The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1362-0436.htm

Human resources challenges of Military to

civilian
military to civilian employment
transitions
employment transitions
John C. Dexter
Sorrell College of Business, HR, MGMT and Law, Troy University, Troy,
Alabama, USA Received 1 February 2019
Revised 12 August 2019
4 December 2019
17 March 2020
Abstract 7 April 2020
Purpose – Upon discharge, US service members experience an instantaneous immersion back into civilian life. 21 April 2020
One of the most challenging aspects of that reimmersion is the reentry/entry into the civilian workforce. As Accepted 27 April 2020
such, it is necessary to study the returning veteran’s employment experience when considering the veteran’s
civilian reintegration. The purpose of this study was to analyze and evaluate the returning veteran’s civilian
employment experience and to identify challenges faced by the veteran in the civilian onboarding experience.
Design/methodology/approach – This study is a qualitative analysis in which 27 military veterans were
interviewed about their experience with civilian reemployment. The results of the interviews were compiled,
analyzed and grouped by common theme. This study explains some of the major issues confronted by the
newly separated veteran and discusses how those challenges may influence job satisfaction and job
performance.
Findings – The analysis identified the following three main themes that posed challenges to the veteran to
civilian employment transition: civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit, veteran anxiety with civilian
employer’s lack of clearly defined new-hire processes and civilian employer misunderstanding of veteran
compensation, benefits and family involvement expectations.
Research limitations/implications – This study is beneficial to scholars in as much as it will help to more
clearly identify literature gaps, provide direction on emerging research concepts, add to the existing literature
on the veteran to civilian transitions and connect research areas that have not yet been adequately studied.
Future research would be well served to follow a similar program of research but by employing different
research methods in order to address the limitations outlined above and further support the findings of this
research. Specifically, future research should sample across a wider set of individuals as study participants
(time since discharge, age, military rank at time of separation, reserve status, etc.). By doing this, future
researchers may be able to determine how perceptions change over time and with regard to military experience.
A second area of future research may be to conduct related research based on civilian employment
opportunities and qualifications. Specific areas of study to be considered should be focused primarily on the
macro issues such as military leadership and translating military experiences and skill sets to civilian contexts.
Unlike other findings in this research, these two areas cannot be affected at the organizational level, and as such
require concept exploration and clarity.
Practical implications – This study provides guidance and direction for veterans and employers alike by
outlining areas that may be challenging for new-hire military veterans and bringing to light areas where the
civilian onboarding experience can improve to better accommodate veterans. Further, this study identifies
areas that directly or indirectly contribute to high veteran turnover rates and ultimately high veteran
unemployment rates.
Originality/value – This original quantitative study conducted by the author specifically identifies several
areas in the veteran to civilian employment transition that pose challenges for the returning veteran. All data
for this study were gathered and analyzed using first-hand face-to-face interviews and established data
analysis methods by the researcher.
Keywords Military veteran, Veteran recruiting, Veteran transition, Veteran employment, Veteran
reintegration, Military outplacement, Employee onboarding, New-hire orientation
Paper type Research paper

Background of the problem and the need for this study

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2015), former military personnel account for Career Development International
approximately 7.7% of the total civilian employment population in the USA. As of January © Emerald Publishing Limited
1362-0436
31, 2020, there were 1,358,290 active duty military personnel in the four branches of the DOI 10.1108/CDI-02-2019-0032
CDI United States military (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2020) and approximately 19,209,704
veterans in the United States (United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2020). In
response to the large military active duty and veteran population, veteran transition and
integration into the civilian workforce has drawn increased attention (McGregor, 2013).
The September 11 terrorist attacks facilitated a rise in patriotism in the United States
(Osanloo, 2011). As a result of this rise, the employment of veterans has solicited a strong
commitment from US employers to employ veterans (Rudstam et al., 2012; McGregor, 2013).
Many US employers such as BNSF Railroad, Home Depot and McDonald’s have committed to
aggressively pursuing and hiring veterans (Whitehouse Press Release Blog, 2014). Walmart,
specifically, committed to hiring any honorably discharged veteran within two years of their
discharge date (McGregor, 2013), and other major employers such as Deloitte, USAA and the
Blackstone Group have also announced major veteran-hiring initiatives (Whitehouse Press
Release Blog, 2014).
In 2011, AT&T Inc., Verizon, Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., Cisco Systems,
Cushman and Wakefield, EMC Corporation, Iron Mountain Incorporated, JPMorgan Chase
and Co., Modis, NCR Corporation and Universal Health Services, Inc., joined a partnership to
hire 100,000 veterans by 2020. By 2014, that coalition totaled more than 175 companies and
doubled their employment target to 200,000 (Curry Hall, Harrell, Bicksler, Stewart, and
Fisher, 2014).
On March 24, 2014, The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA)
as overseen by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was amended to
strengthen the law requiring that government contractors and subcontractors take
affirmative action to employ specific classifications of veterans protected by the act. These
protected veterans include Vietnam-era veterans, disabled veterans and veterans who served
on active duty during a war action that qualified for a campaign badge (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2015).
Given the large numbers of US veterans and the aggressive veteran-recruiting
commitments by major employers, there is a strong need to evaluate veteran employment
transitions. This study is such an evaluation. Specifically, this study and the associated
analysis offer important perspectives to civilian employer leadership in three distinct and
unique ways. First, while there are many comprehensive studies on selecting, hiring and
onboarding employees, there are no existing studies that identify the challenges veterans
experience when transitioning to civilian employment. Second, this study is of great
importance and significance due to the large number of veterans entering the workforce and
the passionate commitment of employers to hire them. Third, understanding the experiences
and expectations of veteran employees as they first enter the civilian workforce will provide a
solid foundation for effectively hiring, onboarding and retaining veterans regardless of
industry or professional niche.

Problem statement
There has been extensive research and analysis conducted on the challenges of the returning
veteran’s reintegration into civilian life in general, but there has been minimal research
conducted on post-military reintegration in the civilian workforce specifically (e.g. Adler et al.,
2011; Ostovary and Dapprich, 2011).
The question as to how to successfully and effectively transition the large number of
exiting veterans into civilian employment has become more and more important due to the
renewed commitments from US employers to hire veterans (Curry Hall et al., 2014; McGregor,
2013; Rudstam et al., 2012; Whitehouse Press Release Blog, 2014). Making this question more
complicated is that veterans have a difficult time understanding the differences between
civilian and military benefits and between familial support and general lifestyle, and these
key differences are often overlooked by civilian employers (Arendt and Sapp, 2014).
 This study analyzes and evaluates the returning veteran’s civilian employment Military to
experience and identifies some of the challenges faced by the veteran in the civilian civilian
onboarding experience. By way of qualitative research (interviews), this paper explores and
compares the differences between military and civilian employment infrastructure and
employment
evaluates the similarities and differences identified in the comparison. The results of the transitions
study enable a determination to be made as to how the perceived differences affect the new
veteran’s civilian work experiences.

Literature review
The literature review of this study focuses on exploring some of the differences between
civilian and military employment and some of the challenges returning veterans face when
transitioning to civilian employment. There is considerable research on veteran employment
in civilian contexts, and most of it focuses on returning veterans with significant disabilities
and the challenges that they face reentering the civilian employment market (Davis et al.,
2019; Harrod et al., 2017; Winters, 2018). There is also some research that generically focuses
on veteran to civilian employment transitions (Burnett-Zeigler et al., 2011; Chicas et al., 2012;
Keeling et al., 2019; Kirchner and Akdere, 2019; Kleycamp, 2013; Little, and Alenkin, 2011).
This study, however, is unique in that the research focuses on the returning veteran’s hiring
and onboarding experiences and does not differentiate among any specific personal
challenges that the returning veteran may have.
This literature review was developed by researching keywords and their
interrelationships. The main keywords were identified by utilizing the topic flow from
military and civilian employment differences to their impact on the transitioning veteran’s
experience. The literature review was conducted in order to identify and consider the
differences between veteran and civilian employment as well as how those differences
manifest themselves in the civilian context. Search topics were chosen after conducting
preliminary research utilizing peer-reviewed academic journals and government agency
reports since 2001. The year 2001 was chosen as the historical beginning for the research as it
was the year in which the renewed commitments from US employers to aggressively pursue
and hire veterans began.

Military leadership
According to the U.S. Department of the Army, an Army leader as “anyone who by virtue of
assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish
organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of
command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the
organization” (Department of Headquarters, Department of Army, 2006, p. 1–1).
Creech (2004) states that military leaders are role models that lead by example and are
adept at leading by utilizing authority and influence. Creech’s requirements of military
leadership are not different than those demonstrated by effective civilian leaders; however,
military and civilian leaders are unique to one another, and each has its own strengths and
weaknesses (Horn, 2014).
Weber (1947) identified six “classical attributes of bureaucracy”: specialization,
meritocracy, hierarchy, separate ownership, impersonality and accountability. Military
leadership is dependent primarily on one of Weber’s attributes, hierarchy. “Hierarchy is the
foundation military service lawfully exercises over subordinates by virtue of rank or
assignment” (Department of Army, 2006, p. 2–3). It is, therefore important to civilian
employment in that it is indicative of skill sets that directly affect a veteran’s probability of
success in a civilian work capacity (Horn, 2014).
CDI Military jobs and occupational specialties
A Military Occupational Specialty or MOS is the military name for the titles and
responsibilities of the job that a military service member holds while in the military. Every
MOS is unique and is supported by more than 2,000 courses and 84,000 personnel (Kirin and
Winkler, 1992). As of 2019, there were in excess of 700 specific and unique jobs in the military
(Today’s Military.com, 2019).
MOSs are specific to the military and do not wholly exist in civilian contexts due to the
sociopolitical mission(s) of the military as influenced by global politics and societal mandates
(Bardies, 2013). As such, formal civilian education is absent and the specialized military
training that the veteran received in the military “does not necessarily translate to the civilian
world” (Pease et al., 2015, p. 84). In fact, many veterans feel as if their skills cannot translate
effectively from the military to civilian employment due to the fact that their MOS provided
them with a level of responsibility, security clearance, training and supervisor experience that
was no longer available to them in the civilian workforce (Harrod et al., 2017).

Military compensation and benefits

According to Hosek and MacDermid-Wadsworth (2013), “service members typically earn
more than civilians with a comparable level of education” (p. 41). That is primarily because
service members and private sector employees are compensated for work performed in
different ways. Specifically, civilian employees generally receive a base pay rate and in some
instances bonuses that are generally in the form of cash or company stock. Civilian
compensation models are generally aligned with industry characteristics (Baker et al., 1988).
Military compensation, however, is a combination of many different pay components such as
regular base compensation, professional pay, hazardous duty pay, sea duty pay, family
separation pay, specialized duty assignment pay, commuted rations and enlistment/
reenlistment bonuses (Duenas, 2009).
Additionally, service members are eligible for 30 days of paid vacation annually as well as
situational leave for things like pending deployments, morale building, medical,
convalescent, bereavement and the birth of a child. Military benefits such as medical,
dental, vision and life insurance are paid for in full by the military with no out-of pocket
expenses for the service member (Department of Defense, 2011).

The military as “family”

Ahern et al. (2015) state that the military is an organization that takes care of its members, and
that former military members describe the military as family. They describe the military
system as something to “hold onto in the chaos of a war zone” (p. 5) as well as a vehicle to
provide an opportunity to excel. As such, the veteran returning to civilian life is faced with the
challenges of reconnection. These challenges are manifested in four reintegration themes: a)
disconnection, b) unsupportive institutions c) lack of civilian structure and d) loss of purpose
(Ahern, et al., 2015).
Most veterans experience conditions and events that are foreign to the civilian experience
(Pease et al., 2015). In addition to the unique and often devastating effects of combat, there are
military-specific environmental challenges as well. Specific examples include close-quarter
living situations such as in tents or on naval vessels, prolonged exposure to natural elements,
hostile environments and extensive family separation (United States Department of Defense,
2012). In order to more effectively cope with the hardships inherent to the military experience,
veterans often view the military as “a ‘family’ that took care of service members and provided
a structured set of expectations” (Ahern et al., 2015, p. 4).
Military onboarding and new hire training Military to
The military has a robust selection process that is just as important as the specific and civilian
regimented onboarding and initial military training process. According to Today’s
Military.com (2019), basic enlisted selection and onboarding consists of five main steps;
employment
transitions
(1) Satisfactory completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)
(2) Satisfactory completion of a physical-readiness examination
(3) Career selection
(4) Oath of enlistment
(5) Report for basic training
The first four of these steps are completed during a single visit at an area’s Military Enlisted
Processing Facility (MEPS) over a one or two day period. Generally, a new recruit has a “ship-
out” date before leaving the MEPS facility.
Upon reporting for duty, both officers and enlisted personnel are engaged in a form of
basic training which varies based on military branch (Military.com, 2018). Basic training is
then followed by several weeks and/or months of specific job training. In some cases such as
naval nuclear specialties, military training can be more than a year-and-a-half-long
(Department of Defense, 1992). In contrast, civilian new hire training as provided by the
employer lasts generally only a day or two, most of which is human resources orientation
(Dunn, and Jasinski, 2009).
In all cases, the onboarding and training process in the military is highly structured. All
new service members have a clear understanding of what the process will be as well as clear
expectations of important dates, times and places (Today’s Military.com, 2019).
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for civilian employees.

Research questions
The goal of this study was to analyze and evaluate the returning veteran’s civilian
employment experience and to identify challenges faced by the veteran in the civilian
onboarding experience. This study also evaluates how the onboarding experience(s) affects
the ex-service member’s adjustment to and satisfaction with civilian employment’s way of
interviews and first-hand perceptions.

