The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units (2014)

4


Contextual Leadership

The Army has a long track record of developing and implementing leadership training, process, and policy, much of which the committee finds to be effective at cultivating good leaders into better leaders. The committee therefore believes that future research on leadership, while continuing to pursue modest benefits of incremental improvements to existing well-developed programs, should be expanded to include research on the role of social interactions in creating the social context for desirable individual behavior and small unit performance (Zaccaro et al., 2002). In this chapter, social interactions are defined as behaviors and actions of the individuals within a small unit; these interactions are the foundation for the social context of the unit that includes attitudes, feelings, and meaning attached to those interactions. Important social interactions of a small unit are not limited to those between unit members or to the influence of leaders upon unit members; the social context of a small unit is also defined by the mutually influencing interactions between leaders and followers, to include the influence followers have on their leaders.

While leaders of military small units should, first and foremost, “do no harm,” the committee and the Army have higher expectations for the positive influence leaders can have on the individual and the unit. The committee believes that, over time, the fundamental understanding of social interactions within military units from the recommended research will position the Army to develop contextual leaders who effectively interpret, assess, and mold the social interactions within the unit to influence the desired social context, capitalize on opportunities as they evolve, and ulti-

mately, enhance unit performance: the extent to which a unit successfully completes its assigned missions.

In this chapter, the committee develops a research agenda to answer three fundamental questions regarding contextual leadership:

1. What knowledge and skills do leaders require to understand and address social interactions within a unit?
2. What types of interactions exert the strongest influence, positively and negatively, on unit performance under differing environmental conditions?
3. How can leaders influence social interactions so as to have the most positive impact on unit performance?

To research these questions, the committee believes small units must be assessed longitudinally to understand how they morph and change as distinct groups and as a part of the larger organization. With a longitudinal approach, it will be possible to collect data relevant to unit membership and leader turnover as well as to the developing roles of women and other minority groups (e.g., race or ethnicity and sexual orientation) within various military environments. Ultimately, this research will provide a fundamental understanding of how leaders shape and mold social interactions to coordinate their followers on good behaviors. Consistent with this report’s earlier discussion of norms (see Chapter 2), leaders communicate and amplify the organizations’ desired behaviors, habits, and norms. Leaders contribute to group norms, and far more needs to be known about how they detect and influence these norms (Hogg and Terry, 2000).

STATE OF RESEARCH

Leadership has been extensively studied by scholars across different academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology, economics, evolutionary biology, history, industrial/organizational psychology, primatology, political and organizational science, and psychology), as well as in military-specific domains, espousing a variety of goals and perspectives.¹ At its core, leadership is about coordinating action by a group of individuals for some purpose, typically to reach a desired goal or end state (e.g., a unit’s tactical mission). Leaders also “motivate people both inside and outside the chain

__________________

¹For a more comprehensive review of leadership research, see recent publications that summarize this research either qualitatively (Kaiser et al., 2008; Yukl, 2012; Day, 2012; Day and Antonakis, 2012; Barling et al., 2010) or quantitatively with meta-analyses (Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Eagly et al., 1995; DeRue et al., 2011; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Burke et al., 2006; Bono and Judge, 2004; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Judge et al., 2004b; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007).

of command to pursue actions, focus thinking and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 1). Consequently, leadership research seeks to understand the difference between leaders who successfully coordinate and motivate and those who do not.

Much of this research falls into one of two camps: (1) searching for leadership universals that apply broadly or (2) focusing on situational context as an important modifier for leadership antecedents and consequences. In military environments, perhaps more so than in some others, the situational context requires leaders to choose appropriate times to manage (or command) and to lead (especially by example, in the context of small units). Leaders of military small units may also be faced with huge responsibilities to accomplish the mission, with limited authority to implement organizational rewards or punishments on unit members—making military small unit leaders distinct from the leaders who are typically the subjects of research into successful leadership in big business or even small entrepreneurial endeavors. Furthermore, the committee cautions the Army against oversimplifying research conducted on business executives in order to apply conclusions from such research to leaders of Army small units. The relationships between leaders and followers in small units are distinct from those between business executives and employees of the corporate world, and insufficient research has been conducted on similar groups (with respect to size, responsibility, mission, etc.) to be of much utility to the Army. The existing research on leadership (outside military contexts) provides a basic foundation for future programs of military-relevant research, but it does not yet adequately answer all the important basic research questions relevant to satisfying the demands for good leadership within military environments.

