Optimizing Soldier Counseling: Multi-Source, Mixed-Method Evaluation of a Developmental Counseling Training for Mid-Grade Level Leaders
John Eric M Novosel-Lingat,Michelle A Kirk,Melissa C Coaxum,Pierre L Harris,Kourtney B Sappenfield,Will U Hertzman,Shardonnai T Sims,Yvonne S Allard,Susannah K Knust
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae405
2024-08-27
Abstract:Introduction: In accordance with ADP 6-22-001 and ATP 6-22.1, counseling is the process routinely executed by Army leaders to develop, mentor, and coach subordinate Soldiers and Army civilians within their organization. When implemented effectively, the counseling process can be utilized to produce capable, resilient, and satisfied subordinates who are prepared and motivated to meet mission-essential responsibilities. Training opportunities that specifically focus on optimizing this key leader competence, particularly with non-commissioned officers, are limited. The Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and Readiness (Headquarters, Department of the Army, G-9) offers a specific training, the Counseling Enhancement Workshop, and requested an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the current training and identify opportunities for improvement. Materials and methods: A longitudinal 360-degree approach was deployed as a common multisource methodology intended to produce triangulated feedback from participants, as well as their subordinates and supervisors. Quantitative surveys and qualitative structured interviews were conducted. Performance psychology professional facilitators who train this workshop were also administered a questionnaire to capture instructional feedback. Measures include a knowledge assessment of the workshop content, Counseling Self-Efficacy Survey, as well as original measures related to the workshop experience. Completed written developmental counseling forms and observations from the evaluation team were also reviewed to ensure fidelity of the training implementation and delivery. The current study reports on survey responses from participants and facilitators. Results: Results suggested a strong and positive correlation between the pre- and post-workshop Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale. Because of a small sample size, data were analyzed as planned but interpreted with caution because of limited validity. There was a significant increase between the pre- and post-tests knowledge comprehension test scores. Facilitators reported confidence in teaching resilience skills, but not coaching Soldiers to apply those skills as part of the developmental counseling process. Conclusions: The Army counseling process can be utilized to produce capable, resilient, and satisfied subordinates who are prepared and motivated to meet mission-essential responsibilities. Quantitative results on the content of the CEW present opportunities for meaningful training that increases leaders' confidence in delivering counseling sessions, as well as mastering specific skills that benefit the subordinate Soldier and improve unit health. Furthermore, performance psychology professionals provided feedback on focus areas to meet the instructional objective of the training more efficiently and effectively. Ultimately, the counseling process is considered the most important tool available to current leaders to build the capacity of future leaders and an investment in the training to enhance these skills will provide great returns to the U.S. Army as a whole.