B. PROMOTION STUDIES THAT INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE
2. Study by Jobst and Palmer (2005)
The thesis work of Jobst and Palmer primarily focused on the performance evaluation system (FITREP) of the Marine Corps as it applies to assignment matching and the overall optimum performance of the force. Their focus centered on the notion of
“two-sided matching” in maximizing an individual’s future performance by matching personal capabilities with skill requirements, and job preference with job availability.
Although their research did not specifically address promotion effects, their study’s findings and results have implications on the manner in which the Marine Corps evaluates officers for promotion.
The Jobst and Palmer study did include quantitative analysis of the USMC FITREP system. Jobst and Palmer drew from five years (1999-2004) of Official Military Personnel File data for the ranks of second lieutenant through colonel. All told, 33,858 individual officer FITREPs were analyzed with statistical techniques. Their findings revealed that a propensity for higher performance in certain core competencies (14 total) of the FITREP correlated with specific MOSs. Their descriptive statistics findings showed that the average scores within FITREP core competencies varied by MOS, demonstrating from data that certain MOSs have systematic strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the aviator MOS was not analyzed in their research, but suffice it to say the point is adequately made; systematic strengths and weaknesses exist across the spectrum of Marine Corps occupational specialties.
D. SUMMARY
The previous quantitative studies in this literature review have focused on the general factors for promotion such as demographics, performance, operational experience, and occupational field. Many statistically and practically significant effects have been found within their data through regression analysis, to include the effect of occupational field, and to some extent specifics PMOSs. Overall, the findings of past studies that have estimated an “aviation effect” on promotion probability are inconsistent and mixed. The effect of the aviator MOS on promotion to lieutenant colonel is insignificant in Hoffman’s study, but significant in Perry and McHugh’s. McHugh’s
CNA study was conducted in 2006 with multiple years’ promotion data current as of 2005, while Hoffman’s study only examined promotion data of 2008. Perry’s study and findings of split effects between two PMOSs (CH-53E and F/A-18) were based on extremely dated cohort data from the 1980s. Are the statistical differences in “aviator promotion effects” attributed to the nature of the effect or the particular dataset from which it was drawn? Any definitive conclusion on the purposed aviator effect from these studies would be spurious at best. The studies taken in aggregate demonstrate mixed results of an “aviation effect” on promotion probability.
The studies of this literature review also highlight particular deficiencies in the heretofore research in Marine officer promotions and manpower systems. For instance, little effort has been dedicated to isolating the aviator occupational field by the following categories:
Fixed-wing and rotary-wing communities (over several promotion board years)
Type/Model/Series aircraft qualifications and designations (T&R Codes)
Above-zone candidates
Combat aviator deployments (OIF/OEF/HOA)
Aviator-specific leadership experience (i.e., squadron department head billets)
Controlling for these additional variables and categories may make a difference in the statistical results of regression analysis.
The common thread among the prior studies is found in their conclusions and recommendations, namely in that most address the debate on promotion effects from within a specialized occupational field versus from within the unrestricted pool. Most studies agree that the Marine Corps officer promotion system performs adequately in providing the right Marine, at the right place and time, even though that is not the explicit goal of promotion board deliberations. Instead, the “best and most qualified” ethic within an unrestricted pool has driven the Marine officer promotion system for several generations, and with great success. Despite this success, however, most studies
reviewed studies share a common conversation in whether promotion by specialization, to some degree, would be good for the Marine Corps. Promoting by specialization is completely contrary to the Marine Corps culture of “every Marine a rifleman,” and thus the basis for the current non-specialized unrestricted category in officer promotions.
Hoffman’s research most closely resembles the research conducted in this study.
The greatest difference, however, is in the size of his individual promotion board samples, and the number of different samples analyzed. In order to find a statistically significant aviator effect, many promotion boards of the same rank need to be combined for an aggregate effect. Additionally, basic descriptive statistic trend analysis can be leveraged to “tell the story” of aviator promotion opportunities over a period of several years and from within the current operational environment of diverse combat deployments and general economic climate of the present day.
The Jobst and Palmer findings indicate that research is also necessary into the general area of Marine Corps officer occupational field specialization. If systematic strengths and weaknesses are evidenced through data in discrete MOSs, the notion of unrestricted officer pool promotion is compromised. Effectively and indirectly, Jobst and Palmer beg the question, “Is every Marine a Rifleman?” in the sense that performance evaluation of all Marines should not use the same set of metrics housed in the current FITREP system. As the FITREP is the primary indication of past performance for promotion candidates, some MOSs may be at an unfair and systematic disadvantage simply by the current dynamic of “every Marine a rifleman” metrics. Jobst and Palmer conclude that the FITREP system may need an overhaul to account for occupational field-specific metrics. An alternative conclusion, proffered by the researcher of this current study, may be the requirement for a Marine officer promotion system overhaul that selects based on occupational field vacancies rather than from an aggregate officer pool.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK