parrott_l_dissertation_final
TRANSCRIPT
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
MENTORSHIP DURING MILITARY
TRANSITION ON TIME
TO EMPLOYMENT
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University, Seattle Campus
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Lisa Marie Parrott
December, 2014
ii
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
MENTORSHIP DURING MILITARY
TRANSITION ON TIME
TO EMPLOYMENT
Copyright ©2014
Lisa Marie Parrott
All rights reserved
iii
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF MENTORSHIP DURING MILITARY
TRANSITION ON TIME TO EMPLOYMENT
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University, Seattle Campus
College of Business in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
By
Lisa Marie Parrott
Argosy University
December, 2014
Dissertation Committee Approval: ________________________________ ___________________________________ Chuck Miller, Ph.D., Chair Date _______________________________ ___________________________________ Cliff Butler, PhD., Member Bruce Chapman, Ph.D., Program Chair
iv
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
MENTORSHIP DURING MILITARY
TRANSITION ON TIME
TO EMPLOYMENT
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University, Seattle Campus
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Lisa Marie Parrott
Argosy University
December, 2014 Chuck Miller, Ph.D. Cliff Butler, PhD. Department: College of Business
v
ABSTRACT
Veterans continue to struggle during the transition from military to civilian workplace
as seen by rising unemployment. Limited research exists to explain why this group has
experienced higher unemployment rates compared to nonveterans, although veterans and
employers struggle to translate military experience. This study looked at the influence of a
corporate mentor prior to transition on time to employment. A convenience survey of 168
Post 9/11 veterans at least six months post -transition was conducted to compare attitudes and
behaviors toward corporate mentoring. Results suggest a difference in time to employment
for those with a corporate mentor, and this relationship affects the perception of difficulty in
the transition process. Implications from these findings suggest including corporate
mentorship training and awareness into the Transition Assistance Program. Further research
is needed to identify additional factors impacting time to employment and the disparity
between positive attitudes towards mentors and the lack of seeking a mentor relationship.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to committee members,
Dr. Chuck Lewis, Dr. Cliff Butler, and Dr. Bruce Chapman for their invaluable support and
guidance in the planning and implementation of this research project. Appreciation is also
extended to Dr. Felicia Guity, Dr. Ernest Hughes, and Dr. Tim Mantz who were all
fundamental in reaching the finish line. The deepest appreciation is further offered to the
veterans and organizations that participated and shared the survey used in this research. In
addition, this work would not have been completed in a timely manner without the consistent
and enthusiastic support from Barbara Hughson, who made the entire doctoral process
worthwhile. Without the contributions of time and resources from this encouraging group,
this study would not have been possible.
vii
DEDICATION
To all the family members and friends whose love and support have helped turn this
folly into a reality. Thank you for your patience.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Problem Background ........................................................................................................... 1 Veteran Unemployment ................................................................................................ 1 Figure 1 – Unemployment partterns for 18-24 year old Veterans and nonveterans ............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Unemployment of Gulf War II Veterans and nonveters from 2007- 2012 .......................................................................................................................... 3 Addressing the Unemployment Gap ............................................................................. 3 Mentoring to Career Success ......................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7 Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 8 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 10 Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................... 14 Factors Affecting Veteran Unemployment ....................................................................... 14 Military Dynamics over the Past Decade ................................................................... 14 Known areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 3 – Unemployment by disability status ....................................................... 16 Employment Preferences ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 4 – Industry breakdown by gender, Veteran and nonveteran status ........... 21 Cultural Differences .................................................................................................... 22 Current Solutions to Veteran Unemployment ................................................................... 24 Mentoring for Career Development .................................................................................. 25
Barriers to Mentoring .................................................................................................. 26 Gaps in Literature .............................................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 30 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 30 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 30
Population and Sampling Procedures .......................................................................... 30 Seletion anof Participants ............................................................................................ 32 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................ 34 Research Variables ...................................................................................................... 36
Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................ 37 Methodological Assumptios ........................................................................................ 37 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 37 Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 38 Access and Permission Information ............................................................................ 39
ix
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .......................................................................................... 41 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 41 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................... 41 Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 44
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................... 44 Research Question 2 .................................................................................................... 46 Research Question 3 .................................................................................................... 49 Research Question 4 .................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.1 Regression Scatterplot of Age on Time to Employment ........................... 53
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 53 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 55 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 55 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................... 55 Research Question 2 .................................................................................................... 56 Research Question 3 .................................................................................................... 56 Research Question 4 .................................................................................................... 57 Implications ....................................................................................................................... 57 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 58 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 67 A. Informed Consent ......................................................................................................... 68 B. Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 73
x
TABLE OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Mean numbers of Weeks to Employments by Mentor Relationship ............................ 44
2 One-Way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test Results ............................................... 45
3. One-Way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test Results with Combined Corporate
Mentor Scores ............................................................................................................. 46
4. Mode Responses for Mentor Attitude Questions by Corporate Mentor Relationship .. 48
5. Median Responses with Interquartile Range for Mentor Attitude Qustions by
Corporate versus No Corporate Mentor Relationship ................................................. 49
6. Chi-Square Results on Attitudes Toward Mentorship by Corporate Mentor
Relationship ................................................................................................................. 50
7. Chi-Square Results for Perception on Transition by Corporate Mentor Relationship .. 52
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Problem Background
Although active duty service members are highly trained volunteers consisting of
one percent of the US population, they are more likely than their civilian counterparts to
struggle in the job search process after leaving the military environment (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2012). Routon (2014) argues that veterans are an important population to study
because the military plays a significant factor in training a large portion of young Americans
at a hefty cost. The Committee on the Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Military
Personnel, Veterans and Their Families (2013) found that “unemployment and
underemployment are acute problems for military veterans” (p. 2). Underemployment is a
difficult term to define and track, as national statistics fail to separate this concept. It can
include part-time work in lieu of full-time work and below average wages based on level of
education and experience.
Veteran Unemployment
Rising unemployment among the veteran population has become a significant topic
over the past few years, especially for individuals between the ages of 18-24. After a sharp
decline at the start of the war in 2001, this number began rising in 2006 and reached the
highest levels of unemployment in 2011 as reported by the Department of Labor Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2012). In 2012 the overall unemployment rate for Global War
on Terrorism (GWOT) veterans reached 12.1%, hitting a high of 30.2% for the 18-24
year old demographic. The national unemployment rate at this time was much lower,
only 8.7% for non-veterans over the age of 18. The 18-24 year old civilian population
was nearly half of their veteran counterparts at 16.1%.
2
The past two years have seen a reduction in unemployment numbers for all
populations, but records still shows a higher trend for the GWOT era veteran population.
Figure 1 shows a reduction in unemployment for 18-24 year olds at the start of Gulf War
II, with a rapid rise only four years later, which is the average length of one enlistment.
After that point unemployment remains consistently higher for veterans than non-
veterans and jumps significantly after the 2007-2009 recession.
Figure 1. – Unemployment patterns for 18-24 year old veterans versus non-veterans and nonveterans (BLS, 2012).
The sharp increases in unemployment for the GWOT- era and younger veterans
have limited explanations, but many theories that lack research data. In 2003, BLS
reported a 7.9% unemployment rate for veterans between the ages of 18-24, much lower
than their non-veteran counterparts at 11.2% (2012). Currently there is no explanation to
account for the drastic jump in unemployment for veterans aged 18-24 over the past
decade. A study conducted by Desrosiers (2013) examined the factors leading to Marines
being more likely to collect unemployment. Although this research has not been validated
by all services, it does highlight a few demographics to consider: lower quality as defined
3
by low scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test or no high school diploma,
nonwhite, female, or married and with children. Figure 2 shows the higher
unemployment trend for GWOT- era veterans compared to non-veterans from 2007-
2012, including the post- recession increase.
Figure 2. Unemployment of Gulf War II veterans and non-veterans from 2007-2012 (BLS, 2012). Addressing the Unemployment Gap
The Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act signed into law by President
Obama in 20011 was created to address the immediate job- seeking challenges veterans
face by requiring all service members to attend a weeklong transition program prior to
leaving the service (VOW to Hire Heroes Act, 2011). This course focuses on critical
information for service members’ awareness, including resume writing and interview
preparation. However, this requirement has not been shown to lead to a significant
change in unemployment. This may be primarily because it fails to improve networking
skills, which is the one key area leading to employment opportunities. The Job Openings
and Labor Turnover (JOLT) survey published by BLS suggests 70% of jobs are found
4
through networking (2013). Findings from George, Chaze, Brennenstuhl and Fuller-
Thomson (2011) support this assessment, as they found employee referrals were
significant in helping engineers in Canada obtain employment.
Networking is a critical skill for obtaining employment, although it is not a
skillset veterans practice with corporate America while on active duty. The term
networking is extremely broad, encompassing a number of behaviors that can lead to
gainful employment. Forret and Dougherty (2004) define networking “as individuals'
attempts to develop and maintain relationships with others who have the potential to
assist them in their work or career” (p. 420). Multiple lengthy deployments and limited
access outside of the military community may increase the difficulties veterans face to
develop and improve their networking capabilities. Networking is often done with peers,
and does not offer the same sponsorship level of interaction to increase employment
prospects as mentoring provides (Ehrich, 1994) For optimal success, a mentor
relationship with someone outside the military on a formal basis may provide an
opportunity to understand and cultivate this proactive behavior.
Mentoring to Career Success
Mentorship can help overcome missing job seeking skillsets, improve career self-
efficacy and reduce negative job seeking behaviors (Renn, Steinbauer, Taylor, &
Detwiler, 2014). Veterans often learn to develop their career path while in the service
from military mentor relationships. The need to implement more formal mentor programs
has been recognized by the US Army Medical Corps (Edgar et al., 2013). The military
mentor experience provides the foundation for service members to translate into a
corporate mentorship to assist in clarifying their future corporate career path. Learning
5
from those with gainful employment would help veterans network with others in their
field of interest, determine civilian licenses or industry- specific credentialing
requirements, and help to translating their military experience into civilian language
(Johnson & Andersen, 2010; Knouse, 2001; Smith, Howard, & Harrington, 2005). It is
assumed that the presence of a corporate mentor relationship during the transition process
will lead to faster and more rewarding corporate employment for transitioning service
members. A rewarding environment is defined as earning a family-paying wage that
meets the experience, educational level, and interest of the individual.
Van Eck Peluchette and Jeanquart (2000) suggest that mentors are needed at
different stages in ones career, and often from different mentoring sources. Currently
there are no formal requirements for service members to connect with a corporate mentor,
although programs exist to support this gap. In 2008, the American Corporate Partners
(ACP) nonprofit organization recognized the desire and need for service members to
connect with a mentor outside the military to aid with the transition process; including
resume building, job market knowledge and networking (ACP, 2014). Their mentorship
program connects service members with a corporate mentor to support networking and
long-term career development. Since the creation of their program, participation has
exceeded 3000 mentor relationships, with more applications received each year than
available mentors. This demonstrates the awareness from the service member to seek out
a formal corporate mentor relationship prior to transition, as well as the lack of accessible
resources.
6
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this research was to identify the key factors to success in the
transition process for GWOT- era veterans by examining the effect of mentorship on time
to employment. It looked at whether the presence of a mentor helped veterans obtain full
time employment faster in a corporate environment while those without a mentor
continued to struggle. Questions were asked to investigate the relationship mentoring had
on the perception towards transition. This study used a quantitative design to identify
demographic factors and trends regarding mentoring attitudes and time to employment in
an effort to develop practices to reduce veteran unemployment.
The researcher for this study is a veteran and career coach who worked with over
60 service members in 2013 to assist them with obtaining employment during their
military transition. She found the most successful individuals were those who also had
corporate mentors assisting with navigating the hiring process. Many service members
leave the military unaware of how to match job titles and career fields with their
experience and background. The researcher has seen veterans without mentors struggle
longer during the transition, even to the point of exhausting their unemployment benefits.
In many cases this is caused by mismatched expectations for the corporate environment,
specifically around translating military skillsets, salary, and position level.
While recruiting for the operations team at Amazon, this researcher also fulfilled
a specialized data-mining role, comparing the promotion and retention of veterans within
the company. The recruiting position focused on hiring veterans into the organization,
building networking communities, analyzing attrition and promotion trends, and
attending career fairs. The researcher was able to witness numerous job search difficulties
7
from this community and believes many errors were made because of the culture gap
between the military and civilian environment. A few examples include ethnocentric
behaviors cited on the resume, giving illustrations from a team perspective as opposed to
an individual one, failing to practice or prepare for interviews, incorrectly assessing skill
fit to an organization, inadequately focusing on the importance of networking in the job
search process, and an inability to understand the importance of culture within an
organization.
The researcher recommends mentoring to transitioning service members who are
unable or unwilling to obtain full time employment. This is often a problem, as veterans
do not have a corporate model for the mentor and mentee relationship. As a result, they
are unwilling to engage in a mentoring relationship with a civilian until they have become
employed and are introduced to a corporate example. The nature of military relocation
and overseas deployments makes it difficult for service members to identify and meet
with corporate mentors (Mezias & Scandura, 2005). In addition, traditional military
mentorship is primarily focused only on mobility while in the service, and does not
provide a model for corporate mentoring (Johnson & Andersen, 2010; Knouse, 2001;
Smith et al., 2005). Understanding more about the impact mentorship has on the
employment outcome for veterans may lead to new improved transition programs
focused on evidence-based practices.
