National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 7 Longitudinal Survey Data for Empirical Research on Military Environments
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

8


The Research Agenda:
Conclusions and Recommendations

For the convenience of the reader, this chapter restates the conclusions and recommendations that were originally presented in each of the relevant report chapters and that, combined, make up the committee’s recommended research agenda for the basic research program of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). The committee recognizes that aspects of this research agenda are already under investigation by ARI and other entities, while other aspects may be in the process of being developed and implemented. Nonetheless, the committee feels it is imperative for the locus of ARI’s existing work to shift from civilian settings to military settings, as discussed in the committee’s first conclusion and recommendation. Furthermore, aspects of the recommended research agenda have yet to receive any research attention, and we hope these areas will develop into new research programs in the future. In considering this proposed research agenda, three key points (see Chapter 1) remain salient across the committee’s conclusions and recommendations: (1) conduct basic research on soldiers at the small unit level, (2) develop unit-level measurements of social and organizational factors, and (3) develop a longitudinal survey and maintain a longitudinal database.

RELEVANT PERSONNEL

As described in Chapter 1 and reiterated as a theme carried throughout the recommendations, the committee, throughout its data-gathering process, was repeatedly struck by the lack of basic research conducted on actual soldiers within real military contexts. Although basic research is

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

intended to provide knowledge about people and their behaviors without specific application, the committee sees a clear distinction between understanding behavior in typical military environments (as basic research) and developing specific processes or products for those environments (as applied research). The committee is convinced that the unique circumstances and challenges of military environments demand that, for basic research to be of the most benefit to the military, it must be conducted within these environments.

Conclusion 1

ARI’s definition of “basic research” does not preclude scientific research on active duty soldiers in real military contexts. “Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward a fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2013, p. 268 [p. 8 of Section 84]).

Recommendation 1

The committee strongly recommends that the Department of the Army support an appropriate mix of intramural and extramural basic scientific research on relevant Army personnel in military environments. The U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) should be responsible for making appropriate data on Army units available and for promoting access for both internal and external behavioral researchers to study basic scientific questions in military contexts. ARI should increase its role as a facilitator or gateway for basic behavioral research in military contexts.

NORMS

The report’s second chapter, “Norms in Military Environments,” describes the importance of understanding the group-level phenomena of norms, behaviors, and beliefs held in common by group members that guide behaviors and perceptions about behaviors, including whether norms are desirable or undesirable, moral, or compatible with social or organizational values or ethics. While the Army has well-defined core values, understanding the content, expression, maintenance, and development of norms over time within military contexts is a distinct and relatively untapped area of research. Norms are a critical element to a fundamental understanding of in- and out-group perceptions, normative behavior expectations, deviance, and behavior in novel situations.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

Conclusion 2

The committee concludes that norms are an important dimension of the social context within small units. Due to the unique conditions of military contexts, the committee further concludes that participants in research on military norms must be active duty soldiers, if the results are to be meaningful in real military environments.

Recommendation 2

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and other relevant U.S. military funding agencies should fund basic research that:

  1. identifies the content of norms; the values, attitudes, and behaviors that express norms; formal and informal incentives and sanctions that maintain norms; conditions that moderate norm-relevant behavior; and the development of norms over time;
  2. examines the relationship between norms and the performance of soldiers and the attitudes and behaviors of their leaders; and
  3. identifies approaches for changing norms to produce more effective soldiers and units.

To facilitate the research program on norms, the committee recommends that ARI establish a multidisciplinary task force charged with development of a program of research studying norms in military contexts.

ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSITIONS

Chapter 3, “Environmental Transitions,” emphasizes the importance of understanding the effects of the regular and repeated life transitions of a military career on individuals and groups. These effects include local and specific issues of habits and routines, as well as global and generic effects such as resilience against stressors of change. Although the military is actively investigating many of these issues of concern, the dominant approach in recent and current research is from an individual and psychological perspective. In contrast, the committee believes the military would benefit tremendously from investigating environmental transitions to better understand the role, impact, and influence of the organization on the individuals and groups before, during, and after transitions.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

Conclusion 3

The committee concludes that the repeated environmental transitions faced by military personnel create significant challenges and opportunities to operational effectiveness and resilience.

Recommendation 3

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should support basic research on:

  1. individual habits and organizational routines that are disrupted by environmental transitions, including research into the positive and negative consequences of these disruptions within specific military contexts and that examines how these consequences might be proactively managed to increase unit and soldier effectiveness;
  2. the interaction between individual characteristics and features of groups and organizations, with the aim of predicting resilience; how this interaction may differ across types of environments; and groups and organizations, as well as individuals, as the unit of analysis; and
  3. exploring in what ways and under what conditions local disruption of habits affects global consequences for resilience.

CONTEXTUAL LEADERSHIP

In Chapter 4, “Contextual Leadership,” the committee acknowledges the enduring and extensive emphasis the military places on the value of leadership through research, training, policies, and practice. In developing future research programs, the committee believes continued efforts to understand leadership will prove valuable. To refine and focus leadership research initiatives, we suggest that such research closely examine the social context of small units, with an emphasis on the social interactions of leaders and followers at the most basic levels of military operations, the small unit.

Conclusion 4

The committee concludes that leaders play a critical role in influencing the social context, which in turn shapes positive individual behavior and effective unit performance. Understanding the social interaction of unit members and the evolving social context of the unit, to include the mutually influencing relationship between leaders and followers, is critical to effective contextual leadership in military environments.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

Recommendation 4

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should fund an agenda of basic research to identify:

  1. specific challenges to leadership created by dynamic units and systems of units over time;
  2. leadership capabilities that support soldier adjustment to military service;
  3. the early warning signals of undesirable behaviors and appropriate counter measures; and
  4. how leaders can influence social interactions so as to have the most positive impact on unit performance.

