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

1


Introduction and Framework for Research Agenda

INTRODUCTION

The full spectrum of military environments experienced by today’s soldiers includes many significant contextual forces that influence perceptions and behavior—both positively and negatively. It is well known that soldiers, as individuals and members of small units, possess attributes (e.g., mental health, intelligence, knowledge, and skills) that influence their behaviors. But it is less understood how social and organizational factors in the military context also influence those behaviors. To maximize the effectiveness of U.S. Army personnel policies and practices, the Army should seek to understand better how various social and organizational factors affect soldiers. This report describes innovative research programs that can be implemented to increase fundamental scientific and practical knowledge of Army soldiers and small units—and of the social and organizational factors in environments in which the Army operates—to enhance soldier and unit performance and capacities.

Study Overview

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 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) requested that the National Research Council’s (NRC) Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences establish an ad hoc committee to outline a productive and innovative collection of

future basic science research projects to improve Army mission performance (see Statement of Task in Box 1-1). ARI’s request sought a research agenda designed for immediate implementation and lasting over the next 10-20 years. In many ways this study was designed to build upon the foundation of the 2008 NRC report, Human Behavior in Military Contexts (National Research Council, 2008). However, the current study’s emphasis shifts from that of individual soldier attributes—for example, intercultural competence, nonverbal behavior, emotion, and neurophysiology—to a more contextual approach to understand the influence of social and organizational factors on individual and small unit behavior. This report presents

the committee’s final recommendations for a program of basic scientific research on the roles of social and organizational factors as determinants and moderators of the performance of individual soldiers and small units.

The study’s statement of task calls for the development of a basic research agenda for ARI, and ARI is the primary intended audience of this report. Through the study process, the committee learned about the experiences of Army soldiers and small units, but the committee did not conduct a scientific assessment of the Army or the military environments in which it operates. However, through its assessment of possible social and organizational factors relevant to Army small units that could be topics of a basic research agenda, the committee expects that the research topics identified in this report are relevant to entities outside the Army that also operate in military environments—to include, for example, other U.S. military services. The committee believes the topics identified for future research will be useful to a broader audience than strictly ARI, and therefore, this report has multiple intended audiences.

Certain important topics were explicitly excluded from the committee’s consideration. For example, questions concerning the personnel composition of teams and organizations were not addressed. There is a large literature on this important topic (see, for example, Bell, 2007; Kozlowski and Bell, 2013), but the topic was too close to research on individual differences, which is the focus of another, simultaneous NRC study requested by ARI. The committee was also asked to focus on enduring underlying social and organizational factors relevant across military environments and that likely contribute to many behaviors of interest. For this reason, the report does not analyze or develop a research agenda for specific policies or procedures currently under review by Army leadership (e.g., sexual assault in the military; rate of suicides among active duty soldiers). The committee discussed many of these important behaviors of interest and sought to identify the underlying factors that may be least understood and that, if more fully understood, may have the most promise to make a positive impact on soldiers and small units. This is the basis for many of the topics included in the research agenda presented in this report.

The Current Role of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

This report outlines the committee’s proposed research agenda for ARI’s Foundational Science Research Unit,¹ which connects the military and the behavioral and social science research community. This ARI unit is focused on basic research (or “6.1 Basic Research”). As described in an ARI broad agency announcement (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2013, p. 3; also see Office of Management and Budget, 2013):

Basic Research is defined as systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific application of processes or products in mind. The ARI’s Foundational Science Research Unit manages the Basic Research Program and maintains close contact with ARI’s applied scientists and other relevant agencies within the Army. These contacts help define issues that require fundamental research, ensure that the basic research program is coordinated across Services, and facilitate the transition of basic research results to applied programs for eventual use by the operational Army.

A recent ARI special report (2014) lists six research portfolios being supported by ARI: Personnel Testing and Performance, Learning in Formal and Informal Environments, Leader Development, Organizational Effectiveness, Socio-Cultural Capabilities, and Psychophysiology of Individual Differences. This research is conducted through intramural (ARI researchers), extramural (researchers outside ARI to include academia and private entities), and collaborative mechanisms. Currently, ARI provides approximately $6 million in research funds annually to individual projects across its research portfolios.