There is limited research for this population around factors leading to
unemployment and underemployment. Previous challenges identified in research include
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD), combat injuries, and socio-economic status prior
to entering the service (MacLean, 2010). However, these factors alone do not account for
8
the extreme rise in unemployment for GWOT- era Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans between the ages of 18-24, considering the
many educational advantages this population has over previous eras. The benefits from
the Post 9/11 GI Bill and emphasis on tuition assistance while on active duty has enabled
more veterans to obtain a college education than their non-veteran counterparts, which
would suggest an increased ability to find employment as opposed to the existing trend
(BLS, 2010).
Research Questions
What is the difference in time to employment for transitioning veterans with, and
without, a mentor relationship? The presence of a mentor might indicate a greater
potential for the transitioning service member to overcome the cultural gap, gain insight
into the corporate hiring process, and obtain benefits like sponsorship. What is the
relationship between the attitude and the behavior of obtaining a civilian mentor prior to
leaving the service? Individuals with a higher positive attitude toward mentoring are
likely to seek out and engage with a corporate mentor during the transition process,
leading to stronger potential for employment in less time than someone with a negative
attitude.
What are the differences in perception of difficulty during the transition process
between veterans with, and without, mentors? Mentorship has also shown to indicate
higher levels of career satisfaction, advancement, and salary in the corporate
environment, and these benefits might carry over to the Veteran (Bozionelos, Bozionelos,
Kostopoulos, & Polychroniou, 2011; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Having a mentor is likely
to have a positive effect on more areas than just finding a job during the transition into
9
the corporate sector. A mentor can provide other support such as financial planning,
expectation setting, and education on salary negotiation. How does age impact time to
employment for transitioning service members?? It is unknown exactly why some
veterans struggle in the process, and factors like age may play an unseen role.
Limitations and Delimitations
One limitation of the study is the lack of research on this particular topic and
specific population. There is a large amount of research on the effect on mentoring in the
corporate world as it relates to career advancement and pay, but very little exists on the
impact of mentorship in the transition process from the military into a civilian
occupation. Research does exist on the transition from college to the corporate world, but
this population does not directly correlate to the work experiences and level of
responsibility held by members of the veteran community.
There is very little research identifying all of the challenges veterans face during
the transition other than studies looking at the impact of disability, combat, and PTSD.
No justification directly supports the reason for higher unemployment numbers for
GWOT veterans. Factors may exist that the researcher is unable to account for due to the
inadequate amount of research in this area. Those who chose to complete the survey for
this present study may have skewed the results. Not all veterans have experienced
unemployment and those who participated may have been more likely to have
participated in a mentor relationship or have a positive view of mentoring.
The discharge process of the military adds another challenge for veterans, as job
openings may not be available during the service members’ transition. This situation is
unique to the military only, and is not something the corporate job hiring process takes
10
into account. Many service members save vacation time to use during their ‘terminal
leave’ period. This is the time between separation and the actual end- of -service date.
Service members often use this time in order to search for and obtain employment. This
amount of terminal leave differs among service members, as some have very little while
others will have a lot (from a day or two up to a few months). In addition, medical
discharges are often unexpected and can leave the service member without this terminal
leave period, making their ability to obtain employment difficult as they do not know
their end of service date until as few as 10 days prior to departure. It is unknown what
effect this amount of time will have on the service member’s ability to obtain
employment.
Another limitation of this study is that the survey questions themselves may have
been misunderstood and fail to account for all situations that could exist. In one scenario
a veteran moved between multiple services, and on and off active duty and reserve time,
making it difficult to precisely indicate times of unemployment. Many veterans are also
likely to leave the military and start formal education without looking for a job. This
population has been growing after the introduction of the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits.
These individuals may face different challenges as they are exposed to the college
environment and hiring process. The questions were also not validated through rigorous
testing, although future research would be beneficial in this area.
The deliminations of the study were established to capture the trends of the
GWOT- era population only, as this is the group with higher than average
unemployment. Because reservists and National Guard members have limited to part-
time requirements to perform their military duties, they are likely to have obtained
11
employment outside of the military and were not included in the study. The sample was
limited only to those who have completed the transition at least six months prior. This
group of veterans was able to look back on the process in order to identify the areas of
success, their length of unemployment, and the amount of time to employment.
The intent was to include a generalizable population from the military
community. It was assumed that the retirement community would use a mentor due to
their level of maturity, so they were also included as participants. However, less emphasis
was placed on the results from this population because they have an income stream post
service. Respondents were asked to think about the six months prior and post- transition
in the survey, rather than asking about their entire employment life post -service. This
ensured participants were comparing the same time period. Due to time constraints of the
dissertation process and the high cost, the researcher did not use a longitudinal or
qualitative study.
Definitions
A veteran is defined as an individual who served in the military, regardless of
combat or discharge status. This is different from a service member who is considered to
be someone still on active duty or in an active reserve status. A reservist is someone who
is not on active duty and has the opportunity for full time occupation through means other
than the military, either college or civilian employment. This differs from the National
Guard members, who operate in a reserve status while simultaneously serving as state
militia and may be employed full time by the National Guard or serve solely in a reserve
capacity. Individuals from the National Guard and Reserves can participate as Active
Guard Reserve, and work in a full -time status through the military. The Gulf War on
12
Terrorism (GWOT) may also be referred to as the Gulf War II era and includes
individuals who served in the military during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The end of military service is known as EAS, or end of active service. This is the
conclusion of a veteran’s contract with the military. Terminal leave is the vacation time
service members can use prior to their EAS, allowing them to receive a paycheck while
not reporting to work daily. Most service members receive an Honorable Discharge
upon a successful completion of their contractual service. When a service member is
involved in a minor level of misconduct, they may receive a General Discharge, Under
Honorable Conditions. If they receive a severe administrative discharge, this is often
referred to as Other Than Honorable. For those who severely abuse the law, a special or
general court martial awards a Bad Conduct Discharge. The most severe type of
discharge is Dishonorable, comparable to a felony conviction.
The military has a transition program to assist individuals leaving the service
called Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The employment training of the course is
supported by a component of the Department of Labor, known as Veterans’ Employment
and Training Service (VETS). The Army calls their course Army Career and Alumni
Program (ACAP), the Marine Corps refers to their program as Transition Readiness
Seminar (TRS) and the VOW act is standardizing all of them through Goals, Plans,
Succeeds (GPS). Service connected is a term associated with veterans who have
received a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Nonveterans or civilians are defined as individuals who never completed boot
camp, and did not spend time as an active duty or reserve member of the US armed
13
forces. Unemployment status is defined as eligible workers who become unemployed
through no fault of their own and are looking for employment (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2012). The idea of underemployment is considered vague and difficult to
define, although Markel and Barclay (2009) suggest it relates to individuals struggling to
obtain employment and living in poverty. Julian, Hall, and Yerger (2010) add three
additional categories to this definition - involuntary part time employees, discouraged
employees, and marginally attached employees.
Mentoring is defined as the process of sharing information from a more
experienced employee to a new or less skilled employee with the goal of career
advancement (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Mentoring is different from networking,
inasmuch as the mentor relationship has intentional goals toward an outcome from the
relationship. A networking contact is defined as an individual who may or may not be
well- known, and aids the job search process by making an introduction, suggesting a job
opportunity, or referring the individual to a company. This relationship does not have a
long- term or regular commitment toward career growth.
Formal mentor programs involve a third party assigning a mentor and protégé,
whereas an informal mentor relationship occurs when this happens naturally between
two individuals (Hu, Wang, Sun, & Chen, 2008). A corporate entity is defined as a
public or private organization, not state or federal government. A corporate mentor is an
individual who is providing a traditional mentor relationship with someone from an
external organization such as a civilian employee who is mentoring a service member or
an individual from another company or industry. The mentors from ACP would be an
example of a corporate mentor program.
14
Importance of the Study
The effects from a decade plus of war have led to a number of problems for
veterans and service members including PTSD, higher rates of disabilities than previous
wars, and higher levels of unemployment compared to nonveteran counterparts. Since
2007, unemployment for service members has exceeded the civilian population, and
stands to become an increasing problem as each military branch downsizes following the
end of the Iraq, and soon to be, Afghanistan wars. Military branches are required by law
to fund the unemployment costs, leading to an increased urgency to create resolutions
aimed at improving the transition process in an effort to lower the challenges facing
veterans after leaving the service. An estimated one million service members will
transition within the next five years as a result of the reduction –in- force due to the end
of OIF and OEF (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014). The VOW Act was
created as a means of formalizing programs to support individuals with the transition
process from the military, and provides additional educational support to previous
generations of veterans initially denied certain benefits to aid in unemployment numbers
for previous generations (VOW to Hire Heroes Act, 2011).
This study presented a possible method to improve transition programs and
reduce unemployment time for transitioning service members. Individuals who remain
unemployed for an extended period of time often face despair and reluctance to engage
with others, decreasing their potential for obtaining satisfied employment (Krueger,
Mueller, Davis & Sahin, 2011). Corporate mentors may prove a critical link for service
members who need support in overcoming the cultural differences between the military
environment and the civilian workforce (Mezias & Scandura, 2005). These mentors can
15
also play a vital role in assisting transitioning service members and veterans who are
unsure of their future career path by helping to clarify long-term career goals. The act of
engaging in the mentor relationship before leaving the military can prevent veterans from
wasting valuable resources like the Post 9/11 GI Bill while trying to figure out what they
want to do after service.
16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Factors Affecting Veteran Unemployment
Military Dynamics over the Past Decade
On September 11, 2001 the perception of security in the United States was altered
after an airplane -driven terrorist attack caused the destruction of two World Trade Center
towers and damage to the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA
presumably after passengers attempted to gain control from the hijackers (Roddy, 2001).
This tragic day set in motion a decade plus state of war known as the Global War on Terror
(GWOT). Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) began on October 7, 2001 when the US
invaded Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks (Defense
Casualty Analysis System, 2013). This war continues to be fought to this day with no clear
end in sight.
At one point in time GWOT was a two -front war, meaning a war fought across two
different locations. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) began nearly two years after OEF,
starting on March 20, 2003. It started as a means to locate and destroy nuclear weapons and
reduce the power held by dictator Saddam Hussein (Defense Casualty Analysis System,
2013). Lasting over seven years, OIF ended on September 1, 2010 by transitioning into
Operation New Dawn (OND). OND was designed to aid the Iraqi government in rebuilding
their security infrastructure and officially ended on December 15, 2011 (Defense Casualty
Analysis System, 2013). Recent threats from the terrorist group ISIS ( Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria) has called into question the need to return US forces to Iraq to help stabilize their
infrastructure.
17
Over 2.3 million servicemen and women have deployed in support of GWOT
(Defense Manpower Data Center, 2013). The average length of deployment for this two -
front war was twice the length of what Vietnam veterans experienced, closer to two years,
with half of them being multiple tours (Biles, 2007). At the end of 2012, the Defense
Casualty Analysis System (2013) reported 6,644 individuals were killed in hostile action
(KIA), and more than 48,000 have returned home wounded in action (WIA). The GWOT
ratio of KIA to WIA is 1-7, more than double that of the Vietnam War at 1-3 (Defense
Casualty Analysis System, 2013) as response times and medical advances have improved
the likelihood of survival. This increase in WIA numbers is substantial, leading to a higher
number of disabled Veterans than previous eras.
Although GWOT has lasted more than a decade, less than 1% of the US population
has served in the military during this period (BLS, 2012). Looking back across all eras, the
total veteran population barely exceeds 7% of eligible employees (BLS, 2012). Unlike
previous eras, GWOT is unique in US history as it is the only period of war that did not
involved conscription. The last individual to be drafted joined the military in 1972 and
retired in 2011 (Brandon, 2011). GWOT service members are all volunteers and come from
only 25% of the US population (Mission: Readiness Military Leaders for Kids, 2009).
Surprisingly, most individuals are unable to join the military due to lack of education,
fitness, and criminal records.
Known Areas of Concern
The current employment research focusing on the struggles veterans face looks
primarily at the impact of PTSD and disability. On average, the military individual has
limited to no direct business experience, and more veterans from the GWOT era than
18
previous generations are leaving the military with a physical or mental disability from
deployment, thereby increasing the challenge to obtain successful employment
(MacLean, 2010). The presence of mental health issues, disability, combat experience,
and lack of transferable vocational certifications lead veterans to struggle obtaining
employment. In addition, those who are unable to obtain employment are unwilling to
seek assistance. Drebing, Mueller, Van Ormer, Duffy, and LePage(2012) found that
veterans were taking an average of four years before seeking vocational assistance, and in
25% of cases they were not seeking help voluntarily, rather they were being referred from
another treatment intervention. Service members are often reluctant to ask for assistance
due to the independent nature of the US national culture (Kats, van Emmerick,
Blenkinsopp, & Khapova, 2010). It is easier for service members to ask their military
peers for help, although they may also be struggling in their own career transition.
Research over the past decade highlighting the challenges veterans struggle with
post -service is primarily looking at the effects of PTSD, disability, and combat exposure
(Drebing, et al., 2012; MacLean, 2010). These are only a few potential factors that could
be the reason for higher unemployment numbers. Although GWOT-era individuals make
up only 12.26% of the total veteran population, BLS reports they are twice as likely to
report having a service-connected disability, much less than the 14% service-connected
disability ratings of other era veterans (BLS, 2013). The presence of a service-connected
disability, combined with the reduction in job availability from the 2007 recession, are
two potential areas that may impact veteran unemployment, but these numbers are not
enough to explain the drastic difference between the populations. Figure 3 shows the
increase in service-connected disability numbers for the GWOT era as compared to Gulf
19
War Era 1 and all veteran eras. The unemployment numbers for 2012 GWOT- era
veterans without service-connected disability are likely higher due to the Veterans
Affairs’ (VA) backlog for resolving service-connected disability claims, which can take
18-24 months or more. As such, many in this category may be pending service-connected
disability ratings.
