A Case Study on the Job Satisfaction and Retention of Air Force Interns

A CASE STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION AND RETENTION OF AIR FORCE INTERNS

Edward J. Lee

A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Graduate School of Education College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts December 18, 2020

Acknowledgement

I want to thank my wife Linda who endured many long evenings, weekends, and even full weeks without my full attention. I could not have made it this far without her support. I also want to thank my daughter Lindsey Lee who was my proofreader and cheerleader.

Along my journey, many friends and mentors have supported me and deserve acknowledgement including my brother Ernest Lee, Jr., Patrick Hart, Joseph Bradley, Jr., Patrick Marr,

Dennis Miller, and Dr. Roy Lake who encouraged me to continue the long journey.

I’d also like to give special thanks to my advisor Dr. Daniel Volchok, for his guidance, patience, and encouragement as well as Dr. Joseph McNabb for his support and overarching leadership in

Northeastern’s Doctorate of Education program and Dr. Joseph Delaney, Jr. for providing guidance throughout this endeavor.

Dedication

This doctoral research is dedicated to my mother, Gladys Morandi Lee, who is no longer with us, but will always remain in spirit. She was an avid reader and inspired me to read books at a very young age and encouraged me to go to college. She is responsible for my academic success through her guidance and encouragement.

Abstract

This study examined factors influencing the job satisfaction and retention of Air Force civilian engineering interns in the SMART and Palace Acquire intern programs. Intern focus groups and semi- structured interviews were conducted with ten interns and four intern supervisors at a U.S. Air Force base involved in weapon system acquisition. Transcripts, surveys, exit interviews and Air Force documents were analyzed using a case study approach to identify themes. Three major themes emerged: motivating factors that lead to job satisfaction, hygiene factors that lead to job dissatisfaction, and factors that lead to SMART intern attrition. These finding were considered through the lens of the

Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene framework as well as current literature on job turnover, generational considerations, and recruiting the right talent. The research revealed that the nature of the work, feeling of accomplishment, recognition, positive feedback, work/life balance and workplace perks resulted in job satisfaction while low starting pay and lack of hands-on engineering are causes of job dissatisfaction. Low SMART retention is primarily due to dissatisfaction with their salary exacerbated by the co-location of the more lucrative PAQ program. Additionally, the marketing as a scholarship-for- service program set the expectation of an obligation rather than a long-term career program. The findings and knowledge generated from this study are expected to aid senior management within the engineering career field to make informed decisions on special salary tables, job assignments, and allocating resources on supervisor and employee development programs that support job satisfaction and retention initiatives.

Keywords: job satisfaction, retention, engineering intern, Herzberg two-factor theory, SMART, Palace Acquire

Contents

Abstract ...... 5 Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...... 10 Statement of the Problem ...... 10 Context and Background ...... 11 Intern Programs ...... 14 Rationale and Significance ...... 15 Critical Mission ...... 17 Attrition of Experienced Workers ...... 17 Succession Planning ...... 18 Difficulty Filling Mid-Grade Positions ...... 19 Challenge Recruiting High-quality Interns ...... 19 Deficiencies in the Evidence ...... 21 Relating the Discussion to Audiences ...... 21 Research Problem and Research Questions ...... 21 Key Terms ...... 23 Theoretical Framework - Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory ...... 24 Origins of the Theory ...... 26 Dominant Paradigm Prior to Herzberg ...... 27 Development of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory ...... 28 Parallels Between Herzberg’s Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ...... 30 Studies that Support Herzberg’s Theory ...... 31 Critics of the Theory ...... 32 Criticism Summary ...... 34 Rationale of Applicability of Herzberg’s Theory in this Case Study ...... 35 Application to the Study ...... 35 Organization of Study ...... 36 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 37 Employee Turnover ...... 38 Types of Employee Turnover ...... 39 Turnover Costs and Impacts ...... 40 7

Managing Turnover ...... 41 Causes ...... 42 Actions to Reduce Turnover...... 43 Employee Turnover Conclusion ...... 48 Generational Considerations ...... 49 Millennial Facts and Statistics ...... 50 Traits ...... 50 Cultural Identity ...... 51 Beliefs and Values ...... 52 Education ...... 52 Entrepreneurial Desires ...... 53 Workplace Implications ...... 53 Generational Considerations Conclusion ...... 55 Recruiting ...... 56 Recruiting Factors to Consider ...... 56 Recruiting Conclusion ...... 58 Summary ...... 59 Chapter Three: Research Design ...... 62 Research Question ...... 62 Qualitative Research Approach ...... 63 Constructivist-Interpretivist Paradigm ...... 63 Case Study Methodology ...... 64 Participants ...... 67 Sampling Procedures ...... 68 Research Site ...... 69 Procedures ...... 70 Focus Groups ...... 71 Semi-structured Interviews ...... 72 Air Force Documents ...... 72 Data Storage and Management ...... 72 Data Analysis ...... 73 8

Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research ...... 76 Ethical Considerations ...... 76 Credibility ...... 76 Transferability ...... 77 Internal Audit ...... 77 Self-reflexivity and Transparency ...... 77 Limitations...... 80 Summary ...... 81 Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis ...... 83 Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction ...... 84 Nature of the Work ...... 85 Recognition ...... 88 Achievement ...... 90 Mentoring ...... 92 Benefits and Perquisites ...... 95 Conclusion – Motivating Factors that Contribute to Job Satisfaction ...... 97 Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction ...... 100 Salary ...... 100 Supervisor Relationship ...... 106 Working Conditions – Difficult to Use Computer Technology ...... 109 Conclusion – Hygiene Factors that Contribute to Job Dissatisfaction ...... 111 Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition ...... 113 Comparing and Contrasting the PAQ program with SMART Scholarship Program ...... 113 Marketing of the SMART Scholarship and Implications ...... 114 Motivation to Join the Air Force ...... 115 Reasons for Attrition ...... 116 Smart Intern Suggestions to Increase Job Satisfaction and Reduce Attrition ...... 116 Conclusion – Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition ...... 118 Conclusion ...... 119 Finding One: Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction ...... 119 Finding Two: Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction ...... 121 9

Finding Three: Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition ...... 123 Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications for Practice ...... 125 Discussion of Applicability of the Case Study Methodology ...... 125 Discussion of the Point of View of the SMART Intern...... 126 Discussion of Applicability of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory ...... 127 Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction Discussion...... 127 Nature of the Work ...... 128 Recognition ...... 129 Achievement ...... 130 Mentoring ...... 131 Perquisites and Benefits ...... 132 Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction Discussion ...... 135 Salary Discussion ...... 135 Working Conditions Discussion ...... 137 Relationship with Supervisor Discussion ...... 138 Answers the Research Questions ...... 142 Summary ...... 144 Conclusion ...... 145 Recommendations for Practice ...... 146 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 151 REFERENCES ...... 153 Appendix A - Permission to Conduct Study ...... 160 Appendix B - Recruitment Email – Intern ...... 161 Appendix C - Recruitment Email – Supervisor ...... 162 Appendix D - Informed Consent Form – Intern ...... 163 Appendix E - Informed Consent Form -- Supervisor ...... 167 Appendix F - Intern Questionnaire...... 171 Appendix G - SMART Intern Focus Group Guide ...... 172 Appendix H - Palace Acquire Intern Focus Group Guide ...... 174 Appendix I - Former Intern Focus Group Guide ...... 176 Appendix J - Supervisor Interview Guide ...... 178 Appendix L - Inventory of Documents Reviewed ...... 180

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study

The engineering department at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts has the challenge to recruit and retain young engineers and computer scientists to replenish an aging workforce that is well into retirement eligibility in order to meet the technical staffing requirements that currently face the

United States Air Force (Hart, 2018). The aging workforce of retirement-eligible baby boomers has increased attention on refreshing and retaining the engineering workforce (Glesinger, 2013) to meet the

Air Force technological demands for the next 40 years.

There appears to be a problem with retaining some engineering interns during the development phase of their career as well as shortly after any mandatory time commitment has expired. The United

States Air Force has several paid internship programs sponsored by the Air Force Civilian Service used to attract highly qualified talented engineers and computer scientists to work as civil servants for the military ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018). The three used extensively at

Hanscom include the Palace Acquire program (PAQ), the Pathways Intern program, and the SMART program. Retention data of Air Force civilian acquisition engineering interns show significant differences in retention rates of the three internship programs. The retention rates from 2010-2018 are PAQ 77.7%,

Pathways Intern 47.3%, SMART 19% with an overall, former intern retention rate of 51% (Hart, 2018).

This case study explored the factors that affect the level of job satisfaction among recently hired engineers and computers scientists and the impact on employee retention. It also explored why the retention of the SMART interns is so low.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this research study is to understand how the following eight factors: the nature of the work, recognition, achievement, mentoring, perquisites, salary, working conditions, and supervisor/employee relationship impact the job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce. It also explored the differences in retention of the three internship programs (PAQ, 11

Pathways Intern, SMART) and explained possible causes for markedly different retention statistics.

Knowledge generated and recommendations provided in this research study will inform Air Force hiring managers, first-line supervisors, and the Science and Engineering Career Team (SECFT) about job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce as well as the usefulness of each internship program as a recruiting tool. These recommendations should result in actionable practices within the Air Force to improve management of the new engineers and scientists at Air Force Materiel

Command (AFMC) acquisition bases.

This chapter begins with a brief overview of the Air Force acquisition mission, the influence of the location of Hanscom AFB, salary considerations, and demographics of the current workforce. Details of the three specific science and engineering intern programs are discussed to include entry criteria and compensation details of each. The rationale and significance of the study are discussed next, indicating why job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce is critical to the acquisition mission of the Air Force and provide situational awareness to senior leaders to implement change. The research problem and research questions are presented to focus the study on job satisfaction and retention. Finally, a theoretical framework is presented that provides a useful model on employee satisfaction that focuses the research on facets of job satisfaction, organizational climate, and demographic variables.

Context and Background

The United States relies on a strong military in order to protect itself against its enemies. It does this by being the most technologically advanced military in the world. "The United States Air Force

(USAF) maintains the most powerful airborne force on Earth ready to succeed in their mission in air, space, and cyberspace ("Air Force Civilian Service - Acquisition Force," 2018).

The United States Air Force is divided into nine major subdivisions called Major Commands that are assigned a specific segment of the USAF mission ranging from providing global airlift, operating 12

intercontinental ballistic missile forces, and operating combat aircraft, to name a few. The Major

Command addressed in this study is Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) whose mission is to manage the integrated research, development, test, acquisition, and sustainment of weapon systems; to produce and acquire advanced systems such as stealth aircraft and satellite systems to advanced communications equipment and systems to support nuclear deterrence (Lewis, Birnie, Williams, &

Schrader, 1999). AFMC operates several Air Force bases across the United States including Hanscom Air

Force Base, Massachusetts.

The mission of Hanscom Air Force Base is to develop state-of-the-art command, control, communications, and intelligence systems to provide the combatant commands the ability to maintain a strategic advantage over its adversaries through superior command and control of the air battlespace.

The engineers and computer scientists at Hanscom Air Force Base are the technical experts who manage the design, development, testing, production, and deployment of critical weapon systems for the warfighter in partnership with defense contractors.

Hanscom Air Force Base is located near Boston, Massachusetts along the high-tech Route 128 beltway. The physical location of Hanscom Air Force Base accounts for both strengths and weaknesses from a recruiting, retention, and job satisfaction perspective. The Boston, Massachusetts area is host to top private schools in the nation such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern

University, and Boston University to name a few, as well as top state universities such as the University of Massachusetts. These schools, as well as others throughout the nation, provide top students to the

Air Force’s intern programs. The Boston area is very culturally rich with regards to the arts, music, sports, and early American history. Hanscom Air Force Base has proximity to the ocean, mountains, lakes, ski resorts, hiking trails and historic towns and villages which provides its residents with many outdoor activity choices. These benefits do not come without a cost. The cost of living and, in particular, the cost of housing in this part of Massachusetts is very high. The traffic in the surrounding 13

area is very heavy, resulting in long commutes depending upon one's work schedule, where they live, and the route they take. Snowfall in the winter exacerbates the commutes as well. These factors can impact overall job satisfaction as long commutes, and the high cost of living can detract from overall work/life balance.

Average starting salaries for computer scientists and engineers working in private industry in the

Boston area is quite a bit higher than what the Air Force can offer its interns. In a survey conducted by the engineering intern manager, in charge of administering the engineering intern programs at Hanscom

Air Force Base, to include recruiting, mentoring, job placement and retention, reported that 95% of the interns surveyed indicated they believe they are underpaid in comparison to their counterparts in the private sector (Hart, 2018).

The authorized engineering workforce at Hanscom Air Force Base and its operating locations is comprised of approximately 605 civilians and 128 military officers. The number assigned varies monthly but averages approximately 537 civilians assigned and 74 military officers assigned for a fill rate of 89% and 58% respectively. The number of civilian interns makes up approximately 9.3% of the total assigned

(Gosselin, 2020). The workforce has some diversity concerning age, gender, and race. The age range of the Hanscom Air Force Base engineering workforce spans from 22 years old to 87 years old (Gosselin,

2020). The age range of the interns spans from 22 through 30 placing them in the Millennial generation—born after 1982 (Howe & Nadler, 2008) which brings a generational component to the study of job satisfaction. It is important to note, 38% of the workforce is retirement eligible (Gosselin,

2020) – this provides a reason for concern as the experience level of this group is difficult to replicate.

Concerning gender, the Hanscom civilian engineering workforce as a whole is 80% male, 20% female; however, the proportion of female interns is on the rise as gender demographics of the interns is 63% male and 37% female (Gosselin, 2020). This statistic corresponds with the trend that women are graduating from institutions of higher learning at rates higher than men (Gordon, 2009). Concerning 14

diversity, the workforce as a whole is 73% white, 27% other; however, the diversity of the interns is 77% white and 23% other (Gosselin, 2020).

Intern Programs

The USAF utilizes the Palace Acquire program (PAQ), the Pathways Intern program, and the

Science Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship-for-Service program as a pipeline to attract highly qualified talented engineers and computer scientists to work as civil servants for the military ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018).

The Palace Acquire program is designed for the recent college graduate who received a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science in Engineering or Computer Science and has attained a minimum 3.05

Grade Point Average from an engineering college that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology, Inc. commonly referred to as ABET-accredited. The Palace Acquire program is a 3-year developmental program which provides for a 25% sign-on bonus, up to $30,000 repayment of federally backed student loans, and the promise of a free master's degree (while salaried) in their second year of the program ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018). It also provides annual promotion from GS-7 to GS-9 to GS-11 to GS-12 with corresponding salaries in the

Boston area of $48,488, $59,316, $71,274, and $85,428 for 2020 (OPM, 2020b). The average salary for an electrical engineer in the Boston area is $98,530 according to the Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS,

2019b).

The Pathways Intern program is designed for current college sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

It is a paid student internship at the GS-3 through GS-5 level open to students enrolled at least half-time in several accredited educational programs with corresponding salaries in the Boston area of $29,974 through $37,647 for 2019 ("Salary Table 2019-BOS," 2019). Students can work part-time or full-time in

Air Force jobs related to their field of study. After degree completion, it may lead to conversion to the

PAQ program ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018). 15

The SMART program is a highly competitive undergraduate scholarship which provide current students pursuing undergraduate or graduate degrees in the STEM disciplines free tuition, educational expenses, a generous cash stipend, health insurance, and paid summer internships at one of several participating Air Force bases across the nation. The scholarship recipient is hired as an intern and has a

2 to 5-year commitment to serve ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018; DoDSTEM,

2017) when they complete their degree. The length of their commitment corresponds to the number of years of benefit received.

The three internship programs require participants to be US citizens, have a favorable background check, be able to obtain a secret clearance, and be free of drug use. All three programs were used extensively at Hanscom Air Force Base; however, the makeup of the engineering internship program at Hanscom Air Force Base has deliberately changed over the last three years. For the last three years, only two of the programs, Palace Acquire program (PAQ) and the SMART(Science,

Mathematics, and Research for Transformation) program have been utilized due to the fact that the

Pathways Interns are only available during the summer break, and it takes too long to get a return on investment for the training needed to get meaningful productivity out of the Pathways Intern (Hart,

2018). The Air Force has recently instituted a new intern program to replace the Pathways Intern program named Premier College Intern Program (PCIP) that is a rebranding and modification of the

Pathways Intern program. No historical data exists on this program and will not be considered in this research.

There are 35 full-time engineering interns currently employed at Hanscom AFB. There are an additional 35 former interns who have graduated from the intern program and have been promoted and placed in permanent jobs at Hanscom (Hart, 2018).

Rationale and Significance

There is a critical need for the Air Force to recruit and retain engineering talent in order to 16

develop and field the latest weapon system technology. In 2014, the former Secretary of the Air Force,

Deborah Lee James, affirmed that competition for highly qualified, technical talent will continue to intensify as “we vie for gifted aptitude in a very competitive local, global and specific skills market”

(James, 2014, p. 2). She asserts that by 2018, the demand for technical talent will outpace degree production by over one million jobs in the U.S. which will result in a significant challenge to maintain its technical edge as the pace of technology continues to increase (James, 2014, p. 2). The former Air Force

Chief of Staff, General Mark A. Welsh III, also stated the Air Force requires a world-class, technical talent to operate with global preeminence across all warfighting domains to include air, space, and cyberspace.

He forecasts that as globalization and the pace of technology continue, the Air Force demand for this talent will continue to grow (Welsh III, 2014, p. 3). This increase in competition for technical skill is not limited to the Air Force. As Holtom (2008) indicates in 2008, “Attracting and retaining high-quality employees is more important today than ever before due to trends in globalization, increase in knowledge work, and accelerating rate of advancement in technology” (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly,

2008, p. 232).

This research is significant from both the context of employee satisfaction and retention, in general, as well as the specific context of job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns.

While recruiting and hiring the right technical skill is extremely important, retaining that talent is even more important today than ever before (Holtom et al., 2008, p. 232). From an Air Force perspective, and more broadly an industry perspective, the concepts and findings in this study may be directly applicable to other organizations that are dealing with an aging workforce, job satisfaction, recruiting, and retention issues. With a historically 49-year low unemployment rate of 3.7%, the demand for industry to retain top talent is also intense (Carucci, 2018). Although this case study is limited to addressing job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns, there are other factors that magnify the significance of intern attrition. These factors include attrition of the experienced workforce 17

due to both retirement and job dissatisfaction, the difficulty in filling midgrade positions (Chemaly,

2018), the difficulty in recruiting talented interns with degrees in computer science or electrical engineering (Hart, 2018), and the direct and indirect costs of hiring and training interns to replace those that quit (Falcone, 2018).

Critical Mission

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) in general and Hanscom Air Force Base, in particular, has the critical mission to provide advanced weapon systems to the warfighter in order to maintain our global air superiority in defense of the U.S. and its allies (Public-Affairs, 2016). The engineers and scientists at Hanscom, in conjunction with defense contractors, develop tomorrow’s most advanced radars, command and operations centers, network infrastructures, communication and intelligence systems, and cyber defense systems (Public-Affairs, 2016). Developing and delivering these weapon systems require a substantial technical workforce of engineers and computer scientists. The Air Force cannot do this effectively if they lack the experienced human resources caused by attrition of experienced engineers, attrition of the developmental pipeline of interns, or inability to fill vacant positions. It is critical to the mission of Hanscom Air Force Base, and the weapon systems developed there, that retention of engineering interns is of prime importance and actions are taken to ensure their high job satisfaction to reduce attrition.

Attrition of Experienced Workers

Several factors magnify the significance of intern attrition to include attrition of the experienced workforce. Attrition of experienced engineers can be caused by retirement, dissatisfaction with their current job, or accepting a better, higher paying, or more interesting job elsewhere. While attrition of the experienced workforce due to dissatisfaction is low, the eventual bow wave of retirements due to an aging workforce is on the horizon (Gosselin, 2020). The USAF civilian engineering workforce at Hanscom

Air Force Base is aging with 38% of the workforce retirement-eligible now, and approximately 50% of 18

the workforce is becoming retirement-eligible within the next ten years (Gosselin, 2020).

Succession Planning

An aging workforce requires management to institute succession planning in order to reduce or eliminate the loss of human capital and corporate knowledge expected to occur when key employees leave the organization (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Succession planning includes replacing talent by creating a pipeline that recruits new employees while providing career and experience development in order to impart specialty technical knowledge to younger employees (France, Leahy, & Parsons,

2009). It also provides promotion opportunity as employees progress through the corporate ladder.

Glesinger (2013) contends that the increasing rate of Baby Boomer retirements is going to have a severe impact on companies by reducing the depth of expertise within their organization. He points out that senior executives from a wide variety of industries are very concerned about the potentially negative effects of the loss of experienced people as well as the second-order effects of highly talented employees being given too much responsibility too quickly (Glesinger, 2013).

Proper succession planning is a mix of initiatives including recruitment, training and development, and retention programs to ensure organizational success and longevity (Crumpacker &

Crumpacker, 2007, p. 349). Additionally, Calo (2006) notes that there are three demographic realities impacting today’s organizations requiring talent management and succession planning. These include: the loss of great stores of knowledge due to the retirement of Baby Boomers, the projected shortage of technically qualified workers, and the overall aging workforce (Calo, 2008, p. 45).

Balancing the engineering pipeline will require deliberate succession planning to maintain a high level of technical expertise. While local universities can produce very technically competent engineers and computer scientists, it still takes many years for these individuals to become seasoned government acquisition professionals and successfully navigate the rigid acquisition roadmap that has been put in place to ensure the Department of Defense procures weapon systems that meet the needs 19

of the warfighters, while providing fair competition among corporate suppliers and being a good steward of taxpayer money. The retirement of senior acquisition professionals can have a deleterious effect of cost, schedule, and performance of new weapon systems if proper succession planning is not implemented.

Difficulty Filling Mid-Grade Positions

Another related factor that magnifies the significance of intern attrition is the difficulty in filling highly technical midgrade positions (Onag, 2017). Frequently, it is difficult to find niche talent such as radar engineers (Chemaly, 2018; Falcone, 2018). Difficulty in filling vacant mid-level engineering positions is caused by the inability to find, attract, and compensate engineers with the necessary niche experience to fill mid-level jobs. The need for highly skilled technical workers on a global basis (Onag,

2017, p. 1) continues to increase. According to Gordon (2009), there is a global talent crisis, and indicates that while there is an “abundance of labor," there is a “poverty of talent." He also contends that the United States needs to reinvent its talent-creation system in order to satisfy its critical need for technical talent (Gordon, 2009, p. 35).

Challenge Recruiting High-quality Interns

In addition to the difficulty in hiring midgrade engineers, it is also difficult to recruit engineering interns. According to the Hanscom Air Force Base engineering recruiter, it is difficult hiring interns with the necessary background in either computer science or electrical engineering. He indicated that he is challenged to recruit the number of young engineers and computer scientists in order to meet the quota of interns required to feed the technical talent pipeline. There are several contributing factors to include the requirement that the applicant must be a United States citizen. Local universities graduate many brilliant foreign students that are ineligible to apply. The recent legalization of cannabis products in Massachusetts may also limit the applicant pool since cannabis use remains illegal at the Federal level and is a disqualifier for government service. These factors, combined with the lower than industry 20

starting salaries, make recruiting bright young engineers and computer scientists difficult (Hart, 2018).

A final factor that amplifies the significance of intern retention is the cost in time and money to acquire a replacement intern. Employee turnover creates both direct and indirect costs of replacing departed employees (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). It is essential for management to understand the factors that influence retention and institute change to combat attrition and promote retention. Aside from the monetary loss of employee turnover, the additional loss consists of lost productivity (Kochanski

& Sorensen, 2008), the loss of experience, and lost time spent to train a replacement employee to become a fully functional contributing employee. According to the Director of Engineering at Hanscom

AFB, it takes between 2-3 years for a newly hired intern to attain the level training and experience to become a fully functional and contributing engineer (Falcone, 2018).

This case study provides reasons why some interns quit and provides actionable recommendations to reduce attrition by focusing on how to increase employee satisfaction, how to eliminate (or reduce) employee dissatisfaction, and how to recruit the right people in the first place. It provides recommendations that the Air Force should concentrate on one intern program versus three different intern programs at Hanscom Air Force Base that have wildly different retention rates.

Through a series of exit interviews, job satisfaction surveys, and focus groups, this study determines why some interns quit so management can take action to reduce attrition. Key factors are analyzed, such as job satisfaction, compensation, and the nature of the work and other factors to determine how to increase retention. While there is no shortage of new college graduates from high- quality engineering colleges in the Boston area, the salary disparity between the Air Force and private industry is a factor in both recruiting and retention of interns at Hanscom (Hart, 2018).

From an Air Force perspective, and more broadly an industry perspective, the concepts and findings in this research may be applicable to other organizations that are dealing with an aging workforce, job satisfaction, recruiting, and retention issues. 21

Deficiencies in the Evidence

With limited qualitative research on how job satisfaction impacts retention of Air Force engineering interns, a qualitative approach helped provide perspectives from current interns, prior interns, managers, and academic research on ways the Air Force can adapt their current practices to increase job satisfaction and retention. As this research study will be limited to one specific career field at one specific Air Force Base, the findings may not directly translate to other career fields or bases; however, the principles could provide a starting point for research and exploration by other organizations faced with a similar retention problem. Based on the findings of this research, several recommendations are made for changes in organizational behavior as well as systems that impede job satisfaction. Implementing these recommendations should increase job satisfaction and subsequently, retention.

Relating the Discussion to Audiences

Findings from this case study may help provide the Air Force Civilian Service (AFCS) career team with critical insights and information regarding the success or failure of the SMART scholarship- internship program to deliver on its intended purpose of providing a pipeline to civilian service.

Additionally, by examining survey data regarding positive and negative impressions that current and prior interns possess, first and second level supervisors might better understand the factors that influence the job satisfaction and long-term employment intentions of the interns that work in their divisions and make appropriate adjustments to their management style. This research will aid senior management at Hanscom Air Force Base to make informed decisions on allocating resources on supervisor and employee development programs that support job satisfaction initiatives and retention- based upon findings in this case study.

Research Problem and Research Questions

The engineering department at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts has the challenge to 22

recruit and retain young engineers and computer scientists to replenish an aging workforce that is well into retirement eligibility in order to meet the technical staffing requirements that currently face the

United States Air Force (Hart, 2018). Retention rates from 2010-2018 for three internship programs vary from a high of 77.7% for the Palace Acquire (PAQ) program to 47.3% for the Pathways Intern program to a low of only 19% for the Science, Mathematics, And Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship for Service Program with an overall former intern retention rate of 51% (Hart, 2018).

The purpose of this study was to understand the many facets of the Hanscom AFB work environment that effects engineering interns’ job satisfaction and retention. Therefore, the overriding research question is:

How does the Hanscom AFB work environment influence job satisfaction and retention of Air

Force engineering interns?

A qualitative approach was utilized in this study in order examine how factors such as the nature of the work, recognition, achievement, mentoring, perquisites, salary, working conditions, and supervisor/employee relationship impact the job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce impact the job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce. It does this through a combination of focus groups, employee surveys, exit interviews with former interns, interviews with first-line supervisors, and the engineering intern manager as well as a review of internal

Air Force documents pertaining to intern statistics and a thorough review of the literature. 23

Key Terms

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)—An Air Force organization with the assigned mission to manage the integrated research, development, test, acquisition, and sustainment of weapon systems; to produce and acquire advanced systems; to operate “super labs”, major product centers, logistics centers, and test centers; and to operate the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine and USAF Test Pilot

School (Lewis et al., 1999).

PALACE Acquire (PAQ) – A paid internship program that offers permanent full-time positions in a wide range of occupations following a 2 to 4-year period with a formal training plan designed for both personal and professional growth ("Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018).

Pathways Intern – A paid internship program that is open to students enrolled at least half-time in a variety of qualifying accredited educational programs at high-school through graduate levels.

Students can work part-time or full-time in jobs related to their field of study or interests ("Air Force

Civilian Service - Students and Graduates," 2018).

Retention – An institution’s ability to retain employees.

SMART Scholarship for Service -- "The Science, Mathematics, And Research for Transformation

(SMART) Scholarship-for-Service Program has been established by the Department of Defense (DoD) to support undergraduate and graduate students pursuing technical degrees in Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The program aims to increase the number of civilian scientists and engineers working at DoD facilities (DoDSTEM, 2017).

Theoretical Framework - Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that influence the job satisfaction and retention of engineering interns working for the Air Force at Hanscom AFB. The theoretical framework applicable to this case study is Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory (F. M. Herzberg, Bernard;

Snyderman, Barbara, 1959). An extensive review of the literature on job satisfaction shows that the

Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory has been widely studied and applied when seeking to understand job satisfaction (Gonzalez, 2008, p. 3; Hur, 2018, p. 331). Herzberg’s Motivational-Hygiene theory is also known as the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. According to his theory, people are influenced by two sets of factors (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Herzberg’s (1959) study produced a cluster of job- attitude factors that he labeled motivating factors in the workplace that lead to job satisfaction and a cluster of job-attitude factors that he labeled hygiene factors in the workplace that lead to dissatisfaction. Specifically, the motivating factors leading to job satisfaction, listed in priority order include:

• Achievement – successful completion of a job, solving a problem, seeing results of one’s

work

• Recognition – positive acknowledgment from a supervisor, management, client, peer,

professional colleague, or the general public

• Nature of the work – interesting and/or enjoyable work performed

• Responsibility – having control over one’s own work or someone else’s work

• Advancement – having the opportunity for promotion in rank or status

• Possibility of growth – likelihood to be advanced within the organization; increasing in

knowledge, skill, or ability

The hygiene factors leading to dissatisfaction, listed in priority order include:

• Company policy – being unhappy with a company policy 25

• Supervision – being over supervised; inept supervisor

• Relationship with the boss – negative relationship causes dissatisfaction

• Working conditions – physical work conditions, too much work, or inadequate facilities,

lighting, tools, space, ventilation, or other environmental conditions

• Minimum salary levels – pay inequities or unfulfilled salary increase expectations

• Relationships with peers – negative relationships cause dissatisfaction

• Personal life – negative aspects such as long commute or impact on personal life

• Relationship with subordinates – negative relationship causes dissatisfaction

• Status – organizational placement – e.g., low status can cause dissatisfaction

• Job security – negative if feeling that job security is in jeopardy

(Herzberg, 1987, pp. 44-49)

The factors that bring satisfaction are not the same factors that cause dissatisfaction. In other words, dissatisfaction is not the result of an absence of factors giving rise to satisfaction (Herzberg,

1987, p. 9). His study showed that motivation factors were the primary cause of job satisfaction and hygiene factors were the primary cause of job dissatisfaction on the job (Herzberg, 1987, p. 9). He also noted that motivation factors are intrinsic to the job while hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job

(Herzberg, 1987).

