Technical Report 1104

Platoon Readiness as a Function of Leadership,

Platoon, and Company Cultures

Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio

Binghamton University

August 2000

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

20000921 007
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Binghamton University

NOTICES

DISTRIEBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5001

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

August 2000 Final 8/1/96-3/30/00

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Platoon Readiness as a Function of Leadership, Platoon, and DASWO1-96-K0008

Company Cultures 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

61102A

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (Binghamton University) B74f

5d. TASK NUMBER

1902

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

Cll

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Binghamton University

P.O. Box 6015

Binghamton, NY 13902-6015

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARI

Attn: TAPC-ARI-BR 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 Technical Report 1104

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The task was performed under ERO Broad Agency Announcement of September 1992 regarding research in the behavioral sciences.

The contracting officer's representative was Michael Drillings.

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

The ultimate criterion of Army light infantry unit readiness is its performance in combat. A second criterion is the unit's readiness in

peacekeeping missions. A close representation of requirements for peacekeeping is reflected in the unit's effectiveness in home station. A

modified military version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MILQ) was used to profile the individual leadership style of platoon

leaders (PLs) and platoon sergeants (PSGs). The Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) was used to describe the platoon and

company culture. Results for the MLQ were in line with expectations derived from Bass and Avolio's full range model of leadership. If

leaders, particularly PLs, were transformational according to their superiors, peers, and subordinates, their platoons were seen by raters in

home station as more effective both in home station and in simulated combat arenas. The most accurate predictions were made by the

company cadres; the least accurate were made by the platoon members. Overall, the level of transformational leadership exhibited by

platoon leaders in garrison predicted performance at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). Similarly the platoon sergeant's

transformational leadership also predicted performance at JRTC.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Leadership; MLQ; TMLQ; Company culture; Training and development.

i iii i F A N i...19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Michael Drillings

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 122 DSN 767-8641

i
Technical Report 1104

Platoon Readiness as a Function of Leadership,

Platoon, and Company Cultures

Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avollo

- Binghamton University

Research and Advanced Concept Off ice

Michael Drillings, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

August 2000

Army Project Number Personnel Performance

201 611021374F and Training

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

iii
FOREWORD

Leadership for Change is a basic research program of the Research and Advanced

Concepts Office (RACO) of the United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI). ARI is a directorate of the Total Army Personnel Command and the

Army's principal agency for soldier-oriented research and development in personnel and

training. ARI's mission is to maximize Army effectiveness through research and development in

the acquisition, training, development, utilization, and retention of Army personnel.

* ARI has initiated a programn to study military leadership, understand its effects on unit

performance, and determine how it might be enhanced. One major area of interest in ARI's

leadership program is the effect of transformational leadership on unit performance. The goal of

Leadership for Change is to determine whether and how well platoon leadership in home station

and in simulated combat can predict platoon readiness. This research has been designed to test

the theory of transformational leadership by determining whether platoon leaders and platoon

sergeants who were more inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate

led platoons that were more effective at both home station and in mission accomplishment in the

near-combat conditions of the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC).

This research has produced a series of findings that support that transformational

leadership is a key element leading to more effective unit performance. However, we do not

know to what extent we can train to produce higher levels of transformational leadership. This

has triggered a new program to better understand the answer to this question.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the following people for their support of this project.

Without their assistance this project would never have achieved its objectives. General Walt

Ulmer (ret), Col. Michael Shaler (ret), Col. Mac Snodgrass (ret), Dr. Yair Berson, Dr. Dong

Jung, Dr. Robb Most, Wendy Kramer, Ben Laurenzi, Sally Bowers, Juliette Monet, and

Susanna Kwan. We also wish to express our appreciation to Maj. James Reeves and Lt. Col.

Lee Washington for help in collecting the data for this project. We thank Dr. Ed Johnson of

the Army Research Institute and Dr. Mike Drillings, who provided both advice and support for

this project.

Finally, we want to especially thank the U.S. Army and the commanders who gave us

access to Ft. Campbell, Ft. Drum, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Benning, as well as all of the platoon leaders,

sergeants, NCOs, and soldiers who gave us the kind of quality data that helped make this

project a success.

vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The platoon is the most significant unit for both the individual soldier and the Army for

enhancing the effectiveness of operations. The core leadership rests with the platoon sergeant

and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Squads and squad leaders

play secondary leadership roles, usually for shorter periods of time, since turnover is higher in

squads and squad leaders than in platoon sergeants and platoon leaders.

The hypotheses being tested in this research are that platoon effectiveness in home station

and mission performance at JRTC correlates positively with platoon leader transformational and

contingent reward leadership, less so with active and passive managing-by-exception, and

negatively with laissez-faire leadership. Home station effectiveness, itself, is expected to predict

JRTC performance. Platoon and company climate at home station should also contribute to

subjective effectiveness and observed platoon readiness.

Procedure:

Over the course of this 3-year investigation this research worked on developing

leadership survey instruments that could be reliably used in military contexts to predict

individual and unit performance. This involved working with military consultants to revise

existing leadership survey measures. These steps were taken at the outset of the project to assure

the leadership survey measures would be both reliable and valid. In this final report, the results

are presented for the surveys taken with a total of 90 platoons, and for predicting the

performance of 72 platoons that went to JRTC. The JRTC criterion data and correlations with

their predictors are thus based on 72 platoons. However, correlations among the home station

data are based on 90 platoons.

Approximately one to two months prior to each platoon attending JRTC, 3600

evaluations of the platoon commander and sergeant were collected in garrison using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Evaluations of the platoon's collective leadership

profile and culture were also gathered in garrison from different rater sources in the platoon to

reduce the effects of common source bias. Platoon commanders were rated by the CO, XO, COsergeant, sergeant, peers from two other platoons in their company and subordinates within the

platoon, including squad leaders, fire team leaders, and squad members. Sergeants were rated by

the CO, XO, CO-sergeant, peers from two other platoons in their company and subordinates

including squad leaders, fire team leaders, and squad members. Ratings of collective leadership

and culture were based on the same dimensions/constructs contained in the MLQ, escalated to a

group and company level of analysis. For example, measures were taken of the platoon's

collective transformational leadership using the Team Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire

(TMLQ), as well as whether the platoon had a transformational culture using the Organizational

Description Questionnaire (ODQ).

Performance in JRTC was evaluated by observer-controllers (OC's), who accompanied

the platoons carrying out their assignments over a two-week period. A survey measure was

Vii
developed to assess the platoon leader's (PL) performance, platoon sergeant's performance

(PSG), their ability to work together in the field and the platoon's overall performance. A

*consulting team, who had extensive experience in the military, working in conjunction with the

two P1's, developed the criterion evaluation measure. OC rater input was also solicited in the

development of the criterion measure. The criterion data collected at JRTC assessed the

platoon's readiness and consistency of the platoon commanders' and sergeants' leadership with

Army policy governing combat leaders. Ratings by the OC evaluators were collected at three

points during JRTC, following the completion of each of three phases.

Utilization of Findings:

The results of this research indicate that transformational leaders are generally more

effective in home station and in JRTC combat readiness missions. The best predictors of

performance in near combat conditions came from other sources of ratings, not from self-ratings

of leadership.

The findings of this research support the utility of transformational and transactional

leadership theory for predicting the readiness of units in military settings. Results indicated that

selecting and developing leaders who are more proactive and transformational should result in

both more effective platoons in garrison and in extreme conditions, such as at JRTC. Although

many leadership training programs concentrate on the positive styles of leadership, the results of

this research point to the importance of examining and eliminating passive avoidant styles as

well. Results indicate that leaders who were more passive and/or avoidant in home station, led

platoons that performed worse at JRTC. Moreover, the qualitative observations collected from

the 0/Cs at JRTC confirm that leaders who were either passive or simply focused on correcting

problems as they arose, lead lower performing platoons at JRTC.

Transformational leadership (TL) may become an even more powerful model for leader

training and development at higher levels in the organization where elements of self-motivation

and coordination are typically more critical to organizational effectiveness. Additional research

is needed, however, in determining whether transformational behaviors can be learned by

leaders. ARI is continuing fuirther study and experimentation in this area.

Viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

RESEARCH PLAN

Purpose 16

Hypotheses 17

Method and Design of the Study 17

Summary of Research Activities 18

METHODS

Sample 19'

MLQ and TMLQ Data Collection 22

Field Performance Data Collection Process by 0/Cs 23

Qualitative Data Collection Overview 24

RESULTS

Quantitative Analyses 28

Factor Structure of the MLQ and TMLQ 28

MLQ, TMLQ and 0/C Ratings' Descriptive Statistics 29

MLQ as Predictor of Home Station Platoon TMLQ Rated Outcomes 39

Effects of Tenure 49

Trends in JRTC Performance 53

Multiple Regressions 56

Company Culture 57

Unit Leadership Strength as a Predictor of JRTC Performance 59

Exploratory Analyses 60

TEXT ANALYSIS OF 0/C AND CADRE COMMENTS ON

PLATOON LEADER, PLATOON SERGEANT, AND

PLATOON PERFORMANCE

Frequency and Significance 61

Attributing Comments as Strengths or Weaknesses by Subject 62

Questions for Analysis 66

Strengths and Weaknesses in Top vs. Bottom 12 Performing Platoons 68

Qualitative Interpretation of Top and Bottom Differences 72

0/C and Cadre Comments According to the Platoon's TMLQ

In Home Station Transformational Leadership 72

Strengths and Weaknesses in High vs. 12 Low TL Platoons

In Transformational Leadership 73

Comparisons Between Data Sets 78

Findings for Platoon Leader Comparisons 80

Summary of Qualitative Comment Analysis Findings 81

Implications for Training 82

Implications for Leadership Training and Development 83

ix
Communication 83

Tactical Training Implications 84

Qualitative Model Improvements 84

Summary of Qualitative Findings 85

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations 86

REFERENCES 87

APPEN DICES

Appendix A - Survey Measures and JRTC Scorecard A-i

Appendix Bi1 - Glossary of Military Terms and Abbreviations B-i

Appendix k2 - Coding and Classification Sheet for Key Words B-3

Appendix C - Charts and Graphs C-i

x
INTRODUCTION

Objectives

The purpose of the contracted project was to determine whether and how well platoon

leadership in home station and in simulated combat could predict platoon readiness.