Unemployment Rates 2011 2012 Change
All Veterans
With service-connected disability 8.5 6.5 -2.0
Without service-connected disability 7.9 7.1 -0.8
Gulf War Era II (2001-Present)
With service-connected disability 12.1 8.0 -4.1
Without service-connected disability 9.5 12.5 3.0
Gulf War Era I (1990-2001)
With service-connected disability 7.1 5.0 -1.9
Without service-connected disability 6.9 6.3 -0.6
Figure 3. Unemployment by disability status (IVMF, 2013).
The increase in service-connected disability combined with longer and more
frequent deployments than previous generations may hinder veterans during the
employment process (Biles, 2007). In many cases there is a bias towards the visual
presence of disabilities by hiring managers and the potential presence of PTSD (Ebersole,
2013; Plumer, 2013). The belief that disability plays a role in the increased
unemployment levels has more recent research than the others due to the higher number
20
of injured veterans returning from GWOT compared to previous generations. It is the
most studied area in explaining the difference in employment capability between veterans
and nonveterans.
Numerous programs and awareness exists to aid transitioning veterans, yet for an
unknown reason GWOT -era individuals aged 18-24 are struggling the most. Another
theory behind the higher unemployment rate of veterans focuses on the age and lack of
experience for GWOT- era Veterans. Enlisted personnel make up 85% of the military,
with more than half being under the age of 24. Desrosiers (2013) research supports this
claim as younger individuals make up the largest population to transition from the
military. Niessen, Heinrichs & Dorr (2009) indicate younger unemployed individuals
become complacent and unwilling to change their situation, requiring more support to
achieve their goals. Younger veterans may also be dealing with a reluctance to seek
assistance and the presence of PTSD or disabilities. Desrosiers(2013) also found Marines
transitioning to states with high unemployment were more likely to end up collecting
unemployment by facing tougher job market.
One effect of the recession was seen in the reduction of employment opportunities
for young men and women, which started decreasing in 2007 and reached the lowest
point in June 2009 (BLS, 2013). With a reduction of available jobs, unemployed
nonveterans have an advantage over the veteran community, as they are likely to have
civilian employment experience. This would make them more attractive to employers in a
competitive market who are unable to translate military experience. In addition, because
they’ve already experienced the challenging nuances of the corporate job search process,
nonveterans have a networking advantage for the limited openings.
21
Failing to understand the cultural differences between the military and corporate
world is another problem for veterans facing a shrinking job market. A 2014 study
conducted by the Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) in partnership with
VetAdvisor found that Veterans were dissatisfied with their initial job choice post
military service (Maury, Stone & Roseman, 2014). Most would leave their first job
within a year or two, with over 65% leaving by the second year (Maury et al., 2014). In
addition, the study found that “veterans identified the biggest obstacle to attaining
employment was finding opportunities that match past military training and experience”
(Maury et al., 2014, p. 3). The top three reasons for leaving their first job post -service
were for a new employment opportunity, lack of career development, and advancement
and quality of work; these factors are unique to the civilian environment and less likely to
be understood by transitioning veterans.
The inability to translate their military experience and understand the nuances
around the civilian workforce continues to be an obstacle for veterans. The Military
Benefit Association (MBA) found that 79% of unemployed veterans had difficulty
translating their military experience to the corporate world and,,at the same time, 72% of
hiring managers were unable to interpret how that experience would be of value in their
organization (Douglas, 2013). This shows a mutual disconnect toward the ability to
effectively understand the skills and expertise a veteran can bring to a corporate position.
The veteran is unable to articulate how they can be of value, and the hiring manager does
not know how to understand their previous experience. Douglas (2013) also found other
challenges facing transitioning veterans around expectations post service. “More than
two-thirds (69 percent) of the unemployed veterans surveyed felt it was at least somewhat
22
likely that they would use military-related skills in their next job. In reality, 59 percent of
working veterans said they do not use their military experience at work” (Douglas, 2013,
p. 21).
Although there are soft skills highly valued by civilian employers, the difficulty in
translating job skills continues to be an obstacle. In a 2010 study conducted by Society
for Human Resources Management (SHRM), researchers asked human resource
professionals to identify the challenges to hiring veterans. The number one response was
translating military skills to civilian job experience, followed by difficulty transitioning
from the structure and hierarchy in the military culture to the civilian workplace culture
(SHRM). The fourth highest response again addressed culture, as it related to the amount
of time it takes for veterans to adapt to the civilian workplace culture
(SHRM,2010).Although dealing with PTSD and disabilities from the veteran population
was a concern for SHRM members, it was less frequently highlighted over the need to
understand the culture gap between the military and corporate workforce.
Some veterans recognize the challenges they are facing in translating their skills
and understand the corporate culture. A poll of veteran college students found that 47.4%
were interested in job and career counseling during the separation process, outranking
education counseling, entrepreneur training, and interview skills (Excelsior College,
2012). This suggests the need for a more aggressive and supported approach to the
transition process, as veterans need additional support navigating the cultural transition
from the military to civilian workforce.
23
Employment Preference
Upon leaving the service, a large number of veterans prefer to stay in the
government industry. The higher than normal interest to remain in the public sector post
service may be due to the preference veterans have to remain in a familiar and structured
culture. Theories from Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness
(GLOBE) studies suggest cultural differences between the military and corporate
workforce may present a challenge for service members to overcome (Kats et al., 2010).
Trying to adjust to an unknown culture while simultaneously learning how to navigate
the corporate recruiting process after years of deployment is a major challenge many
GWOT- era veterans do not know how to handle. Failing to understand the culture
differences between the military and corporate world could explain why veterans are
more likely and comfortable after service to pursue employment with defense contractors,
and federal, state, and government positions.
Because the military is often the only known work environment, many veterans
are comfortable remaining in the government or defense industry. In addition, this
community is able to understand and value the military experience as compared to the
corporate workforce. Nearly 33% of GWOT- era veterans with service-connected
disability reported working in the public sector in 2012, combined with 20% of Veterans
without a disability. GWOT- era veterans make up less than 1% of the population, but a
significant portion of the public sector, suggesting a preference for service members to
continue serving their country after leaving the military. This industry is continuously
affected by budget challenges from sequestration and government reduction in spending.
These national decisions will likely lead to fewer employment opportunities for
24
government positions, thereby increasing the unemployment numbers for GWOT- era
veterans as they are more likely to work in this industry than nonveterans (BLS, 2013).
Figure 4 shows the disparity between veterans and nonveterans in the government
workforce.
Figure 4. Industry breakdown by gender, Veteran and nonveteran status (IVMF, 2013).
Although veterans are more likely to pursue employment in the government or
defense industry, it may become more challenging over the next few years. During the
2012 recession, sequestration, and government shutdown, these positions had been
reduced and may be a factor to the higher unemployment rates of veterans (BLS, 2013).
By combining the reduction in government employment opportunities with the challenges
hiring managers and HR professionals face in translating their experiences, the increase
in service-connected disability over previous eras, and PTSD from combat experiences,
these factors may begin to explain the struggles faced by veterans looking to obtain
gainful employment post- service.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
71 80 66
77
20 11
28 17
8 7 5 5 2 2 1 1
Agriculture and related industries
Self-‐employed workers, unincorporated
Government
Private Industries
25
The preference for service members to continue working in a government role
might be a result of the inability to understand the gap between military and corporate
employment. GWOT-era veterans are deploying longer and more frequently than
previous eras (Biles, 2007). The networking challenges presented by loss of emails during
deployments and lack of corporate cultural understanding is difficult to overcome, and, as
a consequence, veterans prefer to continue in a culture they know, entering the
government workforce at a higher rate. One way to overcome the gap created by cultural
differences and lack of networking opportunities between the military and corporate
environment is the interaction between civilian employees and active duty service
members through a corporate mentor relationship. Mentors are different from a
networking connection, as they often involve a long-term relationship to seek career
goals. Networking connections might be a casual acquaintance with potential to aid in the
job search process, such as submitting a resume to the hiring manager (Forret &
Dougherty, 2004). They are less likely to be vested in the future success of the mentee,
making them less effective than a mentor relationship (Van Eck Peluchette & Jeanquart,
2000, p. 557-558).
Cultural Differences
For younger service members, the military is their first experience in a work
culture. It is this reason that makes it is essential to understand the factor culture plays on
attitudes of veterans during the transition process. Military service is steeped in history
and traditions, lending to a past- oriented culture that does not meet the adaptable and
flexible nature of the corporate environment. “Firstly there are past oriented cultures; for
them past events and history is of high importance. These cultures view the present by
26
relating it to the past customs, principles, and texts. These types of societies resist
change” (Qamar, Muneer, Jusoh & Idris, 2013, p. 87). This type of a culture makes it
challenging for veterans to leave behind the traditions and customs of their military
service in an effort understand the need to be forward thinking by owning their own
career trajectory.
Clarke (2007) identified the need for career development in the current generation
to be fluid and flexible because employees may need to change companies in order to be
employable and continue their career path. This type of environment is different from that
of the military, where jobs are guaranteed, and promotion progress is established
primarily on the basis of time, service, and completing certain actions like passing tests.
The US corporate environment also relies heavily on an individualistic approach to career
development and job progression. This is vastly different from the military which is more
collectivistic and hierarchal as a culture. The military is well known for teaching
leadership skills, considered to be universally favorable. Each military branch reinforces
traits considered by GLOBE to be highly valued among all cultures, including integrity,
communication (as a team builder), and motivation (Deresky, 2008, p. 417). Therefore it
is assumed veterans would make a better fit into corporate positions than nonveterans.
An awareness of these positive and globally accepted leadership skills is essential
for service members to have during the career search process when translating skills and
experiences. Transition programs must address the cultural differences between the
military and civilian environment and educate service members to overcome these gaps.
It is also necessary to educate service members on the corporate way of depicting their
previous experience, rather than using the job description approach from the military
27
evaluation process. Mentors can provide cultural awareness through a corporate and
veteran relationship. Research shows the presence of mentoring has become influential
for development across a number of areas, such as personal and academic while being
critical for career success (Bozionelos et al., 2011; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Hu et al.,
2008). Introducing this idea early in a service member’s transition can help them
overcome the culture gap while also gaining critical career development assistance.
Current Solutions to Veterans Unemployment
There are many theories as to why GWOT- era veterans’ unemployment is high,
and the White House considers the lack of career development after service to be one of
the leading reasons (VOW to Hire Heroes Act, 2011). As a result of rising unemployment
for this population, the VOW Act was signed into law and requires all service members
to attend the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) prior to leaving the military (VOW to
Hire Heroes Act, 2011). Faurer, Rogers-Brodersen, and Bailie, (2014) suggest the
program is considered effective as most service members report finding a job as a result
of completing the course. Although this is a step in the right direction to addressing the
unemployment challenges veterans face, it does not explain what factors lead to success
during transition while others fail.
The prevailing theory offered by the White House to explain the struggle veterans
face, highlights a different licensing and credentialing process for the military community
that is not shared or accepted by the civilian community. When a military member leaves
the service they are often lacking in civilian credentials for the same position, requiring
them to redo tests and apply for licenses already obtained while on active duty. This
situation has been recognized by President Obama and is being addressed through efforts
28
resulting from the VOW act. Many options are being championed to help directly
transition the service member into employment within the same career field. These
efforts aim to credential military training while on active duty or reduce the time required
for the civilian process based on military experience (National Economic Council and the
President’s Council of Economic Advisors, 2013). In addition, a number of non-profit
organizations have recently been formed across the US to address the challenges veterans
are facing.
Mentoring for Career Development
Mentoring is not uncommon in the military to guide the careers of service
members. Career planners in the military exist to aid in career development through
coaching and mentoring (Knouse, 2001). Active duty personnel are familiar with formal
and informal mentor relationships, although they are generally focused solely on
developing their military career and not life after transition. This can be seen by senior
leaders who reported having numerous mentor relationships within their chain of
command, yet failed to identify external mentorships (Smith et al., 2005, p. 37).
Throughout their career, service members are insulated from the corporate world.
Military bases are often isolated and gated to keep out civilians. Most active duty
personnel are unaware of the importance mentoring has in the civilian environment for
corporate career satisfaction, commitment, and mobility (Bierema & Hill, 2005; Ragins,
Cotton, & Miller, 2000). Renn, Steinbauer, Taylor and Detwiler (2014) found that career
support mentoring of college students reduced negative behaviors like impulsiveness and
procrastination while increasing career self-efficacy. College students are similar to
veterans as both are moving into employment within the corporate workforce for the first
29
time. Programs providing career support mentoring to veterans who are transitioning
from the military would likely have similar benefits.
In the corporate sector mentoring has been proven to lead to advanced career
opportunities, higher pay, and increased job satisfaction. Aspects of these findings are
true within the military community as well. Saperstein, Viera, & Firnhabe (2012) found
that mentorship among Navy family physicians led to high levels of job satisfaction.
Having a mentor relationship is not enough to result in success; it must also be positive.
Ragins et al., (2000) found the satisfaction in a mentor relationship is essential to the
quality of the outcome, whether it be career enhancement, satisfaction, or pay increase. It
is not uncommon for military members to have mentor relationships while in the service,
and the research suggests increased benefits to job search satisfaction by veterans using a
corporate mentor to aid with the transition process.
Barriers to Mentorship
One of the barriers to service members receiving corporate mentorship is their
limited interaction with potential mentors outside of the military. It is rare for individuals
in the military to work with corporate entities during a routine workday. Higgins and
Kram (2001) suggested this presents a low-range network, which may also be low-
density due to the nature of the military environment and frequent relocations. Moving
repeatedly prevents the service member from developing long-term relationships with
neighbors, friends and colleagues, reducing interactions to that of a networking quality,
thereby limiting mentor potential.
