Describing Success by Gender Through the U.S. Army Officer Evaluation System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2019v7i1.pp56-63Keywords:
Text Mining, Sentiment Analysis, Gender, Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs)Abstract
The United States Army uses both subjective and objective evaluation methods when assessing the performance of duties and potential for future service in the Officer Evaluation Report (OER). Males and females proportionally receive the same objective ratings, but on the surface, it is difficult to determine whether subjective ratings are equal. This paper seeks to examine the different ways success is described in each gender and how the OER follows or deviates from these trends. Upon examination of narratives written on the evaluation reports, many of the same words are used to describe success of males and females in the narratives written by their raters. The similarities amongst the reports suggest that the narratives follow a standardized format which may devalue their purpose of providing individualized feedback to the officer and to promotion boards.References
DA Form 67-10-1: Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report. United States Army, November 2015.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2018). Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. In Rosenbach, W.E. (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ecklund, M. V. . M. (2006). Leading change: Could a joint OER (officer evaluation reports) be the catalyst of Army transformation? Military Review, (1), 71.
Enge, Eric (2015, May 13th). Inverse Document Frequency and the Importance of Uniqueness. Retrieved from Moz, Inc website: https://moz.com/blog/inverse-document-frequency-and-the-importance-of-uniqueness
Fallesen, J. (2017). Response to Col. Kevin McAninch’s ’how the Army’s multi-source assessment and feedback program could become a catalyst for leader development: (Military review, September-October 2016). Military Review, (1), 122.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (2), 397.
Kite, D.P. (1998). U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report; Why Are We Writing to Someone Who Isn’t Reading. (M. A. A. Air Command and Staff Coll., Ed.) (Vol. AU/ACSC/151/1998-04). Non Paid ADAS.
Pang, B. & Lee, L. (2008), "Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis", Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval: Vol. 2: No. 1–2, pp 1-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1500000011
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Rohal, M. (2015). Women and Leadership: Public Says Women are Equally Qualified, but Barriers Persist. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 1-56.
Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2019). Text Mining with R: A Tidy Approach. O’Reilly.
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., Nikolov, M. C., & Chaney, D. A. (2019). The Power of Language: Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, (3–4), 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0923-7
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., & Nikolov, M.C. (2018). The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-we-use-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders
Trobaugh, E. M. (2018). Women, Regardless: Understanding Gender Bias in U.S. Military Integration. Joint Force Quarterly, 88.
United States Army Human Resources Command. (2014). Revised Officer Evaluation Reports.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2018). Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. In Rosenbach, W.E. (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ecklund, M. V. . M. (2006). Leading change: Could a joint OER (officer evaluation reports) be the catalyst of Army transformation? Military Review, (1), 71.
Enge, Eric (2015, May 13th). Inverse Document Frequency and the Importance of Uniqueness. Retrieved from Moz, Inc website: https://moz.com/blog/inverse-document-frequency-and-the-importance-of-uniqueness
Fallesen, J. (2017). Response to Col. Kevin McAninch’s ’how the Army’s multi-source assessment and feedback program could become a catalyst for leader development: (Military review, September-October 2016). Military Review, (1), 122.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (2), 397.
Kite, D.P. (1998). U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report; Why Are We Writing to Someone Who Isn’t Reading. (M. A. A. Air Command and Staff Coll., Ed.) (Vol. AU/ACSC/151/1998-04). Non Paid ADAS.
Pang, B. & Lee, L. (2008), "Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis", Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval: Vol. 2: No. 1–2, pp 1-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1500000011
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Rohal, M. (2015). Women and Leadership: Public Says Women are Equally Qualified, but Barriers Persist. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 1-56.
Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2019). Text Mining with R: A Tidy Approach. O’Reilly.
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., Nikolov, M. C., & Chaney, D. A. (2019). The Power of Language: Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, (3–4), 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0923-7
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., & Nikolov, M.C. (2018). The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-we-use-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders
Trobaugh, E. M. (2018). Women, Regardless: Understanding Gender Bias in U.S. Military Integration. Joint Force Quarterly, 88.
United States Army Human Resources Command. (2014). Revised Officer Evaluation Reports.
Published
2019-12-31
How to Cite
Senft, E., Caddell, J., & Lensing, J. (2019). Describing Success by Gender Through the U.S. Army Officer Evaluation System. Industrial and Systems Engineering Review, 7(1), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2019v7i1.pp56-63
Issue
Section
Articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
The copyediting stage is intended to improve the flow, clarity, grammar, wording, and formatting of the article. It represents the last chance for the author to make any substantial changes to the text because the next stage is restricted to typos and formatting corrections. The file to be copyedited is in Word or .rtf format and therefore can easily be edited as a word processing document. The set of instructions displayed here proposes two approaches to copyediting. One is based on Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature and requires that the copy editor, editor, and author have access to this program. A second system, which is software independent, has been borrowed, with permission, from the Harvard Educational Review. The journal editor is in a position to modify these instructions, so suggestions can be made to improve the process for this journal.