Method
A qualitative phenomenological research structure was determined to be the most
appropriate research strategy for this study. Specifically, the qualitative design method
was chosen as it allows for the subjectivity of the veteran participant and for detailed
discussion on topics of concerns (Merriam, 2014). Utilizing a qualitative research method, the
researcher was able to provide a richer, more in-depth analysis by utilization of detailed
questioning since, as Merriam (2014) states, “individual respondents define the world in
unique ways” (p. 90).
Consistent with Merriam’s observation (above), this study is designed to effectively
explore the recently discharged veteran’s transition to civilian employment. Using a
phenomenological approach, participants were interviewed and the interviewee’s verbatim
descriptions of their personal experiences were captured in order to identify their personal
experiences and their personal interpretations of those experiences.
While overall population of veterans is in excess of seven million (United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2020), a sample of 27 recently separated veterans (within ten
CDI years) from a geographically diverse population was utilized for this study. Participants in
the study were selected by way of purposive sampling that included those that (1) separated
from one of the four branches of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) within
ten years of this interview and (2) had been employed in a full-time civilian capacity since
their military discharge.
Only veterans of the US Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps were used for this study.
The US Coast Guard was not utilized as it is a division of the Department of Homeland
Security, and not the Department of Defense, and as such Coast Guard veterans may not have
the same military experience as veterans from the other four branches of the military. As an
example of a significant difference, Coast Guard service members are not subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) except during time of war when they become a
division of the US Navy (Walsh, 2018). Further, the missions of the Coast Guard primarily
focus on law enforcement and homeland security; they do not identify part of their mission as
being involved in overseas conflicts, although they are occasionally deployed to foreign ports.
As such, deployments are generally shorter, operating units are smaller and family
separation is limited as compared to the other branches of the military (Crea, 2007;
Stiehm, 2012).
From a demographic research perspective, the US Coast Guard consists of approximately
41,000 active duty members, while the Army alone consists of 561,000 active duty members.
When compared to the entire population of the US Military of 1.4 million, the Coast Guard
makes up less than 3% of the total active duty population (Stiehm, 2012). In consideration of
the Coast Guard’s relatively small percentage of the total veteran population and the potential
for different experiences while on active duty which could affect the veteran’s transition
experience, Coast Guard veterans were not included in this study.

Data collection and analysis

The interview questions were developed by the researcher and feedback solicited from three
human resource-related PhDs each with more than 20 years of practical interviewing
experience. Additionally, six preliminary interviews were conducted as a vehicle to refine
interview questions and identify initial codes that formed the primary themes of this research,
thereby maximizing interview effectiveness (Merriam, 2014).
Participants were selected randomly from geographically diverse independent sources so
as to get a representative sample of the general US veteran population. Purposive sampling
was used to identify interview participants who were most likely to be able to provide
meaningful contribution to the research as a result of their non-discriminatory demographic
make-up (Maxwell, 2012). Since there is no set rule for the size of a qualitative sample (Kvale,
1996; Maxwell, 2012), an initial target of 30 participants was assumed to be sufficient to
gather the amount of data required to address the research question at hand (Patton, 2002).
That number was adjusted during the course of the research to 27, which was deemed
sufficient due to similarity of the collected data (Merriam, 2014).
The recruitment sampling yielded 27 veterans from 20 different civilian employers. Six
participants were working in human resource-related fields, one in health and wellness, four
as retail store managers, three as school teachers, five in clinical/medical capacities, six in
entry level retail capacities and two were unemployed. Sixteen of the participants were male
and eleven were female. Data gathered for this study compromised demographic information
including age, education and military experience as well as the subject’s employer tenure and
experience. Subject interviews were conducted by three independent interviewers and lasted
approximately 60 min each. All interviews were conducted in a private location in order to
ensure subject anonymity. Each interviewee was advised of the purpose of the research, as
well as the confidentiality of the data gathered during the research. Each interview was
digitally recorded and transcribed for data collection accuracy.
 In order to minimize the impact of gender bias on this study, 16 of the participants were Military to
male and 11 were female. Additionally, 25 of the 27 participants were actively employed in the civilian
civilian workforce; 17 were between the ages of 26–35 and ten were older than 35. Sixteen of
the participants had been employed by his/her current employer for between one and three
employment
years, and 15 participants had been in his/her current position for more than three years. Six transitions
participants were from the Western US, ten from the Southern US, four from the Midwest and
six from the East coast which allowed for a diverse geographical sample.
Since it is impossible to determine the relative experience and/or knowledge of civilian
employment that a former service member may have from sources other than first-hand
participatory experience, there was no attempt to differentiate that experience/knowledge
prior to data collection.
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 27 veterans. The semi-
structured interview technique was chosen as it allowed for a free flow of follow-up questions
and provided for flexibility of direction of the interview (Merriam, 2014). This was deemed
important because the research was focused on individual experience and perceptions and
was not looking for any specific areas or opinions. A single interviewer conducted, recorded
and analyzed all of the interviews that he/she participated in and all three interviewers were
careful to ask the written interview questions exactly the same way to each participant in
order to help minimize intra-interviewer variability (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Participants
were asked specific questions from the semi-structured interview guide as well as
demographic-oriented questions such as age, education and military and civilian
employment experience. Participants were also asked to describe their perceptions,
experiences and recommendations for transitioning and onboarding veterans at their
employer. The interview questions were separated into three distinct sections consistent with
the themes identified in the initial pilot interviews. The researchers did, however, allow for
some free-flow dialogue and unstructured discussion after gathering initial perspectives from
the verbatim written questions in order to enrich the quality of the responses. Participants
were encouraged to elaborate on questions that they felt were most important.
The initial phase of the interviews asked participants to reflect on their experience with
the civilian employee selection process. This concept was clarified with the participants as
being “all activities prior to their first day of employment.” Specifically, participants were
asked to think about their experience applying for civilian jobs and reflect on their
experiences (e.g. how would you describe your experience applying civilian jobs? What did
you find were the biggest challenges for you in the process? What, if anything, did you find
surprising?). The respondents were also asked how they overcame the challenges (e.g. How
did you deal with the challenges you faced? What did the employer do to assist you?).
The second phase of the interviews focused on onboarding and integration. This section
was clarified with the participant as being their first experiences “on the job,” including their
first day(s), orientation, training and general preparation for successful employment. Specific
questions were asked about the job offer and first day scheduling (e.g. What did the job offer
experience consist of? What was challenging and/or surprising to you about the process?).
Additional questions were asked about the onboarding, orientation and training experiences
(e.g. What did the onboarding, orientation and training process consist of? What was
challenging and/or surprising to you about the process? Was it effective? Did you feel fully
prepared for your new job?).
The third and last phase of the interviews focused on compensation, benefits and family
involvement. This section consisted of questions about the tangible value of civilian
employment (e.g. Are you compensated hourly or by monthly salary? Describe your
compensation exclusive of benefits and time off. Is your pay consistent with your
expectations? Did you fully understand how you would be paid prior to your first day? Were
you surprised by your compensation?). Additional questions were regarding the benefits and
CDI time-off packages (e.g. Describe the benefits package at your employer? Is it consistent with
your expectations? Were you surprised or disappointed in the benefits offered to you?) and
work-load/family involvement (e.g. Are you compensated fairly for your workload? Does
your job meet your expectations of time off and family involvement? Describe your family’s
involvement in work-related activities if any).
Each qualitative interview lasted approximately 60 min, and the interviews were
conducted in various private offices and by telephone. Keeping in mind that the individuals
themselves can define and elaborate on their experiences better than anyone else (Harr
e and
Secord, 1976), every interview was synthesized and recapped at the end of questioning in
order to ensure that the participant’s perspectives were accurately captured.
The transcriptions of all 27 participants were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun
and Clarke, 2006) and the “derived etic” approach to qualitative research (Berry, 1989). These
techniques allowed the researchers to evaluate the transcripts for common themes indicating
similarities in the participant’s military to civilian employment transition. Consistent with the
recommendation of Ulin et al. (2005), the researchers familiarized themselves with the
collected data and content by way of repeated reading and rereading of interview transcripts
in order to determine similar response meanings and ultimately code similar responses into
categorical themes and subthemes (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). Specifically, data
collected through the interviews were evaluated by breaking down each concept or thought
into as many specific and unique codes as possible. These “first-level codes” were then
combined, and consistent concepts were further grouped into more general “second-level
codes” and ultimately into specific categories encompassing “broad analytic themes”
(Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 588).
The participant transcripts and codes were compared with the goal of establishing a
discriminant coding capability greater than 80% (Miles and Huberman, 1984). This score was
calculated using simple proportion agreement method because the qualitative nature of the
analysis was designed to merely classify the responses into broad categories and because the
research was an exploratory study. As such, the simple proportion agreement was deemed a
satisfactory and appropriate approach (Kurasaki, 2000). As further verification of interrater
reliability, Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated (87.2%) in order to further assess the
accuracy of the data analysis as well as to verify the consistency of the research methods
(Thomas and Magilvy, 2011). Krippendorff’s alpha was specifically chosen as it was
developed to specifically “measure the agreement among observers, coders, judges, raters, or
measuring instruments drawing distinctions among typically unstructured phenomena or
assign computable values to them (Krippendorff, 2011, p. 1).” The Krippendorff’s alpha score
of 87.2% for this analysis was deemed satisfactory as it is greater than the target score of
80% (Krippendorff, 2011).

