In this analysis, an organizational process will be analysed for gaps and a possible means of implementing an improvement to the process. The organization chosen was the military, specifically the United States Air Force. The rationale behind this choice was personal familiarity with the operations of this institution. For this analysis, I will be focusing on a service process within the context of the US Air Force. The air force provides a variety of services, ranging from maintaining national air superiority to monitoring the well-being of the soldiers under its jurisdiction. One of the services carried out by the air force that will be the focus of this analysis is human resource management. Specifically, matching recruits to the best possible position in their branch, for maximum productivity, job satisfaction, and career advancement. The efficiency of military operations depends on the quality of the personnel assigned to each position. Thus, this process is crucial to the recruitment process and the career-matching service that the air force provides to all new members.
The United States Air Force Background
The United States Air Force is the division of the United States Armed Forces that handles air service. The core mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight, and win both within the air, space, and cyberspace (US Air Force, 2020). More specifically, this mission entails maintaining superiority in the airspace, superiority in global integrated intelligence and surveillance, rabid mobility on a global level, global command, global control, and superior reconnaissance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Matching Recruits to Jobs
According to the Military Research Institute, the strength of the armed forces lies most strongly in how effective each soldier is. With efficient training, leadership, and equipment, it is possible to boost the performance of any unit. However, this is all dependent on the soldiers receiving these additional boosts having the right hardware, or "raw material" (Lightfoot & Ramsberger, 2000). Thus, all branches of the army invest heavily in the process of not only selecting personnel but also in classifying them in the best possible position. The selection process begins through a generalized process of evaluating recruits without regard for their eventual specific position. This initial process identifies good soldiers based on the qualities of physical condition, ability to be trained, and moral character. However, this general selection process is followed by classification into one of many entry-level occupational specialities in the military, also referred to as MOS.
In an ideal situation, the classification system for the army should match jobs and individuals in a way wherein the performance of the entire army will be maximized. However, even in the process of this classification, human resource management needs to meet critical goals, such as ensuring that specific MOS are filled and satisfied. The process of matching jobs to recruits is thus complicated as it means the officials must find a way to balance the needs of the army as a whole and the needs of the individual recruit in such a way that overall efficiency is boosted. Placing recruits in positions best suited to their capabilities, and temperament is best for increasing their efficiency; however, the selection process must also keep critical positions within the overall organization filled. The provision of this service by the selection officials is, therefore, one that is multi-faceted, and frequently revised for optimization.
Job Matching in the Air Force
The current selection system uses two phases. The first is a combination of aptitude tests educational tests, moral tests, and physical tests in the preliminary round. This round examines the essential characteristics of the recruit to determine if they will make a good soldier overall. In this test, the soldiers are assessed on trainability, moral character, and physical condition. Passing this general test is the first part of the selection process, as unfit individuals for military service, or air force service in general, are eliminated at this point. The tests that are carried out in the first round are based on a large amount of research and experience on the part of the military research methods, as it has a large amount of information dating back to World War I to inform their process on the ideal selection of military personnel.
However, the focus of this service process analysis is the second phase of the selection process, wherein the eligible recruits are sorted into career paths and jobs in optimized positions for their unique capabilities as well for the betterment of the organization in general. The job selection process begins with test scores. Each recruit completes a quiz recognized as the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). This test measures the academic aptitude of the recruit based on several different MOS available in the air force. Each MOS has minimum test values assigned to it that ensure that any successful applicant can easily be trained and thriving in a particular position.
