Effect of Personnel Stability on Organizational Performance: Do Battalions with Stable Command Groups Achieve Higher Training Proficiency at the National Training Center; Doctoral thesis

摘要

Prior to 2003 the Army managed the flow of personnel into and out of units on an individual basis, which resulted in persistent personnel turnover throughout the year. This steady source of personnel turnover is assumed to undermine unit effectiveness by disrupting unit training proficiency and unit cohesion. In 2003, the Army began transitioning from an individual replacement system to a personnel management system called lifecycle manning. Lifecycle manning increases personnel stability by assigning approximately 3500 soldiers to a brigade combat team at the beginning of a three-year training and deployment cycle. These soldiers remain with the brigade for the entire cycle, thereby enabling teams to train together and develop high unit cohesion prior to deployment. The lifecycle manning policy is based on an assumed causal linkage where personnel stability leads to higher unit cohesion that leads to increased unit effectiveness. This dissertation empirically tests this assumption by analyzing the direct relationship between personnel stability and unit effectiveness without incorporating cohesion. The analysis applies production function theory with the factor input of interest being increased personnel stability and a production output of unit effectiveness. Using new measures of personnel stability and training proficiency scores from previous RAND research, this research assesses whether battalions with stable leadership achieve higher levels of training proficiency. The analysis results do not show a prevalent or strong relationship between battalion leadership stability and battalion training proficiency. This unexpected result potentially calls into question whether the transition to lifecycle manning should continue in its current form. The research also identifies other policy alternatives for improving unit effectiveness and raises questions about the cost-benefit analysis of implementing lifecycle manning.