Based on its review of the literature, the committee concludes that leadership is not exclusively about the leader. Extensive research to define good leadership through universal traits or attributes (e.g., Craig and Charters, 1925; Tead, 1935; Stogdill, 1948; Bird, 1940; House and Aditya, 1997; Richardson and Hanawalt, 1952; Bono and Judge, 2004) or through universal leader behaviors (Kerr et al., 1974; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Judge et al., 2004a) have not convincingly shown that universalism, at least as defined in “universal trait” theories, is correlated with good performance (i.e., effective leaders). Decades of studies have failed to show consistent results, which may be due to methodological differences (Judge et al., 2004b), but may also be due to a fallacy inherent in the intuitive appeal of constructing a universal taxonomy of effective leader behaviors (e.g., Yukl, 2012). However, Day (2012) notes that recent advances in statistical

analysis and other research methodologies have led to a renewed interest in leader traits.²

Despite the appeal of universal traits—those attributes such as character, presence, and intellect (Department of the Army, 2012a, 2012b) that make one leader superior to another—the committee believes the Army will find more utility in contingency-based and transformational theories of leadership, which demonstrate that there are different behaviors (or traits) that are more effective in different contexts and that leadership is more about the process than the person (e.g., Bass and Riggio, 2006; Day, 2012; Fiedler, 1967; Hanna et al., 2009; House, 1977; Kerr and Jermier, 1978). This research shows particular contextual parameters are most important: the complexity of the task at hand, the power or authority of the leader, the skills of the leader and the followers, cultural norms about what is appropriate behavior, and the relationship between the leader and follower. In the committee’s judgment, effective leaders are those able to assess situations in the face of complexity and uncertainty and to adjust what they do to the situation and the needs of their followers—in short, effective leadership is context dependent.

The committee assesses that the search for universal traits to define effective leaders has not revealed any definitive answers; what is effective in one situation is not necessarily effective in another. What is not yet adequately understood is the importance and role of leadership in interpreting specific social interactions and creating the appropriate social context within the small military unit to foster conditions for success. Furthermore, most leadership attributes are studied in relatively stable contexts; the dynamic and shifting context of military environments provides unique challenges that must be studied more specifically.

LEADERSHIP IN THE ARMY

It should come as no surprise that the committee judges leadership to be an integral part of the success of the U.S. Army and broader military services, worthy of continued and expanded research efforts. Current Army doctrine asserts, “Leadership, the lifeblood of an army, makes a difference every day in the United States Army” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 1). Furthermore, the committee found the emphasis on leadership in Army doctrine to be well aligned with perspectives of representative service members with whom the committee met. During data-gathering sessions, active duty and former military service members representing a range of ranks,

__________________

²In this chapter, the committee refers to leader traits, a usage consistent with much of the historical research. However, we understand that Army doctrine now largely refers to leader attributes, which we consider, for purposes of this report, as synonymous with leader traits.

occupational specialties, and lengths of service repeatedly asserted that the Army’s mission and organizational success rely heavily upon high-quality leadership.³ The Army first published doctrine on leadership as a small pamphlet in 1948. From those brief words, the Army’s concept of leadership as a process has evolved and expanded (see Department of the Army 2012a, 2012b), while retaining an underlying belief that leadership is a process that “can be learned, monitored and improved” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 1). The committee agrees and concludes that research into new and expanded facets of leadership will likely result in significant payoffs in achieving higher levels of organizational effectiveness, and thereby, mission success.

Accordingly, the Army’s interest in basic research to understand leadership capabilities is not surprising. For decades, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) has sponsored both in-house and outside research on leadership (e.g., see Butler et al., 1987). Currently, its Foundational Science Research Unit includes “Leader Development” as one of six primary research portfolios and goals (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2013). Its emphasis “is to advance theoretical understanding of leadership and leadership development … to create leader development methods for maximizing the requisite cognitive, perceptual, and interpersonal skills for effective leadership across all levels of command” (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2014, p. 31). While the committee recognizes that a great deal of high-quality research on leadership already exists and is ongoing in many distinct areas of academia, business, and military-specific environments, we conclude that there are significant potential areas of research that remain untapped.