While on active duty, most military personnel are living somewhere other than
where they wish to reside after service, creating another barrier to locating and forming
30
crucial mentor connections (Knouse, 2001). GWOT-era veterans are likely to have
deployed to a foreign country, which adds stress and uncertainty to returning home
(Mezias & Scandura, 2005). These challenges can be overcome through mentor
relationships, provided the obstacles caused by distance can be overcome. Because
service members are stationed around the world and are often deployed within a year of
leaving the service, for corporate mentorship to be effective while on active duty, it may
need to be performed in a virtual environment (Bierma & Hill, 2005; Knouse, 2001).
The lack of a well-developed network and being separated physically by distance
prevents service members from connecting and engaging with potential informal mentors
who can lead them to career success. Corporate mentors often help their protégés through
sponsorship, and this might aid service members obtain employment quickly during the
transition process (Bierema & Hill 2005). Sponsorship is important in the employment
process as mentors are typically individuals in positions of power and can influence the
career development of the mentee (Ehrich, 1994). Van Eck Peluchette and Jeanquart
(2000) found this relationship to be essential in the early stage of career development,
something Veterans find themselves dealing with as they transition to a new workforce.
Finding a mentor is extremely difficult due to repeated moves and deployments as
well as constantly changing email addresses. Veterans are less likely to maintain effective
networking connections, especially in their hometown or area of relocation post service.
Approximately 58% of GWOT- era veterans have deployed and are likely to experience
networking challenges when entering the civilian job market (Martinez & Bingham,
2011). Deployments are periods of time serving outside the US, including Kuwait, Iraq,
Afghanistan as well as other countries and aboard naval vessels.
31
Each time a service member deploys to a foreign country, they must obtain a new
email address on the local server, and in most situations lose access to the previous email
server upon return to their duty station. The security programs in place to support the
military network do not allow for cloud hosting, as this could compromise the essential
information stored on military servers. Social media sites are also closely guarded on a
military system, often preventing the service member from having access. Therefore
repeated deployments and relocations affect the individuals’ ability to maintain their
networking connections that could lead to informal or formal mentor relationships.
Networking encompasses a broad range of behaviors and can influence a number
of areas in someone’s life. For this reason networking is defined as “proactive behavior
leading to career benefit “ (Forret & Dougherty, 2004, p. 420). In many situations
networking is a peer-to-peer effort with little direction or goals (Ehrich, 1994). Ehrich
(1994) continues to argue that this type of relationship can “have limited effectiveness in
career advancement” (p. 7). Although networking is more accessible to the transitioning
service member, it does not provide the necessary focus and direction for career
development and employment success. Therefore it is essential for veterans to engage in
networking efforts as a means to obtain a mentor relationship.
Gaps in Literature
Navigating the differences between the military and corporate culture is
something service members cannot do on their own. One result of this failure is the
higher than normal unemployment for veterans, resulting in a need for a strategy to
overcome this problem. Mentorship is an accepted civilian practice to aid in career
development. There is a gap in the research around specific reasons for veterans’
32
unemployment, and actionable programs that can reduce the challenges faced by veterans
during the transition process. There is not enough understanding of the way culture
impacts the difference between satisfaction in the military and corporate work
environment. Although the Military Benefit Association found that expectations were
different between transitioning veterans and those already in the workforce around use of
military experience, there is no program to address this disparity (Douglas, 2013). In
addition, there is very limited data to support the importance mentorship plays on the job
search process for veterans and factors resulting in successfully obtaining employment.
It is currently unknown what specific factors help veterans obtain employment
post -service. There is no research indicating why some transitioning veterans obtain jobs
during terminal leave while others exhaust their unemployment benefits in pursuit of full
time employment. The unknown justification for the high unemployment rates of
veterans does not help to predict the future employment trend for the one million service
members transitioning over the next five years (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
2014). There is no specified reason for success in the transition process, or
recommendation on effective ways to navigate career transition for this population.
Previous studies show there is an impact on employment potential for veterans
with PTSD and disability, along with reluctance from this population to seek assistance.
Other factors that may impact employment potential include the inability to translate
military experience, job reduction in the government sector, and reduced ability to
network and find mentor relationships due to repeated deployments. Research has shown
mentoring to be critical for career development and satisfaction. To date, the literature
has not combined the impact of mentorship prior to transition from the military with time
33
to employment. This study examined the impact of corporate mentorship prior to
transition to determine the impact it has on time to employment. It also examined the
relationship between attitudes towards mentorship and the perception of transition
difficulty. Understand what factors impact time to employment for transitioning veterans
can reduce unemployment for this population.
34
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Overview
This study was a quantitative design to explore the interaction between the
attitude of service members toward corporate mentorship and their behavior as witnessed
by engaging with a mentor prior to the transition process. The researcher assumed
behaviors were directly correlated to that of attitudes. It was also believed that specific
actions cause certain veterans to be successful in meeting employment goals post
transition while other veterans fail, ending up on unemployment. One theory assumed
veterans who were successful in the transition process used a civilian mentor. By
examining the relationship between mentoring and time to employment after military
service, it was possible to identify successful transition strategies in an effort to reduce
veteran unemployment. The study looked at the transition process of only active duty
service members, and participants were veterans who completed their transition at least
six months prior to leaving the military.
Four research questions were examined. What is the difference in time to
employment for transitioning veterans with and without a mentor relationship? What is
the relationship between attitude and the behavior of obtaining a civilian mentor prior to
leaving the service? What are the differences in perception of difficulty during the
transition process between veterans with and without mentors? Are there demographic
factors impacting time to employment for transitioning service members?
35
Research Design
Population and Sampling Procedures
This study examined the attitudes and behaviors of military service members
during the transition process. Because it is difficult to measure factors leading to success
or failure during the actual transition process, responses were included only for those who
have been out of active duty military service for a minimum of six months. This time was
specifically chosen because it is the standard length of time for unemployment insurance.
In addition, the six-month mark is the point where prolonged unemployment begins to
increase the likelihood of other problems (Krueger, Mueller, Davis, & Sahin, 2011).
Individuals who end up on unemployment for longer than six months may be facing
additional challenges.
Ensuring participants have been off active duty for at least six months was
deliberate in an effort to guarantee they have at least attempted to obtain full time
employment. In addition, the six-month gap was intentionally designed to provide
enough time post-service in order to evaluate the effects of mentoring support and
whether or not this impacts the ability to obtain employment faster. This is critical, as
most veterans desire to be employed by their end of active service to guarantee their
ability to meet financial obligations. Many veterans try to obtain employment while still
in the military, and some may even start a new job while on active duty. This situation is
unique to the military population, as the veterans end- of -active service (EAS) date is a
non-negotiable end of their military contract. However, they have the option of using
saved vacation time just before their EAS date, as a way to receive income while not
being required to work. This time is known as terminal leave, and the date one starts this
36
is considered the last day they are required to show up for work. The timing of an EAS
date, and that of the start to terminal leave, also plays a factor into other things relative to
employment, such as the start of the school calendar year and hiring cycles.
The dynamic differences around the EAS date made it necessary to examine time
to employment in weeks as a means to identify trends leading to quicker employment
results. Not everyone has the need to obtain employment post military service as some go
straight into college or take time off post- retirement as they are still receiving an income.
For this reason questions were posed to explore reasons for the delay in searching for a
job and when one was obtained (before or after EAS). Questions about rank and
education of participants at time of discharge were used to determine differences in
employment potential for the average veteran with four or more years of service, (but less
than 20), versus individuals who retired. The major difference between those without a
retirement and the retired population is the ongoing partial payment for retired veterans,
reducing the need to obtain immediate employment. Because the financial incentive
differs, it was desired to not have a large population of responses from the retired
community.
Reservists and National Guard members were screened out of the population due
to their propensity to be employed in the corporate workforce while simultaneous serving
in the military. This leads to different challenges during the transition on and off active
duty, and would not be generalizable to the challenges facing the traditional active duty
population. Reservists and National Guard members have a greater chance to network
with corporate employees and potential mentors, therefore it is expected they will have a
37
more favorable opinion on the transition process and mentorship use than their active
duty counterparts with less access.
Selection of Participants
The researcher planned to obtain a national random sample of veterans through
the Veterans Affairs (VA). This is the largest federal agency for veterans, and they
provide healthcare and support to Post 9/11 veterans for up to five years after their
transition, providing a pool of thousands of possible participants. In addition, this
organization is the national group tasked with providing veteran benefits, such as
education and employment assistance. They provide employment assistance to veterans
post- service and would have an invested interest in reducing time to employment.
The VA has access to the largest number of Post 9/11 veterans compared to other
resources, resulting in a sample that would be generalizable to the population. The
researcher was unable to obtain the necessary information from the VA in a timely
manner, and as a result reached out to a number of other veteran organizations to assist
with survey distribution. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
organization was contacted, being the next largest public organization for GWOT era
Veterans, with over 300,000 members (11% of the total population). Unfortunately they
were unwilling to provide assistance at the time due to other priorities.
The researcher aimed to obtain 300-500 responses with intent to contact 2000 or
more participants. After being denied support by multiple agencies, the researcher relied
on her extensive non-profit and personal network to share the survey link requesting
participation. This reduced the desired randomized sample population, yielding higher
potential for response bias and resulting in a convenience sample. The veteran
38
community is extremely tight-knit, and often willing to help out a fellow service member
when it aligns with their interests. As this effort was primarily driven through an email
campaign, along with Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter posts, the researcher was unable
to get an accurate idea of the number of potential participants. Because she posted the
link to communities with thousands of members, she assumed more than 2000
individuals were made aware of the potential to participate. Non-profit organizations
contacted to share the survey link included Hire America’s Heroes and The Mission
Continues. Many Student Veteran Organizations (SVO) on campuses across the US
shared the survey link via email. Friends across the world reposted and responded to the
Facebook post and veteran groups throughout LinkedIn responded to the survey via the
status update. The survey was originally planned to be open for two weeks to capture
responses, but was left open for the entire month of July,2014 to ensure a large enough
sample size.
As a result of these efforts and support from other agencies such as Marine For
Life, 168 Veterans started the survey, with 131 completing all required questions. The
largest population of responses came from the Marine Corps (37%), which matched the
expectations of the researcher. However, participants were from all branches of the
military, including the Coast Guard (with 4 participants). The intent of the larger sample
population was to obtain enough data for analysis. The participants were also distributed
across the various military ranks, with E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, O-3 and O-5 being the top
response populations. This is consistent with the researcher’s expectations of the most
popular ranks for veterans at the time of transition.
39
An instrument did not exist to address the research questions. The questionnaire
was created by the researcher and validated by subject matter experts. There is no
reliability or content validity for the instrument. Questions were grouped into three
segments: participation requirements, career questions and demographics. The career
questions had multiple categories: mentor experience, attitudes, and employment status.
Instrumentation
All participants were required to complete an informed consent before continuing
the survey (see Appendix A). This provided information on the purpose of the study, as
well as contact information for the researcher and dissertation committee. Definitions
were used to clarify the difference between mentoring and networking to help reduce
uncertainty in responses. In addition, definitions were provided to explain the meaning
behind a military mentor versus corporate mentor. This was important, as many veterans
are likely to consider the career advice they receive from other active duty members to be
mentoring, although most individuals on active duty lack corporate employment
experience. The definition also highlighted the difference between military career advice
and that of individuals post- service. Finally, additional resources were provided to those
needing employment, counseling, or mental assistance. These efforts were taken to help
counter any negative emotional reaction to completing the survey.
After agreeing to the informed consent, participants were able to begin an online
questionnaire to assess their experiences, behaviors, and attitudes (see Appendix B). This
method was chosen as the most effective option as participants were geographically
dispersed and contacted via the Internet through social media and email. The researcher
obtained a free student account from an online survey distributor named Qualtrics, as she
40
was familiar with completing surveys on this platform from her work with The Mission
Continues. Other methods for survey distribution were considered, and it was determined
they would have taken much longer and would not have been cost -effective. The online
questionnaire was also chosen as the best tool to use because it simplifies the speed for
the to gather and analyze data. Service members are familiar with accessing websites and
using email while on active duty, so it was expected this method would not impede their
ability to respond. This was also the easiest way to request information, as the survey was
shared multiple ways including email, LinkedIn posts and updates, Facebook posts, and
Twitter updates.
The researcher developed the questions used in the questionnaire based on the
research questions, and testing was not done to ensure validity or reliability. Subject
matter experts were asked to review the questions to aid in establishing validity. Because
this is the first survey of its type and the research was done in a limited amount of time,
efforts were not taken to ensure reliability. This leaves an opportunity for future research
in this area to determine consistency in the results.
Participants were asked at the beginning to answer a few specific questions to
determine whether they could complete the survey. They could not continue if they did
not meet the required criteria for each response. This was done to ensure the sample met
the required demographic. These areas were: asking their period of service (to ensure
participants were from the GWOT era), separation date (to identify those veterans at least
six months post service), and the type of service (to eliminate Nation Guard and
Reservists). The remaining questions were divided into three segments: career transition,
attitude and behavior towards mentor relationships, and demographic data. Questions
41
from the career transition were focused on the time to employment post -service, use of a
mentor during the transition, and job search strategies. There were multiple questions
involving Likert scales about attitudes toward mentors and whether or not they would
recommend the use of a mentor during the transition process. One question assessed the
veteran’s opinion of the difficulty of the transition process. The final segment of
demographic questions gathered information on gender, rank, age, education, and combat
experience.
Most questions were multiple-choice in format with only one possible response.
This required participants to provide responses to be quickly aggregated and analyzed.
There were a few open- ended and multiple selection questions, but these were limited.
The questionnaire did not address the perception of the transition program,
recommendations for improvements, or the importance of networking on the transition
process. Questions about mentor relationships and networking included a recap of the
definition, and a paragraph was included during the informed consent to establish the
difference between networking and mentoring. These definitions also explained the
nuances between a military and corporate mentor. Very few questions targeted the
effectiveness of networking, although a few were included to determine if a mentorship is
essential to the job search process, or if networking alone would suffice.
Research Variables
The independent variables looked at mentor attitudes, type of mentor relationship,
and demographic data such as age, rank, and education as well as combat experiences.
The dependent variable focused primarily on time to employment, although when looking
at perception on the difficulty of transition, the type of mentor relationship was a
42
dependent variable. Data was analyzed using multiple statistical methods including
multinomial logistic regression, independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Chi-
Square tests to determine patterns between variables.
Assumptions and Limitations
Methodological assumptions. The researcher used the quantitative method to
gather information on Post 9/11 veterans who were out of the service at least six months
in order to identify correlational relationships between attitudes, behaviors, employment
status, and time to employment. A survey was the best method to obtain answers to these
questions in order to understand human behavior and predict attitudes to overcome during
military transition from the service (Alreck & Settle, 2004). The online survey method
provided an opportunity to collect nationwide data in order to support or dispute the
researchers hypothesis (Dobrovolny & Fuentes 2008, p. 8). Pernice (1996) states that a
quantitative design draws its strength from “its replicability and generalizability to other
settings and circumstances” (p. 340). The intent of the study was to use the quantitative
technique to develop transition strategies for successful career transition in service
members.
It was assumed participants who completed the survey likely show a bias toward
the topic or had invested interest in the subject. Individuals who were likely to obtain
mentors may have been more willing to complete a survey request, as they may see this
topic more favorably than others. In addition, those with mentors are likely to show an
understanding about the importance of a mentor relationship for career success.
Individuals who were unemployed for periods of time may have been embarrassed or
ashamed of this situation and were less inclined to respond.
43
Limitations. There were limitations to the study, as it looked only at GWOT- era
veterans and did not take into account the factors leading to unemployment rates for other
eras. It may have failed to capture data for those most in need, as they may be homeless
or unable to obtain Internet access if unemployed. The study may have failed to meet
internal and external validity, as the questions could have been misinterpreted or
participants failed to directly associate the effects of mentorship with employment. In
some cases, there may have been responses not considered as a possibility, affecting the
validity of the questions. For example, individuals were asked to determine their branch
of service. In rare circumstances participants may have served time in more than one part
of the armed forces, or served on active and reserve duty.
Due to time constraints and limited research in this area, reliability from repeated
testing does not exist, and future research would help determine if the results obtained are
consistent. In addition, the presence of a convenience sample eliminates the ability to
generalize the results of the study. This is a major limitation, and future research must use
a random sample. The inability to use an existing instrument for measurement was a
significant limiting factor, and more research needs to be done to determine construct
validity of the questions and reliability of responses to the survey.
Delimitations. One flaw introduced to the study was the criteria for participants
to continue. By requiring responses only from the GWOT-era, this narrowed the scope of
the research to the most relevant population of veterans. A number of changes have
occurred in the employment process over the past decade, predominately with the
introduction of online applications. These changes have impacted the job search process,
resulting in different challenges immediately post -service for other eras. In addition,
44
questions about the difficulties in obtaining employment post deployment for older
generations relied heavily on memory, which may be tainted by interpretation of the
present day. Veteran unemployment has received unprecedented media attention over the
past few years, and this may have influenced opinions.
There are language differences between the branches, and participants may have
misinterpreted the difference between terminal leave and end of service. There is a lot of
variation in the time when each member begins looking for employment, and some
individuals may have planned to attend school full time while receiving a monthly
stipend from the GI Bill rather than look for work. In these situations the participants may
not have felt the need to obtain a mentor until late in their college career.
Access and Permission Information
The researcher contacted the VA to request approval to complete the study. The
VA will not release private contact information, although they have a request process that
will provide researchers with names and mailing addresses for veterans living in specific
populations. Unfortunately this would not have met the timeline of the research. In
addition, the VA does not distinguish among the populations of veterans or the amount of
time post- service, leading to a potential for participants who would not qualify for the
research receiving a survey invite. For these reasons the VA was not used as a resource
for population sampling.
All participants were required to read and agree to the informed consent (see
Appendix A) before they were given access to answer the research questions. Because the
lack of employment can lead to emotional distress, financial strain, and depression,
participants were given contact information to their local VA Disabled Veterans Outreach
45
Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) to provide
employment assistance. This information was provided via multiple websites, as some
provide local resources where the individual can add their zip code to locate an office.
Individuals who requested follow- up contact as a result of the survey were provided the
opportunity to include their contact data as either an address or email address without
using their name to ensure anonymity. The researcher has committed to make the results
available to anyone who selected this option.
A quantitative study was conducted using an online survey to gather data from
geographically disbursed veterans. The questions were created to assess time to
employment, type of mentor used, attitudes towards mentor relationships, and
demographic detail to identify trends. The survey had limited validity and reliability.
Participants were from a convenience sample of volunteers and were obtained from
online social media from the researcher’s network. They included participants from all
five major branches of the military, a comparable gender sample, with a wide range of
ages and a variety of ranks.
46
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Each year approximately 155,000 active duty service members transition from the
service, either due to completed contractual obligation or retirement (BLS, 2014). Over
the next three years an additional 84,000 troops will transition from the military to meet
the drawdown requirements set by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2013 (DoD,
2013). Veteran unemployment has been on the rise over the past decade, and the 2008
recession has hit this population harder than their nonveteran counterparts (BLS, 2012).
Understanding the factors leading to veteran employment can help improve the transition
process, reducing the unemployment burden on the government.
The demographic details highlight the branch of service, age, gender, combat
status, rank, current employment status, and mentor relationships of the sample, in an
effort to provide generalizability of the data. Analysis of the questionnaire was completed
by the research questions as well as including additional findings of interest. Finally the
section will conclude with an assessment of the data collection procedure.
Descriptive Statistics
There were 168 individuals who began the survey, but a portion of participants
failed to complete most of the questions. As a result, only 131 completed the majority of
the questions and were used in the analysis, or 78% of those who started the survey.
Participants who failed to complete questions about mentorship status or the number of
weeks to employment were eliminated from the analysis, which reduced the sample size
to less than 131. Survey participants were a convenience sample and not randomly
47
distributed through the population. To accurately compare sample sizes, analysis only
included responses for all survey questions compared for each statistic.
Participants came from all five major branches of the military: Marine Corps (49),
Army (30), Navy (26), Air Force (15), Coast Guard (3) and 8 reporting as Reservists or
as a member of the National Guard. It was expected the Coast Guard would be the
smallest sample size as they are the smallest military service. The Air Force and Navy are
approximately 50% larger than the Marine Corps, with the Army being the largest at 2.5
times the size, so these results are not generalizable across all branches of the military.
There were no responses from individuals aged 65 or older, which was expected
based on the requirement for GWOT-era only participants. It is unlikely those serving in
the military since 2001 would be 65 or older. The sample includes a variety of the
remaining age groups, with 91.6% falling between 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54 years of age.
The small sample size for the youngest and next oldest age groups (18-24 and 55-64)
were expected, as a traditional enlistment period is at least 4 years. Individuals cannot
join until they are at least 18 and would be leaving the military 22 years or older in most
cases. The small sample size for the older population was also expected, as it is less likely
those serving since 2001 would be age 55 and older. In addition, veterans can begin
retiring after 20 years of service, or between 38-42 years of age or those entering
immediately after high school and college. For this reason, most individuals are less
likely to be retiring from the military in their 50’s.
Although one person chose not to respond for gender, the remaining sample size
was greater in female responses than the population serving in the military. Currently,
15% of the military force is female (Pellerin, 2013), which is slightly lower than the
48
sample, with responses from 20% female (26), 80% male (104). All but one participant
was honorably discharged, with the remaining individual receiving a medical discharge.
Individuals without an honorable or medical discharge status face additional difficulties
in barriers to employment, and would not have been suitable for the purpose of this study.
Most veterans experienced a combat environment (78%), where they were shot at,
bombed, rocketed, or felt a sense of physical danger while serving outside of the US. This
is consistent with the corporate hiring myth that many veterans have seen combat and are
thus affected by results from this experience, such as PTSD. There was a fairly broad
range in the ranks of participants at the time of discharge, with most of the sample
leaving the military as an: E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, O-3, and O-5. This was expected, as
veterans are likely to retire at O-5, E-7, and E-8. Those getting out after their initial
commitment is complete are more likely to be E-4’s, E-5’s, and O-3’s, based on
traditional promotion rates and enlistment periods.
Just over half of the veterans responded are currently employed full time (51%),
and 21% considered themselves unemployed and not in a student status. This is above the
unemployment rates for veterans, but consistent with economic unemployment. There
were 17 part-time and full time students, and only 4 are currently attending school full
time without employment. The GI Bill benefits have drastically improved over the past
four years, and many veterans can often afford to live on the VA stipend without being
employed. This option is exercised by both enlisted personnel and officers, although
enlisted individuals are often returning to school for four years to obtain their bachelor’s
degree, while officers (who already have their bachelor’s degrees) traditionally work on a
two- year long master’s program.
49
A small portion of the sample reported having a civilian mentor during their
military transition (16%). A total of 21 participants reported using a civilian mentor, with
10 having both a civilian and military mentor. The majority of the sample (66%) did not
have a civilian or military mentor, and 24 individuals only had a military mentor. A total
of 45 responses out of 131 were using either a civilian or military mentor (34%). The low
number of participants with mentor experience is a concern in the statistical analysis.
Results and Findings
Research Question 1
What is the difference in time to employment for transitioning veterans with, and
without, a mentor relationship?
Two types of mentor relationships were evaluated in the questionnaire. Questions
asked about the presence of a corporate and military mentor, and results were broken
down into six possible outcomes. A military mentor is defined as someone who provided
career guidance or advice while on active duty for the military career. A corporate mentor
is defined as someone not on active duty who provides civilian career advice. Results are
broken down into the following categories: Corporate Mentor only, Corporate and
Military Mentor, Military Mentor only, and No Mentor. Table 4.1 shows the sample size
of each group, the average number of weeks to employment, and standard deviation.
50
Table 4.1 Mean Number of Weeks to Employment by Mentor Relationship Mentor Relationship N M SD
Corporate Mentor Only 11 9.73 9.77
Corporate and Military Mentor 10 10.60 7.38
Military Mentor Only 24 20.17 20.52
No Mentor 84 23.32 22.12
To compare time to employment within the four key mentor relationship groups
(corporate mentor only, corporate and military mentor, military mentor only, and no
mentor), a one-way ANOVA test was done and found the following: F (3, 125) = 2.358,
p=.075. Levene’s test for equality of variances was significant for this test, F (3,125) =
16.942, p=0.00. This suggested equal variances are not assumed for each group. Post hoc
comparisons using the Tukey HSD test do not indicate statistical differences between the
four groups, although further examination to determine if the corporate mentor only, and
corporate and military mentor groups, could be considered as one. There is no statistical
difference for transitioning veterans only using a military mentor compared to those with
a corporate mentor, with a corporate and military mentor, and those without a mentor.
51
Table 4.2
One-way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test results
Mentor Status Mean Difference Sig
Corporate Mentor Only Corporate and Military Mentor -.873 1.000
Corporate Mentor Only Military Mentor Only -10.439 .496
Corporate Mentor Only Without Any Mentor -13.594 .164
Corporate and Military Mentor Corporate Mentor Only .873 1.000
Corporate and Military Mentor Military Mentor Only -9.567 .597
Corporate and Military Mentor Without Any Mentor -12.721 .247
Military Mentor Only Corporate Mentor Only 10.439 .496
Military Mentor Only Corporate and Military Mentor 9.567 .597
Military Mentor Only Without Any Mentor -3.155 .908
Without Any Mentor Corporate Mentor Only 13.594 .164
Without Any Mentor Corporate and Military Mentor 12.721 .247
Without Any Mentor Military Mentor Only 3.155 .908
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
These results do not suggest a signficant difference on the time to employment for
transitioning veterans based on a mentor relationship or lack thereof, although sample
size for corporate mentor and corporate and military mentor is small at 10 and 11
respectively. The presence of a military mentor did not show a significant difference
between these two populations. Because the corporate mentor sample sizes were small
and suggest no significant differences, a comparison was done to compare the three key
mentor relationship groups (corporate mentor, military mentor only, and no mentor). The
52
corporate and military mentor relationship was not statistically significant on its own;
however, it does not answer the question about the impact of a corporate mentor on time
to employment, and whether a military mentor makes a difference.
A one-way ANOVA test was done for these three groups and found the
following: F (2, 126) = 3.560, p=.031. Levene’s test for equality of variances was
significant for this test, F (2,126) = 25.186, p=0.00. This suggested equal variances are
not assumed for each group. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated
that the mean score for those with a corporate mentor (M= 10.14, SD=8.510) was
significantly different than those without a corporate mentor (M=23.32, SD=22.116)
However, there is no statistical difference for transitioning veterans only using a military
mentor (M=20.17, SD=20.519) compared to those veterans with a corporate mentor and
those without a mentor.