In addition to its basic research program, ARI also conducts and supports applied research and advanced technology development. A summary of ARI’s mission and the importance of its basic research program are provided in Box 1-2. In discussions with ARI through the course of this study, two criteria were emphasized in considering potential projects for ARI’s basic research program: (1) the research questions must be grounded in theory, and (2) clear potential must exist to develop the findings of the basic research into an applied research program. In developing the pro-

__________________

¹Throughout this report, any reference to ARI is intended to refer to ARI’s Foundational Science Research Unit, which manages the basic research portfolio of ARI. It is not the committee’s intention to refer to any other units within ARI, specifically those units that manage applied research programs.

posed research agenda presented in this report, the committee remained cognizant of the importance of these criteria.

The Bottom Line

Through the course of the committee’s deliberations, three key points emerged that are reflected throughout this report. First, the committee is convinced that a basic understanding of soldier and small unit behaviors

that are critical for Army success in military environments cannot be suitably conducted wholly outside a military context. It is absolutely essential that basic research programs to understand the unique social and organizational factors that affect soldiers be developed to unify theory and research from academic and laboratory environments with basic research conducted on real soldiers in actual military environments at the small unit level, thereby providing ecological validity of the results. Therefore, ARI’s Foundational Science Research Unit should seek opportunities to facilitate basic research conducted in military environments (see Recommendation 1). Second, basic research efforts are needed to develop unit-level measurements of social and organizational factors to enable the Army to better understand the context that influences individual and small unit behavior. Understanding the behavior of small units will contribute to an effective use of units in a leaner force that must achieve missions with optimal efficiency. The potential value of such unit-level measurements is explained in more detail through the recommended research topics (see recommendations included in Chapters 2-6), and the feasibility of such measures is possible through the committee’s third and final key point. Third, the committee recommends the development of a new longitudinal survey strategy to track individuals and small units, to include a longitudinal database to retain and maintain administrative and survey data in such a way as to facilitate exploratory research programs reliant upon such data (see Recommendations 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 in Chapter 7). For the convenience of ARI and other U.S. military funding agencies that may support the basic research called for in this report, Chapter 8 consolidates the committee’s conclusions and recommendations into a single location. The committee provides recommendations for a proposed research agenda, but the bottom line of this report lies in the three key points: (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.

Understanding Today’s Army

The current Army is composed of almost 1.1 million all-volunteer personnel, about one-half active duty (97,000 officers and 418,000 enlisted soldiers [Army Times, 2014]) and one-half Reserve and National Guard (Department of Defense, 2012; Feickert, 2014). In addition, a civilian workforce of approximately 270,000 personnel directly supports Army operations (McHugh and Odierno, 2013). In 2013, more than 168,000 soldiers were deployed or forward-stationed in 150 countries outside the United States, with active combat operations under way in Afghanistan (McHugh and Odierno, 2013). Impending downsizing directives require

that the overall size of the Army will decrease, and while the final numbers remain under review, current guidance will reduce the total Army force to under a million soldiers by the end of 2017 (McHugh and Odierno, 2013; Feickert, 2014).

The Army is large and complex, but it is governed by a distinctively clear collection of rules and regulations, including a code of conduct, a set of seven core values,² and mission statements. Larger formations (corps, division, and brigade levels) work in concert to accomplish the larger organizational mission. Although the Army has many well-defined, stable formal structures and regulations, it has been flexible in adapting to dramatic changes in the world in which it operates and in the missions and objectives that guide its operations. Today’s Army must succeed in a wider array of missions than ever before while simultaneously adjusting to changing combat and threat deterrent missions and global humanitarian missions. Modern Army units are also much more likely to serve in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational environments, serving alongside soldiers and commanders from other national or international armies and other military services as well as nongovernmental entities, all of which underscore the importance of cultural understanding and communication skills.

To further complicate the matter, military missions often require rapid decision making and coordination with others in novel ways, so that personnel are not simply following a specific set of tactical orders but are required to understand the broader mission to take initiative to develop and choose among courses of action for successful mission command. 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 groups. Female soldiers currently make up approximately 16 percent of the total Army (Department of Defense, 2012), and the potential effects of the recent shift in policy to review placing female soldiers (i.e., either allowing or requesting an exclusion from placement) into units and positions intended for engagement in direct combat are not yet fully understood. With these challenges and others, many of which are identified and discussed in this report, comes the urgent need to better understand how contextual factors influence soldier and small unit behavior and mission performance.