Motivation factors are needed to motivate an employee to higher performance. According to

Herzberg (1959), “The factors that lead to positive attitudes do so because they satisfy the individual’s need for self-actualization in his work” (F. M. Herzberg, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara, 1959, p. 114). In order to improve satisfaction in the workplace and increase retention, it would follow that improving on motivating factors would increase satisfaction in the workplace and reducing or eliminating hygiene factors would decrease workplace dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1987). Examples of motivating factors to 26

implement include giving positive feedback to employees, instituting a recognition program, giving praise, modifying the job to provide for a feeling of achievement, giving employees more responsibility and autonomy, promoting a culture of respect, and providing for advancement and growth (Hyun & Oh,

2011, p. 103).

Conversely, hygiene factors, do not lead to higher levels of motivation, but without them, there is dissatisfaction (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 103). There are many ways to address hygiene factors and eliminate dissatisfaction in the workplace. Some areas to consider would be to reduce or eliminate unreasonable company policies, foster positive relations between the employee and the supervisor, improve working conditions, pay reasonable wages, provide career stability, provide a guaranteed retirement fund, creating a positive culture within the organization, and remove or mitigate job characteristics that negatively impact employee’s personal life such as providing flexible work hours to avoid traffic during the commute (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 103).

Origins of the Theory

Prior to Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene theory, there were two views of human nature regarding work motivation. The first one was Taylorism which viewed people as lazy and work-shy, and they needed external stimulation to motivate them. The second view was that people's motivation is internally stimulated and they are motivated by the type of work itself as well as social and monetary benefits received (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 930). Additionally, Abraham Maslow did extensive research on human motivation and published his seminal paper entitled, “A Theory of Human

Motivation” (A. H. Maslow, 1943) where he presented his hierarchy of needs to describe stages of growth in humans.

In this theory, commonly known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Maslow (1943) contends that people need to satisfy their physiological needs first. These needs include basic things like food and water, as well as other nutrients needed for homeostasis (A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 372-376). The next 27

level is the category of the need for safety. This could be safety from a threat to a desire for a predictable, orderly world (A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 376-380). The next level is the category of the need for love. This is the need for love, affection, and belongingness (A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 380-381). This is followed by the need for esteem. Maslow contends that “All people in our society (with a few pathological exceptions) have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, (usually) high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others.” (A. H. Maslow, 1943, p. 381)

This includes the need for achievement, adequacy, reputation, prestige, recognition, and appreciation

(A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 381-382). Finally, the highest level of human motivation is the need for self- actualization. Maslow contends that a person will eventually be discontent and restless unless he is doing what he is meant for, for example, ”a painter must paint, a musician must make music, and a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy.” (A. H. Maslow, 1943, p. 382) Maslow went on to fully express his theory of human motivation in his 1954 book entitled, Motivation and Personality (Abraham

H. Maslow, 1970).

Dominant Paradigm Prior to Herzberg

Prior to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, the dominant paradigm was that job satisfaction was on a uni-scalar continuum where “satisfaction” and “dissatisfaction” were on opposite ends of a satisfaction continuum and a neutral condition exists at the midpoint when neither satisfied nor dissatisfied was dominant. This assumed that individuals move along the satisfaction continuum in response to changes in all the factors that make up their jobs such as the behavior of supervisors, pay, working conditions, relationships with co-workers, promotion opportunities and many of other aspects of one’s job. Factors that cause dissatisfaction such as poor working conditions can be offset by factors that contribute to satisfaction such improvement in pay, prospects for promotion, and better working conditions. With this model, dissatisfaction is caused by the absence of factors that cause satisfaction or a deterioration in the factors that cause satisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 932; Behling, 28

Labovitz, & Kosmo, 1968, pp. 99-100).

Development of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000) was a notable clinical psychologist, an influential management teacher, and consultant. He is also a renowned writer of management and motivational theories

(Zeeman, 2017).

In 1957, when working at the Psychological Services of Pittsburgh, Herzberg and his colleagues conducted a study entitled, Job attitudes: research and opinion (1957) where they reviewed approximately two thousand writings on the topic of problem areas of job attitudes to answer what workers want from their jobs. The results they got were contradictory, leading them to conclude that vast differences in methodology was responsible for the results.

In response, Herzberg and his colleagues designed a study using the critical-incidents technique to better understand employee attitudes and motivation (Herzberg, 1993, p. xiii). “The major hypothesis was that the factors leading to positive attitudes and those leading to negative attitudes would differ.” (Herzberg, 1993, p. 29)

He collected data from interviews with 203 engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area

(NetMBA, 2010) by asking them “Describe a time, an incident, when you felt good, and a time, incident, when you felt bad.” (Herzberg, 1993, p. xiii) From the data collected, he explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of frequency and impact duration. When the factors were analyzed, they formed two distinct natural clusters. One cluster centered on factors that produced job satisfaction and other cluster centered on factors that produced job dissatisfaction.

Sources of satisfaction include a sense of achievement, recognition, the work itself, the opportunity to take responsibility and prospects for advancement. Employees indicated strong dissatisfaction if they were unhappy with company policy and administration, technical and interpersonal supervision, financial reward, and working conditions (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Herzberg also discovered that 29

satisfaction with these variables that were responsible for dissatisfaction, later referred to as hygiene factors, did not correlate with increased levels of job satisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). He published these findings in 1959 in a book entitled, The Motivation to Work (F. M. Herzberg, Bernard;

Snyderman, Barbara, 1959) where he presented his seminal Motivation-Hygiene Theory, also known as the Two-Factor Theory (Zeeman, 2017).

Herzberg continued to refine his theory from 1959-1968 when he published, One More Time:

How Do You Motivate Employees, which presented his original theory and also discussed principles of job enrichment to increase motivation and job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1987). These principles included removing some controls on employees, increasing the accountability of individuals for their own work, granting additional authority and job freedom to employees and assigning individuals specialized tasks enabling them to become experts (Herzberg, 1987, p. 10). He also provided graphical results from 12 investigations conducted by Herzberg that clearly shows the relationship between factors that cause satisfaction and the factors causing dissatisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

The factors that cause job satisfaction are on the first six factors on the top. The next ten factors are the factors that cause job dissatisfaction. The length of the bar indicates the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (see Exhibit 1). It is interesting to note several factors including salary, relationship with peers, and relationship with subordinates straddle the motivation and hygiene line meaning it can either 30

be a source of job satisfaction (if sufficient) or dissatisfaction (if insufficient) depending upon the level.

Exhibit 1. Factors affecting job attitudes as reported in twelve investigations (Herzberg, 1987, p. 8).

Parallels Between Herzberg’s Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

There appear to be parallels between Herzberg's theory and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (A. H.

Maslow, 1943). Herzberg’s motivators are associated with higher-order needs or esteem and self- actualization, while hygiene factors are more like lower-order needs like safety and love in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Hur, 2018, p. 331). Maslow’s motivational level of esteem is consistent with the need for achievement, recognition, the opportunity to take responsibility and prospects for advancement. Herzberg’s hygiene factor of job security is consistent with Maslow’s need for safety, and the hygiene factors of good interpersonal relationships with supervisors, peers, and subordinates is 31

consistent with Maslow’s need for love. It would follow that a worker in the Herzberg model who is at a high level of job satisfaction with respect to achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and growth enjoying the type of work he is engaged in would be at Maslow’s level of self-actualization.

Studies that Support Herzberg’s Theory

There have been many studies, dissertations, journal articles, and papers written to test the

Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory since it was first published in 1959 (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005;

Behling et al., 1968). Those studies that implemented the critical incident methodology produced results that typically supported Herzberg's model while those who used different methods such as surveys supported the uni-scalar model of job satisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 933; Lindsay,

Marks, & Gorlow, 1967). In the early 1960’s, Herzberg as well as others, performed approximately 20 separate studies on diverse groups ranging from housekeeping staff, scientists, nurses, engineers, agricultural workers, and unskilled food service workers to name a few and Herzberg included the finding in an article entitled The Nature of Man (Behling et al., 1968, p. 102).

Ewen, et al (1966) noted several studies that supported Herzberg’s finding including a study of study of public utility supervisory personnel, a study of five different industrial jobs, and a study of civilian scientists and engineers at several Army research and development installations (Ewen, Smith, &

Hulin, 1966, p. 544). Several studies were also conducted in different countries and cultures that also supported Herzberg’s theory including one of Finnish supervisors (Ewen et al., 1966, p. 544), and one of

Hungarian engineers (Behling et al., 1968, p. 102).

In some cases, the underlying premise of the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory was supported but the specific list of motivators and hygiene factors differed. For example, Zhang et al.

(2011) conducted a study of 142 city managers to test whether Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory would be valid when studying city government employees versus employees from for-profit organizations. They found that, like with the Herzberg theory, there were two sets of factors, one set of motivators, and one 32

set of hygiene factors; however, the motivating factors were unique for city managers such as city government performance and manager’s policy-making influence (Hur, 2018, p. 332).

Critics of the Theory

While the two-factor theory has been widely replicated numerous times with many different types of professions in several countries, no model of behavior is perfect, and this theory has a fair number of critics. The most popular criticism is that it is methodologically bound (House & Wigdor,

1967, p. 731). It has also been criticized for not taking into account differences in cultures or differences in personalities as well as the often-conflicting result that salary can be a hygiene factor or a motivating factor depending upon the study. Each of these criticisms is addressed below.

Criticism Concerning Methodology

Behling et al. (1968) criticized Herzberg's results as being method-bound. They pointed out that almost without exception, that research studies using Herzberg's critical-incident method supports

Herzberg's two-factor theory and research using other methods provided conflicting results and supported a uni-scalar theory of job satisfaction (Behling et al., 1968, p. 105). French et al. (1973) asserts that valid experimental results should be methodology independent and criticized Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory as being method dependent (French, Metersky, Thaler, & Trexler, 1973, p.

369).

Vroom (1964) contends that the critical-incident method can produce suspect results due to personal bias. He contends that interviewees may be more likely to blame their dissatisfaction of personal inadequacies to obstacles presented by company policies or supervision and take personal credit for satisfaction based upon their own feeling of achievements and therefore, the results of the critical-incident methodology would be biased (Vroom, 1964, p. 150).

Criticism from Personality Aspect

Furnham et al. (1999) researched the impact of personality factors on job satisfaction and 33

compared the results to the motivating factors and hygiene factors outlined in Herzberg's motivation- hygiene theory. They found that extraverts were modestly positively correlated with job satisfaction, and psychoticism and neuroticism were negatively correlated. Furnham et al. (1999) concluded that extraverts would be more influenced toward higher job satisfaction and introverts would be more motivated by hygiene factors and that their work motivation may vary depending upon their personality traits (Furnham, Forde, & Ferrari, 1999; Hur, 2018).

Criticism from the Cultural Aspect

Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory has been criticized by Matei & Abrudam (2016) from the standpoint that it assumes that the factors that cause satisfaction (motivators) and the factors that cause dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) are consistent across different cultures. Matei & Abrudam (2016) conducted a study of students with work experience in Romania and found many inconsistencies with

Herzberg's theory. For example, salary was a significant motivating factor as were relations with peers, working conditions, and job security. These denoted hygiene factors in Herzberg's theory. Lastly, it turned out that the most important motivating factor in Herzberg’s model, that of achievement, actually had low motivating potential in the Romanian study (Matei & Abrudan, 2016, p. 6). Matei & Abrudam

(2016) attributed the variances to cultural differences between Romanians and Americans.

Cultural differences, as well as differences in organizational status, was examined in a study of food service workers in the Korean Army comparing motivation and hygiene factors of logistics officer and foodservice soldiers testing Herzberg's theory. The results of the two groups were quite the opposite when the officers were compared with the enlisted soldiers. The officer's motivation factors were achievement and working conditions, in contrast with "human supervision" and "independence" for enlisted food service workers (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 100). The study concluded that "when an organization did not allow employees an opportunity to satisfy most of their needs, hygiene factors became more powerful sources of motivation than motivators" (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 104). This study 34

highlighted both cultural differences as well as class differences in the Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory and was markedly disconfirming.

Criticism of Inconsistent Aspect of Salary as a Hygiene Factor vs. Motivator

Opsahl & Dunnette (1966) did not agree with Herzberg's assertion that salary was more likely to act as a dissatisfier (hygiene factor). They concluded that a so‐called differential role for money in leading to job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction was unsubstantiated and that Herzberg's interpretation of his data was inconsistent (Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966). Specifically, they note that Herzberg's own data from his study of 200 engineers and accountants showed 15% of the respondents satisfying event were positively related to salary and 17% of their responses related to salary were related to dissatisfying events. They claim the data seems inconsistent with the interpretation and do not provide enough substantiation for the conclusion that salary is a hygiene factor (Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966, pp. 96-97).

Hyun & Oh (2011) point out that salary could be a hygiene factor or motivator depending upon the perspective of the worker. If the worker considers a higher salary as a symbol of achievement, rather than just buying power, then it would be considered a motivator (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 103).

Additionally, Vroom (1964) pointed out that when workers are asked to rank the importance of work attributes, they rank salary more important than job content, supervision, social aspects of the job, communications, working conditions, and benefits; however, it is also found to be the less frequent source of satisfaction and most frequent source of dissatisfaction yielding conflicting results (Vroom,

1964, p. 175).

Criticism Summary

Regardless of the potential shortcomings highlighted by critics of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, Herzberg’s method has consistently produced useful and repeatable results (Bassett-Jones &

Lloyd, 2005). As with any application of theory, it is up to the researcher to determine if the theory applies to his unique set of circumstances and impart critical thinking to interpret and use the results. 35

Rationale of Applicability of Herzberg’s Theory in this Case Study

The Herzberg two-factor theory has produced both confirming results and conflicting results in the numerous research studies performed over the years. The results that validate his theory typically use the same methodology – the critical incident method. The results that conflict with Herzberg's theory typically use a different method (e.g., survey method) or apply it to sample population that was very different culturally from the workers in the original study, or are very different from the type of work, for example, engineers in Herzberg's original study versus food service workers in Korea. The sense that comes through in each of these studies is that based upon the culture and type of worker in a particular industry, there is a central tendency for that specific group of workers within the given culture within a given industry to have a set of factors that create job satisfaction, such as “the nature of the work”, and have a set a factors that create job dissatisfaction such as “poor working conditions”. There are other factors such as the factor of “salary” or “relationships with peers” that appear to fall in the satisfaction or dissatisfaction category depending up the specific group of workers, cultural differences, and job attributes.

Since the population of workers in Herzberg’s original study was a group of engineers and accountants in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, it follows that Herzberg’s two-factor theory should be applicable to the group of engineers in this case study. Additionally, the goal of this case study is to determine what factors provide job satisfaction and what factors cause job dissatisfaction amongst the surveyed population of Air Force Interns. That knowledge should inform hiring managers, supervisors, and senior leadership within the Air Force, which in turn should influence policy and actions to increase retention.

Application to the Study

Since the goal of this case study was to understand the factors contributing to the attrition of former interns and the retention of current interns, the Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory provides a focus on the factors that need to be studied. Specifically, the focus was on those factors that cause 36

dissatisfaction and those factors that lead to job satisfaction. This study provides useful data and recommendations on how to increase job satisfaction and prevent job dissatisfaction with the goal of increasing retention of the next generation of talented engineers and computer scientists.

Organization of Study

Following this introduction, Chapter Two provides a comprehensive review of the current literature on employee turnover, generational implications, and recruiting the right people. Chapter

Three outlines the research design and the role of a case study methodology to provide an in-depth understanding of the level of intern job satisfaction and its correlation to retention. Chapter Four presents the findings of the study, and Chapter Five discusses the findings, provides recommendations and implications, and suggests topics for future research. 37

Chapter Two: Literature Review

What are the factors that affect the retention of highly technical knowledge workers? Why do good employees leave? What are some best practices used in the commercial industry to retain people? How do you motivate and satisfy employees? How do you make government jobs appeal to millennials? These are serious questions facing the Air Force. The main question driving this literature review is: how does the Hanscom AFB work environment influence intern job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns, and what can we do about it? There is a critical need for the Air Force to recruit and retain engineering and computer science interns at Hanscom AFB to support the vital mission of developing advanced weapon systems for the warfighter to maintain our global air superiority in defense of the U.S. (Public-Affairs, 2016). Several factors compound the problem of retaining Air Force interns. These include the challenge of recruiting high-quality interns, the cost in time and money to acquire replacement interns, the attrition of experienced engineers, the difficulty filling mid-grade vacancies, and the need for succession planning to maintain a stable, balanced workforce over the long term.

This literature review explores the current literature on factors affecting job satisfaction and retention. The research is categorized by themes to include (1) job turnover, (2) generational considerations, and (3) recruiting the right people. Motivation theories pertaining to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were covered in Chapter 1 and will not be discussed in this literature review.

The first section of this literature review discusses job turnover. It addresses the types of employee turnover as well as the costs and impacts of employee turnover to the organization. It also suggests how to determine the root causes of employee turnover and actions an organization can take to reduce or mitigate employee turnover.

The next section considers the generational component of the Air Force intern by reviewing the current literature on cultural identity, traits, beliefs, and values of the Millennial generation and discuss 38

workplace implications. Armed with this knowledge, managers may be able to prevent employee turnover by adapting to the Millennial mindset.

The last section discusses recruiting the right people in the first place. Hiring managers may want to consider some of the techniques outlined in this section to “hire the right people.” One way to reduce employee turnover is to hire people who are more likely to stay, rather than employees that are not a good cultural fit and are likely to quit.

The information and conclusions drawn from these literature strands supports the research into how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns, and what we can do about it.

Employee Turnover

Several trends, such as the rapid rate of technological advancement, increase in knowledge work, and globalization makes it vital that firms acquire top talent and, equally importantly, retain them

(Holtom et al., 2008). The aging baby-boom generation and declining birth rates in the West are contributing to the competition for the best talent (Klun, 2008). With the U.S. unemployment rate in

2018 hitting a record 49-year low of 3.7% (Carucci, 2018), the recruitment and retention of high-quality employees are of extreme importance (Holtom et al., 2008) to organizations. According to one executive-level consulting firm, employee retention is a top concern of CEOs today (Carucci, 2018).

Labor shortages in critical industries have emphasized the importance of retaining essential employees for the organization to remain successful (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000).

When an employee leaves a job, the company suffers. Organizational productivity is impacted until management can hire and train a replacement. Additionally, long term vacancies can negatively impact revenue. It can be expensive to recruit and train a new employee (Pell, 2000) and can also adversely affect a company's ability to execute its business strategies (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). In cases where key employees are critical for developing new products and bringing them to market, 39

employee turnover can significantly impact the revenue of innovation-based companies as a result of a lack of new products (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Managing turnover successfully consists of understanding turnover costs and impacts and the reasons why employees leave, as well as implementing measures that address those reasons (Kochanski

& Sorensen, 2008; Pell, 2000). This section will discuss the types of employee turnover, turnover costs and impacts, managing turnover, causes of turnover, and actions to reduce turnover.

Types of Employee Turnover

Employee turnover can be voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary turnover occurs when a person let go due to a company downsizing or is terminated for poor performance. Company downsizing can have an unintended consequence resulting in the exodus of their best people (Kochanski & Sorensen,

2008).

Voluntary turnover occurs when it is the employee who decides to leave (Pell, 2000). It can be pre-planned or due to a triggered event. Pre-planned voluntary turnover can be due to a life event such as retirement or leaving to raise a family. Voluntary turnover can also be due to a triggered event such as an unhappy employee quitting due to job dissatisfaction, or when an employee receives a more favorable job offer provided by another firm (Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999; Maertz &

Campion, 2004). Additionally, some employees have advance plans to quit at the conclusion of a time commitment associated with the completion of the training program, or time commitment associated with a sign-on bonus (Lee et al., 1999; Maertz & Campion, 2004).

A special case of voluntary turnover is “early turnover," where employees quit their job within the first few months, weeks, or even days (Hom, Roberson, & Ellis, 2008). Early turnover may be detrimental to an organization's performance since the organization does not receive any return from their investment in recruiting, training, and socialization of the employee (Holtom et al., 2008).

Kochanski & al (2008) point out that the experience of a new employee during their first year has a 40

significant impact on employee retention. It is essential to identify the root causes that compel employees to quit their job early in their tenure (Hom et al., 2008) as it can point to systemic issues with regards to onboarding programs (Carucci, 2018).

Turnover Costs and Impacts

Employee turnover causes both direct and indirect costs as well as other negative impacts on the operation of an organization (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). Direct costs attributed to turnover include recruiting fees, hiring costs, cost to train replacement employees as well as costs for paying overtime to the remaining staff while a replacement is being sought (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Kochanski &

Sorensen, 2008). Indirect costs can be quite challenging to quantify and can have a more significant impact on a company. They include lost productivity, loss of capacity, lost customers, loss of corporate knowledge, reduced bench strength and lost work hours (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). The rate of employee turnover is an essential metric for management to be concerned with as high rates of voluntary turnover are frequently found to be harmful to an organization’s performance (Glebbeek &

Bax, 2004) and can be an indicator of a chronic management issue. Not all turnover is terrible; when poor performers quit, it can be beneficial for the firm (Abelson & Baysinger, 1984).

Turnover costs vary depending upon the industry. Hinkin & Tracey (2000) estimate turnover costs can range from a few thousand dollars to more than two times the employee's annual salary depending on the industry, the job content, and the availability of qualified replacements. In sectors where chronic shortages of skilled employees exist, the cost of employee turnover can rise much faster than the rate of inflation (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). According to Pell (2000), the cost to replace a human resources manager in the automobile industry is over $130,000, while the cost of replacing a store manager in a fast-food chain is $20,000. Pell (2000) estimates that the average cost of turnover is 25% of the employee’s annual salary + benefits (Pell, 2000).

Many organizations do not track employee turnover rates. They underestimate their costs by 41

burying them in overhead costs such as recruitment, temporary staffing, and training and remain hidden from managers (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). Organizations that fail to track the cost of employee attrition fail to understand what is generating these costs and lack the understanding needed to focus their resources on identifying and curing the causes of turnover (Kochanski & Sorensen,

2008). In some cases where employee turnover can have a significant adverse effect due to the loss of customers or loss of critical corporate knowledge, the cost is unknown and never calculated (Hinkin &

Tracey, 2000).

Managing Turnover

Management must remain attentive to the turnover problem. If management doesn't realize there is a problem, they won't do anything differently to remedy it. They should seek out the reasons for employee turnover and act on those reasons (Pell, 2000).

Average turnover rates can vary widely by industry. Turnover rates can also vary widely within the same industry (Holtom et al., 2008). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2019, the average turnover rate for the accommodation and food service industry is around 77% per year, while the turnover rate for the government industry is only at 18% per year on average. Average turnover rates can also vary widely within different branches, offices, or segments within an organization.

Kochanski & Sorensen (2008) recommend management seek to understand their turnover rates by segmenting their worker population and associated turnover rates into logical segments. Then look at the cost and impact of turnover in that segment to determine if they differ from the general worker population. Management should focus on sectors that have the most significant impact on the delivery of the firm's core products and services or impact the firms' long-term strategic success (Kochanski &

Sorensen, 2008). Suggested segmentation areas include identifying the population and associated turnover rates by work units/departments, critical skills, employee performance (e.g., high performers or low performers), the potential for succession/promotion, and how long an employee has worked 42

there. Analyzing the segmentation data of turnover rates along with associated turnover costs will shed light on critical trends and uncover areas needing attention to manage employee turnover and their effects (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Causes

There are several theories about what causes employee turnover. The earliest models simply stated that job dissatisfaction was the cause of employee turnover (Holtom et al., 2008). Other models contend that two balancing factors influence job turnover; these are the perceived desirability to stay and perceived ease of leaving the organization. These factors can be equated to the balance between job satisfaction and perceived alternatives (Holtom et al., 2008; Trevor, 2001).

Kochanski & Sorensen (2008) contend that turnover is directly related to their employee's value proposition (EVP), which consists of five components. These components are affiliation, work content, career, benefits, and compensation. Similarly, Sibson Consulting identified four main causes of turnover. These are work content, occupation, compensation, and affiliation in that order (Kochanski &

Sorensen, 2008, p. 30). The multi-national professional services company, Accenture, found that the most significant factor influencing retention was the ability to manage work-life issues (Klun, 2008).

Through internal polling of its employees across all generations, 83 percent of them indicated that the ability to manage work-life issues was the most significant factor to impact their commitment to stay with Accenture (Klun, 2008). Other reasons that employees have cited for leaving include scheduling problems, a poor relationship with their supervisor, a lack of understanding about career opportunities, and compensation issues (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Through the years, researchers considered other predictors of job turnover. They considered factors that influence someone to leave, such as emotional exhaustion or job insecurity (Jackson,

Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). Another factor that influences job turnover is pay-inequity within an organization's pay system, as was shown in a study among university 43

administrators that turnover was lower at institutions with more compressed pay structures (Pfeffer &

Davis-Blake, 1992).

Actions to Reduce Turnover

There are many actions one can take to reduce employee turnover. Researchers have found that the establishment of mentoring relationships reduces protégés' turnover intentions (Viator &

Scandura, 1991; Payne & Huffman, 2005). They have also found that increasing social network ties within organizations has been shown to reduce employee turnover (McPherson, Popielarz, & Drobnic,

1992) as has increasing organizational commitment (Holtom et al., 2008). Pell (2000) suggests incorporating human resources initiatives to reduce turnover tendencies, such as providing hiring incentives that keep new hires from quitting within the first couple of years, or by offering perquisites to encourage people to stay. Once hired, management must ensure new employees are properly onboarded and create an environment in which people want to stay with that organization (Pell, 2000).

When turnover becomes a problem, management must determine the root causes by addressing the reasons employees want to leave and take action to reduce it (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Determine Root Causes

Many factors influence employee turnover and the importance of these factors varies by the target population of the workforce. The underlying causes for turnover will differ by organization, by culture, and by employee segment and also includes a temporal aspect (e.g., early turnover verse late turnover) (Holtom et al., 2008). An organization must determine the specific factors that influence turnover within its workforce. This can be done before employees decide to leave when a person gives their notice to quit, or even months later, after someone has left.

The most common way to determine the cause of employee turnover is to conduct exit interviews of the people who have given their notice to leave. Exit interviews should be designed to probe for real reasons why someone wants to quit and determine what it is about the job, supervisor, 44

environment, working conditions, or other issues that cause discontent (Pell, 2000). Their employee's direct supervisor should not conduct exit interviews; they should be held by a third party, such as

Human Resources staff, to get candid responses from the employee. It should include open-ended questions to solicit a discussion that addresses job factors such compensation, working conditions, and the leadership style of their supervisor (Pell, 2000, pp. 315-316). Additionally, asking probing questions such, "What might have been done differently here?" and "What would have made you stay longer?" could uncover hidden problems in the organization (Pell, 2000, p. 317). It is important to note that the real reasons people leave can be very different from what they tell the interviewer during the exit interview. Follow-up interviews at a later date can bring out the truth (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008) which can provide valuable insight into why some employees are unhappy.

Other techniques are utilized to gauge the job satisfaction of the workforce and determine if current employees are at risk of leaving. Kochanski & Sorensen (2008) suggest that there are three techniques to determine the causes of turnover. The first technique indicates that management should conduct an Employee Value Proposition (EVP) surveys with current employees. The survey should specifically ask about the employee's intention to leave, and if so, why. Surveys can provide valuable information that may result in management, making appropriate changes that result in the employee changing their mind. A second technique is to establish focus groups of recent hires and facilitate discussions that help determine how well reality matches their work expectations. If there a significant disparity between new-hire expectations and reality, the employee is at risk for leaving. The third technique that Kochanski & Sorenson (2008) suggest is conducting phone interviews with past employees that quit between six months and one year. This technique attempts to get to the real truth about why someone has left, especially if they did not feel comfortable providing the real reason during an exit interview out of fear or embarrassment.

Organizations should keep records of employee turnover so they can identify any trends that 45

need to be addressed. They should establish a database that tracks turnover by segment and includes costs of turnover as well as the root cause. The root cause analysis will assist in making a business case for change (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). This may include an estimate of return on investment (ROI) of proposed changes to combat employee turnover (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Provide Hiring incentives and Perquisites

Management can use monetary incentives to reduce early turnover by requiring new employees to sign a tenure agreement requiring the employee to stay for a minimum amount of time in exchange for a sign-on bonus or other monetary incentives such as student loan repayment.

Hart (2019) indicates that the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) has incorporated contractual incentive elements into the Palace Acquire intern program. The program provides the intern with a 25% sign-on bonus in exchange for an agreement by the intern to stay for a minimum of two years. It also provides for up to $30,000 in federal student loan forgiveness at a rate of $10,000 per year for three years that further obligates the intern to stay up to three years.

Some companies provide perquisites, commonly known as perks. Perks are extra benefits that are an addition to traditional compensation packages that can motivate people to stay with an organization. Pell (2000) contends that perks provide a constant positive reminder that the company is giving them something of value that makes their lives more pleasant, which reinforces their loyalty with the company. Two of the most popular perks that employees enjoy are child daycare for working parents and a flexible work schedule (Pell, 2000, p. 320). There are many other perks that some companies provide, such as company cars, membership to professional associations, subscriptions to professional journals, membership to social clubs, or credit unions. Other common perks are free coffee, subsidized lunchrooms, transportation assistance, free tuition, scholarships for dependents, casual dress days, exercise rooms, recreation rooms, and free counseling services (Pell, 2000). 46

Ensuring New Employees are Properly Onboarded

Pell (2000) attributes early turnover to poor initial employee orientation. An organization must have an effective orientation program so that new employees have an excellent concept to the companies mission, goals, and culture (Carucci, 2018; Pell, 2000). According to Carucci (2018), when companies do not spend much time onboarding new hires, it can result in up to 20% of staff turnover within the first 45 days of employment. The early years on the job significantly impact employee affiliation and retention (Carucci, 2018; Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008), and it is becoming more common that some companies have instituted onboarding programs that span two or more years. This extended orientation and acclimatization period can help management become aware of issues that cause new employee dissatisfaction and address these issues before a new employee quits (Kochanski & Sorensen,

2008).

Carucci (2018) has found that Fortune 500 companies with a standardized onboarding process experience significantly higher productivity and retention of new hires. He suggests that organizations focus on three critical dimensions in the new hire onboarding process to include organizational, technical, and social aspects (Carucci, 2018).

