CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2003-06 Effective predictors of submarine junior officer technical competence Polk, Christopher J. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/928 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS EFFECTIVE PREDICTORS OF SUBMARINE JUNIOR OFFICER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE by Christopher J. Polk June 2003 Co-Advisor: Lee Edwards Co-Advisor: William Bowman Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2003 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Effective Predictors of Submarine Junior Officer 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Technical Competence 6. AUTHOR(S) Christopher J. Polk 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) This study examines technical and behavioral relationships between independent variables related to U.S. Naval Academy graduates and their probabilities for submarine duty assignment and service with technical competence as junior officers. “Technical competence” is defined as: successful completion of Nuclear Power School, Nuclear Power Training Unit, and the Prospective Nuclear Engineer Officer examination (PNEO). Data analysis of different outcome models is accomplished with the use of binary LOGIT regressions. Results suggest Engineering and Mathematical/Sciences majors (Group 1 & 2) have greater chances for submarine service assignment and better performance during initial nuclear training programs than officers with Humanities/Social Sciences (Group 3) majors. However, the Group 1 & 2 advantages, slowly decrease over time and eventually Group 3 officers linearly perform as well as their peers during PNEO. Findings suggest Group 3 majors are as desirable as other undergraduate majors when selecting submarine officers. Study limitations are discussed with future implications and suggested research opportunities. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Naval Officers, U.S. Naval Academy, Submarine Junior Officer, Officer 15. NUMBER OF Performance, Nuclear Training PAGES 108 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited EFFECTIVE PREDICTORS OF SUBMARINE JUNIOR OFFICER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE Christopher J. Polk Lieutenant, United States Navy B.S., United States Naval Academy, 1997 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 2003 Author: Christopher J. Polk Approved by: Lee Edwards Co-Advisor William Bowman Co-Advisor Douglas A. Brook Dean, Graduate School of Business and Public Policy iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT This study examines technical and behavioral relationships between independent variables related to U.S. Naval Academy graduates and their probabilities for submarine duty assignment and service with technical competence as junior officers. “Technical competence” is defined as: successful completion of Nuclear Power School, Nuclear Power Training Unit, and the Prospective Nuclear Engineer Officer examination (PNEO). Data analysis of different outcome models is accomplished with the use of binary LOGIT regressions. Results suggest Engineering and Mathematical/Sciences majors (Group 1 & 2) have greater chances for submarine service assignment and better performance during initial nuclear training programs than officers with Humanities/Social Sciences (Group 3) majors. However, the Group 1 & 2 advantages, slowly decrease over time and eventually Group 3 officers linearly perform as well as their peers during PNEO. Findings suggest Group 3 majors are as desirable as other undergraduate majors when selecting submarine officers. Study limitations are discussed with future implications and suggested research opportunities. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 B. PURPOSE.........................................................................................................2 C. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS, AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................3 1. Scope......................................................................................................3 2. Limitations............................................................................................5 3. Assumptions .........................................................................................7 D. ORGANIZATION OF STUDY ......................................................................8 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .........................................................................11 A. UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY ...................................................11 1. Entrance Requirements.....................................................................11 2. Midshipmen Education .....................................................................11 3. Service Assignment ............................................................................12 B. ADMIRAL HYMAN G. RICKOVER .........................................................13 C. SUBMARINE OFFICER CAREER PROGRESSION ..............................15 1. The Entrance Interview.....................................................................16 2. Nuclear Power School........................................................................17 3. Nuclear Power Training Units..........................................................18 4. Submarine Officer Basic Course ......................................................18 5. Shipboard Qualifications...................................................................19 6. Prospective Nuclear Engineer Officer Examination ......................20 D. CHAPTER SUMMARY................................................................................21 III. LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................23 A. JOB PERFORMANCE THEORIES ...........................................................23 1. Tacit Knowledge.................................................................................23 2. General Knowledge............................................................................24 B. RELATED STUDIES ....................................................................................24 C. CHAPTER SUMMARY................................................................................27 IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................29 A. DATABASE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................29 B. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................33 1. Dependent Variables..........................................................................36 2. Independent Variables.......................................................................38 a. Pre-Academy Experience........................................................38 b. Academy Experience...............................................................41 C. CHAPTER SUMMARY................................................................................45 V. DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................47 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................47 B. RESULTS .......................................................................................................47 1. Submarine Service Assignment