The formality of the military as an organization, combined with the uniqueness of military environments, fosters the development of a culture in American soldiers distinct from most civilian environments, a culture that is further defined by the Army’s specialty branches and a soldier’s unit assign-

__________________

²Descriptions of the Seven Core Army Values are available at http://www.army.mil/values/ [April 2014].

ment. From a research standpoint, the uniformity of formal organizational structures and regulations in the Army and the large aggregate of personnel representing diverse backgrounds provide an unparalleled opportunity to conduct innovative scientific studies, breaking new paths for understanding the impact of social and organizational factors on the behaviors of individuals and small units in the context of military environments. The committee believes this opportunity makes the research agenda it proposes here particularly exciting for scientific communities both internal and external to the military.

FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AGENDA

The following sections describe essential elements of the framework for the research agenda recommended in this report, consistent with the study’s charge and the committee’s assessment of basic research opportunities to further understanding of individual and small unit behavior in military environments.

The Army Small Unit

In accordance with the statement of task, this report focuses on the social and organizational factors that influence individual and small unit behavior. Through the course of this study, the committee made a great effort to understand the importance and dynamics of the Army small unit. Within the Army organizational structure, the term “small unit” is understood to refer to a group of soldiers assigned together as a team, squad, or platoon. Generally speaking, small units are primarily composed of junior enlisted soldiers who are organized into teams and squads (up to 12 enlisted soldiers in a squad), led by a sergeant or staff sergeant, with squads further organized into platoons (up to 4 squads and 50 soldiers in a platoon), each led by a lieutenant.

Through its discussions with military service members and its review of the relevant doctrine and research, the committee concludes that expectations and capabilities of soldiers at the Army small unit level are generally distinct from those of the commissioned officers who lead larger elements (echelons above the platoon). The committee’s impression is that the platoon is the Army organizational unit most palpable to the individual enlisted soldier and that the platoon leaders define authority and are the primary source of “orders” for most of these soldiers. We also believe that the “command climate” in a platoon is an essential focus of operational and ethical responsibility when, for example, higher-level leaders want to improve the performance and morale of individual soldiers. To simplify the discussions, unless otherwise noted the primary focus of this report is the

generic platoon consisting of three squads. However, it is also important to remember that the idealized platoon to which our discussion typically refers is a paradigm, and reality is much more complicated.

Basic Research on Relevant Personnel

In conducting this study, the committee reviewed a large body of relevant research that contributed to the committee’s assessment of future basic research opportunities that should be pursued by ARI. While there are internal Army research programs conducted on soldiers, some of which are noted specifically in this report, the committee is concerned by the limited applicability of many basic research findings that are too far removed from the context of actual soldiers’ experiences.

The committee cautions that basic research to understand behavior in military environments cannot be effectively performed on college students and other populations whose contexts are remote from the military environment. Research on contextual factors—such as many of those identified in this report—is not likely to generalize from a controlled research laboratory situation to the situation of interest in actual military environments. Furthermore, using analogues in experimental research may be useful to establish basic effects but needs to be complemented with research in actual military environments. Through the process of this study, the committee became convinced that a significant portion of basic research on the effects of social and organizational factors must be conducted on soldiers in actual military environments. Such research is called “use-inspired basic research” (Stokes, 1997). The challenges and opportunities of military environments can and should inform basic research questions and provide a clear pathway to the future development of applied research programs designed to inform specific policies, procedures, or programs.

To be maximally effective, the committee’s proposed research agenda requires that the general mission of ARI’s Foundational Science Research Unit should be adjusted so that it serves as a gateway facilitating research, by external (mostly academic) researchers and internal ARI staff researchers, on active duty soldiers in their natural military environments (to include military training or simulated operational environments experienced by small units). This is essential if productive research is to be conducted on the role of contextual factors as determinants of individual and small unit behavior. This led the committee to a single conclusion and its paired recommendation that stand separate from the report’s six proposed topical research areas but convey a theme carried through in each of the subsequent conclusions and recommendations.