Findings
The findings of the study identified three main issues that the interviewees had with the
civilian employment process: 1. civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit, 2. veteran
anxiety with civilian employers lack of clearly defined new-hire processes and 3. civilian
employer’s misunderstanding of veteran compensation, benefits and family involvement
expectations. Respondents in this study identified challenges in all three themes and within
the context of their initial military to civilian employment transition.

Theme one: civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit

The respondents in this study consistently (100%) identified a lack of value for and/or a lack
of understanding of how to evaluate the value of prior military service in the civilian
workforce. They elaborated that the lack of understanding is even more profound when Military to
considering veterans for civilian management roles. One hundred percent of the participants civilian
in this study forwarded that “leadership” occurs at all levels in the military which is
consistent with Steihm (2012), that states and that most military personnel (in good standing)
employment
rise to the rank of at least an E 4 and therefor are a supervisor/manager by definition. Within transitions
the civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit theme, respondents identified two
major questions for civilian employers as follows: How do we best utilize a veteran employee
with significant management experience? How do we translate military experience to civilian
applicability in a meaningful and realistic way?
The lack of recognition by civilian employers of the management/leadership experience of
military veterans was illustrated by one participant as follows;
By the time you make it out of basic and initial training, most soldiers have been promoted a couple of
times. . . either as incentives for completing school or based on merit. So, by the time he/she gets to
their first “real” duty station, they will be in some sort of supervisory capacity. That experience and
responsibility only grows throughout their service time. So, you will routinely have 22 year old
veterans with several years of supervisory experience upon completion of a military enlistment but
they are not employable in a civilian supervisory capacity. It makes no sense (Male, 42, Retail
Management).
The concept of the transfer of supervisory experience from the military to civilian
employment becomes even more profound when comparing the different types of military
leadership. Within the military, leadership and management have multiple meanings, and
100% of participants in this study stated that civilian employers should not only consider
management capability but also what capacity the transitioning manager will be working in.
As an example, one respondent stated;
A front line or department manager at Walmart may be more suitable for an enlisted leader while a
Commissioned Officer may be more suitable for a more strategic manager role such as a logistics
manager. While pure leadership experience may be similar between enlisted and commissioned
officers, understanding the difference between the general and role experiences of officers and
enlisted is very important (Male, 22, retail warehouse worker).
The overwhelming belief of participants interviewed (92.6%) in this study was that enlisted
leadership personnel (E-4–E-9) are more effective civilian managers due to the similarities in
hands-on management/leadership experiences between both military and civilian “people”
management positions. Enlisted leaders were viewed as being more hands-on and
participatory in their management practice. Commissioned officers, on the other hand,
were viewed as being more strategic and directive.
The second main concept within the civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit
theme identified by the participants in this study was the translation of skill sets from the
military to civilian employment. Separate from the supervisory experiences outlined above,
the military service member’s job and its relative level of responsibility were also identified.
According to the data collected and analyzed for this study, the veteran’s MOS is as
important or often more important than rank when selecting a successful employee/manager
for civilian employment. Further, selecting veterans who had military work responsibilities
and environments similar to those in civilian employment was seen as having a higher
probability of success. As one participant stated;
Some of these guys (veterans) have served as Nuclear Reactor Operators in the Navy. They had
responsibility for managing a nuclear power plant when in the Navy but when they are discharged
as an E-4 or E-5, they end up working at low end menial jobs with little to no real responsibility and
quit after a short time (Female, 27, HR Project Manager).
CDI Theme 2: veteran anxiety with civilian employer’s lack of clearly defined new-hire processes
Onboarding. Consistent with the descriptions of military onboarding by the Department of
Defense (1992), and Today’s Military.com (2019), this study’s respondents clearly identified
significant and challenging differences between military and civilian new-hire employment
processes. Specifically, respondents expressed frustration with the lack of a clearly defined
interview, selection and onboarding process during their initial transition to civilian
employment. In all, 66% of the participants in the study identified that they felt “in the dark”
or in “limbo” while waiting for a job offer from a civilian employer. They explained that when
they joined the military, the entire process was clearly defined and took at most a few days.
However, when they applied for a civilian job, they felt as if there were many interviews
spread out over days or weeks and the hiring process seemed to be ad hoc and not well
defined. One participant explained his perception of the civilian interview and onboarding
process as follows;
It seems like hiring is a low priority and not well organized. I was invited in for an interview with the
hiring manager who was not available so I met with a recruiter after I had to wait for nearly an hour.
Then I had to come back and meet with the manager that I was supposed to meet with the first time.
Two days later I was contacted by a lab to schedule a drug screening which I knew nothing about.
Then, once everything was a “go,” I had to wait four weeks for a class date. It was a mess. (Male, 30,
Medical Coordinator).
Another participant echoed the sentiment;
Once the job offer was extended, the delay for a start date was excessive . . . it took them several
weeks to confirm a start date for me while they waited for a new “book of business” to be boarded.
Once I started, training was shortened so the new business could be worked. (Male, 23, Sales)
New-hire training. One hundred percent of the respondents were disappointed in the
civilian training and guidance they received when beginning their first civilian job.
Respondents explained that formal training is only minimally available when beginning
civilian employment as compared to military training. They stated that most military
training programs include between six and twelve weeks of basic training followed by
between ten and twenty weeks of job training specific to a service member’s military job
(MOS), but that civilian “orientation” training is at most followed by “a few days of training”
(3 respondents) or by less formal “on the job training” (16 respondents) which lacks structure
and direction. One respondent explained her civilian experience as follows;
It is more like bumping your head in the dark until you figure it out! (Female, 22, Clerical).
Another respondent stated,
It was weird. The military taught you how to tie your shoes again then built up from there. In my first
civilian job, they spent four hours going over benefits and paperwork then sent me to lunch.
Everything about the job itself, I learned from others at work . . . mostly peers because the supervisor
was rarely available. (Male, 31, Retail).

