Final Report 2012

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report 

Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): 

Final Report 

CW5 Robert Lamphear, Study Director 1 

CW5 Judith Stephens, Deputy Study Director 2 

CW5 Richard Ernest 3 

Stephen Ingalls 4 

Dr. Heidi Keller-Glaze 4 

Dr. Angela Karrasch 7 

MAJ Mike Kinder 1 

Dr. Jared Lock 4 

CW4 (P) Timothy McCarter 5 

CW4 Alberto Morrison 1 

Ryan Riley 4 

Dirk Rosendahl 6 

Dr. Anna Sackett 7 

William Walton 5 

William Weyhrauch 7 

CW5 David Williams 8 

1 Center for Army Leadership (CAL) 

2 U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) (G-3/5, LDID OES Division) 

3 Army National Guard (ARNG) Directorate, National Guard Bureau (NGB) 

4 Team Potawatomi (Potawatomi Training, LLC) 

5 Warrant Officer Career College (WOCC) 

6 Quality Assurance Office (QAO), Command and General Staff College (CGSC) 

7 U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) 

8 Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) (G-3/5/7, DAMO-TR) 

December 14, 2012 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv 

Mission Statement iv 

Strategic Conclusion – The Bottom Line iv 

Main Findings v 

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL REPORT vii 

1.0 THE MODERN WARRANT OFFICER CONTEXT 1 

Looking Back: The 2001-2002 Warrant Officer Army Training and Leader Development 

Panel (ATLDP) 1 

Where the Cohort Has Been Since the ATLDP Warrant Officer (ATLDP-WO) Study 2 

The Warrant Officer PME Structure 4 

Segue to the Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS) 5 

2.0 THE WOCLS 7 

Study Overview 7 

Study Scope 8 

Methodology Overview 8 

3.0 THE ARMY’S EXPECTATIONS FOR TODAY’S [and TOMORROW’S] WARRANT OFFICERS 10 

Today’s Warrant Officers 10 

Warrant Officer Roles Have Evolved 11 

How Have Warrant Officer Roles Evolved? 12 

How is the Cohort Performing? 12 

Future Warrant Officer Roles and Responsibilities 13 

Will Roles and Responsibilities Continue to Evolve? 13 

What New Capabilities are Required for Tomorrow’s Warrant Officer 13 

4.0 FINDINGS (SO WHAT?) and RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS (NOW WHAT?) 14 

Revisiting the Five Key Tasks (KT) – What Were We Told To Do? 14 

Strategic Conclusion – The Bottom Line 14 

Main Findings 15 

Findings, Discussions, and Recommendations 16 

5.0 CONCLUSION 41 

6.0 CONSOLIDATED LIST OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43 

7.0 SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS AND CROSS-WALK TO WOCLS KEY TASKS 49 

REFERENCES 51 

ANNEX A: ACRONYMS ANNEX-1 

ANNEX B: STUDY METHODOLOGY ANNEX-3 

Data Sources [Instruments] and Collection Overview ANNEX-3 

The Five Data Collection Instruments ANNEX-6 

The School Self-Assessment Instrument (SAI) ANNEX-6 

Supervisor Survey Instrument ANNEX-7 

Student Survey Instrument ANNEX-8 

Focus Group/Key Leader Interviews ANNEX-10 

General Officer (GO)/Senior Executive Service (SES) Questionnaire ANNEX-14 

“First Pass” Data Analysis Overview ANNEX-14 

Data Cleaning, Preparation, and Descriptive Analysis ANNEX-15 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report iii 

Survey Descriptive Analysis ANNEX-15 

Data Synthesis – The Data Analysis “Horseblanket” ANNEX-16 

“Second and Third Pass” Data Analysis ANNEX-17 

ANNEX C: Draft General Learning Outcomes (GLO) for Warrant Officers ANNEX-19 

ANNEX D: The G-1 White Paper ANNEX-41 

FIGURES 

1 – Comparative Career Timelines for O- and W-Grades 5 

2 – WOCLS Concept of Operation and Associated Timeline 8 

3 – Supervisor Assessment of Warrant Officer Performance 12 

4 – Supervisor Assessment of Performance, by Rated Warrant Officer Grade 21 

5 – Student Survey Feedback Regarding Depth Adequacy for PME Subjects 27 

6 – Supervisor Survey Feedback on Warrant Officer Performance of Select PME Subjects 28 

7 – Supervisor Survey Feedback on CW3 Performance against Select Tactical and Technical 

Dimensions 30 

8 – Student Survey Agreement on the Importance of PME to Promotion 37 

B-1 – Overview of Data Volume Collected, by Instrument and Data Type ANNEX-15 

B-2 – Data Analysis Horseblanket ANNEX-18 

C-2 – Career Continuum of Learning for Warrant Officers ANNEX-19 

TABLES 

1 – Warrant Officer Strength – By Component and Branch 10 

2 – Cross-Instrument Comparison of Select Tactical Sub-Outcomes 22 

3 – Tactical Sub-Outcome Performance by Grade 24 

4 – Student Survey Assessment of Curricular Depth and Breadth along the Continuum of Learning 24 

5 – Subject Areas for Increased Emphasis along the Continuum of Learning 25 

6 – PME Alignment w/ AR 350-1, ALDS, and ALM 31 

7 – Direct Comparison of SAI to Student Survey Data Measuring AR 350-1 Alignment 32 

8 – Summary Table of Findings and Cross-Walk to WOCLS Key Tasks 49 

B-1 – WOCLS Data Collection Instrument Cross-Walk to Specified Study Key Tasks ANNEX-5 

B-2 – Focus Group Protocol to WOCLS Key Task Cross-Walk ANNEX-10 

B-3 – Focus Group Protocol to Respondent Audience Cross-Walk ANNEX-11 

B-4 – Focus Group Session Numbering ANNEX-12 

B-5 – Key Leader Interview Protocol to Respondent Audience Cross-Walk ANNEX-12 

B-6 – Key Leader Interview Session Numbering ANNEX-13 

B-7 – Summary – Focus Group Data Collection ANNEX-13 

B-8 – Summary – Key Leader Interview Data Collection ANNEX-13 

C-1 – Pre-Commission-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Commissioning as a 

WO1 ANNEX-21 

C-2 – Primary-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for the First Warrant Officer 

Assignment (as a WO1) and Follow-On Promotion to CW2 ANNEX-24 

C-3 – Primary-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW3 ANNEX-28 

C-4 – Intermediate-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW4 ANNEX-32 

C-5 – Senior-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW5 ANNEX-37 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On February 15, 2012, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC), directed a Warrant Officer-focused study to assess whether learning outcomes and 

course curricula along the continuum of learning are adequate to support Army requirements. 

The Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC), was designated as the 

supported organization for this effort, and further directed the Center for Army Leadership 

(CAL), CAC’s executive agent for leader development, to execute the study. 

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS) was a specified 10-month effort 

that purposefully followed the methodology as was executed for the Captains Career Course 

(CCC) Study, a similar, outcomes-based effort over a short timeframe. Execution was 

accomplished in four phases: Initiating, Collection, Analysis and Report Preparation, and 

Recommendation Implementation. This report is the capstone activity to the Analysis and 

Report Preparation phase. 

Mission Statement: TRADOC was tasked to “coordinate an outcomes-based study of the 

warrant officer continuum of learning to identify strengths and weaknesses and determine 

alignment with Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, the Army Leader Development Strategy (ALDS), and 

the Army Learning Model (ALM) no later than (NLT) 14 December 2012.” 

Specified key tasks included: 

1. Evaluate outcomes along the WO continuum of learning by grade. 

2. Identify individual course strengths and weaknesses. 

3. Verify alignment with Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, the Army Leader Development 

Strategy (ALDS), and the Army Learning Model (ALM). 

4. Ensure regulations and policies support intended outcomes. 

5. Determine what is the right education and training for U.S. Army Warrant Officers 

through leader development forums. 

The Bottom Line: Warrant Officer PME is fundamentally and structurally sound; however, 

significant improvements are needed along the continuum to address gaps as Warrant Officer 

systems integrator/technical roles continue expanding to meet Army requirements. These 

expanding roles and responsibilities require Warrant Officers 

Strategic Conclusion 

to exercise greater leadership; mandate an ability to operate 

and integrate within staff functions at the tactical to strategic 

level; and necessitate cultural and Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, Multinational (JIIM) 

environment expertise. These broad requirements increase the cohort’s reliance on PME vs. 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report v 

experiential learning in order to gain foundational knowledge, skills, and behaviors (KSB) that 

result in success. 

The five separate collection instruments employed during this 

study underscore a foundational point – Warrant Officer roles will 

continue to expand to meet Army requirements. Findings derived 

from the synthesis of over 221K data points include: 

Main Findings 

General Learning Outcomes for Warrant Officers are underdeveloped. These must be 

fully developed in order to better define expectations of the Cohort and to better focus 

Warrant Officer PME requirements. 

Outcomes and sub-outcomes are insufficiently defined for the WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC. 

Academic governance and proponency along the continuum of learning are not clearly 

defined for Warrant Officer PME. 

Officership, a major learning outcome of BOLC A and B, is a rescinded doctrinal term and 

should be eliminated from applicable learning outcomes, regulations and policies. 

Approximately one in five CW5s are not meeting Force expectations in a number of key 

leadership sub-outcomes, specifically general leadership, written and oral 

communication, and critical/creative thinking. 

Various tactical competence sub-outcomes for CW3s and above require improvement. 

Depth of instruction is increasingly insufficient as Warrant Officers progress along the 

continuum of learning. 

Senior Officers (CW4 and CW5) in select branches indicate a strong desire for a followon 

technical phase to the WOSC and WOSSC. 

Approximately one in three recent WOAC graduates indicated the course outcomes did 

not meet their expectations. Results vary by branch, but data synthesized across all five 

collection instruments indicate shortcomings in several specific and general areas. 

PME institutions report above average alignment of their programs to tenets outlined in 

AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM 

FOUO 

Foundational Finding

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report vi 

Recent PME attendees and PME institutions offer widely differing perspectives on AR 

350-1 alignment. 

PME institutions are challenged to provide up-to-date, operable, and adequate training 

aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS). 

Nearly one in four recent PME graduates reported their coursework did not sufficiently 

integrate Operational Environment complexity. 

Instructor selection and assignment are problematic for select Warrant Officer PME 

institutions. 

Warrant Officer PME should be linked to promotion. 

Seven in 10 senior leaders highlighted at least some major changes to policy and 

resourcing would be required to “ensure that WO education and training remains 

synchronized with emerging technological and operational requirements.” 

WOAC attendance is considered “too late” or “way too late” along the continuum. 

A select subset of the cohort, integrated and working in critical positions throughout our 

Army, is not adequately supported by “standard PME”. The Army must prepare these 

SWOs for success in these key roles. 

A number of these results are common to the 2002 Warrant Officer-focused phase of Army 

Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) (ATLDP-WO), suggesting that integrating what 

was then called the Warrant Officer Education System (WOES) into one Officer Education 

System (OES) remains incomplete. It is time for Warrant Officer PME proponency to be resolved 

so that residual issues from 2002, identified again here, are not revisited in future efforts. 

The WOCLS team’s rich experience with the cohort generates confidence that findings and 

recommendations proposed here adequately address assigned key tasks. However, a shortterm 

effort of this type, attempting to study approximately 70 Warrant Officer specialties along 

a typical career’s continuum of learning, suggests that the team will continue to make use of 

the extensive data collected in this effort toward supplementary and follow-on findings. That 

work continues. 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report vii 

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL REPORT 

This final report is a TRADOC-directed WOCLS team deliverable; it will drive continued data 

review over the coming months, culminating with the team’s briefing at the February 2013 

Army Leader Development Forum (ALDF). 

This document’s outline flows from the mid-study report’s structure, but expands presentation 

to incorporate additional data analysis, findings, and conclusions and recommendations. 

Following guidance received from senior WOCLS Steering Committee leadership, these latter 

elements are informally referred to as the effort’s “So What?” and “Now What?” respectively. 

Special effort was made to ensure that the study’s conclusions and recommendations were 

“actionable,” meaning that the recommendation was specific (WHAT and WHY), identified the 

issue’s ownership and proponency (WHO and WHERE), and offered a recommended timeline 

for consideration (WHEN). 

As was accomplished in the CCC Study, this report offers an introductory historical component, 

providing a high-order history of Warrant Officer PME evolution over the last four plus decades. 

We then introduce the Warrant Officer PME structure, known well to the over 26,000 serving 

Warrant Officers, but less so to the other 84.7% of the Officer Corps. These two elements are 

accomplished in Section 1.0 – The Modern Warrant Officer Context. 

Section 2.0 provides an overview of the WOCLS, before proceeding immediately to a transition 

section that presents foundational findings relevant to expanding roles and responsibilities for 

the Cohort (Section 3.0 – The Army’s Expectations for Today’s [and Tomorrow’s] Warrant 

Officers). 

Section 4.0 – Findings and Recommended Action Steps, offer the team’s “So What?” and “Now 

What?” results from data synthesis and analysis. These findings follow a Finding, Discussion, 

and Recommendation format, identical to that used in the CCC effort. 

Annex B contains a detailed review of the study’s methodology details. 

Annex D presents the results of Headquarters, Department of the Army G-1 White Paper. This 

White Paper is related to Key Task 5 - Determine the right education and training for U.S Army 

Warrant Officers through leader development forums. It helps identify key “capstone” positions, 

as well as training and education necessary to prepare officers for those roles, and is 

deliberately linked to select findings from Section 4.0. 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report 1 

1.0 THE MODERN WARRANT OFFICER CONTEXT 

The 1980s marked significant change with two major milestones for the Army Warrant Officer. 

During the decade, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) chartered the first comprehensive 

Warrant Officer study (the Total Warrant Officer Study [TWOS]). This effort formally recognized 

the cohort’s expanding leadership roles and resulted in approved recommendations for 

establishing a Cohort-wide education system. The resulting 1991 Warrant Officer Education 

System (WOES) remained in place as a separate PME construct for the cohort until 2006. 

Looking Back: The 2001-2002 Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) Phase III 

(Warrant Officer) Report 

In the early 2000s, the Army was clearly aimed toward The 

Objective Force, “a full spectrum force that will be organized, 

manned, equipped, and training to be more strategically 

responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and 

sustainable than we are today...” (United States Army, 2003, 

p. 25-26). That context strongly suggested continued 

expansion in Warrant Officers roles over the coming years. 

Therefore, as the third element of a larger, five-phased Army 

Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) effort, the 

CSA chartered a panel in June 2000 to examine and make 

recommendations on training and leader development for 

Warrant Officers. 

Later referred to simply as “ATLDP-WO,” the 13-month study involved more than 10,300 

participants, and resulted in 63 recommendations across four major categories: 

Army Culture 

Training and Education 

Manning 

Professional Development 

Considered “the road map for warrant officer leader development and education” (USAWOA, 

2004, p. 4), ATLDP-WO recommendations were presented to the CSA in July 2002 and approved 

for implementation in April 2003. 

Many of these 63 recommendations ultimately realized significant progress, yet select findings 

in this decade-old study seem familiar to the contemporary Warrant Officer Continuum of 

Learning Study’s (WOCLS) focus. 

FOUO


A summary information memorandum to ATLDP-WO (2002) highlights that the “Warrant 

Officer Education System (WOES) fails to meet the needs of the Army and warrant officers”. 

The quality and quantity of technical education and training must improve dramatically.” 

Further, among the top five “most important changes” recommended to the CSA for Warrant 

Officer training and leader development, WOES was identified 507 times, 73% more often than 

the second-most important change specified, pay and compensation (ATLDP, 2002). 

Among the more illustrative sections of the ATLDP-WO, are the “What the Field Told Us” 

elements, listed immediately after each of the four major category introductions. Field 

comments related to Training and Education in the ATLDP-WO (2002) included (p. 19): 

Active component Warrant Officers report that WOES does not adequately develop the 

technical skills that they need. 

Warrant Officers report that programs of instruction are outdated. Timing is not 

synchronized with assignment practices. 

Warrant Officers want more technical and specialty-specific training. 

Warrant Officers want better leadership training. 

Warrant Officers feel they are not adequately prepared to act as technical experts. 

Warrant Officers want more hands-on technical courses using the latest technology. 

Warrant Officers want more support at unit level to develop and sustain technical skills. 

Of the 19 resulting ATLDP-WO recommendations related to training and education, the 

“systematic needs analysis, job analysis, and critical individual task analysis” (ATLDP, 2002, p. 

21) arguably points directly to WOCLS, albeit separated by a decade. 

Where the Cohort Has Been Since the ATLDP Warrant Officer Study 

“After a decade of war…” (Army Profession Pamphlet, 2012, p. i) has been among the common 

themes rallying recent Army assessments and initiatives, and the timeframe between ATLDP- 

WO and this study, the WOCLS, coincide almost identically to this period. Key events during this 

decade for the Warrant Officer Cohort include: 

2004 

2005 

April – the Army Reserve joins the Army National Guard in instituting new Warrant 

Officer Professional Development Education Requirements, linking Warrant Officer PME 

to promotion and specifying optimal windows for attendance to the Warrant Officer 

Advanced Course (WOAC), Warrant Officer Staff Course (WOSC), and the Warrant 

Officer Senior Staff Course (WOSSC) 

February-August brings a number of Cohort changes introduced in conjunction with 

larger Army Transformation efforts; among these, and a recommendation of the ATLDP- 

FOUO


2006 

2007 

2008 

WO, All Army Activities (ALARACT) 116-2005 immediately delinked attendance at 

Warrant Officer PME to promotion for all components in order to offer operational unit 

commanders maximum flexibility to meet training and education needs around unit 

rotation and reset cycles 

October 14 – new Army Warrant Officer definitions are published in Department of the 

Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and 

Career Management, yet another of the 63 ATLDP-WO recommendations 

November 1 – the Army’s Vice CSA (VCSA) charters establishment of the Senior Warrant 

Officer Advisory Council (SWOAC) 

November 7 – the Warrant Officer Division in the Army Human Resources Command 

(HRC) ceases to exist and all Warrant Officer career managers are integrated with their 

proponent branches in the Officer Personnel Management Directorate 

February 6 – the Warrant Officer Advisor to the CSA provides an update to the field on 

several issues affecting the Cohort, among them a discussion of Warrant Officer 

Candidate School (WOCS) Transformation and announcement of a four-phased effort to 

consolidate the WOES into a single OES – this too, was among the ATLDP-WO 

recommendations 

October – Field Manual (FM) 6-22, Army Leadership, incorporates new verbiage 

highlighting the commissioned status of CW2s and above, emphasizes general 

leadership requirements of the Officer Corps, including Warrant Officers, and identifies 

Warrant Officers as potential mentors for junior officers and NCOs 

October – U.S. Army TRADOC announces a plan to accelerate leader development that 

included yet another step toward integrating OES-Warrant (OES-W) into the OES 

December 21 – the Army Leader Development Program (ALDP), merging all existing 

Army leader development initiatives and management processes into a single program, 

is formally established 

April – a pilot effort identifies five Warrant Officers to attend Intermediate Level 

Education (ILE); they were graduated with the 2008 class at Fort Leavenworth 

June – an Information Paper published in conjunction with the 2009 Army Posture 

Statement announces TRADOC’s approval of WOSC and WOSSC redesigns, expanding 

their length and incorporating distance learning elements; this same paper now 

identifies WOES as OES-W, and indicates that all approved ATLDP-WO education 

recommendations are scheduled for implementation no later than Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 

FOUO


2009 

2011 

2012 

April – nine additional Warrant Officers are identified to attend ILE; they are graduated 

with the 2009 class at Fort Leavenworth 

July 15 – four CW4s are assigned as ILE instructors 

January 10 – President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011 

into law; this legislation authorized commissioning for Warrant Officer One (WO1), 

meaning that all Warrant Officers, regardless of grade, might now serve in a 

“commissioned” status 

July 12-13 – for the first time in its history, then CSA, General Martin E. Dempsey, invites 

members of the SWOAC to attend the Army Training and Leader Development 

Conference (ATLDC), indicating greater ownership of PME by the Cohort 

February 15 – TRADOC directs CAC to convene a Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning 

Study (WOCLS) that validates specific professional knowledge, skills, and behaviors 

required by Warrant Officers at each grade and to determine whether current PME for 

Warrant Officers produces these desired outcomes 

August 10 – the Senior Warrant Officer Council (SWOC), formerly the SWOAC, is 

chartered by the Secretary of the Army 

These data points highlight attention the Army paid to the ATLDP-WO’s recommendations, 

including progress in all major category areas – Army Culture, Training and Education, Manning, 

and Professional Development. 

The Warrant Officer Professional Military Education (PME) Structure 

While individual circumstances and some branch and component variations exist, Figure 1 

generally reflects the leader development timeline for “W-grades” and contrasts those with 

that of comparable O-grades. Throughout the balance of this report, the reader will note that 

analysis is purposefully focused on WOCS (BOLC-A), WOBC (BOLC-B), WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC, depicted as a continuum of learning along the bottom portion of the figure; impending 

policy changes are reflected. 

Of note: 

WOCS is accomplished for Active and select Reserve Component Soldiers at the WOCC 

at Fort Rucker. Additionally, Reserve Component Soldiers may attend various, Army 

National Guard-run, two-phased WOCS programs at their Regional Training Institutes 

(RTI). Special Forces Warrant Officer (Military Occupation Specialty [MOS] 180A), attend 

WOCS at Fort Bragg. 

FOUO


In addition, the WOCS, WOSC and WOSSC are “branch immaterial.” All other Warrant 

Officer PME incorporates common core training, branch-specific functional 

requirements, or both. 

Select branches augment WOSC and WOSSC with additional functional training in a 

follow-on phase. 

Figure 1. Comparative Career Timelines for O- and W-Grades. This information helps visualize the Wgrade 

continuum of learning (years of WO service), and offers a direct comparison to the O-grade 

continuum; impending policy changes are reflected. This study will often refer to WOCS and BOLC-A, 

WOBC and BOLC-B synonymously. Emerging terminology for the WOSC and WOSSC are Warrant Officer 

Staff Course/ILE and Warrant Officer Senior Service Education, respectively. 