One of the most important things the Army can gain from future research on leadership is a greater understanding of the nature and etiology of the verbal and nonverbal social interactions that distinguish leaders of effective military units from ineffective units, given the context of military environments. In its proposed research agenda, the committee emphasizes the importance of contextual leadership, a term derived from the concept of contextual intelligence (Mayo and Nohria, 2005). According to Mayo and Nohria’s assessment of some of the 20th century’s greatest leaders, those with high contextual intelligence are superbly able to understand an evolving environment and are able to capitalize on opportunities as they appear. For example, in business organizations there is a growing realization that

__________________

³The committee notes that it was unable to interview current junior enlisted soldiers through the course of this study, and although several of the interviewed commissioned and senior noncommissioned officers began their military careers as junior enlisted soldiers, that part of their military experience occurred some years previously.

leadership development must go beyond replicating observed behaviors of successful leaders, with the assumption that what works for a successful leader in one situation or set of conditions is applicable to all leaders in all situations and conditions (Kurtz, 2008; Mayo and Nohria, 2005; Nye, 2013). The National Research Council report, Human Behavior in Military Contexts, also asserted that “some leadership characteristics are more suited to some situations than others” (National Research Council, 2008). Similarly, Kaplan and Kaiser (2013) suggest that leaders who rely too heavily on a particular style or strength may be those least able to cope; their strengths may become their greatest problem. “Forcefulness can become bullying; decisiveness can turn into pigheadedness; niceness can develop into indecision” (The Economist, 2013).

Contextual leadership may, in many cases, be closely related to the Army’s concept of situational leadership in which “leaders adjust their actions based on the situation,” which “influences what purpose and direction are needed” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 4). The Army describes the situation as “the setting, the people and team, the adversary, cultural and historical background, and the mission to be accomplished” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 4). However, the idea of contextual leadership takes a broader perspective by including more-complex social and organization factors that are missing from the Army’s characterization of situations, such as social interactions and organizational policy. The committee focuses on contextual leadership, because, consistent with our charge, we believe that future research must allow for greater inclusion of those social and organizational factors, especially social interactions, that contribute to the social context within which leaders operate.

FUTURE RESEARCH ON CONTEXTUAL LEADERSHIP

The committee believes that understanding social interactions of unit members and the evolving social context of the unit is critical to the development of effective contextual leadership in military environments. Leaders must “[foster] a command climate that challenges people, convinces them that their contributions make a difference, and allows them to feel good about themselves and the Army they serve. We have to take the time to see, hear, and resolve problems before they affect our units and our soldiers” (Rush, 2010, p. 5).

Contextual Leadership Research Topics

The judgment underlying the recommended research agenda is that the leader plays a critical role in influencing the social context that leads to positive individual behavior and effective unit performance. To be effective, a leader must interpret, assess, and mold the social interactions within the unit to attain the desired social context. In the future, results from basic research on social interactions can assist the Army in addressing challenges and opportunities of contextual leadership in four areas: leaders of continually morphing units; managing expectations, reality, and motivation; early indicators of undesirable individual behaviors; and leadership influence on social interactions.

Leaders of Continually Morphing Units

A fundamental concern of military operations is that units must be kept up to strength, especially during overseas deployments during times of conflict. Organizational policies to satisfy the operational need for personnel, including rotating and replacing individuals versus replacing entire units, have been widely debated (e.g., Gabriel and Savage, 1978; Rush, 2001; see also Chapter 3). Currently, the Army Force Generation directive (Department of the Army, 2011) specifies a core process for force generation for both active Army and reserve components in an attempt to provide a sustained flow of forces for current commitments and unexpected contingencies based on a 3-year cycle of training, deployment, and recovery.

Regardless of any specific organizational policy, however, continually

morphing units are a constant reality of military environments that impact the social interactions and resulting social context of the unit. Through conversations with military service members, the committee understands that challenges to leaders of morphing units are especially compounded when those units include soldiers who are scheduled for some type of administrative discharge or who have elected not to reenlist but who may remain in their units for over a year. However, the expected and unexpected entrance and exit of personnel to and from work groups is not unique to military environments and creates a social context worth understanding more fully. Relevant and important research questions for these considerations included the following:

• What distinct leadership behaviors facilitate and encourage rapid and lasting assimilation of replacement individuals and units such that a desired social context is maintained or enhanced (including, for example, desirable interactions, cohesion, and trust)?
• How can replacement individuals, who change the dynamics of the small unit, be encouraged to strengthen the group (invigorate with fresh ideas; rethink outdated practices, etc.)?
• What organizational structures may encourage new unit members to question and report unethical or illegal conduct, when it exists? What organizational structures may encourage and facilitate leaders to resolve such behaviors (or vice versa, discourage action from leaders)?
• How does trust evolve in a unit with rotating individual members? At what points might an effective leader have the most influence over this evolution?
• What social interactions should leaders attend to as units morph? What is the role of contextual leadership in ensuring that unit composition maximizes unit operational effectiveness? What techniques and tools are required for effective leadership under continually morphing conditions of diversity?

