Advanced education for NCMs’ professional career development: a conclusive experience?

The roles associated with the NCMs within the CAF have evolved over time. Regarded as the backbone of the CAF (Bland 1999), their technical expertise coupled with their traditional functions, as disciplinarians and trainers, have long been their hallmark (Horn 2002; Smith 2005). As conflict and battle space evolve within a dynamic and unpredictable security environment, so does the necessity for a professional NCM (Mercer 2013). While technical expertise is part of their professional realm (Lagacé-Roy 2008), the nature of a professional NCM goes beyond that type of expertise. In fact, Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada (Canada. Department of National Defence 2003a) specifies that their roles and responsibilities have broadened to include advisory functions, institutional leadership, and co-stewardship of the PoA.

As NCMs move away from the tactical level, where training is an essential component of their professional development, to a more strategic level, advanced education becomes a requirement, as it complements their overall professional and intellectual development (Canada. Department of National Defence 2014). They will acquire an advanced education different from their training, as it will provide skill sets necessary to critical thinking processes (Canada, Department of National Defence 2011a). Moreover, it ensures that NCMs are not only experts within their occupations, but also practitioners of a professional body of shared knowledge within the PoA. While training focuses more on acquiring skill sets to perform specific duties, advanced education focuses more on developing one’s ability to identify, analyse and foresee future situations (Canada. Department of National Defence 2014). Yet both types of learning, as well as experience and self-development are essential for the overall development of an NCM (Canada, Department of National Defence 2011). More so, the transition becomes more essential as a NCM progresses through the ranks (Rondeau and Tanguay 2013; Belanger 2016).

Because of the transition needed, from a tactical level to a strategic level, KAP was first created at the RMC in 2006. It provided advanced education to NCMs who had been selected to hold senior leader positions in the CAF. KAP was flexible in nature as candidates could take self-selected courses (e.g., Canadian Politics & Society) in addition to compulsory courses (e.g. Introduction to Psychology) to further their professional development. At the end of the year-long programme, a certificate of attendance or an academic recognition was awarded. While KAP was viewed as providing an introduction to intellectual studies, the Canadian Defence Academy’s (CDA) senior leadership found that it “lacked a degree of discipline and focus” (Tremblay 2011, personal communication, 21 October). To remedy this situation, the Canadian Chief of Staff for the Strategic Training and Education Programme (STEP) and RMC personnel developed the NEPDP with a designed curriculum leading to a Certificate of General Military Studies (CGMS). NEPDP was formalised in 2013. Thereafter, NEPDP included four compulsory courses selected from the fields of History, Political Science, and Psychology and Leadership, and five elective courses chosen from the disciplines of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Some graduates also took electives outside the Humanities and Social Sciences. CCE220 Contemporary Chemistry from the Faculty of Sciences is a good example

The goal of this research is to determine, through an evaluation, if both Programmes contributed to the effectiveness of NCMs in senior positions. For the purpose of this research, evaluation is viewed as the assessment of objectives, structure, content, and mode of delivery. The term programme, within the context of this evaluation, is defined as “the complete set and sequence of courses […] prescribed by an institution for the fulfillment of the requirements of a particular degree” (OUCQA 2017: 1.6 Definition).

In the field of programme evaluation, effectiveness is achieved when “the intended results and outcomes occur” (Menix 2007: p. 204). Because the research was carried out in a military context, the Department of National Defence’s definition of effectiveness was used. It is defined as “the extent to which stated objectives are achieved” (2005: p. 130). Finally, programme objectives are the foundation on which a programme of study is structured and evaluated (Tyler 1949).

The research attempted to gather information from different cohorts, namely serving and retired graduates from both Programmes, i.e. KAP (2006–2013) and NEPDP (2013–2015). The research took place between April 28 and May 17, 2016. The number of potential participants was thirty-seven graduates. However, only seventeen graduates answered the questionnaire (N = 17) (see Table 1 – Potential versus actual research participants).

Once the Ethics Review Board accepted the project, a package containing a letter of invitation, an electronic questionnaire, and a list of definitions were emailed directly to graduates from the pool of potential survey participants using their CAF email accounts (see Annexure A: Survey Questionnaire). As well, attempts were made to contact the seven retired graduates from the pool of potential survey participants using their social media accounts (e.g. Facebook). Correspondence with people who decided to participate in the survey was conducted through their personal email accounts. The electronic survey questionnaire specified that a returned completed survey was considered as an implied proof of consent to participate in the research.