The organizational dimension is the first and most common part of onboarding. It consists of teaching new employees the basic information they need to function, such as how to get an ID card, where to park, how to obtain health benefits, company regulations, and policies. Another important aspect is teaching them the workplace "language" that usually consists of a list of acronyms or a handy glossary of terms that are unique to a given industry so the new employee can understand that co- workers are talking about. It is also essential to impart an organization's values and norms during this period and share with them the organization's history and brand. Additionally, it is important to let new employees know how their performance will be evaluated, how they will be rewarded, and how to grow within the organization (Carucci, 2018). 47

Carucci (2018) suggests several specific aspects to the technical dimension to onboarding to include providing a well-defined job description that includes their level of authority as well as boundaries. He also recommends setting up weekly coaching sessions and assigning initial tasks that new hires will be able to complete so the new employee has an early win and gradually increasing the level of responsibility and complexity to build trust and confidence. These coaching sessions will also reveal any skillset gaps and assist in developing plans to close any gaps (Carucci, 2018).

It is important to incorporate the social dimension of onboarding new hires (Carucci, 2018) and build a sense of organizational belonging. Carucci (2018) suggests that the new hire's supervisor should identify 7-10 people to include superiors, peers, direct reports, and customers who they will associate with and help build relationships with these people by setting up short one-on-one meetings. This will help cultivate stakeholder relationships, build social capital with colleagues, and develop a spirit of friendship and community. When new-employees have a feeling of acceptance, they are less likely to leave their job (Carucci, 2018).

Provide Reasons Employees Want to Stay

By understanding and addressing employee’s needs, organizations can develop programs or policies that will make people want to stay. Many organizations are addressing employee’s need for career progression by developing succession plans and engaging with employees that show high potential by grooming them for advancement earlier in their career (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). Pell

(2000) indicates that many companies have taken steps to retain people, such as developing a sense of company loyalty, actively preparing people for promotion, providing the necessary training, and developing career planning programs. Klun (2008) indicates that career progression, compensation, benefits are important factors influencing an employee to stay.

Employees highly value daily and career flexibility. Surveys conducted at Accenture show that

81% of their employees, regardless of age, that their job satisfaction would increase significantly with 48

additional time and location flexibility. It also indicated that 83% of their employees indicated that the ability to balance work and life strongly influences their commitment to stay with Accenture.

Additionally, the ability to take a sabbatical was one of the top five favored resources by 61% of the employees (Klun, 2008).

Many companies have developed flexible, innovative ways that give high-performing employees flexible work options that allow employees the ability to balance the competing demands between work and family (Klun, 2008). Telework is a flexible arrangement that will enable employees to work from home, thereby reducing or eliminating commute time while allowing employees the ability to care for family members. Some companies provide dependent care programs such as onsite daycare or special dependent care arrangements such as Back-Up Dependent Care, which makes in-home or center-based dependent care available when regular care arrangements break down. Other resources that some organizations provide include free and confidential employee assistance programs such as Lifeworks® that provides access to experts in many areas such as online health coaching, ergonomic assessments, legal assistance, and financial counseling (Klun, 2008).

By understanding employee's internal needs such as career advancement and external needs such as work-life balance, organizations can address those needs to improve employee satisfaction and retention.

Employee Turnover Conclusion

Every organization experiences employee turnover at some point. Management must remain attentive to the turnover problem and realize there could be a generational component to consider.

Turnover is directly related to an employee's value proposition (EVP), which consists of five elements: affiliation, work content, career, benefits, and compensation. Managing turnover successfully consists of understanding turnover costs and impacts, understanding the reasons why employees quit, and implementing measures that address those reasons. 49

To effectively reduce turnover, management should first determine the root causes of employee turnover and take action (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). They can create an environment in which people want to stay by addressing the reasons employees want to leave. To effectively reduce early turnover, management can provide hiring incentives and ensure new employees are properly onboarded. Management can also consider providing perquisites that will remind employees of the ongoing benefits that the organization offers regularly. The key to retention is to be aware of what is important to employees and taking action to satisfy those needs (Pell, 2000).

Generational Considerations

The engineering interns at Hanscom AFB were born between 1989-1997 and are between 22 and 30 years old. From a generational perspective, they are members of Generation Y, with the youngest being on the border of Generation Y and Generation Z. Generations are defined by members of the cohort being subjected to the same social, political, or technological experiences during their formative years such as the 9-11 terrorist attack, middle eastern wars, economic recession and the development of the internet (Carlson, 2008, pp. 29-30; Dimock, 2019).

According to the Pew Research Center, the Generation Y cohort, also known as Millennials, represents anyone born between 1981 and 1996. Anyone born from 1997 onward is a member of the

Generation Z cohort (Dimock, 2019). The specific start and end dates of these Generational cohorts vary depending upon the source. Professor of Sociology, Elwood Carlson, identified the Millennial generation as those born between 1983–2001. He based this on the upswing in births after 1983 and ended it with the social and political challenges that occurred after the September 11th terrorist attack (Carlson, 2008, p. 29).

The workforce at Hanscom AFB is comprised of multiple generations, each with their unique generational characteristics. Managers need to realize there is a generational component to consider with employee job satisfaction and turnover. Different generations, such as Baby Boomers, Generation 50

X, and Millennials, have different values, attitudes, and expectations. These differences vastly impact what motivates individuals from different generations and what, influences employee turnover (Klun,

2008). Knowledge of these differences will help leaders and managers anticipate and account for generational stereotypes within their organizations (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Understanding what drives the stereotypical Millennial is key to understanding how to attract and retain millennial employees (Adkins, 2016).

Millennial Facts and Statistics

When comparing the Millennial generation with previous generations, many notable trends appear. The number of millennial women in the workforce (71%) has increased by 175% compared to

1965 (Fry, Igielnik, & Patten, 2018). Despite growing up during wartime when the U.S. has been actively engaged in two wars, only 2% of Millennial men are veterans compared to 24% of men from 50 years ago in the Silent Generation (Taylor & Keeter, 2010). Of the 75 million millennials in the United States,

16.9% work for the federal government (Clark, 2016a).

The ethnicity of the U.S. population is shifting. Fifty years ago, 84% of the population was non-

Hispanic white. In 2017, only 56% of Millennials were non-Hispanic white. This increase in minority population is due to large-scale immigration from Asia and Latin America, the rise in racial intermarriage, and differences in the number of children across racial and ethnic groups (Fry et al.,

2018).

Traits

There are many stereotypes concerning the traits of Millennials. Myers & Sadaghiani (2010, p

225) depict them as “self-centered, unmotivated, disrespectful, and disloyal”. There is concern about how communications, relationships, and workplace interactions between millennials and members of older generations in the multi-generational workforce will affect organizations (Myers & Sadaghiani,

2010, pp. 225-226). 51

There are many positive stereotypical attributes of Millennials; they are reported to be more assertive and self-liking and have high expectations for themselves (Twenge, 2009, p. 398). Millennials work well in teams and want to have a positive impact on their organizations. They appear to be more accepting of diversity than were past generations. They also desire frequent candid communication with their supervisors (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 225). Millennials are very comfortable with communication technologies (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 225) and can see problems and opportunities from new perspectives (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). On average, Millennials score higher on reasoning ability and math than previous generations (Twenge, 2009, p. 403). They also have high

IQs but do not like to read long texts. They prefer written content delivered in shorter segments and the use of instructional videos and interactive format (Twenge, 2009, p. 398).

Cultural Identity

In 2015, the Pew Research Center researched generational identity by surveying 3,147 people.

Only 40% of people in the Millennial age group considered themselves Millennial, and a majority did not like the "Millennial" label (Pew Research Center, 2015).

The Millennial generation is the first to be surrounded by digital technology from a very early age. They have used computers, video games, cell phones, video cameras, digital music players, and the social media that goes with it, virtually their entire lives. Email, texting, computer games, the internet, and cell phones are integral parts of their daily lives and have been labeled digital natives (Prensky,

2001, p. 1). Millennials are early adopters of technology 2.5 times than older generations. In a survey of

3,896 Millennials, 56% claim they are among the first to try new technology (Fromm, 2011, p. 6).

They often spend hours communicating with people using social media, cellphones, Skype, and instant messaging. In contrast, Baby Boomers value face-to-face communication and revert to e-mail or phone if they cannot meet in person and seldom resort to text messaging only (Venter, 2017, p. 498). 52

Beliefs and Values

Millennials beliefs and values differ from those of members of older generations. They are more tolerant of other races (47% vs. 19%), with 45% agreeing that minorities should receive preferential treatment such as affirmative action (Taylor & Keeter, 2010).

A managing director from Accenture, Katherine Lavelle, asserts that Millennials highly value an organization that has "a positive social atmosphere." They want to work for a company that has social responsibility (Clark, 2016b). Millennials have been encouraged as they were growing up that their career choices were unlimited. This belief is especially true with women and racial minorities. Many women have taken on jobs traditionally held primarily by men, such as doctors or pilots.

Young millennials are very optimistic about their future performance. According to a 2007 Pew study, a majority of Millennials surveyed indicated that getting rich is a primary goal in life (Pew

Research Center, 2007). They are achievement-oriented and have high expectations that they will find well paying, meaningful work (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232). In 2010, Millennials with full-time jobs were considered the most satisfied workers in the U.S. with 42% of Millennials aged 25 to 29 expressing that they were very happy with their lives (Taylor & Keeter, 2010).

Education

Millennials are more educated than previous generations. On average, they score higher on an intelligence test and in the areas of reasoning ability and math (Twenge, 2009, p. 403). Thirty-six percent of Millennial women and 29% of Millennial men have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 28% Generation X women and 24% Generation X men (Taylor & Keeter, 2010).

Millennial women have had a 400% increase in education over the last 50 years (Fry et al., 2018).

Top college graduates are not very interested in working for the federal government. According to a 2011 National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) survey of over 35,000 students, 29% of top college graduates intend to seek employment in the private sector, 27% plan to go to graduate 53

school, 17% want to work for a nonprofit or teach, and only 2% of students plan to work for the federal government after leaving school (Partnership For Public Service And The National Association Of

Colleges and Employers 2012, p. 2).

Entrepreneurial Desires

Seppanen & Gualtieri (2012) indicated in their National Chamber Council research report that one-half to two-thirds of Millennials have entrepreneurial tendencies and want to start their own businesses. The study also indicated that only 2 percent of millennials graduating from college who responded to a research survey planned on working in government (Seppanen & Gualtieri, 2012, p. 9).

In the book, Gen Y Upstarts!, author Donna Fenn, contends that starting a business in the digital age is cheaper and less risky than before and asserts that Millennials approach entrepreneurship as a way of life. She labels them as the "entrepreneurial generation” (Fenn, 2009, p. 3) due to the rate of millennials starting businesses.

Workplace Implications

To effectively recruit and retain Air Force interns, it is imperative to understand the Millennial mindset when it comes to the workplace. Factors that need to be understood include Millennials' expectations with regards to supervisor/employee relationship and communications, a desirable benefits package, work-life balance, and their propensity to change jobs if their needs are not met.

Relationship with Supervisor

Millennials expect a close relationship and open communication with their supervisors and view it as foundational for their long-term satisfaction within the company. They expect job performance feedback conveyed in a positive, reinforcing manner. They also feel the need to be kept in the loop on matters usually reserved for senior management and are not intimidated by individuals that are senior by age, position, or status (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 229). 54

Employee Benefits

According to a 2012 MetLife® study, 56% of Millennials are influenced by a quality benefits package. 63% say that benefits are an important factor in retention (MetLife, 2012). Additionally, 56% of Millennials prefer benefits they can choose to include health, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance as well as paid vacation time, retirement savings plans, and a flexible work schedule. Aside from pay and benefits, they desire interesting and challenging work, a custom career plan, personal development, and an organization with similar values (MetLife, 2012).

Work-Life Balance

Seventy-five percent of Millennials indicate that work-life balance drives their career choices

(Seppanen & Gualtieri, 2012, p. 25). Many organizations have integrated appealing work-life balance environments into the workplace. Google, for instance, offers many perks and “balance enhancers” such as free use of laundry machines, dog-friendly offices, and an on-site doctor (Twenge, Campbell,

Hoffman, & Lance, 2010, p. 1136). Tozier (2006) suggested over a decade ago that the key to recruiting and retaining employees from both Generation X and Millennials, organizations need to implement policies that allow employee flexibility and work-life balance and include options for telecommuting, job sharing or flexible scheduling (Tozier, 2006).

Job-Hopping

Millennials have a reputation for hopping from company to company, more so than any other generation (Adkins, 2016). A 2016 Gallup study on the millennial generation reports 21% of millennials indicated they had changed employers within the past year, which is more than three times that of non- millennials. The study also found that half of their millennial workforce doesn't see a future with their current company and plans on changing jobs within the year (Gallup, 2016, p. 8). The study also found that 60% of millennials say they are open to a different job opportunity, and they are the most willing of any generation to act on better opportunities (Gallup, 2016, p. 8). 55

The Gallup study found that only 29% of Millennials are emotionally and behaviorally connected to their job and company. The majority of millennials (55%) are not engaged at work (Gallup, 2016, p.

6). Adkins (2016) contends that millennials may be more likely to move from job to job due to their low engagement in the workplace because their companies are not giving them compelling reasons to stay.

Millennials want a job that feels worthwhile -- and they will keep looking until they find it (Adkins, 2016).

Generational Considerations Conclusion

To effectively recruit and retain Millennial interns, it is essential to understand the Millennial mindset when it comes to the workplace. There are several important takeaways from the literature search on Millennials to improve the recruiting, retention, and job satisfaction of Air Force interns.

More effective recruiting can be realized by taking advantage of the fact that the Millennial generation has seen a significant increase in educated women and minorities in the workforce (Fry et al., 2018), with many of them taking jobs historically dominated by men (Twenge et al., 2010) such as engineering.

Air Force recruiters should target more women and minorities at recruiting events. Recruiters and managers can also exploit the tendency of Millennials to be frequent subscribers to social media

(Fromm, 2011) and could use social media in recruiting activities.

The research also shows that Millennial prefer to work in teams and want a close relationship and frequent communication with their supervisor. This suggests that supervisors can increase intern job satisfaction through frequent communication with the intern and by organizing work in a way that builds teamwork among the workforce. Additionally, management should adapt training for interns by delivering content in shorter segments and using instructional videos and interactive format to provide training that is engaging and interesting (Twenge, 2009, p. 398).

Seventy-five percent of Millennials indicate that work-life balance drives their career choices

(Seppanen & Gualtieri, 2012, p. 25). This indicates that they are not afraid to switch jobs if their organizations are not meeting their expectations. Therefore, management should consider programs 56

and policies that provide an acceptable work-life balance such as telework, alternate work schedules, or other programs that provides value and job satisfaction in order to positively impact retention.

Recruiting

Retention can be influenced during the recruiting process. The key to organizational success is to recruit exceptionally talented people. Sill (2009) recommends hiring intelligent, driven people who are strategic thinkers seeking to improve employer’s systems and processes. These people need to believe in your industry and understand the value proposition that the company provides its customers.

They should also possess high ethical standards and integrity (Sill, 2009, pp. 60-61).

Recruiting Factors to Consider

Barrick & Zimmerman (2005) found that employee candidates that were referred by current employees are more likely to stay than those who were not. They also found that the more family and friends who work at the same organization, the more likely they are to stay. Hiring managers should also consider the length of time that a candidate has stayed with previous employers. Study findings indicate that employees who had a longer tenure with their immediate former employer are more likely to stay with their new employer than employees jump from job to job (Barrick & Zimmerman, 2005).

Predictive Recruiting

In some cases, turnover is inevitable, especially with “hot” jobs such as computer scientists or engineering. To reduce the impact of lack of staffing, management should determine the attrition rate and do predictive recruiting and hire new employees at a rate equal to the attrition rate. For example, If an organization predicts they will lose 120 engineers in a year, and it takes 90 days to recruit them, they should be actively searching for 30 engineers all the time to do advance hiring (Kochanski & Sorensen,

2008).

Recruiting Millennials

A recent 2016 study by Accenture shows that 19% of recent college graduates are looking for 57

jobs in the Federal, State, and local governments, with 74% of these preferring the federal government

(Lyons, Lavelle, & Smith, 2019). The government has made recent changes to the way they recruit by improving the USAJOBs recruiting website and integrating recruiting efforts with social media presence that includes LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Clark, 2016b).

These recent improvements allow the government agencies the ability to find qualified candidates quicker. However, the hiring process can still be slow, tedious, and take a long time compared to the private sector (Clark, 2016b).

Despite the government's efforts to augment the USAJOBs website with social media recruiting, the private sector still has the advantage. The private sector employs advanced recruiting techniques such as the passive application process where companies peruse online student profiles, use artificial intelligence to mine the data, and pro-actively recruit students before they graduate (Clark, 2016b).

Data mining for recruiting is a capability that the government does not yet employ.

One of the government's best recruitment tool may be the ability to pay federally backed student loan debt that many students carry (Clark, 2016b). The student loan repayment program allows agencies to repay federally insured student loans on behalf of the student as a recruitment or retention incentive ("Pay & Leave Student Loan Repayment," 2019).

Shifts in generational values have emphasized the need for organizations to implement flexible work policies such as flex hours, sabbaticals, work at home and job sharing to provide better work-life balance (Gordon, 2009, pp. 37-38).

Recruiting for Cultural Fit

Cultural fit is critical to an organization’s cohesiveness and should be a key trait to look for when recruiting. A 2005 study showed that employees who had good cultural fit within their organization had high job satisfaction, high retention, and superior job performance (Bouton, 2015). Poor culture fit can cause employee turnover, which can result in the loss of 50-60% of the employee’s annual salary 58

(Bouton, 2015). An organization needs to be able to define and articulate the organization's culture and the factors that define it, such as the organization's goals, values, and practices. Then the organization needs to develop a method to determine if potential employee candidates measure up to the cultural fit. One way to determine cultural fit is by developing a set of interview questions that address the cultural fit. Bouton (2015) suggests asking the candidate questions that addresses the candidates expectations with regards to an ideal workplace, culture, and environment as well as asking the candidate why he or she wanted to work there (Bouton, 2015).

She also suggests giving the candidate a tour of the office and possibly an informal lunch outing with current employees to see how the candidate interacts with current employees. Judge the candidate's comfort level and gather feedback from the staff. The candidate whose values and behavior are consistent with your organization should be apparent (Bouton, 2015).

Hiring Best Practices

Oracle Corporation’s recruiting consultant, Igor Sill, suggests several best practices in hiring top technical talent. He emphasizes that it is important to hire intelligent people who are driven to fulfill the company vision. It is also important that the candidate have a high degree of integrity and ethics. He also shares that the candidate’s references should be thoroughly checked for accuracy and the recruiter’s intuition should confirm a good hire. Once hired, it is equally important to properly onboard the new-hire by investing the appropriate amount of time to help the employee get up to speed. Once integrated into the company, ask for high quality referrals from the new employee (Sill, 2009, pp. 60-

61).

Recruiting Conclusion

Retention can be influenced during the recruiting process. Employee candidates that were referred by current employees are more likely to stay than those who were not, and employees who had a longer tenure with their immediate former employer are more likely to stay longer (Barrick & 59

Zimmerman, 2005). To attract and retain Millennial interns, management should consider student loan repayment incentives (Clark, 2016b). They should also implement flexible work policies such as flex hours, sabbaticals, work at home, and job sharing to provide better work-life balance (Gordon, 2009, pp.

37-38). Management should also seek referrals from high-quality employees who will likely recommend other high-quality employees (Sill, 2009).

When recruiting employees, Sill (2009) recommends hiring intelligent, driven people who are strategic thinkers seeking to improve employer’s systems and processes. These people need to believe in your industry and understand the value proposition that the company provides its customers. They should also possess high ethical standards and integrity (Sill, 2009, pp. 60-61). It is also critical that an organization seeks out employees who have a good cultural fit in order to increase retention, and job satisfaction (Bouton, 2015). It is possible to increase employee retention through thoughtful and deliberate recruiting actions to ensure the new hire is an excellent cultural fit, and meets each other’s mutual needs.

Summary

This literature review explored the current literature on factors affecting job satisfaction and retention in order to better understand the factors that affect the retention of Air Force interns at

Hanscom AFB. It did this by using a three-prong approach. It reviewed the literature on job turnover to determine the reasons why employees quit their jobs, how to determine the root causes for job turnover, and methods that an organization can do to mitigate it. The literature review then examined the stereotypical characteristics of the members of the Millennial generation since the Air Force interns that are the subject of this research belong to this generation and understanding what motivates this generation provided insight into the value proposition of the "typical" Millennial intern. Finally, the literature review considered how recruiting the right people in first place is a factor on retention that warrants attention. 60

It became clear at the conclusion of the reviewing scores of articles and papers on retention, recruiting, and Millennials that they are all inter-related. In order to effectively solve the retention problem of Air Force interns, one must first understand the human nature of the Millennial. With this understanding, one must deliberately recruit employees that are a good cultural fit, and finally, one must understand and act upon the factors that cause employee turnover.

The study of the Millennial tendencies and desires revealed some important information on what influences their desire to stay or quit. Specifically, it is important to know that 75% Millennials indicate that work-life balance drives their career choices (Seppanen & Gualtieri, 2012, p. 25).

Millennials desire to have a closer relationship and communication with their supervisors, and they want to make an impact (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Additionally, Millennials are not afraid to switch jobs if their organizations are not meeting their expectations. Millennials want a job that feels worthwhile -- and they will keep looking until they find it (Adkins, 2016).

The review of literature pertaining to retention provided valuable information on techniques to hire employees that are more likely to stay with the Air Force for a longer period of time using the premise that retention can be influenced during the recruiting process. It was discovered that employee candidates that were referred by current employees are more likely to stay than those who were not, and employees who had a longer tenure with their immediate former employer are more likely to stay longer (Barrick & Zimmerman, 2005). This also supports the recommendation that management should also seek referrals from high-quality employees who will likely recommend other high-quality employees (Sill, 2009). Additionally, the literature review revealed the importance of hiring for cultural fit to improve the job satisfaction and retention of employees (Bouton, 2015).

The literature on employee turnover revealed a plethora of information on how to reduced employee turnover. To effectively reduce turnover, management should first determine the root causes of employee turnover and take action to mitigate those reasons (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). They 61

can create an environment in which people want to stay by addressing the reasons employees want to leave. To effectively reduce early turnover, management can provide retention incentives such as student loan repayment and ensure new employees are properly onboarded. Management can also consider providing perquisites that will remind employees of the ongoing benefits that the organization offers regularly. The key to retention is to be aware of what is important to employees and taking action to satisfy those needs (Pell, 2000).

This literature review provided deep insight into factors surrounding the retention of Air Force interns including how to recruit the right people in the first place, the nature of the stereotypical

Millennial and what they value, and techniques to uncover the reasons why employees quit, and implementing measures that address those reasons—the premise of this dissertation!

Chapter Three: Research Design

The purpose of this study was to understand how the following eight factors: the nature of the work, recognition, achievement, mentoring, perquisites, salary, working conditions, and supervisor/employee relationship impact the job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce.

Knowledge generated and recommendations provided in this research study will inform Air

Force hiring managers, first-line supervisors, and the Science and Engineering Career Field Team (SECFT) about job satisfaction, motivation, and retention of the intern workforce as well as the usefulness of each internship program as a staffing tool.

This chapter explains the qualitative research approach, research paradigm, and the methodology that the researcher employed to address the underlying research question. It outlines the study participants and how they were chosen as well as the procedures that were followed to collect, analyze, store, and safeguard study data. Additionally, this chapter discusses how the researcher complied with research criteria that ensure the study is undertaken with a high degree of quality, credibility, and ethics. To ensure transparency, the researcher's positionality is addressed. Finally, the limitations of the study are stated.

Research Question

The purpose of this study was to understand the many facets of the Hanscom AFB work environment that affects engineering interns’ job satisfaction and retention. Therefore, the overriding research question is:

How does the Hanscom AFB work environment influence job satisfaction and

retention of Air Force engineering interns?

The following sub-questions are proposed to further investigate job satisfaction and retention of Air

Force engineering interns: 63

Q1: What are the underlying reasons why engineering and computer science interns

have left government service?

Q2: What can the United States Air Force do to increase job satisfaction and

retention among engineering and computer science interns?

Q3: Why is the retention rate of the SMART interns (19%) so much lower than the

Palace Acquire interns (73%)?

Qualitative Research Approach

Research is a systematic investigation in which data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted in a way to better understand , describe, or predict a phenomenon (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, p. 1). The two primary overarching research approaches are qualitative and quantitative. Both are empirical methods in that they involve the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or observations (Ponterotto,

2005, p. 128).

This study utilized the qualitative research approach. The qualitative research approach is an activity in which the researcher is situated in the world as an observer and collects data in many forms such as field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, and notes to oneself in order to make sense of the phenomena being studied (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3). Qualitative research takes an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world where the research is typically conducted by studying things in their natural settings to interpret the phenomena in terms of what the people being studied assign to it (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3).

Constructivist-Interpretivist Paradigm

There are several interconnected interpretive practices or paradigms that qualitative researchers deploy to obtain a better understanding of the phenomena being studied. These paradigms are lenses that allow the researcher to see the world in a different way (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, pp. 3-4).

When conducting research, it is essential to select an appropriate research paradigm to orient the 64

researcher, influence the way knowledge is studied and interpreted, and set down the intent, motivation, and expectation for the research (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, p. 1). The research paradigm used in this case study is the constructivist-interpretivist approach.

The constructivist-interpretivist approach is comprised of the researcher interacting with the participant to try to understand the point of view (or perceived reality) of the participant.

Constructivism is a relativist position that assumes that there are multiple, equally valid realities and that reality is constructed in the mind of the individual, rather than it being singular and solitary

(Ponterotto, 2005). The constructivist-interpretivist approach presupposes that there are multiple realities of a phenomena or situation, and the participants have a point of view, which is their perceived reality (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005). A central component of the constructivist- interpretivist approach is the interaction between the researcher and the participant to obtain a deep understanding of the participant's reality (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 129). An essential consideration of the constructivist-interpretivist approach is to consider the researcher's bias, background, and experiences and the potential impact on the interpretation of the participant's reality (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006).

Since the purpose of the study is to obtain the objective reality of the Air Force interns, specifically, their point of view on their job satisfaction, the constructivist-interpretivist approach is very applicable to this study. Typical collection tools using the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm are interviews, observations, document reviews and visual data analysis (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, p. 3).

These tools will be used to gain an understanding of the intern's job satisfaction from their point of view and enable the researcher and the participants to co-construct findings from their interactive dialogue and interpretation (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 129).

Case Study Methodology

This qualitative study used a case study methodology. Creswell (2007) describes case study research as a qualitative approach in which the researcher investigates a real-life, contemporary 65

bounded systems (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over a period of time by collecting and analyzing multiple data sources and reports a case description and case themes (Creswell, 2007, p. 97).

The use of several data sources allowed the phenomena being studied to be explored through a variety of lenses, which allowed for multiple facets to be revealed and understood (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545).

The use of multiple data sources also provided a means for confirming trustworthiness through the use of triangulation (Miles, 2015, p. 3).

The case study approach is a popular approach in psychology, medicine, law, and political science and has a long distinguished history across several disciplines with its origin in anthropology and sociology (Creswell, 2007, p. 97).

Intended Outcome

Yin (2009) contends that a case study design should be considered when the focus of the study is to answer "how" and "why" questions (Yin, 2009, p. 8). In this study, the intended outcome is to determine “how the interns feel regarding their job satisfaction” and “why they feel this way”. This case study has contextual conditions such as the physical location, the prevailing wages in the Boston area, the nature of the work, and even the cost of housing within the commuting area that may be relevant to the job satisfaction and retention of engineering interns under study. The case study methodology uncovered the contextual conditions of the job satisfaction phenomenon and provided the researcher with valuable information on how to increase job satisfaction and retention.

Origins of the Case Study Approach

The case study approach has been used for many decades. It is popular in the areas of psychology, medicine, law, and political science (Creswell, Hanson, Clark Plano, & Morales, 2007, p. 246) as well as educational research. The origin of modern social science case studies has been traced to anthropology and sociology as early as the 1920s as antecedents of qualitative case study research

(Creswell et al., 2007, p. 246). The case study methodology adapted for educational research with the 66

publications by Robert Stake in 1995, Sharan Merriam in 1998, and Robert Yin in 2002. They are considered to be the three seminal authors who have provided procedures for conducting case study research in the field of educational research (Yazan, 2015, p. 134). There are differences between their implementation and approach using the case study methodology. For instance, Yin is an advocate of combining both qualitative data and quantitative data, whereas Stake and Merriam stress the exclusive use of qualitative data (Yazan, 2015, p. 142). Both Merriam and Stake use a constructivist paradigm, where Yin appears to have a postpositivist perspective (Boblin, Ireland, Kirkpatrick, & Robertson, 2013, p. 1267). In spite of their differences, the underlying premise of collecting and analyzing multiple sources of data to investigate a real-life, contemporary bounded system or systems over a period of time to determine the “how” and “why” of a phenomenon is a valuable methodology.

Applicability as a Research Strategy

Job satisfaction and motivation is a complex problem (Herzberg, 1959); there are many dimensions that should be investigated to determine how to increase job satisfaction and therefore, retention. This type of problem lends itself to the case study methodology where multiples sources of data such as interviews, observations, documents, and reports can be gathered and examined to explore an issue or problem (Creswell, 2007, p. 97). Since the purpose of the study is to obtain the intern’s point of view on their job satisfaction, the case study methodology, where the researcher employs the constructivist-interpretivist approach is very applicable to this study. Typical collection tools using the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm are interviews, observations, and document reviews (Mackenzie &

Knipe, 2006, p. 3), which aligns well with the researcher's plan for obtaining data. Once the data is collected, the researcher codes the data, develops themes, analyzes the data in terms of the “what” and

“how” of significant events, and develops conclusions or themes.

Case Study Data Considerations

The case study methodology shaped the type of questions asked, data collection types, and 67

steps in data analysis. The first consideration is to properly bind the case to ensure that the topic is not too broad or the study has too many objectives which are a common pitfall associated with case study research (Baxter & Jack, 2008, pp. 546-547). The advantage of the case study approach can be the close collaboration between the researcher and the participant in which the researcher enables participants to tell their stories (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545). The semi-structured interview and the focus group data collection types was used in the study. Both of these data-gathering formats had a set of prepared questions that facilitated an open discussion on topics that get to the "how" and "why" of employee satisfaction and retention. The types of probing questions that were asked correlated to the research questions and sub-questions to obtain the perspectives of the current interns, past interns, and supervisors. The discussion obtained from the focus groups and semi-structured interviews was recorded and then transcribed. When the transcription was completed, the transcript was reviewed, and an appropriate coding method was used to help analyze the qualitative data (Saldaña, 2016).

Other types of data to include exit interviews was obtained and reviewed to determine if any themes emerge on why those individuals decided to leave government service. Additional Air Force documents to include documents on Air Force career development, Bureau of Labor Standards data, internal annual surveys conducted by the intern manager, Air Force Personnel Center websites and Air

Force briefings was reviewed, and pertinent information that either confirms or disconfirms other data was considered, and findings were generated.

