1. Carrie J. Cain EDU 697 Professor Broderick 10 Aug 15 ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL: LEADERSHIP AFTER AIRMAN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL

2. Overview Area of Focus Explanation of Problem Variables Research Questions Locus of Control Intervention/Innovation

3. Overview Group Membership Negotiations Ethics Timeline Statement of Resources Data Collection

4. Area of Focus Purpose: How leadership principles are utilized in military environments after: Attending Airman Leadership School Receiving their first subordinate Promoting to Staff Sergeant

5. Explanation of Problem Need people ready to LEAD! No guarantee that ALS will make you a better leader Technology and culture

6. Variables Leadership versus Leading Ciolan’s Strategies to enhance leadership styles in military Technology’s impact on leadership Professional Military Education’s contribution to career progression Technology is changing marching orders for the military

7. Research Questions 1. What factors were present prior to attending Airman Leadership School, i.e., such as what type of leadership was displayed in their work centers. 2. Is today's culture and society that impacts how we get things done?

8. Locus of Control My rank and position cannot be used to influence results Participation is 100% voluntary Results are based on individualized behavior Curriculum is mandatory; however, use of tools provided is situational The supervisors/leaders have varying methods to utilized

9. Intervention/Innovation Leadership starts from Day One Must be shown through all levels of training and beyond Enforced throughout their careers Emulated to their subordinates Senior leadership must be involved and be the example Culture and mindset shift across the Air Force “This is not the way we do business”

10. Group Membership No additional staff was required for research Group consisted of up to 64 Airman Leadership School students Targeted audience were E-4s (Senior Airmen) selected for promotion Additional targets were those who are time in service eligible

11. Negotiations Permission from the Commandant of the schoolhouse Voluntary participation of the targeted audience Timeline given to complete reserch

12. Ethics Boundaries for myself and the students Privacy for participants Respect for others Non-Attribution Guarantee

13. Timeline Study started early July Questionnaires/Surveys sent during the first week of ALS Data collected during Week 5 of the ALS curriculum More time would have been optimal to provide better results

14. Statement of Resources Two main sources: Ciolan’s Current Strategies to Enhance the Leadership Style in the Military Investing in Our Military Leaders: The Role of Professional Military Education in Officer Development.

15. Data Collection (Questionnaire) 41 out of 48 students participated in the questionnaire 64% of participants stated they rarely interacted with their supervisor/leadership 51% of participants stated that their supervisors did not apply the leadership principles taught in ALS 25% of participants had supervisors that were “hands off” in hopes that they were self-sufficient/reliant 49% stated discipline is unfair throughout their unit 23% stated that they felt like their supervisors were doing a good job

16. Data Collection (Survey) 39 out of 48 students participated in the survey 51% stated technology must be used to accomplish their daily tasks 51% stated that it is “Least Likely” possible to not use technology in their jobs 75% stated that lack of technology will degrade mission accomplishment

17. Summary Area of Focus Explanation of Problem Variables Research Questions Locus of Control Intervention/Innovation

18. Summary Group Membership Negotiations Ethics Timeline Statement of Resources Data Collection

19. References Bregman, P. (2013, July 10). Why So Many Leadership Programs Ultimately Fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/07/why-so-many-leadership-program/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/07/why-so-many-leadership-program/ CIOLAN, I. (2012). CURRENT STRATEGIES TO INHANCE THE LEADERSHIP STYLE IN THE MILITARY. Paper presented at the Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328331902?accountid=32521 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328331902?accountid=32521 Craciun, M., PhD. (2009). HOW DOES TECHNOLOGY AFFECT LEADERSHIP IN THE 21st CENTURY MILITARY CONFRONTATIONS. Scientific Bulletin - Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy, 14(1), 24-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89154101?accountid=32521 http://search.proquest.com/docview/89154101?accountid=32521 Kuter, S. (2013). An action research on developing prospective teachers' inquiry skills. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 317-324. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1531909874?accountid=32521 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1531909874?accountid=32521

20. References Investing in our military leaders: The role of professional military education in officer development. (2010). Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53165/html/CHRG- 111hhrg53165.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53165/html/CHRG- 111hhrg53165.htm Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Weigelt, M. (2010, January 1). Technology is changing marching orders for Army leadership -- Washington Technology. Technology is changing marching orders for Army leadership -- Washington Technology. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/circuit/2010/08/army-military- eleadership- research.aspxhttp://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/circuit/2010/08/army-military- eleadership- research.aspx

21. Questions?