Findings would test the theory of transformational leadership by showing that platoon leaders

and platoon sergeants who were more inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually

considerate, led platoons that were more effective and satisfying in home station and

subsequently higher in mission accomplishment, in the near-combat conditions of the Joint

Readiness Training Center (JRTC).

More specifically, this research project set out to examine the relative contributions to

platoon home station and combat readiness; (1) the transformational/transactional leadership

behavior of the platoon leaders (PLs and PSGs) as seen in multiple-source appraisals by

superiors, peers, platoon members, and selves; (2) the different

transformational/transactional leadership styles and (3) the transformational/transactional

team leadership of the platoon and company culture. The results were expected to have

implications for policy, recruitment, leadership training, selection, and classification.

Such research and its potential applications are needed for at present because,

"there are no highly visible, heavily resourced efforts to define,

inculcate, and monitor the creation and sustainment of

organizational climates that challenge, inspire and motivate all

ranks... the Army's interest in the values of duty, loyalty, selfless

service, honor, courage, respect and integrity represent the core

of a noble tradition. Announcing them is necessary but insufficient

however, for shaping leaders behavior and for demonstrating what

the Army considers 'best practices' in this respect" (Ulmer, 1998,

p. 11).

Changing Requirements

In the Post-Cold War environment, adaptability to change in the many situations the

U.S. may be called into action is key to the effectiveness of the required leadership and unit

performance. Obvious changes that are required of the U.S. military result from changes in

the international scene, changes in technology and changes in U.S. society. "Force

reductions and recent high usage of marginally guided military organizations, have enacted a

toll on morale and readiness that may have long term cultural impact" (CSIS, 2000).

For the Army, the time increasingly is reduced for force build-up and entry into action.

Readiness to fight two regional wars or several "little" wars simultaneously must be present

in less time than was available for the Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo. Units must be ready to

project U.S. power on any continent in the shortest possible time.

1
The Army's leadership has to be ready to deal with several security threats

simultaneously (Avant, 1994). At the time of this writing, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and North Korea

remain threatening violent confrontations. The Bos 'nian Muslims, Serbs and Croats, and the

Albanians of Kosovo require extensive investment in peacekeeping as did Panama, Haiti,

Somalia. Peace treaties between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai and most probably between

Israel and Syria on the Golan will further stretch the requirements. The importance of

attention by the military leadership to "the hearts and minds" of the local civilian populations

is seen as a crucial requirement for success (Avant, 1994).

The exclusive use of air power in Yugoslavia lacked deterrence until the threat of

using ready ground forces was made apparent. Such ground forces need to be highly flexible

in their capabilities for war-fighting, peace-making and peace-keeping. These forces must be

able to incorporate new technologies such as digitization as they become available and to be

engaged in continuous learning and improvement throughout the unit.

The new Army units also reflect the multicultural society that the U.S. has become as

minority membership continues to increase (Moskos & Burk, 1994). Leadership must weld

together soldiers of mixed race, ethnic background, and sex into effective collaborative units.

These units must in turn, be able to handle the high levels of stress associated with conflict

and the difficulties of addressing an indigenous population that may or may not be supportive

of U.S. intervention. At the same time, the military must also have the leadership and support

of the American public, which has been consistent in its willingness to support the use of

force for humanitarian ends and/or to counterbalance aggressive behavior. For instance, in a

1993 Times Mirror General Survey of the U.S. population, 91% of those questioned agreed

that the United States should take a leadership role in world affairs. The characteristics and

challenges of situations in which the U.S. has and may become involved, requires that we

develop and maintain a highly equipped military force with the appropriate leadership.

For the Army of volunteers, increasingly based on education and intelligence, Army

service is either a career or a prelude to a career in civilian life. While honor, duty and

country can still provide a sense of purpose, the moral relativism and the substitution in our

society of anti-heroes and celebrities for heroes, requires new forms of leadership. Such

leadership can generate commitment, loyalty and involvement based on the alignment of the

member's interests and those of the units at various levels to which the enlisted personnel

and officers belong. Leadership at all levels can align the interests of the Army, its units, and

its members to the Army's core values and its ultimate objectives.

The Army can no longer afford the perception that it is so bureaucratic that "Catch 22"

is the rule rather than the exception and that snafus are the norm. Rather than the revealed

wisdom that, "There's the Army way and there's the right way", the Army way has to become

and be seen as the right way, exhibiting the highest degrees of authentic leadership.

In the past decade, new problems have emerged that have added implications for the

leadership required of U.S. forces. China has emerged as a global, military, and economic

power along with a weakened and less stable Russia. The nature of conflicts the U.S. has

and expects it might become engaged change over time. The booming U.S. economy has

2
made recruiting and retaining personnel difficult. The professional army shares missions with

the reserves. The perceived threats are often subnational and non-military ranging from

terrorist threats organized in Afghanistan, to the flow of drugs from Colombia.

Effective leadership is instrumental in the readiness for war-fighting, peacemaking,

and peacekeeping in order to raise morale, and to create the combination of legitimacy,

commitment and moral violence in the service of social goals (Gal, 1990). Today, and into

the foreseeable future, American soldiers will need to be prepared to go in harm's way when

most of the nation is at peace going about its regular business.

The Concern for Improving Leadership

General R. R. Fogelman (1993) declared that the difference between a good unit and

a bad unit is leadership. J.H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, added that trust in its leadership

is central to military readiness:

"The question of military character and ethics is not an abstract topic for discussion. It

is a readiness issue. It is a readiness issue because without ethical leadership in our Armed

Forces, there can be no trust by subordinates in the orders of their superiors. There can be

none of the special spirit or bonding that we consider essential to the teamwork required for

combat. And there would be little confidence by the American people in the rightness of our

actions. Without trust and confidence, there cannot be an effective military for America."

(Dalton, 1994, p. 296)

Self-interest must be transcended by the military. As S.L.A. Marshall noted:

"The sole difference distinguishing the professional soldier from the civilian is that the

professional soldier places the line of duty above the line of self interest." (Dalton, 1994, p.

297)

Based on the climate survey of 9000 military service personnel and 90 focus groups ,

William J. Taylor, Senior Vice-President, Center for Strategic & International Studies,

concluded that "Among problems inside the service are significant differences in the quality

of local leadership" (Taylor, 1999). According to Lieutenant General Howard D. Graves

(1994), "We continue to face a woeful shortage of good leadership in our country today. The

encouraging trend is that there is a rising concern about that shortage (p.3)." Most relevant to

the focus of our three-year project, he went on to say, "we are beginning to recognize that

leaders may be good or bad, and that the command climate set by the leadership of an

organization has a major effect on the eff iciency and interaction of its members, and thus on

the effectiveness of the organization. We are also learning that frequently the difference

between good and bad leaders is more a question of character than technical proficiency

(p.3)."

A New Paradigm of Leadership

Paralleling the post-Vietnam and post-cold War changes in military leadership

requirements has been the introduction of a new paradigm of leadership -

3
transformational/transactional leadership. Beginning with the seminal book by Burns (1978),

attention was centered on issues raised by Fogelman, Dalton, Marshall and Graves, of trust,

confidence, transcending self-interest, and character. By 1985, a set of measures and

models became available for empirical research, assessment and training (Bass, 1985).

These measures were extensively refined and validated in the following years. (Avolio, Bass

& Dong, 1999; Avolio & Bass, 1993)

While the U.S. Army may have been practicing some of the components of

transformational leadership since George Washington assumed command in 1775, the

conception, measurements, and available modeling have not been exploited by the Army for

basic research which, could further applications in training, development and selection (Bass,

1998). The earliest demonstrations of the validity of U.S. Army colonels' ratings in combat

and combat-service units of their superiors' transformational/transactional leadership as it

related to their effectiveness was completed by 1982 (reported in Bass, 1985). A sufficient

number of empirical research studies were completed between 1982 and 1992 to provide a

meta-analysis comparing military and civilian findings (Gaspar, 1992). The empirical

research both inside and outside the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps have

supported the greater effectiveness of transformational leadership in contrast to transactional

leadership, in generating subordinate extra effort, commitment, satisfaction and contribution

to military readiness. Replications supporting these findings also have been carried out with

U.S., German and Canadian officers in NATO (Boyd, 1988) and in the Israeli Defense Forces

(Zakay, 1995). Recently, Dvir (1998) demonstrated that transformational leadership could be

developed in Israeli platoon officers, and have significant positive impact on unit readiness

six months following the close of a 3-day training program. Yet, a full understanding of what

was actually involved in improving unit effort and performance remains unclear. Often the

available studies have not utilized the survey instruments designed to measure

transactional/transformational leadership, and in no instance has prior research examined

the associated unit and organizational levels. Numerous studies repeatedly test the same

few hypotheses and often have failed to tie these hypotheses to a multi-level framework and

theory of organizational leadership.

In today's Army, as is true of all other organizations, inspiring leadership is needed,

along with the type of character to determine the difference between right and wrong, while

having the courage to choose the right alternative. We also need leaders at all levels in the

Army, who can exemplify the highest levels of ethical and moral conduct, who are able to

gain the confidence of followers to make the ultimate sacrifice, who have the analytical ability

to overcome problems that were unanticipated and who focus throughout their careers on

their own leadership development and the development of others. Such leaders were

originally described by Burns (1978) as being transforming.

The Transformational/Transactional Model of Leadership

Burns (1978) introduced a new model of leadership. Leadership wa's conceived to be

transactional and transformational. Empirical evidence accumulated that transformational

leadership can move followers to exceed expected levels of motivation and performance,

(Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1993a; Onnen, 1987; Seltzer, Numeof & Bass,

4
1989). It has been seen extensively as a particularly significant source of effective leadership

in Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force settings (e.g. Bass, 1998; Boyd, 1989; Curphy,

1992; Longshore, 1988; O'Keefe, 1989; Salter, 1990; and Yammarino & Bass, 1990). This

fact was implicitly recognized by many in the military long before the m odel was codified. For

example, the Air Force included some of Burns' original writings in the Air Force Academy

curriculum shortly after his 1978 book appeared in print.

Overall, the codification of a new range of leadership styles has permitted some

systematic exploration of transformational leadership and the effects of its application to

specific conditions. It has led to a whole new focus in leadership evaluation and training both

at the individual and team level (Avolio & Bass, 1991, 1994; Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein,

1988; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Onnen, 1987). And, it

has also resulted in new ways of identifying more successful and effective junior Naval officer

leaders (Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino, Bass & Spangler, 1993). Finally, this new

model and its components have been extended to examining the characteristics that

differentiate successful from unsuccessful groups and organizational cultures (Bass, 1990;

Bass & Avolio, 1993b).

Social scientists, historians and military analysts long recognized leadership that went

beyond contingent reinforcement (Levinson, 1980). Weber's (1924/1 947) seminal work on

charisma as the alternative to bureaucratic management epitomized such study. However,

most psychologists, economists and military managers concentrated on testing and applying

contingent reinforcement as the fundamental basis of effective leadership. For them,

leadership was transactional. Followers agreed with, accepted or complied with the leader in

exchange for praise, rewards, and resources or the avoidance of disciplinary action. Reward

was contingent on the follower's carrying out roles and assignments as directed or

con sens ual.

Leadership must also deal with the individual follower's sense of self-worth, with the

group's sense of collective efficacy, and the meaningfulness in what is to be done, in order to

engage the motivation of followers to willingly provide total commitment and involvement in

the task at hand. Transformational leadership secures higher levels of commitment and

involvement, by building personal identification among followers with the goals of the leader

and organization. The process of gaining this identification is critical to success in military

units. And that among other things is what transformational leadership adds to the

transactional exchanges of contingent reward for compliance, or the exchange of correction,

negative feedback, reproof, or disciplinary action for failure to meet role requirements (Avolio,

1999; Bass, 1998).

Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and

more than they thought possible. They set more challenging expectations, raise levels of self

and collective efficacy, and typically achieve significantly higher performance.

Transformational leadership does not substitute for transactional leadership. It

augments the effects of transactional leadership in both civilian and military organizations as

shown in two meta analyses of prior empirical literature that used the Multif actor Leadership

5
Questionnaire (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivas ubraman iam, 1996; Patterson, Fuller, Hester, &

Stringer, 1995).

Components of Transformational Leadership

The components of transformational and transactional leadership and their meaning

have been identified in a variety of ways: factor analyses, observations, interviews, and

descriptions of the ideal leader that people carry around in their heads.

Transformational leaders do more with colleagues and followers than set up simple

exchanges, contracts, or agreements. They behave in ways to achieve superior results by

employing one or more of the components of transformational leadership. Factor studies from

Bass (1985), Howell and Howell (1993), Bycio, Hackett, and Allen (1995), Jung, Bass, and

Avolio (1995), and most recently by Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) have identified the

components of transformational leadership. Leadership is idealized or charismatic such that

followers seek to identify with their leaders and emulate them in terms of their values and

beliefs. The leader inspires the follower with challenge and persuasion, providing a broader

meaning and understanding, as well as enhancing the followers, the individual and collective

efficacy. The leader is intellectually stimulating, expanding the followers creative use of their

cognitive and analytical abilities. Finally, the leader is individually considerate, treating each

of the followers as an individual, and providing the follower with support, mentoring, and

coaching to enhance the developmental potential of the followers. Each of these

components has been reliably measured with the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990). These

components were the bases for the measurements of the MLQ, suitably modified where

necessary, for the current military context.

Descriptions of the components are presented below.

Idealized Influence (or Charismatic Leadership) (11). Transformational leaders

become role- models for their followers. The leaders are admired, respected, and trusted.

Followers identify with the leaders and want to emulate them. In order to earn this credit the

leader considers the needs of others over his or her own personal needs. The leader shares

risks with followers and is consistent, rather then arbitrary. He or she can be counted on to

do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral conduct. He or she

avoids using power for personal gain, but will use it when needed.

The most recently developed MLQ, Form 45, also calculates an attributed idealized

influence (IIA) scale as opposed to idealized influence or charismatic behaviors observed in

the leader (111B). Superiors, peers, subordinates, and self can complete comparable forms for

36012 assessment of the leader.

Inspirational Motivation (IM). Transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate

and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers' work,

resulting in individual and team spirit being aroused, and enthusiasm and optimism being

displayed. The leader gets followers involved in envisioning attractive future states, which

they can ultimately envision themselves, as they develop their full potential. The leader

6
creates clearly communicated expectations that followers strive to meet and also

demonstrates commitment to goals and the shared vision.

Intellectual Stimulation (IS). Transformational leaders stimulate their followers' effort

to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, ref raining problems, and

approaching old situations in new ways. There is no ridicule or public criticism of individual

members' mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers,

who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions. Followers are

intellectually challenged to try new approaches and their ideas are not criticized because

they differ from the leaders' ideas. Differences are encouraged to maximize the best solution

to problems.

Individualized Consideration (IC). Transformational leaders pay attention to each

individual's needs for achievement and growth by acting as coach or mentor. Followers and

colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of potential. New learning

opportunities are created along with a supportive climate. Individual differences in terms of

needs and desires are recognized. The leader's behavior demonstrates acceptance of

individual differences (e.g., some followers receive more encouragement, some more

autonomy, still others firmer standards, and still others more task structure). A two-way

exchange in communication is encouraged. Interactions with followers are personalized (e.g.,

the leader remembers previous conversations, is aware of individual concerns, and sees the

individual as a whole person rather than as just an employee). The individually considerate

leaders listen effectively. The leaders delegate tasks as a means of developing followers.

Delegated tasks are monitored to see if followers need additional direction or support and to

assess progress; ideally, followers do not feel they are being checked on. Such leaders

continually develop followers and themselves to increasingly higher levels of potential.

Components of Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership occurs when the leader rewards or disciplines a follower

depending on the adequacy of a follower's performance. Transactional leadership depends

on contingent reinforcement, either positive contingent reward (CR) or the more negative

active or passive forms of management- by-excepti on (MBE-A or MBE-P). Other possibilities

such as noncontingent rewards and punishments have been measured and found valid and

useful in a four-year longitudinal study of cadets at Virginia Military Academy by Atwater,

Lau, Bass et. al., (1994).

Contingent Reward (CR). This constructive transaction has been found to be

reasonably effective, although not as much as any of the transformational components in

motivating others to achieve higher levels of development and performance. With this

method, the leader assigns or gets consensual agreement on what needs to be done and

promises rewards or actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the

assignment.

Management by Exception. Although this corrective transaction tends to be more

ineffective than CR, it may be required in certain situations. This corrective transaction has

7
two main components representing active (MBE-A) or passive (MBE-P) styles of leadership.

In MBE-A, the leader arranges to actively monitor deviances from standards, mistakes, and

errors in followers' assignments and to take corrective action as necessary. MBE-P implies

waiting passively for deviances, mistakes, and errors to occur and then taking corrective

action. Management by exception is active if the leader monitors follower performance for

failure to meet standards and takes corrective or disciplinary action when failure is observed.

Management is passive if corrective or disciplinary action only occurs when unsought

problems arise. Most recently it has been found to combine with laissez faire leadership into

a single passive leadership factor.

Laissez Faire (LF). This style is the avoidance or absence of leadership and is, by

definition, most inactive, as well as most ineffective and dissatisfying according to almost all

research on the style. As opposed to transactional leadership, laissez-faire represents a

nontransaction. Passive management by exception is less effective than active. Least

effective is the laissez faire style in which the leader avoids the role of leading altogether

(Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985).

Validation of the Leadership Measurement Model

Burn's concept of the transforming leader was used to elicit accounts of leaders who fit

the description. These were converted to 141 behavioral statements. Eleven judges agreed

on 73 as transformational or transactional. Principal component factor analyses were

completed of the frequency which 196 US Army colonels said each of the items described

one of their immediate superiors. Numerous subsequent factor analyses and more recent

LISREL and Partial Least Squares analyses, supported a three-factor solution that emerged

(Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Avolio, et al., 1999).

Three factors were obtained whose items beforehand had been judgedtransformational: charismatic/inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually

considerate. Since the dynamics and literature on charisma and inspiration were quite

different, we opted to maintain them as separate components early on in the present study.

Salient in charisma is the identification of the follower with the charismatic and the desire to

emulate him or her. Salient to inspiration is the providing of meaning and challenge to the

follower. Leaders who do a lot of one are also likely to do a lot of the other, but the

dynamics, content, focus, antecedents and consequences may be different. Avolio, et al.

(1999) recently confirmed the construct validity of an inspirational factor containing both the

components of idealized influence and inspirational motivation leadership. Bass (1985) had

found both components highly intercorrelated.

In the earliest factor studies of the MLQ (Bass, 1985), the transactional items formed

factors of contingent reward, management by exception and laissez-faire leadership.

Additional analyses supported splitting contingent reward into promises, rewards,

management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).

Subsequent analyses also supported splitting management-by-exception into active and

passive components (Hater & Bass, 1988). Most recently a factor of empowerment has been

found separable from the laissez-faire leadership factor (Bass, 1998).

8
In the most definitive MLQ study containing 14 samples, three

transactional/nontransactional factors emerged: contingent reward, active management-byexception, and passive avoidant leadership (PA). Passive Avoident leadership combined

passive MBE with laissez-faire (LF) leadership. Furthermore, there was an overlapping

second order factor containing individualized consideration (IC) and contingent reward (CR)

of the non-material aspects of reward such as praise.

In addition to survey studies of the MLQ, qualitative analyses of diaries and interviews

have also been conducted.

Diaries

In another ARI-supported investigation, Virginia Military Academy cadets reported in

unstructured logs or diaries the leadership behavior they observed during a given set of

days. These logs could be reliably scored in terms of all of the transformational and

transactional leadership components noted earlier. The log data have been linked to

independently obtained MLQ survey results for the components of

transformational/transactional leadership (Atwater, Avolio & Bass, 1992; Atwater, Lau, et al.,

1994). Also, the transformational leadership behaviors collected via these diaries were

positively linked to higher peer rankings of the more effective cadet leaders at VMI.

Interviews

Interviews with executives about the leadership they had seen produced numerous

other behavioral examples of transformational leadership that matched the MLQ components

(Yokochi, 1989). Charismatic leadership was attributed to the interviewees' bosses for

setting an example, showing determination, exhibiting extraordinary talents, taking risks,

creating in subordinates a sense of empowerment, showing dedication to "the cause,"

creating a sense of a joint mission, dealing with crises using radical solutions, and

engendering faith in the subordinates for the leadership. Inspirational leadership included

providing meaning and challenge, painting an optimistic future, molding expectations by

creating self-fulfilling prophesies, and thinking ahead. Intellectual stimulation was judged

present when superiors questioned assumptions, encouraged subordinates to employ

intuition, entertained ideas that may have seemed silly at first, created imaginative visions,

and asked subordinates to rework the same problems they thought they had solved before,

but not completely. Individualized consideration was apparent to interviewees when their

bosses answered them with minimum delay, showed they were concerned for their

subordinates well-being, assigned tasks based on subordinate needs and abilities,

encouraged two-way exchanges of ideas, were available when needed, encouraged self

development, practiced walk-around management, and effectively mentored, counseled and

coached.

When peers of VMI military cadet leaders were asked what characterized the

important traits of a good leader, they tended to describe traits of charismatic, inspirational,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration such as: self-confidence,

9
persuasiveness, concern for the well-being of others, the ability to articulate one's ideas and

thoughts, providing role models to be emulated by others, holding high expectations for

oneself and others, keeping others well informed, maintaining high motivation in oneself

(Atwater, Lau, et al., 1994).

The 'Full Range Leadership" development program (Avolio & Bass, 1991) begins with

participants describing their implicit theories of leadership as evidenced by an ideal leader

each has known. For well over 2000 trainees, from diverse backgrounds, the characteristics

of their "ideal leader" have consistently included the components of transformational and

contingent reward leadership described above. Moreover, the list of attributes is mainly

oriented towards most or all of the components of transformational leadership.

Correlations with Independent Criteria of Effectiveness

In previous military research, transformational leadership as measured by

subordinates' ratings correlated more highly than did transactional leadership with various

criteria of leader effectiveness. When subordinates provide the criteria of effectiveness and

satisfaction, ordinarily the correlations with the components of transformational leadership

are highly positive. Nonetheless, lower but still moderately positive findings have been

obtained when the criteria of effectiveness were obtained independently of the subordinates.

In the military environment, transformational mean scores as gauged by subordinates

were higher among Marine Corps commanders of more effective helicopter squadrons

(Salter, 1990), as well as among junior Naval officers in the surface fleet, who were more

often recommended by superiors for early promotion and given better-fitness reports

(Yammarino & Bass, 1990). The charisma scores of 20 Israeli battalion commanders alone

predicted 74 percent of the variance in their subordinates' satisfaction with their leadership.

The lieutenant colonels commanded infantry and armor units. Additionally, the commanders'

.individualized consideration accounted for 45 percent of their subordinates' extra effort and

the commanders' intellectual stimulation accounted for 8 percent of the variance in

subordinates' extra effort (Zakay, 1995).

Gaspar (1992) completed a meta-analysis of 20 military and civilian studies. For the

military studies, the mean charisma-i nspi ration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration correlated .53, .46 and .57 respectively with objective organizational criteria of

performance. The corresponding average correlations with transactional contingent reward

and active and passive managing-by-exception were .46, .26, and .32. The one militarycivilian difference occurred for man ag ing-by-exception, which was negative for civilians.

Further Assumptions and Propositions

Further specific theoretical and hypothesized propositions have been tested with

affirmative results. Bass (1985) proposed an augmentation relationship between

transformational and transactional leadership, i.e., transformational leadership augments

transactional leadership in predicting effects on follower satisfaction and performance.

Waldman, Bass, and Yammarino (1990) found the augmentation effect among various

10
samples of industrial managers and military officers as did Seltzer & Bass (1989) for 300

part-time MBA students, each describing their superiors at their full-time work settings. For

another sample of 130 MBAs, who each asked three of their followers to complete MLQs

about them, the augmentation effect held up when one follower's leadership ratings and a

second follower's outcomes were correlated. The same augmentation effect occurred when

initiation and consideration, as measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ), was substituted as the measure of transactional leadership. (Seizer & Bass, 1990)

Finally, Howell and Higgins (1988) reported that champions of innovation for research and

development teams were also described as more transformational.

Collectively, these results demonstrate a fundamental point emphasized in the Bass

(1985) theory of leadership: Transactional leadership, particularly contingent reward,

provides a basis for effective leadership, but a greater amount of effort, effectiveness, and

satisfaction is possible from transactional leadership if augmented by transformational

leadership. Finally, and as reported earlier by Howell & Avolio (1993), transformational

leadership also augments transactional in predicting subordinates' levels of innovation, risktaking, and creativity.

Directive or Participative. Transformational leadership can be directive or

participative, as well as democratic or authoritarian. Charismatic leaders may direct

dependent followers out of crises with appropriate solutions to their problems. The

intellectually stimulating leader may challenge his/her followers to consider ideas and

principles they felt were beyond their conceptual capacity. The individually considerate

leader may override the demands for equality and may treat his/her followers differently

according to their different needs. Nonetheless, transformational leaders may also be

participative. They may share the building of visions of a democratic and collective

enterprise. They may encourage follower participation to make decisions to change. They

may foster mutual consideration among followers. Similarly, transactional leadership may be

either directive or participative.

Pseudo-transformational Leadership. Critics may find exploitiveness and abuses of

power in the transformational leader. But such leadership is pseudo-transformational (Bass

& Steidlmeier, 1999). Idealized influence (11) or charismatic leadership may be socialized or

personalized (Howell & House, 1992). Socialized means that the leadership serves

* collective interests and develops and empowers others for the good of the group.

Personalized charismatic leadership, based on personal influence and authoritarian

behavior, is self-aggrandizing, serves self-interests of the leader and is exploitative of others

(McClelland, 1975). Personalized leaders rely heavily on manipulation, threat and

punishment, and show disregard for the rights and feelings of others. They are impulsively

aggressive, narcissistic, and impetuous. They are at lower levels of moral development and

perspective-taking (Howell & House, 1992) and fail to inhibit unnecessary use of power.

Pseudo-transformational leaders are self-oriented, self-aggrandizing, exploitative,

narcissistic, power-oriented, and openly talk about distorted utilitarian and warped moral

11
principles. The pseudo-transformational leader caters in the long run only to his or her own

self interests.

Burns (1978) believed that to be transforming, a leader had to be morally uplifting.

Truly transformational leaders transcend their own self-interest for one of two reasons:

utilitarian or moral principles. If utilitarian, their objective is to benefit the organization,

society, the group, and/or to meet the challenges of the mission. If a matter of moral

principle, the objective is to do the right thing, to do what fits principles of morality,

responsibility, sense of discipline, and/or respect for authority, rules and traditions of a

society, and for "duty, honor and country." Both reasons apply equally well to the espoused

characteristics of leadership being sought by the U.S. Army.

It is clear that the moral character and ethics of leadership in our Armed forces is

fundamentally important to readiness. And that where there is no trust in the orders of their

superiors, or by the indigenous population whose support is needed to win regional conflicts,

the possibility of success is diminished (Dalton, 1994). Moreover, the trust that results in a

spirit or bonding essential for teamwork in combat is much more likely to result from

transformational leadership displayed by officers and among unit members.

Extension of the Transformational Leadership Model to Groups

The original proposed research called for assessments of squad mores, platoon

climate, and company culture, for their effects on platoon leadership. At the first meeting

with consultants, it was decided that turnover of squad members and squad leaders were too

high to provide reliable results and that main focus should be on platoons and company as

the prime sources of infantry effectiveness.

The transformational/transactional model embedded in the Team Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) could be used by their members to describe the attitudes

and behavior of their groups, as groups, such as platoons and companies. Insights could

also be obtained of their leadership climate and leadership culture. The same concepts

-would be measured at three different levels: individual, platoon, and company.

Burns (1996) expanded his original thinking on individual transformational leadership

to include a focus on "collective leadership". Burns (1996) wrote in an unpublished paper

entitled "Empowerment for Change," that there were "the existence of webs of potential

collective leadership" (p.1). Substituting the term 'initiators' for 'leadership' due to the fact that

leadership is typically assigned to an individual, Burns went on to suggest, "the initiator may

continue as a single dominating 'leader' a Ia Castro, but more typically he or she will merge

with others on a series of participant interactions that will constitute collective leadership ...I

see crucial leadership acts in the collective process. (pp 2-3)."

In his extension of transformational leadership theory to teams, Bass (1998, p. 157)

notes that, "transformational leadership could be shared among the team members". He

suggests that in such teams, substitutes for leadership may evolve that help support the

team's higher levels of achievement. For example, Bass (1998, p. 157) states, " We might

12
see a small military team whose esprit had been built by a previous history of success,

gallantry, and mutual support of members for each other. Its formally appointed officer might find the membership on the team provided sufficient member self-esteem without any effort

on the part of the officer... Ilnstead of motivation being supplied by identification of members

with the team... Ilnspiration would come from sharing of mutually articulated

goals... .Empowered, self-managed work teams ideally epitomize substitution for much of what

was done before by the formal hierarchical leader."

"Structured Groups" vs "Highly Developed" Teams. To be successful, team

* members must understand each other better and must be willing to address problems by

entertaining different perspectives. Trust and commitment become essential to unit success,

particularly in combat, which requires a special spirit and bond among members to be willing

to make self-sacrifices for the benefit of the unit and its mission. Each of these qualities is

incorporated in what has already been discussed as transformational leadership. However,

now the unit of analysis is perceptions of the platoon or company and these behaviors or

styles can be measured by the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. (TMLQ)

Group performance is below expectations when individuals are working in an

unstructured group particularly where an integrated effort is required, at expectations where

the individuals in structured groups have well-defined roles and expectations, and beyond

expectations where individuals are members of highly developed, high performance teams.

Unstructured and semi-structured groups. These groups typically exhibit laissezfaire and passive man agement-by-exception. Members do not set clear agendas and are

confused about priorities and responsibilities. Early on in its development, the unstructured

group's priorities and expectations remain diffuse, potentially resulting in conflict among

individual members of the group. This may parallel the common stage of group performance

known as "storming". We believe that storming is not necessarily a natural stage of group

development, and it may be avoided with adequate transactional team leadership. It is the

productive conflict of ideas and perspectives that result in profound knowledge and

development, as opposed to the lower-level conflict associated with poorly defined roles and

expectations. Transformational leadership among team members appears to produce such

productive conflict, while at the same time building cohesion, commitment and loyalty to the

team's mission. In semi-structured groups, members react to problems rather than anticipate

them and hesitate to take initiatives. The boundaries for participation are too ill-defined to be

effective.