Table 4.3
One-way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test results with combined Corporate Mentor
scores
Mentor Status Mean Difference Sig
Corporate Mentor (with or
without Military Mentor)
Military Mentor Only -10.024 .226
Corporate Mentor (with or
without Military Mentor)
Without Any Mentor -13.179* .023
Military Mentor Only Corporate Mentor (with or
without Military Mentor)
10.024 .226
Military Mentor Only Without Any Mentor -3.155 .780
53
Without Any Mentor Corporate Mentor (with or
without Military Mentor)
13.179* .023
Without Any Mentor Military Mentor Only 3.155 .780
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
These results suggest the presence of a corporate mentor, with or without a
military mentor, has a signficant difference on the time to employment for transitioning
veterans as compared to those without any mentor. The presence of a military mentor
only did not show a significant difference between these two populations, nor when
comparing its presence with the corporate mentor. These results were further examined
with an independent samples t-test comparing time to employment for veterans, looking
only at those with and without a corporate mentor. There was a signficant difference in
the scores for with a corporate mentor(M=10.14, SD=8.510) and without (M=22.62,
SD=21.718) a corporate mentor; t(79.031) =-4.463, p=0.000. In this case Levene’s test
for equalitiy of variances is again signficant inasmuch as the groups have unequal
variance.
The results suggest a directional difference for transitioning veterans between
those with and without a corporate mentor. Time to employment is significantly reduced
for those with a corporate mentor; however, the groups did not have equal variance. Out
of the 131 responses, only 21 (16%) of the population used a corporate mentor prior to
their end of obligated service from the military. In a follow- up question, 79 individuals
reported never having used a corporate mentor. This behavior would suggest a negative
attitude toward mentorship. However, the responses show differently.
54
Research Question 2
What is the relationship between attitude and the behavior of obtaining a
corporate mentor prior to leaving the service?
To understand more about the attitudes towards corporate mentors, five questions
were asked across a seven-point Likert scale. Subjects were asked about their attitude
towards mentors, and given the following choices: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat
Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree. The mode response is listed below for each question, broken down between
those veterans with and without a Corporate Mentor.
Table 4.4
Mode Responses for Mentor Attitude Questions by Corporate Mentor Relationship
Question No Corporate Mentor N Corporate Mentor n
Do you believe a mentor is critical for long-term career development?
Strongly Agree
46
Agree
9
Do you believe a mentor is required for obtaining a job post service?
Somewhat Agree 23 Somewhat Agree 7
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your long-term career goals?
Strongly Agree 47 Strongly Agree 9
Do you believe a mentor can help you get promoted throughout your career?
Strongly Agree 37 Agree 9
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your financial career goals?
Strongly Agree 27 Somewhat Agree 7
55
Transitioning veterans, regardless of the presence of a corporate mentor, showed
positive attitudes toward mentoring across all areas. The majorities of responses fell into
Strongly Agree for those without a corporate mentor, and were split between Somewhat
Agree and Agree for those with a corporate mentor. The two groups agreed on the same
response for only two categories: believing a mentor can help one reach long-term career
goals, and believing a mentor is required for obtaining a job post -service. In addition, it
is worth noting the responses toward requiring a mentor to aid in obtaining a job post
service received the lowest score out of the five questions (Somewhat Agree), although
time to employment suggests this is more effective than making the transition without a
mentor. These results are also broken down by the median responses and interquartile
range.
Table 4.5
Median Responses with Interquartile Range for Mentor Attitude Questions by Corporate
versus No Corporate Mentor Relationship
Question No Corporate Mentor IQR Corporate Mentor IQR
Do you believe a mentor is critical for long-term career development?
Agree
2
Agree
1
Do you believe a mentor is required for obtaining a job post- service?
Somewhat Agree 3 Somewhat Agree 2
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your long-term career goals?
Agree 1 Agree 1
Do you believe a mentor can help you get promoted throughout your career?
Agree 2 Agree 2
56
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your financial career goals?
Agree 3 Somewhat Agree 1
The mode and median responses suggest attitudes toward mentor relationships
were positive, although the limited number of transitioning veterans with a corporate
mentor shows this does not correlate to a trend in behavior. To examine the results from
this area even further, responses were combined into three choices: Agree, Neither, and
Disagree. A Chi-Square analysis was completed on the responses for Agree and Disagree
between participants with and without a corporate mentor. This indicates whether those
with a corporate mentor are likely to have a strong attitude towards the statements about
mentor relationships. Responses for Neither Agree nor Disagree were not considered for
this test. The table below shows the Chi-Square results of responses to questions about
attitudes toward mentor relationships for the nominal categories of Agree and Disagree
between those with and without a corporate mentor.
Table 4.6
Chi-Square results on Attitudes towards Mentorship by Corporate Mentor Relationship
Question Agree Disagree Chi-Square Do you believe a mentor is critical for long-term career development?
Without Corporate Mentor
With Corporate Mentor
87 21
6 0
1.430
Do you believe a mentor is required for obtaining a job post- service?
Without Corporate Mentor
With Corporate Mentor
61 13
29 4
0.469
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your long-term career goals?
Without Corporate Mentor
With Corporate Mentor
89 20
5 0
1.113
Do you believe a mentor can help
Without Corporate Mentor
86
9
2.056
57
you get promoted throughout your career?
With Corporate Mentor 20 0
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your financial career goals?
Without Corporate Mentor
With Corporate Mentor
77 17
13 0
1.288
The Chi-Square test illustrates the lack of statistical difference between veterans
with or without a corporate mentor on their beliefs of mentor relationships. It does
indicate veterans have a positive view of mentorship for career development, and they
recognize that a mentor can help in reaching long-term goals, development, promotion,
and even financial goals. However, the low number of participants with corporate
mentors suggests that attitudes do not correlate with behavior in this instance. Additional
research is needed to understand the relationship between attitudes and behaviors around
corporate mentorship. There is one area that is associated with the effect of obtaining
mentorship prior to transition.
Research Question 3
What are the differences in perception of difficulty during the transition process
between veterans with and without corporate mentors?
The lack of statistical significance between attitudes toward mentorship and the
behavior of having a mentor prior to transition is not the only way to see if there is a
difference between these populations. To gauge whether or not a corporate mentor had an
impact on the perception of the transition, one question assessed perception of difficulty.
Subjects were asked to rate career transition from the military on a five-point Likert
scale: Very Easy, Easy, Neutral, Difficult, and Very Difficult. A Pearson Correlation was
calculated to assess the relationship between mentor status and the perception on the
58
transition from the military. There was a positive correlation using the 2-tailed test
between the two variables, r=.228, n=129, p=.009. The mode response was Difficult,
with 51 responses. To reduce the number of variables, Very Easy and Easy were
combined as well as Difficult and Very Difficult. The Neutral responses were not
considered for this test. The table below shows the differences between those veterans
with and without a corporate mentor by perception of transition and the Chi-squares and
P values.
Table 4.7
Chi-Square Results for Perception on Transition by Corporate Mentor Relationship
Mentor Relationship Easy Difficult Chi-square P value
Corporate Mentor 8 9 5.3692 0.020495*
No Corporate Mentor 19 73
*The result is significant at p < 0.05.
Although there was not a statistical correlation between the attitudes toward
mentorship and behavior, these results suggest a significant difference between the two
populations on their perception of difficulty in the transition process. This might suggest
the presence of a mentor is meaningful after the fact. Further examination into this
difference is necessary due to the low number of responses with a corporate mentor.
Research Question 4
How does age impact time to employment for transitioning service members?
There are a number of variables that can impact time to employment for
transitioning service members. The results of the regression analysis indicate age is just
barely significant, R2 = .03, F(1, 127) = 3.98, p<.05. Although age is correlated, there
59
were only two subjects reporting at the oldest age option, and this limitation is a cause for
bias in the data. Age may also be strongly correlated to rank upon discharge and
education level at time of leaving the service. This is not unexpected, as rank and
educational opportunities would increase with age. In addition, those entering the service
as officers are older and already have a degree, thus skewing the results at time of
departure. A graph of the results is included below.
Figure 4.1. Regression scatterplot of age on time to employment.
The concept of mentorship is not something often discussed in the military
environment. For this reason it is assumed that younger veterans are less likely to be
familiar with the reasons for, or importance of, a mentor relationship. In addition, the lack
of formal mentor relationships would make it difficult for veterans to understand how to
become an effective mentee in the mentor relationship. Assuming that maturity (as
measured by age) would increase the likelihood of a transitioning service member to
obtain a corporate mentor prior to leaving the military, an independent samples t-test was
conducted. There was no signficant difference in the scores for with (M=3.05, SD=.865)
and without (M=2.80, SD=.984) a corporate mentor; t(127) =1.091, p=0.277. It was
expected that younger participants would report lower instances of mentor relationships.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Weeks to employment
Age
Predicted weeks to employment
60
However, the results indicate that age was not a significant factor in the decision to obtain
a corporate mentor prior to transition.
Summary
In summary, these results show a varied picture of the effects impacting time to
employment for veterans in the transition process. Having a corporate mentor shows a
significant difference in time to employment. Veterans agree that a mentor is critical for
long-term career growth, obtaining a job post- service, helping to reach long-term career
goals, getting promoted, and reaching financial goals. However, these attitudes do not
differ between those with and without a corporate mentor, indicating no difference in
behavior for those who seek out a corporate mentor. These outcomes suggest attitudes
toward mentorship are not correlated with behavior. Surprisingly, the one area with the
least amount of agreement of the mentor questions was on the requirement of a mentor in
the transition process. This may explain why many veterans do not feel it is necessary to
seek out a corporate mentor prior to leaving the military, although they do see the
importance of a mentor relationship for career growth.
The perception of difficulty in the transition process showed a significant
difference between the views of veterans with and without a corporate mentor. Further
studies need to explore how a corporate mentor plays a difference for the veteran
navigating the nuances of obtaining employment post-military service. Demographic
variables show a number of correlations, some which were expected. Time to
employment was positively correlated with age and negatively correlated with branch of
service. Finally, maturity as defined by age showed no significant finding on those who
61
were likely to engage in the behavior of obtaining a corporate mentor, suggesting other
contributing factors not yet identified.
62
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Discussion
Research Question 1
What is the difference in time to employment for transitioning veterans with and
without a mentor relationship? With an expected one million veterans leaving the military
service over the next five years, it is necessary to identify successful job- seeking
behaviors in the transition process. It is not understood why veteran unemployment
jumped higher than nonveterans, especially for younger veterans. There are no solutions
to this problem, although the concern is becoming recognized at the presidential level.
One possibility is the unique culture of the military, which is not directly translatable to
corporate America. In addition, the nature of deployments and repeated moves makes it
difficult for veterans to obtain long- lasting and meaningful mentor relationships with
others outside the military. Overcoming the culture gap and translating military
experience may be a key during the transition process. Research shows the presence of a
mentor to be critical to career development and perceived career success. Incorporating
the benefits of a mentor relationship into the transition process may help bridge the
culture barrier and allow veterans to articulate their experiences in a manner that
employers can understand.
The results suggest that veterans with a corporate mentor prior to transition were
more likely to obtain employment faster than veterans without a corporate mentor. There
was no statistical significance for those only using a military mentor when compared to
those with a corporate mentor and those who had no mentor. However, the mean for time
to employment was reduced for those with any mentor. These results do not provide
63
justification as to why this might be, although future research should consider whether
self-efficacy and self-awareness play a factor. Individuals who realize they need
assistance may be more likely to ask for help, leading to personal growth. This might also
show humility, which is beneficial in the employment process. All of these explanations
should be taken into consideration when trying to understand the motivation for obtaining
a corporate mentor prior to service.
Research Question 2
What is the relationship between attitude and the behavior of obtaining a
corporate mentor prior to leaving the service? Some veterans seek out corporate mentors
while many others do not. Understanding the motivating reasons for this behavior will
help to identify ways to encourage veterans to obtain corporate mentors prior to
transition. It was assumed attitudes toward mentorship would directly result in the
behavior of obtaining a mentor. Those with a negative view of a mentor relationship
would be reluctant to seek out a corporate mentor, as they would not see the value in it.
The results suggest that veterans view mentor relationships positively and understand
their importance for career development. However, having a positive attitude on
mentoring did not lead to consistent behavior. Both veterans with and without a corporate
mentor rated mentoring behaviors positively. This indicates another explanation linking
veterans with corporate mentors.
Research Question 3
What are the differences in perception of difficulty during the transition process
between veterans with and without mentors? Reducing time to employment was not the
only outcome from a corporate mentor relationship during the transition process. Having
64
a support network to help navigate the differences between the military and corporate
environment is crucial, especially for those entering the service immediately after high
school. In some cases the military is the first time a person has lived on their own,
received a paycheck, and had access to other benefits like medical care. The presence of a
corporate mentor is likely to help reduce the stress associated with leaving the military
environment, as veterans would have someone with experience to ask questions. Results
suggest that a corporate mentor does help reduce the perception of difficulty in the
transition process, although additional research is needed to understand more about how
the relationship influences this view.
Research Question 4
How does age impact time to employment for transitioning service members?
There are a large number of veterans who are able to transition successfully without
ending up on unemployment. Finding out why this population is different from their
counterparts can lead to strategies for assisting veterans during the transition process to
reduce unemployment. It is necessary to eliminate variables and identify those of
importance. Age is the first variable to examine; as it is often assumed older individuals
are better equipped to handle the transition. The struggle in career transition for veterans
is apparent through unemployment numbers exceeding the nonveteran population,
especially for individuals ages 18-24. For this reason, it is assumed younger veterans are
less likely to be aware of or exposed to the importance of mentoring. However, the
results suggest age has a significant positive correlation with unemployment. This trend
is the opposite from what is expected, and may be affected by the small older sample
population. In addition, other factors may lead to higher unemployment for younger
65
veterans that were not identified in this research, such as attending college with the Post
9/11 GI Bill.