Theme 3: civilian employer misunderstanding of veteran compensation, benefits and family

involvement expectations
Compensation. Respondents in this study described the various compensation opportunities
in the military as being regular base compensation, professional pay, hazardous duty pay, sea
duty pay, family separation pay, specialized duty assignment pay, commuted rations and
enlistment/reenlistment bonuses as well as 30 days of paid vacation. More than half (52%)
of the respondents in this study expressed their initial misunderstanding and dissatisfaction
with common civilian compensation structures. Specifically, there was a feeling that
there was little consideration for circumstance or adversity in civilian compensation.
The respondents equated civilian compensation with military “base pay,” and they felt that it Military to
was misleading that it was not communicated to them that there was no additional “add-on” civilian
pay such as the military “add-on” pay as outlined above. One participant described his
experience as follows;
employment
transitions
I never really had a job before I went in the military so the military was my only experience. I just
assumed that everybody paid you like the military and I certainly never understood that my health
benefits were paid for out of my paycheck! In the Army, healthcare is free so you get your whole
check! (Male, 24, Retail).

Benefits. Military service members receive additional benefits that are rarely available or
completely unavailable from civilian employers. Specific examples are on-base child care,
no-cost (or near no-cost) dependent and service member health care, guarantee of quality
educational opportunities for school-age children and college tuition reimbursement by way
of the GI Bill or through various military and VA programs (Department of Defense, 2011).
The respondents to this study point out that while many of the programs and benefits
offered to military service men and women are available in some form to civilians in the
civilian workplace, they are cost-prohibitive as they are not significantly subsidized by the
employer.
One respondent pointed out that military base pay is inclusive of the cost for benefits. As
she stated,
In civilian employment, your take home pay is reduced by benefits costs such as retirement, life
insurance and health/dental premiums. In the military, there is no cost for those benefits. That was
surprising to say the least! (Female, 22, Clerical).
Five (19%) of this study’s respondents did not anticipate any of the pay deductions for
benefits and as such felt “slighted” by the employer.

Family involvement. The participants in this study identified a significant difference in

family involvement between the military and civilian employment. During times of
deployment or training overseas, at sea or in other temporary duty locations, family
separation can be long and difficult. However, at the service member’s assigned duty station,
there are many initiatives and programs designed to enhance family support and
involvement, such as Family Readiness Groups, Organized Volunteer Opportunities,
Organized Team Building Activities and adjusted Work Days/Working Hours, that are all
designed to help build cohesive support networks for family members while service members
are deployed.
All of the respondents in this study stated that family involvement in civilian employer
activities was all but nonexistent. None of the participants in this study were able to identify
any examples of where family and work came together. Several respondents identified times
when their employers held barbecues or holiday parties, but those were for employees only
and did not include employee’s families. The consensus of all respondents was that unlike
military employment, civilian employment and “home life” are entirely separate. As one
respondent stated;
The Navy is all about family. They even say that the toughest job in the Navy is the Navy wife. Since
you’re gone from home port so much, they make it a point to involve the family as often as they can.
Your family can come eat dinner with you on the ship when you have duty. Ship picnics are family
affairs and they even try to arrange housing so that ship’s families are housed nearby each other. I do
not think my civilian boss even knows that I am married! (Male, 32, Finance Manager).
CDI Discussion
The first six months of a new worker’s employment is paramount to his or her probability of
staying with the organization (Tarquinio, 2006). Further, employment stability directly and
positively impacts an organization’s performance, reduces recruiting costs and increases the
retention of intellectual capital associated with job and firm knowledge (Ulrich et al., 1991).
In consideration of the costs of turnover outlined above as well as the aggressive
commitments by US employers to hire veterans, it is increasingly important for practitioners
to “get it right” when it comes to selecting and onboarding ex-military new hires.
Understanding the unique challenges associated with hiring and onboarding veterans is an
invaluable asset for employers committed to hiring veterans.
This study analyzed and evaluated the returning veteran’s civilian employment
experience and identified challenges faced by the veteran in the civilian employment
transition. Using qualitative research techniques, this study explored the returning veteran’s
civilian employment experience and clearly outlined the challenges that veterans face when
entering civilian employment for the first time. This research identified three main themes as
follows; 1. civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit, 2. veteran anxiety with civilian
employer’s lack of clearly defined new-hire processes and 3. civilian employer’s
misunderstanding of veteran compensation, benefits and family involvement expectations.
Within the civilian employer’s military job knowledge deficit theme, the results of the
study as it relates to military supervisory/leadership skills are consistent with previous
research by Creech (2004), Department of Army (2006), Horn (2014), Peters (2009), Weber
(1947) and Williamson (1999). Additionally, the findings of this research are also consistent
with previous research by Bush and Middlewood (2005), Feldman (1996), Johnson and
Johnson (2000) and Maynard et al. (2006) that identify challenges with interpreting the civilian
value of MOSs. The results of this study clearly and demonstrably show that military skill
sets and specific job specialties are challenging for civilian employers to interpret. The
resulting affect for employers and veterans alike is an increased probability of job
dissatisfaction and ultimately turnover due to the veteran’s feelings of underemployment
(Feldman, 1996; Maynard et al., 2006; Johnson and Johnson, 2000; Sim and Lee, 2018; Wang,
2018). This is primarily due to the fact that negative or positive job perceptions are a result of
the employee’s emotional perspective, the employment conditions, job expectations and
connection to the work (Bush and Middlewood, 2005). More concisely, a veteran employee’s
“perceptions of over qualification are associated with intentions to quit one’s job” (Maynard
et al., 2006, p. 530) as they negatively impact job satisfaction (Johnson and Johnson, 2000).
And, feelings of underemployment directly affect the veteran’s work attitudes, health (both
physical and mental), job performance, organizational citizenship, absenteeism and
ultimately turnover (Feldman, 1996; Johnson and Johnson, 2000).
Likewise, the theme of veteran anxiety with civilian employer’s lack of clearly defined
new-hire processes such as time to board and new-hire training are supported and
comparable to findings in previous research. Consistent with the descriptions of military
onboarding by the Department of Defense (1992), Dunn and Jasinski (2009), and Today’s
Military.com (2019), this study’s respondents clearly identified significant and challenging
differences between military and civilian new-hire employment processes. Specifically,
respondents expressed frustration with the lack of a clearly defined interview, selection and
onboarding process during their initial transition to civilian employment. This lack of
effective communication surrounding expectations results in a loss of an employee’s feelings
of organizational commitment and involvement. According to Ehlers (2003) and Johlke and
Duhan (2000), these feelings of disconnection will ultimately result in increased job
dissatisfaction and turnover intent. As such, it can be concluded that the veteran’s perceived
lack of communication and structure relating to the civilian new-hire process can result in
increased veteran turnover in civilian employment. Regardless of whether these feelings are
the result of inadequate employer structure or the result of unreasonable expectations based Military to
on the military experience, the ultimate effect is the same . . . increased veteran turnover. civilian
Previous research has demonstrated that training is of paramount importance to
minimizing organizational turnover (Conley and Kadrlik, 2010) and has further showed that
employment
lack of effective new-hire training increases turnover probability (Versloot et al., 2001). When transitions
evaluating the veteran’s perception of the adequacy of new-hire training in the civilian
context, this study demonstrates that civilian employer new-hire training is woefully absent
as compared to the military training experience. In consideration that the perception of new-
hire training directly impacts employee “satisfaction, performance, commitment, turnover,
intent to leave, and stress” (Dunn and Jasinski, 2009, p. 1115), this research highlights the
dissatisfaction of civilian new-hire training standards by military veterans.
“Service members typically earn more than civilians with a comparable level of education”
(Hosek and MacDermid-Wadsworth, 2013, p. 41), and service members and private sector
employees are compensated for work performed in different ways. This research
demonstrates that the real and perceived differences between military and civilian
compensation and benefits are significant and are of concern to the veteran joining the
civilian workforce for the first time. These results are consistent with previous research by
Baker et al. (1988); (Department of Defense, 2011) and Hosek and MacDermid-Wadsworth
(2013) and confirm that there are significant differences between compensation and benefits
between the military and civilian employment.
Shah (1998) and Mobley (1982) agree that compensation directly affects an employee’s
work dissatisfaction, and ultimately turnover intention. Further, Adams and Jacobsen (1964)
forwards that an employee’s perception of fairness of compensation is directly related to the
perception of value for the applicable job performance. This research supports those concepts
and further demonstrates that the feeling of pay inequity, whether real or perceived, is of
significant concern to the veteran in a first civilian job.
Additionally, the results of this research follow and confirm previous research that
forwards that the military is an organization that takes care of its members and that former
military members describe the military as family (Ahern et al., 2015, p. 5–6). Specifically, this
research translates the feelings of loss of the pseudo-familial support structures in the
military as identified by Ahern et al. (2015) to the civilian employment experience. This
research demonstrates that not only does the loss of the familial military structure affect the
returning veteran from a general societal perspective but that it also affects that veteran in
the smaller but just as significant employment perspective. The feelings expressed by the
participants in this study are consistent with previous research that demonstrates that family
involvement results in commitment to the organization (Wayne et al., 2013) and increased job
satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2013) and therefore lower veteran employee
turnover (McNall et al., 2010).