Participants

The participants of this study included Palace Acquire interns, SMART interns, and previous interns who have since graduated from one of the intern programs within the last four years, supervisors who supervise at least one intern, and the current intern manager aka PAQ manager or

SMART manager, who manages the intern program for engineers and computer scientists at Hanscom

AFB. The age range of the Palace Acquire and SMART interns spans from twenty-two through thirty. 68

The gender demographics of the interns is 63% male and 37% female (Gosselin, 2020), and the racial diversity of the interns is 77% white and 23% other (Gosselin, 2020).

Focus groups allowed the researcher to collect shared understanding from several participants at one time as well as individual perspectives (Creswell, 2012, p. 218). Interaction among focus group participants can yield better information than the individuals alone (Creswell, 2012, p. 218). The data consisted of interviews from three focus groups, interviews with first-line supervisors, employee surveys conducted in 2018, exit interview documentation of former interns, and various internal Air Force documents. Nineteen interns agreed to participate. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all contact with participants was virtual as face-to-face contact was prohibited during this period. Therefore, the focus groups and interviews were conducted using the BlueJeans® video-teleconferencing application and each audio session was recorded using an iPad application and subsequently transcribed. Originally, nineteen interns agreed to participate in focus groups, however, due to connectivity issues, only 10 participated in focus group discussions; the remaining 9 could not connect to BlueJeans® on their government laptop and provided hardcopy answers to the questions followed up with a phone call when clarification was needed. The first focus group consisted of 5 Palace Acquire interns (PAQs), the second focus group consisted for 3 SMART interns (SMARTS), and the third focus group consisted of 2

Former Interns who graduated from the program within the last 5 years. An additional 2 PAQs, 4

SMARTS, and 3 Former Interns provided hardcopy answers to the questions. This one-on-one interview technique is appropriate and advantageous when interviewing participants who are not hesitant to speak, are comfortable sharing ideas (Creswell, 2012, p. 218).

Sampling Procedures

The number of current engineering and computer science interns at Hanscom AFB is approximately thirty-two, a total sample size between eight to fourteen for both Palace Acquire and

SMART interns to provide a representative sample of 43% which should be more than sufficient to 69

characterize the job satisfaction and retention of the target group within this case study. Interviewing

100% of the intern population would be too time-consuming and would not likely provide any additional information that a sample size of at least 25%. The population of former interns that graduated the intern program within the last four years is eighteen. A sample size of five provided a representative sample of 27%. The number of supervisors of interns is approximately twenty-five. A sample size of five supervisors provided a representative sample.

Purposive sampling was used for intentional participant selection with the expectation that each participant would provide unique and rich information of value to shed light on specific themes, concepts, or phenomena of the study (Suen, Huang, & Lee, 2014). The sample size was determined by data saturation, not by statistical power analysis (Suen et al., 2014). The intern manager is very familiar with each intern and former intern and recommended interns using purposive sampling to help ensure a representative sample of interns is selected to provide rich data. During purposive sampling, an effort was made to ensure proportional males and females, as well as white and minority interns, SMART interns and PAQ interns, as well as year in the PAQ or SMART program were included in the focus groups. The researcher used purposive sampling when selecting supervisors that are known be very proactive intern supervisors.

Research Site

The research site was Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. This site was selected since the researcher is employed full time at Hanscom in the role of Chief of Engineering Resources with the primary responsibility of human resource management of all engineers and computer scientists at

Hanscom to include engineering interns. There are 32 full-time engineering interns that are currently employed at Hanscom AFB. There are an additional 14 former interns who have graduated from the intern program and are still employed at Hanscom. They provide a mature perspective of their experiences of job satisfaction over their 4-8-year career. There are ten former interns who have 70

resigned over the last few years, and several have conducted exit surveys. These exit surveys were reviewed to determine their reason for leaving the Air Force and some of their comments were integrated into the results section.

Procedures

This case study commenced upon Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Since this study consisted of Air Force employees, specific approval was required from the

Department of the Air Force. This approval was received on March 9, 2020. After IRB approval, and

Department of the Air Force approval, the next step was to obtain permission from the Associate

Director of Engineering to conduct the study and recruit the engineers within his organization (see

Appendix A). The next step was to recruit the participants for the three focus groups. During the research design phase, the intention was to conduct three face-to-face panel interviews. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic caused Northeastern University to prohibit face-to-face contact during research. Therefore, the focus groups met in virtual environment using BlueJeans.® The first focus group consisted of three SMART interns. The second focus group consisted of five Palace Acquire interns. The third focus group consisted of two former interns that have since graduated from the intern program within the last four years. The selection process for candidate participants was a coordinated effort between the researcher and the intern manager who has superior knowledge of each intern in the program. Through purposive sampling, an effort was made to choose participants that are likely to be actively engaged and representative of the population from a gender, ethnicity, and year in the program aspect. These prospective candidates were sent a recruitment email requesting their participation. The email introduced the researcher, described the purpose of the research, described the intent and expectations of the focus group and the date, time, and the call-in instructions for the virtual focus group. It also indicated that their participation is voluntary and outlined any potential risks from participation (see Appendix B). 71

The next step was to recruit mid-level engineers who supervise at least one intern. These selections were made purposively based upon prior knowledge of the researcher who has worked with these supervisors and can assess who might provide insightful data on their interns. Five supervisors agreed to participate but only four supervisors found the time actually participate in a telephone interview. The viewpoint of the intern manager was central to this study and he agreed to participate in the interview process. These supervisor candidates were also sent a recruitment email requesting their participation. The email introduced the researcher, described the purpose of the research, described the intent and expectations of the interview. It also indicated that their participation is voluntary and outline any potential risks from participation (see Appendix C).

Each participant who agreed to participate was provided with an informed consent form to read and sign prior to any data being gathered. Appendices D & E contain informed consent forms. After all the participants signed their informed consent forms, the three focus groups and the semi-structured interviews with the intern supervisors and the intern manager was scheduled and conducted.

Focus Groups

Three focus groups met for approximately one hour each. The focus groups were conducted online via Bluejeans®. Ten of the nineteen participating interns agreed to participate in the focus groups. The remaining nine provided written responses to the survey questions and demographic questionnaire, see Appendix F. The prepared focus group questions for the SMART, PAQ, and former intern focus group are in Appendix G, H, and I, respectively. Due to the virtual nature of the focus groups, the questions were sent to the members prior to the meeting so they could think about and prepare their responses. During the online focus groups, the researcher posed these open-ended questions for the group to discuss and facilitated the discussion. All three focus groups were recorded using a voice recorder app on the researcher’s iPad. 72

Semi-structured Interviews

A primary tool of qualitative research is the in-depth semi-structured interview (Rubin & Rubin,

2012, p. 31). In a semi-structured interview, the researcher prepares a limited number of questions in advance on a specific topic to learn about with the plan to ask follow-up questions in order to better understand the topic in question (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 31). Four supervisors were interviewed separately using the semi-structured interview technique to obtain the perspectives of intern supervisors.

The one-on-one interviews were conducted on the phone due to Northeastern Universities

COVID-19 restrictions on face-to-face participant interaction. The interviews with the four supervisors averaged about twenty to thirty minutes each. The researcher sent prepared questions to the supervisors prior to the meeting. The supervisor typed answers and sent the researcher a copy to review for discussion over the phone. The prepared interview questions for the intern supervisors are in

Appendix J. Notes of the conversations were taken that accurately capture the points of view, opinions, and best practices of each supervisor.

Air Force Documents

Data collection also included various Air Force Documents. An initial list of documents is included in Appendix L. According to Yin (2009), the most important use of documents is to corroborate and augment evidence obtained from other sources (Yin, 2009, p. 103). Of particular interest in this study are the exit interviews obtained by the intern manager when interns have given their resignation notice. These documents were studied to determine why interns have left.

Data Storage and Management

Data consisted of electronic audio recordings, physical documents, and electronic files, including email, documents, and data files. All of these electronic files were stored securely on a password- protected personal computer in a locked office. Physical documents were stored in a locked file cabinet 73

at the researcher's home office. After each interview, the audio recording was transcribed using the

NVIVO transcription service and then deleted and destroyed. Each participant was given a pseudonym during transcription to protect their identity. A list of participants and their corresponding pseudonym was stored in a separate location from the data. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants was kept during the entire research process to include the researcher’s dissertation, presentations, and any potential derivative works.

Data Analysis

The data analysis process in qualitative studies consists of collecting data, organizing the data, conducting a preliminary read-through of the database, coding and organizing themes for analysis, representing the data, and forming an interpretation of them (Creswell, 2007, p. 179).

Sources of data in this study included transcripts of the focus groups interviews, surveys of intern participants that did not attend a focus group, interviews with intern supervisors and interview with the intern manager. Additionally, exit interviews of interns who quit government service provided valuable information to the researcher on reasons for quitting.

The interview audio files from the researchers iPad® were uploaded to NVIVO® transcription for automated transcription. The NVIVO transcripts were received shortly thereafter and reviewed, corrected, and each speaker tagged. In most cases, this automated transcription service quickly transcribed audio files with a good degree of accuracy. However, an ethnic dialect of one intern did not translate well. Obtaining written transcripts in near-real-time allowed the researcher to check the transcripts for accuracy, and tag speakers ("NVivo Transcription," 2019). It also allowed the researcher to perform timely member-checking to ensure accuracy of the data by allowing the participant to review the document and ensured that it portrayed an accurate depiction of the participant’s experiences

(Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). To ensure the accuracy of the transcription, the researcher performed member checking of their transcripts, when necessary. 74

Once all the transcripts were electronically compiled and validated, the researcher used a manual coding process to analyze the data and develop underlying themes and subthemes. During the coding process, the researcher chose the "lean coding," technique to include expected key words based upon the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory and then increased the number of codes as the data review proceeded. During the coding process, it became evident some factors were noteworthy with regards to job satisfaction, dissatisfaction, or retention of SMART interns and were then sorted into themes and subthemes. This yielded five motivation factors and three hygiene factors that dominated the data on the factors that contribute to the motivation (job satisfaction) and hygiene (job dissatisfaction) of the Air Force interns. At this point, these codes were used to establish three themes and 13 subthemes. Upon establishment of the themes and subthemes, a spreadsheet was developed that consolidated all noteworthy comments by subtheme and sorted them by positive, neutral, and negative job satisfaction comments in order to determine the propensity of that factor toward job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This technique allowed viewpoints of SMART interns, PAQ interns, supervisors, and in some cases, exit interviews to be consolidated together allowing the researcher to compare and contrast the points of view of these different categories of participants. This aided in data triangulation for similar viewpoints (e.g. most interns were driven by that nature of the work – whether

PAQ, SMART, or Former Intern). It also highlighted divergent viewpoints such as PAQs typically satisfied with their compensation, and SMARTS typically dissatisfied with their compensation.

Coded data was tagged with relevant demographic data such as intern program and years with the Air Force to allow the compilation of data based upon these characteristics. These themes were then analyzed to make comparisons, note patterns, and relationships among variables within the data

(Creswell, 2012, p. 245). After the analysis phase, the researcher summarized, in detail, the findings from the analysis of the data (Creswell, 2012, p. 254).

The researcher used triangulation to test the validity of the information gathered from different 75

sources to increase the confidence of the findings by determining if the data converges to the same findings or diverges. Several comparisons were conducted that compared information from different target groups to include current interns, past interns, and supervisors. The feedback from the SMART interns was compared to the feedback from the Palace Acquire interns to determine if their views of the intern programs are similar or different. The feedback from the former interns that have graduated was compared to the feedback of the current interns to see if views change through experience and time.

The feedback from intern supervisors was compared to the feedback from the current interns to determine if management has a similar view or different view compared to the interns. Additionally, information from Air Force documents was compared to the information acquired though the focus groups and semi-structed interviews, specifically, exit interviews, and job satisfaction surveys conducted by the intern manager in 2018. Finally, all of the data and findings were compared to the theoretical framework of Herzberg’s two-factor theory to determine if the data confirms or diverges from what

Herzberg’s theory suggests.

The researcher documented his findings from all the available data to include interview transcripts, Air Force documents, exit interviews, legacy job satisfaction surveys and the literature review in a draft report. The results of the study were peer reviewed by the intern manager to determine reasonableness of the findings and to identify and correct any errors or omissions before submitting the final paper.

Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research

Ethical Considerations

The principles of the Northeastern University IRB for the ethical treatment of all participants was strictly upheld. Although the risks are low in this research study, the researcher guarded against inadvertently harm to the research subjects. Participants were provided with informed consent forms and notified of their rights and ability to withdraw from the study at any time. The identity of any study participants will not be disclosed without their permission. Pseudonyms were used to protect the confidentiality of participants. Names and any identifiable information were redacted from all transcripts. All data collected and electronic files were securely stored on a password-protected computer. Audio recordings were maintained securely during the potential internal audit period and then destroyed upon transcription by NVIVO ® during the dissertation process.

Credibility

The trustworthiness of a research study is very important in evaluating its worth (Lincoln, Guba,

& Guba, 1985). There are several techniques that were implemented to promote credibility. The first technique that was implemented is member-checking. With member-checking, the accuracy of the written transcripts from each of the interviews was checked with the member who provided the testimony, when necessary. This ensured the raw data is correct. The second technique that was implemented is triangulation. With triangulation, the findings and conclusions drawn from one data source was compared with the findings from an alternative data source. Interview data was compared with data from documents reviewed, such as exit interviews and data from supervisor interviews.

Lastly, peer debriefing was implemented by having the intern manager read and evaluate the study for accuracy. Peer debriefing is a process of exposing oneself to a disinterested peer to obtain an honest, subjective evaluation of the study (Lincoln et al., 1985). 77

Transferability

Job satisfaction and retention of employees is a common, if not universal phenomena, the transferability of this study of Air Force interns would be a reasonable jumping-off point for other researchers providing that the description of data and finding in this study is thick and rich enough and the methodology sufficiently described. To enable this, the researcher provided thick descriptions of the data and findings in this study in order to achieve a type of external validity and provide other researchers with enough information to determine if the conclusions drawn from this study are transferable to other times, settings, situations, and people (Lincoln et al., 1985).

Internal Audit

The researcher has established an internal audit trail to ensure traceability of the research process using version control of all versions of draft documents as well as frequent use of specific page numbers on most reference documents. During the data collection process, the researcher established an audit trail to include actual interview notes, copies of all documents used for data purposes such as exit interviews, transcript notes, and electronic audio files of interviews as well as any researcher field notes, and any other document or file that would add to an effective chain of evidence leading to the final report enabling an independent auditor to review my research activities.

Self-reflexivity and Transparency

This positionality statement conveys how my background and experiences influence my perceptions of job satisfaction of Air Force interns and its effect on retention.

I'm a married white man born in the early sixties. I have over 35 years' experience working for the Air Force. My first 20 years was as an Air Force officer in the engineering career field, and after my military retirement, I rejoined the Air Force as a civil servant for the last 15 years. When I graduated from college and entered the Air Force, I was integrated into units that were culturally and racially diverse. Some of my best friends and colleagues while in the Air Force were of different races and 78

cultures, and I feel that my military years were very accepting of other races, and I maintained the attitude that social justice should prevail for all. The culture of the Air Force produced ethnocentrism amongst its members. As Stanfield (1985) points out, the group-centeredness of human populations creates a collective pride and gives cohesion to a collective consciousness (Stanfield, 1985, p. 393). This is exactly how I would characterize the diverse population within the Air Force resulting in harmony and equality prevailing irrespective of race, sex, religion, or background (Stanfield, 1985).

I am currently the Chief of Engineering Resources at an Air Force base. In this role, I am in charge of hiring engineers and computer scientists for the Air Force and assign them to various program offices. Their mission is to develop and procure future weapons capability to support and defend the

United States against her enemies. I have an action officer who manages the engineering intern program to include hiring, placement, and mentoring of recent college graduates. He meets with them regularly to assist in their early career development, ensure they are on-track with their training and addresses any concerns they may have.

Most of the interns are recent college graduates with high GPAs from top schools in New

England. I find that nearly all of the interns are very smart, hardworking, and highly motivated when they are hired and are excited about having an opportunity to work for the Air Force. I am aware there are generational differences between the interns and most of their direct supervisors that they are assigned to.

My goal is to improve intern job satisfaction and hence, retention through a better understanding of the factors that motivate and de-motivates them. 79

Potential Bias Caused by Air Force Chain of Command

My position as the Chief of Engineering Resources could influence the testimony of the Air Force interns. The interns may be reluctant to provide negative feedback due to the fact that I’m a senior leader. To assuage any concerns, I’ll make it clear to them that I am not in their chain-of-command (see fig 2), and have no influence on their performance rating or their standing within the organization.

I am the supervisor the of Intern Manager and it is possible, but unlikely, that my position may have influenced his testimony. My leadership style provides him with full autonomy in his job and our relationship is more collegial than supervisor / employee. The intern manager is an independent thinker and he is not afraid to disagree with me or express unpopular opinions. Additionally, he is highly committed to get to the root cause of intern attrition. I did; however, watch for potential bias and considered it when developing my findings.

The directors of engineering, chief engineers, and intern supervisors are not in my chain-of- command and provided candid, truthful responses to my interview questions. 80

Presuppositions and Assumptions

Having been a supervisor for 35 years at all levels within the Air Force, I have experienced the full spectrum of supervisors from good to bad that practice diverse leadership styles. Some are highly motivating, and some are not. I presuppose that some of the retention problems are directly the result of “bad” supervisors.

Many times, the work of procuring weapon systems for the Air Force can be boring at many times; our defense contractors perform the interesting research and development phases of the acquisition process while the government people perform contract oversight and compliance review. I presuppose that some of the retention problems are due to the nature of the work as not meeting the intern's hands-on expectations of what a new engineer or computer scientist should be working on, and their generational need for instant gratification may not be met. Finally, I presuppose that many of the interns may not be satisfied with their salaries compared with their peers in the private industry.

With regard to the study, I assume that some of the interns could be reluctant to be 100% forthcoming on job satisfaction discussions due to fear of reprisal. However, all Air Force employees take “no fear act” training annually, encouraging whistle-blowing, if necessary.

Limitations

This case study was limited to studying a subset of the engineering interns at Hanscom AFB, a subset of the supervisors who supervise interns, and a subset of former graduating interns as an exhaustive study of 100% of these populations would be extremely time consuming and may not provide any significant additional information. Exit interview data from previous interns who have quit have been sporadically collected over the last several years. However, there are several interns who have separated who have not completed an exit interview, and the data cannot be regenerated.

As my research is limited to one specific career field on one specific Air Force base, the findings may not necessarily translate to other career fields or Air Force bases. However, this study could provide 81

a framework for similar studies of job satisfaction at the same level. If successful, this study should result in actionable information to improve intern job satisfaction and retention.

Summary

This case study explored how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns, why some interns have quit, what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention, and why the retention of SMART interns is so much lower than

Palace Acquire interns. The case study approach was used as it provided for the use of a variety of data sources, thereby allowed the phenomena to be explored through a variety of lenses, which allowed for multiple facets to be revealed and understood (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545). The use of multiple data sources also provided a means for confirming trustworthiness through the use of triangulation (Miles,

2015, p. 3).

Through the use of focus groups and individual interviews, the researcher took a constructivist- interpretivist approach through his interaction with the participants to try to understand the points of view (or perceived reality) of the participant. The validity, trustworthiness, transferability, and positionality of the researcher are also considered during the entire study process to ensure the study meets a high standard of quality qualitative research.

The deliberate design of the focus group by type attempts to discover any difference in job satisfaction or dissatisfaction by major grouping. During this analysis phase, the data is presented by themes and subthemes representing the data as a whole and any specific trends or differences by focus group was called out. The anonymous employee surveys conducted in 2018 are not identifiable as originating from PAQs or SMARTs; however, they provide relevant information that is in keeping with the results of the current focus groups and assisted in triangulation of data to confirm trustworthiness of the data. Interviews of four engineering supervisors of interns were conducted to provide a management perspective on intern job satisfaction and retention issues. Interview questions of each 82

group is included in the appendices. Additionally, file copies of exit interviews and other Air Force documents were reviewed to provide valuable data to integrate into this case study.

Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis

The purpose of this study is to investigate how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns. Three areas of special interest include: 1.

Determining the underlying reasons engineering interns have left government service; 2. Determining what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention; and 3. Determining why the retention rate of the SMART interns (19%) is so much lower than the Palace Acquire interns (73%).

Data collected consisted of interviews from three focus groups, interviews with first-line supervisors, employee surveys, exit interview documentation of former interns, and various internal Air

Force documents. It is important to note that the supervisors interviewed in this study are staunch advocates of the intern programs and provide outstanding support to enable their interns to be successful. Not all supervisors, provide the same attention and nurturing of their interns.

In order to gauge the overarching attrition propensity, the members of each focus group were asked if they plan on leaving the Air Force within the next couple of years. The study shows that while only one intern has definite plans to leave government service soon, about a third of the interns are contemplating leaving government service. This is significant. Twelve interns indicated that they liked working for the Air Force and did not have any plans on leaving. Six interns indicated that they have considered it and it remains a possibility. To better understand why one third of the intern workforce is contemplating leaving the Air Force and deter these undecided interns from quitting, this study is organized into themes to determine and strengthen the underlying factors that influence job satisfaction and determine and prevent factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. Additionally, since the retention rate of SMART interns and job satisfaction is so low compared to the retention rate of PAQ interns, a third theme was organized to determine the root causes of SMART intern attrition.

The analysis of the data yielded three major themes and thirteen sub-themes. The first and second themes were organized around the Herzberg’s Motivational-Hygiene theory. Theme 1 consists 84

of motivating factors contributing to job satisfaction with corresponding sub-themes of nature of the work, recognition, achievement, mentoring, and perquisites. Theme 2 consists of hygiene factors contributing to job dissatisfaction with corresponding sub-themes of salary, supervisor relationship, and working conditions. The final theme, Theme 3, consists of factors contributing to SMART intern attrition with corresponding sub-themes of intern program comparison, SMART program marketing, SMART intern motivation, reasons for attrition, and SMART intern recommendations to improve job satisfaction and retention.

Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction

According to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, people are influenced by two sets of factors

(Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). The first set of factors are labeled motivating factors in the workplace that lead to job satisfaction and the second set of factors are labeled hygiene factors in the workplace that lead to dissatisfaction. This theme specifically addresses the following Herzberg-identified motivating factors leading to job satisfaction:

• Nature of the work – interesting and/or enjoyable work performed

• Recognition – positive acknowledgment from a supervisor, management, client, peer,

professional colleague, or the general public

• Achievement – successful completion of a job, seeing results of one’s work

It also addresses other motivating factors leading to job satisfaction that was identified during the focus group discussions, specifically:

• Mentoring -- adequate mentoring from the PAQ manager, one’s supervisor, or someone else to

guide, inform, or advise

• Benefits and Perquisites -- comprehensive benefits package and perquisites such as compressed

work schedule, free gym, three hours per week of physical fitness time, and telework

The data shows that some of the motivating factors leading to job satisfaction are more 85

important to the interns than others. Specifically, the nature of the work is by far the most important factor with regards to job satisfaction. The data also shows that these motivating factors equally influence job satisfaction interns in the PAQ program or the SMART program.

Nature of the Work

The nature of the work consists of job characteristics such as the type of work assigned, the level of responsibility, importance to the nation, and whether the work is interesting or mundane. It is by far the most important factor in job satisfaction. Conversely, if the nature of the work is undesirable to the intern, it can result in job dissatisfaction and potentially attrition.

The engineers and scientists at Hanscom Air Force Base, in conjunction with defense contractors, have the critical mission to provide advanced weapon systems to the warfighter in order to maintain our global air superiority in defense of the United States and its allies by developing tomorrow’s most advanced radars, command and operations centers, network infrastructures, communication and intelligence systems, and cyber defense systems (Public-Affairs, 2016). There are 19 separate and distinct divisions at Hanscom with the types of work ranging from “hands-on” engineering to engineering management providing oversight of our defense contractors. Interns are assigned to any one of these divisions, work on a wide variety of weapon systems, and have a unique work experience ranging from “hands-on” engineering to contractor oversight.

Herzberg (1987) indicates that the motivating factor he calls the “work itself” is a significant factor in job satisfaction. This premise is shared by several of the supervisors. One supervisor makes it a point to ask his interns what technology they are interested in and assigns them that work. He stated,

“I think this is one of the most critical things you can do for interns, from both a job satisfaction and retention perspective.” Another supervisor indicated that providing interesting hands-on work is his primary goal to “ensure they are getting the right experiences.”

Nearly all of the engineering interns realize the importance that their jobs have to the nation 86

and are motivated by the fact that their work is very important to national defense. They really enjoy the fact that they are supporting the warfighter. One intern declared, “I like learning about mission planning and take pride in the fact that the work I do supports the warfighter.” Several interns indicated they feel motivated by the fact that they are contributing to the protection of the United States. One intern stated, “I am motivated by seeing things fly, being on things that fly and knowing that our work supports the guys at the pointy end of the spear.” and another simply stated, “we all have one common goal: the protection of the US.”

The interns also are motivated by working on the cutting edge of state-of-the-art technologies and being able to influence future warfighting paradigms. One intern boasted that he is working on an extremely important project that “is on the cutting edge of cloud-based technology and is of great importance.” Another intern indicated the importance of working on an important paradigm shift. “…it is important helping launch a new paradigm as we move away from the old Cold War way of doing things into figuring out how we're going to operate in environments where the bad guys can shoot down planes from a really long way away.”

Most of the interns indicated that their job assignment is interesting and contributes to their job satisfaction. One intern stated, “I find the work I do very interesting. Space Fence is an up and coming next generation radar that will bring space object detection capabilities that have not been rivaled by prior radars.” Another intern enjoyed their job and found that working on international programs with allied nations to be very interesting. Several also indicated that they found it very interesting that many of the systems the Air Force develops are interoperable and integrated at a system-of-systems level.

One stated, “I find it interesting to see how all the programs are interconnected at a higher level.”

Another intern stated, “I find the work to be quite fascinating - particularly on the cloud migration team, where we were designing a cloud infrastructure upon which most of the branch's programs will operate.” 87

Most of the interns also indicated that they were motivated by the significant level of responsibility that they were given. One commented, “the level of responsibility is rewarding because I am allowed to demonstrate my technical skills in important areas”, and another intern stated, “My level of responsibility made me feel that I was making a real difference on the project.”

While most of the interns are very satisfied with the nature of the work they are assigned, a few of the interns expressed comments that demonstrate some dissatisfaction with their current job. Two interns wanted to do more hands-on engineering work and was dismayed that the real engineering work is done by the contractor. One intern stated, “the actual technical work… is not done by the program office, it is done by our prime and subcontractors instead. This is a big problem for me.” Another intern shared the same view, “While I would prefer to get more hands-on with the design and fabrication work, however, that's done by our contractors.”

Two other interns were dissatisfied with their current job due to the nature of the work to include lack of responsibility and lack of hands on work. One intern indicated, “I wished I had more responsibility…. I feel like more of a program manager than an engineer. I have an advanced degree in electrical engineering but I don't really feel like I'm using it.” Another stated, “it's hard to learn and get good at anything if you don't have responsibility, I am somewhat disappointed in the fact that I don't do much engineering at all… contractors do the engineering for me.” Notably, some departing interns indicated that they were unhappy with the work that was assigned. Comments included, “I was not assigned interesting work”, “not given much responsibility”, “Engineering by Powerpoint®”. In these cases, it appears that the nature of their work was a factor in deciding to leave government service.

When asked why they would consider leaving the Air Force, most intern responses mentioned salary and the nature of the work in terms of interesting, technical, or hands-on. One intern declared,

“It comes down to how interesting the work is. If I continue to be dissuaded from digging into the deep technical details and complexities of the public cloud and actually putting those into practice 88

and being able to implement things myself, the outlook is not good.”

The nature of the work is by far the most significant factor resulting in job satisfaction. Virtually all of the engineering interns in this case study realize the importance that their jobs have to the nation and are motivated by the fact that their work is very important to national defense. They also noted that the work that they are engaged in is interesting and that they had a significant level of responsibility. For most of the interns, the nature of the work, level of responsibility, and importance to the nation provided job satisfaction.

Recognition

Herzberg (1987) contends that recognition is a motivating factor that leads to job satisfaction. It can be as simple as positive acknowledgment from a supervisor, management, client, peer, professional colleague, or the general public (Herzberg, 1987) or can consist of a formal recognition program.

Abraham Maslow also contends that people in our society have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, the need for achievement, adequacy, reputation, prestige, recognition, and appreciation (A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 381-382).

There were several types of recognition provided to the interns, and in most instances, recognition was a positive influence to their job satisfaction. Types of recognition reported include formal recognition programs such as Junior Engineer of the Quarter, informal praise given by one’s supervisor, as well as some unique recognition programs that some supervisors have initiated such as the Engineering Power Lunch Series. Supervisors actively nominate their interns for formal recognition programs. One supervisor said, “I make sure to nominate my interns for Junior Civilian Engineer to show appreciation for work well done.” Another supervisor described a unique and effective program to recognize their interns through an initiative entitled, “Engineering Power Lunch Series”, where an intern provides a 30 minute to an hour briefing on a special engineering topic, they are deeply engaged in.

Interns feel very accomplished during these sessions as they are put on a spotlight to demonstrate their 89

technical prowess.

The majority of interns indicated that they received the recognition they deserved, and that this recognition varied in how it was provided, from a simple “pat on the back” to formal “civilian-of-the- quarter award”. A third-year PAQ intern stated,

“I have found that I receive the recognition that I deserve. I have won various branch, division, and directorate-level quarterly and annual awards, both individual and team, and the recognition does contribute to my job satisfaction … it reassures me that I am appreciated for the hours I put in.”

Another intern viewed recognition as a way to validate her performance and stated,

“Recognition is especially important so I know if I'm on the right track.” In most cases, the interns appreciated the recognition and it led to job satisfaction. For instance, a former intern indicated, “… being recognized contributes to my high job satisfaction” and a third-year SMART intern said, “….my managers recognize the work that I do. This is definitely important for job satisfaction.” While some interns appreciated getting recognition, they reported that it was not a factor in their job satisfaction.

For instance, one PAQ stated, “I don't feel the need for recognition to be satisfied in my job, though it is nice to feel that your work is appreciated.” It was interesting to note that the interns preferred timely informal recognition, such as a “pat on the back” or honest praise over formal quarterly awards. One intern characterized this very well in her statement, “Day in, day out, tacit recognition is more important to me than quarterly awards. A simple verbal recognition of my hard work from my program manager when I tell him something was completed is enough for me to be happy.”

Not all the responses by the focus groups indicated that they appreciated getting positive recognition. A SMART intern indicated he would prefer monetary compensation over a formal award.