Implications
Veteran unemployment has been on the rise as a result of increasing military
strength during a time of war, and since 2013 has been quickly downsizing due to
overspending and public dissatisfaction. In many cases over the past year, veterans have
been released from service with only a few months or weeks of advance notice. Being
unprepared for the transition from the military to corporate culture has created a number
of challenges for the veteran community. Organizations have been created over the past
few years to help with this need (Yonkman & Bridgeland, 2009) and funding has been
obligated from the White House for educational benefits and employment assistance in
hopes of reducing the unemployment burden (VOW, 2011).
Results suggest the presence of a mentor was a significant factor in reducing time
to employment. Service members preparing to transition into corporate employment
should begin building mentor relationships prior to leaving the service. The DoD should
consider incorporating a corporate mentor program into the transition process from a
strategic perspective, starting with educating service members on the Mentoring
Spectrum (Melanson, 2009). The next step would then require all transitioning service
members to obtain a mentor at least 6 months prior to planned separation to begin long-
term career development conversations. These discussions would need to be scripted to
result in a transition plan with educational needs being considered for the veteran to help
with their move into a corporate career.
66
Understanding methods that are successful in reducing unemployment and
helping veterans overcome the challenge of transition can result in a policy change for the
DoD. Non-profit agencies looking to help can get more involved in offering mentorship
support during the transition process to increase their effectiveness. In specific cases the
DoD may consider formal mentorship relationships with organizations currently driving
these efforts, such as ACP. The beneficial aspects of a mentor relationship can be
included in training for active duty service members, along with explanations on how to
become an effective mentee.
Recommendations for Future Research
The small sample size presented in this study is one area of concern, and future
research should look to obtain a larger and more randomized sample population. This can
be done through a national sample tool. In addition, it is not possible to generalize a
convenience sample, making it difficult to ascertain the number of veterans who seek out
corporate mentorship prior to transition. Because it is unknown what percentages of
transitioning veterans obtain a corporate mentor prior to transition, studies by the DoD
should consider polling the active duty services to identify trends in the population that is
more inclined to engage in this behavior. There are a number of factors impacting the
career move from the military, and it is still unknown how these might impact time to
employment.
One major area not explored in this study is the challenge of relocation from the
last known duty station has on time to employment. Deployments within the last year to
transition may also influence the ability of a veteran to seek out corporate mentorship.
Future studies should begin to explore these additional considerations to eliminate
67
variables. Because this was the first time the instrument was used, future studies can
evaluate the questions for content validity. There is the possibility for confusion in
identifying the actions constituting a mentor relationship, and recommendations included
asking subjects if they have participated in specific mentorship actions, as this would
provide a deeper level of clarity toward this relationship over other activities such as
networking. In addition, the instrument would need to be repeatedly tested to ensure
reliability.
Research on the topic of mentoring for active duty military personnel is limited,
although extensive research has been conducted in the corporate world. For this reason
more research needs to be done to understand the barriers to corporate mentorship while
in the military. It is unknown what impact routine deployments and repeated moves have
on the ability of the service member to build a relationship with a potential mentor.
Alternative solutions, like virtual mentor environments may prove to be beneficial to
supporting the service member’s long-term career needs in the constantly changing
military environment (Bierma & Hill, 2005).
Studies should examine access to a corporate mentor relationship, to determine if
more service members would seek out this resource willingly if offered, or if they need to
be forced into a formal relationship. It is unknown from this research why some veterans
sought out a corporate mentor while others did not. Future research should look to
identify the factors motivating veterans to seek out a corporate mentor. Additional
research may also determine the skillset and capabilities of active duty service members
on being a mentee and finding a corporate mentor. Knowing more about this potential
gap could lead to a a comprehensive solution, as providing training and awareness about
68
the corporate mentor relationship may be sufficient to encourage service members to seek
out corporate mentors prior to leaving the military.
To provide effective tools and support to veterans in the transition process, it is
necessary to go beyond looking at the current TAP model, and consider the causes for
unemployment for this population. Veterans are facing unknown challenges resulting in
higher unemployment rates than nonveterans, and more research needs to be done to
understand why. A number of studies indicate disability and PTSD to be one barrier, but
this does not account for the entire picture. Corporate employers and transitioning
veterans have recognized translating military experiences and overcoming the culture gap
between the military and corporate world is a noteworthy problem, and a mentor model
between these two groups may be the answer. Incorporating mentor relationship training,
and an awareness of the importance for this relationship are recommendations for
consideration in the transition programs offered through the VOW act to reduce time to
employment for veterans post military service.
69
REFERENCES
Alreck, P., & Settle, R. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook: 3rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin
American Corporate Partners. (2014). Mission and History. Retrieved from http://acp-
usa.org/about-acp. Bierema, L. L., & Hill, J. R. (2005). Virtual mentoring and HRD. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 556-568. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1523422305279688
Biles, J., (2007, March 11). "Guard, Reservists Eligible for Help." CJOnline.com. The
Topeka Capital-Journal. http://cjonline.com/stories/031107/kan_155510434.shtml Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Kostopoulos, K., & Polychroniou, P. (2011). How
providing mentoring relates to career success and organizational commitment. Career Development International, 16(5), 446-468. doi:10.1108/13620431111167760
Brandon, A. (2011, 4 July). "Set to Retire, the Last Army Draftee ‘loves Being a
Soldier’." Boston.com. Globe Newspaper Company. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/07/04/set_to_retire_the_last_army_draftee_loves_being_a_soldier/?camp=pm
Clarke, M. (2007). Where to from here? Evaluating employability during career
transition. Journal of Management and Organization, 13(3), 196-211. doi:10.5172/jmo.2007.13.3.196
Committee on the Assessment of the Readjustment Needs of Military Personnel,
Veterans, and Their Families; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine. (2013). Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
Defense Casualty Analysis System. (2013). Conflict Casualties. Retrieved from
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/casualties.xhtml
Department of Defense. (2013, April). Defense Budget Priorities and Choices Fiscal Year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense.gov%2Fpubs%2FDefenseBudgetPrioritiesChoicesFiscalYear2014.pdf&ei=KqlWVI6sOOSIigK-14GIAQ&usg=AFQjCNGTTf1a9VAMRqoEnYCXY32wN25q4g&sig2=P1p80tqgiAWfX2j7B_kF_Q
70
Defense Manpower Data Center. (2013). Military Personnel. Retrieved from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp
Deresky, H. (2008) International management: managing across borders and cultures
text and cases. Sixth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Desrosiers, S. (2013, November). Veteran Unemployment of Transitioning Marines.
Alexandria: CNA Analysis and Solutions. Dobrovolny, J. L., & Fuentes, S. C. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: A
tool to decide which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 7-14. Retrieved from doi:10.1002/pfi.197
Douglas, J. (2013, Nov 04). Veterans mistake attributes for skills and struggle to translate
military experience in civilian employment, military benefit association study reveals. Business Wire Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/veterans-mistake-attributes-for-skills-and-struggle-to-translate-military-experience-in-civilian-employment-military-benefit-association-study-reveals-2013-11-04
Drebing, C. E., Mueller, L., Van Ormer, E. A., Duffy, P., LePage, J., Rosenheck, R., et
al. (2012). Pathways to vocational services: Factors affecting entry by veterans enrolled in veterans health administration mental health services. Psychological Services, 9(1), 49-63. doi:10.1037/a0026662
Ebersole, J. (2013, Nov 15) Veteran Unemployment. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2013/11/15/veteran-unemployment/ Edgar, E. P., Thompson, M. W., Ackermann, B. T., Appenzeller, G., Cornfeld, R. J.,
Ficke, J. R., Hayes, D. R., McKeon, J. F., Meko, C., Nace, M., Nelson, M. R., Pitney, A. C., Switaj, T., Callahan, C. W., Moores, L. E. (2013). Apprenticeship Refined: Mentorship and Coaching. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, July-September, 17-21.
Ehrich, L. C. (1994). Mentoring and networking for women educators. Women in
Management Review, 9(3), 4. doi:10.1108/09649429410056281 Excelsior College. (2012). The Patriot Poll. Retrieved from
http://www.excelsior.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c203db3e-1497-4ae2-b44f-6120367e093b&groupId=3397708
Faurer, J., Rogers-Brodersen, A., & Bailie, P. (2014). Managing the re-employment of
military veterans through the transition assistance program (TAP). Journal of Business & Economics Research (Online), 12(1), 55-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1477975342?accountid=34899
71
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419-437. doi:10.1002/job.253
George, U., Chaze, F., Brennenstuhl, S., & Fuller-thomson, E. (2012). "Looking for work
but nothing seems to work": The job search strategies of internationally trained engineers in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 13(3), 303-323. doi:10.1007/s12134-011-0197-1
Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development:
Where we are and where we need to go. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 446-469. doi:10.1177/1523422305279667
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A
developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264-288. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4378023
Hu, C., Wang, J.C., Sun, M.H., & Chen, H.H. (2008). Formal Mentoring in
Military Academies. Military Psychology (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 20(3), 171-185. doi:10.1080/08995600802118734
Institute for Veterans and Military Families, Syracuse University. (2013, March). The
Annual Employment Situation of Veterans: 2012. Syracuse, NY Johnson, W., & Andersen, G. R. (2010). Formal mentoring in the U.S. military. Naval
War College Review, 63(2), 113-126. Julian, Jack D., Hall, C. E., & Yerger, D. B., (2010). Rural pennsylvania
underemployment and its determinants. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(3), 17-23. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194949536?accountid=34899
Kats, M. M., van Emmerick, I. J., Blenkinsopp, J., & Khapova, S. N. (2010). Exploring
the associations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices. Career Development International, 15(4), 401-418. doi:10.1108/13620431011066268
Knouse, S. B. (2001). Virtual mentors: Mentoring on the internet. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 38(4), 162-169. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2001.tb00498.x Krueger, A. B., Mueller, A., Davis, S. J., & Sahin, A. (2011). Job search, emotional well-
being, and job finding in a period of mass unemployment: Evidence from high-frequency longitudinal Data/Comments and discussion. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1-81. doi:10.1353/eca.2011.0001
72
Martinez, L., & Bingham, A. (2011, November 11). "U.S. Veterans: By the Numbers." ABC News. ABC News Network. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-numbers/story?id=14928136
Maury, R., Stone, B. & Roseman, J. (2014). Veteran Job Retention Survey Summary.
Retrieved from Institute for Veterans and Military Families and VetAdvisor: http://vets.syr.edu/vetadvisor-announces-veterans-job-retention-survey-results/
Melanson, M. A. (2009). The Mentoring Spectrum. U.S. Army Medical Department
Journal, 37-39. MacLean, A. (2010). The things they carry: Combat, disability, and unemployment
among U.S. men. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 563-585. doi:10.1177/0003122410374085
Markel, K. S., & Barclay, L. A. (2009). Addressing the underemployment of persons
with disabilities: Recommendations for expanding organizational social responsibility. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21(4), 305-318. doi:10.1007/s10672-009-9125-3
Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). A needs-driven approach to expatriate
adjustment and career development: A multiple mentoring perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5), 519-538. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400159
Mission: Readiness Military Leaders for Kids. (2009). Ready, Willing and Unable to
Serve. Washington, DC: Mission: Readiness. National Economic Council and the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. (2013).