The committee recognizes that soldiers have critical jobs to perform and their time is valuable; they are not an unlimited research subject pool. Furthermore, concerns about confidentiality, privacy, and internal review boards will need to be addressed. And access to soldiers across environments, including in garrison and training as well as environments where mortality salience adds a critically important dimension, will pose challenges to implementation. However, the committee is firmly resolved that, from a basic research perspective, the payoff in understanding real soldiers in real military environments far outweighs the effort that may be necessary to conduct the research. Furthermore, the committee believes ARI is well positioned to serve as a key connection between researchers and soldiers—conveying to researchers the challenges and opportunities faced by troops and conveying to soldiers the value of scientific research targeting those challenges and opportunities and facilitating access to soldiers for research purposes. And the committee encourages ARI to seek creative ideas to gain access to soldiers in efficient ways, such as potentially leveraging junior and senior officers assigned to the academic faculty of military academies, to include senior faculty who have regular short-term rotations into operational units.

Social and Organizational Factors in the Context of Military Environments

One of the major challenges for the committee in answering its charge was to reach consensus on how to “identify key contextual factors that shape individual and small unit behavior” (see subtask 1 in Box 1-1). Early in the study process, the committee considered many potentially relevant contextual factors, for example: small unit dynamics in which individuals work; organizational factors that define and constrain approaches to performance; societal factors such as the media, public opinion, or remote communications with family; organizational moral-ethical climate; physical structure, technology, and environment surrounding the unit; mix of family, ethnic, and cultural history in the unit; a soldier’s family and social networks; nature and severity of external threats and disruptions to the unit; performance evaluation of individual unit members; the extent and nature of training and experiences shared; and generational gaps and differences in behavioral and social characteristics. During the study’s data-gathering sessions, which included formal briefings and prepared papers as well as informal panel discussions with active and recently separated Army soldiers, the committee considered many more social and organizational factors that may be relevant to individual and small unit behavior in military environments. The committee understands that within small units, behaviors are dynamic, changing sequences of actions among individuals who, in turn, may modify their actions and reactions partly as a function of the actions and reactions of other unit members. Moreover, these interactions reflect a wide range of factors that ultimately influence them.

After an initial discussion, the committee decided not to attempt to develop a more precise concept of “key contextual factors” or to reach consensus on precisely how to delineate this complex concept. We did not use the concept to define limits or to constrain the research proposals created in response to the statement of task. Instead various threads of the concept were simply used as “jumping off” points to support directed but divergent lines of thought.

As the reader moves to the body of the report where the committee provides details of the contextual factors recommended for future research, an important general point to keep in mind is that there are many “key contextual factors” in military environments. The factors on which this report focuses emerged through committee deliberations as especially relevant, in the committee’s expert opinion, to increase basic knowledge of the social and organizational factors that influence soldiers and small units in military environments. In selecting those factors presented in this report, the committee carefully considered the quality and extent of existing research, largely conducted in academic settings, as well as applicable research that

may have been conducted within military environments. Several opportunities to converse with soldiers afforded the committee insight into the experiences of Army small units in tactical military environments; however, the committee recognizes that the Army is an organization and any given soldier’s experiences within that organization are far more complex than what could be learned in the short time of this study or what could be conveyed in this report. The committee’s discussions with Army soldiers facilitated committee deliberations on the hypothesized applicability of findings developed from existing, primarily academic, research to Army soldiers and on the potential benefit of future research to develop better understanding of Army soldiers and the uniqueness of the environments in which they operate. This study was not intended to understand all factors that shape Army small unit behavior, and the social and organizational factors presented here are not the only relevant contextual factors. Instead, this report presents opportunities for future research based on the committee’s judgment of the most promising areas to pursue given prior research findings, basic theory, and factors of apparent key relevance to military environments. Understanding these factors—as well as others that may take on added importance as the world, and the Army’s role within it, continues to shift—will be important for the future of the Army. As it proved for many members of the committee, Figure 1-1 may be a useful mnemonic or conceptual framework for readers to visualize the interactions between contextual factors and individual and unit behavior that ultimately determine small unit performance. This is the perspective from which the committee presents a proposed research agenda, which is to be implemented through access to real soldiers in real environments and with a coherent long-term funding strategy (see following section).