Yet another indicated he was “put off” by receiving more recognition or praise than warranted and seemed to feel that it either wasn’t sincere praise or was provided in lieu of being paid adequately. The following excerpts indicate this counter viewpoint: 90

“I get more recognition or praise than warrants the actual work I have completed. This is a bit

off putting. I am entirely unconcerned with verbal, written, or public recognition. If the

government would like to recognize me properly for my skills, talents, and capability delivered,

it can do so by increasing my salary.”

One intern made a significant distinction between formal recognition and authentic recognition, he indicated that formal recognition is “B#ll Sh!t” although placed high regard for authentic personal recognition. It was interesting to note that supervisors of interns focus on the formal recognition programs, such as engineering quarterly and annual awards, rather than then informal “pat on the back” recognition that most interns yearn for.

Both supervisors and interns indicated that recognition is an important motivating factor that leads to job satisfaction with only a few exceptions. Supervisors focused on the formal recognition programs; however, interns seem to prefer informal praise. More than half of the interns who have left government service indicated that they did receive adequate recognition, therefore, it doesn’t appear that the lack of recognition is a significant factor in the decision for an intern to leave government service.

Achievement

Achievement can be defined as the successful completion of a job, solving a problem, or seeing results of one’s work. Herzberg (1987) contends that achievement is a motivating factor that leads to job satisfaction. Abraham Maslow also contends that people in our society have a need for achievement which increases their self-esteem (A. H. Maslow, 1943). The supervisors interviewed in this study also realize that their interns have a need for achievement. One supervisor emphatically stated, “I completely believe interns have an opportunity to achieve success and feel directly responsible for the success of an effort.” It was somewhat disappointing that the data shows that only 65% of the engineering interns felt a sense of achievement and that this achievement contributed to their job 91

satisfaction. This may indicate that not all supervisors provide the same level of attention or nurturing of their interns compared to the supervisors who volunteered to be part of this study.

Of the interns that did have a sense of achievement, it is very apparent that it resulted in significant job satisfaction. This first-year SMART intern stated,

“I have a sense of achievement. I recently completed a presentation and received a lot of

positive feedback. This made me feel like I have done a good job. I thrive on optimism. It is like

in school when you get a good grade, it makes you more confident in the class and makes you

want to keep getting good grades. I feel satisfied when I do a good job.”

Another intern declared he felt a sense of achievement and pride, “…the project that I'm a part of gives me a sense of achievement. I am given projects and create ambitious, but achievable goals. After a long day of getting good work accomplished, I feel pride in what I've done.” When asked if she felt a sense of achievement, this intern emphatically stated, “I definitely do! Working in the Special Projects branch that prides themselves on rapid demonstration of new capabilities has been extremely rewarding!”

One intern that left government service felt a sense of achievement, she said, “I had a sense of achievement -- it was very important to me.”

Not all the responses by the focus groups indicated that all interns were feeling a sense of achievement. About 35% of the interns did not feel a sense of achievement in their job. Some of the reasons given is that the acquisition process is so long and drawn out that it takes months for things to get accomplished. One respondent stated that “since the contractor builds the thing it's a direct result of their hard work not mine.” Another lamented that the acquisition process moves too slow to produce a sense of achievement.

“Significant achievements feel rare in my current program. The pace of actually selecting sites

to move forward with is slow. About twice a year I will have a few reports that I have spent

months on approved and that is always a good feeling. A sense of achievement is important to 92

my job satisfaction; however, I would be happier if I felt more were achieved on a shorter

timescale.”

In addition to the 35% of current interns that do not share a sense of achievement, several interns that have left government service also did not feel a sense of achievement. One stated, “I had limited sense of achievement and this was a dis-satisfier”; and another indicated that she had a variable level of achievement “Some days I felt like I had a sense of achievement, most days, I did not.” Two other interns who left government service simply stated that they did not feel a sense of achievement. It appears that this lack of sense of achievement may have contributed to job dissatisfaction and influenced their decision to quit.

Providing job content that gives the intern a sense of achievement is important to job satisfaction. With only 65% of the engineering interns feeling a sense of achievement, it follows that

35% of the interns did not feel a sense of achievement. This indicates that either the nature of the work is not optimal for producing a sense of achievement or their supervisor is not providing the intern with the opportunity to achieve. In either case, there is an opportunity to modify the job content or work assignment to increase the intern’s job satisfaction.

Mentoring

Nearly all of the engineering interns received mentorship from a variety of sources including their supervisor, the intern manager, peers, co-workers, program manager, friends and even their 93

second-level supervisor. Some stated that it “helped them navigate the Air Force” and “made their job easier”. Many indicated it did have a positive effect on their job satisfaction. For instance, one PAQ declared, “I received excellent mentoring from not only my supervisor, but also the PAQ POC as well as other PAQs. This had a major impact on my job satisfaction because, I was brand new to the Air Force and the PAQ program.”

All of the supervisors interviewed agreed that mentoring their interns is very important to their development and growth. One supervisor stated, “It can be difficult for newer employees to navigate the acquisition process, execute contracts, while also learning new technologies. It is important to communicate often with your interns to understand how they are doing.” Another supervisor echoed this sentiment with, “For many interns this is their first technical job out of college. I think it would be a disservice to them to not provide mentoring and career counseling ranging from topics such as Thrift

Savings Plan to long-term career aspirations and guidance.” One intern stated that the career counseling he received helped him “understand what I need to do in order to progress through my career in the Air Force. Knowing what to do and how to do it in order to progress has certainly been a factor in my satisfaction.” This indicates that the intern is looking long-term and likes working for the Air

Force.

The importance and source of technical mentoring was also discussed by the interns and supervisors. One intern explained, “Most of my technical mentoring has come from my coworkers, who are mostly contractors. I think they're all incredibly knowledgeable people and I appreciate having the opportunity to work with such motivated and intelligent people.” Another intern stated, “I definitely receive adequate mentoring from my more experienced coworkers. I am working with people who have been in the tech industry for 30 years and their mentoring is extremely valuable.” A supervisor also felt it was important to pair new interns with more experienced engineers to provide technical mentoring.

In addition to new employee mentoring, career counseling, and technical mentoring, the intern 94

manager provides social mentoring to increase a sense of belonging and camaraderie. He provides career guidance as well as providing a social forum to include lunches, barbeques, and social events where all the new PAQs and SMARTs get together periodically to share ideas, concerns, and make friends. One intern explained his interaction with the intern manager,

“We have weekly new hire lunches and we also speak on the phone every couple of weeks to

check-in with how things are going. I feel supported in the mentoring relationship and definitely

go to the SMART POC first if I have a question or concern about anything job related.”

The majority of the interns expressed that the mentorship they receive is important to their job satisfaction. One PAQ intern sums up his mentoring experience with, “I receive different levels of mentorship from the PAQ manager, my supervisor as well as friends in the workplace that ultimately culminates into the proper amount of mentoring. Overall, it provides job satisfaction.” While another expressed a more long-term mentor/protégé relationship with, “I received great mentoring from my supervisor in my previous position as a GS 7-11, and still go to him for mentorship. Mentorship is important to my job satisfaction.”

Not all the responses by the focus groups indicated that all interns received adequate mentoring. In particular, two PAQs did not feel that they received enough mentoring from the PAQ program manager and were expecting to receive some written materials to help them navigate the program. One first-year PAQ complained, “I don't feel like a lot of mentoring occurs when you come into the PAQ program. I feel like you're left to try and navigate the whole Air Force, PAQ program, school application and just regular work life all on your own.” A second PAQ intern was happy with the mentoring their supervisor provided, but expected to be provided with written materials about the PAQ program. He stated, “I have not received adequate mentoring from my PAQ manager, as I have been giving extremely few materials about the program since I started. Fortunately, I have been able to learn about the program through one of my coworkers. As a whole, my supervisors absolutely provide 95

adequate mentoring.

Mentoring is an important aspect of retention. This study shows that most of the engineering interns received mentorship from a variety of sources including their supervisor, the PAQ manager, their peers, co-workers, the program manager, friends and even their second-level supervisor. Many interns indicated that it did have a positive effect on their job satisfaction.

Benefits and Perquisites

Perquisites, commonly known as perks are extra benefits that are an addition to traditional compensation packages that can motivate people to stay with an organization. Pell (2000) contends that perks provide a constant positive reminder that the company is giving them something of value that makes their lives more pleasant, which reinforces their loyalty with the company. There are four popular perks provided to all employees at Hanscom AFB, two provide work schedule flexibility and two are related to physical fitness. It is important to note that the data in this study was collected during the first couple of weeks of the COVID-19 shutdown and reflects the interns pre-COVID impressions. Since that time, the gym has been closed and telework is now the norm verses the exception.

The two perks that provide work schedule flexibility are compressed work schedule and telework. Compressed work schedule, also known as CWS, is a two-week work schedule where employees work a combination of eight nine-hour days, one eight-hour day, and take a day off thereby working nine days verses ten days per two-week pay-period. By working an extra hour per day for eight days, they essentially earn 26 additional days off per year. Telework provides the ability of the employee to work from home on a government supplied laptop computer.

The two perks that are related to physical fitness is free 24-hour access to the base gym and allowance of three hours of paid work time per week for physical fitness at the gym, running track, walking path, or base swimming pool during work hours.

The vast majority of the engineering interns indicated they received benefit from some of the 96

perks, especially CWS and use of the physical fitness time. Most interns indicated that these perks added considerably to their job satisfaction. One intern stated, “I currently use CWS and free gym. I am grateful for all of these, and it certainly does impact my level of job satisfaction.” When discussing these perks, one third-year PAQ exclaimed, “This is one of the reasons why I love working here! I utilize CWS, the gym, 3 hours of workout time and base sponsored sports.” Another affirmed that “these opportunities greatly contribute to my job satisfaction.”

The CWS, fitness time, and free gym are a major contributor to job satisfaction. The interns described its impact with phrases such as “definitely a contributor toward high job satisfaction”; “The gym is very beneficial to my job satisfaction.”; “the flexibility of telework does contribute to a high job satisfaction”; “both CWS and telework are major contributors to my work-life balance and job satisfaction.”; and “the three hours of gym time is the best perk the Air Force offers…”. One intern describes her experience with these perks. She stated,

“I participate in the compressed work schedule. I love that I can move my hours to earlier in the

day and get every other Friday off. I telework so I can have a complete week or weekend at

home. Both CWS and telework are major contributors to my work-life balance and job

satisfaction.”

When discussing compressed work schedule, one third year SMART intern asserted, “CWS definitely leads to job satisfaction; just having that one day off every two weeks is extremely beneficial to mental health and job satisfaction.”

A few interns either did not take advantage of the perks, or was not impressed by them. The following intern stated, “The only thing I really use is the gym. I don't find the gym to be really that nice, the only thing I really like about it is that it’s free. On the whole, I would say these don't have an impact on my satisfaction.” Another new PAQ stated, “I use none of these perks, but am considering CWS and telework.” 97

In the case of interns that worked at an offsite location in Boston, aka “Kessel Run”, these perks were not available to them. This SMART intern expressed, “No. I don’t use any of these perks, I work in

Boston at Kessel Run so I am seldom on base.”

Supervisors understand the value that perks have on job satisfaction and encourage the use of the free gym and 3 hours per week of workout time as well as the benefits of CWS. One supervisor stated, “I always in-brief them that CWS is a good perk”. Another supervisor claimed, “Many of my interns make use of 3 hours per week of workout time, free gym, intramural sports teams, and CrossFit.

I do believe this increases their level of job satisfaction.”

In addition to the aforementioned perks, there are significant financial benefits associated specifically with the PAQ program. As part of their hiring package, PAQ interns are provided with a 25% sign-on bonus amounting to approximately $14,000 as well as up to $30,000 payment toward federal student loans. They also are provided with an all-expense paid master’s degree while receiving their salary for up to 18 months. These benefits are a significant draw for the PAQ program and unfortunately can cause envy by the SMART interns who do not receive those financial and educational benefits.

Nearly all of the engineering interns received benefit from some of the perks, especially

Compressed Work Schedule and use of the physical fitness time. Additionally, most indicated that these perks added considerably to their job satisfaction. In addition to these perks, the PAQ interns receive a significant financial benefit as part of their employment package. While this results in significant job satisfaction for the PAQ interns, it can have the opposite effect on the SMART interns who are not eligible for these benefits.

Conclusion – Motivating Factors that Contribute to Job Satisfaction

This section analyzed the data collected on motivating factors that contribute to job satisfaction according to Herzberg (1959). The factors that were analyzed include the nature of the work, 98

recognition, sense of achievement, mentoring, benefits and perquisites.

The study shows that several factors contribute to intern job satisfaction. Two of these factors also contribute to job dissatisfaction and attrition if not met, specifically, the nature of the work, and sense of achievement. The most significant motivating factor is the nature of the work. Interns are motivated by job assignments that requires hands-on engineering that is interesting and important to the nation. Conversely, they expressed dissatisfaction if the “hands-on” work is performed by support contractors instead which could lead to attrition.

Another significant factor that could either lead to job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction is being assigned work that provides a sense of achievement. Approximately 65% of the interns felt a sense of achievement and it contributed to their job satisfaction. However, 35% of interns indicated that their job did not provide them with a sense of achievement. Interns who left government service typically did not feel a sense of achievement and reported this lack of a sense of achievement was a de-motivator and a contributing factor to attrition.

Receiving recognition is another motivating factor that contributed to the intern’s job satisfaction. Most interns indicated they received the recognition they deserved, they preferred timely, informal recognition from their supervisor verses the formal “civilian-of-the-quarter award”. Even though recognition was an important contributor to job satisfaction, lack of recognition did not appear to be a deciding factor in leaving government service.

While mentoring has a positive effect on their job satisfaction, the lack of mentoring did not appear to contribute to job dissatisfaction or attrition.

Most of the engineering interns received benefit from some of the perks, especially Compressed

Work Schedule and use of the physical fitness time. Additionally, most indicated that these perks added considerably to their job satisfaction. In addition to these perks, the PAQ interns receive a significant financial benefit as part of their employment package. While this results in significant job satisfaction 99

for the PAQ interns, it can have the opposite effect on the SMART interns who are not eligible for these benefits.

In summary, the nature of the work and sense of achievement are two factors that significantly contribute to job satisfaction and retention; however, both can contribute to job dissatisfaction and attrition, if not met.

100

Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction

The Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory contends that people are influenced by two sets of factors (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005) -- motivating factors and hygiene factors. The motivating factors were covered extensively in the previous theme. This theme addresses factors that are labeled hygiene factors in the workplace that lead to job dissatisfaction. This theme will specifically address the following Herzberg-identified hygiene factors leading to job dissatisfaction:

• Salary – pay inequities or unfulfilled salary expectations

• Supervision – supervisor / employee relationship

• Working conditions – specifically, computer technology that is difficult to use

The data shows that the most significant source of job dissatisfaction is due to interns feeling underpaid, especially during the first three years on the job. This is a major contributor to job turnover.

The data also shows that the hygiene factor of supervisor / employee relationship was not a significant issue to the majority of interns; however, in the few cases where the interns did not get along with their supervisor, it caused significant job dissatisfaction contributing to turnover. Finally, the hygiene factor of working conditions resulted in significant job dissatisfaction; however, it did not contribute to turnover. During the study, other hygiene factors such as facility condition, dirty bathrooms, government bureaucracy, inadequate onboarding, and long commutes were randomly mentioned by the interns; however, they did not appear in significant frequency nor did they contribute to significant job dissatisfaction and will not be addressed further.

Salary

Herzberg (1959) contends that unfulfilled salary expectations can be a source of job dissatisfaction. This can be due to pay inequities with others in the organization making more money for the same work or pay inequities with similar jobs in the market. Conversely, Opsahl & Dunnette

(1966) assert that salary was more likely to lead to job satisfaction. Some workers consider a high salary 101

as a symbol of achievement, rather than just buying power and would consider salary to be a motivating factor (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 103). Salary can either lead to job satisfaction if the employee’s salary meets or exceeds his expectations or job dissatisfaction if the employee believes he is underpaid.

The intern salary is considerably lower than the industry average in the Boston area. Interns start at the GS-7 pay scale and receive annual promotions from GS-7 to GS-9 to GS-11 to GS-12 and raises of approximately 20% per year with corresponding government salaries of $46,634, $57,043,

$69,016, and $82,721 respectively for 2019 ("Salary Table 2019-BOS," 2019). These intern salaries are very low compared to engineering salaries in the local area. The average salary for an electrical engineer in the Boston area is $98,530 per year, according to the 2019 Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS,

2019b).

The members of each focus group were asked what they thought about their salary and whether it caused them job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, or neither. Most of the interns indicated they were dissatisfied with their salary in the first one to three years on the job; however, their perspective evolved to job satisfaction as they received annual promotions and pay raises.

The data showed that both SMART and PAQ interns started off at the lower end of the pay scale

(i.e. GS-7 and GS-9) and were typically dissatisfied with their pay. It also showed as the PAQ interns progressed through the ranks to the higher end of the pay scale (i.e. GS-11 and GS-12), they were typically satisfied with their pay while SMART interns continued to be dissatisfied with their pay even at the higher pay grades (GS-11 and GS-12). Some PAQ interns factor the whole compensation package to include a 25% sign-on bonus, guaranteed annual promotions and raises, student loan repayment and free graduate school when evaluating the fairness of their compensation. This PAQ intern admits,

“While I feel my base salary leaves a lot to be desired, the incentives make up for it. The PAQ program as a whole is fairly competitive with the inclusion of the graduate school and student loan repayment.”

The SMART interns in contrast, receive a full scholarship while an undergraduate, but do not receive a 102

sign-on bonus, student loan repayment benefit nor the paid graduate degree and feel that they could make more money in private industry.

The following interns expressed dissatisfaction with their pay; they feel underpaid compared to their engineering peers in industry. This first year SMART expresses his dissatisfaction of being paid less than his peers, “My salary is very low compared to the people I am working with. It is also very low compared to people who I graduated college with. This does cause job dissatisfaction.” Similarly, a third-year PAQ stated, “I think I'm being underpaid for my skills and level of work I do. I don't think that government benefits totally make up for the difference either. It’s a factor in my dissatisfaction.”

Another SMART intern expressed his job dissatisfaction over being underpaid even in light of the fact that he received a full scholarship to pay for his college. He stated,

“Getting paid next to nothing for the first two years is depressing. In fact, I was losing money

my first year with the Air Force, even while living within my means. The benefits are nice

though, getting school paid for is fantastic, and all the other benefits given are acceptable.

Starting salary definitely caused job dissatisfaction.”

Even though all of the interns are very happy with their fringe benefits, the low starting salaries result in a feeling of job dissatisfaction for many as is shown by the statement, “Benefits are quite nice; however, salary is laughably low. This has a higher effect on job dissatisfaction than the benefits do on job satisfaction.”

Job dissatisfaction with salary has also contributed significantly to attrition. This SMART intern who left government service stated, “My salary was way too low. This caused me dissatisfaction. By leaving the Air Force, my salary is going from $47K per year to $80K per year.” Another SMART intern described why she was dissatisfied with her salary. She said, “The salary was very low. I was offered

$75K-$80K out of school four years ago, but could not accept it due to my SMART scholarship service commitment. I am very dissatisfied with the salary.” Another SMART intern expressed his opinion of 103

the salary he was being paid with, “On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate my entry level salary a 2 out of 10.

I can’t afford to live in the Boston area with what I am being paid.” Finally, one expressed his dissatisfaction with his salary in spite of the fringe benefits provided. He said, “The salary level is not great compared to industry. Benefits on par with industry. Benefits don’t balance salary dissatisfaction.

You can’t eat benefits!” These comments from four out of five interns that have left government service clearly indicate that the salary disparity was a significant factor in job dissatisfaction and the major reason for their departure.

Supervisors also agree with the premise that engineering interns are underpaid. At Kessel Run in Boston, one supervisor described how the intern grade structure and subsequent salary levels impact her interns job satisfaction. She stated,

“I've had a lot of conversations with my PAQs and SMARTs. The more senior PAQs getting paid

GS-11 pay generally have a high level of job satisfaction; however, many of the junior staff,

getting paid at the GS-7 and GS-9 level, really like their jobs but hate how little they get paid.

They see people who get paid 2 or 3 times them and are more mediocre in their skills than

them. It feels like a slap in the face to them.”

Another supervisor summed up the impact of pay on retention. He said, “Because of the pay, it's likely they will leave the Air Force once their commitment is up.”

Some interns are somewhat neutral on the impact of salary on job satisfaction. One SMART intern said, “I think the salary is decent but I have heard that in industry similar positions can get paid much more. I do think the benefits far exceed what is out in industry.” This fifth-year PAQ claims she isn’t motivated by money, she is motivated by sense of purpose and gaining influence. She stated,

“I know I could make more outside of the government, but the sense of purpose in my work

makes the lower salary worth it. For me seeking promotion is more about gaining influence

than about making more money. The salary does not have a huge impact on my job satisfaction, 104

but the benefits do play into it in a positive way.”

Some PAQ interns factor the whole compensation package to include their 25% sign-on bonus, guaranteed annual promotions and salary increases, student loan repayment and free graduate school when evaluating the fairness of their compensation. This PAQ intern admits, “While I feel my base salary leaves a lot to be desired, the incentives make up for it. The PAQ program as a whole is fairly competitive with the inclusion of the graduate school and student loan repayment.”

Interns who have reached the GS-11 to GS-13 level after three to five years of promotions and annual pay raises indicate their pay and benefits result in job satisfaction. The more money they make, the more satisfied they are. For example, this fifth-year former PAQ who is now a GS-13 stated, “Pay and benefits are great! It definitely causes job satisfaction.” Another fifth-year former PAQ stated,

“Now my salary is great! Definitely no complaints. Benefits have always been great! My

starting salary was lower than expected -- not counting all of the amazing benefits the PAQ

program offered. It made it difficult to live in the area - but luckily with a promotion every year

it made it easier and easier.”

This third-year PAQ who is a GS-11 feels the salary is very fair due to the annual promotions and salary increases. He explains,

“In the PAQ program, our salary increases each year from GS-7 to GS-12 at our final placement,

which, given my level of experience since graduating college, I believe is a very fair salary. The

benefits are excellent as well, with a range of options to choose from at affordable rates.

Overall, I am quite satisfied with both my salary and benefits.”

Finally, many interns have brought up the fact that the GS pay system is the same for all government employees of the same grade without consideration for career specialty or education level.

Whereas in industry, engineers are paid more than accountants, these interns feel that the GS pay scale is not fair. This one intern stated, “I personally don't think the GS pay scale is fair. For example, I don't 105

think that someone that is an engineer should be making the same as someone in finance when they are the same grade. It's not like that in industry.”

During the research, it was discovered that the government does have the ability establish special pay tables for specific occupations such as engineering in areas of the country that are hard to fill due to salary rates in the regional job market. Government salary rates are governed by 5 CFR 530.304

(OPM, 2020a). The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) establishes salary rates for each specific area of the country based upon the regional cost of living. In addition to the standard salary table, OPM may establish special rate tables for categories of General Schedule (GS) positions in a geographical location to address existing or likely handicaps in recruiting or retention of employees to keep up with the local employment market (OPM, 2020a). OPM established categories of special salary tables for engineers and computer scientists at Hanscom in the lower grades that have a slight increase in pay over the standard Boston salary table. The following special rate tables for the year 2020 pertains to the General Engineering, and Computer Engineering/Scientist interns at Hanscom in the lower grades:

The following is a subset of the table that pertains to the interns covering the GS-7 through GS-12 pay levels at for Hanscom AFB.

Salary Tables at Step 1 for Hanscom AFB Computer Engineer / Non-Engineer General Engineer Computer Scientist All other series Job Series 801 Job Series 854 / 1550 GS Salary Table Special Rate percentage Special Rate percentage GRADE for Boston area Table 0414 increase Table 999D increase GS-7 $ 48,159 $ 48,488 0.7% $ 51,475 6.9% GS-9 $ 58,909 $ 59,316 0.7% $ 60,684 3.0% GS-11 $ 71,274 $ 71,274 0.0% $ 71,274 0.0% GS-12 $ 85,428 $ 85,428 0.0% $ 85,428 0.0%

Table 1. Standard 2020 Salary vs Engineering Special Rate Tables - Boston (OPM, 2020b)

Special rate tables are established using a rigorous application process using the OPM Form

1397 that analyzes current job market conditions to determine disparities in the salary rates compared 106

to the private sector as well as recruiting data and attrition data. The tables are adjusted annually based upon standard cost of living adjustments; however, this adjustment does not take into account changes in the employment market or difficulty in filling positions.

These special rate tables appear to be grossly out of date and inadequate. There is a mere seven percent increase for a GS-7 computer scientist compared with the non-technical GS-7 salary and a less than one percent increase from the general schedule salary and that of an engineer. The $48,488 -

$51,475 starting salaries do not reflect the current prevailing salaries in the Hanscom area that are reflected in the Bureau of Labor Standards for comparable engineering talent with a median wage of

$98,530 or even the 10 percentile wage of $63,020 in 2019 (BLS, 2019a). One way to address the salary disparity at the lower GS-7 and GS-9 grades would be to assemble required data and petition OPM for a significant increase in the engineering special rate table for the Boston area.

As the analysis above indicates, the hygiene factor of salary is a significant source of job dissatisfaction. Most of the interns indicated an overall job dissatisfaction with the pay in the first 1-3 years on the job and is a contributing factor in attrition; however, their perspective evolved to job satisfaction after they received three to four annual promotions and pay raises. While some PAQ interns expressed job satisfaction by taking into account their 25% sign-on bonus, guaranteed annual promotions, all-expense paid master’s degree, and great benefits package, the SMART interns do not receive those same benefits and many view their current paycheck as being grossly underpaid resulting in job dissatisfaction. Additionally, many interns felt that engineers should be on a higher pay scale than employees without technical degrees. The Air Force should explore ways to pay their engineering interns more in line with industry and on a special pay scale for the first three years working for the Air

Force in order to foster high job satisfaction in the very beginning of the intern’s career.

Supervisor Relationship

According to Herzberg (1987), two hygiene factors that lead to job dissatisfaction are related to 107

one’s relationship with their supervisor. Job dissatisfaction can occur when one is over-

supervised; i.e. micromanaged; or they feel that their boss is inept. It can also occur if one has a

poor relationship with one’s supervisor. The findings in this area diverge from Herzberg’s

categorization of “supervisor relationship” as a hygiene factor that leads to job dissatisfaction.

The data shows that most interns reported a very positive relationship with their supervisor

leading to job satisfaction – a motivating factor. Only a few interns reporting a negative

relationship with their supervisor leading to job dissatisfaction – a hygiene factor.

It appears that most supervisors of interns, including the ones interviewed, encourage open communication with their interns. One stated, “In addition to sitting down and talking with them on a regular basis, I am also available for them to come to me at any time with questions or concerns about anything. I do provide career counseling and mentoring during these discussions.” Some shared their best practices that positively impact the interns job satisfaction. One supervisor shared his techniques,

“I have my interns and PAQs get official Air Force photos and make them signup for LinkedIN® accounts.

When I meet with them, I try to impart a bit of philosophy.”

Nearly all of the engineering interns indicated they have a good to excellent relationship with their supervisor resulting in job satisfaction. Several noted that their supervisors were trusting, open, supportive, and available to answer questions or provide mentorship. One third-year PAQ intern reported that he has a great relationship with his supervisor and communicates regularly with him.

“My supervisor and I have a great relationship. I can speak openly to him about any concerns or

questions I have about my job, or anything in general. When I came to the branch, we met

weekly. He was very thorough with making sure I knew everything I needed to know about the

Air Force, the branch, and the PAQ program. This supervisory relationship definitely contributes

to my job satisfaction.”

Another intern noted frequent communication with her supervisor, “I have a good relationship with my 108

supervisor; we chat every other week about what I’m working on, status updates, personal life and if there is anything I need.” This third-year intern feels like he is treated as an equal and not as a

“trainee”. He explained, “I have a very good relationship with my supervisor. They gave me a lot of freedom when I started work, and have trusted me with important work. I feel like I'm treated as an equal as opposed to a "trainee". This has improved my job satisfaction.” Even two of the interns that left government service indicated they had a very positive experience with their supervisors. One said,

“I had a very positive relationship with my supervisors”, and the other said, “I had a good relationship with my supervisor I would rate my first supervisor a 10 out of 10.”

A few of the interns commented that they have little interaction with their supervisor but this did not affect their job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This first-year SMART intern stated,

“I respect my supervisor, I think he's a very kind individual, and I appreciate all he does for our

organization. However, I rarely get the chance to talk to him, possibly because he's busy or

because the opportunity doesn’t present itself. This isn't really satisfying or dissatisfying to me, I

just haven't had many chances to speak with him.”

Another first-year SMART intern noted that she doesn’t have much interaction either, “I don't really talk with my direct supervisor at all. I have other mentors in my office who I go to for help. This doesn't really affect my job satisfaction.” This second-year SMART also indicated, “I barely know my supervisor.

He does not influence my day-to-day work.”

On the other end of the spectrum, not all supervisors provide a nurturing environment for their employees; one intern was very concerned that her supervisor was “stretched too thin” and did not have time to interact with her. This caused her to feel that her supervisor does not know her and that she would not receive a fair and accurate annual performance review, resulting in a feeling of job dissatisfaction.

“My supervisor is very busy and difficult to get ahold of. I feel he is just stretched too thin to 109

really invest time in me. It is concerning when someone who does not work with you daily and

doesn't know you or your work well is in charge of your performance reviews. This impacts my

job dissatisfaction. I want to feel like my supervisor knows me, trusts me, and rates me honestly

on my performance reviews.”

Additionally, three interns, who left government service, had a very negative relationships with their supervisors. One reported, “When I was in my last job, I was dissatisfied with my supervisor because she was detached and unsupportive.” Another reported, “My supervisor did not provide clear instructions. He is not technical enough for me. He also had a hands-off management style.” The remaining intern who left government service expressed her negative feelings of his supervisor with,

“She was really bad. She’s not a mentor. Other interns, in my section, are not happy with her.”

In summary, the supervisor / intern relationship can be seen as both a motivating factor as well as a hygiene factor depending upon whether the supervisor provides the intern with a nurturing or hostile work environment. Most of the interns indicated a very positive relationship with their supervisor; however, where the interns reported a negative relationship with their supervisor, it contributed to job dissatisfaction and is likely that it contributed to attrition in a few cases.

Working Conditions – Difficult to Use Computer Technology

Today’s Air Force engineers and computer scientists rely on current computer technology to accomplish their job. This computer technology consists of a personal computer, internet access, and engineering tools such as MATLAB or other mathematical modeling or computer aided design software.