Implications for practice and research

The findings of this study have significant practical implications for both civilian and
military organizations as well as individuals with a desire to address or at least be aware of
some of the challenges with the veteran to civilian employment transition.
First, this study will assist military veterans entering the civilian workplace by bringing
to their attention some of the challenges and differences that they will face in civilian
employment. By making this information available to the newly separated veteran, it may
allow for more comfortable transitions by eliminating surprises and clarifying civilian
employment expectations. Veterans entering the civilian workforce for the first time should
be aware that there will be significant differences in their civilian employment experience.
The three main themes outlined in this paper as well as the subcategories will provide the
CDI newly separated veteran with a clear outline of some of the challenges that he/she is likely to
face in civilian employment.
Second, the results of this study will assist human resources and recruiting/staffing
professionals in developing strategies to assist veterans in their transition to civilian
employment. This assistance will improve the veteran’s likelihood of success and ultimately
limit an employer’s exposure to the increased costs associated with low morale and high
turnover. Practitioners will be able to apply some of the learnings in this study to enhance an
employee’s “fit” in the job and the employer community, thereby increasing the likelihood of
retention (Mitchell et al., 2001). Further, organizations will benefit from this research by
understanding the differences and potentially making the work environment more “veteran
friendly” by considering changes to compensation, benefits and family involvement.
Finally, this study is beneficial to scholars in as much as it will help to more clearly identify
literature gaps, provide direction on emerging research concepts, add to the existing
literature on the veteran to civilian transitions and connect research areas that have not yet
been adequately studied. Future research would be well served to follow a similar program of
research but by employing different research methods in order to address the limitations
outlined above and further support the findings of this research. Specifically, future research
should sample across a wider set of individuals as study participants (time since discharge,
age, military rank at time of separation, reserve status, etc.). By doing this, future researchers
may be able to determine how perceptions change over time and with regard to military
experience. A second area of future research may be to conduct related research based on
civilian employment opportunities and qualifications. Specific areas of study to be considered
should be focused primarily on the macro issues such as military leadership and translating
military experiences and skill sets to civilian contexts. Unlike other findings in this research,
these two areas cannot be affected at the organizational level, and as such require concept
exploration and clarity.
Additional research should be conducted by way of a quantitative study in order to
statistically support this research while identifying and minimizing the effects of inputs from
sources external to the study.

Limitations
A small sample size of 27 subjects was used for this study. As such, there is concern that there
may not be sufficient relevant data gathered and a representative sample of behavioral
indicators may not have been collected. Further, this study may suffer from the limitations
inherent to self-reporting and the vehicle for data collection (Breakwell, 2006). Also, since the
researchers are the exclusive collectors and analyzers of the collected data, the results are
somewhat dependent on their abilities, perspectives, integrity and predispositions (Hamel,
1993). As Guba and Lincoln (1981, p. 378) state, “An unethical case writer could so select from
among available data that virtually anything he wished could be illustrated.”

Conclusions
Although the US Military and the Veterans Administration offer a large number of
government programs designed to assist veterans as they prepare for civilian “life,” they are
not all-encompassing and not all veterans will have utilized them. Although post-9/11 veteran
hiring initiatives have markedly decreased the overall veteran unemployment rate to less
than the national average (Dunne and Blank, 2018), this study demonstrates that it is
imperative that employers have a thorough understanding of the veteran employment
transition experience if they intend on maximizing the opportunity for the veteran’s success.
 By utilizing a qualitative research approach, this study is the first to identify and elaborate Military to
on the challenges faced by veterans entering civilian employment for the first time. This civilian
study identified several areas of onboarding and the initial employment experience that are
markedly different between the military and civilian employment experience. Further, this
employment
research also identified and outlined some of the challenges to the onboarding process that transitions
could be revised in order to make the veteran’s civilian employment transition experience less
challenging and more rewarding.
In conclusion, this paper serves to remind employers and returning veterans that while
there are many similarities between military and civilian employment, they can be very
different. As such, veteran new hires may not fully understand what unexpected challenges
await them and employers may not fully understand how these challenges may affect their
veteran new hires. This study offers an invitation for returning service members,
practitioners and academics alike to take a proactive role in considering the differences
and challenges veterans face when transitioning from the military to civilian employment for
the first time.