There are two types of enlisted jobs present in the air force, known as Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) (Air Force, 2020). These two are assured job and assured aptitude part. In the assured job platform, passing the evaluation methods means that the recruit is guaranteed a precise air force work. In the specific aptitude program, the recruit has assured a job that falls into an area in which they have demonstrated an aptitude. The four aptitude areas are mechanical, administrative, general, and electronic. However, during the recruitment process, only the guaranteed aptitude area program will be available, as the guaranteed job program is generally offered to recruits after the recruitment process has begun. Thus, the process can be summarized as follows –
Inefficiencies in Job Matching
The ASVAB testing on which job matching is dependent on uses cognitive testing. That is standard practice, as cognitive testing has historically been used to impact maximum effectiveness and efficiency. However, beyond allowing for technical proficiency, this method of matching candidates to jobs performs poorly for predicting the motivation of the worker for the job, how well they will be retained in the organization, or how their performance will change over time. For this kind of data to be captured, the test must be changed to include not only necessary testing for cognitive requirements but also testing for non-cognitive characteristics like interest measures and personality in the context of military service. Already, other branches of the armed forces such as the Navy have begun to take these non-cognitive measures into account, and use them to understand better and place their recruits (Johnson, Romay & Baron, 2020). The results have been improved retention, performance, and efficiency.
The incorporation of vocational interest analysis in job matching military recruits is, therefore, a useful tool for the Armed Forces. There is a need for the air force to adapt their job selection process to bridge this gap. In this way, the job selection process will choose not only the best recruit for a position but the most motivated and long-term recruit as well.
Process Improvement Recommendation
The first step in the process re-engineering procedure is identifying and communicating the need for a change. In this respect, there is a need for a tool to be developed that measures the vocational interest level of recruits for various jobs, to improve the job matching process in the air force (Johnson, Romay & Baron, 2020). The next step is putting together a team. Ideally, the formation of a committee that consists of recruitment officers, vocational researchers, and military researchers would be the best course of action. For now, the recommendations of such experts were gathered from academic publications for the preliminary development of this process improvement. The third step is identifying the inefficient process and the key performance indicators (KPIs). In this case, the key performance indicators are a measurement of vocational interest, particularly motivation and job satisfaction. The final step is re-engineering and reviewing the KPIs. Thus, the process will be successful if, after the improvement, the job selection process measures motivation and job satisfaction levels for different aptitude areas.
Benchmarking will be done against the Navy's Job Opportunities in the Navy (JOIN) vocational interest tool, which has been used to improve job selection in the organization. For this re-engineering, the research tool by Johnson, Romay, and Baron, which proposes a modified JOIN vocational interest test for military recruits will be used. This tool uses the JOIN software, modified to use the 130+ Air Force MOS instead of Navy MOS, and measures the vocational interest of the recruits. Surveying recruits can do a preliminary evaluation of this process' efficiency to see how closely the tool measured their level of vocational interest. Thus, the fourth step of reviewing KPIs can be done at this stage.
Possible Implementation Challenges
The main potential challenge is making the job selection process even longer for recruits. Long testing periods often have negative results on test-takers, including increasing nervousness and mental burden. That may cause their test results to be far from ideal. Another potential challenge is tailoring the job selection tool perfectly to the air force when it is a modified vocational interest tool for a different branch of the armed forces.
Expected Benefits
The improved process should better indicate the level of vocational interest that each candidate has when they take the ASVAB. That allows the recruiters to place them in a job that they will remain motivated for and retained in for a long time (Johnson, Romay & Baron, 2020). Taking vocational interest into account in the Navy has improved re-enlistment rates and job satisfaction. In the air force, this process improvement should likewise boost:
Talent utilization
Job satisfaction
Job interest
Re-enlistment rates
Training utilization
References
Johnson, J. F., Romay, S., & Barron, L. G. (2020). Air Force Work Interest Navigator (AF-WIN) to improve person-job match: Development, validation, and initial implementation. Military Psychology, 32(1), 111–126. doi:10.1080/08995605.2019.1652483
Lightfoot, M. A., & Ramsberger, P. F. (2000). Matching Recruits to Jobs: The Enlisted Personnel Allocation System (No. HUMPRO-SR-00-24). HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION ALEXANDRIA VA.
United States Air Force. (2020). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.af.mil/About-Us/#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20United,in%20air%2C%20space%20and%20cyberspace .