At Hanscom AFB, the engineers are also provided access to a classified laboratory that contains specialized computers loaded with state-of-the-art engineering modeling tools, programming languages and computer aided design applications. This laboratory is called the Hanscom Engineering Automated

Tools Lab also known as the HEAT Lab. When asked about their level of satisfaction with the computer technology provided to them, the interns located at Hanscom nearly unanimously expressed 110

dissatisfaction with regards to their laptop computer, network latency, internet access, and reliability.

Most interns indicate that they are dissatisfied to very dissatisfied and stated that it causes them frustration and impacts their ability to work. One intern stated,

“The computer that I've been provided is very disappointing…I would hope that the Air Force

would want their technology to keep pace with what is newly available…and cheaply available

so that their technology can move at the speed of mission, not the other way around… the

result of the computer's slowness is obviously a severe drop in my productivity, as well as my

job satisfaction.”

Another intern describes how the issues with regards to security patches, network access, and even his phone access resulted in wasted time and a great deal of frustration. He laments,

“Today is not the day to ask this. My computer was quarantined at the beginning of week due

to missing some security patch. I can't get it back on the network and the help desk is unhelpful.

My loaner computer is slow and antiquated. The network ‘drop’ at my desk stopped working

this morning and my phone is unresponsive. I spend a large percentage of my time just dealing

with getting my technology working. It's very frustrating.”

The stringent security settings on the computers and the restrictive network settings required for computer security to thwart off enemy computer attacks have a marked effect on the performance of the equipment. While most interns understand the reason for the restrictions, they are still frustrated by the result. One intern stated,

“I think the networks we work on have room for improvement. I understand why they are so

slow due to security, but at the same time it is more difficult to get work done and gain access

to the necessary technologies when there are so many security constraints. There is definitely a

better balance between speed and security that can be achieved.”

Another echoed this sentiment, “I think the computer internet access is so locked down that sometimes 111

it makes it hard to work. Overall, I'm extremely dissatisfied with the technology provided.”

With regards to the specialized tools in the HEAT Lab, the interns that use the HEAT Lab are very satisfied with the dedicated suite of tools available to them, if they have time to use it. There are a number of the interns that either are not aware of the HEAT Lab or do not have time to explore its capabilities or use it. One intern noted, “I enjoy using the HEAT Lab, there are many great engineering tools that I was able to use for my programs such as MATLAB.” Another intern commented, “Very much appreciate the HEAT Lab but no longer have time to use it.” Finding time to use the HEAT Lab seems to be a common theme as indicated by, “I signed up for access to the HEAT Lab but have not yet actually used it -- been too busy -- but it sounds like an amazing resource.” Surprisingly, there appears to be several interns that aren’t aware of this resource. This intern questioned, “What is the HEAT Lab?”

In contrast with the nearly unanimous negative opinion and dissatisfaction with the computer and network access experienced by the interns working at Hanscom, a small group of interns working at

Hanscom’s satellite location in Boston, Massachusetts, doing software development are extremely happy with the computer technology provided to them. This one intern explained the reason for his satisfaction, “I am highly satisfied with the technology provided to me. Because I work for Kessel Run, we are provided with iMacs and we have easy internet access.” Another added, “Kessel Run provides iMac laptop workstations which greatly facilitate my workflow.”

In summary, with the exception of the Kessel Run detachment, nearly all of the interns at

Hanscom expressed significant dissatisfaction with the computer they were issued, the slow internet access, and the frequent unreliability experienced due to the tight computer security configuration installed on each computer and the network. In spite of their dissatisfaction with the technology, this factor did not appear to have any lasting effect on their job satisfaction and no impact on attrition.

Conclusion – Hygiene Factors that Contribute to Job Dissatisfaction

This section analyzed the data collected on hygiene factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction 112

according to Herzberg (1959). The factors include salary, supervisor / employee relationship, and working conditions. The data shows that the most significant source of job dissatisfaction and job turnover is due to interns feeling underpaid, especially during the first three years on the job. In most cases, the intern’s perspective on salary evolved from job dissatisfaction to job satisfaction after they received three to four annual promotions and pay raises. PAQ interns appeared more satisfied with their salary by taking into account their 25% sign-on bonus, guaranteed annual promotions, student loan repayment, all-expense paid master’s degree, and great benefits package. In contrast, since the SMART interns do not receive a sign-on bonus, student loan repayment, or an all-expense paid master’s degree, they typically felt grossly underpaid resulting in job dissatisfaction even after pay raises. Additionally, many interns felt that engineers should be on a higher pay scale than employees without technical degrees.

The data also shows that the factor of supervisor / employee relationship was both a motivating factor as well as a hygiene factor. In most cases, the supervisor / employee relationship was very positive and resulted in job satisfaction; however, in a few cases, where the interns did not get along with their supervisor, it caused significant job dissatisfaction and was a likely contributing to turnover of three interns. Finally, the hygiene factor regarding working conditions, specifically, difficult to use computer technology resulted in significant job dissatisfaction. Nearly all of the interns expressed significant dissatisfaction with the computer they were issued, the slow internet access, and the frequent unreliability experienced due to the tight computer security configuration installed on each computer and the network. In spite of this dissatisfaction with the computer technology, this hygiene factor did not contribute to turnover.

113

Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition

This section explains why the attrition of the SMART interns is so much higher than the PAQ interns. It analyzes the SMART program by comparing and contrasting it with the PAQ program and describes why the marketing of the SMART scholarship program influences attrition. It also provides insight into the motivations to join the Air Force, reasons for attrition and finally provides SMART intern suggestions on how to increase job satisfaction and reduce attrition.

Comparing and Contrasting the PAQ program with SMART Scholarship Program

SMART is a scholarship-for-service program is designed to recruit current college students in their sophomore or junior year. The program provides full tuition and other financial benefits to individuals in exchange for a period of post-graduation civilian service in a DoD facility. The recipient receives a scholarship that pays all academic expenses, provides them with a $25,000 per year stipend, and they have a guaranteed job when they graduate doing something interesting while working for the

Department of Defense. During the summers between academic years, the SMART student travels to their assigned government agency for a 4-8-week summer internship. When the SMART scholars graduate, they are hired as government civil servants being paid at the GS-7 step 1, which is $48,159 for the Boston locality. They have a service commitment equal to the number of years of paid school they received. They ladder promote from GS-7, to GS-9, to GS-11, to GS-12 on an annual basis. While SMART interns get their monetary benefits before they graduate, i.e. full scholarship and stipend, they are not eligible for student loan repayment, sign-on bonus, or free master’s degree. When SMART interns begin their service commitment at GS-7, they frequently are surprised due to the seemingly low GS-7 salary compared to job offers their classmates receive.

The PAQ program in contrast is a recruitment tool designed to hire recent college graduates with either an engineering degree or computer science degree. PAQ candidates are recruited at college job fairs with the marketing message that encourages these candidates to pursue a career working for 114

the Department of Defense. During the recruitment process, the candidate is interviewed by several branch chiefs to determine best fit. By the time the PAQ receives an offer for employment, they have a fairly good idea of the nature of the work, the compensation package, and the benefits of working for the Air Force. PAQ interns also start as a GS-7, however, they receive a 25% sign-on bonus when they start—approximately $14,000 in 2020. Then they are offered up to $30,000 in student loan repayment.

Additionally, the PAQs are provided three fulltime semesters for an all-expense paid free master’s degree in an approved STEM field at their school of choice in their second year while receiving their GS-9 salary.

Marketing of the SMART Scholarship and Implications

The SMART Scholarship is marketed as a scholarship-for-service program. It is made very clear that it is a contract whereby the government will pay full tuition and education related expenses and other benefits at a college or university plus provide a $25,000 per year stipend in exchange for one year of service for each year funded for scholars in twenty-one approved STEM Science, Math, or Engineering degree programs. There is a provision for payback if the student defaults. The SMART program is very competitive; the students who win SMART scholarships would have competed well for high paying jobs upon graduation if they graduated without a requirement to work for the DoD for their incurred service commitment.

The SMART Scholar Handbook ("Smart Scholarship Program," 2020) is very contractual and very explicit on topics such as length of service commitment, debt repayment for failure to complete program, failure to complete degree with required GPA and other subliminal messages that this is a service COMMITMENT in exchange for this generous scholarship. Therefore, the recipient starts off with the attitude that “I was motivated by the scholarship; it was a way to pay for school. This could imply that when their service commitment is up, they are predisposed to leave the Air Force and in search of a job for a significant increase in salary. 115

Motivation to Join the Air Force

In order to determine the motivation for the SMART interns to join the Air Force, the SMART interns were asked, “What was your motivation for joining the Air Force? Was it for the scholarship? A way to pay for school? Or were you motivated to serve your country?” Forty-three percent of the

SMART interns reported they were motivated by the money and fifty-seven percent of the SMART interns reported they were motivated by both the money and the mission. Several interns indicated that they were motivated by the money for school. This intern stated, “The scholarship gave me a full ride to school.” Another echoed, “I was motivated by the scholarship; it was a way to pay for school.”, and a third intern admitted, “I joined the Air Force as a civilian because of a scholarship that I got in college to help pay for school.”

A little more than half of the SMART interns interviewed, indicated that they were motivated by both the money for school as well as the Air Force mission. One intern reported, that he was motivated by “both the mission and the scholarship. I would not have accepted the scholarship if I did not care about the mission.” Another intern explained,

“I was motivated by a combination of service to my country and paying for school. The SMART

scholarship opportunity has provided me and many others with a great way to achieve a

justifiable balance between compensation and work itself. I think it's a really great program.”

This sentiment was also shared by a third intern. He stated,

“I was motivated by a combination of the two. The scholarship was essentially the cherry on top.

I was unsure if I wanted to work for a commercial company. Throughout my life I was always a

big fan of the Air Force, so being selected for an Air Force base made the job so much more

rewarding.”

It appears that about half of the SMART interns were motivated by the money for school and about half were motivated by both the money for school and the Air Force mission. This is markedly different that 116

the recruitment strategy of the PAQ program where the emphasis is on the Air Force mission and not a large up-front benefit that the SMART program provides.

Reasons for Attrition

Six SMART interns where asked what reasons may they have to leave government service. Most of them indicated the reason they would leave the Air Force was for a higher salary. A first-year SMART intern indicated he has plans to leave to obtain a larger salary. He reasoned, “because of the fact that I will be able to get a larger salary in the private sector.” Another SMART intern reasoned, “Better salary in industry, student loans don't pay themselves and the only way to afford them is getting paid more.”

Another exclaimed, “Better compensation!” and another complained that he has “relatively low pay and there are a lot of certification and compliance issues”. In addition to feeling underpaid, one mentioned lack of technical work, he said, “Lack of technical work or not making enough money.”

Smart Intern Suggestions to Increase Job Satisfaction and Reduce Attrition

When the SMART interns where asked for suggestions on how to increase job satisfaction and reduce attrition, they made the following comments that highlights the fact that they believe they are significantly underpaid and focus in on the salary aspect of their job dissatisfaction. They mentioned sign-on bonuses, higher pay, and student loan repayment assistance. One recommended, “Offer some sort of signing bonus, similar to the PAQ program, this would be greatly beneficial during the first couple years of a job. Also, allow incoming engineers to participate in the student loan repayment program.”

Another simply stated, “Honestly the biggest thing that the Air Force could do is pay me the market rate for the work that I am currently doing.” And finally, one stated, “Help us get more exciting work and increase the compensation that matches with the market rate.”

The SMART interns have made it clear that their initial salaries are very low compared to private industry and this causes them job dissatisfaction. Both interns and supervisors agree with the fact that the interns are underpaid compared to their peers in local industries. One SMART intern reasoned, 117

“I think the SMART program should make it a higher priority for compensation to be at parity

with industry and for service locations to be chosen by the scholar. Job satisfaction is not the

sole reason an employee will stay at a job. There must be a justifiable balance between work

itself and compensation.”

One compensation issue that causes dissatisfaction of some SMART interns is the fact that they are not provided with student loan repayment like their PAQ intern peers. While the PAQ program provides up to $30,000 student loan repayment for new employees. The SMART program is designed differently and does not. Instead it provides an annual stipend of $25,000 per year and free college tuition, fees, and books before the SMART intern is hired by the Air Force. While the SMART program pays for the last two to three years of college, any student loans incurred before receiving a SMART scholarship is solely the obligation of the SMART intern and not paid by Air Force. This SMART intern laments, “My salary is acceptable, but not great…. I would be happier if I had student loan assistance for pre-existing loans, then my salary would be very acceptable. It's an extra financial worry that would actually make me consider leaving the Air Force.”

Supervisors seemed to be in agreement that the SMART interns are underpaid and that this a contributing factor to job dissatisfaction and attrition. One supervisor stated, “I imagine it is difficult for a lot of SMART interns who are very educated to remain in a job where they are making half of what they could be making in industry.” Another supervisor agreed with student loan repayment as a retention incentive, he recommended, “Giving these bonuses for student loan repayment can dramatically improve the retention of engineers in the government. This should be something new engineers other than just PAQs receive, as it gives peace of mind.”

Finally, one supervisor added, “With added benefits such as loan repayment or signing bonuses, these monetary benefits could dramatically improve the satisfaction of new engineers. Otherwise, people will turn to the jobs that start off 50% higher in starting salary so they can pay off their loans.” 118

Conclusion – Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition

There are several factors that contribute to the high rate of SMART intern attrition. The primary factor is the low starting salary. These SMART interns could likely earn double the starting salary based upon prevailing starting salaries for engineers in the Boston area. Another factor that contributes to the intern attrition is the initial motivation to join the Air Force in the first place. About half of the SMART interns interviewed, indicated they were motivated to join the Air Force for the scholarship rather than for the mission of the Air Force or desire for a long-term career working for the military. Those interns see it as a means to an end. The design of the SMART program as a scholarship-for-service program and its subsequent marketing as such infers that once the initial commitment is over, the intern is free to pursue more lucrative employment.

Additionally, the fact that the PAQ program and SMART program co-exist at Hanscom AFB creates unintended consequences. Even though the SMART intern received pre-employment benefits worth between $50,000 and $200,000, they feel like they are undercompensated and have job dissatisfaction. The SMART interns and the PAQ interns frequently work side-by-side. As evidenced by the SMART intern suggestion of a sign-on bonus and student loan repayment suggestions, the SMART interns and PAQ interns apparently compare notes on their specific intern program. This likely results in

SMART interns feeling that they are undercompensated, and possible envious of the PAQ interns, due to the fact that the PAQ interns receive a 25% sign-on bonus, $30,000 student loan repayment, and free master’s degree while salaried and they do not. This certainly could result in a feeling of disenfranchisement and may inadvertently encourage attrition as they see their job with the Air Force as a term obligation to fulfill so they can get a more lucrative job with the private sector. On the surface, one might consider the SMART scholarship to be the more lucrative and desirable program, however, when one considers the sign-on bonus, student loan repayment and especially, the free master’s degree while salaried, the PAQ program is the winner at the end of the day. 119

Conclusion

This chapter described the three primary themes, associated subthemes, and findings from the analysis of interviews of three intern focus groups, interviews with first-line supervisors, employee surveys, exit interview documentation of former interns, and various internal Air Force documents. The analysis of the data yielded three major themes and thirteen sub-themes. The first and second themes were organized around the Herzberg’s Motivational-Hygiene theory. Theme 1 consists of motivating factors contributing to job satisfaction. Theme 2 consists of hygiene factors contributing to job dissatisfaction. Theme 3, consists of factors contributing to SMART intern attrition. The data was analyzed to answer the following research question: How does the Hanscom AFB work environment influence job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns? The data was also analyzed to determine the underlying reasons engineering interns have left government service; determine what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention; and determine why the retention rate of the SMART interns (19%) is so much lower than the Palace Acquire interns (73%).

The research revealed that approximately two thirds of the interns like working for the Air Force and have no intentions on leaving; however, one third of the interns are considering leaving. The research also revealed that two factors are the primary factors influencing job satisfaction and retention. The most important motivation factor is the nature of the work. The most important hygiene factor is salary. The research also revealed the reasons why the SMART intern retention is so much lower than PAQ intern retention. Findings from this study can inform supervisors on how to increase job satisfaction and decrease job dissatisfaction and influence the interns who are considering leaving the

Air Force to stay. The following findings correspond to each major and minor theme addressed within this case study.

Finding One: Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction

The most significant of Herzberg’s (1959) motivating factors contributing to the job satisfaction 120

of Air Force interns include the nature of the work, recognition, sense of achievement, mentoring, benefits and perquisites. The most significant motivating factor is the nature of the work. Two of these factors also contribute to job dissatisfaction and attrition if not met, specifically, the nature of the work, and sense of achievement.

Nature of the Work

The nature of the work, level of responsibility and importance to the nation is very important to the job satisfaction of the Air Force interns. Job dissatisfaction can result when the nature of the work is not interesting, not important, or not hands-on. It is a major contributing factor to attrition if the intern doesn’t like the nature of the work. The Air Force should continue to provide job opportunities that are engaging and meaningful to the intern workforce. Directors of Engineering should be mindful of placing interns into program offices that provide an opportunity for hands-on engineering vice program offices dominated by contractor engineering and assign the intern with an appropriate level of responsibility to enable growth and commitment to the mission.

Recognition

Recognition is important to job satisfaction. It appears that simple, sincere, timely recognition of a job well done is very much appreciated. Supervisors should continue to provide recognition of all types, from a “pat on the back” to a formal award; however, it must be sincere and not overdone.

Positive feedback is welcomed by all; however, recognition or the lack of recognition does not appear to have a bearing on attrition. In cases where people feel they are underpaid, all the positive recognition in the world may not satisfy those employees. The “Engineering Power Lunch Series” is a best practice where interns brief their program office on a specific topic that they become expert in. This initiative boost self-esteem and allows interns to demonstrate their technical ability to their peers.

Achievement

Having a job that gives the intern a sense of achievement is important to job satisfaction. About 121

two thirds of the interns interviewed indicated that their job gave them a sense of achievement and this led to job satisfaction and one third indicated that their jobs did not provide them with a sense of achievement. It is important for management to be sensitive to the nature of the particular job assignment to try to build in substantial and worthy goals that an intern can achieve in order to increase employee satisfaction. Lack of a sense of achievement can have a negative effect on attrition.

Mentoring

Mentoring is an important aspect of job satisfaction and retention. Most of the engineering interns reported that they received adequate mentorship from a variety of sources including their supervisor, the PAQ manager, their peers, co-workers, the program manager, friends and even their second-level supervisor. However, there appears to be pockets of interns that do not receive mentoring and supervisors who do not provide mentoring of sufficient feedback to some of the interns. The Air

Force should continue to encourage mentoring at all levels and ensure the PAQ / SMART manager provides adequate mentoring to each PAQ and SMART without exception. There also appears to be a need for a more formalized orientation program to include helpful documentation such as a PAQ or

SMART orientation manual.

Perquisites and Benefits

The perks provided by the Air Force at Hanscom, specifically, CWS, telework, free gym, and 3 hours per week of workout time are widely used by most Hanscom engineering interns and they contribute to job satisfaction. The Air Force should continue to encourage their employees to take advantage of these perks and ensure equal perks are available at off-site locations, such as “Kessel Run” in Boston.

Finding Two: Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction

The most significant of Herzberg’s (1959) hygiene factors contributing to the job dissatisfaction of Air Force interns include salary, supervisor / employee relationship, and working conditions, 122

specifically, difficult to use computer technology. The most significant hygiene factor is salary. The data shows that the most significant source of job dissatisfaction and job turnover is due to interns feeling underpaid, especially during the first three years on the job. In most cases, the intern’s perspective on salary evolved from job dissatisfaction to job satisfaction after they received three to four annual promotions and pay raises.

Salary

Salary level is a significant factor in determining an intern’s level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and is a contributing factor in the decision for an intern to quit government service and obtain a higher paying job. While most of the interns indicated that they were satisfied with their fringe benefits, there was a wide range of intern job satisfaction with respect to pay depending upon their grade level. Some interns expressed job satisfaction by taking into account sign-on bonuses, guaranteed annual promotions, all-expense paid master’s degree, and great benefits package, others view their current paycheck as being grossly underpaid resulting in job dissatisfaction. Former interns that have received 3-4 promotions and corresponding pay increases typically indicate that they are very satisfied with the pay now. Others felt that engineers should be on a different (higher) pay scale than employees without technical degrees such as finance officers. The propensity of the comments from the interns, supervisors, and intern exit interviews indicated that the pay contributed to overall job dissatisfaction in the first 1-3 years on the job.

A review of the special salary tables for engineers in the Boston are show that they are inadequate and likely out-of-date. There is less than a one percent increase in salary from the standard

Boston general schedule pay table which likely indicates they have not been updated for many years and the local labor market salary data according to the Bureau of Labor Standards indicate that the regional private sector engineers get paid significantly more that the interns. These should be updated to reflect current market conditions. 123

Supervisor / Employee Relationship

The data in this study shows nearly all of the engineering interns had a good to excellent relationship with their supervisor and that this resulted in job satisfaction; however, three interns that left government service indicate that there are pockets of supervisors that need improvement. The Air

Force should seek out these supervisors and either retrain them or re-assign them. It appears that their negative relationship with their supervisor was a contributing factor to their leaving government service.

Working Conditions – Difficult to Use Computer Technology

Nearly all of the interns expressed significant dissatisfaction with the computer they were issued, the slow internet access, and the frequent unreliability experienced due to the tight computer security configuration installed on each computer and the network. Many interns indicate the poor computer access impedes their ability to accomplish their jobs. This situation is cross-cutting the entire workforce except the detachment, “Kessel Run” located in Boston where they have a more relaxed computer or network configuration. The interns that use the HEAT Lab are very pleased with the toolset provided; however, there appears to be ignorance among the interns of the HEAT Labs existence or the tools available. Supervisors should ensure the interns know what the HEAT Lab is and encourage them to use it.

Finding Three: Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition

There are several factors that contribute to the high rate of SMART intern attrition. The primary factor is the low starting salary. The fact that the PAQ program and SMART program co-exist at

Hanscom AFB creates a sense of unfairness to the SMART inters since PAQs receive several lucrative benefits that SMART interns do not receive such as a 25% sign-on bonus, $30,000 student loan repayment, and an all-expense paid master’s degree while salaried.

Perceived Inadequate Salary

SMART interns have made it very clear that they are dissatisfied with their pay and have 124

suggested ways the Air Force can augment their pay in order to influence their retention. These suggestions mirror the PAQ program benefits to include student loan repayment and sign-on bonus. In order to increase job satisfaction and/or reduce job dissatisfaction the Air Force should either consider providing SMART interns with a sign-on bonus and student loan repayment or refrain from participating in the SMART program going forward in order to reduce attrition costs and focus on utilizing the PAQ intern program instead.

125

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications for Practice

The purpose of this study is to investigate how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns. Three areas of special interest include:

• Determining the underlying reasons engineering interns have left government service;

• Determining what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention; and

• Determining why the retention rate of the SMART interns (19%) is so much lower than the

Palace Acquire interns (73%).

This chapter begins with a discussion on use of the case study methodology and usefulness of the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm to understand the perspective of the SMART interns to explain why four-out-of-five tend to quit the Air Force during their internship. Using this paradigm, I discuss the point-of-view of the typical SMART intern and why the SMART interns have low retention. I then discuss the applicability of the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory (F. Herzberg, 1959), and present a detailed discussion of the three resulting themes of: Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction, Hygiene

Factors Contributing to Job Dissatisfaction, and Factors Contributing to SMART Intern Attrition. Each theme’s findings are discussed in relation to the motivation-hygiene theoretical framework and material from the literature review. The results of the findings combined with the perspectives of the SMART interns is synthesized to produce the answers to the research questions. This is followed by discussing the implications and recommendations to be put into practice to improve job satisfaction and improve retention. The study concludes with three suggested topics for future research based upon the approach and results of this case study.

Discussion of Applicability of the Case Study Methodology

This qualitative study used a case study methodology. The use of several data sources allowed the intern job satisfaction and retention to be explored through a variety of lenses, which allowed for multiple facets to be revealed and understood (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545). Through the use of focus 126

groups, supervisor interviews, exit interviews, and job satisfaction surveys, a wealth of information was gathered. This clearly showed that while most interns have a high degree of job satisfaction, one-third of the interns have some level of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of their jobs and are at risk at leaving. It also revealed important information on how the Air Force can improve intern job satisfaction.

I approached this research using a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm. In doing so, I was able to interact with the participants to obtain a deep understanding of the intern’s point of view. Since an essential consideration of the constructivist-interpretivist approach is to consider the researcher's bias, background, and experiences and the potential impact on the interpretation of the participant's reality

(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006), I was mindful of recognizing my bias and instead “put myself in their shoes” when analyzing their responses. In doing so, I arrived at an important Eureka moment that explains the job dissatisfaction of the SMART interns and why the attrition of the SMART interns exceeds that of PAQ interns at a ratio of 4 to 1.

Discussion of the Point of View of the SMART Intern

In order to really make sense of the data, I mentally put myself in the shoes of the SMART intern. By considering the SMART intern’s point of view from the beginning of their interaction with the

Air Force, I presume that the typical SMART intern starts off very positive but deteriorates due to the events that each SMART intern likely encounters that shapes their attitude and increases their propensity to quit. The SMART intern begins his relationship with the Air Force on a high note as they win the full-ride scholarship and annual $25,000 stipend. This positive attitude while in college quickly subsides when they likely encounter their first negative event upon graduation when they compare their admittedly low starting salary with their engineering classmates who obtain higher paying jobs in industry. One SMART intern claimed that he had to turn down job offers of $75-$80K and accept the Air

Force starting pay of $47K due to his service obligation. The SMART intern’s job dissatisfaction with regards to pay and benefits is likely exacerbated as they begin to interact with their PAQ intern peers 127

and learn of the lucrative perks of the PAQ program. The PAQ interns receive a 25% sign-on bonus,

$30K in student loan repayment, and all-expense paid master’s degree while collecting a salary and the

SMART interns do not. They likely become more deeply dissatisfied and possibly resentful when they mingle at the periodic PAQ / SMART social events and PAQ interns discuss graduate school selection or share their graduate school experience upon their return. At this point, it is likely that the SMART intern realizes their PAQ peers surpassed them from a qualification and promotability aspect upon earning their master’s degree as part of the PAQ program. Given the likelihood that the majority of the

SMARTs experience these events, it is no wonder that the retention rate of SMART interns is only 19% compared to the PAQ intern retention rate of 77%, when the two program co-exist within the same base or organization.

Discussion of Applicability of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

The study applied the Herzberg’s (1959) motivation-hygiene theoretical framework by focusing on the two sets of factors – motivating factors that contribute to job satisfaction and hygiene factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction. This framework was useful to better understand the themes that emerged from this study by grouping the sets of factors and determining which factors behaved according to the framework. Some of the factors are major contributors to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and some of the factors are minor contributors to job dissatisfaction. Most factors aligned with the motivation-hygiene theory; however, one so-called hygiene factor, the supervisor/employee relationship, was better aligned with motivating factors leading to job satisfaction and one so-called motivating factor, i.e., nature of the work, either attributed to job satisfaction for those who enjoyed their job assignment, or attributed to job dissatisfaction for those who did not enjoy their assigned work.

Motivating Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction Discussion

According to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, employee job satisfaction is influenced by 128

two sets of factors (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). The first set of factors is labeled motivating factors in the workplace that lead to job satisfaction and the second set of factors is labeled hygiene factors in the workplace that lead to dissatisfaction.

The study shows that several factors contribute to intern job satisfaction. The most significant motivating factor is the nature of the work. Specifically, interns are motivated by job assignments that requires hands-on engineering that is interesting and important to the nation. Other motivating factors are also important to the intern’s job satisfaction and include receiving recognition, having a sense of achievement, growth/promotion potential, benefits and perquisites, as well as having a positive career trajectory, favorable work/life balance, being a valued member of the team, and working in a positive office environment where they feel team cohesion. The impact to job satisfaction of the following motivating factors: the nature of the work, recognition, sense of achievement, receiving adequate mentoring, benefits and perquisites is discussed below.

Nature of the Work

The nature of the work, level of responsibility and importance to the nation is very important to the job satisfaction of the Air Force interns. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory indicates that the nature of the work is a major factor in job satisfaction. The data in this study supports his theory; however, the data also shows that job dissatisfaction can occur when the intern is not provided with interesting, hands-on work which is a contributing factor to attrition.

For most of the interns interviewed, the nature of the work, level of responsibility, and importance to national defense contributed to their job satisfaction. The interns are motivated when the work they are assigned requires hands-on engineering, and expressed dissatisfaction if the hands-on work is performed by support contractors instead. Exit interviews indicated lack of hands-on work for some has contributed to interns leaving government service. Supervisors emphatically agreed that the nature of the job is very important for intern job satisfaction and indicated that they made it a priority to 129

assign interesting work that provides hands-on engineering. However, because of the variation in Air

Force programs across the 19 divisions, some supervisors are unable to provide “hands-on” work for their interns.

Directors of Engineering should place interns into program offices that provide an opportunity for hands-on engineering rather than program offices dominated by contractor engineering staff and ensure first line supervisors assign the intern with interesting work at an appropriate level of responsibility to enable growth and commitment to the mission. As Kochanski & al. (2008) points out, the experience of a new employee during their first year has a significant impact on employee retention especially when it comes to work content. Millennials have a reputation for hopping from company to company, more so than any other generation (Adkins, 2016) and according to a 2016 Gallup study, 60% of millennials say they are open to a different job opportunity and are the most willing to change jobs and act on better opportunities (Gallup, 2016, p. 8). Therefore, early follow-up with newly assigned interns is important to assess their job satisfaction due to the nature of the work early in their career in order to increase job satisfaction and reduce attrition.

Recognition

Positive recognition contributes to job satisfaction of the Air Force interns. The interns in this study report formal awards such as junior civilian of the quarter as well as simple, sincere, timely recognition of a job well done is very much appreciated. These findings support Herzberg’s (1987) assertion that recognition is a motivating factor that leads to job satisfaction as well as Abraham

Maslow’s assertion that people in our society have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, the need for achievement, adequacy, reputation, prestige, recognition, and appreciation (A. H. Maslow, 1943, pp. 381-382).

Since most of the interns in this study indicated that they received recognition from their supervisors, it appeared that most supervisors are providing an adequate amount of recognition to their 130

interns in the form of formal awards as well as informal praise. Most interns preferred an informal “pat on the back” provided it was timely and sincere.

Supervisors should continue to provide recognition of all types, from a “pat on the back” to a formal award; however, it must be sincere and not overdone. Positive feedback is welcomed by all; however, recognition or the lack of recognition does not appear to have a bearing on attrition. In cases where people feel they are underpaid, all the positive recognition in the world may not satisfy those employees. The “Engineering Power Lunch Series” is a best practice where interns brief their program office on a specific topic that they become expert in. This initiative boosts self-esteem and allows interns to demonstrate their technical ability to their peers.

