Carrie J. Cain EDU 697 Professor Broderick 10 Aug 15 ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL: LEADERSHIP AFTER AIRMAN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL
Jan 02, 2016
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?