References
Adams, J.S. and Jacobsen, P.R. (1964), “Effects of wage inequities on work quality”, The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, p. 19.
Adler, A.B., Zamorski, M. and Britt, T.W. (2011), “The psychological of transition: adapting to home
after deployment”, in Adler, A.B. and Castro, C.A. (Eds), Deployment Psychology: Evidence-Based
Strategies to Promote Mental Health in the Military, American Psychological Association,
Washington DC, pp. 153-174, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12300-006.
Ahern, J., Worthen, M., Masters, J., Lippman, S.A., Ozer, E.J. and Moos, R. (2015), “The challenges of
Afghanistan and Iraq veterans’ transition from military to civilian life and approaches to
reconnection”, PloS One, Vol. 10 No. 7, e012859.
Arendt, C.E. and Sapp, D.A. (2014), “Analyzing r
esum
es of military veterans during transition to post-
service”, Florida Communication Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Baker, G.P., Jensen, M.C. and Murphy, K.J. (1988), “Compensation and incentives: practice vs. theory”,
Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, pp. 593-616.
Bardies, L. (2013), “La democratie et la revolution du marche cognitif: European journal of
sociology european journal of sociology”, Archives Europ
eennes de Sociologie, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 537-544.
Berry, J.W. (1989), “Imposed etics—emics—derived etics: the operationalization of a compelling idea”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 721-735.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Breakwell, G.M. (2006), “Interviewing methods”, Research Methods in Psychology, 3rd ed., Sage
Publications, pp. 232-253.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011), Business Research Methods 3e, Oxford University Press, New York.
Burnett-Zeigler, I., Valenstein, M., Ilgen, M., Blow, A.J., Gorman, L.A. and Zivin, K. (2011), “Civilian
employment among recently returning Afghanistan and Iraq National Guard veterans”,
Military Medicine, Vol. 176 No. 6, pp. 639-46.
Bush, T. and Middlewood, D. (2005), Leading and Managing People in Education, Sage Publications,
London.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H. and Grzywacz, J.G. (2006), “Measuring the positive side of the
work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 131-164.
CDI Chicas, J., Maiden, P., Oh, H.,Wilcox, S. and Young, D. (2012), From War to the Workplace: Helping
Veterans Transition to Civilian Work Settings. Policy Brief, USC Center for Innovation and
Research onVeterans and Military Families, Los Angeles, CA.
Conley, P. and Kadrlik, D. (2010), “Using long-term incentives to retain top talent”, in Berger, L.A. and
Berger, D.R. (Eds), The Talent Management Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
pp. 285-290.
Crea, V. (2007), “The US Coast Guard: a flexible force for national security”, Naval War College Review,
Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 14-23.
Creech, G.W.L. (2004), Organizational and Leadership Principles for Senior Leaders. AU- 24 Concepts
for Air Force Leadership.
Curry Hall, K., Harrell, M.C., Bicksler, B., Stewart, R. and Fisher, M.P. (2014), Veteran Employment:
Lessons from the 100,000 Jobs Mission, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Davis, L., Resnick, S., Maieritsch, K., Weber, K., Erbes, C.R., Strom, T.Q., McCall, K.P. and Kyriakides,
T.A. (2019), “Employment outcomes from VA vocational services involving transitional work
for veterans with a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder”, Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 257-267.
Defense Manpower Data Center (2020), available at: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_
reports.jsp.
Department of Defense (2011), Instruction 1327.06: Leave and Liberty Policy and Procedures, U.S.
Department of Defense, Arlington, VA, available at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/
pdf/132706p.pdf.
Department of Defense, W.D. (1992), “Military Careers: A Guide to Military Occupations and Selected
Military Career Paths, 1992-1994”, available at: http://libproxy.troy.edu/login?url5http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct5true&db5eric&AN5ED384836&site5eds-l.
Duenas, J.G. (2009), Evaluating Military Compensation, Nova Science Publishers, New York, available at:
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.troy.edu/login.aspx?direct5true&db5cat05550a&AN5tr
oy.666891859&site5eds-live.
Dunn, M. and Blank, A. (2018), “Job market continued to improve in 2017 as the unemployment rate
declined to a 17-year low”, Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 1, p. 141.
Dunn, S. and Jasinski, D. (2009), “The role of new hire orientation programs”, Journal of Employment
Counseling, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 115-127.
Ehlers, L.N. (2003), The Relationship of Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Self Reported
Absenteeism, Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, Department of Speech Communication, Miami
University, Oxford, OH.
Feldman, D.C. (1996), “The nature, antecedents, and consequences of underemployment”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 385-407.
Graneheim, U.H. and Lundman, B. (2004), “Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,
procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness”, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1981), Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation
Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Hamel, J. (1993), Case Study Methods. Qualitative Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Harre, R. and Secord, P.F. (1976), The Explanation of Social Behaviour (No. 70.02 (Sirsi)
I9780631171409.
Harrod, M., Miller, E.M., Henry, J. and Zivin, K. (2017), ““I’ve never been able to stay in a job”: a
qualitative study of Veterans’ experiences of maintaining employment”, Work, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 259-268.
Headquarters, Department of Army (2006), Army Leadership (Field Manual 22-100), Department of
the Army, Washington, DC.
Horn, B. (2014), “A reflection on leadership: a comparative analysis of military and civilian Military to
approaches”, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3.
civilian
Hosek, J. and MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013), “Economic conditions of military families”, Future of
Children, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 41-59.
employment
Johlke, M.C. and Duhan, D.F. (2000), “Supervisor communication practices and service employee job
transitions
outcomes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 154-165.
Johnson, G.J. and Johnson, W.R. (2000), “Perceived over-qualification and dimensions of job
satisfaction: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 5, pp. 537-555.
Keeling, M.E., Ozuna, S.M., Kintzle, S. and Castro, C.A. (2019), “Veterans’ civilian employment
experiences: lessons learnt from focus groups”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 692-705.
Kirchner, M. and Akdere, M. (2019), “An empirical investigation of the acquisition of leadership KSAs
in the US Army: implications for veterans’ career transitions”, Journal of Veterans Studies,
Vol. 4 No. 1.
Kirin, S.J. and Winkler, J.D. (1992), The Army Military Occupational Specialty Database (No. RAND/N-
3527-A), Rand Arroyo Center, Santa Monica Ca.
Kleykamp, M. (2013), “Unemployment, earnings and enrollment among post 9/11 veterans”, Social
Science Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 836-51.
Krippendorff, K. (2011), “Agreement and information in the reliability of coding”, Communication
Methods and Measures, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 93-112.
Kurasaki, K.S. (2000), “Intercoder reliability from validating conclusions drawn from open-ended
interview data”, Field Methods, Vol. 12, pp. 179-94.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Little, R. and Alenkin, N. (2011), Overcoming Barriers to Employment for Veterans: Current Trends
and Practical Approaches. Policy Brief, USC Center for Innovation and Research on Veterans
and Military Families, Los Angeles, CA.
Maxwell, J.A. (2012), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Maynard, D.C., Joseph, T.A. and Maynard, A.M. (2006), “Underemployment, job attitudes, and
turnover intentions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 4, p. 509.
McGregor, J. (2013), Wal-Mart’s Promise to Veterans: Good News or Good P.R.?, The Washington Post,
Washington, DC.
McNall, L.A., Masuda, A.D. and Nicklin, J.M. (2010), “Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Merriam, S.B. (2014), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Miles, M.B. and Michael Huberman, A. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Military.com (2018), “Compare the jobs the military has to offer”, available at: https://www.military.
com/join-armed-forces/compare-military-jobs.html.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay: using job
embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44,
pp. 1102-1121.
Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences, and Control, Addison-Wessley,
Reading, MA.
CDI Osanloo, A.F. (2011), “Unburying patriotism: critical lessons in civics and leadership ten years later”,
High School Journal, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 56-71.
Ostovary, F. and Dapprich, J. (2011), “Challenges and opportunities of operation enduring Freedom/
Operation Iraqi freedom veterans with disabilities transitioning into learning and workplace
environments”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2011 No. 132,
pp. 63-73, doi: 10.1002/ace.432.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, California EU: Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Pease, J.L., Billera, M. and Gerard, G. (2015), “Military culture and the transition to civilian life: suicide
risk and other considerations”, Social Work, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 83-86.
Peters, B.L. (2009), “The drinkers’ bonus in the military: officers versus enlisted personnel”, Applied
Economics, Vol. 41 No. 17, pp. 2211-2220, doi: 10.1080/00036840701222447.
Rudstam, H., Strobel Gower, W. and Cook, L. (2012), “Beyond yellow ribbons: are employers prepared
to hire, accommodate and retain returning veterans with disabilities?”, Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 87-95.
Shah, R.R. (1998), “Who are employees social referents? Using a network perspective to determine
referent others”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 249-68.
Sim, Y. and Lee, E. (2018), “Perceived underqualification and job attitudes: the role of transformational
leadership”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, No. 8, p. 962, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-
03-2018-0127.
Stiehm, J.H. (2012), “The us military: a basic introduction”, available at: https://ebookcentral.
proquest.com.
Tarquinio, M. (2006), “Onboarding benchmark report: technology drivers help improve the new hire
experience”, Aberdeen Group, available at: www.silkroad.com/SiteGen/Uploads/Public/SRT/
Whitepaper/pdf.
Thomas, E. and Magilvy, J.K. (2011), “Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research”,
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 151-155, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.
2011.00283.x.
Today’s Military.com (2019), “How to join”, available at: https://www.todaysmilitary.com/how-to-join?.
Ulin, P.R., Robinson, E.T. and Tolley, E.E. (2005), Qualitative Methods in Public Health, 1st ed., Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M. and Thorpe, S. (1991), “Employee and customer
attachment: synergies for competitive advantage”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 89-103.
United States Department of Defense (2012), Military Deployment Guide: Preparing You and Your
Family for the Road Ahead.
United States Department of Labor (2015), available at: http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/
veteranslaborforce/.
United States Department of Veterans Affairs (2020), available at: http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Quick_
Facts.asp.
Versloot, B.M., Jong, J.A. and Thijssen, J.G. (2001), “Organisational context of structured on the job
training”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Walsh, J.M. (2018), “On the waterfront: coast guard jurisdiction ashore”, Tulane Maritime Law Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 293-316.
Wang, J. (2018), “Hours underemployment and employee turnover: the moderating role of human
resource practices”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 9,
pp. 1565-1587.
Wayne, J.H., Casper, W.J., Matthews, R.A. and Allen, T.D. (2013), “Family-supportive organization Military to
perceptions and organizational commitment: the mediating role of work-family conflict
and enrichment and partner attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 4, civilian
pp. 606-623. employment
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Reform, Henderson and Parson, Translators, transitions
Free Press, New York, NY.
Whitehouse Press Release Blog (2014), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/30/first-
lady-michelle-obama-announces-new-hiring-commitments-veterans-and-military-spo.
Williamson, S. (1999), A Description of US Enlisted Personnel Promotion Systems, RAND, Santa
Monica, CA.
Winters, J.V. (2018), “Veteran status, disability rating, and public sector employment”, Health
Economics, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1011-1016.