Hyun & Oh (2011) suggests actions that management can implement to increase job satisfaction such as giving positive feedback to employees, instituting a recognition program, modifying the job to provide for a feeling of achievement, giving employees more responsibility and autonomy, promoting a culture of respect, and providing for advancement and growth (Hyun & Oh, 2011, p. 103).

Achievement

Achievement can be defined as the successful completion of a job, solving a problem, or seeing results of one’s work. Achievement is a motivating factor that leads to job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1993, pp. 61-62). Abraham Maslow also contends that people in our society have a need for achievement which increases their self-esteem (A. H. Maslow, 1943).

All interns interviewed indicated that a sense of achievement is important to job satisfaction.

About two-thirds of the interns interviewed indicated that their job gave them a sense of achievement and this led to job satisfaction. One-third indicated that their jobs did not provide them with a sense of achievement. These interns attributed this lack of sense of achievement to the nature of the acquisition process being a long and tedious process or that defense contractors are the ones who actually “builds the thing”. 131

Supervisors should consider modifying job content to provide for a feeling of achievement (Hyun

& Oh, 2011, p. 103). Even though there is a variety of Air Force programs across 19 divisions at

Hanscom, it is important for management to be sensitive to the nature of the particular job assignment to try to build in substantial and worthy goals that an intern can achieve in order to increase employee satisfaction. Since several of the interns that quit government service indicated they did not feel a sense of achievement, it is likely that it was a contributing factor on attrition.

Mentoring

Mentoring is important to job satisfaction and retention. It is particularly important to new interns who are unfamiliar with the peculiarities of the government jargon, rank structure, and organizational structure.

This study shows that most of the interns received mentorship from a variety of sources including their supervisor, the PAQ manager, their peers, co-workers, the program manager, friends and even their second-level supervisor. Many indicated that it did have a positive effect on their job satisfaction. Supervisors interviewed expressed the importance of mentoring and engaged with their interns in varying degrees. It appears that some supervisors do an effective job of mentoring their interns and others do not. It also appears that the PAQ / SMART intern manager has an effective mentoring program where he meets with all the interns periodically in a group setting. The intern manager is always available for one-on-one mentoring sessions either in-person, via email, or on the phone to provide career guidance. However, it also appears that there are gaps and some interns are left out. Overall, the current amount of mentoring is good; however, it would be better if the gaps were filled.

According to the literature, one very important aspect of mentoring is the orientation period that can span a few years to be effective (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008). Mentoring of new interns is a key part of employee orientation and should include organizational mentoring, technical mentoring, and 132

social orientation of their job (Carucci, 2018). Pell (2000) attributes early turnover to poor initial employee orientation, therefore, an effective orientation period is critical. Carucci (2018) suggests weekly coaching sessions and assigning initial tasks that an intern can complete in order to establish early wins and build responsibility, trust, and confidence. An effective orientation program is critical to ensure that new employees have an excellent concept of the organization’s mission, goals, and culture

(Carucci, 2018; Pell, 2000). Carucci (2018) also suggests it is important to build a sense of organizational belonging and imcorporate the social dimension with new hires and help build relationships with peers, coworkers, and others by setting up short one-on-one meetings to help cultivate relationships, build social capital with colleagues, and develop a spirit of friendship and community. When new-employees have a feeling of acceptance, they are less likely to leave their job (Carucci, 2018).

Pell (2000) indicates that many companies have taken steps to retain people, such as developing a sense of company loyalty, actively preparing people for promotion, providing the necessary training, and developing career planning programs. Klun (2008) indicates that career progression, compensation, benefits are important factors influencing an employee to stay.

Intern mentoring is very important to their career growth and will pay substantial long-term benefits. Such mentoring should include recommendations for an advanced degree, professional military education (PME), and leadership development opportunities. This will aid in developing the next generation of the workforce by providing the interns with the tools they require to climb the promotion ladder.

Perquisites and Benefits

Extra benefits that are an addition to traditional compensation packages are known as perquisites or perks can motivate people to stay with their job. According to Pell (2000), perks provide a constant positive reminder that their employer is giving them something of value and this can reinforce their organizational loyalty. 133

A 2012 study by MetLife® showed 63% say that benefits are an important factor in retention

(MetLife, 2012) and 56% of Millennials prefer benefits they can choose to include health, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance as well as paid vacation time, retirement savings plans, and a flexible work schedule. Aside from pay and benefits, Millennials desire interesting and challenging work, personal development, a custom career plan, and an organization with similar values (MetLife, 2012). Seventy- five percent of Millennials indicate that work-life balance drives their career choices (Seppanen &

Gualtieri, 2012, p. 25). Many organizations have integrated appealing work-life balance environments into the workplace. Tozier (2006) suggested that the key to recruiting and retaining employees from both Generation X and Millennials, is for organizations to implement policies that allow employee flexibility and work-life balance and include options for telecommuting, job sharing or flexible scheduling

(Tozier, 2006).

There are four popular perks provided to employees at Hanscom AFB, two provide work schedule flexibility and two are related to physical fitness. Two of these perks that provide work schedule flexibility are compressed work schedule (CWS) and telework. By working an additional hour per day, CWS essentially provides 26 additional days off per year. Telework provides the ability of the employee to work from home on a government supplied laptop computer. The other two perks are related to physical fitness. Specifically, free 24-hour access to the base gym and the provision of three hours of paid time per week for physical fitness.

Nearly all of the engineering interns received benefit from some of the perks, especially compressed work schedule and use of the physical fitness time. Most indicated that these perks contributed to their job satisfaction. A few of the interns did not take advantage of the perks or in the case of interns that worked at an offsite location in Boston, aka “Kessel Run”, these perks were not available to them. Supervisors encouraged the interns to use the available perks.

The PAQ program provides several lucrative perks as part of their hiring package. They provide 134

the PAQ intern with a 25% sign-on bonus, student loan repayment up to $30K, and an all-expense paid master’s degree while salaried. These benefits contribute greatly to the job satisfaction of the PAQ interns. However, the fact that the SMART interns do not receive the same benefits, it is likely to cause job dissatisfaction with the SMART interns as they compare compensation packages.

135

Hygiene Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction Discussion

The Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory contends that employee job satisfaction is influenced by two sets of factors (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005) - motivating factors and hygiene factors. The motivating factors were covered extensively in the previous theme. This theme addresses factors that are labeled hygiene factors in the workplace that lead to job dissatisfaction. This theme will specifically address the following Herzberg-identified hygiene factors leading to job dissatisfaction:

• Minimum salary levels – pay inequities or unfulfilled salary increase expectations

• Working conditions – inadequate facilities, tools, or equipment including computer technology

• Supervision – being over supervised; inept supervisor; supervisor/employee relationship

The study shows that several factors contribute to intern job dissatisfaction. The most significant hygiene factor is inadequate salary. Low salary rates at the GS-7, GS-9, and GS-11 grades results in job dissatisfaction with many interns. This has resulted in attrition of several interns; several current interns have indicated they or have considered leaving government service, also. The second hygiene factor that has contributed to intern attrition is having a negative experience with a supervisor.

While most current interns are very pleased with their relationship with their supervisor, exit interviews show that this was a contributing factor in three intern separations. The hygiene factor of working conditions – specifically, computer technology, contributed to job dissatisfaction, but had no bearing on attrition.

Salary Discussion

Salary level is a significant factor in determining an intern’s level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and is a contributing factor in the decision for an intern to quit government service and obtain a higher paying job. Herzberg (1959) contends that unfulfilled salary expectations can be a source of job dissatisfaction. Salary can either lead to job satisfaction if the employee’s salary meets or exceeds his expectations; or job dissatisfaction if the employee believes he is underpaid. According to 136

Vroom (1964), when workers are asked to rank the importance of work attributes, they rank salary more important than job content, supervision, social aspects of the job, communications, working conditions, and benefits. He also noted that is more frequently the source of job dissatisfaction (Vroom, 1964, p.

175). Hyun & Oh (2011) contend that salary could be a motivating factor or a hygiene factor depending upon the perspective of the employee.

There was a significant number of interns that are dissatisfied with the salary. The intern salary is between 15-45% lower than the industry average in the Boston area. Interns start earning at GS-7 pay which amounts to $48,488 (OPM, 2020b) in their first year. Their pay progressively increases to $85,428 after three years. The average salary for an electrical engineer in the Boston area is $98,530 (BLS,

2019b). One way to address the salary disparity at the lower GS-7 and GS-9 grades would be to assemble required data and petition OPM for a significant increase in the engineering special rate table for the Boston area.

The data from this study indicates a significant amount of job dissatisfaction due to salary levels at the GS-7, GS-9, and GS-11 grades. This dissatisfaction occurs at the beginning of an engineering intern’s career and in some cases result in interns leaving the government when their contractual obligation is over. In some cases, SMART interns have elected to pay back the government the value of their scholarship when offered lucrative jobs at higher paying companies such as Google® or Facebook®.

It is interesting to note that job dissatisfaction with salary is greatest when the interns start, it tends to evolve to job satisfaction after three to four annual promotions with subsequent raises. Therefore, it is important for the Air Force to improve the salary rates at the GS-7, GS-9, and GS-11 levels during these first three years in order to reduce the propensity of the interns to quit before they have had a chance to achieve a salary commensurate with their contribution and expectations. One way to accomplish this is to apply for a special rate table through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that provides a special pay scale that is competitive with the Boston job market. 137

Working Conditions Discussion

According to Herzberg (1987), one of the hygiene factors that lead to job dissatisfaction is poor working conditions; such as the physical work conditions, too much work, inadequate facilities, lighting, tools, space, ventilation, or other environmental conditions. The computer technology that is provided to each engineer includes their government issued and configured laptop computer, restricted network internet access, and engineering software tools. Due to the constant threat of our adversaries launching cyber-attacks against our computer networks, constant basis, the government-issued computers need to be locked down with virus protection, continuous patching, firewalls, port security and other measures to reduce vulnerabilities from cyber-attack. These preventative measures make the computers significantly slower than what the average millennial is accustomed to on their personal computer. It also prevents employees from installing their own software on the computer, restricts access to unapproved websites, and bans of common convenience devices such as thumb drives. These measures are necessary to reduce the real threat and does impact the computer performance, which results in job dissatisfaction of many interns.

The Air Force has created a consolidated laboratory that allows for high level engineering processing at both the unclassified and classified level. This provides useful capability to the workforce that may need advanced engineering tools to do computer aided design, analysis, or simulation. Due to the high licensing cost, it may not be affordable to provide all 20,000 engineers working in AFMC with their own dedicated copy; therefore, having a centralized computer lab with these tools is cost efficient and also allows for classified processing in a secured environment.

Nearly all of the interns expressed significant dissatisfaction with the computer they were issued due to the slow internet access, and the frequent unreliability experienced due to the tight computer security configuration. Many interns indicate that the poor computer access impedes their ability to accomplish their jobs. This situation is cross-cutting the entire workforce except the detachment, 138

“Kessel Run” located in Boston where they have a more relaxed computer or network configuration.

The interns that use the HEAT Lab are very pleased with the toolset provided; however, there appears to be ignorance amongst the interns of the HEAT Labs existence or the tools available. Supervisors should ensure the interns know what the HEAT Lab is and encourage them to use it. Although the slow computers are a source of dissatisfaction, it appears that the interns have come to accept the fact that the nature and reality of the cyber threat against the Air Force from our adversaries warrants the tight computer security and resultant impact on performance. There does not appear to be any correlation to attrition.

Relationship with Supervisor Discussion

According to Herzberg (1987), two hygiene factors that lead to job dissatisfaction are related to one’s relationship with their supervisor. Job dissatisfaction can occur when one is over-supervised or if one has a poor relationship with one’s supervisor.

The research also shows that Millennials prefer to work in teams and want a close relationship and frequent communication with their supervisor. This suggests that supervisors can increase intern job satisfaction through frequent communication with the intern and by organizing work in a way that builds teamwork among the workforce. Additionally, management should adapt training for interns by delivering content in shorter segments and using instructional videos and an interactive format to provide training that is engaging and interesting (Twenge, 2009, p. 398).

The healthy relationship between the intern and supervisor is critical for job satisfaction. The 139

majority of the supervisors are very effective in providing a positive, nurturing environment to their interns. Most supervisors communicate regularly with their interns which results in job satisfaction of the majority of the interns. The majority of interns indicate a very positive relationship with their supervisor; however, there are pockets of supervisors that need improvement. Nearly all of the current engineering interns reported a good to excellent relationship with their supervisor resulting in job satisfaction. There appears to be a few supervisors that are too busy to engage with their interns; however, in most cases, this does not cause job dissatisfaction. A few interns commented that they have little interaction with their supervisor but this did not affect their job satisfaction or dissatisfaction; however, one intern was very concerned that her supervisor was “stretched too thin” and did not have time to interact with her. This caused her to feel that her supervisor does not know her and that she would not receive a fair and accurate annual performance review, resulting in a feeling of job dissatisfaction. It is important for all supervisors to remember that one of their primary duties is to provide the necessary supervision and guidance to their employees regardless of their workload.

Exit interviews indicated that three interns, who left government service, had a very negative relationship with their supervisor. It appears that their negative relationship with their supervisor was a contributing factor to their leaving government service. This fact highlights the importance of reinforcing a feedback loop between the interns and the intern manager. If the intern informed the intern manager of supervisor / employee issues, it may be possible to intervene by moving the intern or taking other corrective action, as appropriate. This is an area for improvement.

140

SMART Motivation Discussion

The interviews with SMART interns indicate their job satisfaction and attitude changes over time. When students win a SMART scholarship, they are delighted that their college is being paid, they are receiving a $25,000 per year stipend, and they have a guaranteed job when they graduate doing something interesting working for the Department of Defense. During the summers between academic years, the SMART student travels to their assigned government agency for a 4-8-week summer internship which is very exciting. This gives the student an introduction to the Air Force.

When the SMART scholars graduate, they are hired as government civil servants. At this point they find out they are being paid at the GS-7 step 1 salary rate, which is $48,159 for the Boston locality.

It is unlikely the SMART scholar was fully aware of the GS-7 pay scale or the prevailing starting salaries of new college engineering graduates. If they were aware of the low pay up front, then they would likely be more satisfied to accept the lower pay and minor service commitment in exchange for the lucrative scholarship. As they enter the workforce, they soon become aware of the salaries that their fellow students received out of school or what their engineering colleagues are making and they soon realize they are being undercompensated which creates job dissatisfaction.

If they are sent to a government location like Hanscom, and learn about the benefit packages that the PAQs receive, they then may feel disenfranchised when they compare their benefits with their

PAQ colleagues. PAQs receive a 25% sign-on bonus when they start. This amounts to a $14,000 sign- bonus. Then they are offered up to $30,000 in student loan repayment. Additionally, the PAQs are provided three fulltime semesters for an all-expense paid free master’s degree in an approved STEM field at their school of choice in their second year while receiving their GS-9 salary. Even though the

SMART intern received benefits worth between $50,000 and $200,000, they feel like they are undercompensated and have job dissatisfaction with regards to low salary. This is coupled with the expectation that they can fulfill their service commitment and move on to greener pastures and make 141

more money. Due to the marketing message that the SMART program is a scholarship-for-service program, combined with a side-by-side comparison of the PAQ intern program, it should not be surprising that the retention of SMART interns at Hanscom is only 19%.

The PAQ intern program, in contrast, has a much higher retention rate at around 77%. The PAQ program is marketed as a developmental program to bring new college grads into the government workforce for a career. It provides great employment incentives such as a 25% sign-on bonus, $30,000 student loan repayment and a free master’s degree while being paid. During the hiring process, the

PAQ candidate interviews with several managers and then chooses the one to work for. Since employment starts right away, the intern knows what they are getting themselves into and has a different expectation. The PAQ has many perks, the first perk is a 25% sign-on bonus, the second perk is student loan repayment, the third perk is a paid master’s degree while salaried in their second year.

Even though the salary is lower than their colleagues, the perks make up for it and the PAQ has a higher level of job satisfaction and retention. The fact that SMARTs and PAQs are assigned together may create resentment of the PAQs by the SMARTS or at least a feeling that they are not fairly compensated since they do not receive the same benefits while actively working for the Air Force. 142

Answers the Research Questions

The following synopsis of how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns addresses each of the following research questions:

Q1: What are the underlying reasons why engineering and computer science interns have left government service?

Engineering and computer science interns have expressed several reasons for leaving or for having the intent to leave. The main reason is due to being dissatisfied with their current salary and seeking a job that offers higher pay. In some cases, their new employers have agreed to pay off the intern’s remaining service obligation through reimbursement. The second major reason for attrition is because the intern did not enjoy the work they were assigned. There are many contributing factors such as the work may not have been hands-on, did not stimulate their creativity, did not have a sense of achievement or did not use their talents. The third major reason for attrition is due to having a negative relationship with their supervisor.

Q2: What can the United States Air Force do to increase job satisfaction and retention among engineering and computer science interns?

There are several significant actions to increase retention of Air Force interns. These include increasing salary at the GS-7, GS-9, GS-11 paygrades for engineers. This can possibly be accomplished by applying for a special salary table through OPM, or by providing annual retention bonuses for the first three years to augment their pay to become competitive with industry. A second action that can be taken is by ensuring management assigns the interns with interesting and important hands-on work. A third way to increase retention is to ensure the interns are assigned to supervisors that have a track record of a nurturing their interns and have the capacity to provide the time and effort needed to properly mentor and develop new interns. 143

Other actions to increase job satisfaction include providing more positive feedback in the form of informal praise; provide achievable project milestones that promote a sense of achievement; and implementing a formal or informal mentoring program complete with helpful onboarding information.

Q3: Why is the retention rate of the SMART interns (19%) so much lower than the Palace

Acquire interns (77%)?

It appears that there are four primary reasons that contribute to the low retention rate. The initial reason is due to the marketing message of “scholarship-for-service” program, whereas it is made clear that in exchange for each year of benefit, the intern owes the government one year of service. This infers the opportunity is more of a temporary internship rather than the start of a long- term career. The second reason is due to their initial motivation to join the Air Force in the first place. At least half of the SMART interns join the Air Force solely for a way to pay for school and not to be part of the mission of the Air Force. The third reason is due to the low starting pay which is well below the Boston market rate. The final reason is due to the co-location of the more lucrative PAQ program within the same organization. The SMART interns become very dissatisfied with their pay when they compare it to their PAQ peers who received a 25% sign-on bonus, $30K student loan repayment and free master’s degree.

144

Summary

Job satisfaction and retention of interns is very important to the Air Force. The two major contributors to job satisfaction and retention are nature of the work and salary. The intern’s primary motivators are the nature of work, importance to nation, and sense of achievement. Management needs to do a better job in placing interns only in organizations that meet all three criteria. The primary source of job dissatisfaction is low starting salary.

The interns are typically happy with their jobs, their supervisors, the type of work, the importance to the nation, but not their salary. About two-thirds of the interns are satisfied with their jobs working for the Air Force and have no plans to leave; about one-third are considering leaving the

Air Force primarily over salary issues and in some cases job content. The amount of mentoring the interns receive is very good; however, there are a few areas for improvement such as the development of a helpful information booklet for new hires. Interns report they receive plenty of formal and informal recognition. They prefer frequent informal recognition over formal recognition. The majority of the interns have a great relationship with their supervisor with only a few isolated cases where supervisors do not provide adequate interaction, feedback, or direction to the intern.

There is a marked difference between the motivation and attitudes of the SMART interns and

PAQ interns and this contributes to retention issues and job dissatisfaction of the SMART interns. This results in an attrition rate of SMART interns at about 4 times that of PAQ interns. The PAQ program is superior to the SMART program. The PAQ program produces a higher level of job satisfaction. The PAQ program produces a more educated workforce since a fully funded master’s degree is integral to the

PAQ program. The PAQ and SMART programs should not co-exist within the same organization. When they do, the SMART interns compare perks and learn that the PAQ interns receive a 25% sign-on bonus,

$30K student loan repayment and an all expense paid master’s degree. This can be a major contributor to job dissatisfaction due to the differences. 145

Conclusion

This case study addressed how the Hanscom AFB work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns. It also addressed the underlying reasons why engineering and computer science interns have left government service; what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention among engineering and computer science interns; and why the retention rate of the SMART interns is so much lower than the Palace Acquire interns. While some of the general results and recommendations of this case study likely apply to other organizations, some of the results and recommendations could be due to local factors like the high cost of living, prevailing wages in the Boston employment market, and the nature of the work at Hanscom AFB.

Job satisfaction and retention is a complex, multifaceted problem that requires further investigation. To improve intern job satisfaction and retention, researchers will need to understand the factors that influence job satisfaction and address the underlying reasons why interns have either left government service or are inclined to do so in order to implement measures to address those reasons.

The engineering interns at Hanscom AFB are an important human resource. Their retention is critical as the current workforce continues to age and retire. This study highlighted several areas that management can positively affect to increase their job satisfaction and retention by implementing some or all of the following recommendations.

146

Recommendations for Practice

Nature of the Work Recommendation

To improve job satisfaction and increase retention, the Air Force should ensure it provides work content that is interesting, engaging and meaningful to the intern workforce. In order to understand the current level of job satisfaction of engineering interns, the PAQ coordinator should perform a comprehensive review of all the assigned engineering interns at Hanscom (currently 49) in terms of job satisfaction or level of technical work, and provide feedback to the organization for improvement. If job content cannot or does not improve, re-assign the intern to a better fitting program and refrain from sending new interns to those program offices that do not provide hands-on technical work or program offices that have had a trend of intern attrition.

When new interns are hired, place new interns into an organization with interesting hands-on technical work or where PAQ and SMART job satisfaction is high. Additionally, have the intern coordinator conduct a semi-annual review with each intern to determine the level of their job satisfaction and make necessary adjustments. The intern coordinator should encourage all of the engineering interns to freely express any job dissatisfaction with him in order to seek a re-assignment well in advance of considering leaving the Air Force. Directors of engineering, chief engineers, and first- level supervisors should be briefed on the findings of this study to foster an awareness of job satisfaction and retention issues.

Recognition Recommendation

Supervisors should continue to provide recognition of all types, from a “pat on the back” to a formal award; however, it must be sincere and not overdone. Supervisors should also consider providing cash awards to their top performers. Cash awards are typically awarded for an amount between $250-$500 for recognition of a specific significant result or special act and can be awarded by submitting a staff summary sheet up to the chain of command for approval. Finally, other division chiefs 147

should consider implementing the “Engineering Power Lunch Series” best practice within their division to boost intern self-esteem and recognize excellent work.

Achievement Recommendation

To improve job satisfaction and increase retention, the Air Force should ensure it provides work content that offers the intern with a sense of achievement. To gauge the current level of achievement, the first level supervisor or the PAQ coordinator should ask the interns if they feel a sense of achievement in their current assignment. If not, either build it into the assignment or move the intern into a program where the intern can take ownership and make tangible contributions to the program or mission. Provide the interns with opportunities to excel and be recognized. If the job content does not lend itself to achievement, then move the intern to another program during these courtship years.

As recommended above with “Nature of the work”, when new interns are hired, place new interns into an organization with interesting hands-on technical work that lends itself to a sense of achievement. Additionally, have the PAQ coordinator conduct a semi-annual review with each intern to determine the level of achievement and make necessary adjustments. The PAQ coordinator should encourage all of the engineering interns to freely express any job dissatisfaction with him in order to seek a re-assignment well in advance of considering leaving the Air Force. Directors of engineering, chief engineers, and first-level supervisors should be briefed on the findings of this study to foster an awareness of job satisfaction and retention issues.

Mentoring Recommendation

The Air Force should continue to encourage mentoring at all levels and ensure the PAQ / SMART manager provides adequate mentoring to each PAQ and SMART without exception.

The Chief of Engineering Resources should establish a formal mentoring program and encourage each intern to link up with a senior engineer. This would augment the role of the PAQ/SMART manager and allow more of an opportunity for the intern to obtain individual attention for the long term. 148

To improve job satisfaction and increase retention, it is important for supervisors and senior management to be transparent on what it takes to get promoted. The Chief of Engineering Resources, along with the Director of Engineering, should periodically brief the engineering workforce, including the intern workforce, on the policies, procedures, and expectations with regards to promotion and invite the Chief of the Science and Engineering Career Field Team (SECFT) to brief the workforce about career development programs, the career development planning process, and civilian development education application procedures.

Perquisites and Benefits Recommendation

Intern supervisors should continue to encourage their employees to take advantage of

Compressed Work Schedule, telework, gym access and 3 hours per week of paid physical fitness time.

The upper management at “Kessel Run” in Boston should ensure comparable perks are available at that location as well.

Salary Recommendations

The Air Force should assign the Chief of Engineering Resources at Hanscom the task of developing and submitting a request for special pay rate tables for the engineering job series in the grades of GS-5 through GS-11 at Hanscom AFB in the range of 10-25% increase in salary. This Chief of

Engineering Resources should develop a briefing to capture the key points of this dissertation as supporting justification to garner the required support from the Associate Engineering Director at

Hanscom AFB and Executive Engineering Director at Wright Patterson AFB, OH. This support is required in order to submit the application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Working Conditions Recommendation

The data indicated that many of the interns either have not used the advanced engineering tools in the HEAT laboratory or are not aware of its existence. Recommend that supervisors encourage their interns to explore the HEAT lab and learn the applications in the lab to increase their skillset. 149

Additionally, recommend the manager of the HEAT Lab from the EZC branch advertise and conduct learning seminars for the engineering workforce to increase its usage across the workforce.

Unfortunately, not much can be done to alleviate the slowness of the government issued laptop at this time. The current nature of the cyber threat requires the preventive measures that impact the speed, reliability, and restrictions imposed on government issued computers.

Supervisor Recommendation

The Senior Leader Development Council at Hanscom should be briefed on the following supervisor best practices, the findings from the literature review, and findings from this study on how supervisor/employee relationships can impact intern job satisfaction and retention. The SLDC membership should then be asked to research and consolidate their organization’s best practices to share in a cross-functional discussion on their supervisory best practices. These best practices should then be collected, reviewed, published, and disseminated to supervisors within their chain of command to as a workforce improvement initiative. The collection should include the following findings and best practices at a minimum:

• The literature review indicates millennials expect a close relationship and open communication

with their supervisors and view it as foundational for their long-term satisfaction within the

company (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 229).

• They expect job performance feedback conveyed in a positive, reinforcing manner. They also

feel the need to be kept in the loop on matters usually reserved for senior management and are

not intimidated by individuals that are senior by age, position, or status (Myers & Sadaghiani,

2010, p. 229).

• The literature also shows that Millennials prefer to work in teams and want a close relationship

and frequent communication with their supervisor. This suggests that supervisors can increase 150

intern job satisfaction through frequent communication with the intern and by organizing work

in a way that builds teamwork among the workforce (Twenge, 2009, p. 398).

• Management should adapt training for interns by delivering content in shorter segments and

using instructional videos and interactive format to provide training that is engaging and

interesting (Twenge, 2009, p. 398).

The Air Force should also implement the following best practices where applicable.

• Have the intern get an official Air Force photo at the base photo lab and advise them to sign up

for a LinkedIn® account.

• Implement an “Engineering Power Lunch Series”, or similar, where interns brief their program

office on a specific topic that they become expert in; this initiative boosts self-esteem and allows

interns to demonstrate their technical ability to their peers.

• Meet daily with newly arrived interns and weekly as they have been here longer.

• Supervisor should make themselves available to answer questions or concerns, provide career

counseling, and mentoring.

SMART Motivation Recommendations

The marketing of the SMART program as a scholarship-for-service program will likely continue to result in a high attrition rate. Due to the turnover cost inherent of replacing an engineer and the time lost training the SMART intern, recommend Hanscom discontinue participating in the SMART program and instead increase the use of the PAQ program which boasts of a 5-fold higher retention rate.

Literature Review Additional Recommendations

The literature review provided recommends on how to increase retention. One important area is tracking the attrition of segments of the workforce like interns. Management must remain attentive to the turnover problem. (Pell, 2000). Organizations should keep records of employee turnover so they can identify any trends that need to be addressed. They should establish a database that tracks 151

turnover by segment to determine root cause and turnover costs. Root cause analysis will assist in making a business case for change (Kochanski & Sorensen, 2008).

Recommend the Engineering Resources Branch (ENR) track employee attrition to include, as a minimum, reasons given for leaving, intern program, length of Air Force employment, salary, nature of the work, and supervisor. This data can then be examined over time to expose trends that can be acted upon.

Recommendations for Future Research

Hanscom AFB.

There is an opportunity for other organizations to perform similar case studies to improve their job satisfaction and retention issues. The following three recommendations for future research would provide valuable information Air Force leadership on how to make a positive impact to intern job satisfaction and retention.

Recommendation 1: Perform a similar case study at Hanscom AFB analyzing the program manager interns or contracting officer interns instead of engineering interns to determine their level of job satisfaction and retention.

Recommendation 2: Perform a similar engineering intern case study at a different Air Force 152

Base with both SMART interns and PAQ interns that does not have a high cost of living area to determine if they come to similar results.

Recommendation 3: Survey all AFMC Air Force Bases with engineering interns to determine their level of job satisfaction and retention, compare/contrast results and share best practices.

153

REFERENCES

Abelson, M. A., & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal and Dysfunctional Turnover: Toward an Organizational Level Model. Academy of Management Review, 9, 331-341.

Adkins, A. (2016). Millennials: The Job-Hopping Generation. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-hopping- generation.aspx

Air Force Civilian Service - Acquisition Force. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.afciviliancareers.com/acquisitions/

Air Force Civilian Service - Students and Graduates. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.afciviliancareers.com/students.php

Barrick, M. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2005). Reducing Voluntary, Avoidable Turnover Through Selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 159-166. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.159

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929-943. doi:10.1108/02621710510627064

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A critical reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal (pre-1986), 11(1), 99. doi:10.2307/255200

BLS. (2019a). Bureau of Labor Statistics - 17-2071 Electrical Engineers. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm

BLS. (2019b). Bureau of Labor Statistics Data. Retrieved from https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/wm

Boblin, S. L., Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., & Robertson, K. (2013). Using Stake’s Qualitative Case Study Approach to Explore Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice. Qualitative Health Research, 23(9), 1267-1275. doi:10.1177/1049732313502128

Bouton, K. (2015). RECRUITING FOR CULTURAL FIT. In: States News Servic.

Calo, T. (2008). Talent Management in the Era of the Aging Workforce: The Critical Role of Knowledge Transfer. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), 403-416.

Carlson, E. (2008). The lucky few : between the greatest generation and the baby boom. Dordrecht ; London: Springer.