Structured Groups. The members of structured groups have a clearer sense of what

is expected from each other. Guidelines to be followed are in place and reinforced by

feedback, rewards, and discipline. Structured groups, as groups, actively manage-byexception. Members closely monitor each other for deviations from expectations to assure

tasks have been satisfactorily completed. They enforce rules and procedures to guide

members' participation in the group. In structured groups, members focus on their roles and

on accomplishing the group's goals and objectives. Agendas are clear and explicit. Tasks

and responsibilities are assigned, constructive feedback and recognition are provided to

move the group towards its goals.

13
Structure is required by highly developed teams concerning the expectations team

members have of each other. Structuring at the level of groups, parallels transactional

leadership at the individual level. The structure determines what is and is not appropriate

behavior, contributions expected from each group member, how the group will evaluate its

performance, how the group rewards and disciplines its members, and how decisions will be

made and communicated. The structure is the external framework that forms the basis for

group interactions (Avolio, 1999).

Highly Developed Teams. Distinguishing between a structured group and a highly

developed team involves a transition in perspective. Members shift from adhering to

externalized criteria and standards for behavior to their internalized standards based on

beliefs, values and commitment to shared ideals. Differences in perspective in the structured

group give way in highly performing teams to shared perspectives. This shared perspective

enhances the vital force of the team to take on the most formidable challenge, and to reach

inside oneself to achieve the uncommon goals.

In highly developed teams, the members contribute their best efforts because of their

resolve, because their identity is linked to the teams shared vision, because they take pride

in being associated with the team, and because they are willing to provide extraordinary

effort to achieve the team's mission. The member of the structured group asks "what's in it

for me" and what am "In supposed to do. The member of the highly developed team asks

"nwhat's in it for my team" and where do "we"~ need to go to accomplish our mission. Members

of highly developed teams are willing to sacrifice their own gain to achieve the team's

common purposes. High levels of commitment, cohesion, interdependence, and

responsiveness to change characterize such teams (Avolio, Jung, Murry, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). Specifically, Avolio, Jung,

et al., showed that the transformational leadership of team members was highly predictive of

levels of cohesion, collective efficacy, group effectiveness and satisfaction over periods of 3-

4 months.

Highly developed and performing teams, as teams, manifest the components of

transformational leadership behavior. Highly developed teams and its members exhibit

behaviors that are individually considerate, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring to others

on the team. Shared ideals, trust, commitment and cohesion are high and so too is the

willingness to sacrifice for other team members, representing the charismatic qualities

described above, but now at the team level. Members trust they are each working toward a

collective purpose and team ideal. The focus is on working together to maximize the

performance of the group and its rewards, as opposed to the unstructured and semistructured groups, which too often exhibit a "war of the parts" against the whole.

The highly performing teams are optimistic, aroused, and enthusiastic. They are

confident they have the talent and the experience to meet and exceed their most challenging

goals as demonstrated in their higher estimates of collective efficacy and team potency

(Avolio, Jung, et. al., 1996). There is a strong sense of synergy and collective efficacy that

together the members can accomplish the highest levels of performance. There is a

14
perceived unity, pride and commitment to the teams shared mission and vision. There is

belief in the dependability and integrity of the team members as a whole. Members help

align their individual interests with the general missions and visions of the team. Within the

teams, members serve as role models for each other's development and performance.

As team members develop beyond structured groups and internalize shared purposes,

commitment and cohesion, the teams increase their achievement of team goals and establish

the basis for achieving higher levels of performance than would be expected from a simple

summation of individual efforts (Campion, Medsker & Higgs, 1993).

In many ways, the members of the platoon, as a group, can substitute for direct

intervention of the PL or PSG. In this regard, one can examine the diffusion of leadership to a

more macro-level of analysis (Avolio & Bass, 1995). For example, in a platoon where

continuous improvement is highly valued and reinforced, one would expect to observe

members who are more developmental ly-oriented, individually considerate, and rewarded by

the organization for being so.

As we moved from the individual member to the level of analysis to the platoon level,

and then to the company level, we have created a broader framework for examining leadership. Starting with the platoon or company we can examine how certain style behaviors

are more or less relevant, from senior to junior levels. We can also examine how relations

between the PL and the PSG affect platoon effectiveness, and satisfaction.

Leadership "of" versus "by" the Team

Most prior research focusing on leadership in teams has assessed the leadership of a

single individual leading a team (Cohen, Chang, & Ledford, 1997; llgen, Major, Hollenbeck &

Sego, 1993). While several authors have introduced the concept of "collective" or

distributed" leadership within teams (Katzenbach, 1997; Kozlowski, et al., 1996; Manz &

Sims, 1993), there has been no attempt to examine leadership as a group-level construct.

Thus, there are no methods to measure the leadership exhibited by the team as a collective

whole. Dunphy and Bryant (1996) reviewed the literature on teams and concluded that future

research must include leadership by the team, as well as of the team, when modeling team

effectiveness. Similarly, Ilgen et al., (1993) recommended, "as we consider work teams and

research on them in the 1990s, we cannot overlook the role of leaders and leadership (p. 248)."

One purpose here was to examine a new measure of team leadership, the TMLQ,

which can be used to evaluate the transactional and transformational leadership exhibited by

a team. We first provide our justification for measuring these constructs associated with

"team leadership".

Team leadership is defined here as representing the collective influence of members

in a team on each other. Teams create a particular identity and mental model that guides the

behavior of individual members based on shared expectations and beliefs (Martin, 1993), or

what Neck and Manz (1994) referred to as "group self leadership". As the team itself

15
becomes a more central entity for its members, the mental model in each member's head of

what the collective accepts, supports, criticizes and so forth will influence the individual and

collective actions of team members. For example, the very act of being a part of the

collective might inspire and stimulate individual members to reach performance levels

beyond expectations in very much the same way as an individual leader influences his or her

followers to perform when they are inspired (Bass, 1985). This may explain why Bowers and

Seashore (1966) found that peer leadership had a higher positive correlation with unit

performance than the leadership exercised by an individual manager.

We define team leadership in terms of how members of the group evaluate the

influence of the group, as opposed to one individual within or external to the group. The

theoretical meaning and operational definition of team leadership integrates the perspective

taken by the team member in assessing leadership, as well as the level at which the

phenomenon of leadership is examined, which we define here as the group. Our strategy for

measuring team leadership is consistent with recommendations by Tesluck, Zaccaro, Marks,

and Mathieu (11997), who suggested that group level phenomena can be assessed by having

each individual rate the group (also see Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Chan, 1998;

Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997 for a discussion on methods to evaluate team constructs).

RESEARCH PLAN

Purpose

The infantry platoon, as a platoon, is the most significant unit for both the individual

soldier and the Army for enhancing the effectiveness of operations. The core leadership rests

with the non-coin platoon sergeant and the platoon leader, usually a commissioned second

lieutenant. Squads and squad leaders play secondary leadership roles usually for shorter

periods of time, since turnover is higher in squads and squad leaders than in platoons and

platoon leaders. The purpose of this investigation was to show that platoon readiness and

effectiveness is a complex function of its platoon leadership,. its platoon and company

climate, and the culture of leadership of all its members.

The plan assumed that each company and platoon within it initially contained

soldiers with the same distribution of skills, competencies, training and experience. That is,

we assumed there were no selection biases that would skew the results.

A major aim of the investigation was to examine whether the joint-readiness of the

platoons in terms of the leadership and platoon effectiveness, according to observercontrollers when the platoon's brigade is engaged in joint-readiness exercises, could be

predicted from prior transformational and transactional leadership ratings in home station of

the PL and PSG and of the platoon as a whole. Also, prior to JRTC, in home station,

assessments of the platoon and company satisfaction and extra effort were obtained along with measures of extra effort, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy. The less complex light

infantry were studied, rather than more complex heavy infantry. Within each company, only

the 3 rifle platoons of each company were engaged in the data collection and analysis. The

16
heavy weapons platoon was excluded. Data were gathered at Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Ft.

Campbell, Ft. Drum and Ft. Polk (the JRTC site).

Hypotheses

It was hypothesized that the transformational/transactional leadership components of

the platoon leader and platoon sergeant would predict independently-gathered judgments of

readiness in the light infantry platoons. Consistent with Boyd (1988) and Gasper (1992), and

the other completed meta-analyses, an overall hypothesis was that platoon effectiveness in

home station and mission performance at JRTC would correlate positively with platoon leader

transformational and contingent reward leadership, less so with active and passive

managing-by-exception and negatively with laissez-faire leadership. Home station

effectiveness, itself, would be expected to predict JRTC performance. (See Siebold, 1992,

1994). Platoon and company climate at home station would similarly contribute to subjective

effectiveness and observed platoon readiness.

Method and Design of the Study

The method and design built on prior work on home station determinants of squad and

platoon performance (Tremble & Alderks, 1991), and its extension to further predicting the

performance of platoons at a U.S. Army Joint Readiness Training Center (Siebold & Lindsay,

1991; Siebold & Kelly, 1988). Similar to Siebold and Lindsay, we examined the extent to

which the aggregated individual, leadership, and group data collected in of platoons could

account for the performance of the platoons and its leadership in achieving higher

performance evaluations from observers/controllers (O/Cs) judging platoon mission

performance in joint-readiness exercises. Siebold and Lindsay established for 22 platoons

that individual squad member motivational satisfaction, pride in the platoon, and cohesion

among the platoon and squad leaders measured shortly before JRTC ranged from .53 to .65

in correlation with subsequent joint-readiness of platoon mission performance. Given these

findings, we hypothesized that platoon and mission performance would be higher, the higher

the transformational leadership of the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants.

Subjective predictors of readiness and effectiveness of the platoon and its leaders

would come from the TMLQ suitably modified for Army considerations.

