Human Resource Management and Army Recruiting

Analyses of Policy Options

by James N. Dertouzos, Steven Garber

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.9 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback198 pages $27.50 $22.00 20% Web Discount

U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) is faced with the challenge of ensuring that the flow of qualified volunteers is adequate to meet future active-duty accession requirements. This report documents research methods, findings, and policy conclusions from a project analyzing human resource management options for improving recruiting production. It details research designed to develop new insights to help guide future recruiter management policies. The research involves econometric analyses of three large and rich datasets. The first analysis compares the career paths of enlisted personnel, including recruiters. The second analyzes individual recruiter characteristics and links those characteristics with their productivity, controlling for a variety of independent factors. Finally, the research focuses on station-level recruiting outcomes, paying close attention to the management options that can affect recruiter production and effort. These empirical analyses demonstrate that various types of human resource management policies can be very helpful in meeting the Army’s ambitious recruiting requirements. For example, the findings have implications for human resource policies in the areas of selecting soldiers for recruiting duty, assigning recruiters to stations, missioning to promote equity across recruiters, missioning to increase recruiter productivity, using promotions to motivate and reward recruiters, and screening out recruiters who are under-producing. Although the gains from any individual policy appear to be modest, the cumulative benefits of implementing multiple policies can save the Army hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This work will interest those involved in the day-to-day management of recruiting resources as well as researchers and analysts engaged in analyses of military enlistment behavior.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Determinants of Individual Recruiter Productivity

  • Chapter Three

    Mission Equity and Determinants of Achieving Station Missions

  • Chapter Four

    Station Missions, Market Quality, Recruiter Effort, and Production of High-Quality Contracts

  • Chapter Five

    Implications of Alternative Mission Policies for High-Quality Enlistments

  • Chapter Six

    Career Paths of Recruiters

  • Chapter Seven

    Implications for Effective Recruiter Management

  • Appendix A

    Supplemental Statistical Analyses

  • Appendix B

    Data Sources

Research conducted by

The research in this report was sponsored by the United States Army and conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.