-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy Retention Survey Results are LIVE!
- Thread starter ben4prez
- Start date
Pew has a great writeup of why randomized samples matter, and I believe that plays heavily into the lack of traction that the survey is gaining amongst flags. The short version is thus: without a random sample, that there is no way of knowing if the survey is representative of the population - and thus easily dismissed.
The solution is easy in concept - get a random set of email addresses from big Navy - but actually executing that as an outside entity is tough.
The solution is easy in concept - get a random set of email addresses from big Navy - but actually executing that as an outside entity is tough.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
If the results of this effort had full 'in house' support, you just mandate that the survey get issued with the next command climate survey. You'd get near 100% AD participation, and no one would have to have any arguments over statistics.
While I agree with you from a purely statistics perspective, are the Flags dismissing it because they think it's bad data or because they don't care? I don't think they've specifically said either way which could also be fueling a lot of the disgruntlement we are seeing.
Did the Sexual Assault survey have a good random sample? Because that survey had tons of traction, although said traction existed before the survey was ever issued.
I just don't see the Flag level really caring too much about this. It's just a swell at their level, mixed in with other swells, with most of the swells being outside any one Flag's sandbox. For the few Flags that could actually affect some sort of policy reform, I'm not sure what we could reasonably expect them to do.
- increasingly high operational tempo: Ok, CNO has already been pushing the agenda that we cannot sustain our op tempo, and that we need more ships.
- poor work/life balance: Always an issue. This will probably never go away. Not sure what the solutions are, because high op tempo is going to lead to this.
- low service-wide morale: Not low enough to make a mass-exodus impact statement. Until that happens (or some high-vis mishap that can be traced back to low morale), who cares?
- declining pay and compensation: Again, not enough to produce a mass exodus. I'm not sure how the pay is "declining" unless we're under the inflation curve, but who cares? Retention is relatively stable (I'm just assuming this is the case--I'd love to see some retention stats). Besides, command bonuses are out, so arguably, that's been addressed.
- waning desire to hold senior leadership positions: Moot. There will be zero trouble filling CO slots.
- a widespread distrust of senior leadership: I'm guessing you will always have a positive response rate to this question. Even if we'd been tracking this data set for years, if this year's round produced a spike, oh well. It'll smooth itself out, and it really doesn't matter as long as we're meeting operational commitments without other factors (mutinies, mishaps, whatever) popping up.
These are the results highlighted from the Exec Summary. So what responses are we pragmatically hoping to see from the Flag level?
Don't disagree, but as I've pointed out before, official Navy surveys have used the same method as ours -- Survey Monkey email / social media blasts (namely the SWO JO Quality of Life survey). The recently completed official aviation survey was sent to every aviator -- and those who wanted to take it self selected in. Both had whatever "bias" ours had (and even the best constructed surveys have some bias -- even random Gallup phone surveys...those that have the most time, or a landline, are the ones that usually answer). Yet those two official Navy efforts were touted far and wide (and if you look at the results, closely mirror our results in many of the questions that had cross over).
I'm coming to agree with your analysis...I'm not sure there is much the flags CAN do. The only quibble I have is your statement about low service wide morale. I think in general, retention is good -- EXCEPT for VFA (and maybe VAQ) 1310s at the DH level. This goes back to the discussion we had in a previous thread. 54 VFA 1310 DH's were selected this year -- only 32 chose to stay (37 were slated as 5 were pulled from the bullpen from last year). Min required for manning is 45.
I've attached the relevant slides from my Hook presentation, and the results of the mini-survey I did of the 54 selects (methodological self selection bias again...but at least its better data than we've gotten from any other source)
Maybe this is a blip, and we will recover (PERS seems to think so). Or maybe its the start of something more concerning -- my random discussions at the Bug Roach mixer Friday led me to believe even more may depart next year. Only time and the actual numbers will tell..
Those are also pretty difficult to make inferences from, and they contrast with the recent RAND survey on workplace issues that you may have seen. That survey has a unique identifier for each person that receives a questionnaire, allowing for controls such as weighting responses in less-represented segments.
This is not to denigrate the effort or the results of your efforts, but more to point to potential improvements.
They're dismissing it because they can - the lower statistical rigor of the survey means that flags can ignore the results without consequence. It's enabling them to do what they want to do anyway.
There may be controls in place, but just because you get an invitiation to participate with a specific access code doesnt mean you actually will -- and have they already precoded demographic information from Navy databases to ensure that people aren't lying on the demographic questions? 100 percent of female members have been invited -- how many of them will actually answer? That is a selection bias right there - and as for weighting responses, how many of them are too busy to answer? What happens when Sept 24th comes around and only 80 percent of females have answered? For the males, 25 percent have been selected to respond. Say 20 percent of that 25 choose not to respond. Will they invite more folks to fill that number out? or will they take what they get -- thus only reporting what the most motivated respondents want to say. And then how do you control for people lying? Just assume most won't, or that various lies will cancel each other out?
I think the RAND methodology is the best you can do -- and I think it will be effective. Indeed, I'll trust the results and probably cite them. But all surveys have doubts about methodology...if you don't want to believe the results, you can always find an excuse not to. If you do, you can argue the challenges away.
Which gets to your last point about dismissing it because they can, and are. That's okay. But it's the only data that exists -- and the only hard non-anecdote anyone can point to. Best case scenario? The Navy does an OFFICIAL study with RAND methodology -- or hopefully the existing RAND study has many similar questions about QOL as ours -- although I expect its specifically focused.
Minnesota Tomcat
Turkeybeast
Just an observation on my part: It is interesting how everything has become survey driven. Even Facebook is full of games that are based on the Survey format. Everywhere you go there are surveys. When I go the VA for my appointments, they take surveys to see how the doctor is performing his duties. We just got a phone call the other day asking how well my husband's medicine for his arthritis was working. He's a veteran too. Even when I was in the Navy, there were not all of these surveys. It is a recent phenomena. Our Navy functioned well without them. We had Operation Desert Shield which was over in a few months. That was how efficient our military was back then.
People can lie on surveys and manipulate them any way they want. IMHO, I don't see that these surveys really help the Navy in the long run, even though their intent is good. They are an expenditure of money and they annoy the heck out of some people. The serviceman has to put everything on hold to fill out that survey. Some of them can be quite long. I have filled out some surveys that are over 100 questions long. That's a lot to ask of someone. I just ponder why this phenomena has come about. Maybe it is just my frustration with being asked over and over to fill out a 100 + something questionnaire.
People can lie on surveys and manipulate them any way they want. IMHO, I don't see that these surveys really help the Navy in the long run, even though their intent is good. They are an expenditure of money and they annoy the heck out of some people. The serviceman has to put everything on hold to fill out that survey. Some of them can be quite long. I have filled out some surveys that are over 100 questions long. That's a lot to ask of someone. I just ponder why this phenomena has come about. Maybe it is just my frustration with being asked over and over to fill out a 100 + something questionnaire.