Managing Expectations, Reality, and Motivation

While potentially attractive to certain recruits, the readily available montage of official and unofficial media materials, which may promote expectations of becoming a “universal soldier,” simultaneously risk creating a substantial dissonance between expectations and reality of military service. Combined data from a 2010 and 2011 survey of military veterans indicate that among living veterans from any era (including both World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea), approximately 15 percent of women and 35 percent of men have served in a combat or war zone (Patten and Parker,

2011). Those who serve in military combat roles are typically few compared to those who spend their days working in noncombat environments ranging from mechanical warehouses to high-rise offices. “The Army says that about 200,000 of its 1.1 million jobs are either direct combat or related jobs such as field artillery, combat engineers and so on. That’s roughly 20 percent of the force, though the direct-combat front-line fighters make up roughly half of that or about 9 percent” (Baldor, 2014). The dissonance between expectations and reality is not unique to the military environment, and many industries struggle with similar challenges of managing expectations (see, for example, Elliot et al., 2009; Halfer and Graf, 2006; Harvey et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2011) and motivating employees (see, for example, Bartol and Locke, 2000; Chao et al., 1994). The following are examples of research questions pertinent to managing expectations:

• What are the most effective tactics to manage expectations of new unit members when expectations are inconsistent with reality?
• How can a leader effectively motivate performance of unit members who are disillusioned by the realities of military service (to include, for example, job duties, career path, deployments, etc.)? How can a leader help soldiers feel part of the Army mission when they are far removed from the military operations they may have signed on to experience?

Early Indicators of Undesirable Individual Behaviors

Effective small unit performance is a function of the combined effect of the behaviors of individual unit members, to include leaders and those they lead. These behaviors take place both before and during defined missions, in the security of a home base and in the stress of forward combat environments, and in ways that may not always have a directly apparent relationship to the performance of mission-related tasks. Behaviors of concern (e.g., discrimination, high-risk behaviors, abuse of alcohol or drugs, hazing, and sexual harassment and assault) jeopardize unit members’ contributions to unit effectiveness. Undesirable behaviors may be present in small unit leaders and members alike, and Chapter 5 discusses the impact of misalignments in power and status that may lead to undesirable behaviors.

Furthermore, severe acts, like attempted suicide, have devastating and lasting repercussions for the individual soldier, the unit, and the Army as a whole. Behaviors of concern affect both those who exhibit them and those who are exposed to them, including targets of aggressive behavior. These effects can extend beyond the military ranks to include violations of the code of conduct of soldiers against civilians and helpless enemy combatants (including those imprisoned). Though rare in occurrence, such behaviors

have occurred in multiple conflicts in American history, and their impact can be disastrous.⁴ Furthermore, when subsequent decisions are made up the chain of command to protect those involved, it comes at the expense of victims and the U.S. military mission as well as American international political status (e.g., slow reactions to allegations such as mistreatment of detainees [Korb and Halpin, 2004] or intentional civilian killings [Voice of America, 2011]).

Of course, many of these behaviors are not unique to military service members and may be the result of internal personal struggles; however, military environments may create unique external stressors that may exacerbate tendencies toward these or other undesirable behaviors. The level of “moral character and moral courage” within the military comes with great consequences, and understanding the fundamental behavioral phenomena at play is critical before any policy or procedure can be expected to incite change.⁵ Therefore, the committee proposes developing a fundamental understanding of the basic types of social interactions that indicate to leaders when internal and external stressors threaten to overload individual control and to aid leaders in assessing and intervening in potentially harmful situations. In the case of violent attacks, for example, emerging research indicates that well-defined early indicators (or warning behaviors) exist that “are dynamic and acute behaviors that precede an act of targeted violence, are related to it, and are therefore a risk factor for it” (National Research Council, 2011, p. 80).

The committee cautions that the lessons distilled from the research results on undesirable individual behaviors must be communicated to those in leadership positions in such a way as to facilitate appropriate implementation. A particular concern is to avoid delivering just enough knowledge, without adequate understanding, that the information on warning behaviors becomes likely to be used inappropriately, with potentially negative repercussions for individual unit members and entire units. These issues about dealing with undesirable behaviors may be addressed by the following research questions (among others):

• What categories of social interactions have the greatest influence on the social context of the unit (i.e., the types of interactions leaders should pay the greatest attention to forestalling, if their influence is negative, or to promoting, if their influence is positive)?

__________________

⁴For discussion of such occurrences, see “5 major atrocities in US military history.” Global Post, March 12, 2012. Available: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/war/military/120312/major-atrocities-us-military-history [December 2013].