POWER AND STATUS

In the report’s fifth chapter, “Distinct Sources of Power and Status in Diversified Army Units,” the committee differentiates between elements of power (formal markers such as rank) and status (informal sources of social influence). While power and status are often closely aligned, misalignments can and do occur, resulting in a range of effects on both leaders and followers. Focused research initiatives to develop a fundamental understanding of the role of status in small military units will likely provide valuable insights into the behavior of individuals and groups (including members of minorities) across military environments.

Conclusion 5

The committee concludes that informal processes of negotiating status (e.g., respect and admiration from peers) are an important source of influence in small units in addition to formal power; these processes have substantial implications for human resource utilization and small unit performance.

Recommendation 5

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should fund basic research on:

  1. how soldiers gain status;
  2. how status attainment may differ between men and women and between combat and noncombat functions;
  3. how the interaction between rank and status may produce positive or negative leadership outcomes; and
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
  1. how status affects careers, behavioral outcomes, and small unit effectiveness.

MULTITEAM SYSTEMS

In Chapter 6, “Multiteam Systems as the Context for Individuals and Teams,” the committee acknowledges the critical importance of teams (understood broadly to include all groups of individuals working together for a common goal, including military small units) to accomplishing the military mission. Furthermore, these teams do not operate in isolation; they are just one element in a larger system that includes multiple distinct and interdependent teams. Research aimed at multiteam systems will likely result in improved understanding of focal phenomena such as trust or cohesion, as well as diffuse phenomena associated with properties such as agility and flexibility in large organizations that evolve to meet mission objectives.

Conclusion 6

The committee concludes that the teams and multiteam systems within which individuals work constitute an important source of context for the behavior of individuals and small units in military environments.

Recommendation 6

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should support basic research that identifies:

  1. how actions and interactions among individuals give rise to properties such as cohesion in teams, between teams, and in systems of teams;
  2. the positive and negative consequences of these properties on individuals, teams, and multiteam systems; and
  3. effective interventions such as leadership that can be used to regulate these properties.

LONGITUDINAL SURVEY DATA

In Chapter 7, “Longitudinal Survey Data for Empirical Research on Military Environments,” the committee advocates for the collection of longitudinal data on military personnel, developed from repeated surveys of the same individuals over a period of years, to inform a multitude of research programs, including many described in Chapters 2 through 6. While a longitudinal survey is not a precondition for the development of the other studies, its parallel and simultaneous development should be a high

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

priority. The data collected would provide unprecedented opportunities to understand prediction factors associated with adjustment and responses to military life, including career success, undesirable events, mental health, and readjustment to civilian life.

Conclusion 7

The committee concludes that the Army does not currently collect or distribute sufficient data necessary to answer future questions about how social and organizational factors affect the behavior of individuals and small units.

Recommendation 7.1

The U.S. military should collect more demographic and socioeconomic information about potential recruits than it currently does in the application process.

Recommendation 7.2

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should work with project staff of the Millennium Cohort Study and with other relevant parties collecting survey and administrative data on military personnel to:

  1. create a longitudinal database to be composed of survey data and administrative records presently collected and data from future surveys that may be administered to military personnel;
  2. fund and disseminate research using the survey data and administrative records collected by the Department of Defense; and
  3. convene, support, and publicize conferences for researchers who are currently using this data or who are interested in using this data for future research.

Recommendation 7.3

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should establish a working group of experts in survey research, empirical social science, and military subject matter charged with development of a new longitudinal survey strategy to track both individuals and small units over time.

REFERENCE

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Circular No. A-11 Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. Executive Office of the President, July 2013. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/a11_2013.pdf [January 2014].

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"8 The Research Agenda: Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2014. The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18825.
×
Page 142
Next: Appendix: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
The Context of Military Environments: An Agenda for Basic Research on Social and Organizational Factors Relevant to Small Units Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00 Buy Ebook | $32.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The United States Army faces a variety of challenges to maintain a ready and capable force into the future. Missions are increasingly diverse, ranging from combat and counterinsurgency to negotiation, reconstruction, and stability operations, and require a variety of personnel and skill sets to execute. Missions often demand rapid decision-making and coordination with others in novel ways, so that personnel are not simply following a specific set of tactical orders but rather need to understand broader strategic goals and choose among courses of action. Like any workforce, the Army is diverse in terms of demographic characteristics such as gender and race, with increasing pressure to ensure equal opportunities across all demographic parties. With these challenges comes the urgent need to better understand how contextual factors influence soldier and small unit behavior and mission performance.

Recognizing the need to develop a portfolio of research to better understand the influence of social and organizational factors on the behavior of individuals and small units, the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) requested the National Research Council's Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences to outline a productive and innovative collection of future basic science research projects to improve Amy mission performance for immediate implementation and lasting over the next 10-20 years. This report presents recommendations for a program of basic scientific research on the roles of social and organizational contextual factors, such as organizational institutions, culture, and norms, as determinants and moderators of the performance of individual soldiers and small units.

The Context of Military Environments: Basic Research Opportunities on Social and Organizational Factors synthesizes and assesses basic research opportunities in the behavioral and social sciences related to social and organizational factors that comprise the context of individual and small unit behavior in military environments. This report focuses on tactical operations of small units and their leaders, to include the full spectrum of unique military environments including: major combat operations, stability/support operations, peacekeeping, and military observer missions, as well as headquarters support units. This report identifies key contextual factors that shape individual and small unit behavior and assesses the state of the science regarding these factors. The Context of Military Environments recommends an agenda for ARI's future research in order to maximize the effectiveness of U.S. Army personnel policies and practices of selection, recruitment, and assignment as well as career development in training and leadership. The report also specifies the basic research funding level needed to implement the recommended agenda for future ARI research.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!