No abstract

No abstract

Despite a long history of research on organizational turnover, questions still linger about relative contributions of different factors to the probability and timing of turnover. Complicating matters, civilian and military differences can moderate important relationships among the factors. In this study, several event history models for predicting voluntary turnover in the U.S. military were estimated. Turnover predictors included background variables, military satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal intentions, job withdrawal, and comparisons of military and civilian work and lifestyles. Results showed that withdrawal intentions, job withdrawal, organizational commitment, and military tenure consistently predicted voluntary turnover. Inconsistent findings for job satisfaction and comparisons of military and civilian work and lifestyles raise questions as to their roles as predictors of military turnover.Despite a long history of turnover research in the organizational sciences, questions still linger about the relative contributions of different factors to the probability and timing of turnover. Complicating the situation, differences between civilian and military samples can moderate important turnover relationships. For example, Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, and Griffeth's (1992) meta-analysis revealed that the relationship between job satisfaction and search for alternative employment was stronger in civilian than in military samples. Although some researchers have used heterogeneous samples to examine turnover relationships, several have not examined actual turnover and have not used appropriate methods for studying turnover. Specifically, turnover is often measured as a binary event, making many popular statistical methodologies (e.g., linear regression) inappropriate.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

The Air Force uses the Strength Aptitude Test (SAT) to determine whether recruits meet the fitness levels needed to perform the duties of various Air Force specialties with physical strength requirements. However, the SAT was developed in the early 1980s and has not been revalidated since then. In the interim, the duties associated with many Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) classifications have changed, and new ones have been added. This report evaluates the status and validity of the SAT in a series of studies and builds upon previous RAND research on the SAT (Sims et al., 2014). It also suggests alternative strategies for developing SAT requirements that accurately reflect the physical demands of Air Force jobs while minimizing adverse effects on job opportunities for women. The research reported here was commissioned by the Air Force's Force Management Policy Directorate (AF/A1P) and conducted within the Manpower, Personnel, and Training Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE. This report should interest Air Force leaders and staff concerned with standards to maintain the physical readiness of airmen who perform physically demanding tasks as part of their occupational specialty.

No abstract

The first section of this report presents a general overview of the survey instrument using multiple item measures to assess unprofessional, gender-related behaviors and workplace relations and provides an overview of the sample and survey. The body of the report is comprised of a description of each scale, including individual items, background information, and psychometric analyses.The 16-page survey booklet included an in-depth series of questions concerning the Reserve component member's background and workplace information, satisfaction and retention intention, health and well-being, gender-related experiences in the military, and attitudes toward readiness and personnel policies and practices. Scales were composed of multiple items and reported results include reliability, frequency counts, and, where appropriate, multivariate analyses. Scales, rather than single items, were utilized because measures that rely on multiple items to tap a construct are more reliable than those relying on single items. Statistics are reported for men and women combined, as well as separately by gender.Particular attention was paid to assessing unprofessional, gender-related behavior and sexual harassment. Historically, different methods of measuring sexual harassment rates have been employed in DoD-and Service-wide surveys. This has resulted in rates that were not comparable across surveys. In November 1998, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity (DASD [EO]) convened a meeting of Service and Reserve component representatives to review existing measures and make recommendations for a standardized method for use in both DoD-and Service-wide surveys. The resulting measure is based on two survey questions which represent the "DoD Sexual Harassment Core Measure" (Survey Method for Counting Incidents of Sexual Harassment, 2002). The measure consisted of thirteen items, twelve items that measured unprofessional, gender-related behaviors, and one item that asked Service members whether they considered any of the behaviors they experienced to have been sexual harassment. Together, these thirteen items are used to calculate the sexual harassment incident rate they experienced.iii Table of Workplace and Gender Relations (2002 WGR). The 2002 WGR was the third DoD-wide survey of active-duty members that focused on sexual harassment and gender issues. The first survey was fielded in 1988 and the second in 1995. survey (Form B 1995, was designed to both estimate the level of sexual harassment in the Services and provide new information on a variety of potential antecedents and consequences of harassment (Bastian, Lancaster, & Reyst, 1996). The new measures were intended to increase understanding of sexual harassment and of policies and programs that prevent it from occurring, as well as gather information on a variety of workplace issues.Similar to the 2002 WGR, the 2004 WGRR was designed to take advantage of the developments in sexual harassment measurement technology that have occurred since 1995 and to utili...