants via
discussion
During workshops, after breaks or before
beginning a new module or principle
Workshop evaluation Six weeks after the workshop

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the workshops, the
facilitator will conduct pulse-checks with participants via in-person discussions and interviews to
gather Level One Reaction data on engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.
Periodically, another instructor will observe participant engagement and activity. Appendix L is
a sample of the immediate evaluation instrument.
Multiple methods will be used for Level Two Learning evaluation. Facilitators will
perform knowledge checks, execute role play scenarios, and engage in small group discussions

158

during workshops to assess declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, and confidence.
At the end of training, participants will be asked to share what they gained and create an
individual action plan on how they will implement it at work. Within two weeks of the event,
participants will receive a reflective assignment to gauge their commitment.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The organization will
administer evaluations approximately six weeks after the implementation of the training, and
again at 16 weeks, to capture more objective comments and assess all four levels of evaluation.
The blended evaluation approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will measure participant
satisfaction and perceived relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence in and value of
applying what they learned (Level 2), application of the learning in the workplace (Level 3), and
overall performance in the workplace (Level 4). Appendix M is a sample of the blended
evaluation survey.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Air Force relies heavily on data analysis and reporting at all levels of planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution. To meet this demand for data and measurable impact,
the leadership development initiatives dashboard will display Level 4 outcomes, including
increased Airman recruiting and retention, increased civilian perception and trust in military
leadership, and reduced Airman self-destructive behaviors (i.e. suicides, driving under the
influence, and sexual assaults). Moreover, the dashboard will monitor progress and hold
commanders accountable to modeling and involvement, coaching and developing their people,
and cultivating a learning culture (psychological safety). Figure 3 below demonstrates this
dashboard with example data for leadership development initiatives.

159

Figure 3. Sample Leadership Development Initiatives Dashboard

160

Summary
The implementation and evaluation plan utilized the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The reverse design model begins with the end in mind, the
Air Force priority to grow strong leaders. Through this backwards pattern, success is defined at
the outset, followed by critical behaviors, elements of learning, and finally the training itself.
The integrated approach to training and evaluation effectively weaves together formative data for
real-time adjustments, leading indicators, and summative results. Thus, the Air Force can
systematically address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences identified and
validated in this study, removing performance gaps and setting the conditions for squadron
commanders to implement effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level. In
addition to growing strong leaders, the Air Force will strengthen organizational and individual
vitality, engagement, and performance.

161

Appendix L: Immediate Evaluation Instrument

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The training held my interest.
2. I found value in the training I received.
3. The training will help me better develop my
people / I can immediately apply what I learned.

4. I am confident in applying what I have learned.
5. The training allowed for practice and feedback.
Note: Survey administered electronically.
Open-ended Questions:
1. What part of the training was most beneficial to you?
2. What part of the training was least beneficial to you or needs modification?
3. What were three major takeaways you learned today?

162

Appendix M: Blended Evaluation Tool
Thank you for attending the Leadership Development Workshop. Your participation in
this short survey will help us understand your experience and what may help or hinder your
learning. Your response provides vital information to help us better achieve our Air Force
priority to “grow strong leaders.” Thank you for letting your voice be heard.

Survey Items (four-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)

Level One: Reaction
Engagement:
1. The workshop was interesting.
2. I felt engaged in the workshop.
Relevance:
3. The information I gained in the workshop has been relevant to my daily efforts to
develop Airmen.
Satisfaction:
4. I will recommend the workshop to my peers.

Level Two: Learning
5. The workshop helped me understand the importance of leader involvement and modeling.
6. The workshop improved my understanding of cognitive processing and its impact on
people development.
7. The workshop improved my understanding of experiential learning and its role in people
development.
8. The workshop helped me understand the importance of coaching and feedback in people
development.

163

9. The workshop helped me be aware of and reflect on my impact in cultivating a learning
culture.
10. I am more confident in my ability to coach and develop my people.
Level Three: Behavior
11. I have increased implementing leadership development initiatives at work since attending
the workshop.
12. I have used one or more of the strategies from the workshop with my Airmen.
13. I have the support to apply what I learned.
Level Four: Results
14. I have made progress on my goals since attending the workshop.
15. I feel more confident implementing effective leadership development initiatives in my
unit.
16. The program has positively impacted a culture of learning in my organization.

Open-ended Questions:
1. Describe any challenges you are facing implementing what you learned.
2. Describe possible solutions to overcome the challenges you described.
3. How could this training be improved?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

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

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Rosenberg, Trevor (author)

Core Title Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/04/2020

Defense Date 04/21/2020

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

Tag Air Force,Commanders,leadership,leadership development,military leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria G. (committee chair), Bewley, William L. (committee member), Cash, David (committee member)

Creator Email trevor.rosenberg@byu.net,trevorro@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-316128

Unique identifier UC11666104

Identifier etd-RosenbergT-8566.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-316128 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RosenbergT-8566.pdf

Dmrecord 316128

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rosenberg, Trevor

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