In sum, these last few sections have attempted to outline the WO PME “story” through today, 

from its origins and evolution with The Haines Board and TWOS effort, to the comprehensive 

ATLDP-WO initiative in the early 2000s, through 10 subsequent years of evolution and near 

constant conflict, to the system our Institutional Army is implementing today. 

Segue to the Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS) 

Predictably, expectations for today’s Warrant Officer remain high. Yet, while many of the 

ATLDP-WO study’s 63 recommendations are now implemented, several remain unfulfilled and 

senior leaders remain clear, that training and education for Warrant Officers should improve. 

Of note: 

Emerging Army Profession Campaign input to senior leaders suggests that junior 

Warrant Officer PME is not meeting Cohort expectations (2011). 

FOUO


Recent study surveys indicate that while the newly redesigned WOSC/WOSSC quality is 

appropriate, more instructional depth is required, but limited by course length (2011). 

Anecdotal input from WOCC resident students indicates that BOLC B and WOAC are 

inadequate (2011); this was confirmed by WOCC Director of Training (DoT) visits to 

these PME venues throughout 2010 and 2011 as a member of the TRADOC accreditation 

team. 

With the exception of BOLC elements for WO1s, pilot efforts with Warrant Officer 

attendance to ILE (2008 and 2009), and a recent Warrant Officer Senior Service College 

(SSC) graduate (2012), education systems for the Officer and Warrant Officer Cohorts 

largely remain separate. This was among the more significant ATLDP-WO 

recommendations – to integrate WOES with OES – and that objective is not yet fully 

realized. 

As we consider (1) the roles our Warrant Officers have been called upon to fill in recent history, 

(2) an Army in dynamic transition after a decade at war, (3) increasingly constrained fiscal 

environments, and (4) Army Profession findings, it’s time to revisit objective outcomes and to 

determine whether our Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning is appropriately structured and 

professionally executed. 

These circumstances and requirements led senior leaders throughout TRADOC to conclude that 

the time had again come for another substantive Warrant Officer study, the WOCLS. 

FOUO


2.0 WARRANT OFFICER CONTINUUM OF LEARNING STUDY (WOCLS) 

Study Overview 

Ever-expanding Warrant Officer roles, accelerated 

by an Army in dynamic transition after a decade at 

war, and recent input from Army Profession 

Forums/Surveys, indicate that elements in the PME 

construct are not meeting Cohort expectations. 

Consequently, TRADOC’s senior leadership 

concluded that a full assessment of the Warrant 

Officer Continuum of Learning was necessary. 

Therefore, in early July 2011, CG, CAC requested 

that CG, TRADOC task CAC “to conduct a Warrant 

Officer Education System (WOES) study to review 

expected outcomes by course, ensure they are 

correct, and whether our current WOES is meeting these outcomes.” CG, TRADOC approved the 

study on 14 September 2011 and coordination for its execution commenced. 

A TRADOC Tasking Order and Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) EXORD followed 

on 15 February and 19 March 2012, respectively, outlining WOCLS execution and outcomes. 

Mission Statement: To “coordinate an outcomes-based study of the warrant officer continuum 

of learning to identify strengths and weaknesses and determine alignment with Army 

Regulation (AR) 350-1, the Army Leader Development Strategy (ALDS), and the Army Learning 

Model (ALM) no later than (NLT) 14 December 2012.” 

Study Intent: Validate the specified professional knowledge, skills and behaviors the 

Army requires of its warrant officers at each grade and determine whether current, 

successive levels of PME produce those desired outcomes. 

Specified Key Tasks include: 

1. Evaluate outcomes along the Warrant Officer continuum of learning by grade. 

2. Identify individual course strengths and weaknesses. 

3. Verify alignment with AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM. 

4. Ensure regulations and policies support intended outcomes. 

5. Determine what is the right education and training for U.S. Army Warrant Officers 


A methodology similar to the 2010 CCC Study was recommended, and a team was assembled to 

initiate the four-phase effort. Phases and their duration estimates/timeframes are reflected 

below in Figure 2. 

FOUO


2012 2013 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 

10 

SEP OCT NOV DEC 

14 

JAN FEB 

Study Scope 

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV 

Initiating Collection Analysis and Report Preparation 

Figure 2. WOCLS Concept of Operation and Associated Timeline. 

FOUO 

Implement 

Recommendations 

Beyond the mission, intent, end state, and key tasks outlined in both the HQDA EXORD and 

TRADOC tasking order, it is important to highlight what is and is not within this study’s scope. 

This study does not recreate or revisit the 2002 ATLDP-WO effort. Larger Army cultural issues 

related to the Warrant Officer Cohort, as well as any significant manning assessment (except as 

it may relate to PME staffing), are not incorporated. However, analysis areas, especially 

outcomes related to training and education will undoubtedly overlap. This is important to 

highlight as the team frequently encounters individuals who remind them that this is the first 

significant Warrant Officer-focused study effort in the past 10 years. 

The key tasks focus the team on identification of individual course strengths and weaknesses. 

Courses for consideration in the study are limited to: WOCS, WOBC, WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC, but the team fully recognizes that other training and education opportunities exist for 

Warrant Officers beyond these experiences along the continuum of learning. 

The WOCLS’ limited timeframe, and an even tighter data collection window, did not enable onsite 

assessment of all branch/MOS WOBCs and WOACs. Select of the implemented data 

instruments did, however, enable branch-by-branch analysis, although the study’s focus is to 

select “PME gates” along the continuum of learning. 

Methodology Overview 

Mid-Study 

Report 

Final 

Report 

WO-Focused 

ALDF 

With Figure 2’s concept of operation in mind, the team initially worked to develop the data 

collection instruments that would enable the WOCLS. Five separate instruments, targeted to 

different audiences and intended to capture varying perspectives were ultimately employed. 

These included: 

The School Self-Assessment Instrument (SAI); developed to enable WO PME delivering 

institutions the opportunity to offer comprehensive feedback on their performance


The Supervisor Survey; developed to assess performance from recent WO raters/senior 

raters 

The Student Survey; used as a comparative tool to the SAI, assessing the WO PME 

experience from the perspective of recent students 

Focus Group/Key Leader Interviews; nine disparate protocols provided the study group 

an opportunity to collect qualitative feedback from senior leaders, staff and faculty, 

current instructors, and current students at select WO PME institutions 

The General Officer (GO)/Senior Executive Service (SES) Questionnaire; used to gather 

feedback on senior WO performance (CW4/CW5) and to solicit input as to where these 

experienced Army leaders see the Cohort moving over the coming decade 

Of note, given the study’s limited timeframe, the team understood that broad perspectives 

from all 17 basic branches would be challenging. Consequently, the SAI was identified as a 

foundational data collection instrument, one that, if correctly executed, would offer 

perspective not otherwise available from Site Visits. 

Instrument development, deployment, and data collection are addressed in greater detail in 

Annex B – Study Methodology. Additionally, information related to response rates, multiplepass 

data analysis, and data set synthesis is found there as well. Due to their size, data 

collection instruments themselves are not included with this report, but are available from the 

WOCLS team, if desired. 

FOUO


3.0 THE ARMY’S EXPECTATIONS FOR TODAY’S [and TOMORROW’S] 

WARRANT OFFICERS 

Throughout the study’s 10-month history, the 

team has been immersed in constant 

consideration of past and future Warrant 

Officer roles and responsibilities. 

Warrant Officers have seen expanding roles 

and responsibilities throughout recent 

history. Our collective wisdom and 

experiences, as well as data collected in the 

execution of this study, affirms that. In many ways, those evolutionary steps were accelerated 

by studied outcomes from the ATLDP-WO effort, but combat generates practical requirements 

that have fallen to Warrant Officers for execution. Supervisor survey responses tell us that they 

are doing well across all measured areas. 

Looking forward, no one doubts the Army’s requirement for Warrant Officers to remain our 

technical and systems integration experts. The CSA has told us so, no one else is postured to 

execute those responsibilities for the force, and the data highlights a sustained technical 

mindset across all Warrant Officer grades. 

In many ways, the ability to affirm this continued expansion drives the WOCLS’ 

recommendations moving forward. Consequently, this section’s purpose is to present what the 

data collected tells us. 

Today’s Warrant Officers 

Over 26,000 Warrant Officers serve across 70 specialties in 17 branches for all components. 

They continue to serve in traditional Subject Matter Expert (SME) and System Integrator 

functions, but increasingly assume command and exercise senior leadership in advisory roles 

for operational units, our basic branches, and at senior levels up to, and including, the CSA. All 

told, Warrant Officers represent 2.5% of the Total Army and 15.3% of the Army’s Officer Corps 

(see Table 1). 

Table 1. Warrant Officer Strength – By Component and Branch. As of 12/4/2012 (PAMWEB). 

BRANCH 

Active Army 

COMPONENT 

ARNG 

FOUO 

“Warrant Officer roles are 

expanding. We are way past the 

technician vs. leader discussions; 

they are leaders first and technicians 

at a close second.” 

- Branch Chief and 

Center of Excellence Commanding General 

Army Reserve 

TOTALS 

Cohort-Specific Total 

Adjutant General 434 28.8% 810 53.7% 263 17.5% 1,507 6.1% 

Air Defense 425 91.6% 34 7.3% 5 1.1% 464 1.9% 

Aviation 5,694 56.2% 4,018 39.7% 414 4.1% 10,126 40.8% 

Chemical 12 54.5% 1 4.5% 9 40.9% 22 0.1%


BRANCH 

Active Army 

COMPONENT 

ARNG 

FOUO 

Army Reserve 

TOTALS 

Cohort-Specific Total 

Engineer 171 46.7% 112 30.6% 83 22.7% 366 1.5% 

Electronic Warfare 49 98.0% 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 50 0.2% 

Field Artillery 428 75.8% 136 24.1% 1 0.2% 565 2.3% 

Judge Advocate 97 66.0% 27 18.4% 23 15.6% 147 0.6% 

Medical Service 80 74.1% 2 1.9% 26 24.1% 108 0.4% 

Military Intelligence 1,558 77.1% 171 8.5% 292 14.4% 2,021 8.1% 

Military Police 414 71.1% 35 6.0% 133 22.9% 582 2.3% 

Ordnance 1,961 54.2% 1,296 35.8% 360 10.0% 3,617 14.6% 

Quartermaster 1,194 55.8% 780 36.4% 166 7.8% 2,140 8.6% 

Signal Corps 959 53.7% 558 31.2% 270 15.1% 1,787 7.2% 

Special Forces 525 84.1% 96 15.4% 3 0.5% 624 2.5% 

Transportation Corps 407 67.4% 74 12.3% 123 20.4% 604 2.4% 

Veterinarian Corps 70 83.3% 0 0.0% 14 16.7% 84 0.3% 

BRANCH TOTALS 14,478 58.3% 8,151 32.8% 2,185 8.8% 24,814 100% 

NON-SPECIFIC 

BRANCH CODE 

1,683 

TOTAL WARRANT 

OFFICER STRENGTH 

26,497 (15.3% of the Officer Corps/2.5% of the Total Army) 

Warrant Officer Roles Have Evolved. Study data 

support what those serving have experienced and 

instinctively understand – that roles and 

responsibilities of Warrant Officers have continued to 

expand in recent history. In fact, eight in 10 

respondents to the Supervisor Survey either agreed or 

strongly agreed with that assertion, while less than 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The 

Army sees it and the Cohort is living it. 

Additional WOCLS data points on this topic include: 

FACT/FINDING: 

Warrant Officer roles and 

responsibilities have continued 

to expand in recent history. 

Nearly two thirds of School Commandants and Directors of Training responded in the 

affirmative when asked whether Warrant Officer roles have evolved (Key Leader 

Interviews). 

Four of five Warrant Officers in senior leadership roles (Chief Warrant Officer of the 

Branch [CWOB], Regimental Chief Warrant Officer [RCWO], etc.) indicate that their role 

has evolved (Key Leader Interviews/Focus Groups). 

This same level of agreement (~80%) was also evident among WOAC (~81%), WOSC 

(~86%), and WOSSC (~88%) students (Focus Groups) (NOTE: this question was not 

posed at the WOBC level and below).


100% of Quality Assurance Officers (QAO) believe roles and responsibilities have, 

indeed, expanded (Key Leader Interviews). 

Accepting that roles and responsibilities have evolved, how have roles changed and what are 

Warrant Officers now expected to do? 

How Have Warrant Officer Roles Evolved? Focus Group and Key Leader Interviews often 

uncover references to “higher” levels of responsibility, requiring more leadership expertise than 

has been evident in the past: 

The majority of School Commandants highlighted “more strategic” and “leadershipfocused” 

roles, while a minority indicated broader “planning and logistics” 

responsibilities. Although DoTs did not echo this perspective, 75% of QAOs affirmed 

their Commandant’s position with respect to the need for more strategic perspective 

(Key Leader Interviews). 

Mid Grade, intermediate and senior Warrant Officer student focus groups repeatedly 

talked about “higher” levels of responsibility – WOAC (~81%), WOSC (~25%), and WOSSC 

(~33%) (Focus Groups). 

In light of these noted changes in what the Army expects of its Warrant Officers, one logically 

wonders how well they are performing. 

79% of Supervisor Survey 

respondents believe Warrant Officers 

are meeting their expectations. 

FOUO 

How is the Cohort 

Performing? In response to 

whether or not “Warrant 

Officers are meeting my 

expectations,” nearly four in 

five recent WO raters or 

senior raters responded 

affirmatively (Agree or 

Strongly Agree). Figure 3, at 

left, presents these data, by 

Supervisor Survey respondent 

rank/grade. 

These data correspond 

reasonably well to 74.2% of 

Figure 3. Supervisor Assessment of Warrant Officer Performance. 

GO/SES Questionnaire 

respondents, who offered 

positive responses as to how well senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and CW5) are currently 

performing. Over 96% of 31 senior officers/civilians offered positive impressions of 

performance.


Future Warrant Officer Roles and Responsibilities 

Will Roles and Responsibilities Continue to 

Evolve? Making use of the GO/SES Questionnaire, 

as well as Key Leader Interviews, the team worked 

toward a foundational finding that would guide 

the balance of WOCLS’ recommendations. As a 

result, multiple sources and data points all speak 

to continued roles and responsibilities expansion 

for Warrant Officers. 

Understanding how and in what subject areas this expansion might occur would generally help 

in shaping WOCLS recommendations, but also helps in responding to the study’s key tasks. 

Specifically, what is the “right education and training” for Warrant Officers? 

What New Capabilities Are Required for Tomorrow’s Warrant Officer? This section’s previously 

highlighted respondent groups offered the following insights: 

School Commandants point to “more leadership” and “advanced technical 

skills/knowledge (including cyber)” (Key Leader Interviews). 

DoTs suggest strategic education is now required at ever-earlier points along the 

continuum of learning; 88% sustain Warrant Officer focus on technical training (Key 

Leader Interviews). 

Senior Warrant Officers and current WOSSC, WOSC, and WOAC students highlight 

leadership, staff skills, critical thinking, and communications training, in addition to 

continued technical focus. 

Of the ~68% of GO/SES Questionnaire Respondents who highlighted that new 

capabilities were required of Warrant Officers moving forward, nearly half highlighted 

leadership skills, including self-development, knowledge management, agility, strategic 

awareness, and critical/creative thinking, while the balance identified additional 

technical/system integrator requirements as technology continues to accelerate. 

These findings offer a framework for WOCLS recommendations throughout the balance of this 

report. It is important to emphasize that while senior leader assessments of Warrant Officer 

performance are strongly positive, 12% of recent raters/senior raters on the Supervisor Survey 

also indicated dissatisfaction with performance. Further analysis will attempt to highlight 

specific WO grades and subject areas as candidates for corresponding PME improvement. 

FOUO 

FINDING: 

In sum, no respondent group is 

suggesting anything other than 

continued role and responsibility 

expansion for Warrant Officers 

moving forward.


4.0 FINDINGS (SO WHAT?) and RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS (NOW 

WHAT?) 

This section again returns to focus on the specified key tasks. These guided all aspects of the 

study’s execution and definitively bounded the team’s scope. As this section will highlight, this 

is not to suggest that the group ignored findings uncovered by the data, but outside the literal 

scope defined by the key tasks – we simply focused to ensure we remained clear as to what was 

mission essential, and what was not. Several findings address multiple key tasks. 

However, as was accomplished for the CCC Study, sections below follow a Finding, Discussion, 

Recommendation outline. At the end of these discussions, the report summarizes all findings 

and recommendations into a single table for ready reference. 

Revisiting the Five Key Tasks (KT) – What Were We Told To Do? 

The study’s specified key tasks are presented again below. 

KT1: Evaluate outcomes along the Warrant Officer continuum of learning by grade. 

KT2: Identify individual course strengths and weaknesses. 

KT3: Verify alignment with AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM. 

KT4: Ensure regulations and policies support intended outcomes. 

KT5: Determine what is the right education and training for U.S. Army Warrant Officers 


The Bottom Line: Warrant Officer PME is fundamentally and structurally sound; however, 

significant improvements are needed along the continuum to address gaps as Warrant Officer 

systems integrator/technical roles continue expanding to meet Army requirements. These 

expanding roles and responsibilities require Warrant Officers 

Strategic Conclusion exercise greater leadership; mandate an ability to operate and 

integrate within staff functions at the tactical to strategic level; 

and necessitate cultural and Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, Multinational (JIIM) 

environment expertise. These broad requirements increase the Cohort’s reliance on PME vs. 

experiential learning in order to gain foundational knowledge, skills, and behaviors (KSB) that 

result in success. 

The five separate collection instruments employed during this 

study underscore a foundational point – Warrant Officer roles will 

continue to expand to meet Army requirements. Findings derived 

from the synthesis of over 221K data points include: 

FOUO 

Foundational Finding


Main Findings 

General Learning Outcomes for Warrant Officers are underdeveloped. These must be 

fully developed in order to better define expectations of the Cohort and to better focus 


Outcomes and sub-outcomes are insufficiently defined for the WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC. 

Academic governance and proponency along the continuum of learning are not clearly 

defined for Warrant Officer PME. 

Officership, a major learning outcome of BOLC A and B, is a rescinded doctrinal term and 

should be eliminated from applicable learning outcomes, regulations and policies. 

Approximately one in five CW5s are not meeting Force expectations in a number of 

leadership sub-outcomes, specifically general leadership, written and oral 


Various tactical competence sub-outcomes for CW3s and above require improvement. 

Depth of instruction is increasingly insufficient as Warrant Officers progress along the 

continuum of learning. 

Senior Officers (CW4 and CW5) in select branches indicate a strong desire for a followon 

technical phase to the WOSC and WOSSC. 

Approximately one in three recent WOAC graduates indicated the course outcomes did 

not meet their expectations. Results vary by branch, but data synthesized across all five 

collection instruments indicate shortcomings in several specific and general areas. 

PME institutions report above average alignment of their programs to tenets outlined in 

AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM 

Recent PME attendees and PME institutions offer widely differing perspectives on AR 


PME institutions are challenged to provide up-to-date, operable, and adequate training 

aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS). 

Nearly one in four recent Warrant Officer PME graduates reported their coursework did 

not sufficiently integrate Operational Environment complexity. 

FOUO


Instructor selection and assignment are problematic for select Warrant Officer PME 

institutions. 

Warrant Officer PME should be linked to promotion. 

Seven in 10 senior leaders highlighted at least some major changes to policy and 

resourcing would be required to “ensure that WO education and training remains 

synchronized with emerging technological and operational requirements.” 

WOAC attendance is considered “too late” or “way too late” along the continuum. 

A select subset of the cohort, integrated and working in critical positions throughout our 

Army, is not adequately supported by “standard PME”. The Army must prepare these 

SWOs for success in these key roles. 

Findings, Discussions, and Recommendations 

Finding 1: General Learning Outcomes (GLO) 

for Warrant Officers are underdeveloped. 

These must be fully developed in order to 

better define expectations of the Cohort and to 

better focus Warrant Officer PME 

requirements. 

Discussion: Research and coordination by the 

WOCLS team during the course of this effort highlighted that the Army Learning Coordination 

Council was tracking multiple initiatives associated with GLOs for Officer and NCO grades, but 

that only preliminary work had been accomplished for Warrant Officers. 

This work was initiated at the WOCC, but passed to the WOCLS team for further development, 

and to make use of data collected by this study. A draft “General Learning Outcomes for 

Warrant Officers” is presented at Annex C. 

The tabular insert below is employed throughout the balance of this section to identify finding 

alignment to the study’s five key tasks. Finding 1, as an example, is mapped to KTs 1, 4, and 5. 

KT1 KT2 KT3 KT4 KT5 

 

Recommendation: The WOCC, WOCLS Team, ALCC and SWOC continue refining the GLOs, 

utilizing study data. Recommend that WO PME course proponents evaluate and revise course 

outcomes based on the WOCLS findings and new GLOs for Warrant Officers (once GLOs are 

endorsed by ALCC principals and approved by CG, TRADOC). The ALCC WG will monitor 

FOUO 

Finding: 

General Learning Outcomes for 

Warrant Officers are underdeveloped. 

These must be fully developed in 

order to better define expectations of 

the Cohort and to better focus 

Warrant Officer PME requirements.


implementation of WOCLS findings and report progress toward refinement of WO GLOs and 

opportunities for cross-cohort integration during the August ALCC Principals meeting. Once 

completed, WO course proponents will have the completed GLOs for use as they develop 

future curricula. 

Finding 2: Outcomes and sub-outcomes are insufficiently defined for the WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC. 

Discussion: Descriptions for these courses are offered in AR 350-1 and ATRRS, but course 

outcomes are not presented to the granularity as is developed for junior level education and 

training. Specifically, TR 350-36 explicitly outlines six major, thematic outcomes, as well as the 

subordinate tasks under each of these themes in the Common Core Task List (CCTL) for BOLC. 