Effective Research Funding Strategies

The statement of task requires the committee to comment on the level of funding necessary to implement the recommended research agenda. We find it impossible to provide specific numbers, in part because our review of the records and mission statements we have been able to obtain describing Department of Defense, Army, and ARI budgets has left us confused as to the rationales for allocating funds among various funding categories. The committee was not provided with the resources or the data to conduct a full financial analysis necessary to offer detailed cost estimates of the proposed research agenda or to assess the necessary funds against ARI’s current funding levels or projects. Furthermore, it was outside the scope of this committee’s tasks to conduct the more thorough project design required to develop more accurate cost estimates. Instead, the committee made a good faith estimation of appropriate funding levels, based on the

FIGURE 1-1 Context of military environments: interactions between contextual factors and behaviors that contribute to small unit performance.

members’ own personal experiences as academic researchers. In any case, the following remarks are offered to assist the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology when considering research funding strategies for ARI basic research over the next 10 or more years. These remarks are not intended to provide funding justification for specific research programs, but their value is in highlighting important considerations to develop a cohesive and effective research strategy to develop fundamental knowledge in areas the committee judges to have enduring importance to the Army across military environments.

First, it would be unproductive to make small allocations of funds across several of the initiatives featured in the committee’s research recommendations. Funds should be allocated to develop high-quality programs (with high impact potential for the Army), in small numbers if necessary due to limited funds, rather than to develop a large number of programs with breadth but without sufficient depth. If limitations on funds constrain resourcing the entire recommended research agenda, then ARI should choose one or more of the initiatives and fund several complementary projects within each chosen initiative that are likely to reinforce one another and result in a substantial contribution. Two factors ARI could consider in prioritizing focal areas are the direct relevance of the Army context and the likelihood that this research would be carried out by other entities if the Army does not fund it. To use limited resources most efficiently, areas central and unique to the Army context and areas of inquiry that are not likely to be funded elsewhere or conducted without funding would therefore be given priority.

Second, suppose that funds were only available to support one of the topical initiatives in the proposed research agenda. To be effective, the committee believes that funds should be allocated to a small number of high-quality projects focused on that initiative, running concurrently and ideally with complementary research plans, with an appropriate multiyear minimum-duration commitment to allow the projects to be fully developed and refined. For example, suppose three projects were funded to study the development and effects of norms in military contexts. We could imagine one project based on interviews and embedded observers, another based on tracking interaction patterns with unobtrusive electronic signaling devices (worn on their uniforms, with the participants’ knowledge and consent), and a third based on experiments to test soldiers’ and their leaders’ behaviors and decision making when they encounter new situations. Ideally these studies would be conducted with consenting soldiers during training, deployment, or garrison assignments over multiple years, recognizing the potential impact on research data collected on soldiers whose experiences rotate through the Army Force Generation 3-year cycle (Department of the Army, 2011).

The committee was unable to assess precisely a total cost for such a project, because we do not know how the Army would account for participant costs when the participants are active duty soldiers. But, the expected research expenses would be comparable to current ARI funding levels per project, with the addition of funds for participant support and investigator travel to Army locations to conduct the research. Furthermore, beyond initial projects suggested to last at least 3 years, for the research to make a substantial contribution, the initiative would need a continuing commitment of 6-10 years (permitting critical longitudinal data collection on participating soldiers as they complete two or more iterations of the current Army Force Generation’s 3-year cycle) to allow the first projects to be suitably conducted and analyzed and for further research to be refined and expanded based upon the preliminary studies.

Third, the committee’s support for the proposed longitudinal survey project (see Chapter 7) is based on the survey’s likely contribution in advancing basic scientific objectives in understanding human behavior in organizations with distinctive cultures, like that of the Army. This understanding provides a background, big picture context for some of the other recommended research initiatives described in Chapters 2-6. The survey would provide concrete, factual information that would directly inform and guide Army policies concerning, for example, women’s careers in the military, the occurrence of troublesome behaviors of interest in various military settings, and early warnings of potential shortages in personnel capabilities as the Army’s missions change with the changing world situation. We were unable to obtain useful data concerning the costs of comparable studies such as the Millennium Cohort Study, but we suggest that, if policy makers decide to initiate the survey, the Millennium Cohort Study budget could be reviewed for information useful in estimating costs.

