Carrie J. Cain

EDU 697

Professor Broderick

10 Aug 15

ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL: LEADERSHIP AFTER AIRMAN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL

Overview

• Area of Focus

• Explanation of Problem

• Variables

• Research Questions

• Locus of Control

• Intervention/Innovation

Overview

• Group Membership

• Negotiations

• Ethics

• Timeline

• Statement of Resources

• Data Collection

Area of Focus

• Purpose: How leadership principles are utilized in military environments after:

• Attending Airman Leadership School• Receiving their first subordinate• Promoting to Staff Sergeant

Explanation of Problem

• Need people ready to LEAD!

• No guarantee that ALS will make you a better leader

• Technology and culture

Variables

• Leadership versus Leading

• Ciolan’s Strategies to enhance leadership styles in military

• Technology’s impact on leadership

• Professional Military Education’s contribution to career progression

• Technology is changing marching orders for the military

Research Questions

• 1. What factors were present prior to attending Airman Leadership School, i.e., such as what type of leadership

was displayed in their work centers.

• 2. Is today's culture and society that impacts how we get things done?

Locus of Control

• My rank and position cannot be used to influence results• Participation is 100% voluntary

• Results are based on individualized behavior

• Curriculum is mandatory; however, use of tools provided is situational• The supervisors/leaders have varying methods to utilized

Intervention/Innovation

• Leadership starts from Day One

• Must be shown through all levels of training and beyond• Enforced throughout their careers• Emulated to their subordinates

• Senior leadership must be involved and be the example

• Culture and mindset shift across the Air Force• “This is not the way we do business”

Group Membership

• No additional staff was required for research

• Group consisted of up to 64 Airman Leadership School students

• Targeted audience were E-4s (Senior Airmen) selected for promotion • Additional targets were those who are time in service eligible

Negotiations

• Permission from the Commandant of the schoolhouse

• Voluntary participation of the targeted audience

• Timeline given to complete reserch

Ethics

• Boundaries for myself and the students

• Privacy for participants

• Respect for others

• Non-Attribution Guarantee

Timeline

• Study started early July

• Questionnaires/Surveys sent during the first week of ALS

• Data collected during Week 5 of the ALS curriculum

• More time would have been optimal to provide better results

Statement of Resources

• Two main sources:

• Ciolan’s Current Strategies to Enhance the Leadership Style in the Military

• Investing in Our Military Leaders: The Role of Professional Military Education in Officer Development.

Data Collection (Questionnaire)

• 41 out of 48 students participated in the questionnaire

• 64% of participants stated they rarely interacted with their supervisor/leadership

• 51% of participants stated that their supervisors did not apply the leadership principles taught in ALS

• 25% of participants had supervisors that were “hands off” in hopes that they were self-sufficient/reliant

• 49% stated discipline is unfair throughout their unit

• 23% stated that they felt like their supervisors were doing a good job

Data Collection (Survey)

• 39 out of 48 students participated in the survey

• 51% stated technology must be used to accomplish their daily tasks

• 51% stated that it is “Least Likely” possible to not use technology in their jobs

• 75% stated that lack of technology will degrade mission accomplishment

Summary

• Area of Focus

• Explanation of Problem

• Variables

• Research Questions

• Locus of Control

• Intervention/Innovation

Summary

• Group Membership

• Negotiations

• Ethics

• Timeline

• Statement of Resources

• Data Collection

References

• Bregman, P. (2013, July 10). Why So Many Leadership Programs Ultimately Fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/07/why-so-many-leadership-program/

• CIOLAN, I. (2012). CURRENT STRATEGIES TO INHANCE THE LEADERSHIP STYLE IN THE MILITARY. Paper presented at the Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328331902?accountid=32521

• Craciun, M., PhD. (2009). HOW DOES TECHNOLOGY AFFECT LEADERSHIP IN THE 21st CENTURY MILITARY CONFRONTATIONS. Scientific Bulletin - Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy, 14(1), 24-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89154101?accountid=32521

• Kuter, S. (2013). An action research on developing prospective teachers' inquiry skills. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 317-324. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1531909874?accountid=32521

References

• Investing in our military leaders: The role of professional military education in officer development. (2010). Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53165/html/CHRG-111hhrg53165.htm

• Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

• Weigelt, M. (2010, January 1). Technology is changing marching orders for Army leadership -- Washington Technology. Technology is changing marching orders for Army leadership -- Washington Technology. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/circuit/2010/08/army-military-eleadership-research.aspx

Questions?