No equivalent detail exists for PME further along the continuum – junior PME education and 

training outcomes are more clearly focused when compared to senior education outcomes for 


This clarity would prove invaluable for Warrant Officer PME training developers, and an initial 

step toward this course-specific detail is achieved with proposed GLOs for Warrant Officers. 

From these general outcomes, course outcomes and sub-outcomes are directly developed and 

then integrated into publications governing Warrant Officer PME. 

Specific to the WOAC, while junior and more senior-level education and training references 

offer greater detail regarding course Leadership outcomes, Army references (e.g., AR 350-1, DA 

Pam 600-3, ATRRS, etc.) refer only to general communications skills as relevant leadership suboutcomes. 

This contrasts with problem solving, critical/creative thinking, and communications 

sub-outcomes at the WOSC level, and influential leadership, adaptability, critical/creative 

thinking, and communications skills for WOSSC graduates. Clearly, and as WOAC graduates 

prepare for more senior roles and responsibilities, additional leadership outcomes specification 

is required. 

It is important to highlight that this minor finding is not to suggest that CW3s (tied by this study 

to WOAC along the continuum) are failing in their leadership responsibilities (Supervisor Survey 

data indicated that 88% were meeting or exceeding Leadership expectations), but rather to 

highlight that additional guidance would be useful in framing desired leadership outcomes. 

This is especially important in light of Section 3.0’s highlighting continued roles expansion 

anticipated over the coming decade, and the specified need for additional leadership emphasis 

by senior officers (GO/SES Questionnaire). Again, clarifying pertinent PME guidance with 

additional detail regarding general and sub-outcomes will undoubtedly benefit Warrant Officer 

training and education proponents, developers, and students. 


 

FOUO


Recommendation: Pending resolution surrounding governance and proponency for Warrant 

Officer PME at these points, recommend continued work associated with Finding 1 to fully 

develop and approve GLOs for Warrant Officers, then use the result as the initial framework for 

PME proponents to revisit course outcomes and sub-outcomes. Beyond the general value this 

activity has for PME at all points along the continuum, the WOCLS noted under or ill-defined 

outcomes for: 

Character and Accountability at the WOSC and WOSSC levels. 

Team Building (Communication) for WOACs. 

Lifelong Learning for WOSC and WOSSCs. 

Finding: 

Academic governance and 

proponency along the continuum of 

learning are not clearly defined for 

Warrant Officer PME. 

Finding 3: Academic governance and 

proponency along the continuum of learning are 

not clearly defined for Warrant Officer PME. 

Discussion: As a consequence of the WOCLS 

effort, inconsistencies were noted in the 

ownership for functional training, common-core 

Army training, and general Warrant Officer 

education at various points along the continuum. These gaps, in specific branch or functional 

proponency, were not easily clarified in existing regulations governing Warrant Officer training 

and education. Determining which warrant officer agent or organization was responsible for the 

specified curricula becomes increasingly difficult along the continuum. 

Leveraging strong responses from the SAI, Student Surveys, input from the SWOC, and previous 

ATLDP study recommendations, a purposeful realignment of proponency, by level and Program 

of Instruction (POI), represents a “next logical step” for the WOCLS effort. In order to sustain 

synchronization with general and functional outcomes, and to maintain their alignment with 

Army officer and technical learning requirements, the WOCLS proposes a functional framework 

for curricula location and proponency. 


 

Recommendation: TRADOC directs DCG-IMT and CAC to staff WOCLS recommendations for 

proponency alignment for Warrant Officer PME and submit results to TRADOC for final staffing. 

The following functional, branch, and common-core proponencies are recommended: 

1. Pre-Commissioning: Update regulations governing WOCC proponency for WOCS to 

include direct coordination, bi-annually, with the U.S. Army Infantry School in order to 

FOUO


ensure alignment with Army pre-commissioning task training (WO1 Commissioning is 

the catalyst). 

2. Clarify where necessary, DCG-IMT approval and WOCC proponency, for common-core 

skills at the BOLC levels (WOCS and WOBC). Additionally: 

a. DCG-IMT completes the effort to cross-reference common task training between 

the WOCS and WOBCs for redundancy. 

b. DCG-IMT staffs and recommends task modification/deletion from the WOBC. 

c. In coordination with CAC, the WOCC, and appropriate TRADOC/DA approval 

authorities, move toward expanding WOCS course length to incorporate any 

“remaining” junior officer tasks moved from WOBC to WOCS. 

d. Complete this transition to increase time for technical training and junior officer 

technical certification by the WOBCs. 

3. Mid-Grade Officer Training and Education (WOAC): 

a. CAC designates the School for Advanced Leadership and Tactics (SALT) at Fort 

Leavenworth as proponent for the mid-grade officer learning continuum to 

include warrant officers. 

b. CAC directs SALT to oversee the development of the integration of Warrant 

Officers, to include distance, blended, and resident learning. 

c. CAC directs SALT to relocate, where appropriate, resident common Army training 

and education from branch-proponent WOACs to a DL format, in order to 

increase available technical training, certification, and resources for mid-grade 


4. ILE (WOSC): WOCC continues to coordinate directly with the Command and General 

Staff School (CGSS) to review and align curricula with Army expectations for 

intermediate level education, in order to develop and deliver relevant and consistent 

intermediate-level learning outcomes, and to more completely align OES curricula 

synchronization in accordance with AR 350-1 and the ALM. TRADOC directs the first 

review within one year of approval and is sustained on a triennial basis thereafter. 

5. Senior Service Education (WOSSC): WOCC continues to coordinate directly with 

appropriate Army War College staff and faculty to review and align curricula with Army 

expectations for senior service education, in order to develop and deliver relevant, 

consistent senior service learning outcomes, and to more completely align OES curricula 


review within one year of approval and this is sustained on a triennial basis thereafter. 

These actions will necessitate a number of regulation and policy modifications that currently 

cover these specified activities. 

FOUO


Finding 4: Officership, a major learning outcome of BOLC A and B, is a rescinded doctrinal 

term and should be eliminated from applicable learning outcomes, regulations and policies. 

Discussion: Professionalism and Officership is defined in TR 350-36 as a major outcome for 

BOLC. Additionally, the term Officership is used in AR 350-1, also in reference to BOLC. 

Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22, Army Leadership, Introductory Table-1, 

identifies Officership among “rescinded Army terms.” 


 

Recommendation: In order to bring PME references into doctrinal agreement: 

Each WO PME proponent along the continuum of learning should review specified 

course outcomes and re-categorize Officership curricular focus to either the 

Professionalism or Leadership outcomes. 

Proponents for AR 350-1 and TR 350-36 should eliminate all references to Officership 

and re-categorize PME outcomes, where appicable. 

Finding 5: Approximately one in five CW5s are not 

meeting Force expectations in a number of key leadership 

sub-outcomes, specifically general leadership, written 

and oral communication, and critical/creative thinking. 

Discussion: Key data points from WOCLS instruments 

indicated: 

Communication Skills 

o SAI data indicated that the WOCC assessed itself as “neither agree nor disagree” 

when asked about its ability to “produce Warrant Officers who can write/speak 

clearly, concisely, and persuasively.” 

o Less than half of all recent WOSSC graduate respondents to the Student Survey 

agree (that WOSSC produces these skills). 

o Supervisor Survey respondents indicated that CW5s met or exceeded written 

and oral communication performance expectations in 82% and 86% of cases, 

respectively. Of note, this is degradation from CW4 performance by 7% (written) 

and 9% (oral). 

Shortcomings are more pronounced when considering critical/creative thinking skills: 

Critical/Creative Thinking Skills 

FOUO 

Finding: 

Approximately one in five 

CW5s are not meeting force 

expectations in a number of 

key leadership sub-outcomes.


o The WOCC “mostly agreed,” that it was successful in producing “Warrant 

Officers who can think critically/creatively” (SAI). 

o In this case, however, only 60% of recent WOSSC graduates believe the WOSSC 

is successful in meeting this outcome (58% agree with critical thinking success; 

59% agree with creative thinking success) (Student Survey). 

o Supervisors are less complimentary. Only 79% of CW5s are meeting or 

exceeding expectations in these areas, contrasted with 91% (critical) and 93% 

(creative) at the CW4-level (Supervisor Survey). 

Troubling too are Supervisor Survey assessments of CW5 Leadership performance (see Figure 

4). These data all suggest a requirement for the WOCC to reassess its outcomes-based efforts in 

this area, and especially for the WOSSC. All evidence points to future requirements that will 

continue to place a premium on these skills, especially at more senior Warrant Officer grades. 

The WOCLS team 

would suggest that 

WOSSC attendance is a 

contributing factor; 

39% of CW5s have not 

attended WOSSC. In 

order to modify this 

trend, and to maximize 

Warrant Officer 

opportunities at this 

point along the 

continuum, HQDA is 

currently working an 

initiative to link PME to 

promotion. 


 

Recommendation: CAC completes a comprehensive review of the WOSSC curricula focusing on 

leadership outcomes. Results should be balanced with senior service level outcomes, where 

appropriate, and integrated within the WOSSC curricula. 

Finding 6: Various tactical competence outcomes for 

CW3s and above require improvement; CW5s/WOSSC must 

focus improvements to staff action skills, including the 

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), and an 

understanding of JIIM operations, structure, and contexts. 

FOUO 

Supervisors report that one in 

five CW5s are failing to meet 

Leadership performance 

expectations (Supervisor 

Survey). 

Figure 4. Supervisor Assessment of Performance, by Rated Warrant Officer 

Grade 

Finding: 

Various tactical competence 

outcomes for CW3s and above 

require improvement.


Discussion: Despite PME institution feedback that suggests above average performance in 

achieving Tactical Competence outcomes for Warrant Officers (SAI), recent PME graduates are 

less complimentary. In fact, student agreement regarding specific tactical outcomes and suboutcomes 

diminishes from a high of over 80% for WOCS graduates to near 50% at WOAC 

milestones, settling at 57% for WOSSC graduates in their agreement as to whether WOSSC 

produces Warrant Officers “who understand staff operations in a strategic-level JIIM 

environment” (Student Survey). 

Common terminology for select items on both Student Surveys and the SAI enable a side-byside 

comparison for select tactical competence sub-outcomes (Table 2). 

Table 2. Cross-Instrument Comparison of Select Tactical Sub-Outcomes. These data suggest a gap in 

how PME institutions view their success in achieving these outcomes when compared to recent Warrant 

Officer graduates of those courses, especially at later points along the continuum of learning. 

SELECT TACTICAL COMPETENCE 

SUB-OUTCOMES 

WOCS produces Warrant Officers who demonstrate 

knowledge of the orders process and troop leading 

procedures while executing small unit tactics. 

WOCS produces Warrant Officers who are 

competent in Army operations. 

WOBC produces Warrant Officers who make 

appropriate decisions to provide solutions to 

tactical-level problems. 

WOBC produces Warrant Officers who are 

proficient in troop leading procedures. 

WOAC produces Warrant Officers who can apply 

staff processes (e.g. MDMP) in a JIIM environment 

at the battalion-brigade level. 

WOSC produces Warrant Officers who possess 

necessary decision-making skills. 

WOSC produces Warrant Officers who are 

knowledgeable in organizational theory. 

WOSSC produces Warrant Officers who understand 

staff operations in a strategic level JIIM 

environment. 

FOUO 

SAI FEEDBACK 

STUDENT SURVEY 

Agreement 

Mostly Agree (4.0) 86% 

Neither Agree nor 

Disagree (3.0) 

Mostly to Strongly 

Agree (4.48) 

80% 

71% 




Neither Agree nor 

Disagree (3.0) 

60% 

Mostly Agree (4.0) 57%


Setting aside the delta 

in perceptions 

proposed by Table 2, a 

review of Supervisor 

Survey data yields 

additional insight as to 

whether PME is 

supporting select 

tactical competence 

sub-outcomes. 

These data (at above 

right) suggests that in 

over 90% of all cases along the continuum, Warrant Officers are meeting or exceeding the 

Force’s performance expectations for Tactical Skills. However, these same data additionally 

highlight areas for potential improvement, as well as a noticeable degradation in performance 

as raters move from considering CW4s to CW5s. 

Considering measured tactical skills from Supervisor Survey data across all Warrant Officer 

grades, the cohort is assessed as “exceeding or greatly exceeding my expectations” as follows: 

Decision-Making – 92%; a specified or implied sub-outcome at every point along the 

continuum of learning 

Knowledge of Organizational Theory – 88%; specified by reference, only for the WOSC 

Staff Actions/Operations – 87%; specified or implied as a tactical competence suboutcome 

at every point from WOBC through WOSSC 

Knowledge of MDMP – 86%; also specified or implied sub-outcome at every point along 

the continuum of learning 

Knowledge of JIIM Concepts – 83%; JIIM understanding is highlighted as a sub-outcome 

for WOAC/CW3s through WOSSC/CW5s 

Looking at these same tactical sub-outcomes, but breaking out performance, by grade, reveals 

(Table 3): 

FOUO 

MET EXCEEDED or GREATLY EXCEEDED


Table 3. Tactical Sub-Outcome Performance by Grade. These data were extracted from Supervisor 

Survey respondents for the Warrant Officer grades indicated. Data reflects responses that indicated 

either “met my expectations” or exceeded or greatly exceeded my expectations.” 

SELECT TACTICAL COMPETENCE 

SUB-OUTCOMES 

WO1/CW2 CW3 CW4 CW5 

Decision-Making 89% 94% 95% 88% 

Knowledge of Organizational Theory 89% 

Staff Actions/Operations 87% 89% 90% 77% 

Knowledge of MDMP 82% 83% 91% 80% 

Knowledge of JIIM Concepts 84% 86% 76% 

Table 3 illustrates the point introduced above, that for all measured tactical competence 

performance areas, there is a noticeable decline in CW5 performance when compared to CW4s. 

Data collection items were not sufficiently sophisticated to discern whether this is an issue 

related to (1) increased expectations of CW5s, (2) issues associated with “mis”-assignment, (3) 

PME nonattendance or (4) actual performance. 


 

Recommendation: WOCC and SALT, with direct support from ALCC, synchronize efforts 

between course proponents for O-grade and W-grade tactical learning outcomes. This effort 

intends to determine appropriate course lengths and content necessary to produce tactically 

relevant Warrant Officers, by grade and level. WOCC and SALT complete the review and 

recommend appropriate initiatives to CAC for approval. 

Finding 7: Depth of instruction is increasingly 

insufficient as Warrant Officers move from WOCS to 

WOSSC along the continuum of learning. 

Discussion: Student Survey responses to “how would 

you rate the (depth/breadth) of the curriculum at 

_______” delivered the following results (Table 4). 

Table 4. Student Survey Assessment of Curricular Depth and Breadth Along the Continuum of 

Learning. Percentages provided in the table below reflect respondent assessments of “adequate” to 

depth and breadth. 

WOCS WOBC WOAC WOSC WOSSC 

Depth 90% 79% 60% 65% 50% 

Breadth 94% 79% 61% 69% 58% 

FOUO 

Finding: 

Depth of instruction is 

increasingly insufficient as 

Warrant Officers progress along 

the continuum of learning.


Instrument intent in soliciting depth feedback was to determine whether or not course topics 

are covered in sufficient depth; breadth was intended to determine whether sufficient topics 

should be covered in Warrant Officer PME. However, these definitions were not provided with 

the Student Survey instrument. 

Similar questioning during Focus Group data collection suggested confusion regarding depth 

and breadth – select responses to breadth questioning clearly reflected a depth issue and vice 

versa. As a result, the team was left with the requirement to independently determine whether 

issues identified in both Student Survey data and Focus Group feedback were, in fact, related to 

course depth, breadth, or both. As follow-on in moving this finding toward actionable 

recommendations, we additionally explored, which topics, according to the data, required 

additional attention – either depth or breadth of coverage. 

Qualitative responses across the Student Survey, Focus Group/Key Leader Interviews, and the 

GO/SES Questionnaire repeatedly identified the following subjects as areas where additional 

PME emphasis was necessary (Table 5): 

Table 5. Subject Areas for Increased Emphasis Along the Continuum of Learning. These subjects and 

major outcome areas were derived from a qualitative synthesis of feedback across several WOCLS data 

collection instruments. 

COURSE 

OUTCOME AREAS WOCS WOBC WOAC WOSC WOSSC 

Values and 

Ethics 

Leadership 

Professionalism 

and Officership 

Personal 

Development 

Technical 

Competence 

Tactical 

Competence 

No subject areas 

noted. 

Officership 

No subject areas noted. 

Problem Solving Critical Thinking 

No subject areas 

noted. 


MDMP MDMP 

Comprehensive 

Soldier Fitness 


Technical 

Competence 

Of note, none of the areas identified fell outside the 

six topical categories that capture course outcomes. 

Each area noted in the data sets was additionally 

addressed, either specifically or by inference, to 

specified sub-outcomes. Therefore, these data 

suggest that additional subject areas are not 

required, leading to the team’s conclusion – a depth 

MDMP 

Cultural and JIIM 

Competence 

FOUO 

Critical Thinking 

Communication 

Comprehensive 


Technical 

Competence 

MDMP 


Problem Solving 

Comprehensive 


Military History 

Technical 

Competence 

MDMP 

Cultural and JIIM 

Competence 

Data suggest that additional 

subject areas are not required, 

leading to the team’s conclusion 

– a depth issue exists with select 

WO PME offerings. 

issue exists with select WO PME offerings. The balance of this discussion moves forward with 

that premise.


Subjects identified in Table 5 above begin to speak to the “what” associated with this depth 

issue, but additional insights were available from Student Survey items that queried 

respondents regarding depth of coverage across select topics (“this course included adequate 

depth of instruction on _________”). 

The data presented in Figure 5 (page 27) were derived independently of the synthesis reflected 

above, and the reader will note strong correlation between these subject lists. 

Key aspects of Figure 5 include: 

The vertical axis was expanded to generate vertical separation in these data. 

The lines connecting each data point are not intended to describe a relationship 

between student responses on Accountability to Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and so 

on. However, the lines do visually correlate apparent PME course success in achieving 

necessary topical depth. 

With the finding that depth is increasingly insufficient along the continuum (Student Survey), 

course proponents should, by virtue of Table 5’s synthesis and Figure 5’s direct presentation, 

begin to identify which subject areas require additional attention. These data clearly identifies 

the most significant depth of instruction concerns at the WOSSC, WOSC, and WOAC levels. 

Only 50% of Warrant Officers believed that the depth of WOSSC curricula provided 

sufficient knowledge to prepare them to perform well at the next or higher level. 

Student-identified areas requiring additional depth included: general technical 

competence, general tactical competence, and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness. 

Only 65% of Warrant Officers believed that the depth of WOSC curricula provided 

sufficient knowledge to prepare them to perform well at the next or higher level. 

Student-identified areas requiring additional depth included: general technical 

competence, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, and general tactical competence. 

While the data is aggregated across branches for WOAC feedback, only 60% of recent 

WOAC graduates believed that course depth provided knowledge sufficiency that 

enabled their strong performance at the next or higher level. Cultural and JIIM 

competence, general tactical competence, and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness were 

identified from the Student Survey as thematic areas requiring additional depth. 

FOUO


Figure 5. Student Survey Feedback Regarding Depth Adequacy for PME Subjects 

It is also interesting to compare these Student Survey responses with Supervisor Survey 

feedback relating Warrant Officer performance in these same subject areas. Data depicted in 

Figure 6 reflects responses where select Warrant Officer grades “met, exceeded, or greatly 

exceeded” expectations (Supervisor Survey). The vertical axis in this figure has also been 

exaggerated. 

In some respects, course proponents might use Figures 5 and 6 as a ready prioritization of the 

areas requiring greater PME depth, figuratively pushing the lowest data points in either graph 

upward into a narrower band of excellence. 

The reader is invited to revisit page 13’s list of knowledge, skills, and behaviors areas 

highlighted by senior leaders moving forward for our Warrant Officers (Key Leader Interviews 

and GO/SES Questionnaire). Many of those critical subject areas are additionally identified here 

as shortcomings of existing PME courses. 


 

FOUO


Figure 6. Supervisor Survey Feedback on Warrant Officer Performance of Select PME Subjects 

Recommendation 7a: CAC completes a comprehensive review of curricular depth and course 

length for the WOSSC and WOSC. Focus should be to Student Survey feedback, Supervisor 

Survey and GO/SES Questionnaire performance/ expectations input. Results should balance 

with senior service education (WOSSC) and intermediate level education learning outcomes 

(WOSC), as appropriate. 

Recommendation 7b: Branch proponents review curricular depth for their assigned WOACs 

using feedback from the WOCLS. Each WO PME institution will provide a back brief to CAC; 

reviews should be compared against WOCLS-generated data. 

Finding 8: Senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and 

CW5) in select branches indicate a strong desire for 

a follow-on technical phase to the existing PME. 

Discussion: The subject areas outlined above in 

Table 5 included Technical Competence among 

topics/areas where additional PME depth was 

desired. Additional Student Survey responses, specific to questioning regarding follow-on 

technical phases for select Warrant Officer PME offerings, indicated that 72% of recent WOSC 

and 65% of recent WOSSC graduates desired this additional coverage (Student Survey). 

FOUO 

Finding: 

Senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and 

CW5) in select branches indicate a 

strong desire for a follow-on 

technical phase.


Not surprisingly, branch-by-branch analysis of this result weighed heavily to the “more 

technical” branches at both the WOSC and WOSSC levels. Those details are available, but are 

not incorporated as part of these findings and recommendations. Of note, an ongoing ALDF 

initiative on Transforming Warrant Officer Education recently enabled follow-on technical 

courses for the cohort, however only five branches for the WOSC, and one branch for WOSSC, 

have instituted these courses. 