There was no attempt to generalise the results of the survey as the sample was too small to do any randomisation; and that only the graduates from the two Programmes, i.e., thirty-seven NCMs were purposefully sought after as the non-probabilistic, intentional, recruitment (purposive) strategy was preferred for the research (Bernard 2002; Lewis and Sheppard 2006).

Once the responses to the questionnaire were received, the researcher conducted two separate data analysis, that is, one for the seven closed-ended questions and another for the twelve open-ended questions. A ‘paper and scissors’ data analysis method for the open-ended questions was adopted as the number of questionnaires and questions to analyse was very low. The data analysis steps was performed in a successive and cumulative manner, and the steps included the reception of a questionnaire, reading over the answers from the questionnaire to develop some familiarity with the responses; and start creating a list of recurrent ideas which means concepts and themes under each question from the questionnaire. This process was used after the reception of each questionnaire to adjust the list of ideas under each question. The research’s trustworthiness was established through a process which included peer reviews (the research team) of every questionnaire and presentation of the data’s interpretation to the research team.

The following provides general information about the seventeen graduates who answered the survey. There was one female respondent from NEPDP. The sixteen male respondents were 35.3% from KAP and 64.7% from NEPDP. The respondents were 59.9% Anglophone and 47.1% Francophone. They overwhelmingly attended the English courses (86.7%). The respondents were 35.3% from the Navy, 29.4% from the Army, and 35.3% from the Air force. They had cumulated an average of 26.7 years of military service. Only one respondent was retired. They predominantly all graduated from High School and attended some Officers Professional Military Education (OPME) courses (e.g. Military Professionalism & Ethics). Finally, 58.8% of respondents received a CGMS, while 23.5% received an achievement or academic recognition.

The following information captures the core of what was reported by respondents identified as NCM 01 to 17. KAP and NEPDP answers are presented together. When necessary, differences between both Programmes are specified.

For KAP and NEPDP graduates, most courses were chosen because of a personal interest and/or a personal end goal.

All seventeen respondents commented on their personal expectations prior to attending the Programmes. Some had low or no expectations, while others expected to acquire new knowledge and transferable skills. Finally, a few expected to mentor OCdts.

Fifteen respondents mentioned that their expectations were met while two stated that they were not met. Some reasons stated were either general or personal in nature.

The reasons cited for not meeting their expectations were related to the knowledge (or lack of) about the Programmes and the lack of critical thinking skills learned.

Respondents from both Programmes answered this question either at the department level or at a course level. At the department level, courses from the following departments were considered useful: History (2 KAP respondents and 2 NEPDP respondents); Political Science (1 KAP respondent and 1 NEPDP respondent); and Psychology and Leadership (1 NEPDP respondent). However, courses from the following Departments were not found to be useful: History (2 NEPDP respondents); Psychology and Leadership (1 NEPDP respondent); and Business and Economics (1 KAP respondent).

At the course level, respondents from both Programmes indicated that the following courses were useful: Organizational Behaviour and Leadership (3 KAP respondents and 3 NEPDP respondents); Military Professionalism and Ethics (1 KAP respondent and 3 NEPDP respondents); and Applied Military Psychology (1 KAP respondent and 2 NEPDP respondents).

Respondents from either KAP or NEPDP indicated that the following courses were either useful or not useful: Human Resources and Organizational Theories

These courses were taken in French: Gestion des resources humaines and Théorie organisationnelle.

Only one KAP respondent chose the courses Introduction to Contemporary Strategic Studies, Terrorism, History, and Strategy and Law of Armed Conflict, and mentioned that they were useful; while only one NEPDP respondent chose the following courses: Introduction to International Relations, Introduction to Literary Studies and University Writing Skills, Canadian Military History, Naval History the Age of Sail, Naval History the Age of Steam, and International Organizations and indicated that they were useful.

One NEPDP respondent chose the courses Contemporary Chemistry and Introduction to Military History and Thought and mentioned that they were not useful. Noticeably, 4 NEPDP respondents found that the International Relations Theory course was especially useful.

Respondents mentioned the four reasons for considering if a course was useful or not: military content, applicability to their future roles, debates with peers, as well as with OCdts during class sessions.

Comments concerning the courses that were found not to be useful were related to the lack of military content, no consideration for adult learning methods, and information learned not transferable to real life situations.