All of the survey scale items to be used in the current study were first examined and

suitably modified in discussion with our consultants, Lt. General (Ret.) Walter Ulmer, Colonel

Wilder M. Snodgrass and Colonel (Ret.) Michael Shaler. Lt. Col. Washington and General

Ulmer each checked at Ft. Benning and Ft. Bragg with focus groups of infantry soldiers for

understanding. In all, only two items required changes. Next, a first study of 18 platoons was

completed for preliminary analyses and possible revisions to the data collection. These 18

platoons were assessed at home station and again immediately following JRTC. These

collections of data were followed by a study of 72 additional platoons excluding the postJRTC MLQ reassessment since the first 18 platoons were sufficient to provide rate- rerate

reliabilities and the effects of JRTC on MLQ ratings. Debriefing sessions led by one of the

17
principal investigators and one of the consultants were held for senior officers, cadres, PLs

and PSGs following the completion of JRTC and return to home site.

Summary of Research Activities

Over the course of this 3-year investigation we have worked on developing leadership

survey instruments that could be reliably used in military contexts to predict individual and

unit performance. As noted earlier, part of our work involved working with military consultants

to revise existing leadership survey measures for this military project. These steps were

taken at the outset of the project to assure the leadership survey measures would be both

reliable and valid. In our second interim report completed in 1998, evidence was provided to

demonstrate the reliability and validity of our measures with a sample of 54 platoons. In this

final report, we include the results for the surveys used here with a total of 90 platoons, and

for predicting the performance of 72 platoons that went to JRTC. The JRTC criterion data and

correlations with their predictors are thus based on 72 platoons. However, correlations

among the home station data are based on 90 platoons.

The First Interim Report described results for the first 18 platoons. The Second Interim

Report described results for 72 platoons studied, of which 54 went to JRTC. We briefly

summarize here the methodology that was used to collect data, the total response rates for

all measures, the final psychometric results on measures and our findings regarding the

prediction of platoon performance at JRTC. A more detailed description of our methods

appears in the Second Interim Report.

Assessments in home station were obtained approximately one month prior to

platoons attending JRTC/NTC, using a 360 degree MLQ, which were completed by COs,

XOs and FSGs, by other PLs and PSGs, and by platoon EMs. In addition to individual MLQ

ratings of the PLs and PSGs by all of the above raters, we also collected ratings focusing on

the collective leadership behavior of the platoons and company in home station. These

ratings were gathered from the same sources described above using the Team Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ).

During the third year, we had the opportunity to complete all of the data collection in

home station and at JRTC. The survey data collected on leadership and our criterion

measures collected from the Observer/Controllers (O/C) raters at JRTC and National

Training Center (NTC) were all entered into data files and verified. Qualitative coding of O/C

rater comments on the technical proficiency of the platoon and its behavioral leadership was

also coded and entered into data files. More detailed descriptions of the qualitative analysis

appear in the Methods and Results sections of this final report.

18
METHODS

Sample

We have divided our presentation concerning the procedures used to collect

leadership ratings and performance data collection at JRTC. We begin with a discussion of

the procedures for home station data collection of the MLQ and TMLQ.

Table 1 provides an overall breakdown of raters and units completing the various

survey measures. Most of the members of 90 rifle platoons, 90 Platoon Sergeants, 90

Platoon Leaders and their 30 company cadres (COs, XOs, FSGs), provided the data for the

analyses linking leadership and performance at JRTC. Table 2 contains the overall

respondent participation rates in the research project. It can be seen in Table 2, rates

ranged from 100 percent for COs and FSGs to 86% for platoon members. Most of the nonparticipating soldiers were on special assignments or on leave.

Participants were surveyed in companies by specially prepared questionnaires. After

explaining the purposes of the study and its anonymity and confidentiality, all participants

were given the option of sitting quietly and not participating. Only 10 availed themselves of

this opportunity.
Table 1

Instruments and Raters

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

90 Platoon Leaders

90 Platoon Sergeants

Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ)

90* Platoons

30* Companies

MLQ Raters:

MLQ MLQ MLQ/TMLQ MLQ

Above Peer Below Self

CO PL Squad Leaders Self

XO PSG Fire Team Leaders

1SG Squad Members __

Number of Observer/Controllers' (O/C's) rating cards reported: 339

*Those numbers were applicable to all the data collected at home station. However, only 72

PLs, 72 PSGs, 72 Platoons and 24 companies were rotated to JRTC which was the

appropriated center for light infantry near-combat experience. One brigade was rated to the

National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, which primarily provides near-combat experience for

armor and mechanized forces. Light infantry troops are unlikely to receive much training in

the missions provided by NTC.

20
Table 2

Number of Ratings Obtained in Platoon Leader Study

Total number of questionnaires completed by using the military version of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ):

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

Platoon Leader: Self 70 Above 187 Peer 115 Below 710 DK 32 Total: 1114

Platoon Sgt.: Self 69 Above 194 Peer 131 Below 669 DK 24 Total: 1087

Using the military version of the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires (TMLQ)

Company 391 18 per company

Platoon 1221 18 per platoon

Using the Observer/Controller Ratings

JRTC Phase 1 90

JRTC Phase 2 125

JRTC Phase 3 124

Total 339

Averaqe Response Rates by Class

CO/XO/1 st SGT (Above) 100%

Platoon Leader (Peers) 96%

Platoon Sgt. (Peers) 94%

Platoon Members (Below) 86%

21
MLQ and TMLQ Data Collection

One of the fundamental assumptions for this project was that leadership measured at

multiple levels would provide a more complete evaluation of a platoon's overall leadership

potential and performance in near battle conditions simulated at JRTC. The multiple levels

included surveys of the PL's leadership, the PSG's leadership, the collective leadership of all

members of the platoon, and the leadership characterizing the company culture. Survey

measures that assess each of these levels and tap into what Bass and Avolio (1994), as

discussed above, have referred to as the Full Range Leadership Model, already existed but

were modified for the current military setting. Modifications to the survey measures generally

included minor rewording of items by the consultant team of content experts, to "fit" within the

Army context. Most items remained unchanged in the survey measures. (See Appendix A for

copies of the surveys).

Also, 107 COs, XOs, and FSGs cadre MLQ reratings were collected at the end of the

JRTC missions to establish rate-rerate reliabilities. For the analyses in this report, the CO,

XO and FSG, or Company Cadre, were labeled as "Above" the PL and PSG, the PLs and

PSGs were labeled "Peers" of the PLs and PSGs and all other EMs were labeled as "Below"

the PL and PSG. Table 2 contains the numbers and types of instruments that were collected

at home station.

Control of Same Source Variance and Order Effects. As previously noted, the MLQ

and TMLQ data were gathered about the PLs and PSGs from all personnel of each of 90

platoons, the company leaders (CO), executive officers (XOs) and first sergeants (FSGs) of

the 30 companies from all brigades. In order to control for order effects, half of the

respondents below the PL and PSG received two questionnaires in a folder and were

directed to complete them as presented. Since there were 30 companies of 90 platoons, to

even the numbers of completed surveys, the folders contained three times as many Platoon

TMLQs as Company TMLQs. These surveys were placed in alternating order in the folders

with either PL-MLQ or with PSG-MLQ. These two samples were further subdivided so that

the folder presented the TMLQ first and the MLQ second or vice versa.

The CO, XO, and FSG were each asked to complete MLQs on all 3 PLs and 3 PSGs

of the 3 rifle platoons in their company, again presented in folders to them in alternating

orders. The PLs and PSGs completed self-MLQs and an MLQ on each of their peers in the

other two platoons of their company.

Table 2 shows the collection and return rates by company and platoon. We were able

to achieve very high return rates, even though some participants had conflicting assignments

at the time of data collection, or were on vacation or sick call.

Since each EM platoon member below the PL and PSG completed an MLQ on one or

the other, as well as a TMLQ on either the platoon or the total company, it became possible

to correlate MLQ and TMLQ responses minimizing same source effects or bias. The number

of respondents here for platoon and company was equalized. Anonymity was promised to all

22
respondents and maintained. There was no individual feedback of results provided to the PL

or PSG themselves or to their superiors, peers or subordinates.

Field Performance Data Collection Process by Observer-Controllers (O/Cs)

Approximately one month after the MLQ/TMLQ had been collected in home station,

four of the brigades engaged in tactical mission exercises at the JRTC in Ft. Polk, LA, while a

fifth brigade participated in exercises at the National Training Center (NTC) at Ft. Irwin, CA.

For the five data sets of 18 platoons each, ratings were obtained from two experienced

observer/controllers (O/Cs) at the respective training centers. COL(R) Shaler at a special

meeting oriented the 36 O/Cs several days prior to their moving into the field with their

platoons. At the end of each of three phases, after the first mission, after the middlemost

mission and after the last mission, the O/Cs completed the attached performance rating form

(see Appendix A).

The O/C ratings, which measured the individual and collective performance of the

leaders and platoon participating in 11 simulated combat missions at JRTC, were created

specifically for this project. Ratings of 20 behavioral items, then refined to 14 items were

based on Army leadership doctrine (FM 22-100). They were developed to assess the PL's

and PSG's individual leadership effectiveness (PLE and PSGE) in meeting the doctrinal

standards. Additionally, two overall scales assessed the platoon's performance of its mission

given the conditions it faced (A) and relative to other platoon's performance at JRTC (B).

Answers were solicited to open-ended questions about the platoon's strong and weak points

and PL/PSG relationships. The score card used by observer controllers after the first,

middlemost and last mission of a platoon at JRTC is shown in Appendix A.

Qualitative analyses were completed of the comments written down by O/C raters on

the JRTC scorecards. The comments included the relationship of the PL and PSG,

.behavioral incidents describing the leaders' behavior with followers, and the appropriate use

of Army procedures, equipment and technology by the observed platoon. In most cases, two

observer-controllers accompanied the platoons on their missions. The numbers and types of

O/C ratings are shown in Table 3.

The JRTC results were to serve as the criterion of platoon effectiveness in nearcombat conditions, as well as criteria for PL and PSG effectiveness as leaders (PLE and

PSGE). Based on analysis of the first set of data (obtained at Fort Campbell), we modified

the structure of the O/C rating card to include more qualitative open-ended questions, and

eliminated several items that measured PL and PSG leadership performance. There was also

one less item included that assessed platoon performance. This list of items was trimmed

because the 20 original PLE items were highly intercorrelated as were the 20 PSGE items.