 

Recommendation: Branch proponents not currently conducting WOSC/WOSSC technical 

follow-on courses should further analyze requirements outlined by the ALDF Transform 

Warrant Officer Education initiative. Branches report their findings to CAC for 

consideration/injection/resourcing into the 4 th Quarter ALDF Council of Colonels. 

Finding: 

Approximately one in three recent 

WOAC graduates indicated the 

course outcomes did not meet 

their expectations. 

Finding 9: Approximately one in three recent 

WOAC graduates indicated the course outcomes 

did not meet their expectations. Results vary by 

branch, but data synthesized across all five 

collection instruments indicate shortcomings in 

several specific and general areas. 

Discussion: Previously outlined depth and breadth discussions aside, WOAC-specific data from 

Students Surveys offer dissatisfaction in a broad-range of areas which include: 

36% disagree, that WOAC prepared them to serve in JIIM environments (Tactical 

Competence) 

33% disagree, that WOAC provided appropriate tactical training (Tactical Competence) 

32% disagree, that WOAC prepared them to be a capable technical operator (Technical 

Competence) 

32% disagree, that WOAC provided them appropriate, advanced branch-specific training 

(Technical and Tactical Competence) 

31% disagree, that WOAC prepared them to be a capable maintainer (Technical 

Competence) 

30% disagree, that WOAC provided them appropriate knowledge, skills, and behaviors 

to be successful in their current position 

29% disagree, that the course prepared them for increased responsibilities and 

successful performance at the next higher level 

Additionally, Focus Group feedback pointed to curricular relevance and insufficient depth, 

particularly for technical training. Outcomes, as indicated by recent raters and senior raters on 

the Supervisor Survey, are more complimentary across the same tactical and technical 

FOUO


dimensions (Figure 7). These data suggest that (1) either the PME product is actually sufficient 

or (2) that WOAC graduates are finding a way to bridge the gap between baseline training and 

organizational expectations. 

Percentage of CW3s who “Fell Short” 

or “Fell Well Short” of Supervisor 

Expectations 

Figure 7. Supervisor Survey Feedback on CW3 Performance against Select Tactical and Technical 

Dimensions 

Findings related to Key Task 4, Ensure Regulations and Policies Support Intended Outcomes, will 

highlight the team’s recommendation to move WOAC to an earlier point along the continuum 

of learning, but the collected evidence suggests the need for additional overhaul of these 

courses. 

Since no proponency “one stop shop,” such as SALT for junior to mid- O-grade PME currently 

exists, implementing a focused review of the indentified shortcomings by area is challenging. 


 

FOUO


Recommendation: Recommend School Commandants accomplish an internal review of midgrade 

technical training for their Warrant Officer PME. This review should incorporate an 

emphasis on outdated equipment (Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations [TADSS]) 

(see Finding 12). 

Finding 10: PME institutions report above average alignment of their programs to the tenets 

outlined in AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM. 

Discussion: Although Finding 11 will focus on disparate AR 350-1 alignment results, PME 

institutions generally reported “better than average” support for these key Army regulations 

and strategies. Feedback from the SAI, Part B, indicates (Table 6): 

Table 6. PME Alignment w/ AR 350-1, ALDS, and ALM. 

AR 350-1 ALDS ALM 

Alignment Items 48 24 34 

Average Mean Rating 4.14 3.88 3.80 

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Mostly Disagree 

3 = Neither Agree nor 

Disagree 

FOUO 

4 = Mostly Agree 5 = Strongly Agree 

Only in the case of AR 350-1 was there substantive data from another instrument that could be 

used to corroborate these self-assessments (see Finding 11). However, Focus Group/Key Leader 

Interview results offered amplifying comments, directly to ALM integration at various branch 

schools. Challenges identified from Key Leader Interviews of Commandants, DoTs, QAOs, and 

Simulation Managers include: 

Implementation is fully underway, but metrics associated with ALM integration are not 

clearly defined. 

Resourcing necessary both to reach optimal facilitator-to-student ratios and to redesign 

curricular products toward ALM compliance is hard won. These will likely influence 

institutional success at ALM integration over the next several years. 

Simulation is unevenly integrated across PME institutions. Resources to develop, 

integrate, and man simulations in support of Warrant Officer PME are scarce, at best. 


 

Recommendation: PME institutions universally acknowledge both current and emerging 

standards, and are active in initiatives associated with their implementation. Until full 

development and implementation of the ALM and ALDS, there are no additional actions 

recommended by the team.


Finding: 

Recent PME attendees and PME 

institutions offer widely differing 

perspectives on AR 350-1 

alignment. 

Finding 11: Recent PME attendees and PME 

institutions offer widely differing perspectives on AR 


Discussion: PME institution responses on the SAI 

indicate solid alignment with AR 350-1. However, 

those data contrast sharply with Student Survey 

feedback, especially for recent WOAC, WOSC, and WOSSC students. The disparity in these 

results suggests a need for institutions to revisit the issue and conduct an alignment review. 

In specific, PME institutions assessed themselves an average rating of 4.14 (Mostly Agree) 

across the 48 AR 350-1 alignment items, but only 6 in 10 students would echo that perspective 

(Student Survey). Common SAI and Student Survey items allow a direct comparison in 12 

separate cases (Table 7). 

Table 7. Direct Comparison of SAI to Student Survey Data Measuring AR 350-1 Alignment. 

AR 350-1 ALIGNMENT ITEM SAI FEEDBACK 

This institution produces WOs who can operate in 

an environment of rapid change. 


an environment of ambiguity. 

This institution produces WOs who can solve 

problems creatively. 


an environment of complexity. 

WO courses produce WOs who are proficient 

administrators of Army equipment, support 

activities, and technical systems. 

This institution produces WOs who can build 

effective teams amid organizational and 

technological change. 

WO courses produce WOs who are good stewards 

of organizational resources. 

WO courses produce WOs who are proficient 

managers of Army equipment, support activities, 

and technical systems. 

The OES prepares WOs for increased 

responsibilities and successful performance at the 

next higher level. 

This institution produces WOs who are fully 

competent in leadership skills, knowledge and 

experience. 

FOUO 


Agree (4.46) 


Agree (4.34) 


Agree (4.34) 


Agree (4.31) 


Agree (4.27) 


Agreement (All Grades) 

57% 

54% 

79% 

56% 

52% 





Mostly Agree (3.89) 58%


AR 350-1 ALIGNMENT ITEM SAI FEEDBACK 

This institution produces WOs who are 

knowledgeable of how the Army runs. 

This institution produces WOs who are prepared to 

operate in JIIM environments. 

FOUO 


Agreement (All Grades) 



Student criticism in these alignment areas is most pronounced among recent WOSSC, WOSC, 

and WOAC graduates, in that order. These other data minimally suggest the requirement for 

further PME institution alignment review, in order to better adjudicate these disparate points 

of view. Proponents for the more “senior” Warrant Officer courses are prime candidates for 

this work. 


 

Recommendation: Schools/Centers of Excellence (CoE) complete alignment and outcome 

review, by course, to determine the basis for data variances (between institutional selfassessments 

and student feedback). 

Finding 12: PME institutions are challenged to provide 

up-to-date, operable, and adequate Training Aids, 

Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS). Training 

equipment available for a number of institutions is 

dissimilar from that found in field units. 

Discussion: Paragraph 3-8.g. in AR 350-1 requires that, 

“when used, TADSS will be up-to-date, available in 

adequate quantities, and maintained in safe and fully 

Finding: 

PME institutions are 

challenged to provide up-todate, 

operable, and adequate 

Training Aids, Devices, 

Simulators, and Simulations 

(TADSS). 

operable condition. Training facilities will be maintained to ensure proper training occurs under 

safe conditions. Tasks that must be performed in the field should be trained in the field, or in a 

simulated field environment.” This is a challenge finding near universal agreement across PME 

institutions and students, but is more pronounced at WOAC and later PME milestones. Of note: 

In aggregate, PME institutions rated themselves “average” (3.2 on a 5-point scale) at 

providing “required personnel, equipment, training aids, devices, simulators, 

simulations (TADSS), Class V (ammunition) (CL V), training material, testing materials 

and controls, consumable supplies, and references as prescribed.” This is in the bottom 

20% of all SAI assessment areas. 

Students report their PMEs are training on “the same as the equipment employed in the 

field…” as follows (Student Survey): 

o WOBC – 18% disagree 

o WOAC – 28% disagree


o WOSC – 57% disagree* 

Sufficient training equipment quantity was also identified on Student Surveys as an 

issue. In response to “the quantity of training equipment at _______ is 

sufficient…,”students responded (Student Survey): 

o WOBC – 13% disagree 

o WOAC – 23% disagree 

o WOSC – 38% disagree* 

*NOTE: These responses reflect student feedback on the follow-on technical phases for these courses; 

respondent populations are extremely small, suggesting the need to verify these data with larger sample 

sizes. 

These student perspectives manifest themselves again in Focus Group responses to queries 

regarding course relevance. Although theme count in this area was limited, feedback was 

generally “steady” on the subject of equipment available to them for training while in school. 

Supervisors also weighed in on this issue, but across all respondent grades, only 15% disagreed 

or strongly disagreed that “Warrant Officers arriving in my unit were trained on the equipment 

currently fielded to this organization” (Supervisor Survey). 

Were one to look at potentially related questions in order to identify links to related issues, no 

clear evidence exists in the data, and Warrant Officers were assessed positively across all 

measured technical areas (Supervisor Survey). 

However, returning again to GO/SES Questionnaire responses and emerging capabilities moving 

forward, there is strong evidence to support the need for more and enhanced technical 

training, and anecdotal responses that suggest the pace of technological change must be met 

through resourcing in our PME institutions. That we are starting out in an acknowledged deficit 

is troubling moving forward. 


 

Recommendation: Schools/CoEs conduct an internal review of WOBC and WOAC technical 

training for Warrant Officers. This review should place emphasis on “deltas” between 

operational force equipment and those used in the schoolhouse for training. Appreciating that 

disparate equipment versions are fielded across our formations, PME institutions should 

identify reasonable equivalencies for their courses. 

This review is followed by an institution-by-institution back brief to CAC and TRADOC, outlining 

their plan to bring equipment in the training base into alignment with the field. These strategies 

should consider a full range of simulations, distance education techniques, or virtual devices 

sufficient to create the training environment intended by the regulation. 

FOUO


Finding 13: Nearly one in four recent Warrant 

Officer PME graduates reported their 

coursework did not sufficiently integrate 

Operational Environment complexity. 

Discussion: AR 350-1’s guidance in paragraph 3- 

8 on “Conduct of Instruction” requires that 

“training and education tasks will reflect the 

reality of operational environments” and “conditions for conducting and evaluating training will 

approximate operational environments for projected peacetime and wartime missions.” 

PME institutions believe they are doing a fair job of OE integration, but assess this 

accomplishment in the bottom 25% of all assessment criteria (SAI). However, recent WOAC 

graduates were notably more critical, with just under two in ten (17%) disagreeing that course 

materials were related to the OE (Student Survey). This is almost twice the level of 

disagreement than for any student population (WOCS = 9%, WOBC = 9%, WOSC = 8%, and 

WOSSC = 10% disagreement on this Student Survey item). 

Further, as the key finding highlighted, one in four across all student respondent populations 

indicated that OE complexity was not effectively replicated in the classroom. This rose to nearly 

one in three (33%) for recent WOAC attendees, and may begin to illuminate their frustration 

with PME at this stage (see Finding 8). 


 

Recommendation: Schools/CoEs conduct an assessment to determine OE complexity 

integration within the curricula. The intent is to bring Warrant Officer PME outcomes related to 

OE knowledge into alignment with AR 350-1’s intent. 

Finding 14: Instructor selection and assignment 

are problematic for select WO PME institutions. 

Discussion: Finding, recruiting, and assigning 

quality instructors to support WO PME at any point 

along the continuum must remain a key focus for 

TRADOC schools. Students Focus Groups, especially at intermediate and earlier PME education, 

were vocal on instructor quality: 

WOSC Focus Group participants indicated that instructor quality was a “seven or eight” 

on a 10-point scale,” with at least one respondent highlighting instructors as a strength. 

FOUO 

Finding: 

Nearly one in four recent Warrant 

Officer PME graduates reported their 

coursework did not sufficiently 

integrate Operational Environment 

complexity. 

Finding: 

Instructor selection and 

assignment are problematic for 

select WO PME institutions.


27% of WOAC Focus Group participants indicated the need for “better and more 

relevant” instructors; better instructors was among the top three themes identified for 

“most needed improvements.” 

WOBC Focus Groups identified better instructors as a requirement in about half of all 

sessions; this can contribute to de-motivating Warrant Officers about PME attendance. 

These same groups did highlight instructor quality in about 19% of the team’s 

encounters. 

QAOs echoed student concerns, highlighting that “instructors should be of higher quality,” but 

getting these individuals to PME institutions appears challenging. Approximately half of all DoTs 

interviewed indicated that instructor selection was among their significant concerns, and 

around a quarter of serving Staff and Faculty believe the personnel selection process results in a 

school’s getting the necessary quality. Further, SAI data identified “Manning” as the second 

worst issue affecting the institution’s operations (a 5.39 median rating on a 10-point scale = 

neither Positive nor Negative Impact). 72.7% of these same schools indicated they were 

undermanned. 

Individual processes for selection and assignment varied significantly by branch, ranging from 

those who proactively worked instructor assignments with HRC to others, who appear to adopt 

a reactive approach. Sharing effective practices among the various branch schools is among the 

recommended ways forward. 


 

Recommendation: TRADOC, in coordination with HQDA G-1, HRC, and the SWOC, establish a 

broad, cross-institution, formalized system that supports high quality instructor (best and 

brightest) selection and assignment to Warrant Officer PME requirements. The system should 

at least address minimum time on station and follow-on assignment incentives. 

Finding: 

Warrant Officer PME should be 

linked to promotion. 

Finding 15: The cohort believes Warrant Officer PME 

should be linked to promotion. 

Discussion: Figure 8 presents strong evidence of 

Warrant Officer perspectives regarding PME’s 

importance. Across all grades, Active and Reserve Student Survey respondents agreed “that 

attending PME is critical to future promotions” on 86% and 89% of submissions, respectively. 

PME institutions also believe that their Warrant Officer students understand the benefits. In 

fact, SAI responses on this issue tied for the highest mean agreement of all measured items 

(4.58 on a five-point scale). 

FOUO


Figure 8. Student Survey Agreement on the Importance of PME to 

Promotion. 

FOUO 

Focus Groups, from WOSSC 

to WOBC students and both 

Staff and Instructors 

commented repeatedly on 

PME’s link to promotion. 

19.4% of all GO/SES 

Questionnaire respondents 

identified the link as a 

“major change to policy and 

resourcing that will be 

necessary to ensure that 

WO education and training 

remains synchronized with 

emerging technological and 

operational requirements.” 

The team is aware of already 

working DA-level initiatives along these lines and the study results confirm that the cohort is 

ready to adopt these new policies. However, we also recognize that the link is, in and of itself, 

insufficient, if PME does not provide the foundational experiences that enable Warrant Officer 

success on operational requirements. Therefore, many of the prior findings toward improving 

PME along the continuum must be implemented in order to reap maximum benefit from the 

PME-promotion link. 


 

Recommendation: HQDA G-1, in coordination with HQDA G-37 DAMO-TR and TRADOC work to 

implement a policy linking PME to promotion for Active Component Warrant Officers. This 

policy should initially focus at the WOSC for CW4 and WOSSC for CW5 promotion levels, 

requiring appropriate Warrant Officer PME prior to consideration for promotion. Necessary 

policy or law changes as a result of this action are submitted by HQDA G-1 for integration into 

the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

Finding 16: Seven in 10 senior leaders highlight 

at least some major changes to policy and 

resourcing that would be required to “ensure that 

WO education and training remains synchronized 

with emerging technological and operational 

requirements.” 

Finding: 

Seven in 10 senior leaders highlight 

at least some policy changes are 

necessary to sustain Warrant Officer 

PME’s value to the Force.


Discussion: Without a more formal Army-wide definition, the WOCLS team would categorize 

these respondent’s input as “broadening” experiences for Warrant Officers, ranging from 

increased opportunity for Advanced Civil School, to Training-With-Industry (TWI), to side-byside 

O-grade PME attendance. These same leaders additionally emphasized their support for 

additional/improved PME in order to sustain the Cohort’s technical and systems integration 

foundation. 

Of 56 total comments: 

9.8% pointed to Advanced Civil Schooling and another 9.8% to TWI. 

Just over 3% identified additional systems integration/technical opportunities. 

Just under 11% highlighted the need to support select Warrant Officer with “O-gradelike” 

PME opportunities. 

Just fewer than 9% highlighted general “broadening” opportunities. 


 

Recommendation: TRADOC, in coordination with HQDA G-1 and HQDA G-37 DAMO-TR to 

identify appropriate education and training opportunities that will enable broadening for 

Warrant Officers. These experiences, as were highlighted by the WOCLS’ feedback from GOs 

and SESs, are necessary in order for the cohort to remain current and relevant. 

Finding: 

WOAC attendance is considered 

too late or way too late along 

the continuum. 

Finding 17: WOAC attendance is considered “too 

late” or “way too late” along the continuum. 

Discussion 16: Student Survey respondents indicated 

they attended their most recent Warrant Officer 

course “at the right time in their career to adequately 

paper them for responsibilities associated with their next job” either “too late” or “way too 

late” as follows: 

WOAC = 39% 

WOSC = 49% 

WOSSC = 59% 

Correlating student demographics with these responses revealed that, in fact, approximately 

47% of WOSC and 62.2% of WOSSC students were attending their PME too late when compared 

to the Department of the Army development model. The data was inconclusive as to underlying 

causes for this late attendance, but Focus Group input pointed to command support, course 

relevance and quality, and lack of incentive (not tied to promotion) as potential culprits. Again, 

these are anecdotal, but reflect the WOCLS team’s experience and are remediated, in part, by 

WOCLS curricular content recommendations and PME linkage to promotion initiatives. 

FOUO


Student demographic data for recent WOAC attendees suggested that only 29.2% were, indeed, 

attending too late, while 39% offered feedback that they were. This led the team to conclude 

that WOAC content should be made available earlier along the continuum for these students, 

no later than an approximate 4-7 year time in service as a Warrant Officer. 


 

Recommendation: DA Pam 600-3, pending modifications, will remove confusing verbiage that 

has, in some cases, led to delayed WOAC attendance for CW2s and CW3s. AR 350-1 has 

undergone recent revisions to also address the timing of PME attendance. This finding further 

recommends that Warrant Officer PME-producing institutions continue their efforts in updating 

and aligning their curricula to the needs of their new student population. 

No further recommendations are deemed necessary, as these changes should enable broader 

windows for WOAC attendance and their curricula be better aligned with “point of need.” 

Finding 18: A select subset of the cohort, integrated and working in critical positions 

throughout our Army are not adequately supported by “standard PME”. The Army must prepare 

these SWOs for success in these key roles. 

Finding: 

These key Senior Warrant Officers provide 

substantive input in key operational and 

A select subset of the cohort, 

strategic positions that both support the Army integrated and working in critical 

in general, the Warrant Officer Cohort in positions throughout our Army, is not 

specific, and provide visibility and 

adequately supported by “standard 

representation at senior levels identified during PME”. The Army must prepare these 

the Army Profession (AP) Study. They require SWOs for success in these key roles. 

additional career management considerations, 

to include unique preparatory education and training opportunities. 

Discussion: In support of WOCLS, HQDA G-1 was tasked to provide a white paper that focused 

primarily on key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions at the Army Staff (ARSTAF) and Army 

senior strategic levels. Through meetings, interviews, and data calls, HQDA G-1 leveraged the 

institutional knowledge and collective wisdom residing within the ARSTAF and the SWOC to 

facilitate an analysis of the following tasks: 

a. Identify existing and future key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions supporting 

Warrant Officer leader development. 

b. Determine the baseline training and education levels required of officers to serve in key 

Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions. 

FOUO


c. Evaluate the current selection process for key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions in 

order to recommend enhancements that will support the “right officer-to-job 

synchronization.” 

d. Identify gaps in Warrant Officer representation throughout leader development 

domains. 

e. Outline senior-grade leader development as a bench-building strategy. 

Annex D represents HQDA G-1’s input to meet this deliverable. 


 

Recommendation: HQDA, TRADOC, SWOC and owning organizations, use the framework 

provided within the G1 White Paper (Annex D) as a basis for staffing and executing 

recommendations supporting an enduring, effective bench building process which will support 

cohort capstone positions and learning requirements. Additionally, Enclosure 2 to the White 

Paper identifies 12 existing and future key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions that would 

benefit by changes to the current WO leader development construct. 

Summary Recommendation: Upon approval of the report by CG, TRADOC, the WOCLS 

Team develops and forwards an implementation plan to CG, CAC within 180 days. 

A summary of the WOCLS findings and their cross-walk to WOCLS’ key tasks can be found in 

Section 7.0. 

FOUO


5.0 CONCLUSION 

Warrant Officer PME is fundamentally and structurally sound; however, significant 

improvements are needed along the continuum to address gaps as Warrant Officer systems 

integrator/technical roles continue expanding to meet Army requirements. These expanding 

roles and responsibilities require Warrant Officers exercise greater leadership; mandate an 

ability to operate and integrate within staff functions at the tactical to strategic level; and 

necessitate cultural and JIIM environment expertise. These broad requirements increase the 

cohort’s reliance on PME vs. experiential learning in order to gain foundational the knowledge, 

skills, and behaviors (KSB) that result in success. 

Study data presents opportunities for improvement, many of which are already identified by 

PME institutions with work underway to address them. During all site visits, the WOCLS team 

found branch and proponent teams eager to share what they were doing right, transparent 

about where they could do better, and determined to meet TRADOC, the Army, and, most 

importantly, our Soldiers’ expectations. 

As encouraged as the team is in what we observed across TRADOC, it is important to note that 

after a decade of improvements to WO PME we still see… 

A requirement for additional and “deeper” technical training. 