To use the resulting database for exploratory studies, the longitudinal survey project will need to include funds to attract researchers internal and external to ARI. This funding would be additional, beyond the funding required for the data collection and database construction and maintenance.

The committee encourages the Army to allocate funds sufficient to support at least several of the research programs proposed in this report. Although we cannot estimate the funding level required in exact dollar amounts, we can say that, to effectively implement the proposed research agenda without decrement to existing programs of research, the ARI budget would need to increase to levels of “double digit” millions of dollars per year.

The basic research program proposed in this report is intended to advance understanding of fundamental behavioral phenomena. It is designed to be innovative, and it requires consequential changes from current ARI policies and practices. It is intensely focused on understanding the

behavior of real soldiers in real military environments. Furthermore, the questions at which the various initiatives are directed are descriptive and practical, with potential to be developed into applied research programs. They are grounded in theory but are not motivated solely by intangible theoretical concerns. The studies the committee proposes for funding are intended to be directly useful to Army policy makers as they further basic understanding of behavioral and social problems and opportunities in the next decade and beyond of Army missions.

REPORT OUTLINE

The body of this report includes six chapters, each developing specific proposals for research. Each chapter provides (1) a review of relevant scientific findings, theories, and perspectives that led the committee to judge the topic as particularly relevant for further basic research, especially to be conducted on soldiers in military environments; and (2) illustrative examples of pertinent scientific questions and suggestions for concrete research directions. Between the topics proposed for future research, the committee found significant variations in the extent to which the topic has been previously studied inside and outside military settings, and the contents of the chapters reflect these variations (e.g., Army doctrine has long emphasized the importance of leadership, whereas the committee could only generalize academic research on environmental transitions that suggests relevance to the experiences of soldiers and small units). The chapters also include recommendations for basic research programs that could be developed as requests for proposals for funding by ARI or other U.S. military funding agencies.

In Chapters 2 through 6, the committee presents its assessments and recommendations for future research on five key types of social and organizational factors that warrant study at the unit level of measurement: norms, environmental transitions, power and status, contextual leadership, and multiteam systems. Chapter 7 addresses the collection of longitudinal survey data on those topics that the committee judges to be the most promising to maximize organizational effectiveness within the U.S. Army. Chapter 7 also calls for the development of a longitudinal database to collect administrative and survey data to facilitate exploratory research programs reliant upon such data. Finally, for the convenience of ARI and other U.S. military funding agencies that may implement basic research programs on the topics proposed in this report, Chapter 8 provides a consolidated list of the committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

REFERENCES

Army Times. (2014). 10K soldiers must go this year, 20K next year. May 12. Available: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140512/CAREERS/305120014/ [May 2014].

Bell, S.T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3):595-615.

Department of the Army. (2011). Military Operations: Army Force Generation. Army Regulation 525-29. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://www.forscom.army.mil/graphics/r525_29.pdf [June 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].

Feickert, A. (2014). Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS Report 7-5700. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42493.pdf [April 2014].

Kozlowski, S.W.J., and B.S. Bell. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Randy K. Otto, Ed., Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 12 (pp. 412-469). New York: Wiley.

McHugh, J.M., and R.T. Odierno. (2013). Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate First Session, 113th Congress, on the Posture of the United States Army. April 23. Available: http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McHugh-Odierno_04-23-13(1).pdf [April 2014].

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. James J. Blascovich and Christine R. Hartel, Eds., Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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 [April 2014].

Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant, Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2013). Improvement of Army Readiness and Performance via Research Advances and Applications of the Behavioral and Social Sciences (Personnel, Organization, Training, and Leader Development Issues). Solicitation Number W911NF-13-R-0001. ARI FY 13-18 Broad Agency Announcement. Available: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=102faad5082fa9d2881ec483fe166c2b&tab=core&_cview=1 [April 2014].

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 No. 73. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

This page intentionally left blank.