Describing Success by Gender Through the U.S. Army Officer Evaluation System

  • Ellie Senft
  • John Caddell
  • Julia Lensing
Keywords: Text Mining, Sentiment Analysis, Gender, Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs)


The United States Army uses both subjective and objective evaluation methods when assessing the performance of duties and potential for future service in the Officer Evaluation Report (OER). Males and females proportionally receive the same objective ratings, but on the surface, it is difficult to determine whether subjective ratings are equal. This paper seeks to examine the different ways success is described in each gender and how the OER follows or deviates from these trends. Upon examination of narratives written on the evaluation reports, many of the same words are used to describe success of males and females in the narratives written by their raters. The similarities amongst the reports suggest that the narratives follow a standardized format which may devalue their purpose of providing individualized feedback to the officer and to promotion boards.


DA Form 67-10-1: Company Grade Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report. United States Army, November 2015.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2018). Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. In Rosenbach, W.E. (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ecklund, M. V. . M. (2006). Leading change: Could a joint OER (officer evaluation reports) be the catalyst of Army transformation? Military Review, (1), 71.
Enge, Eric (2015, May 13th). Inverse Document Frequency and the Importance of Uniqueness. Retrieved from Moz, Inc website:
Fallesen, J. (2017). Response to Col. Kevin McAninch’s ’how the Army’s multi-source assessment and feedback program could become a catalyst for leader development: (Military review, September-October 2016). Military Review, (1), 122.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (2), 397.
Kite, D.P. (1998). U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report; Why Are We Writing to Someone Who Isn’t Reading. (M. A. A. Air Command and Staff Coll., Ed.) (Vol. AU/ACSC/151/1998-04). Non Paid ADAS.
Pang, B. & Lee, L. (2008), "Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis", Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval: Vol. 2: No. 1–2, pp 1-135.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Rohal, M. (2015). Women and Leadership: Public Says Women are Equally Qualified, but Barriers Persist. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 1-56.
Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2019). Text Mining with R: A Tidy Approach. O’Reilly.
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., Nikolov, M. C., & Chaney, D. A. (2019). The Power of Language: Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, (3–4), 159.
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., & Nikolov, M.C. (2018). The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
Trobaugh, E. M. (2018). Women, Regardless: Understanding Gender Bias in U.S. Military Integration. Joint Force Quarterly, 88.
United States Army Human Resources Command. (2014). Revised Officer Evaluation Reports.