The number of questions assessing overall platoon effectiveness was also reduced from 3 to

2 for the same reason. The O/C Platoon Performance forms used in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th

sets for 72 platoons, included two ratings about the platoon's observed effectiveness. Those

ratings were as follows:

23
A = Tactical Mission Accomplishment (considering weather, terrain, support, and

opposition.)

B = Overall Performance as compared to other platoons.

Every quantitative response was based on five anchors and was scored 0 = lowest

anchor; 1 = low anchor; 2 = middle anchor; 3 high anchor; and 4 = highest anchor.

There remained after the trimming of 6 items, 14 items that assessed the behavior of

the PL and PSG. The items measured each leader's consistency with Army doctrinal

prescriptions for effective platoon leadership in combat as judged by our military consultants.

The qualitative questions included sections about the platoon, the PL, the PSG, and

the PL-PSG relationship. For platoon effectiveness, raters were asked to identify the

platoon's 3 strongest and 3 weakest points. Similarly, raters were asked to comment on the

PL and PSG strong and weak points, and how well they worked together during the two-week

period.

Two 0/Cs were assigned to accompany each of the platoons into the field, and to

serve as raters for the 18 platoons going through JRTC. Evaluations of each platoon were

collected from both raters at the end of the first, middlemost and last mission. Generally,

these missions included defense, movement to contact, and attack. A total of 489 ratings

were obtained from the 0/Cs. For the first 18 platoons, 107 cadre ratings were obtained.

Cadre ratings were used as a confirmatory check of the same field data cards against the

0/C ratings.

As described in the First Interim Report, for the first set of 18 platoons, company

cadres (CO, XO, FSG) also completed the MLQs of PLs and PSGs a second time at the end

of the JRTC rotation. MLQ ratings of the PL and PSG were completed before and after

rotation to assess the rate-rerate reliability of MLQ scores and the agreement of home station

and JRTC results.

0/Cs also provided the platoons with an after-action review at the end of each phase.

A debriefing of general results was also provided at home station for selected PL's, PSGs,

company cadres and senior officers.

Qualitative Data Collection Overview

The Field Data Cards used to collect objective data on leader and unit performance

were also used to record narrative comments. (See sample Field Data Cards in Appendix A)

The card was modified after the first JRTC rotation to include questions on the weaknesses

as well as the strengths of the platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and the platoon overall; also,

starting with the second rotation, cadre as well as 0/C respondents were included in the

survey.

24
In Part C of the final version of the Field Data Card, a total of seven fill-in-the-blank

items were provided for respondents to write free-response narrative comments. The first

two items asked respondents to describe the three strongest points and the three weakest

points of the platoon. The next two items asked for comments on the platoon leaders (PL)

strong points and weak points. The next two items ask for comments on the platoon sergeant

(PSG) strong points, and weak points. The final item asked how well the platoon leader (PL)

and the platoon sergeant (PSG) worked together.

Multiple Respondents. Field Data Cards on most platoons were completed by five

respondents: two observer controllers (O/C) and three cadre members. All respondents

accompanied each platoon throughout the 14 day JRTC field training exercise. The O/Cs

were experienced tactical observers in the grade of Captain (0-3) and Sergeant First Class

(E-7) or Master Sergeant (E-8). O/Cs were selected by the Joint Readiness Training Center

for O/C duties based on their background and ability; all had received training in their duties

and were instructed on how to complete the Field Data Cards. The O/Cs were observing

these particular platoons for the first time, but all had performed O/C duties in the past. Their

prior experience was recorded on the field data cards and experience ranged from 3 to 30

prior rotations. The average number of prior platoon rotations in the experience of these

observer/controllers was calculated to be 11.94 prior rotations. O/Cs were with the platoons

day and night, and were in a position to observe the behaviors of the PL, PSG, squad

leaders, fire team leaders, and enlisted members on a continuous basis for all four JRTC

rotations.

Starting with the second JRTC rotation, Field Data Cards were also completed by

three cadre members: the company commander (CO), company executive officer (XO), and

company first sergeant (FSG). These cadre were also in the field in close proximity to the

platoons--although not always in sight of each platoon-- throughout the exercise; they were

always in radio contact, and usually met the PL and /or the PSG face to face at least once a

day. The cadre respondents had the advantage of prior knowledge of the platoon personnel.

Cadre provide the observer perspective of a higher Headquarters, responsible for the

command, control, and continuous supervision of platoon performance throughout the

exercise.

Multiple Observations. Starting with the second rotation, a total of nine field data

cards were normally collected on each platoon. The two O/Cs with each platoon usually

completed three field data cards. The three-company cadre--the company CO, XO and FSG

each submitted one card per platoon. The O/C cards were prepared individually at the end of

* each of the three phases during the 14-day JRTC field exercise. The three cadre cards were

completed independently at the end of the 14-day field exercise. In the third rotation,

however, the tactical situation was such there were only two phases and therefore only four

O/C field data cards were collected altogether from the 2 0/Cs.

A total of 555 field data cards were received and considered in our analyses

collectively, they cover four JRTC brigade rotations and contain more than 4000 comments

on 72 infantry rifle platoons. The breakdowns of field data cards collected, per type

respondent, per JRTC rotation are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

25
Table 3

Field Data Card Collections by Early, Middlemost, and Latest of Mission of Platoons

Mission Phase Early Middlemost Late All

No. of O/C Cards Collected 107 143 143 393

No. of Cadre Cards Collected 54 54 54 162

Table 4

Field Data Card Collections by Rotation of Platoons to JRTC

Rotation 1 2 3 4 All

No. O/C Cards Collected 105 108 72 108 393

No. Cadre Cards Collected 54 54 54 162

Total Field Data Cards 105 162 126 162 555

26
Data Verification and Processing. 0/C and Cadre field data cards were collected

and audited in the field for legibility, completeness, respondent identification, and subject

identification. Missing or incomplete data were requested / corrected on the spot. The

response rate on 0/C and Cadre field data cards was greater than 99%.

Graduate students at the Center transcribed comments for Leadership Studies.

Handwriting on the field data cards was generally legible. A separate record was created for

each field data card received; thus the final database contained 555 records. For example,

each record, comments were recorded in separate fields as appropriate, so that comments

on PL strengths could later be distinguished from comments on PL weaknesses, for example.

The same procedures were followed for PSG Strengths, PSG Weaknesses, Platoon

Strengths, Platoon Weaknesses, and PLIPSG cooperation. The resulting database of

comments was reviewed and edited by researchers familiar with military terminology. A

layout for rendering a printout of comments on each item by platoon was designed.

Methodology Overview. The focus of the analysis was to sort through 555 field data

cards containing about 4000 free-response comments and draw appropriate inferences. The

questions for initial analysis were:

* What were the greatest strengths of the platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and

platoon?

"* What were the greatest weaknesses?

"* How well did the platoon leader and platoon sergeant work together?

The first step in the analysis process was to organize the responses by platoon and to

manually read through the records. The idea was to search for recurrent key words that

expressed leadership actions and attributes. A Glossary of the military terms and

abbreviations encountered was prepared. (See Appendix B.)

Key Words. Key words were selected by reading through all comments on strengths

and weaknesses, taking notes on the subject of each comment, and looking for recurrent

topics. Most key words to emerge from this process were attributes that soldier/leaders

should be or have such as "discipline," "enthusiasm," "stamina," "persistence. . . ." Other key

words focused on military skills that soldier leaders should know such as "navigation," "troop

leading procedures (TLP)," "use of night observation devices (NOD),...." Still others were - ~process oriented--items a soldier! leader should do or practice such as: "communication,"~

"delegation," "coordination," '.supervision. .. ." As key words were selected, a glossary was

prepared defining each term within the military context in which it appeared. Finally, an

alphabetical index of all words appearing in the comment database was produced and

screened to insure that important key words or concepts were not being overlooked.

Coding. Each key word was reduced to a key word stem, which was tested using a

software application to count the frequency of occurrence of all forms of the word throughout

the comment database. The occurrences were verified and spot-checked in the comment

27
database. Spell check routines were used to insure consistent wording and complete

searches. "Search and replace" routines were used normalize key word usage in the

comment database. More than a hundred key word stems were explored. Many proved

insignificant or duplicative. Ultimately, 64 key word stems were used for the initial analysis

and about half were retained for the final analysis. Comments that had analytical

significance but did not contain a key word were coded with the appropriate key word in

brackets: [key word]. Not all comments were coded. Comments without analytical

significance were not tabulated; thus, comments such as "None" or "No weaknesses were

observed" were not counted. Likewise, the comment "platoon leader," platoon sergeant," or

"Sergeant X" when listed alone as a strength or weakness was not counted. Individuals

mentioned by name were deleted. A Glossary defining all key words based on the military

context in which they were used is provided in Appendix B. Finally, the software application

was used to search a given data set and to count occurrences of the 64 selected key word

stems; there were 3348 "hits" or occurrences in the comment database as shown in Table 23

of the qualitative results section.

The methodology for processing quantitative information from 555 respondents

describing performance in 72 infantry platoons is summarized below.

RESULTS

Quantitative Analyses

We began our quantitative analyses for the 90 platoons by trimming data to eliminate

respondents whose ratings reflected a pattern with little or no variance at all in their

responses to the surveys. Less than 1 % of the respondents were so eliminated from the final

data set. We then conducted a more in-depth evaluation of both our survey and criterion

measures. First, we tested the factor structure of the MLQ and TMLQ, and found support for

a six- factor model for both the MLQ and the TMLQ, as described below.

Factor Structure of the MVLQ and TMVLQ

Our first step was to confirm the factor structure on the first set of data collected from

18 platoons at Fort Campbell. A six-factor model was used as the target model based on

results reported by Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999). We employed confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) using LISREL VIII. CFA is a widely used technique for testing the psychometric

properties of established measurement instruments, in that it tests a pre-specified factor

structure and the goodness of fit of the resulting solution. LISREL compares an implied

covariance matrix with the observed matrix and estimates parameters based on the fit

between these matrices. The fit is represented in indices such as the Goodness of Fit Index

GFI, NF12, NCNF, and AGFI. For these indices, values above .9 are indicative of an

adequate fit. We also included the Root Mean Squared Residual (RMSR), for which

acceptable fit should be less than .05, the change in Chi-square value associated with testing

each of several comparison models and several other fit indices that take into account, the

number of degrees of freedom.