Further reading
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Application, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), MLQ-multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Technical Report, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bordieri, J.E. and Drehmer, D.E. (1984), “Vietnam veterans: fighting the employment war”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 341-347, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02242.x.
Dao, J. (2013), “Preventing domestic violence in families of veterans”, The Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, Vol. 74 No. 10, pp. 974-980.
Denzin, N.K. (2012), “Triangulation 2.0”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 6, pp. 80-88, doi: 10.
1177/1558689812437186.
GAO Reports (2005), “Military personnel: reporting additional servicemember demographics could
enhance congressional oversight: GAO-05-95”, GAO Reports, 1, available at: http://libproxy.
troy.edu/login?url5http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct5true&db5pwh&AN518351
919&site5eds.
Griffin, K.K. (2015), “Better transitions for troops: an application of Schlossberg’s transition
framework to analyses of barriers and institutional support structures for student veterans”,
Journal Of Higher Education, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 71-97.
Horton, J.L., Jacobson, I.G., Wong, C.A., Wells, T.S., Boyko, E.J., Smith, B., Ryan, M.A. and Smith, T.C.
(2013), “The impact of prior deployment experience on civilian employment after military
service”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 70 No. 6, p. 408, doi: 10.1136/oemed-
2012-101073.
Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (1983), “Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: some
techniques of data reduction and display”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 281.
Lippitt, G.L. and Schmidt, W.H. (1967), Crises in a Developing Organization, Harvard Business Review,
Cambridge, MA.
Lussier, R.N. and Achua, C.F. (2015), Leadership: Theory, Application, and Skill Development, Nelson
Education, Toronto.
Prudential Financial (2012), Veteran Employment Challenges: Perceptions and Experiences of
Transitioning from Military to Civilian Life, Prudential Financial, Newark, NJ.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Waldman, D. and Galvin, B. (2008), “Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 327-341.
CDI About the author
Dr John C. Dexter holds a BS in psychology from the University of The State of New York, Albany, and
an MS and PhD in human resource development from The University of Texas, Tyler.
Dr John C. Dexter began his career with six years in the US Navy, where, upon completion of the
Naval Nuclear Power School and Prototype training, he served as a nuclear engineer on East Coast
attack submarines and as an instructor at the US Submarine School in Groton, CT.
After his honorable discharge from active duty, Dr John C. Dexter served in HR leadership capacities
for more than 20 years. Some of the positions he held during his practioner career include VP and Chief
HR Officer for TranSouth Financial, director of HR for Global eCommerce and Catalog Businesses at
Office Depot, VP and chief HR and administration officer for Hotels.com and Expedia Corp., SVP and
chief HR officer for TravelCLICK and SVP and chief HR officer for Caliber Home Loans.
Dr John C. Dexter joined Troy University in April of 2016 and teaches management and human
resources classes for the Sorrel College of Business. His research interests are leadership, military to
civilian transitions and organizational performance. Dr John C. Dexter lives in Dallas, Texas, with his
wife and two boys. John C. Dexter is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jcdexter@
troy.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com