Respondents overwhelmingly acknowledged that they were using the education they received, either directly or indirectly.

Most respondents agreed that both Programmes contributed to their effectiveness while in leadership roles by increasing their awareness of the “whole picture” and by enhancing their role and contribution at the strategic level.

When asked if KAP and NEPDP experiences were necessary for Senior NCMs, four out of the seventeen respondents answered positively, eleven answered negatively, and two chose not to respond. Those who answered positively focused their answers on the skill sets gained.

Those who chose to answer negatively mentioned how both Programmes can be considered an asset but it is not necessary for senior positions.

When asked if it was necessary for them to attend RMC to acquire the knowledge provided by a higher learning institution, both Programme respondents answered positively or negatively to the question, but added comments that would clearly indicate its value.

As for the question answered negatively, three KAP respondents felt that other means could have been chosen to deliver the Programme. However, they weighed their answer by adding that there are definite advantages to attending RMC. This was echoed by six NEPDP respondents who recognised that while there are other means, RMC provided definite benefits.

It is also through RMC that graduates interacted with OCdts.

KAP respondents gave four different suggestions when asked at what stage of an NCM’s career one should attend the Programme. Two respondents mentioned the CPO1/CWO rank.

Two respondents suggested that succession planning should play a part in deciding when to attend higher education. To that effect, another respondent mentioned the importance of considering the length of time remaining to serve in the CAF.

Four respondents mentioned that the CPO2/MWO rank was the right level to attend.

Two respondents considered suggesting the P01/WO rank.

Finally, one respondent mentioned that the Programme should be offered at a larger audience without using face-to-face interactions.

NEPDP respondents, when asked the same question, gave seven different suggestions. One respondent suggested just after being promoted to CPO1/CWO.

Two respondents suggested that the CPO1/CWO rank, but added some caveats.

Two respondents suggested that all NCMs identified as progressing to senior ranks.

Nine respondents suggested the CPO2/MWO rank, because of value for money.

Five respondents mentioned the PO1/WO rank if they show potential for advancement.

One respondent mentioned that, one must consider the amount of time that will elapse between the course and the moment before being appointed into a strategic position while another one mentioned the importance of personal factors.

Finally, one respondent suggested opening the Programme to all NCMs while another mentioned that it should be attended by NCMs who hold specific positions.

All KAP respondents answered positively except one, when asked the question if they would recommend the Programme.

While their answers were positive, at least two respondents expressed concerns.

Most NEPDP respondents answered that they would recommend the Programme.

They also mentioned other reasons outside the realm of the Programme.

Some NEPDP respondents recommended the Programme but with some caveats.

Finally, one respondent mentioned that the Programme should not be a pre-requisite for senior positions.

Overall, the data collected indicated that the Programmes contributed positively to its graduates. While they joined the Programmes with some expectations, such as acquiring knowledge and learning new skill sets, all respondents stated that their education either enhanced their current skill sets and/or provided them with new ones. In fact, they stated that they acquired more than expected, in terms of enhancing their mental processes for problem solving, as well as their communication skills. They also perceived that the Programmes helped them understand specific issues and provided useful information for their career growth.

In terms of contributing to their effectiveness as Senior NCMs, the results confirm that most graduates are using the education they received through the Programmes. In fact, the education received bridged the gap between the operational and strategic levels. For them, these newly acquired knowledge and skill sets were translated into positive outcomes, such as increasing credibility and competence when conversing with senior leadership and providing suggestions to their leadership, as well as to team partners on complex issues. Therefore, the Programmes improved their capabilities to hold senior leader positions in the CAF.

However, graduates not only mentioned positive Programme outcomes. They also raised particular issues which indicate that some aspects of the Programme need to be examined in order to be fully effective, so that the programmes will meet the NCMs’ needs and expectations.

Most graduates mentioned that they did not know what to expect when enrolled into the Programmes. In fact, they did not know their goals or intent. The reasons for the lack of knowledge about the Programme could be two fold. The first one could be related to the broad nature and focus of the Programme, i.e. cognitive learning objectives: increasing intellectual, analytical and reasoning skills. It might be difficult for some individuals to conceive what these objectives concretely mean. Using other types of objectives (e.g. affective and behavioural) could provide a more balanced curriculum to develop critical thinking. The Programme objectives need to be specific and defined in such a way that not only the material to be taught and learned can be derived from them, but that the expected outcomes can be clearly identified and measured (Bresler et al. 2001). The second reason could pertain to how the Programme is presented to potential participants. This raises questions about the marketing strategy used to attract NCMs to the Programme. One may believe that NCMs are sent to the Programme because of succession planning. If this is not the case, there is a need to reflect on, first, the best moment in one’s career to attend the Programme and, second, the preparation that is required before enrolling into the Programme.