The need, both now and for the future, for more and better leadership training at the 

Mid-Grade, Intermediate, and Senior Service Education levels. 

Challenges in PME institutions’ ability to remain current with equipment replicating that 

which is found in the field and to adequately integrate OE complexities. 

A need to improve staff skills. 

OES integration is still incomplete, with separate and often ill-defined Warrant Officer PME 

proponencies hampering genuine improvement. Without resolution to this issue, arguably 

accomplished through closer alignment/integration of WO with O-grade PME, it seems likely 

that any existing gaps in PME outcomes, even that 10% highlighted earlier, are apt to widen 

against expanding Warrant Officer roles and responsibilities. 

Beyond basic proponent and governance considerations, GO/SES feedback regarding the pace 

of technological change bears further consideration. The team recommends the establishment 

of a Warrant Officer-focused tactical and technological integration cell, analogous to the 

Institute of NCO Professional Development (INCOPD). If implemented, this or a similar 

organization would be charged with monitoring doctrinal, leader development and 

technological evolution relevant to the cohort, and recommend appropriate solutions to 

TRADOC. 

Finally, Warrant Officer PME opportunities outside the WOCS-WOSSC course sequence, aircraft 

qualification courses as a well-recognized example, were not incorporated in the WOCLS scope. 

FOUO


These findings must additionally consider those training activities in order to build the whole 

“right education and training” picture. 

The team hopes to have harnessed the Cohort’s “get it done” culture and the mission weighed 

heavily on the WOCLS team throughout the study’s limited duration. To study PME career 

tracks for 17 separate branches and 70 separate specialties was often overwhelming, and we 

fully acknowledge our role in continuing to analyze over 220K individual pieces of data – to 

identify new linkages, and to expand on these findings and recommendations in the coming 

months. 

FOUO


6.0 CONSOLIDATED LIST OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FINDING 1: General Learning Outcomes for Warrant Officers are underdeveloped. These 

must be fully developed in order to better define expectations of the Cohort and to better focus 


Recommendation: The WOCC, WOCLS Team, ALCC and SWOC continue refining the GLOs, 

utilizing study data. Recommend that WO PME course proponents evaluate and revise course 

outcomes based on the WOCLS findings and new GLOs for Warrant Officers (once GLOs are 

endorsed by ALCC principals and approved by CG, TRADOC). The ALCC WG will monitor 

implementation of WOCLS findings and report progress toward refinement of WO GLOs and 

opportunities for cross-cohort integration during the August ALCC Principals meeting. Once 

completed, WO course proponents will have the completed GLOs for use as they develop 

future curricula. 

FINDING 2: Outcomes and sub-outcomes are insufficiently defined for the WOAC, WOSC, and 

WOSSC. 

Recommendation: Pending resolution surrounding governance and proponency for Warrant 

Officer PME at these points, recommend continued work associated with Finding 1 to fully 

develop and approve GLOs for Warrant Officers, then use that result as the initial framework 

for PME proponents to revisit course outcomes and sub-outcomes. Beyond the general value 

this activity has for PME at all points along the continuum, the WOCLS noted under or illdefined 

outcomes for: 

Character and Accountability at the WOSC and WOSSC levels. 

Team Building (Communication) for WOACs. 

Lifelong Learning for WOSC and WOSSCs. 

FINDING 3: Academic governance and proponency along the continuum of learning are not 

clearly defined for Warrant Officer PME. 

Recommendation: TRADOC directs DCG-IMT and CAC to staff WOCLS recommendations for 

proponency alignment for Warrant Officer PME and submit results to TRADOC for final staffing. 

The following functional, branch, and common-core proponencies are recommended: 

1. Pre-Commissioning: Update regulations governing WOCC proponency for WOCS to 

include direct coordination, bi-annually, with the U.S. Army Infantry School in order to 

ensure alignment with Army pre-commissioning task training (WO1 Commissioning is 

the catalyst) 

2. Clarify where necessary, DCG-IMT approval and WOCC proponency, for common-core 

skills at the BOLC levels (WOCS and WOBC). Additionally: 

FOUO


a. DCG-IMT completes the effort to cross-reference common task training between 

the WOCS and WOBCs for redundancy. 

b. DCG-IMT staffs and recommends task modification/deletion from the WOBC. 

c. In coordination with CAC, the WOCC, and appropriate TRADOC/DA approval 

authorities, move toward expanding WOCS course length to incorporate any 

“remaining” junior officer tasks moved from WOBC to WOCS. 

d. Complete this transition to increase time for technical training and junior officer 

technical certification by the WOBCs. 

3. Mid-Grade Officer Training and Education (WOAC): 

a. CAC designates the School for Advanced Leadership and Tactics (SALT) at Fort 

Leavenworth as proponent for the mid-grade officer learning continuum to 

include Warrant Officers. 

b. CAC directs SALT to oversee the development of the integration of Warrant 

Officers, to include distant, blended, and resident learning. 

c. CAC directs SALT to relocate, where appropriate, resident common Army training 

and education from branch-proponent WOACs to a DL format, in order to 

increase available technical training, certification, and resources for mid-grade 


4. ILE (WOSC): WOCC continues to coordinate directly with the Command and General 

Staff School (CGSS) to review and align curricula with Army expectations for 

intermediate level education, in order to develop and deliver relevant and consistent 

intermediate-level learning outcomes, and to more completely align OES curricula 


review within one year of approval and is sustained on a triennial basis thereafter. 

5. Senior Service Education (WOSSC): WOCC continues to coordinate directly with 

appropriate Army War College staff and faculty to review and align curricula with Army 

expectations for senior service education, in order to develop and deliver relevant, 

consistent senior service learning outcomes, and to more completely align OES curricula 


review within one year of approval and this is sustained on a triennial basis thereafter. 

FINDING 4: Officership, a major learning outcome of BOLC A and B, is a rescinded doctrinal 

term and should be eliminated from applicable learning outcomes, regulations and policies. 

Recommendation: In order to bring PME references into doctrinal agreement: 

Each WO PME proponent along the continuum of learning should review specified 

course outcomes and either eliminate or re-categorize Officership curricular focus to 

either Professionalism or Leadership. 

Proponents for AR 350-1 and TR 350-36 should eliminate all references to Officership 

and re-categorize PME outcomes, where appropriate. 

FOUO


FINDING 5: Approximately one in five CW5s are not meeting force expectations in a number 

of key leadership sub-outcomes, specifically general leadership, written and oral 


Recommendation: CAC completes a comprehensive review of the WOSSC curricula, focusing 

on leadership outcomes. Results should be balanced with senior service level outcomes, where 

appropriate, and integrated within the WOSSC curricula. 

FINDING 6: Various tactical competence sub-outcomes for CW3s and above require 

improvement. 

Recommendation: WOCC and SALT, with direct support from ALCC, synchronize efforts 

between course proponents for O-grade and W-grade tactical learning outcomes. This effort 

intends to determine appropriate course lengths and content necessary to produce tactically 

relevant Warrant Officers, by grade and level. WOCC and SALT complete the review and 

recommend appropriate initiatives to CAC for approval. 

FINDING 7: Depth of instruction is increasingly insufficient as Warrant Officers progress along 

the continuum of learning. 

Recommendation 7a: CAC completes a comprehensive review of curricular depth and course 

length for the WOSSC and WOSC. Focus should be to Student Survey feedback, and Supervisor 

Survey and GO/SES Questionnaire performance/expectations input. Results should balance 

with senior service education (WOSSC) and intermediate level education learning outcomes 

(WOSC), as appropriate. 

Recommendation 7b: Branch proponents review curricular depth for their assigned WOACs 

using feedback from the WOCLS. Each WO PME institution will provide a back brief to CAC; 

reviews should be compared against WOCLS-generated data. 

FINDING 8: Senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and CW5) in select branches indicate a strong 

desire for a follow-on technical phase to the existing PME. 

Recommendation: Branch proponents not currently conducting WOSC/WOSSC technical 

follow-on courses should further analyze requirements outlined by the ALDF Transform 

Warrant Officer Education initiative. Branches report their findings to CAC for 

consideration/injection/resourcing into the 4 th Quarter ALDF Council of Colonels. 

FINDING 9: Approximately one in three recent WOAC graduates indicated the course 

outcomes did not meet their expectations. Results vary by branch, but data synthesized across 

all five collection instruments indicate shortcomings in several specific and general areas. 

FOUO


Recommendation: Recommend School Commandants accomplish an internal review of midgrade 

technical training for their Warrant Officer PME. This review should incorporate an 

emphasis on outdated equipment (Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations [TADSS]) 

(see Finding 11). The team also believes that addressing governance and proponency as stated 

in recommendation #3 will speed results. 

FINDING 10: PME institutions report above average alignment of their programs to the 

tenets outlined in AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM. 

Recommendation: PME institutions universally acknowledge both current and emerging 

standards, and are active in initiatives associated with their implementation. Until full 

development and implementation of the ALM and ALDS, there are no additional actions 

recommended by the team. 

FINDING 11: Recent PME attendees and PME institutions offer widely differing perspectives 

on AR 350-1 alignment. 

Recommendation: Schools/Centers of Excellence (CoE) complete alignment and outcome 

review, by course, to determine the basis for data variances (between institutional selfassessments 

and student feedback). 

FINDING 12: PME institutions are challenged to provide up-to-date, operable, and adequate 

Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS). 

Recommendation: Schools/CoEs conduct an internal review of WOBC and WOAC technical 

training for Warrant Officers. This review should place emphasis on “deltas” between 

operational force equipment and those used in the schoolhouse for training. Appreciating that 

disparate equipment versions are fielded across our formations, PME institutions should 

identify reasonable equivalencies for their courses. This review is followed by an institution-byinstitution 

back brief to CAC and TRADOC, outlining their plan to bring equipment in the 

training base into alignment with the field. These strategies should consider a full range of 

simulations, distance education techniques, or virtual devices sufficient to create the training 

environment intended by the regulation. 

FINDING 13: Nearly one in four recent Warrant Officer PME graduates reported their 

coursework did not sufficiently integrate Operational Environment complexity. 

Recommendation: Schools/CoEs conduct an assessment to determine OE complexity 

integration within the curricula. The intent is to bring Warrant Officer PME outcomes related to 

OE knowledge into alignment with AR 350-1’s intent. 

FINDING 14: Instructor selection and assignment are problematic for select Warrant Officer 

PME institutions. 

FOUO


Recommendation: TRADOC, in coordination with HQDA G-1, HRC, and the SWOC, establish a 

broad, cross-institution, formalized system that supports high quality instructor (best and 

brightest) selection and assignment to Warrant Officer PME requirements. The system should 

at least address minimum time on station and follow-on assignment incentives. 

FINDING 15: Warrant Officer PME should be linked to promotion. 

Recommendation: HQDA G-1, in coordination with HQDA G-37 DAMO-TR and TRADOC, work 

to implement a policy linking PME to promotion for Active Component Warrant Officers. This 

policy should initially focus at the WOSC for CW4 and WOSSC for CW5 promotion levels, 

requiring appropriate Warrant Officer PME prior to consideration for promotion. Necessary 

policy or law changes as a result of this action are submitted by HQDA G-1 for integration into 

the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

FINDING 16: Seven in 10 senior leaders highlight at least some major changes to policy and 

resourcing would be required to “ensure that WO education and training remains synchronized 

with emerging technological and operational requirements.” 

Recommendation: TRADOC, in coordination with HQDA G-1 and G-3 to identify appropriate 

education and training opportunities that will enable broadening for Warrant Officers. These 

experiences, as were highlighted by the WOCLS’ feedback from GOs and SESs, are necessary in 

order for the Cohort to remain current and relevant. 

FINDING 17: WOAC attendance is considered “too late” or “way too late” along the 

continuum. 

Recommendation: DA Pam 600-3, pending modifications, will remove confusing verbiage that 

has, in some cases, led to delayed WOAC attendance for CW2s and CW3s. AR 350-1 has 

undergone recent revisions to also address the timing of PME attendance. This finding further 

recommends that Warrant Officer PME-producing institutions continue their efforts in updating 

and aligning their curricula to the needs of their new student population. No further 

recommendations are deemed necessary, as these changes should enable broader windows for 

WOAC attendance and their curricula be better aligned with “point of need.” 

FINDING 18: A select subset of the cohort, integrated and working in critical positions 

throughout our Army are not adequately supported by “standard PME”. The Army must 

prepare these SWOs for success in these key roles. 

Recommendation: Recommendation: HQDA, TRADOC, SWOC, and owning organizations, use 

the framework provided within the G1 White Paper (Annex D) as a basis for staffing and 

executing recommendations supporting an enduring, effective bench building process which 

will support cohort capstone positions and learning requirements. Additionally, Enclosure 2 to 

FOUO


the White Paper identifies 12 existing and future key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions 

that would benefit by changes to the current WO leader development construct. 

FOUO


7.0 SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS AND CROSS-WALK TO WOCLS KEY 

TASKS 

Table 8. Summary Table of Findings and Cross-Walk to WOCLS Key Tasks. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

FINDING 

General Learning Outcomes (GLO) for Warrant 


Officers are underdeveloped. 

Outcomes and sub-outcomes are insufficiently 

defined for the WOAC, WOSC, and WOSSC. 

Academic governance and proponency along 

the continuum of learning are not clearly 

acknowledged for Warrant Officer PME. 

Officership is a rescinded doctrinal term 

and should be eliminated from applicable 

learning outcomes, regulations and 

policies. 

Approximately one in five CW5s are not 

meeting force expectations in a number of key 

leadership sub-outcomes. 

Various tactical competence outcomes for 

CW3s and above require improvement. 

Depth of instruction is increasingly insufficient 

as Warrant Officers move from WOCS to 

WOSSC along the continuum of learning. 

Senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and CW5) in 

select branches indicate a strong desire for a 

follow-on technical phase to the existing PME. 

Approximately one in three WOAC graduates 

indicated the course outcomes did not meet 

their expectations. 

PME institutions report above average 

alignment of their programs to the tenets 

outlined in AR 350-1, the ALDS, and the ALM. 

Recent PME attendees and PME institutions 

offer widely differing perspectives on AR 350- 

1 alignment. 

PME institutions are challenged to provide upto-date, 

operable, and adequate Training Aids, 

Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS). 

FOUO


13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

FINDING KT1 KT2 KT3 KT4 KT5 

Nearly one in four recent Warrant Officer PME 

graduates reported their coursework did not 

sufficiently integrate Operational Environment 

complexity. 

FOUO 

 

Instructor selection and assignment are 

problematic for select WO PME institutions. 

 

Warrant Officer PME should be linked to 

promotion. 

Seven in 10 senior leaders highlight at least 

some major changes to policy and resourcing 

would be required to “ensure that WO 

education and training remains synchronized 

with emerging technological and operational 

requirements.” 

 

WOAC attendance is considered “too late” or 

“way too late” along the continuum. 

 

A select subset of the cohort, integrated and 

working in critical positions throughout our 

Army are not adequately supported by 

“standard PME”. The Army must prepare 

these SWOs for success in these key roles.


REFERENCES 

United States Army (2002). Army Training and Leader Development Panel Phase III – Warrant 

Officer Study – Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/ 

awcgate/army/atld-panel/wo_report.pdf. 

United States Army (2003). The United States Army Posture Statement: The Army – At War and 

Transforming. Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/aps/2003. 

United States Army (2009). Training: Army Training and Leader Development, Army Regulation 

(AR) 350-1, Washington, DC. 

United States Army (2009). Personnel-General: The Army Personnel Development System, 

Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA Pam) 600-3, Washington, DC. 

United States Army (2011). The Army Profession – 2012 After More than a Decade of Conflict. 

(Center for the Army Profession and Ethic [CAPE]). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Schatz 

Publishing. 

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (2002). Training: Institutional Leader 

Training and Education, TRADOC Regulation (TR) 350-10, Fort Monroe, VA. 

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (2012). Training: Basic Officer Leader 

Training Policies and Administration, TRADOC Regulation (TR) 350-36, Fort Eustis, VA. 

United States Army Warrant Officer Association (2004). WO ATLDP – a Progress Report. 

Retrieved from http://www.usawoa.org/downloads/WO_ATLDP_ProgressRpt.pdf. 

FOUO

The Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study (WOCLS): Final Report ANNEX-1 

ANNEX A – ACRONYMS 

ADRP Army Doctrine Reference Publication 

ALARACT All Army Activities 

ALDF Army Leader Development Forum 

ALDS Army Leader Development Strategy 

ALM Army Learning Model 

AODC Action Officer Development Course 

AP Army Profession 

AR Army Regulation 

ARI Army Research Institute 

ARNG Army National Guard 

ARSTAF Army Staff 

ATLDC Army Training and Leader Development Council 

ATLDP Army Training and Leader Development Panel 

ATRRS Army Training Requirements and Resources System 

BOLC Basic Officer Leadership Course 

CAC Combined Arms Center 

CAL Center for Army Leadership 

CCC Captain’s Career Course 

CCTL Common Core Task List 

CGSC Command and General Staff College 

CGSS Command and General Staff School 

CoE Center of Excellence 

CSA Chief of Staff of the Army 

CWOB Chief Warrant Officer of the Branch 

DA Department of the Army 

DCP Data Collection Plan 

DoT Director of Training 

EXORD Execution Order 

FM Field Manual 

FOUO For Official Use Only 

FY Fiscal Year 

GLO General Learning Outcome 

GO General Officer 

HRC Human Resources Command 

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army 

ILE Intermediate Level Education 

INCOPD Institute of NCO Professional Development 

JIIM Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational 

KSB Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviors 

KT Key Task 

LDD Leader Development Division 

LD&E Leader Development and Education 

FOUO


MDMP Military Decision Making Process 

MOS Military Occupation Specialty 

MS Microsoft 

NCO Non-Commissioned Officer 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NGB National Guard Bureau 

NLT No Later Than 

OE Operational Environment 

OES Officer Education System 

OES-W Officer Education System-Warrant 

PME Professional Military Education 

POI Program of Instruction 

QAO Quality Assurance Officer 

RCWO Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

RTI Regional Training Institute 

SAI Self-Assessment Instrument 

SALT School of Advanced Leadership and Tactics 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

SSC Senior Service College 

SWO Senior Warrant Officer 

SWOAC Senior Warrant Officer Advisory Council 

SWOC Senior Warrant Officer Council 

TADSS Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations 

TR TRADOC Regulation 

TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command 

TWI Training With Industry 

TWOS Total Warrant Officer Study 

USAWOA U.S. Army Warrant Officer Association 

VCSA Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 

WG Working Group 

WO Warrant Officer 

WOAC Warrant Officer Advanced Course 

WOBC Warrant Officer Basic Course 

WOCC Warrant Officer Career College 

WOCLS Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study 

WOCS Warrant Officer Candidate School 

WOSC Warrant Officer Staff Course 

WOSSC Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course 

WOES Warrant Officer Education System 

FOUO


ANNEX B – STUDY METHODOLOGY 

The purpose of this section is to provide a broad overview of the study’s methodology in order 

to offer sufficient foundation necessary to generate confidence in the WOCLS’ findings and 

recommendations. An introduction to the study’s five instruments; how those instruments 

were used to collect raw data; the process of translating raw data to “first pass,” analyzed 

information; and how the group synthesized nearly 250,000 separate data points to arrive at 

the findings, conclusions, and recommendations define the outline that follows. 

In this report, the WOCLS study team purposefully avoided including detailed, technical 

presentation of the data analysis and synthesis that is generally included in technical reports of 

this type. Our focus is intentionally on “actionable recommendations” that directly address the 

study’s mission statement. However, and where interest draws the reader to these 

considerations, those details are, indeed, available. 

Data Sources [Instruments] and Collection Overview 

As was introduced in the previous section, the WOCLS made use of five distinct data sets, each 

generated from a separate, team-generated instrument. Formats were varied in such a way as 

to provide sufficient quantitative and qualitative data to address specified key tasks. 

Instruments were additionally targeted to audiences so that disparate, sometimes comparative, 

perspectives were captured. Integration/synthesis of these data sets is addressed in greater 

detail later in this section. However, Table B-1 offers a high-level cross-walk of each instrument 

to the study’s key tasks. 

In effect, this table effectively represents a macro-level Data Collection Plan (DCP) for the 

WOCLS, although a third dimension is necessary in order to assess the depth of each 

instrument’s support to study objectives. When one considers the data’s “depth,” it is 

straightforward to recognize that study data are derived from among the most junior and 

inexperienced across the Cohort, WOCS Candidates, to the most senior Warrant Officers in the 

Cohort, to General Officers. Breadth is similarly covered, especially by the School SAI, both large 

surveys, and Focus Group execution. 

In similar fashion as was accomplished for the CCC, WOCLS employed both direct and indirect 

data collection instruments. Definitions of each type (direct vs. indirect as described in the CCC) 

are applied to the five WOCLS instruments as follows: 

Direct instruments were limited to key leader interviews at each proponent school or 

Center of Excellence (CoE). Depending on availability, these included: CoE and School 

Commandants, CWOB/RCWO (or equivalent), DoTs, QAOs (or equivalent), 

training/faculty developers, and, given the significant ALM emphasis to appropriate use 

of simulation, to Simulation Managers (or equivalent). This instrument is discussed later 

in this section in greater detail. 

FOUO


WOCLS indirect instruments are more numerous and include: Warrant Officer PME 

student and faculty Focus Groups, the Schools’ SAI, a Student Survey of recent (within 

the past 30 months) PME graduates, a Supervisor Survey of recent (within the past 30 

months) Warrant Officer raters and senior raters, and a GO/SES Questionnaire. Detailed 

discussion of these is also provided later in this section. 

From these preliminary considerations, instrument development followed a similar process for 

all instruments outlined in Table B-1 below, and that this report describes later in more detail: 

Themes related to the WOCLS’ mission, intent, and key tasks were derived from primary 

and secondary source documents. Key references identified in the HQDA EXORD and 

TRADOC Tasking Order included: AR 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development, the 

ALDS, and the ALM. 