⁵And concerning moral and ethical lapses occurring recently across the services, the growing problem has already drawn the attention of Defense Secretary Hagel [New York Times, 2014].

• What are the early indicators of behavioral creep from mildly inappropriate or counterproductive actions to serious offenses?
• What contextual factors are important in determining the perception and impact of behaviors across different contexts (for instance, when the same behavior becomes problematic as contexts change)?
• What mechanisms encourage individuals (soldiers, including small unit leaders and unit members) to live by an ethical code (specifically, the Army’s ethical code)?
• What are the most effective techniques that leaders of small units can employ to assess the changing social context of their units so as to diagnose and resolve problems at the earliest point possible to ensure the highest levels of unit performance?
• What categories of social interactions might indicate the presence of a toxic leader?
• What organizational factors may drive some of the behaviors associated with toxic leadership?
• What organizational factors may empower leaders to take action to remove unsuitable subordinate leaders from their positions or from the organization entirely?
• Is education and training alone enough to reduce or eliminate destructive leadership?

Leadership Influence on Social Interactions

One example of how the Army might consider the ability of leaders to influence social interactions within their small unit, and consequently of the social context unit members experience, is to seek to understand the influence of representative diversity of leaders and those they lead on small unit functioning. In many ways, the U.S. military can boast of a tremendously positive record of integrating female and racial minority soldiers and leaders, commemorating, in 2008, 60 years of integration within the armed forces (Carden, 2008). However, in others ways, the military has been slow to establish full integration of women (e.g., the 2013 reversal of the 1994 ruling that prohibited female soldiers from assignment to “military units and positions which may require engagement in direct combat” [Congressional Record, 1994]). In 2012, the “total” Army (including active duty, reserves, and national guard) was composed of 15.7 percent females (Department of Defense, 2012) and 39 percent racial/ethnic minorities.⁶ When these members of the Army workforce are not utilized to their fullest

__________________

⁶Statistics obtained from FY12 Army Profile. Army G-1, Office of Army Demographics, FY12 Army Profile, provided to committee during its April 30, 2013 meeting. Document available by request through this study’s public access file.

potential, the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization as a whole suffers, making organizational opportunities for women and minority leaders not only an issue of social concern but also one of organizational human resource management.

However, it is inappropriate to expect leaders to be uniform across gender and ethnic or racial lines. In fact, research shows that female and minority leaders display different strengths and are thereby perceived differently within different contexts (see Chapter 5). While studies conducted outside military environments (e.g., Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Eagly et al., 1995) suggest it is important for leaders of small units, especially female and other minority leaders, to understand how they are perceived by their unit, the impact of specific factors relevant only in military environments is not adequately understood (e.g., the impact of rank, Army demographics, increased opportunities for women in combat roles). Consequently, it is critical that further research in this area be conducted to understand how these factors affect real soldiers in real military environments.

Several aspects about the Army struck the committee as being particularly indicative of the need for research along these lines, especially at the small unit level. For example, responding to a 2009 congressional mandate, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission conducted a comprehensive study of leadership diversity in the U.S. military (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011). In its report, the commission presents data on minorities (including racial and ethnic minorities and women) across the services that demonstrate important differences in minority representation between officer and enlisted service members, junior and senior ranks, and broad occupational specialties. While the report compares aggregate military diversity data with subgroups to show insightful cases of underrepresentation and overrepresentation, the level of analysis remains insufficient to be of much utility in understanding the social context of small units. In reviewing this report and other Army demographic and diversity data, the committee noted that the existing research assesses broad diversity trends in the Army (and other services) as a whole, with the lowest level of breakdown being the division between junior (E-1 to E-6 and O-1 to O-6) and senior (E-7 to E-9 and general officers) enlisted and officer ranks. Furthermore, the committee finds that the broad approach to tracking diversity across the entire Army has resulted in gaps of understanding in important details of diversity distribution across the Army branches, and more specifically among the occupational specialties. An effective diversity program cannot be implemented without a fundamental understanding of the Army branches and occupations where minority members and leaders may be overrepresented or underrepresented (for example, minorities are not underrepresented in functional support and administrative occupations; Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011), as well as an

understanding of the social and organizational factors that might influence the distribution.

Therefore, the committee emphasizes the need to collect and assess diversity data on small unit members and leaders, including their Military Occupational Specialty and assigned company/platoon/detachment type. Data with this level of detail will likely enable organizational mechanisms to help leaders, especially female and minority leaders, understand how to influence social interactions at the small unit level within dynamic and evolving social contexts of military environments.