The Fast Track to Civilian Employment: Streamlining Credentialing and Licensing for Service Members, Veterans and their Spouses. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Niessen, C., Heinrichs, N., & Dorr, S. (2009). Pursuit and adjustment of goals during
unemployment: The role of age. International Journal of Stress Management, 16(2), 102-123. doi:10.1037/a0015683
Pellerin, C (2013, Jan 24). Dempsey: Allowing Women in Combat Strengthens Joint Force. U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119100
Pernice, R. (1996). Methodological issues in unemployment research: Quantitative and/or
qualitative approaches? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 339-349. doi:10.111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00620.x
73
Plumer, B. (2013, Nov 11). The unemployment rate for recent Veterans is incredibly high. The Washington Post: Wonkblog. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/recent-veterans-are-still-experiencing-double-digit-unemployment/
Qamar, A., Muneer, S., Jusoh, A., & Idris, H. (2013). The relationship between
organizational conduct and national culture. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(2), 82-88. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1356916979?accountid=34899
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194. doi:10.2307/1556344
Renn, R. W., Steinbauer, R., Taylor, R., & Detwiler, D. (2014). School-to-work
transition: Mentor career support and student career planning, job search intentions, and self-defeating job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 422. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.09.004
Roddy, D. (2001, October 28). Flight 93: Forty Lives, One Destiny. PG News. Retrieved
from http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp Routon, P. W. (2014). The effect of 21st century military service on civilian labor and
educational outcomes. Journal of Labor Research, 35(1), 15-38. doi:10.1007/s12122-013-9170-4
Saperstein, A. K., Viera, A. J., & Firnhaber, G. C. (2012). Mentorship and Job
Satisfaction Among Navy Family Physicians. Military Medicine, 177(8), 883-888. Smith, W. J., Howard, J. T., & Harrington, K. V. (2005). Essential formal mentor
characteristics and functions in governmental and non-governmental organizations from the program administrator's and the mentor's perspective. Public Personnel Management, 34(1), 31-58. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215947990?accountid=34899
Society for Human Resources Management. (2010, October 22). Employing Military
Personnel and Recruiting Veterans: What HR Can Do. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shrm.org%2Fresearch%2Fsurveyfindings%2Fdocuments%2F10-0531%2520military%2520program%2520report_fnl.pdf&ei=-j9dVOetBcmxogTUvYDoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHcpO12r1a0KZ9MPDzAzbzJ6nW03g&sig2=L_13NF6P05m0KG4WyEHWkw
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, August 5). Demographics of Gulf War-era II
veterans. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2010/ted_20100805.htm
74
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March 20). Employment status of persons 18
years and over by veteran status, age, and period of service, 2011 annual averages [Table]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/vet_03202012.htm
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014, January 8). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 Edition, Military Careers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, October, 24). Job Openings and Labor Turnover
Survey News Release. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March 20). The Employment Situation – March
2012. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.toc.htm. U. S. Government Accountability Officer. (2014). Key Issues: Supports and Services for
Transitioning Veterans. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/supports_and_services_for_transitioning_veterans/issue_summary#t=0
Van Eck Peluchette J., & Jeanquart, S. (2000). Professionals' use of different mentor
sources at various career stages: Implications for career success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5), 549-64. doi:10.1080/00224540009600495
"VOW To Hire Heroes Act of 2011." (2011). House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.veterans.house.gov/vow
Yonkman, M. & Bridgeland, J. 2009. All Volunteer Force From Military to Civilian
Service. Retrieved from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/files/resources/all_volunteer_force.pdf
75
APPENDICES
76
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
77
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
Hello and thank you for your participation! As a fellow Veteran, I greatly appreciate your service to our country and your support in taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Introduction The economic recession between 2007-2009 affected thousands of unemployed Americans over the past few years. In particular, veteran’s unemployment rose during this time, at one point reaching a peak of 30% for Post-9/11 veterans aged 18-24. As a result of this rise, in 2011 President Obama signed into law the VOW act, focusing on improving a wide variety of transition services. The questions provided in this survey aim to understand more about your attitudes and behaviors toward mentorship during the transition process from the military into the corporate workforce. The goal of this research is to identify correlations in order to improve transition services for future service members preparing to leave the military. This survey should take about 15 – 20 minutes for you to complete (38 total questions, from multiple choice to open- ended formats). Participation Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks for this project, although it is understood that some individuals may face challenges and emotional distress associated with discussing unemployment and finding a job. If you feel uncomfortable answering any question you can withdraw from the survey at any point. Only questions with an asterisk are required to be completed for participation. Your support is greatly appreciated in this survey to assist future veterans. The researcher will use demographic questions, employment status, and attitudes toward mentorship to identify trends towards particular populations. Please select the response that best matches your status for each answer. For the purpose of this survey, mentoring is defined as the process of sharing information from a more experienced employee to a new or less skilled employee with the goal of career advancement (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Mentoring is different from networking, because the mentor relationship has specified goals toward an obtainable outcome from the relationship (such as help in obtaining a job, or support getting a promotion). A networking contact is defined as individual who may or may not be well known, and aids the job search process by making an introduction, suggesting a job opportunity, or referring the individual to a company. This relationship does not have a long -term or
78
regular commitment toward career growth. A military mentor is defined as someone who provided career guidance or advice while on active duty for your military career. A corporate mentor is defined as someone not on active duty who provides you with civilian career advice. This can include employees working for any public or private company, a defense contractor, former service members who have already made the transition, or on base providers of career services. Confidentiality Survey responses will be confidential and anonymous. Data from this research will be reported only in the aggregate. Personal identifying data is not being gathered in an effort to ensure your responses remain confidential. The survey questions are specific to the Post-9/11 veteran population who served on active duty. Additional Resources Should you need employment, counseling, or mentor assistance, there are multiple resource options listed below: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association (IAVA). Founded in 2004 by an Iraq veteran, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is the first and largest organization for new veterans and their families, with nearly 300,000 members and supporters nationwide. IAVA is a 21st century veterans’ organization dedicated to standing with the 2.8 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan from their first day home through the rest of their lives. For more assistance from the IAVA, click: http://iava.org/ Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists provide intensive services to meet the employment needs of disabled veterans and other eligible veterans, with the maximum emphasis directed toward serving those who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, including homeless veterans, and veterans with barriers to employment. Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) conduct outreach to employers and engage in advocacy efforts with hiring executives to increase employment opportunities for veterans and encourage the hiring of veterans. Enter your address in this link to find a local Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOR) or Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) to provide assistance. http://dvoplverlocator.nvti.ucdenver.edu/ America’s Service Locator connects individuals to employment and training opportunities available at local American Job Centers. The website provides contact information for a range of local work-related services, including unemployment benefits, career development, and educational opportunities. Find one in your area by going to www.servicelocator.org and entering your zip code. Vet Centers across the country
79
provide a broad range of counseling, outreach, and referral services to combat Veterans and their families. Vet Centers guide Veterans and their families through many of the major adjustments in lifestyle that often occur after a Veteran returns from combat. Services for a Veteran may include individual and group counseling in areas such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), alcohol and drug assessment, and suicide prevention referrals. All services are free of cost and are strictly confidential. If you feel you would like an individual counselor, please contact your local VA Vet Center for assistance. http://www.vetcenter.va.gov/ The Mission Continues empowers veterans facing the challenge of adjusting to life at home to find new missions. The organization redeploys veterans in their communities, so that their shared legacy will be one of action and service. Through the Mission Continues, veterans serve their country in new ways by engaging in our innovative and action-oriented programs. First: The Mission Continues’ Fellowship, harnesses veterans’ strengths, skills, and their compassion and empowers them to volunteer with non-profit organizations in their community on a daily basis. Second: The Mission Continues’ Service Platoons brings teams of veterans who are working together with partners at the local level to build stronger communities and tackle pressing issues. For more information, check out: https://www.missioncontinues.org/ American Corporate Partners (ACP) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting veterans in their transition from the armed services to the civilian workforce. With the help of business professionals nationwide, ACP offers veterans tools for long-term career development through mentoring, career counseling, and networking opportunities. To locate a mentor using American Corporate Partners you can contact them here: http://acp-usa.org/ Questions about the Research If you have questions about the survey or procedures, desire additional information about the research, or want a copy of the survey results, contact: · Lisa Parrott, Argosy University PhD Candidate, [email protected] Questions about your Rights as Research Participants To speak with a member of the faculty advisory committee please contact: · Chuck Miller, Committee Chair, Associate Professor of Business at Argosy University, Seattle, [email protected] · Bruce Chapman, Department Chair, Graduate School of Business and Management at Argosy University, Seattle, [email protected]
80
Once again, thank you for your participation as it is greatly appreciated! Be sure to click on the “Raffle” button after completing the survey to enter the raffle for a $20 Amazon gift card. Please start with the survey now by selecting that you ‘Agree’ to participate and have read and understood the Informed Consent. I agree to participate and have read and understood the Informed Consent m Yes (1) m No (2)
81
APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire
82
APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire
The first four questions are qualifying questions to determine if you meet the participant demographic to continue. Are you currently serving in an active duty status? m Yes (1) m No (2) Have you been out of the military for at least six months (did you EAS before 12/1/13)? m Yes (1) m No (2) What was your Branch of Service? m Not applicable (1) m Merchant Marines (2) m National Guard (3) m Reserves (4) m Army (5) m Air Force (6) m Navy (7) m Marine Corps (8) m Coast Guard (9) Did you serve during or after 9/11/2001? m Yes (1) m No (2)
83
Career Transition and Attitudes – please choose the best answer for your perception towards your transition from the military. Think only of the time before your EAS to 6 months after your EAS date (not to be confused with your terminal leave date). How many weeks did it take to get a job after you started applying for jobs? If you did not get a job within a year, enter 52. Did you start looking for a job before or after your EAS? q Before (1) q After (2) If Before Is Selected, Then Skip To Did you accept a ... What caused the delay in looking for a job before your EAS? m Applying or accepted to college (1) m Planning to take time off before looking for a job (2) m Receiving retirement benefits (3) m In the recovery process (4) m Other (5) ____________________ If Applying or accepted to col... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To Did you have a military mentor while ... If you were enrolled in college post EAS, how many weeks after you began applying to jobs did it take to accept an offer? If more than a year, enter 52. Did you accept a job offer before your EAS? m Yes (1) m No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Did you have a military mentor while ... How many weeks before your EAS did you accept a job? Did you have a military mentor while on active duty? A military mentor is defined as someone who provided career guidance or advice while on active duty for your military career. This may be someone formally assigned to you, an informal relationship, or an individual who aided in your career development, such as a career development specialist. m Yes (1) m No (2)
84
Did you have a corporate mentor before your EAS? A corporate mentor is defined as someone not on active duty who provides you with civilian career advice. This can include employees working for any public or private company, a defense contractor, former service members who have already made the transition, or on base providers of career services. A mentor is different from a networking connection, as it implies a longer relationship period and direct support for career development and growth. m Yes (1) m No (2) At what time in the process did you get a corporate mentor? m 6 months or more prior to EAS (1) ____________________ m 5 months prior to EAS (2) m 4 months prior to EAS (3) m 3 months prior to EAS (4) m 2 months prior to EAS (5) m 1 month prior to EAS (6) m Same month as EAS (7) m 1 month after EAS (8) m 2 months after EAS (9) m 3 months after EAS (10) m 4 months after EAS (11) m 5 months after EAS (12) m 6 months or more after EAS (13) m Never (14)
85
Please identify your attitudes on mentors: Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree (2)
Somewhat Agree (3)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(4)
Somewhat Disagree
(5)
Disagree (6)
Strongly Disagree
(7)
Do you believe a mentor is critical
for long-term career
development? (1)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe a mentor is required for obtaining a job post service? (2)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your
long-term career goals? (3)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe a mentor can help
you get promoted throughout your
career? (4)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe a mentor can help you reach your financial career
goals? (5)
m m m m m m m
86
How did the mentor help in finding work? * Select all that apply q Revised resume (1) q Interview Prep (2) q Shared resume (3) q Made introductions (4) q Offered advice on the job search process (5) q Identified possible job titles (6) q Identified possible companies to apply to (7) q Other (8) ____________________ How often do you use a corporate mentor? m Never (1) m Less than Once a Month (2) m Once a Month (3) m 2-3 Times a Month (4) m Once a Week (5) m 2-3 Times a Week (6) Are you using a corporate mentor now? m Yes (1) m No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To How many civilian mentors have you ha... Is it the same mentor as before your EAS? m Yes (1) m No (2) How many corporate mentors have you had since the year prior to your EAS? How many networking contacts have you used in your job search process? A networking contact is defined as individual who may or may not be well known, and aids the job search process by making an introduction, suggesting a job opportunity or referring the individual to a company. This relationship does not have a long term or regular commitment toward career growth.
87
What directly led to getting a job after your EAS? * Select all that apply q Mentor (1) q Networking contact (2) q Government funded assistance program (VA, TAPS, etc) (3) q Non-profit association (4) q Family contact (5) q Internet search (6) q Blind application (7) q Friend (8) q Started own company (9) q Other (10) ____________________
88
Please identify your opinions: Strongl
y Agree
(1)
Agree (2)
Somewhat Agree
(3)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree (4)
Somewhat
Disagree (5)
Disagree (6)
Strongly
Disagree (7)
Would you recommend active
duty service member use a mentor before
EAS? (1)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe military
deployments/lifestyle affected your ability to obtain and work with a
corporate mentor? (2)
m m m m m m m
Do you believe Veterans have a
competitive advantage in the job market? (3)
m m m m m m m
How often do you provide mentorship to fellow transitioning service members (whether formal or informal)? m Never (1) m Less than once a month (2) m Once a month (3) m 2-3 times a month (4) m Once a week (5) m 2-3 times a week (6)
89
Career transition from the military was: Very Easy
(1) Easy (2) Neutral (3) Difficult (4) Very
Difficult (5) Career
transition from the
military was: (1)
m m m m m
Can you share any other thoughts or feelings about getting a job after EAS?
90
Almost done! The last few questions ask about demographic information. What was your age at the time you left the service (EAS)? m 18-24 (1) m 25-34 (2) m 35-44 (3) m 45-54 (4) m 55-65 (5) m 65 and over (6) What is your gender? m Male (1) m Female (2) m Other (3) ____________________ m None of the above (4) What was your rank upon discharge? m E1 (1) m E2 (2) m E3 (3) m E4 (4) m E5 (5) m E6 (6) m E7 (7) m E8 (8) m E9 (9) m W1 (10) m W2 (11) m W3 (12) m W4 (13) m W5 (14) m O1 (15) m O2 (16) m O3 (17) m O4 (18) m O5 (19) m O6 (20) m O7 and up (21)
91
What is your discharge status? m Honorable (1) m General, Under Honorable Conditions (2) m Medical (3) m Other than Honorable (4) m Bad Conduct Discharge (5) m Dishonorable (6) What was your education level at the time you left the service (select highest level)?
92
m High school/GED (1) m Technical Certificate or Completed Apprenticeship (example: journeyman's) (2) m Some college (3) m Completed Associates degree (4) m Bachelors in progress (5) m Completed Bachelors degree (6) m Masters in progress (7) m Completed Masters degree (8) m Professional in progress (9) m Completed Professional degree (10)
What is your current education level (select highest level)? m High school/GED (1) m Technical Certificate or Completed Apprenticeship (example: journeyman's) (2) m Some college (3) m Completed Associates degree (4) m Bachelors in progress (5) m Completed Bachelors degree (6) m Masters in progress (7) m Completed Masters degree (8) m Professional in progress (9) m Completed Professional degree (10)
What is your current employment status (please choose the best answer)? m Employed full time (1) m Employed part time (2) m Self-employed (3) m Full time student (not employed) (4) m Full time student, full time employed (5) m Part time student, full time employed (6) m Full time student, part time employed (7) m Part time student, part time employed (8) m Unemployed (9) m Underemployed (10) m Receiving 100% disability, not looking for employment (11) m Other (12) ____________________
93
Did you experience a combat environment (examples might include: were you shot at, bombed, rocketed, felt a sense of physical danger while serving outside the US)? m Yes (1) m No (2) Would you like to add anything else for consideration on this subject by the researcher? If you would like a copy of the results, enter your email address here (please do not include name to remain anonymous):