Alignment across several themes enabled specific question generation. 

Question generation considered three primary elements: (1) the source document, (2) 

the proposed respondent audience, and (3) the divergent nature of the WOCLS team. 

Questions were then synthesized into the larger, target instruments, initially by ARI 

staff, and then later by the WOCLS team. 

This latter aspect is particularly important given inclusion of several Senior Warrant 

Officers (SWOs) among the WOCLS team members. Specifically, their operational 

perspective enabled tailoring instrument questions to Warrant Officer experiences and 

culture. 

Throughout the staffing process, the team took care to sustain research validity 

(analytics) with actionable, post-WOCLS execution (operations). 

Team screening criteria ultimately included: 

o Is the question within the study’s scope? 

o Is there “thematic” alignment with specified source documents? 

o Will an answer to the question produce “actionable recommendations?” 

FOUO


Table B-1. WOCLS Data Collection Instrument Cross-Walk to Specified Study Key Tasks. 

HQDA EXORD and TRADOC TASKORD KEY TASKS 

Determine the 

Right Education 

and Training for 

Warrant Officers 

Ensure Regulations 

and Policies 

Support Intended 

Outcomes 

Verify Alignment 

with AR 350-1, 

ALDS, and the ALM 

Identify Individual 

Course Strengths 

and Weaknesses 

Evaluate Outcomes 

Along the WO 

Continuum of 

Learning 

WOCLS DATA COLLECTION 

INSTRUMENT 

Section C 

Section BDA 

Section C 

Section A 

Section B 

Section C 

School Self-Assessment 

Instrument (SAI) 

 

 

 

Supervisor Survey Instrument 

 

 

 

 

FOUO 

Student Survey Instrument 

Focus Groups 

 

 

 

 

 

(not all Focus Groups address all key 

tasks, but the compilation of results 

should enable cross-task analyses) 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Leader Interviews 

(not all Interviews address all key tasks, 

but the compilation of results should 

enable cross-task analyses) 

 

 

 

General Officer (GO)/ Senior 

Executive Service (SES) 

Questionnaire


The Five Data Collection Instruments 

The School Self-Assessment Instrument (SAI). The purpose of the SAI was to provide Warrant 

Officer PME proponents the opportunity to assess themselves prior to the team’s visit and Key 

Leader Interview/Focus Group execution. Additionally, this instrument proved useful in 

balancing feedback gleaned from the Student Survey instrument. Modified from TRADOC’s 

standing accreditation package, the SAI was developed and launched to proponent schools 

throughout April 2012; the survey was closed in mid-May 2012 and final, raw data files were 

delivered from ARI to the study group on July 9. 

The SAI included three sections, presented in Microsoft Word files: 

1. Section A – WOCLS-Relevant TRADOC Accreditation Elements – these were intended for 

completion by the Quality Assurance Office with assistance from Training Developers, 

Faculty, and Simulation Managers, as appropriate. This section was intended to address 

HQDA EXORD key task 3.A.2.B – Identify Individual Course Strengths and Weaknesses. 

Respondents were asked to assess their institution on 74 separate criteria. Four responses for 

each criterion were solicited: (1) a subjective assessment as to how well the institution was 

meeting requirements using a 5-point, Likert-type rating scale (1 = not meeting requirements; 5 

= exceeding requirements), (2) open comments on strengths and best practices related to that 

criterion, (3) open comments related to weaknesses and constraints, and (4) identification of 

the component their assessment applied to (e.g., CoE, school, or Reserve Component). This 

section was accompanied by an annex that outlined assessment guidelines. Respondents were 

asked to relate open comments to this annex’s guidelines, where possible. 

2. Section B – Alignment with Army Leader Development Doctrine – where Section A was 

completed at the CoE/school-level, this section was solicited from each Warrant Officer 

MOS-unique course. HQDA EXORD key task 3.A.2.C – Verify Alignment with AR 350-1, 

ALDS, and the ALM, was this section’s focus. To a lesser extent, addendum responses 

also provided insights to task 3.A.2.B – Identify Individual Course Strengths and 

Weaknesses. 

Development of this section was initiated by ARI, following their review of 

the WOCLS’ specified alignment references. An initial draft was then 

submitted to the larger WOCLS team for review and discussion. Multiple 

iterations resulted in a 109-item assessment, not including course-specific 

addenda. With respect to these course-specific areas, additional 

instrument items for specified PME courses were incorporated in the 

densities at right. 

Proponents were asked to complete only relevant addenda (e.g., if that proponent did not 

teach the WOSC or WOSSC, they were not expected to complete that section). Again, 

respondents made use of a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), 

FOUO 

WOCS 18 

WOBC 14 

WOAC 26 

WOSC 20 

WOSSC 17


but also had a “No Basis to Assess” option where they felt they might have insufficient 

knowledge or information for a response. 

3. Section C – Institutional Processes. This section was intended for completion by the 

QAO, with assistance from Training Developers, Faculty, and Simulation Managers, as 

appropriate, and intended to capture potential enablers and barriers to effective PME 

implementation and execution. In addition to supporting HQDA EXORD tasks 3.A.2.B 

and 3.A.2.C, this section also enabled task 3.A.2.D – Ensure Regulations and Policies 

Support Intended Outcomes. 

This portion of the SAI incorporated three sub-sections: 

C1 = 12, the positive or negative impact of potential institutional issues (e.g., financial 

resources, culture, regulations, etc.) affecting institutional processes, rated on a 10point 

scale (1 = strong negative impact; 10 = strong positive impact) along with 

supporting open-ended comments for each 

C2 = 32, general outcomes, strengths, and weaknesses items related to the school’s 

Warrant Officer PME, rated on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = 

strongly agree), also with a “No Basis to Assess” option as was discussed above 

C3 = 10, open-ended responses related to proponent/school alignment and 

strengths/weaknesses 

The SAI was administered via e-mail to the various institutions that educate Warrant Officers 

(i.e., the WOCC and 17 branch institutions). An instruction sheet provided guidance on who, 

within each institution, should complete various sections of the instrument, as well as guidance 

on where responses to items should be referenced using existing metrics at each schoolhouse 

(e.g., past QAO reports). 

Raw data were returned to the WOCLS study team, where they were compiled into Microsoft 

(MS) Excel. Data were further cleaned and screened prior to analysis. Only one institution did 

not complete the instrument. 

Supervisor Survey Instrument. Using a similar, iterative development process as was employed 

for the SAI, ARI assisted in the development of a baseline survey for recent Warrant Officer 

Supervisors (including Officer, Warrant Officers, and Army Civilians), namely those who had 

either rated or senior rated a Warrant Officer of any grade within the last 30 months. Survey 

focus was less toward specific courses along the continuum of learning, and leaned heavily 

toward assessing whether the current Cohort is meeting leader expectations. Consequently, 

this indirect instrument will generated responses that assisted in accomplishing HQDA EXORD 

and TRADOC Tasking Order key task 3.A.2.A – Evaluate Outcomes Along the WO Continuum of 

Learning by Grade. 

Introductory and “branch” demographic elements were employed to aid in later data analysis, 

and to better define the sample. In most cases, survey items required participants to respond 

FOUO


on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = fell well short of my expectations; 5 = greatly exceeded my 

expectations). A response option, “No Basis to Assess,” was also included in order to distinguish 

respondents with incomplete or immature information regarding survey items. 

Key demographic items collected for Supervisor Survey respondents included: 

Rank/Grade 

Component 

Branch or MOS 

Current Position 

Unit Type 

Number of Years in the Army 

Current Level of Warrant Officer Interaction 

Number of Warrant Officers Rated/Senior Rated 

AC USAR ARNG CIV 

Respondent Number 266 33 10 16 

Respondent Percentage 81.8% 10.2% 3.1% 4.9% 

FOUO 

The final survey version included 64 

items, including seven, open-ended 

questions. Survey administration 

employed Inquisite® software, and the 

team received assistance from the CAC QAO for this task. The instrument was initially released 

the week of 9 July 2012 to 1,135 targeted respondents and was closed on 27 August 2012. 

Participants received an e-mail message inviting them to participate, which described the intent 

of the effort, the topics included in the survey, 

and the procedures for completing the survey 

online. Participants could click on the link 

provided in the e-mail message or enter the URL 

into their web browser to access the survey. 

325 participants completed the 

Supervisor Survey for a response 

rate of 28.6%. 

Survey respondents were able to leave the instrument at any time and return to complete the 

survey later. An e-mail address was provided to participants to contact the QAO survey help 

desk for any online access problems. Additionally, the invitation included contact information 

for the WOCLS Study Director and Deputy, should participants have questions about the 

instrument, data use, or the effort in general. Two-phased reminder e-mail notifications were 

sent to participants during the data collection window. 

Student Survey Instrument. A larger, additional indirect instrument, the Student Survey, was 

launched the week of 23 July 2012 to nearly 7,336 recent (within the last 30 months) Warrant 

Officer PME course graduates; it closed on 27 August 2012. 

Also developed in the iterative style employed across the previously discussed instruments, it 

too involved significant CAC QAO assistance, also employed Inquisite® software, and closely 

resembled items from Section B of the SAI, although tailored to a student perspective and 

screened for target audience relevance.


Items were designed primarily to aid in the WOCLS team’s responses to HQDA EXORD and 

TRADOC Tasking Order tasks 3.A.2.A – Evaluate Outcomes Along the WO Continuum of 

Learning) and 3.A.2.B – Identify Course Strengths and Weaknesses. Demographic items were 

again designed to aid in potential data analyses procedures and to define the sample. Six openended 

items were incorporated in the “base,” with one, one, one, two, and two open-ended 

items included in the WOCS, WOBC, WOAC, WOSC, and WOSSC branches, respectively. 

The majority of items were developed around a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 

5 = strongly agree), with an option to select “No Basis to Assess” on items where respondent 

knowledge was assessed as insufficient. In select instances, open-ended items were presented 

to allow participants to comment on a topic “in their own words.” 

WOCS 24 

WOBC 27 

WOAC 40 

WOSC 43 

WOSSC 38 

The final survey version included 117 foundational items, but purposefully 

branched respondents to additional items related to their most recently 

attended PME course. In a similar manner as for the SAI, items for specified 

PME components built into the branching are shown at left. 

Of note, given near back-to-back attendance for Warrant Officers to WOCS 

and WOBC, automatic branching to the “most 

recent” PME attended would likely drive most 

respondents to a WOBC branch. Therefore, in 

order to obtain representative WOCS feedback, 

25% of WO1 or CW2 respondents who identified 

themselves as WOBC graduates most recently, were branched to WOCS responses. The 25% is 

selected using specified birth months to ensure random sampling. 

In addition to key demographic variables identified above for Supervisor Survey respondents, 

Student Survey respondents also identified: 

MOS 

Most Recent PME Completed 

Number of years as a Warrant Officer 

Delivery methodology, respondent instructions, and reminder notifications followed an 

identical process as was outlined above for the Supervisor Survey. 

AC USAR ARNG 

Respondent Number 683 149 449 

Respondent Percentage 53.3% 11.6% 35.1% 

FOUO 

1,281 Warrant Officers, a 17.5% 

response rate, completed the 

Student Survey. 

Upon closure of both online survey data 

collections, raw data files were transferred 

from the QAO to the analysis team. The raw, 

comma-delimited csv files were initially 

cleaned, screened, and developed into databases compatible with SPSS® Windows statistical 

software. As part of this process, illogical response patterns were filtered from analyses. For 

example, a few participants provided ratings for their most recent PME, but also indicated they 

had received “constructive credit” for said course; these data were filtered from further


analyses. Finally, composite variables were created to aid in analysis (e.g., MOS responses were 

grouped into respective branch variables). 

Focus Group/Key Leader Interviews. Focus group protocols were developed by ARI, and 

intended to take advantage of face-to-face dialogue in order to explore items that could not be 

satisfactorily collected with survey instruments. Again following the CCC model, and using 

WOCLS team vetting, instruments were ultimately finalized in advance of the first Focus Group 

Site Visit to Fort Lee on May 7, 2012. Protocols incorporated subject areas that mapped to 

HQDA EXORD key tasks (see Table B-2). 

The team’s intent for these data included collection from Warrant Officer attendee and 

instructor small groups (typically eight or less) at resident courses (WOCS through WOSSC). 

From early May until November, WOCLS study group elements made 11 separate data 

collection visits to seven separate TRADOC installations, gathering key leader, staff and faculty, 

instructor, and student perspectives on Warrant Officers and their PME. 

A significant schedule review was required in order to optimize team visits to PME institutions 

during timeframes where they might find multiple, simultaneously executed Warrant Officer 

courses. An additional concern was to avoid Focus Groups during earlier weeks in the Program 

of Instruction. 

Table B-2. Focus Group Protocol to WOCLS Key Task Cross-Walk. 

SUBJECT AREA HQDA TASK NUMBER and DESCRIPTION 

Warrant Officer PME 

3. A.2.E. Appropriate Education and Training for Warrant 

Requirements 

Officers 

Future WO Skills/Knowledge 

Quality of Warrant Officer 

PME 

Quality of PME Instruction 

Maintaining Instructor Quality 

PME Administrative 

Challenges 

Motivation to Attend PME 

3.A.2.A 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.E 

3.A.2.A 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.C 

3.A.2.A 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.C 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.C 

3.A.2.D 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.D 

3.A.2.A 

3.A.2.B 

3.A.2.D 

Evaluate Outcomes Along the Continuum 

Identify Course Strengths and Weaknesses 

Appropriate Education and Training for Warrant 

Officers 



Verify Alignment w/ 350-1, ALDS, and the ALM 






Ensure Regulations and Policies are Supporting 






FOUO


3.A.2.E Appropriate Education and Training for Warrant 

Officers 

SUBJECT AREA HQDA TASK NUMBER and DESCRIPTION 

PME Best Practices 3.A.2.B Identify Course Strengths and Weaknesses 

Operational PME/Balance 3.A.2.D Ensure Regulations and Policies are Supporting 

Self-Development 

3.A.2.D 

3.A.2.E 



Officers 


Officers 

Warrant Officer 

Representation 

3.A.2.E 

Warrant Officer Policy 

Improvements 

3.A.2.D Ensure Regulations and Policies are Supporting 

Simulation Use 3.A.2.C Verify Alignment w/ 350-1, ALDS, and the ALM 

Additionally, Focus Group subject areas mapped to respondent audiences, as outlined below 

(see Table B-3): 

Table B-3. Focus Group Protocol to Respondent Audience Cross-Walk. 

SUBJECT AREA 


Requirements 

WOCS/WOBC 

STUDENT 

FOUO 

RESPONDENT AUDIENCES 

INTERMEDIATE 

STUDENT 

SENIOR 

STUDENT 

 

INSTRUCTOR 

STAFF/ 

FACULTY 

Future WO Skills/Knowledge 

Quality of Warrant Officer PME 

Quality of PME Instruction 

Maintaining Instructor Quality 

PME Administrative Challenges 

Motivation to Attend PME 

PME Best Practices 

Operational PME/Balance 

Self-Development 

Warrant Officer Representation 

Warrant Officer Policy 

Improvements 

 

Simulation Use No Focus Group questions related to this subject area.


All WOCLS team members accomplished ARI-provided Focus Group training in order to ensure 

Table B-4. Focus Group Session Numbering. 

FOCUS GROUP SESSION ID 

WOBC 

Student 

Staff/Faculty 

1.1.x 

1.5A.x 

WOAC 

Student 

Staff/Faculty 

1.2.x 

1.5B.x 

WOSC 

Student 

Staff/Faculty 

1.3.x 

1.5C.x 

WOSC Follow-On Staff/Faculty 1.5E.x 

WOSSC 

Student 

Staff/Faculty 

1.4.x 

1.5D.x 

WOCS 

Student 

Staff/Faculty 

1.5.x 

1.5F.x 

Senior Warrant Officers (more than one) 1.6 

Training Developers Staff/Faculty 1.7 

Regimental CWO/Chief Warrant of the Branch (CWOB) 1.8 

FOUO 

standardized, “best practice” 

procedures were employed. Each 

Focus Group involved a WOCLS 

team facilitator and at least one 

note taker; audio recordings 

were sometimes used after 

receiving respondent consent. 

The team exercised care to 

ensure that participants 

understood the WOCLS intent, 

that participation was voluntary, 

and that comments were “nonattribution.” 

Signed consent 

forms and demographic sheets 

were collected to document the 

voluntary participation and to capture key data for later data analysis purposes. Throughout, 

individuals were referenced only 

by participant number. 

Participation ultimately ranged 

from two or three, to as many as 

ten, and sessions were generally 

conducted over a 90-minute timeframe. Rough, session notes were later transcribed by a team 

administrator, carrying the participant numbers forward to ensure anonymity, and utilizing a 

Focus Group session numbering system (see Table B-4 above) to aid in data analyses. 

ARI developed separate, Key Leader Interview protocols for office calls with Branch/School 

Commandants, DoTs, QAO personnel, and Simulation Managers. Analogous to Table B-3, 

subject area cross-walk to respondent audiences is outlined below for these interview protocols 

(see Table B-5): 

Table B-5. Key Leader Interview Protocol to Respondent Audience Cross-Walk. 

SUBJECT AREA 


Requirements 

AC USAR ARNG 

Student Focus Group Participants 188 37 58 

Student Focus Group Percentages 66.4% 13.2% 20.4% 

Faculty/Staff Focus Group Participants 69 0 1 

Faculty/Staff Focus Group Percentages 98.6% 0.0% 1.4% 

RESPONDENT AUDIENCES 

COMMANDANT DoT QAO 

 

Future WO Skills/Knowledge 

Quality of Warrant Officer PME 

Quality of PME Instruction 

PME Administrative Challenges 

SIMULATION 

MANAGER


PME Best Practices 

Simulation Use 

Each interview additionally employed 

one facilitator and a single note taker. 

WOCLS introduction preceded consent 

acknowledgment and demographic 

data collection. Interviews typically 

lasted no more than 60 minutes. 

Session notes were again transcribed by 

the team’s administrative lead, and a 

numbering system was also employed as an interview identification means (see Table B-6). 

Summary notes represent the “raw data”, collected from 78 Focus Groups and 33 Key Leader 

Interviews, representing 436 and 49 participants, respectively (see Tables B-7 and B-8). 

Table B-7. Summary – Focus Group Data Collection. 

FOCUS GROUPS 

PME COURSE AUDIENCE ITERATIONS PARTICIPANTS REMARKS 

WOBC Student 19 131 8 branches, 26 MOS 

WOAC Student 12 84 8 branches, 21 MOS 

WOSC Student 4 32 9 branches, 29 MOS 

WOSSC Student 4 36 8 branches, 10 MOS 

WOCS Student 1 8 3 branches, 4 MOS 

SWO 3 17 5 branches, 10 MOS 

Staff and Faculty 10 32 

RCWO/CWOB 4 13 

WOBC/WOAC Instructors 17 66 

WOSC/WOSSC Instructors 3 13 

WOCS Instructors 1 4 

78 436 

Table B-8. Summary – Key Leader Interview Data Collection. 

Table B-6. Key Leader Interview Session Numbering. 

INTERVIEW SESSION ID 

COMMANDANT 2.1.x 

DIRECTOR of TRAINING 2.2.x 

QAO 2.3.x 

RCWO/CWOB (one participant) 2.4.x 

SIMULATION MANAGER 2.5.x 

KEY LEADER INTERVIEWS 

AUDIENCE ITERATIONS PARTICIPANTS REMARKS 

Commandant 12 12 8 branches 

Director of Training 10 14 5 branches 

QAO 5 12 

RCWO/CWOB 2 2 

Simulation Manager 4 9 

33 49 

Branches represented by Focus Group and Key Leader Interviews include: Air Defense, 

Adjutant General, Aviation, Chemical, Engineer, Field Artillery, Judge Advocate General, Military 

FOUO


Intelligence, Military Police, Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal, Special Forces, Transportation, 

and the Veterinary Corps. 

General Officer (GO)/Senior Executive Service (SES) Questionnaire. A four-question GO/SES, 

Microsoft Excel-formatted questionnaire was developed and distributed via e-mail to 144 

senior leaders in mid-September. The correspondence included a brief WOCLS explanation and 

participation instructions. Focusing only on impressions of senior Warrant Officers (CW4 and 

31 of 144 GO/SES respondents 

completed and returned the 

questionnaire, a 21.5% response rate. 

Four open-ended questions addressed the following themes: 

FOUO 

CW5), the team intended this instrument to 

be more “forward-looking,” capturing 

respondent attitudes on future operational 

requirements for Warrant Officers. 

1. Performance and notable capability gaps associated with contemporary, senior Warrant 

Officer performance 

2. New capabilities, if any, that may be required in order to deal with emerging 

technologies and expanding Warrant Officer roles 

3. Additional training, education, or experience required to sustain senior Warrant Officer 

system integrator performance in future, complex operational environments 

4. Perspective on policy and resourcing necessary to meet training and education 

requirements for senior Warrant Officers moving forward 

Collection concluded in 

mid-October, with each 

response integrated into a 

single Excel workbook. That 

workbook included one worksheet for each of the four questions’ responses, as well as the 

summary page with original respondent content and demographic data. 

“First Pass” Data Analysis Overview 

AC USAR ARNG CIV 

Questionnaire Participant Number 26 2 2 1 

Questionnaire Participant Percentages 83.8% 6.5% 6.5% 3.2% 

This section intends to outline how the team walked from “raw,” collected data, into what was 

ultimately referred to as “first pass,” analyzed information. As a highlight, data collection 

instruments described above generated a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. 

These can be generalized as follows (see Figure B-1):


Figure B-1. Overview of Data Volume Collected, by Instrument and Data Type. In Figure B-1 above, 

QUAN and QUAL refer to quantitative and qualitative data elements, respectively. In sum, the five 

WOCLS instruments generated just over 221K data elements for synthesis and analysis. 