• How does service members’ social identity relate to their leadership potential, and where can these be leveraged to successfully introduce female or other minority leaders?
• What values and norms can be used by minority leaders to demonstrate that they embody the qualities of idealized leaders (such as courage and service to others)?

A Research Approach

This section presents several research approaches (separated into sequential phases) the committee believes could benefit ARI and other U.S. funding agencies in developing a research program on contextual leadership. First and foremost, the proposed research agenda requires an integrated approach, which may begin with nonmilitary populations but must develop access to soldiers assigned to small units in order to obtain descriptions of the full range of social interactions that take place in military environments. Moreover, the needed data are not likely to be obtainable through simple observation; the interpretation, significance, emotional content, and urgency of each interaction must be collected via communication with the individuals. Consequently, while observation of interactions among unit members may be one source of data, these data must be augmented by information obtained on the associated cognitive and emotional processes within the individual unit members, which are not directly observable as overt behaviors and so require self-reporting, interviewing, and other established methods of indirect observation. As emphasized throughout this report, careful attention should be paid in designing these research programs so as not to overburden the force or individual soldiers with repetitive surveys but rather to capture their experiences and observations in a manner conducive to learning from their valuable input.

Furthermore, the issue of accurate measurements of leadership quality and effectiveness is a challenge that constrains the utility of the existing research. While achievements of formal rank, receipt of military awards and decorations, performance appraisals, and surveys provide useful infor-

mation, it will be important to investigate contextual leadership through broader means to better understand the qualitative (and more subjective) aspects of leadership within the context of social interactions. Several possibilities—including field observations and unobtrusive data collection devices—are discussed below.

Many of the questions the committee has raised are enduring and fundamental. But there are opportunities for innovations in research, partly based on recent technological advances in telemetered recording of social interactions (Greene, 2008). First, an aggressive focus should develop measures of effective leadership at the level of the small unit. How can these new technologies be used to provide discriminating assessments of (1) leaders’ (e.g., lieutenants and sergeants) abilities to communicate objectives to soldiers at every level below them (in other words, how well do the lowest privates understand the “Commander’s Intent”?), and (2) leaders’ situation awareness of the skills and motivation levels of the individual soldiers serving under them? Second, opportunities should be explored to utilize high-tech telemetering devices (e.g., smart badges or research-drone-based observation stations) to provide a much more complete record of moment-to-moment interactions of all members of a small unit (Hollingshead and Poole, 2012). Finally, the data from these sources should be analyzed using new analytic and modeling methods to derive a more discerning image of the daily social networks and social experiences of members of Army small units.

The committee suggests that ARI consider implementing this initial research effort in four phases, as described below.

Phase 1: Review of Survey Data

The Department of Defense has been operating a large-scale longitudinal study since 2001, the Millennium Cohort Study.⁷ While the data collected in that study, in its current form, do not appear to provide information relevant to the recommended study of social interactions and social context and, more specifically, of contextual leadership, one of the recommendations of this report is to develop a longitudinal survey designed to collect the data necessary to address some of these issues (see Chapter 7). In doing so, it may be possible to obtain some broad background information on the awareness, understanding, and nature of social interactions in military units.

__________________

⁷Programmatic information on the Millennium Cohort Study is available at http://www.millenniumcohort.org/ [March 2014].

Phase 2: Exploratory Data Collection

This phase consists of unstructured data collection by means of observations and interviews. The objective is to capture, to the extent possible, the full range of the types of social interactions that take place in small units in three environments of interest (as emphasized to the committee by ARI and which include wide variations across spectrums of variables such as threat level, operational tempo, and duration): deployed outside the wire, deployed on a military installation, and at home station (inside and outside the United States). Observations would be made in a variety of environments, including, for example, day-to-day garrison routines and stressful training exercises, with a focus on identifying and documenting the social interactions observed. Interviews would be conducted with small unit members and leaders and with leaders with command responsibility for the participating units (likely a lieutenant or captain and their noncommissioned officer counterparts, the platoon sergeant or first sergeant). The product of this effort will be a preliminary listing and description of social interactions along with some initial insight as to their impact on the social context within small units in the context of that particular military environment. These data will serve to guide the design of data collection approaches, methods, and instruments to be employed in Phase 3.