Carucci, R. (2018). To Retain New Hires, Spend More Time Onboarding Them. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/12/to-retain-new-hires-spend-more-time- onboarding-them

Chemaly, D. (2018, 9/3/2018) Human Resource Specialist/Interviewer: E. Lee.

Clark, C. S. (2016a). Do Government's Foibles Turn off Millennials? Government Executive. 154

Clark, C. S. (2016b). Why Millennials Spurn Government Jobs. Government Executive.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design : choosing among five approaches (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks: Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. doi:10.1177/0011000006287390

Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. (2007). Succession Planning and Generational Stereotypes: Should HR Consider Age-Based Values and Attitudes a Relevant Factor or a Passing Fad? Public Personnel Management, 36(4), 349-369.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.

Dimock, M. (2019). DEFINING GENERATIONS: WHERE MILLENNIALS END AND GENERATION Z BEGINS. In (17 Jan. 2019 ed.): States News Service.

DoDSTEM. (2017, 10/19/2017). SMART Scholarship. Retrieved from https://smartscholarshipprod.service-now.com/smart

Ewen, R. B., Smith, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1966). AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE HERZBERG TWO- FACTOR THEORY. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 544-550. doi:10.1037/h0024042

Falcone, S. (2018, 8/17/2018) Interview with Director of Engineering/Interviewer: E. Lee.

Fenn, D. (2009). Upstarts! How GenY Entrepreneurs are Rocking the World of Business: McGraw Hill.

France, D. R., Leahy, M., & Parsons, M. (2009). Attracting, developing and retaining talent.(W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.)(Company overview). Research-Technology Management, 52(6), 33.

French, E. B., Metersky, M. L., Thaler, D. S., & Trexler, J. T. (1973). HERZBERG'S TWO FACTOR THEORY: CONSISTENCY VERSUS METHOD DEPENDENCY. Personnel Psychology, 26(3), 369-375. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01144.x

Fromm, J. (2011). American Millennials: Deciphering the Enigma Generation Executive Summary In (Sept 12, 2011 ed., pp. 13).

Fry, R., Igielnik, R., & Patten, E. (2018). How Millennials today compare with their grandparents 50 years ago. Retrieved from

Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Ferrari, K. (1999). Personality and work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6), 1035-1043.

Gallup. (2016). How Millennials Want to Work and Live. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238073/millennials-work-live.aspx 155

Glebbeek, A. C., & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is High Employee Turnover Really Harmful? An Empirical Test Using Company Records. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 277-286. doi:10.2307/20159578

Glesinger, J. (2013). Companies must come to grips with an aging, changing workforce. World Oil.

Gonzalez, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between job satisfaction, age, degree major, and formal educational levels of employees working in human resources. In D. Chapman, S. Harris, & L. LaCivita (Eds.): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Gordon, E. (2009). The Global Talent Crisis. The Futurist, 43(5), 34-39.

Gosselin, B. (2020). HAFB-OL EN Functional Dashboard. Retrieved from

Hart, P. (2018, 9/5/2018) Intern Manager/Recruiter Interview/Interviewer: E. Lee.

Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A.: New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A. : Transaction Publishers.

Herzberg, F. (1987). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 109.

Herzberg, F. (1993). The motivation to work. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A.: New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A. : Transaction Publishers.

Herzberg, F. M., Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara. (1959). The motivation to work (2d ed. ed.). New York: New York, Wiley.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The Cost of Turnover: Putting a Price on the Learning Curve. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 14-21. doi:10.1177/001088040004100313

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and Retention Research: A Glance at the Past, a Closer Review of the Present, and a Venture into the Future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 231-274. doi:10.1080/19416520802211552

Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: revelations from corporate America.(Report). Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 1. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.1

House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). HERZBERG'S DUAL‐FACTOR THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND MOTIVATION: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND A CRITICISM. Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 369-390. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1967.tb02440.x

Howe, N., & Nadler, R. (2008). MILLENNIALS RISING. Leadership for Student Activities, 36(8), 17- 21.

Hur, Y. (2018). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Public Sector: Is it Applicable to Public Managers? A Global Journal, 18(3), 329-343. doi:10.1007/s11115-017- 0379-1 156

Hyun, S., & Oh, H. (2011). Reexamination of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Korean Army Foodservice Operations. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 14(2), 100-121. doi:10.1080/15378020.2011.574532

James, D. L. (2014). Bright Horizons 2.0 = The Air Force STEM Workforce Strategy.

Klun, S. (2008). Work-life balance is a cross generational concern - and a key to retaining high performers at Accenture. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 27(6), 14.

Kochanski, J., & Sorensen, A. (2008). Turning Around Employee Turnover. Financial Executive, 24(5), 28-31.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: a replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 450. doi:10.2307/257015

Lewis, L., Birnie, B., Williams, W., & Schrader, J. (1999). Defining a Common Planning Framework for the Air Force: RAND Corporation.

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684.html

Lindsay, C. A., Marks, E., & Gorlow, L. (1967). THE HERZBERG THEORY: A CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(4), 330-339. doi:10.1037/h0024868

Lyons, M., Lavelle, K., & Smith, D. (2019). Gen Z Rising. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-gen-z-rising

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research Dilemmas,: Paradigms, methods, and methodolgy. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2006).

Maertz, C., & Campion, M. (2004). PROFILES IN QUITTING: INTEGRATING PROCESS AND CONTENT TURNOVER THEORY. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 566-582. doi:10.2307/20159602

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2d ed. ed.). New York: New York, Harper & Row.

Matei, M.-C. a., & Abrudan, M.-M. (2016). Adapting Herzberg's Two Factor Theory to the Cultural Context of Romania. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 95-104. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.094

McPherson, J. M., Popielarz, P. A., & Drobnic, S. (1992). Social Networks and Organizational Dynamics. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 153-170. doi:10.2307/2096202

MetLife. (2012). 10th annual study of employee benefits trends: seeing opportunity in shifting tides. In (Vol. 29, pp. 1). 157

Miles, R. (2015). Complexity, Representation and Practice: Case Study as Method and Methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3), 309-318.

Myers, K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials’ Organizational Relationships and Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225-238. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7

NetMBA. (2010). Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory (Two Factor Theory). Retrieved from http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/

NVivo Transcription. (2019). Retrieved from http://qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo- products/transcription

Onag, G. (2017). HK firms prefer solid tech skills in cybersecurity professionals. Computerworld Hong Kong.

OPM. (2020a). Policy, Data, Overisght - Special Rates Requests. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/special-rates-requests/

OPM. (2020b). Salary Table 2020-BOS. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay- leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/BOS.pdf

Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66(2), 94-118. doi:10.1037/h0023614

Partnership For Public Service And The National Association Of Colleges and Employers (2012). Federal Leaders Face Challenges Attracting Top College Graduates to Government Service Retrieved from https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/federal-leaders-face-challenges- attracting-top-college-graduates-to-government-service/

Pay & Leave Student Loan Repayment. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data- oversight/pay-leave/student-loan-repayment

Pell, A. R. (2000). The complete idiot's guide to recruiting the right stuff. Indianapolis, Ind.: Alpha Books.

Pew Research Center. (2007). A Portrait of "Generation Next:" How Young People view Their Lives, Futures and Politics.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Most Millennials Resist the ‘Millennial’ Label.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Public-Affairs, A. (2016). AFLCMC - Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Wright Patterson AFB, OH Retrieved from https://www.wpafb.af.mil/Welcome/Fact- Sheets/Display/Article/823247/aflcmc-air-force-life-cycle-management-center/. 158

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (3rd ed.).

Salary Table 2019-BOS. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay- leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2019/BOS.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3RD ed.). London

Seppanen, S., & Gualtieri, W. (2012). The Millennial Generation Research Review. Retrieved from https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/article/foundation/MillennialGeneration. pdf

Sill, I. M. (2009). What I Learned about Hiring Top Technical Talent. Research-Technology Management, 52(3), 60-61. doi:10.1080/08956308.2009.11657570

Smart Scholarship Program. (2020).

Stanfield, J. H. (1985). The Ethnocentric Basis of Social Science Knowledge Production. Review of Research in Education, 12, 387-415.

Suen, L.-J. W., Huang, H.-M., & Lee, H.-H. (2014). A comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Hu li za zhi The journal of nursing, 61(3), 105. doi:10.6224/JN.61.3.105

Taylor, P., & Keeter, S. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change/

Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN, 16(2), 151. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6155.2011.00283.x

Tozier, D. (2006). Workforces In balance: Diverse cultures give clues to attracting and managing talent across borders. Employee Benefit News, ITEM06166010.

Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among Actual Ease-of-Movement Determinants and Job Satisfaction in the Prediction of Voluntary Turnover.(Statistical Data Included). Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 621. doi:10.2307/3069407

Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: teaching Generation Me. Medical Education, 43(5), 398-405. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03310.x

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246

Venter, E. (2017). Bridging the communication gap between Generation y and the Baby Boomer generation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(4), 497-507. doi:10.1080/02673843.2016.1267022

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation.

Welsh III, M. A. (2014). Bright Horizons 2.0 - The Air Force STEM Workforce Strategy. 159

Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research : design and methods (4th ed. ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Angeles, Calif. : Sage Publications.

Zeeman, A. (2017). Frederick Herzberg. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/frederick-herzberg/

160

Appendix A - Permission to Conduct Study

MEMORANDUM FOR AFLCMC/EN-EZ date

FROM: AFLCMC/ENR (Edward Lee)

SUBJECT: Request Permission to Conduct Intern Retention Case Study

1. I am a graduate student in Northeastern University’s Doctorate of Education program, and I am working on my dissertation. My topic is the Job Satisfaction and Retention of Air Force Interns. As you know, I am the Chief of Engineering Resources and am charged with recruiting and retaining engineering talent. I’ve identified that the retention of interns can be problematic, especially the SMART interns. I have researched the theory of job satisfaction and studied several aspects that contribute to retention to include recruiting strategies, retention strategies, and generational considerations.

2. I have designed a case study that includes interviewing focus groups of PAQ interns, SMART interns, and former interns as well as interviewing intern supervisors and the Intern Manager. Interviews will be conducted within my work area and will be about 1 hour each. Participation will be voluntary. The identity of all of the participants will be kept confidential and short duration of the interviews will not significantly affect their workload. I will also be reviewing Air Force documents to include exit interviews, survey results, and other unclassified, public releasable material.

3. If you have questions or concerns regarding my study, please contact me at [email protected]. If you are willing to allow your Air Force employees to voluntarily participate in my study, please indicate by signing below and returning this letter to me. Thank you.

EDWARD J. LEE, NH-04 Chief, Engineering Resources

1st Ind, AFLCMC/EN-EZ date

MEMORANDUM FOR AFLCMC/ENR

Approved.

JOSEPH F. BRADLEY, SES Director of Engineering

161

Appendix B - Recruitment Email – Intern

Subject Line: Request your Participation in my Doctoral Research

Fellow Engineer / Computer Scientist,

My name is Edward Lee and I am currently a graduate student in Northeastern University’s Doctorate of Education program. I am currently conducting a study for my doctoral dissertation and am seeking research participants. I have IRB approval from Northeastern University and the Air Force for my student research study.

I am researching the level of job satisfaction and the effect on retention of Air Force engineering interns under the supervision of my advisor, Dr. Dan Volchok. My intent is to learn more about your level of job satisfaction and what the Air Force can do to increase job satisfaction and retention. Your insight is very important to me and I invite you to participate. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be part of a focus group of your peers. I will be conducting 3 focus groups of 7 members each. There will be a PAQ focus group, a SMART focus group, and a former intern focus group. Focus group questions will be concerned with your level of job satisfaction to include pay, benefits, nature of the work, interpersonal relationships, supervisor, working conditions, work/life balance, etc. The expected time commitment is about one hour. I will be conducting the focus groups remotely using a video teleconferencing software called BLUEJEANS. You can connect via laptop, PC, MAC, or smartphone for both audio and video support. The connection information will be provided at a later date.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you do not volunteer to participate, you will not be contacted again regarding this research. You will be offered a $10 Dunkin Donut gift card as soon as you complete the study.

If you are interested in volunteering to participate in this study, please email me at [email protected]. If you volunteer, I will provide you with additional details about the study.

Thank you,

Edward Lee Doctoral Student Northeastern University 162

Appendix C - Recruitment Email – Supervisor

Subject Line: Request your Participation in my Doctoral Research

Colleague,

I am researching job satisfaction and the effect on retention of Air Force engineering interns. My intent is to gain your perspective on the job satisfaction of the interns that you supervise or interact with and what the Air Force can do to increase their job satisfaction and retention. Your insight is very important to me and I invite you to participate. If you choose to participate in this study, I will be conducting a one-on-one interviews with you using BLUEJEANs video-teleconference software. I will also be conducting 3 intern focus groups of approximately 7 members each. There will be a PAQ focus group, a SMART focus group, and a former intern focus group. The questions that I will be asking will be concerned with your perspective on the intern’s level of job satisfaction to include pay, benefits, nature of the work, interpersonal relationships, supervisor, working conditions, work/life balance, etc. The expected time commitment is about one hour. Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you do not volunteer to participate, you will not be contacted again regarding this research. You will be offered a $10 Dunkin Donut gift card as soon as you complete the study. I will be conducting the interviews remotely using a video teleconferencing software called BLUEJEANS. You can connect via laptop, PC, MAC, or smartphone for both audio and video support. The connection information will be provided at a later date.

If you are interested in volunteering to participate in this study, please email me at [email protected]. If you volunteer, I will provide you with additional details about the study.

Thank you,

Edward Lee Doctoral Student Northeastern University

163

Appendix D - Informed Consent Form – Intern

Northeastern University Name of Investigators: Principal Investigator, Dr. Daniel Volchok, Northeastern University, and Student Researcher, Edward Lee, Northeastern University Title of Project: Job Satisfaction and Retention of Air Force Interns

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study We are inviting you to take part in a research study. This form will tell you about the study, but the researcher will explain it to you first. You may ask this person any questions that you have. When you are ready to make a decision, you may tell the researcher if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you do not want to. If you decide to participate, the researcher will ask you to sign this statement and will give you a copy to keep.

Key Information • Your consent is being sought for participation in a research project and your participation is voluntary. • The purpose of the research is to determine how the Hanscom environment affects the job satisfaction and retention of Air Force Engineering Interns • The anticipated amount of time that your participation will take will be 1.5 hours. • The procedures that you will be asked to complete will be: o Meet for a 1-hour focus group with 4-7 colleagues I will be conducting the focus groups remotely using a video teleconferencing software called BLUEJEANS. You can connect via laptop, PC, MAC, or smartphone for both audio and video support. The connection information will be provided at a later date. o Complete a short survey o Respond to questions regarding factors that affect job satisfaction such as work environment, pay, supervisor, work/life balance, etc. o Review audio transcript for accuracy • The foreseeable risks to the subject: You may feel pressured to participate because of my position in the Air Force. • The potential benefits to the subject: There will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in the study. However, the information learned from this study will inform senior leaders who may make changes that will increase job satisfaction.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? We are asking you to be in the study because you are an engineering intern at Hanscom AFB.

Why is this research study being done? The purpose of this student research is to understand how the following eight factors: compensation, the nature of the work, supervisor/employee relationship, mentoring program, the physical workplace, growth and promotion potential, training opportunities, and the work environment impact the job satisfaction and retention of the intern workforce. What will I be asked to do? If you decide to take part in this study, we will ask you to meet for a 1-hour focus group with 4-7 colleagues in a BLUEJEANS video teleconference on your PC or smartphone, complete a short demographic survey that will ask questions about college degree, years of experience, gender, race, and 164

salary. You will then be asked open-ended questions in a group setting regarding your opinions on job satisfaction, pay and benefits, importance of work/life balance, suggestions on improving job satisfaction, and other job-related questions. Open discussions will be encouraged. The session will be audio recorded, transcribed, and then the recordings will be deleted. The participants will remain anonymous in the transcripts and the final report. You will be asked to review the typed transcript for accuracy a few days after the focus group.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take? The focus groups will be conducted online using BLUEJEANS software. The focus groups will be scheduled for one hour. The transcript review will occur a few days after the focus group and take about 30 minutes.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? You may feel pressured to participate in this study. Rest assured there is no pressure for you to participate. There is little foreseeable risk or discomfort with participation in the focus group. However, since the topic that will be discussed is job satisfaction, it is possible that you or one of your colleagues may describe a negative work environment that may cause you or your colleagues some anxiety. If you feel anxiety, you may exit the focus group at any time. If the discussion is going off-topic, the researcher will guide the conversation back to the research topic.

Will I benefit by being in this research? There will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in the study. However, the information learned from this study could potentially inform senior leaders who may make changes that will increase job satisfaction.

Who will see the information about me? Your part in this study will be confidential. Only the other focus group participants and the researchers on this study will see the information about you. No reports or publications will use information that can identify you in any way or any individual as being of this project. The focus group sessions will be audio recorded and transcribed. Once the transcription is complete, the audio recordings will be deleted. Each participant will be given an alias name at the beginning of the focus group for transcription and recording purposes. The list of names / aliases will be protected to maintain anonymity.

Limits to confidentiality. In the unlikely event that you or a colleague discloses information that has legal reporting requirements, for example, disclosure of classified information, illegal activity, intention of self- harm, sexual abuse, etc., the focus group will be suspended and appropriate reporting will occur.

Future Use of Data Your de-identified information could be used for future research without additional informed consent.

If I do not want to take part in the study, what choices do I have? Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may decide not to participate and you may withdraw at any time. You are not obligated to answer all questions that are asked during the focus group.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research? 165

Research-related injury (i.e. physical, psychological, social, financial or otherwise) is highly unlikely. However, no special arrangements will be made for compensation or for payment for treatment solely because of my participation in this research.

Can I stop my participation in this study? Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You do not have to participate if you do not want to and you can refuse to answer any question. Even if you begin the study, you may quit at any time. If you do not participate or if you decide to quit, you will not lose any rights, benefits, or services that you would otherwise have an employee.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact the student researcher, Edward Lee at (978)855-3146 or [email protected]. You can also contact Dr. Daniel Volchok at [email protected], the Principal Investigator who is overseeing my research.

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant? If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish.

Will I be paid for my participation? You will be offered a $10 Dunkin Donut gift card as soon as you complete the study.

Will it cost me anything to participate? No.

Is there anything else I need to know? Participants must be 18 years of age.

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (# CPS20-01-09).

I agree to take part in this research.

______Signature of person agreeing to take part Date

______Printed name of person above

______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent

______Printed name of person above 166

I agree to be contacted for follow up or for future research studies

______Contact Information (email or phone) IRB# CPS20-01-09 Approved: 3/12/2020 No Expiration Date 167

Appendix E - Informed Consent Form -- Supervisor

Northeastern University Name of Investigators: Dr. Daniel Volchok, Principal Investigator, Northeastern University, and Student Researcher, Edward Lee, Northeastern University Title of Project: Job Satisfaction and Retention of Air Force Interns

Key Information • Your consent is being sought for participation in a research project and your participation is voluntary. • The purpose of the research is to determine how the Hanscom environment affects the job satisfaction and retention of Air Force Engineering Interns • The anticipated amount of time that your participation will take will be 1.5 hours. • The procedures that you will be asked to complete will be: o Meet for a 1-hour video teleconference interview using BLUEJEANS software. o Complete a short demographic survey o Respond to questions regarding your experience with Air Force interns and factors that affect job satisfaction such as nature of the work, physical environment, pay, workplace attitude, work/life balance, etc. o Review audio transcript for accuracy • The foreseeable risks to the subject: You may feel pressured to participate because of my position in the Air Force. • The potential benefits to the subject: The Air Force could use information from the study to improve job satisfaction or reduce factors that cause dissatisfaction and thereby reduce attrition.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? We are asking you to be in the study because you supervise engineering interns at Hanscom AFB.

Why is this research study being done? The purpose of this student research is to understand how the following eight factors: compensation, the nature of the work, supervisor/employee relationship, mentoring program, the physical workplace, growth and promotion potential, training opportunities, and the work environment impact the job satisfaction and retention of the intern workforce. What will I be asked to do? If you decide to take part in this study, we will ask you to meet for a 1-hour interview in room 140 in building 1604 at Hanscom AFB, complete a short demographic survey that will ask questions about your education and degree, grade, years of experience, gender, race, and salary. You will then be asked open-ended questions regarding your opinions on job satisfaction, pay and benefits, importance of work/life balance, suggestions on improving job satisfaction, and other job-related questions. Open 168

discussion will be encouraged. The session will be audio recorded, transcribed, and then the recordings will be deleted. The participants will remain anonymous in the transcripts and the final report. A few days after the focus group, you will be asked to review the typed transcript for accuracy.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take? The interviews will be conducted in room 140 in building 1604. The interview will be scheduled for one hour. The transcript review will occur a few days after the focus group and take about 30 minutes.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? You may feel pressured to participate because of my position in the Air Force. There is little foreseeable risk or discomfort with participation in the interview. However, since the topic that will be discussed is job satisfaction, it is possible that you may describe a negative work environment that may cause you some anxiety. If you feel anxiety, you may exit the interview at any time. If the discussion is going off- topic, the researcher will guide the conversation back to the research topic.

Who will see the information about me? Your part in this study will be confidential. Only the researchers on this study will see the information about you. No reports or publications will use information that can identify you in any way or any individual as being of this project. The focus group sessions will be audio recorded and transcribed. Once the transcription is complete, the audio recordings will be deleted. Each participant will be given an alias name at the beginning of the focus group for transcription and recording purposes. The list of names / aliases will be protected to maintain anonymity.

Limits to confidentiality. In the unlikely event that you disclose information that has legal reporting requirements, for example, disclosure of classified information, illegal activity, intention of self-harm, sexual abuse, etc., the interview will be suspended and appropriate reporting will occur.

Future Use of Data Your de-identified information could be used for future research without additional informed consent.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research? Research-related injury (i.e. physical, psychological, social, financial or otherwise) is highly unlikely. However, no special arrangements will be made for compensation or for payment for treatment solely because of my participation in this research.

time. If you do not participate or if you decide to quit, you will not lose any rights, benefits, or services that you would otherwise have an employee.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Edward Lee at [email protected] or (978)855-3146. You can also contact Dr. Daniel Volchok at [email protected], the Principal Investigator who is overseeing my research.

Will I be paid for my participation? You will be offered a $10 Dunkin Donut gift card as soon as you complete the study.

Will it cost me anything to participate? No.

Is there anything else I need to know? Participants must be 18 years of age.

170

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (# CPS20-01-09).

I agree to take part in this research.

______Signature of person agreeing to take part Date

______Printed name of person above

______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent

______Printed name of person above

I agree to be contacted for follow up or for future research studies

______Contact Information (email or phone)

IRB# CPS20-01-09 Approved: 3/12/2020 No Expiration Date

171

Appendix F - Intern Questionnaire

Demographics

1. What is the highest education level that you have attained? ____High School ____Master’s Degree ____Associate’s Degree ____Professional Degree (MD, JD) ____Bachelor’s Degree ____ Doctoral Degree Other (Please Specify) ______

2. Gender: ____ Male ____Female

3. In what year were you born? ______

4. Please specify your race: ____Native American or Alaska Native ____Asian ____African-American ____Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____Caucasian ____Hispanic ____Other

5. What is your current salary level? ____$20,000 to $40,000 ____ $40,000 to $60,000 ____$60,000 to $80,000 ____ $80,000 to $100,000 ____$100,000 or more

6. How long does it take to you get to work? ______

7. How long have you worked for the Air Force? ______

172

Appendix G - SMART Intern Focus Group Guide

Thank you for volunteering to participate in this study. The purpose of this study is to understand how the Hanscom work environment influences job satisfaction and retention of Air Force engineering interns. Before we begin, I’ll need your consent to participate in the study. Please take a moment to read over and sign the consent form. Do you have any questions? This interview will be recorded so I can capture your thoughts accurately. The recording will be deleted after I transcribe it.

Please feel free to interject at any time.

1. What is your level of job satisfaction working for the Air Force and why? 2. What are some of the factors that give you job satisfaction? 3. What are some of the factors that cause you job dissatisfaction? 4. What do you think about your salary? Your benefits? Does it cause you job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? Or neither? 5. What do you think about the nature of the work you do? Level of responsibility? Importance to the nation? Is it interesting? 6. What is more important, your compensation or the work itself? 7. Do you get the recognition you deserve? How important is recognition toward your job satisfaction? 8. Do you have a sense of achievement in your job? Why or why not? How important is recognition toward your job satisfaction? 9. Describe your relationship with your supervisor. Does this cause you job satisfaction / dissatisfaction or neither? 10. Do you receive adequate mentoring from the PAQ manager, your supervisor, or someone else? What is the impact to job satisfaction? 11. Hanscom has a lot to offer its employees such as compressed work schedule, free gym, 3 hours per week of workout time, telework, available daycare, MWR facilities, and base sponsored recreational activities. Do you use any of these perks and does it impact your level of job satisfaction? 12. What do you think about your physical workplace and its impact on either job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? 173

13. What is your level of satisfaction with regards to the technology provided to you, such as your computer, internet access, and engineering tools in the HEAT Lab? 14. Do you think the Air Force provides you good growth and promotion potential? Why or why not? 15. What are your views on the training and training opportunities the Air Force provides? Is it enough? What can we do better? 16. What was your motivation for joining the Air Force? Was it for the scholarship? A way to pay for school? Or were you motivated to serve your country? 17. What was your expectations working for the Air Force when you were hired? 18. Have your expectations been met, exceeded, or fell short? 19. What are your views of the work environment? Do you get along with your co-workers? Are people treated fairly? Does this impact your job satisfaction? 20. Do you plan on leaving the Air Force within the next couple of years? If so, why? 21. What do you think the underlying reasons might be for you or your colleagues to decide to leave the Air Force? 22. What can the Air Force do to increase your job satisfaction or decrease any dissatisfaction you may have?

Thank you for participating today and providing me your thoughts on job satisfaction. After I transcribe this session, I’ll be contacting each of you to check my transcription for accuracy. If you have any questions or concerns after our meeting today, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Again, thank you for your participation.

174

Appendix H - Palace Acquire Intern Focus Group Guide

14. Do you think the Air Force provides you good growth and promotion potential? Why or why not? 15. What are your views on the training and training opportunities the Air Force provides? Is it enough? What can we do better? 16. What was your expectations working for the Air Force when you were hired? 17. Have your expectations been met, exceeded, or fell short? 18. What are your views of the work environment? Do you get along with your co-workers? Are people treated fairly? Does this impact your job satisfaction? 19. Do you plan on leaving the Air Force within the next couple of years? If so, why? 20. What do you think the underlying reasons might be for you or your colleagues to decide to leave the Air Force? 21. What can the Air Force do to increase your job satisfaction or decrease any dissatisfaction you may have?

Again, thank you for your participation.

176

Appendix I - Former Intern Focus Group Guide

Please feel free to interject at any time. As a former PAQ or SMART intern, you have had the opportunity to experience our intern programs firsthand and your insight is very valuable.

1. What is your level of job satisfaction working for the Air Force and why? Has this level increased or decreased over time? Why? 2. What are some of the factors that give you job satisfaction? 3. What are some of the factors that cause you job dissatisfaction? 4. What do you think about your salary? Your benefits? Does it cause you job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? Or neither? 5. What do you think about the nature of the work you do? Level of responsibility? Importance to the nation? Is it interesting? 6. What is more important, your compensation or the work itself? 7. Do you get the recognition you deserve? How important is recognition toward your job satisfaction? 8. Do you have a sense of achievement in your job? Why or why not? How important is recognition toward your job satisfaction? 9. Describe your relationship with your supervisor. Does this cause you job satisfaction / dissatisfaction or neither? 10. Do you receive adequate mentoring from the PAQ manager, your supervisor, or someone else? What is the impact to job satisfaction? 11. Hanscom has a lot to offer its employees such as compressed work schedule, free gym, 3 hours per week of workout time, telework, available daycare, MWR facilities, and base 177

sponsored recreational activities. Do you use any of these perks and does it impact your level of job satisfaction? 12. What do you think about your physical workplace and its impact on either job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? 13. What is your level of satisfaction with regards to the technology provided to you, such as your computer, internet access, and engineering tools in the HEAT Lab? 14. Do you think the Air Force provides you good growth and promotion potential? Why or why not? 15. What are your views on the training and training opportunities the Air Force provides? Is it enough? What can we do better? 16. What was your motivation for joining the Air Force? Was it for the scholarship? A way to pay for school? Or were you motivated to serve your country? 17. What was your expectations working for the Air Force when you were hired? 18. Have your expectations been met, exceeded, or fell short? 19. What are your views of the work environment? Do you get along with your co-workers? Are people treated fairly? Does this impact your job satisfaction? 20. Do you plan on leaving the Air Force within the next couple of years? If so, why? 21. What do you think the underlying reasons might be for you or your colleagues to decide to leave the Air Force? 22. What can the Air Force do to increase your job satisfaction or decrease any dissatisfaction you may have? 23. Would you recommend the PAQ or SMART intern program to a college student? Why or why not? 24. What recommendations do you have that we could implement to improve the retention of interns?

Again, thank you for your participation.

178

Appendix J - Supervisor Interview Guide

Please feel free to interject at any time. As a supervisor of PAQ or SMART interns, you have a unique perspective of our interns and your insight is very valuable.

1. What is your overall impression of the PAQ and SMART intern programs? Does it provide qualified talent? 2. Do you think your interns have a high or low level of job satisfaction and why? 3. Do you provide your intern with responsible, interesting work? 4. What is your level of engagement or relationship with the interns? Do you provide mentoring? Career counseling? 5. Do you have a recognition program? Do you recognize your interns? 6. Do you know of factors that cause your intern job dissatisfaction? What are they? 7. Do your interns have the opportunity to achieve success? Do they have a sense of achievement in your job? Why or why not? 8. Do you know if your intern takes advantage of the perks that Hanscom offers such as compressed work schedule, free gym, 3 hours per week of workout time, telework, available daycare, MWR facilities, and base sponsored recreational activities? Do any of these perks impact their level of job satisfaction? 9. Do any of your interns use the engineering tools in the HEAT Lab? If so, do you think this increases their job satisfaction. 10. Do you think your interns are motivated to make the Air Force a career or exit as soon as their commitment is up? Why? 11. How is the work environment? Do your interns get along with your co-workers? Are people treated fairly? Does this impact your job satisfaction? Are there any generation gap issues? 179

12. What do you think the Air Force can do to increase their job satisfaction or decrease any dissatisfaction? 13. Would you recommend the PAQ or SMART intern program to a college student? Why or why not? 14. What recommendations do you have that we could implement to improve the retention of interns?

Again, thank you for your participation.

180

Appendix L - Inventory of Documents Reviewed

1. Exit interviews of departed interns

2. Intern spreadsheet maintained by Intern Manager

3. Job Satisfaction surveys conducted by Intern Manager in 2018

4. DFAS special salary tables