Data Cleaning, Preparing, and Descriptive Analyses. All electronic data files were screened and 

cleaned prior to development of analysis databases. For surveys administered online, 

inconsistent or illogical responses were minimized through use of variable limits and item 

branching and skip patterns within the Inquisite® software. For example, only participants who 

indicated WOSSC as their most recent course were presented with the WOSSC-specific set of 

items. For instruments completed in Word and Excel, data were screened and filtered, as 

needed, so that only appropriate responses would be included. 

Survey Descriptive Analyses. Descriptive statistics were computed for each survey item by 

relevant categorical variables. For example, items that assessed general attitudes within the 

Student Survey were reported by warrant officer rank (WO1 to CW5) and then as a total cohort. 

Items related to course-specific characteristics or outcomes were reported by course (WOCS to 

WOSSC). For most items, one set of item frequencies was computed. 

Similarly, another set of item frequencies was computed in which responses to the favorable 

and unfavorable response options were collapsed, creating item frequency distributions with 

fewer response options (e.g., Disagree/Strongly Disagree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; 

Agree/Strongly Agree). 

FOUO


Collapsing response options provided a simplified method to interpret and compare responses 

across strata. Additionally, item means and standard deviations were computed for each item 

to better identify the most and least favorable items within each survey or subset. 

Survey item results were tabulated in the form of counts and percentages of the rank/grade or 

participant group responding to a particular response option category (e.g., the percentage of 

CW5 that agree/strongly agree with an item). Similarly, results of open-ended comments were 

presented as a frequency of responses, by theme. 

Open-ended survey comments were manually coded. For each item, a sample of the comments 

was first reviewed to develop a draft theme list. Comments were then analyzed and coded to 

the theme lists, and new themes were added as needed. Theme frequencies were computed 

and tabulated. This methodology was specifically employed for analysis of SAI, Parts A and C 

data, Focus Groups/Key Leader Interviews responses, the GO/SES Questionnaire responses, and 

Supervisor/Student Survey open-ended comments. 

Data Synthesis – The Data Analysis “Horse Blanket” 

The volume of data necessitated the need to develop 

and instrument, linked to the study’s key tasks, that 

would enable more rapid data mining moving forward 

into synthesis and analysis. This tool was constructed, 

implemented, and ultimately referred to as the “horse 

blanket.” 

Beginning with each of the study’s specified key tasks, 

the team worked to deconstruct the task into its 

subordinate elements, then identified which portions 

of each instrument either (1) answered that 

consideration directly (primary response) or 

tangentially (secondary response). 

As an example, and using the study’s first key task as an example: “Evaluate outcomes along 

the WO continuum of learning by grade.” 

The team deconstructed the key task to focus on “outcomes” and “along the continuum 

of learning.” 

o Specific course outcomes are defined by several sources, including Army 

Regulation 350-1, TRADOC Regulation 350-36, DA Pam 600-3, and in the Army 

Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS). 

o The PME itself represented the relevant points along the continuum. 

However, the key task specified “by grade,” resulting in the group consciously relating 

select Warrant Officer grades to specific PME courses. 

o WOCS (BOLC A) = WO1 

FOUO 

WOCLS Key Tasks 

1. Evaluate outcomes along the 

Warrant Officer continuum of 

learning by grade. 

2. Identify individual course 

strengths and weaknesses. 

3. Verify alignment with AR 350-1, 

the ALDS, and the ALM. 

4. Ensure regulations and policies 

support intended outcomes. 

5. Determine what is the right 

education and training for U.S. 

Army Warrant Officers through 

leader development forums.


o WOBC (BOLC B) = CW2 

o Action Officer Development Course (AODC)/WOAC = CW3 

o WOSC = CW4 

o WOSSC = CW5 

De-aggregation of the key task immediately enables a cross-walk to the data collection 

instruments. This was accomplished for each outcome and within each instrument. In 

select cases, a specified outcome (or sub-outcome) was directly addressed by an item – 

this represented a Primary (P) source of data for further synthesis/analysis with 

additional P and Secondary (S) item contributors. 

In sum, the horse blanket offered a data index that enabled the team to find relevant item 

responses; this synthesis methodology was ultimately useful across all key tasks. A horse 

blanket excerpt is provided in Figure B-2 for the first study key task. The image shows further 

de-aggregation of the key task to outcomes and sub-outcomes along the continuum of learning, 

and identifies both primary and secondary information locations from the SAI. Additional 

correlation was generated to the other instruments for both this and all other key tasks. 

“Second and Third Pass” Data Analysis 

Using the horse blanket to cull responses from the five disparate collection instruments, 

analysts collected and synthesized information relating to the key task under consideration. 

These data were then summarized, coordinated, and discussed to arrive at initial “so what” 

from the analysis. In most cases, this process was sufficient. 

However, select preliminary results precipitated the need for a third pass. Examples include 

responses to items that appeared to have some basic branch relevancy, or instances where the 

respondent’s rank may influence the perspective collected. Where required, the team’s 

analysts then returned to the data and reassessed information with alternative lenses (e.g., 

basic branch or time in service as a Warrant Officer vs. Warrant Officer grade). We anticipate 

this activity to continue through the team’s WOCLS presentation at the February 2013 ALDF. 

FOUO


Figure B-2. Data Analysis Horseblanket. This image reflects an excerpt from the team-developed tool 

that deconstructed data collection instruments into relevant items to each key task. The effort 

represents a reverse engineered DCP for the WOCLS and was effectively implemented for all tasks. 

FOUO


ANNEX C – DRAFT GENERAL LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR WARRANT 

OFFICERS 

The General Learning Outcomes (GLO) for Warrant Officers were derived directly from the 

structure under consideration by the Army Learning Coordination Council (ALCC) for Officers, 

and is based on preliminary work accomplished by the WOCC. 

Importantly, these are corroborated by feedback regarding current and future expectations 

from recent Warrant Officer raters/senior raters (Supervisor Survey) and input from GOs and 

SESs received on the GO/SES Questionnaire. 

Army Learning Areas 

Common Framework for 

Officers, WOs, NCOs, and Army 

Civilians 

D R A F T v1.2 

14 December 2012 

21 st -C Army Competencies and Attributes 

Nine 21 st -C Soldier Competencies 

reflected in TR Pam 525-8-2 ALC for 2015, App. C 

Army Profession Character and Accountability 

Professional Competence Professional Competence 

Adaptability 

Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 

Adaptability and Initiative 

Teamwork and Collaboration 

Team Building 

Culture and JIIM Competence 

Communication & Engagement (oral, 

written, negotiation) 

Lifelong Learning Lifelong Learner (includes digital literacy) 

Comprehensive Fitness Comprehensive Fitness 

Level of Learning 

(CJCSI 1800D OPMEP), p. A-A-2 

PME Courses and Officer 

Self -Development Periods 

Candidates/Officers Trained 

& Educated 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 

General Learning 

Outcomes 

See Tables 2 thru 6 

for Warrant Officer 

General Learning 

Outcomes 

Primary Intermediate Senior 

WOBC (BOLC-B)/ 

OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 

Figure C-2. Career Continuum of Learning for Warrant Officers. 

OSD-2 (cont.)/ 

WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s






Candidates/Officers 

Trained & Educated 

Warrant Officer Candidate 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 



OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 


WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s 

Many outcomes for Warrant Officer Candidates have already been attained through previously 

completed enlisted courses. In-service recruits will have previously completed one or more 

levels of NCO education. Those recruited directly from civilian life will have first completed 

basic combat training prior to attending Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS). 

Those who successfully complete WOCS will be commissioned to Warrant Officer One (WO1).


Table C-1: Pre-Commission-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Commissioning as a 

WO1. Text in italics/RED reflects differences between GLOs for Warrant Officers and for the broader 

Officer Corps. 

Army 

Learning Areas 

The Army 

Profession 

Professional 

Competence 

Adaptability 

Competencies 

and Attributes 

Character and 

Accountability 

(ALCC expanded GLO 

focus includes skills, 

knowledge, and 

attributes associated 

with the Army 

Profession) 

Professional 

Competence 

(Tactical, 

Operational, 

Strategic, & 

Technical in Unified 

Land Operations) 


& Problem Solving 

General Learning Outcomes for Candidates 

Transition existing understanding regarding Army values, 

customs, courtesies, and traditions to an officer’s 

perspective. 

Define, explain, understand, and begin to demonstrate 

TRUST as the bedrock and organizing principle of the 

Army Profession, the Army’s Ethic, and the Army’s Ethos. 


MILITARY EXPERTISE, membership in the Army 

Profession, and certification of Army Professionals. 

Describe HONORABLE SERVICE, the seven Army Values, 

and Warrior Ethos. 


STEWARDSHIP of the Army Profession. 

Describe ARMY CULTURE and its influences on the 

profession. 

Appreciate the role of the Warrant Officer in its context 

to the larger Officer Corps and its differences to Non- 

Commissioned Officer roles. 

Execute to standard individual Warrior Tasks. 

Introduce platoon/section-level maneuver battle drills. 

Exhibit marksmanship fundamentals. 

Explain and begin to execute Army Training 

Management. 

Introduce and apply Risk Management. 

Demonstrate critical thinking and creative thinking. 

Recognize traits exhibited by C/Critical Thinkers. 

Explain and avoid pitfalls in thinking. 

Demonstrate troop leading procedures and the Military 

Decision-Making Process (MDMP). 

Explain multi-criteria decision analysis. 

Define and begin to practice agile thinking. 

FOUO


Army 


Team Building 

Competencies 


Adaptability and 

Initiative 

Teamwork and 

Collaboration 

Culture & JIIM 

Competence 

Communication 

& Engagement 

(oral, written, and 

negotiation) 


[ADAPTABILITY] 

Explain adaptability as a leader attribute. 

Appreciate the officer’s role in effecting change at the 

tactical level. 

Recognize unexpected conditions that might call for 

adjustment. 

Explain strategies for influencing others to respond 

appropriately in complex or ambiguous environments 

when adjustments to the plan occur. 

[INITIATIVE] 

Display the willingness to act autonomously within 

Commander’s intent. 

Explain how an officer creates a leadership climate that 

encourages subordinate initiative at the tactical level. 

[TEAM BUILDING] 

Define, explain and understand ESPRIT DE CORPS at the 

individual, team, organization, and Army levels. 

Explain the value of effective reception and orientation. 

Communicate expectations. 

Listen to and value each team member. 

Reward positive contributions to the team. 

Explain the importance of leading by example in 

character and presence. 

Explain the importance of self-awareness and humility. 

Explain the value in diversity of experience, expertise, and 

perspectives. 

Identify joint force capabilities and limitations, 

interagency capabilities, and multinational and legal 

considerations in contemporary operations. (Intellect) 

Inculcate cultural self-awareness, and understand and 

appreciate the impact of culture on military operations. 

Recognize the importance of understanding 

foundational cultural concepts and aspects of crosscultural 

competency. (Character) 

Describe the relevance of fundamental cross-cultural 

skills. (Presence) 

Identify and apply the fundamentals of effective 

communications. 

Demonstrate the ability to influence others through 

interpersonal skills. 

FOUO


Army 


Lifelong Learning 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 

Competencies 



(includes digital 

literacy) 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 


Value lifelong learning as fundamental to individual and 

organizational success. 

Apply existing learning skills and investigate new 

learning skills. 

Demonstrate the ability to operate in the Army digital 

environment. 

Apply resiliency skills and recognize core competencies 

that enable mental toughness, optimal performance, 

strong leadership, and goal achievement. 

Explain how the five dimensions of Comprehensive 

Soldier Fitness (CSF) relate to combat readiness. 

Apply stress management techniques, to include 

defining stress; describing causes of stress; identifying 

symptoms of depression and suicide; describing 

methods to manage stress; recognizing the initial 

emotions, thoughts, behaviors, and physical reactions of 

stressful activating events. 

Describe an adaptive leader, to include describing 

adaptive leadership, identifying characteristics of 

adaptive leaders, understanding how to become an 

adaptive leader, and understanding how gratitude and a 

positive outlook can improve resiliency and capability. 

Incorporate peer evaluations for self-development, to 

include being open to feedback (self-awareness, selfregulation), 

setting development goals, and 

communicating assertively. 

Understand how to effectively manage Combat Stress, 

to include explaining the definition of Combat Stress, 

identifying Stressors, recognizing Combat Stress 

Behaviors, recognizing Combat Stress Reactions, and 

listing the methods used to manage Combat Stress. 

FOUO








Warrant Officer One 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 



OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 


WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s 

Newly commissioned WO1s will attend Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) at their branch 

proponent school in preparation for initial warrant officer assignment. 

NOTE: GLOs for WO1s and for Lieutenants (2LT and 1LT) are IDENTICAL. 

Table C-2: Primary-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for the First Warrant Officer 

Assignment (as a WO1) and Follow-On Promotion to CW2. 

Army 


Competencies 


General Learning Outcomes for WO1s


Army 


The Army 

Profession 

Army 


Professional 

Competence 

Competencies 


Character and 






with the Army 

Profession) 

Competencies 


Professional 

Competence 

(Tactical, 

Operational, 

Strategic, & Technical 

in Unified Land 

Operations) 

FOUO 

General Learning Outcomes for WO1s 

Describe how the US Army meets the four requirements 

of a profession, the dual character of the US Army, and 

its history as a profession. 

Embody the Army’s ethic to build internal TRUST and to 

sustain effective and ethical mission command. 

Develop self and subordinates in PROFESSIONAL 

IDENTITY, COMPETENCE, CHARACTER, and 

COMMITMENT. 

Develop, promote, and set the example for HONORABLE 

SERVICE. 

Cultivate ESPRIT DE CORPS at team level through sharing 

the adversity and physical hardship that comes with 

being an Army professional. 

Describe the relationships between the Army, US 

citizens, and elected and appointed officials and 

STEWARD the Army Profession and the Army’s resources 

in all activities. 

Affect change at the three levels of team culture to 

maintain alignment of professional identity, community, 

and hierarchy. 


Demonstrate technical skills proficiency for individual 

branch integration as a member of the combined arms 

team. As a leader, apply Army training and management 

systems and sustainment functions. 

Make appropriate decisions based on doctrine, 

assessment, critical thinking, and judgment to provide 

solutions to tactical problems. Function as a leader in 

training and employing Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills 

and branch defined technical and tactical skills. Adapt 

Troop Leading Procedures and problem-solving skills to 

mission support requirements. Execute missions 

through decisive action tasks in support of unified land 

ops (ULO) enabled by mission command systems. 

1) Apply Risk Management. 

2) Understand how tactical actions affect the 

operational environment. 

3) Understand the impact of culture and history on 

the OE and military operations.


Army 


Adaptability 

Team Building 

Competencies 





Initiative 

Teamwork and 

Collaboration 

FOUO 


Demonstrate situational awareness. 

Demonstrate clarity and precision in oral 

communications. 

Use tools to enhance critical and creative thinking. 

Demonstrate critical thinking. 

Employ troop leading procedures. 

Explain the steps of MDMP. 


Create a climate of readiness to adapt. 

Demonstrate the will to effect change at the tactical 

level. 

Adjust a tactical plan in response to unexpected 

conditions that jeopardize the mission. 

Lead others in responding appropriately in complex or 

ambiguous environments by using appropriate influence 

techniques when adjustments to the plan occur. 

[INITIATIVE] 

Act autonomously within the parameters of the 

Commander’s intent and guidance. 

Interpret tactical intent. 

Establish a climate that encourages subordinate 

initiative. 


Ensure effective reception and orientation of new 

members. 


Establish clear lines of authority. 

Listen to and display genuine concern for team 

members. 

Reward positive contributions. 

Lead by example in character, presence, and intellectual 

attributes. 

Develop self-awareness. 

[COLLABORATION] 

Seek advice of team members. 

Blend humility and confidence to inspire trust.


Army 



Comprehensive 

Fitness 

Competencies 



Competence 

Communication 

& Engagement 


negotiation) 



literacy) 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 

FOUO 


Discuss joint force capabilities and limitations, 

interagency capabilities, and multinational and legal 

considerations in contemporary operations. (Intellect) 

Explain the relevance of culture within a JIIM 

environment. (Character) 

Internalize cultural self-awareness. 

Identify fundamental cultural concepts within a crosscultural 

competency framework. (Character) 

Demonstrate fundamental cross-cultural communication 

skills. (Presence) 

Build and lead teams; demonstrate character and 

competence; and speak and write clearly, concisely, and 

persuasively. Demonstrate the ability to adapt message 

to context. 

1) Execute, Inform, and Influence activities. 

2) Implement strategic communication. 

Leverage information and technology, to include using 

human aspects, culture, and history to acquire and 

manage knowledge to facilitate decision making. 

Recognize Army requirements for lifelong learning. 

Conduct self-assessment and develop a short-term plan 

for personal goals. 

Access and evaluate the quality and usefulness of 

information to meet current needs using a variety of 

digital resources. 

Apply existing learning skills and investigate new 

learning skills. 

Demonstrate valuing lifelong learning by seeking advice. 

Occasionally conduct a self-assessment; develop and 

revise a near-term plan. 

Learn and apply new learning skills. 

Communicate self-assessment requirements to superiors 

and subordinates. Identify contributions to organization. 

Apply resiliency skills and recognize core competencies 

that enable mental toughness, optimal performance, 

strong leadership, and goal achievement. 

Describe the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) 

program and define the concept of resilience by 

outlining the “Four Pillars” of CSF and the Institutional 

Resilience Training program.








Chief Warrant Officer Two 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 



OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 


WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s 

CW2s will attend Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) at their branch proponent school in 

preparation for promotion to CW3 and assignment to CW3 responsibilities. 

Table C-3: Primary-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW3. Text in 

italics/RED reflects differences between GLOs for Warrant Officers and for the broader Officer Corps. 

Army 


The Army 

Profession 

Competencies 


Character and 






with the Army 

Profession) 

General Learning Outcomes for CW2s 

Participate in and support professional development 

programs on Army Profession, Army Ethic, and Character 

Development at small unit level. 

Embody the Army’s Ethic and explain the framework and 

the importance of TRUST in leadership. 



COMMITMENT. 


SERVICE. 

Cultivate ESPRIT DE CORPS at small unit level grounded 

in shared experiences and mutual respect. 

Describe the established norms for civil-military 

interactions; STEWARD the Army Profession and the 

Army’s resources in all activities. 

Affect change at the three levels of unit culture to 


and hierarchy.


Army 


Professional 

Competence 

Adaptability 

Competencies 


Professional 

Competence 

(Tactical, 

Operational, 

Strategic, & 






Initiative 

FOUO 


Enable Mission Command, plan, prepare, execute, and 

assess simultaneous operations at the tactical level. 

1) Understand staff organizations, and apply MDMP 

and other processes using mission command 

systems in a JIIM environment. 

2) Understand partner (e.g. Department of State 

and partner nations) organizational missions and 

methodologies in order to set conditions for 

successful UA. 

3) Understand the impact of culture and history on 

the OE and military operations. 

Apply the principles of training and manage training IAW 

Army doctrine. 

Apply analytical and intuitive judgment within an 

ambiguous and time-constrained operational 

environment while understanding the implications on 

the operational environment. 

Develop and apply risk management. 

Identify and reduce tactical/operational vulnerabilities 

to cyber threats, as appropriate. 

Explain how critical thinking relates to mission 

command. 

Explain the components of cognition. 

Explain nature and uses of intuition. 

Explain sources of creativity and its relationship to 

innovation. 

Think critically and creatively. 

Avoid pitfalls in thinking. 

Establish a unit climate that fosters development of 

leaders who think critically and creatively. 

Explain the fundamentals of planning and Army Design 

Methodology. 

Apply the MDMP to produce an operations order. 


Support cultivation of learning units. 

Value collaboration and dialogue among individuals with 

differing perspectives. 

Depict tactical situations as systems composed of actors 

and dynamics. 

Produce mission type orders that enable adaptation and 

initiative at the tactical level. 

Demonstrate tolerance of and comfort with uncertainty 

and ambiguity.


Army 


Adaptability 

Team Building 

Competencies 



Initiative 

Teamwork and 

Collaboration 


Competence 

FOUO 


[INITIATIVE] 

Build trust with subordinates, peers and superiors. 

Interpret Commander’s intent. 

Convey Commander’s intent. 

Act autonomously consistent with a Commander’s intent 

in response to an opportunity. 


Design and implement effective reception and 

orientation. 


Listen to and display genuine concern for team 

members. 


Set the example by maintaining a positive attitude. 

Trust team members and encourage them to develop 

trust in each other. 

Reinforce desired team norms. 


Set individual and team goals. 

Train and employ the team collectively. 

[COLLABORATION] 

Lead the employment of technological aids to 

collaboration. 

Be comfortable with face-to-face collaboration. 

Underwrite mistakes. Remove stigma associated with 

error or ignorance. 

Recognize and capitalize on individual strengths. 

Create collaborative environments. 

Blend humility and confidence to inspire trust. 

Empower and draw out all team members. 

Integrate knowledge of joint force capabilities and 

limitations, interagency capabilities, and multinational 

and legal considerations in a specific region or country. 

Apply cultural context considerations when interpreting 

environmental cues in planning and executing 

operations in a specific region or country. (Character) 

Demonstrate enhanced cross-cultural communication 

and conflict resolution skills in a specific region or 

country. (Character)


Army 


Team Building 


Comprehensive 

Fitness 

Competencies 


Communication 

& Engagement 


negotiation) 



literacy) 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 

FOUO 


Build and lead teams; demonstrate character and 

competence; and speak and write clearly, concisely, and 

persuasively. 

Demonstrate the ability to adapt message to context. 

1) Support execution of Inform and Influence 

activities. 

2) Support strategic communication. 

3) Lead leveraging information and technology, to 

include using human aspects, culture, and history 

to acquire and manage knowledge to facilitate 

decision making. 

At the tactical level, resolve issues, reach decisions, and 

influence actions to the mutual satisfaction of 

professionally and culturally diverse groups. 

Regularly assess near and mid-term professional and 

personal learning needs and link planning to meet longterm 

goals. 