Phase 3: Data Collection during Training Exercises

The third phase consists of systematic, structured data collection from a sample of military units during stressful graded training exercises, such as at the Joint Readiness Training Center and National Training Center. Data collection instruments will be tailored to reflect the nature and objectives of the training exercises and to obtain detailed descriptions of the social interactions that take place. Technology is now available in the form of wearable data collection devices, such as smart watches and headsets, to minimize the intrusion of the data collection process. In addition, tools are under development (Miller and Rye, 2012) that can be employed for automatically analyzing data collected from interactions to assess dimensions of unit social context. Data collected will reflect, in detail along a timeline, the impact of specific interactions on the social context that existed within the unit during each exercise. Data collected on social interactions and social context will be related to measures and observations of unit performance.

Phase 4: Simulation Experiments

The final phase assumes that, in the near future, sufficient technical advances will be achieved in modeling and simulating small unit

operations to provide a basis for conducting controlled experiments. For example, currently available agent-based modeling and adaptive-system simulation should be adaptable to conduct the required type of experiments. Experiments conducted through highly realistic simulations of military environments would permit tightly controlled studies to test a number of hypotheses developed in Phase 3 about the relative influence of types of social interactions on social context, the most effective ways in which desired and effective social interactions can be influenced by leadership actions, characteristics (especially social interactions) that are most likely to lead to negative and positive individual behaviors and unit dynamics in a particular military context, and the relative impact of various individual behaviors on unit performance and effectiveness. These results are expected to provide implications for leadership training, as well as possibly for leader selection and promotion.

REFERENCES

Baldor, L.C. (2014). AP Exclusive: Few Army Women Want Combat Jobs. Available: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-few-army-women-want-combat-jobs [March 2014].

Barling, J.A., A. Christie, and A. Hoption. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck, Ed., APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 183-240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bartol, K.M., and E.A. Locke. (2000). Incentives and motivation. In S.L. Rynes and B. Gerhard, Eds., Compensation in Organizations: Current Research and Practice (pp. 104-147). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B.M., and R.E. Riggio. (2006). Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.

Bono, J.E., and T.A. Judge. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5):901-910.

Burke, C.S., K.C. Stagl, C. Klein, G.F. Goodwin, E. Salas, and S.M. Halpin. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3):288-307.

Butler, J.S., J.D. Blair, R.L. Phillips, and N. Schmitt. (1987). Framework for Research on Leadership, Cohesion, and Values. Technical Report 770. November 1987. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Carden, M.J. (2008). Defense Department Commemorates 60 Years of Armed Forces Integration. American Forces Press Service, August 6. Available: http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=50715 [February 2014].

Chao, G.T., A.M. O’Leary-Kelly, S. Wolf, H.J. Klein, and P.D. Gardner. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5):730-743.

Congressional Record. (1994). Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141, Monday, October 3, 1994. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-10-03/html/CREC-1994-10-03-pt1-PgS36.htm [February 2014].

Craig, D.R., and W.W. Charters. (1925). Personal Leadership in Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Day, D.V. (2012). Leadership. In S.W.J. Kozlowski, Ed., The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 696-732). New York: Oxford University Press.

Day, D.V., and J. Antonakis. (2012). The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of the Army. (2011). Army Regulation 525-29. Military Operations: Army Force Generation. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r525_29.pdf [April 2014].

Department of the Army. (2012a). Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adp6_22_new.pdf [March 2014].

Department of the Army. (2012b). Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22. Army Leadership. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp6_22_new.pdf [March 2014].

Department of Defense. (2012). 2012 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy). Available: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY12_ARMY_PROFILE.pdf [June 2014].

DeRue, D.S., J. Nahrgang, N. Wellman, and S.E. Humphrey. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1):7-52.

Dirks, K.T., and D.L. Ferrin. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4):611-628.

Eagly, A.H., and B.T. Johnson. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2):233-256.

Eagly, A.H., S.J. Karau, and M.G. Makhijani. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1):125-145.

The Economist. (2013). Too much of a good thing: Leaders need to learn to beware of their strengths. June 8. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578990-leaders-need-learn-beware-their-strengths-too-much-good-thing [April 2014].

Elliot, T., T. Bromley, A. Chur-Hansen, and C. Laurence. (2009). Expectations and experiences associated with rural GP placements. Rural and Remote Health, 9(4):1264. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968448 [March 2014].

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gabriel, R.A., and P.L. Savage. (1978). Crisis in Command: Mismanagement in the Army. New York: Hill and Wang.

Gerstner, C.R., and D.V. Day. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6):827-844.

Greene, K. (2008). Smart badges track human behavior. MIT Technology Review, January 30. Available: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409459/smart-badges-track-human-behavior/ [February 2014].

Halfer, D., and E. Graf. (2006). Graduate nurse perceptions of the work experience. Nursing Economics, 24(3):150-155.