According to the data, the choice of courses was a challenge for some graduates. Two reasons might clarify this difficulty. First, the Programme courses were selected from an existing course list with mandatory and electives courses. These courses were designed for a 4-year Programme, but not specifically intended for Programme participants. Second, pre-requisites were sometimes needed to register to some courses, which limited the number of courses participants could register to, because most didn’t possess them when registering to the Programme. It appears that most graduates resolved this difficulty by selecting courses, not necessarily related to the Programme objectives, but out of personal interests (e.g. History) for practical reasons (e.g. course transferable to another programme) or because it had military content (e.g. Military Psychology). However, at least two graduates chose Introduction to Literary Studies and University Writing Studies. This course increases communication and writing skills needed for all Senior NCM positions. In terms of meeting the pre-requisites requirement, the Programme should recognise that NCMs possess knowledge obtained through other forms of learning, such as work experience and ‘life experience’. If life and work experiences were accepted as pre-requisites, the Introduction to Psychology course, as an example, might not be considered mandatory for other courses (e.g. Organizational behaviour), therefore allowing NCMs to register to courses without meeting the pre-requisite requirement.

Some participants’ desire to pursue two degrees (e.g. Certificate and Baccalaureate) simultaneously is another reason why they chose specific courses. While it could be advantageous to the participants that the Programme helps people acquiring both degrees, pursuing two degrees could jeopardise the attainment of the Programme’s objectives. By selecting courses that meet the requirement of both degrees, graduates may not be focussing on courses that would provide and develop their intellectual, analytical, and reasoning skills.

It was suggested earlier that both Programmes influenced its graduates positively and the education they received contributed to their effectiveness as Senior NCMs. While these benefits are acknowledged, it is important to underline that twelve respondents didn’t see the Programme as compulsory or necessary for holding or getting senior leadership positions in the CAF. However, they still perceived it as an asset, a tool, or useful to hold higher positions. In view of the fact that some benefits have been identified as valuable, some of the concerns highlighted above may explain the strong opposition. In addition, another explanation may be related to the manner in which education is delivered at RMC. NCMs are ‘adult learners’ who possess a background grounded in education/training, as well as work and personal experiences (Cranton 1994). Therefore, they possess different education needs and expectations than young adults (e.g. OCdts). For them, memorising a large amount of information (e.g. in introductory courses) is not conducive to learning new skills. For NCMs, a learner-centric environment would be more appropriate because they would be active participants in the learning process of specific skills, such as critical thinking, by associating their meaning within the sphere of their overall learning experience (Zacharakis and Van Der Werff 2012).

Most respondents raised the issue about how the Programme should be delivered, i.e. on or off-campus. They mentioned that Distance Learning and/or attending another institution are possible alternatives rather than being on campus at RMC. However, while these alternatives were a possibility, they made frequent references to the benefits of being immersed in a Programme that is delivered through courses that are also attended by OCdts. The survey designed for this research did not ask questions regarding OCdts. NCMs themselves recognised the benefits of being immersed in the same learning environment as the Ocdts. Such benefits may include learning how OCdts are trained and educated, and about the culture of the RMC as an institution. It is worth nothing that, besides being able to learn about the academic life of future officers of the CAF, NCMs mentioned that the Programmes provided them with the opportunity to mentor OCdts. The CAF encourages mentoring relationships (Lagacé-Roy and Knackstedt 2007). Therefore, the opportunity to mentor OCdts might be the pivotal factor explaining why Programme participants favour attending the Programme on campus.

Finally, some respondents suggested that all NCMs identified as progressing to CWO should, as a general rule, attend NEPDP. If this is the case, potential candidates should be succession-planned, as mentioned earlier in this section. The data seems to indicate that succession planning might help alleviate some concerns, such as the amount of time selected candidates have to work before retiring from the CAF. For selected candidates, succession planning would give them enough time to prepare for their future entry into the Programme. Such preparation could include, but not limited to, getting familiar with the Programme’s design, goals and expected outcomes. A minimum preparation could also alleviate frustrations about course selection and/or pre-requisites, and provide a positive feeling about the Programme.