Independently identify and access a variety of digital 

resources to leverage appropriate information, 

knowledge, and technologies to execute Army missions. 

Use learning skills that fit the learning content and 

context. 

Coach and develop subordinates in lifelong learning 

skills, to include the development and maintenance of 

Individual Development Plans (IDPs). 

Identify leader principles and skills to mitigate the 

impact of operations on resilience and mental fitness 

within an organization. 

Describe the realities of combat and operational 

deployments and the role leaders have in ensuring 

Soldiers are able to function within this environment. 

Discuss the critical role leaders have in managing 

traumatic events and their support of Soldiers when 

these events occur within an organization.








Chief Warrant Officer Three 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 



OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 


WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s 

CW3s will attend the Warrant Officer Staff Course (WOSC) at the Warrant Officer Career 

College in preparation for promotion to CW4 and assignment to CW4 responsibilities. 

Table C-4: Intermediate-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW4. Text in 


Army 


The Army 

Profession 

Competencies 


Character and 






with the Army 

Profession) 




Development at unit level. 

Embody and operate within the framework of the 

Army’s Ethic, and the three primary ethical principles of 

the use of force. 

Promote a climate of TRUST. 



COMMITMENT. 


SERVICE. 

Cultivate ESPRIT DE CORPS at organizational level 

through an open climate of candor, trust, and respect. 


at organizational level and operate within established 

norms for civil-military interactions in engagements with 

news media. 

Manage change at the three levels of organizational 

culture to maintain alignment of professional identity, 

community, and hierarchy.


Army 


Professional 

Competence 

Competencies 


Professional 

Competence 

(Tactical, 

Operational, 

Strategic, & 



FOUO 


Comprehend how to seize the objective against 

determined enemies in complex environments. 

Comprehend how to translate theater strategies and 

campaign plans into operational and tactical action. 

Explain the relevance of military theory in planning for 

and conducting military operations. 

Integrate technical expertise into tactical and 

operational level staff activities in the operations 

process. 

Understand and analyze the character of armed conflict 

and how political, cultural, and social aspects of that 

conflict effect and interact with military operations. 

1) Lead, train, and manage staffs in the operations 

process. 

Synthesize the impacts of culture and history in the 

operations process. 

Build, lead, train, and sustain Army formations in unified 

land operations (ULO). 

Seek to understand and analyze complex problems in 

the OE and visualize, recommend, or decide upon 

solutions through the application of critical thinking and 

problem solving models to include the Army Design 

Methodology. 

2) Synthesize the impacts of culture and history in 

the operations process. 

3) Integrate Risk Management into the operations 

process. 

4) Integrate partner (e.g. DOS and partner nations) 

capabilities in order to set conditions for 

successful UA. 

Enable Mission Command and lead/support in ULO at 

the operational and tactical levels. 

Leverage Mission Command systems to conduct, direct, 

and assess the operations process. 

Identify and reduce operational vulnerabilities to cyber 

threats, as appropriate.


Army 


Adaptability 

Competencies 





Initiative 

FOUO 


Demonstrate the use of intuition in areas of expertise. 

Generate novel ideas. 

Analyze policy, strategy, and history. 

Avoid pitfalls in thinking. 

Establish a unit climate that fosters development of 

leaders who think critically and creatively. 

Apply Army Design Methodology principles to improve 

understanding of a complex environment. 

Participate on a team in the activities of the operations 

process. 


Support cultivation of learning units. 

Collaborate across cultural boundaries. 

Depict operational situations as systems and subsystems 

composed of actors and dynamics. 

Participate in the production of mission type orders that 

enable adaptability and address uncertainty and 

ambiguity. 

Demonstrate comfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. 

[INITIATIVE] 

Empower subordinates. 

Interpret and convey the intent of national leaders and 

senior military leaders. 

Habitually seek opportunities to act autonomously 

consistent with a Commander’s intent.


Army 


Team Building 

Competencies 


Teamwork and 

Collaboration 


Competence 

Communication 

& Engagement 


negotiation) 

FOUO 



Listen to and value team members. 


Set the example by maintaining a positive attitude. 

Trust team members and encourage them to trust each 

other. 

Reinforce desired team norms. 


Set individual and team goals. 

Train and employ the team collectively. 

Employ an array of collaborative approaches. 

Set conditions for respectful dialogue among individuals 

with diverse perspectives. 

Facilitate group interaction. 

Cultivate constructive competition of ideas. 

Demonstrate humility. 

Remove stigma associated with error or ignorance. 

Engage in strategic communication. 

Apply knowledge of joint force capabilities and 

limitations, interagency capabilities, multinational, and 

legal considerations in a specific operational 

environment (Emphasize). 

Distinguish cross-cultural competency in planning and 

executing operations (Character - Emphasize). 

Apply enhanced cross-cultural cultural communication 

and conflict resolution skills (Presence - Emphasize). 

Communicate clearly, concisely, and persuasively in oral, 

written, and digital media. Demonstrate the ability to 

adapt message to context. 

1) Support execution of inform and influence 

activities. 

2) Analyze and support implementation of strategic 

communication in a JIIM environment. 

3) Lead leveraging information and technology, to 

include using human aspects, culture, and history 

to acquire and manage knowledge to facilitate 

decision making. 

At the operational level, support issues resolution, 

decision-making, and execution to the mutual 

satisfaction of professionally and culturally diverse 

groups.


Army 



Comprehensive 

Fitness 

Competencies 




literacy) 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 

FOUO 


Continually assess professional and personal learning 

needs to inform long-term planning. 

Ensure the organization has plans for assessing 

individual learning. 

Provide expertise on lifelong learning skills for the 

organization and integrate learning preferences and 

skills into organizational training and educational plans. 

Explore the information environment to discover 

valuable resources and enablers, and provide guidance 

to the organization for acceptable use. 

Employ quality information and learning methods to 

improve personal and team effectiveness. 

Describe a resilient leader. 

Explain how leader attributes and competencies relate 

to resilience. 

Understand how leaders can develop resilience in 

themselves, their units, and their families.








Chief Warrant Officer Four/Five 

Pre- 

Commissioning 

WOCS (BOLC-A) 

Candidates 

FOUO 



OSD-1 

WOAC/OSD-2 

WO1s 

CW2s 


WOSC/OSD-3 

CW3s 


WOSSC/OSD-4 

CW4s 

CW5s 

CW4s will attend Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course (WOSSC) at the Warrant Officer Career 

College in preparation for promotion to CW5 and assignment to CW5 responsibilities. 

Table C-5: Senior-Level Competencies/Outcomes in Preparation for Promotion to CW5. Text in 


Army 


The Army 

Profession 

Competencies 


Character and 






with the Army 

Profession) 

General Learning Outcomes for CW4s and CW5s 



Development at Army level. 

Embody the Army Ethic to preserve the Army’s earned 

TRUST with the American people. 



COMMITMENT. 


SERVICE. 

Cultivate ESPRIT DE CORPS at Army level through shared 

identity and pride as members of a respected 

profession. 


to ensure new military expertise passes on to the next 

generation of Army professionals; operate within 

established norms for civil-military interactions to 

influence effective Army policy and strategy. 

Manage change at the three levels of Army culture to 


and hierarchy.


Army 


Professional 

Competence 

Adaptability 

Competencies 


Professional 

Competence 

(Tactical, 

Operational, 

Strategic, & 






Understand the roles, relationships, and functions of civil 

authority and the military in formulation of national 

policy. 

Understand the theories of war, civil-military relations, 

and strategy. 

Comprehend the application and integration of JIIM 

systems and processes against national ends, ways, and 

means. 

Support evaluation of and manage transitions and risk at 

the strategic level. 

Integrate technical expertise in support of evaluating 

theater strategies, estimates, and campaign plans to 

employ military power in a JIIM environment. 

Comprehend critical elements, partners (e.g. DOS and 

partner nations), enablers, and processes that define the 

strategic environment in peace, conflict, and war to set 

conditions for successful UA. 

Internalize the importance of reflection and selfawareness 

to identify the impact of biases, assumptions, 

and inferences on the decisions strategic leaders make. 

Apply analytic decision making. 

Trust intuitive decision making where appropriate. 

Think strategically. 

Comprehend national policy goals and understand their 

translation into credible military objectives (ends), 

concepts (ways), and resources (means). 

Support policy formulation. 

Support strategy formulation. 

Innovate. 

Establish an organizational climate that fosters 

development of leaders who think critically and 

creatively. 

Understand and participate in collaborative application 

of Army Design Methodology principles and elements of 

operational art to achieve shared understanding of a 

complex environment. 

FOUO


Army 


Adaptability 

Team Building 

Competencies 



Initiative 

Teamwork and 

Collaboration 


Competence 



Cultivate learning organizations. 

Collaborate productively across cultural and JIIM 

boundaries. 

Depict strategic situations as systems and sub-systems 

composed of actors and dynamics. 

Participate in the production of mission type orders that 

enable adaptation at the strategic level. 

Demonstrate professional mastery in environments 

characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity. 

[INITIATIVE] 

Empower subordinates. 

Understand geo-political intent. 

Convey strategic intent. 

Create opportunities to act autonomously consistent 

with a commander’s intent. 

Form, integrate, and lead multiple diverse teams. 

Support unity of effort with JIIM team members through 

cultural awareness. 

Support and assist in establishing networks to ensure 

communication. 

Establish trust among individuals of widely diverse 

groups, cultures, and interests. 

Accommodate cultural diversity to capitalize on 

individual strengths. 

Harness collaborative friction. 

Support strategic leadership in a multi-cultural, JIIM 

environment. 

Consider cross-cultural competencies in synthesizing 

theater strategies, estimates, and campaign plans 

employing military power in a unified, joint, 

multinational, and interagency environment. 

Integrate critical culture elements into all levels of 

Unified Land Operations. 

Understand the implications of a unit’s actions and 

initiate cultural change within a unit to operate 

effectively within a specific operational environment. 

FOUO


Army 



Comprehensive 

Fitness 

Competencies 


Communication 

& Engagement 


negotiation) 



literacy) 

Comprehensive 

Fitness 


Communicate effectively to subordinates, partners, 

senior leaders, and national decision makers. 

1) Demonstrate the ability to adapt message to 

context. 

2) Conduct effective strategic communication. 

3) Synthesize the effects of culture and history to 

enable effective communication. 

At the strategic level, support issues resolution, decisionmaking, 

and execution to the mutual satisfaction of 

professionally and culturally diverse groups. 

Champion organizational lifelong learning programs and 

ensure funding. Mentor and model lifelong learning as a 

strategic leader. 

Provide guidance on acceptable use of information and 

technology to balance the dangers with the benefits of 

supporting access. 

Acknowledge and enable differing individual learner 

preferences within the organization. 

Identify a strategic leader’s role in fostering 

organizational readiness. 

Understand individual fitness from a holistic perspective. 

Recognize the impact of individual fitness on unit 

resilience and organizational readiness. 

Identify how leaders influence organizational resilience. 

FOUO


ANNEX D – THE G-1 WHITE PAPER 

White Paper 

Army Key Senior Warrant 

Officer Positions 

8 December 2012 

CW5 Arland W. Jackson 

HQDA G-1 

Collaboration: 

Army Senior Warrant Officer Council 

Center for Army Leadership, Warrant Officer Policy Integration 

HQDA G-3/5/7, Warrant Officer Leader Development 

FOUO


References 

a. Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development, dated 

18 December 2009. 

b. A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army, dated, 25 November 

2009. 

c. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pam 525-8-2, The U.S. Army 

Learning Concept for 2015, dated 20 January 2011. 

d. Headquarters, TRADOC, FRAGMENTATION ORDER (FRAGO) 4 to OPORD 11- 

008, Army Learning Concept (ALC) 2015 Implementation Plan, dated 200800Z October 

2011. 

e. Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 600-3, Commissioned Officer 

Professional Development and Career Management, dated 1 February 2010. 

f. HQDA EXORD 091-12, the Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning Study 

(WOCLS), dated 15 February 2012. 

Purpose 

To provide conclusions and recommendations derived from internal staff discussions 

that identified key Branch/MOS-immaterial senior warrant officer (SWO) leader/staff 

positions at senior strategic and Army Staff (ARSTAF) echelons. Additionally, this 

paper recommends a strategy for developing and managing a bench of SWOs capable 

of meeting the future requirements for identified key Branch/MOS-immaterial senior 

warrant officer (SWO) positions. 

BLUF 

This paper supports HQDA EXORD 091-12, the Warrant Officer Continuum of Learning 

Study (WOCLS), by identifying critical Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) positions that 

require a mid to senior grade leader development and bench-building strategy which 

includes educational opportunities currently not available within the normal warrant 

officer (WO) professional military education (PME) construct. Enabling an enhanced 

leader development strategy for officers identified to serve in those positions promotes 

increased WO ownership of cohort leader development and helps produce fully qualified 

officers to fulfill capstone CW5 requirements, both of which are in the best interest of the 

Army. 

Background 

On 15 February 2012, CG, TRADOC directed WOCLS to assess whether learning 

outcomes and course curricula along the WO learning continuum were adequate to 

support Army requirements. A number of SWOs are filling key requirements at 

operational, strategic, and joint staff levels. WOs serving in those key positions require 

a level of knowledge and experience that is not available within the existing WO PME 

FOUO


construct or traditional career progression model. Previous WO studies omitted an 

appropriate analysis of these positions. 

In support of WOCLS, HQDA G-1 was tasked to provide a white paper that focused 

primarily on key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions at the Army Staff (ARSTAF) 

and Army senior strategic levels. Through meetings, interviews and data calls, HQDA 

G-1 leveraged the institutional knowledge and collective wisdom residing within the 

ARSTAF and Senior Warrant Officer Council (SWOC) to facilitate an analysis of the 

following tasks: 

a. Identify existing and future key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions 

supporting WO leader development. 

b. Determine the baseline training and education levels required of officers to serve 

in key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions. 

c. Evaluate the current selection process for key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO 

positions IOT recommend enhancements that will support right officer-to-job 

synchronization. 

d. Identify gaps in WO representation in the leader development domains. 

Key Branch/MOS-Immaterial SWO Positions 

SWO roles and responsibilities have expanded to meet operational requirements and 

now include senior staff and leadership positions at virtually every level throughout the 

Army. Numerous leadership positions, such as Command Chief WO of the USAR; 

Command Chief WO of the ARNG; Chief WO of the Branch (CWOB); Regimental Chief 

WO (RCWO); Special Forces Group Command Chief WO; and Combat Aviation 

Brigade Command Chief WO, were created to provide leader development mentorship 

and systems integration expertise, in addition to augmenting the organization’s 

command team. 

Enclosure 1 lists ten key SWO positions that currently provide “above the branch” or 

strategic-level influence on staff operations, force management and leader development 

processes and policies. These positions demand unique skills, knowledge and 

experience in order to synchronize policies and resources in support of the Army Leader 

Development Program (ALDP). All but four of these positions (SecArmy, VCSA, HQDA 

G-1 and HQDA G-3/5/7) are coded Branch/MOS-immaterial (MOS 011A). Collaborative 

analysis revealed that the HQDA G-1 and HQDA G-3/5/7 positions had been or could 

be filled by uniquely qualified SWO possessing the requisite skills and experience, 

regardless of MOS. Consequently, this paper recommends recoding those two 

positions to MOS 011A. 

The positions listed in Enclosure 1 clearly indicate WOs are assuming greater 

responsibility in developing and managing their cohort in order to meet Army 

requirements. To achieve an adaptive and enduring leader development strategy for 

FOUO


the cohort, WOs must be fully prepared populate key positions in both the operating and 

generating forces to synchronize the organizational mission with the capabilities of WO 

institutional training and education. Enabling optimal assignment patterns and PME 

opportunities for the officers who will ultimately serve in key SWO positions is 

foundational to their success. It should be noted that the Army National Guard (ARNG) 

and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) both have a dedicated Command Chief 

WO (CCWO) position to advise the Director, ARNG and Chief, Army Reserve, 

respectively, on all matters pertaining to WOs. A dedicated position with like authority 

and responsibility does not exist within the Active Component. Additionally, the 

TRADOC proposed assignment of a CW5 as Commandant of the WO Career College 

(WOCC), the institutional focal point for Army WO professional and leader development, 

would appropriately increase cohort ownership of those processes. 

Enclosure 2 identifies 12 future key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions that would 

benefit by changes to the current WO leader development construct. The listing 

includes a recommendation to create an ARSTAF CCWO position with authority and 

responsibility commensurate with the CCWOs of the ARNG and USAR. As a result, the 

SecArmy, CSA and VCSA positions, previously listed in Enclosure 1, become peripheral 

to the listing due to their functional branch designations for MOS 420A. Other additions 

include recommendations to create CCWO positions at TRADOC and CAC, re-grade 

the WOCC Commandant and the Initial Military Training WO Policy Integrator positions 

to W5, and recode positions within HQDA G-1 and G-3/5/7 to MOS 011A. 

Functional Training and Education 

As a matter of function, the SWOs outlined in Enclosure 1 serve at highest and most 

critical levels responsible for articulating resourcing requirements for WO leader 

development. These unique duties require some deviation from the traditional warrant 

officer training and education construct. In order to best support the Army and the 

cohort, a baseline of knowledge, skills and attributes (KSA) are required for these WOs 

to perform adequately. The following table lists common KSAs that are recommended 

for key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions addressed within this paper: 

Broadening Assignments 

Baccalaureate Degree 

Input Output (KSA) 

WOSSC or Alternate Senior Service 

School Education 

Army Force Management School 

Diverse and progressive organizational 

experiences 

Baseline general education and 

communication skills 

Baseline professional education, critical 

thinking and rational problem solving 

skills 

How the Army runs, organizational 

structure knowledge 

FOUO


In addition to the baseline KSAs listed above, additional assignment oriented training 

(AOT) or education, such as ILE, may be required for select ARSTAF and strategiclevel 

positions. Those requirements should be identified by the respective position’s 

owning office or organization and submitted to HRC for consideration during the 

assignment process. 

Management of Key Branch/MOS-Immaterial SWO Positions 

Generally, the decision regarding who will fill a key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO billet 

will be made by the owning office or organization. However, the responsibility for talent 

management and the development of a bench of qualified officers to serve in key 

Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO positions resides almost exclusively within the functional 

branches. HRC career managers and CWOBs/RCWOs should identify officers early in 

their career continuum (not later than CW3) who demonstrate performance and 

potential to serve in key SWO billets. This pool of officers should be managed to 

ensure progressively diverse and developmental assignments are experienced before 

the officer is considered for promotion to CW5. An inter-branch order of merit (OML) list 

of prospective officers to fill key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO billets should be 

developed and managed at HRC, with input from the SWOC. This transparent process, 

which fully leverages the combined resources of HRC and the SWOC, will ensure the 

decision-maker is provided with a bona fide list of best qualified officers who can 

perform effectively upon assignment to a key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO billet. 

Summary 

For the future force, SWOs must be adept at operating in environments characterized 

by complexity and ambiguity. By codifying existing key Branch/MOS-immaterial SWO 

positions at senior strategic and Army Staff (ARSTAF) echelons and enabling cohort 

ownership of the processes supporting leader development, the WO cohort can begin to 

optimize performance by ensuring a bench of SWOs is fully prepared to fulfill future 

Army senior strategic-level requirements for Army 2020 and beyond. 

FOUO


Enclosure 1: Existing Key Senior Warrant Officer Positions 

SWO POSITION 

AUTH 

MOS 

AUTH 

GRADE MNG BY LOC 

SECARMY ADVISOR/ 

ASSIST XO 420A W5 CSA Pentagon 

CSA ASSIST XO 011A W5 CSA Pentagon 

VCSA ASSIST XO 420A W5 CSA Pentagon 

HQDA G-1 

WO PROMOTIONS & POLICY 420A W5 HQDA G-1 Pentagon 

HQDA G-3/5/7 

WO LDR DEV 153A W5 HQDA G-3/5/7 Pentagon 

TRADOC 

WO LDR DEV 011A W5 TRADOC Ft. Eustis 

CTR FOR ARMY LDRSHIP 

WO POLICY INT 011A W5 CAC Ft. Leavenworth 

DEPUTY CMDT, 

WO CAREER COLLEGE 011A W5 CMDT, WOCC Ft. Rucker 

COMMAND CWO 

OF THE USAR 011A W5 CAR Ft. Belvoir 

COMMAND CWO 

OF THE ARNG 011A W5 DIR, ARNG Arlington 

FOUO


Enclosure 2: Future Key Branch/MOS-Immaterial Senior 

Warrant Officer Positions 

SWO POSITION 

CUR 

GRADE/ 

MOS 

RE- 

GRADE/ 

MOS MNG BY LOC 

ARSTAF 

COMMAND CWO N/A W5/011A CSA Pentagon 

HQDA G-1 

WO PROMOTIONS & POLICY W5/420A W5/011A HQDA G-1 Pentagon 

HQDA G-3/5/7 

WO LDR DEV W5/153A W5/011A HQDA G-3/5/7 Pentagon 

TRADOC 

COMMAND CWO N/A W5/011A TRADOC Ft. Eustis 

TRADOC 

WO LDR DEV W5/011A N/A TRADOC Ft. Eustis 

CAC 

COMMAND CWO N/A W5/011A CAC Ft. Leavenworth 

CTR FOR ARMY LDRSHIP 

WO POLICY INT W5/011A N/A CAC Ft. Leavenworth 

CMDT, 

WO CAREER COLLEGE O6/15B W5/011A CAC Ft. Rucker 

DEPUTY CMDT, 

WO CAREER COLLEGE W5/011A N/A CAC Ft. Rucker 

DCG, IMT 

WO POLICY INT W3/011A W5/011A DCG, IMT Ft. Eustis 

COMMAND CWO 

OF THE USAR W5/011A N/A CAR Ft. Belvoir 

COMMAND CWO 

OF THE ARNG W5/011A N/A DIR, ARNG Arlington 

FOUO

Final Report 2012

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?