Hanna, S.T., M. Uhl-Bien, B.J. Avolio, and F.L. Cavarretta. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6):897-919.

Harvey, M., M.R. Buckley, G. Richey, M. Moeller, and M. Novicevic. (2012). Aligning expatriate managers’ expectations with complex global assignments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12):3,026-3,050.

Hogg, M.A., and D.I. Terry. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1):121-140.

Hollingshead, A.B., and M.S. Poole, Eds. (2012). Research Methods for Studying Groups and Teams: A Guide to Approaches, Tools, and Technologies. New York: Taylor and Francis.

House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larsen, Eds., Leadership: The Cutting Edge a Symposium Held at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, October 27-28, 1976 (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R.J., and R.N. Aditya. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3):409-473.

Ilies, R., J.D Nahrgang, and F.P. Morgeson. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1):269-277.

Judge, T.A., and R.F. Piccolo. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5):755-768.

Judge, T.A., R.F. Piccolo, and R. Ilies. (2004a). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1):36-51.

Judge, T.A., A. Colbert, and R. Ilies. (2004b). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3):542-552.

Kaiser, R.B., R. Hogan, and S.B. Craig. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63:96-110.

Kaplan, R.E., and R.B. Kaiser. (2013). Fear Your Strengths: What You Are Best At Could Be Your Biggest Problem. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kerr, S., and J.M. Jermier. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3):375-403.

Kerr, S., C.A. Schreisheim, C.J. Murphy, and R.M. Stodgill. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1):62-82.

Korb, L.J., and J. Halpin. (2004). Cover-Up of Abu Ghraib Torture Puts Troops at Risk. Center for American Progress, May 11. Available: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/terrorism/news/2004/05/11/770/cover-up-of-abu-ghraib-torture-puts-troops-at-risk/ [February 2014].

Kurtz, M.R. (2008). Contextual intelligence: An emerging competency for global leaders. Regent Global Business Review, 2(2):5-9.

Mayo, A.J., and N. Nohria. (2005). In Their Time: The Greatest Business Leaders of the Twentieth Century. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press Books.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Available: http://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Special%20Feature/MLDC_Final_Report.pdf [February 2014].

Miller, C., and J. Rye. (2012). Power and politeness in interactions: ADMIRE—a tool for deriving the former from the latter. In Proceedings of the ASE International Conference on Cyber Security: December 14-16 2012, Washington, DC. Conference website available: http://asesite.com/conferences/cybersecurity/2012/ [June 2014].

Murray, K., P. Toulson, and S. Legg. (2011). Generational cohorts’ expectations in the workplace: A study of New Zealanders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4):476-493.

National Research Council. (2008). Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military. J.J. Blascovich and C.R. Hartel, Eds., Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Threatening Communications and Behavior: Perspectives on the Pursuit of Public Figures. C. Chauvin, Ed., Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

New York Times. (2014). Hagel orders urgent push for military ethics crackdown. February 6. Available: http://nypost.com/2014/02/06/hagel-orders-urgent-push-for-military-ethics-crackdown/ [April 2014].

Nye, J.S. (2013). Effective leaders need contextual intelligence and intuition. The Daily Star. June 14. Available: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2013/Jun-14/220337-effective-leaders-need-contextual-intelligence-and-intuition.ashx#axzz2yJ0uBkn5 [April 2014].

Patten, E., and K. Parker. (2011). Women in the U.S. Military: Growing Share, Distinctive Profile. December 22, 2011. Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends. Available: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/22/women-in-the-u-s-military-growing-share-distinctive-profile/ [April 2014].

Richardson, H.M., and N.G. Hanawalt. (1952). Leadership as related to the Bernreuter personality measures: V. Leadership among adult women in social activities. Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2):141-153.

Rush, R.S. (2001). Hell in Hurtgen Forest: The Ordeal and Triumph of an American Infantry Regiment. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Rush, R.S. (2010). NCO Guide. 9th ed. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25:35-71.

Tead, O. (1935). The Art of Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2014). Foundational Research in Behavioral and Social Sciences: Marching Towards the Future. Special Report 73. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

Voice of America. (2011). US soldier goes on trial for civilian atrocities in Afghanistan. October 26. Available: http://www.voanews.com/content/us-soldier-goes-on-trial-for-civilian-atrocities-in-afghanistan-132746613/168149.html [April 2014].

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4):66-85.

Zaccaro, S.J., A.L. Rittman, and M.A. Marks. (2002). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4):451-483.

This page intentionally left blank.