28
Results of the CFA for the remaining set of 72 platoons produced consistent support

for a six-factor model of individual and team leadership. The six factor model for the MLQ

produced a GFI=.93, AGFI=.91, RMSR=.004, NFI2=.94 and NCNFI=.94. (A more detailed

presentation of these findings are presented in the Second Interim Report).

The same six factor model was replicated for the TMLQ and produced a GFI=.96,

AGFI=.95, RMSR=.004, NFI2=.97, and NCNFI=.97. The two respective six factor models

generated a more parsimonious fit as compared to the alternative models tested and were

used as the framework for subsequent analyses. The six-factor model is as follows: Inspiring,

Intellectually Stimulating, Individually Considerate, Contingent Reward, Active Managementby-Exception and Passive-Avoidant Leadership.

MLQ, TMLQ, and OIC Ratings' Descriptive Statistics

After confirming the factor structure for the MLQ and TMLQ surveys, we then

examined the means, reliabilities, and intercorrelations of the MLQ scales, as well as the

means, reliabilities, and intercorrelations for the JRTC performance data according to pairs of

O/Cs.

Tables 5a and 5b provide descriptive statistics, estimates of internal consistency and

intercorrelations among the six MLQ scales for PL and PSG self ratings of leadership. The

coefficient alpha values were all above .6 for self-ratings of leadership generated by the two

focal leaders. Transformational scales were more highly intercorrelated than their

correlations with the remaining scales, and were as expected, negatively correlated with

passive avoidant leadership (PA).

Table 5a

MLQ Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Self

Ratings of Platoon Leaders

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 3.19 .54 .85

2. IS 3.08 .52 .65 .38*

3. IC 3.14 .55 .62 .47*** .51 ***

4. CR 2.96 .59 .67 .30* .56

.50***

5. MA 1.75 .98 .61 .23 .16 .16 .13

6. PA .58 .48 .68 -.23 -.32* -.32* -.35* .07

Note: n 86

*p <05

**p < .01

***p < .001

29
Table 5b

MLQ Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Self

Ratings of Platoon Sergeants

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 3.34 .47 .83

2. IS 3.04 .54 .60

.51*

3. IC 3.25 .54 .65 .51

.60"***

4. CR 3.17 .53 .66 .32* .24

.42"***

5. MA 1.96 .53 .77 .02 .00 -.03 .07

6. PA .47 .56 .67 -.26* -.14 -.21 .05 .11

Note: n = 85

*p <.05

.*p <.01

***p <.001

MLO Legend:

IL - Inspirational Leadership CR - Contingent Reward

IS - Intellectual Stimulation MA - Management-by-Exception

IC - Individualized Consideration PA - Passive Leadership

Tables 6a - 6d provide descriptive statistics, estimates of internal consistency and

intercorrelations for the six MLQ scales for the combined rater sample. They then are

subdivided by rater source for the PL. Tables 7a - 7d provide a parallel set of results for the

PSG for the six MLQ scales for the overall sample, and then subdivided by rater source. It

can be seen that peers and cadres gave higher MLQ ratings for the transformational scales

and contingent reward and lower ratings for management-by-exception and passive

leadership than did those below the PL and PSG in rank.

30
Table 6a

Descriptive Statistics, MLQ Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Multi-source Ratings

of Leadership Scales for Platoon Leader

Overall from All Sources

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 2.84 .56 .86

2. IS 2.65 .52 .73 M***

3. IC 2.67 .57 .79 .65*** .62***

4. CR 2.50 .55 .81 .62*** .46*** .67***

5. MA 1.77 .64 .60 .26* .14 .21 .16

6. PA .79 .51 .81 -.34"* -.34** -.43*** -.52*** .05

Table 6b

Ratings from Below

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 2.58 .49 .85

2. IS 2.48 .47 .73 .89***

3. IC 2.33 .50 .77 .89*** .88***

4. CR 2.20 .52 .70 .88*** .85*** .87***

5. MA 1.95 .45 .57 -.26" -.29* -.29* -.27*

6. PA .87 .38 .79 -.75"** -.71"** -.66*** -.60*** .13

Table 6c

Ratings from Peers

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 2.97 .51 .79

2. IS 2.71 .49 .62 .66***

3. IC 2.81 .55 .60 .61*** .59***

4. CR 2.54 .48 .55 .62*** .62*** .68***

5. MA 1.89 .74 .65 .18 .13 .23 .08

6. PA .72 .54 .84 -.54*** -.47*** -.52*** -.46*** .11

Table 6d

Ratings from Above

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 3.00 .59 .91

2. IS 2.77 .65 .72 .78***

3. IC 2.89 .51 .82 .83*** .76***

4. CR 2.80 .48 .73 .81*** .76*** .71"**

5. MA 1.47 .59 .54 .12 .05 .14 .06

6. PA .78 .60 .87 -.74*** -.62*** -.64*** -.66*** .13

Note: Overall: (n=254) MLO Legend:

*p <.05 IL - Inspirational Leadership CR - Contingent Reward

**p <.01 IS - Intellectual Stimulation MA - Management-by-Exception

**<. 001 IC - Individualized Consideration PA - Passive Leadership

31
Table 7

Self versus Other MLQ Correlations

MLQ Leader Sergeant Leader Sergeant Leader Sergeant

Rater Source Below Peers Above

IL .25* .02 .23 .05 .30* .11

IS .04 -.14 .02 .22 .17 -.10

IC .00 .13 .08 -.11 .17 -.12

CR .19 .01 .38 -.16 .27 -.18

MA .33 .11 -.07 .22 .04 .14

PA -.12 .11 .25* -.06 .19 -.14

Note f The maximum numbers for the different source correlations are as

follows:

Self & Leader Below N=71; Self & Sergeant Below N=72; Self & Leader Peers N=68;

Self & Sergeant Peers N=69; Self & Leader Above N=69; Self & Sergeant Above N=71.

*p < .05

32
Table 7a

Descriptive Statistics, MLQ Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Multi-Source

Ratings of Leadership Scales for Platoon Sergeant

Overall from All Sources

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 2.88 .60 .87

2. IS 2.63 .50 .76 .56**

3. IC 2.70 .60 .82 .67*** .65***

4. CR 2.65 .61 .73 .64"** .52*** .70***

5. MA 1.95 .64 .64 .20 .08 .15 .09

6. PA .74 .54 .82 -.35** -.36** -.44*** -.50*** .05

Table 7b

Ratings from Below

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 2.52 .50 .91

2. IS 2.30 .45 .75 .86***

3. IC 2.32 .51 .81 .91"** .88***

4. CR 2.18 .48 .79 .84"** .75*** -.23

5. MA 2.20 .47 .54 -.11 -.12 -.71*** -.19

6. PA .97 .43 .90 -.75*** -.65*** .06 -.68*** .09

Table 7c

Ratings from Peers

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 3.07 .54 .86

2. IS 2.80 .53 .65

.63***

3. IC 2.92 .50 .76

.69*** .75***

4. CR 2.84 .53 .72 .68***

.68*** .63***

5. MA 1.98 .74 .66 .16 .14 .23 .26

6. PA .59 .51 .70 -.46*** -.21 -.36** -.20 .22

33
Table 7d

Ratings from Above

MLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. IL 3.05 .58 .85

2. IS 2.80 .55 .76 .88**

3. IC 2.97 .46 .80 .86*** .78***

4. CR 2.93 .53 .69 .83*** .74*** .76***

5. MA 1.66 .59 .64 .09 .06 -.03 .05

6. PA .64 .59 .80 -.75*** -.69*** -.68*** -.62*** .09

Note: Overall (n = MLQ Leaend:

267)

*p < .05 IL- Inspirational Leadership CR - Contingent Reward

**p < .01 IS - Intellectual Stimulation MA - Management-by-Exception

***p < .001 IC - Individualized Consideration PA - Passive Leadership

The pattern of results for the MLQ ratings of the PL and PSG were generally similar

and consistent with results reported by Bass (1998) and Avolio (1999). Specifically, the

transformational and contingent reward scales were highly positively intercorrelated. These

scales had either lower positive or negative relationships with active management-byexception and were consistently negatively correlated with passive avoidant leadership.

Estimates of internal consistency for all scales were generally sufficient. According to

the coefficient alphas, peers were somewhat less reliable than those above or below them in

rank. For all respondents combined, all but one was .72 or above. The most problematic

scale was MA, with an alphas of ranging from .54 to .66 for the different samples of raters in

Tables 6a through 6d, which only retained two items based on the results of the CFA.

TMLQ Statistics. Shifting up our unit of analyses to the platoon's aggregate

leadership using the TMLQ, the pattern of intercorrelations among the transformational and

transactional contingent reward scales were similar to those reported above for the MLQ.

However, in contrast with earlier results, those scales were more positively correlated with

ratings of Active Management-by-Exception. Finally, all four measures of "active" leadership

were each negatively correlated with the passive avoidant leadership scale.

Tables 8a - 8b provide descriptive statistics, estimates of internal consistency and

intercorrelations for the six TMLQ scales. Similar to the MLQ results, we provide a

breakdown for the two rater sources: below and peer. All of the scale reliabilities were above

.6, except for Active Management-by-Exception (TMA). This scale was also trimmed to two

items based on results of the CFA, potentially contributing to its lower estimate of internal

consistency.

34
Table 8a

Descriptive Statistics, TMLQ Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Leadership Scales

Ratings from Below

TMLQ Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. TIL 2.31 .32 .83

2. TIS 2.16 .30 .77 .87***

3. TIC 2.32 .34 .76 .90*** .82***

4. TCR 2.49 .34 .72 .88*** .79*** .85***

5. TMA 2.30 .21 .33 .47*** .50*** .53*** .47***

6. TPA 1.35 .32 .83 -.78*** -.72*** -.82"** -.84*** .45***

Table 8b

Ratings from Peers

TMLQ Factor M - SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. TIL 2.86 .57 .77

2. TIS 2.58 .58 .62 .67***

3. TIC 2.81 .67 .73 .65*** .51**

4. TCR 2.97 .61 .72 .74*** .66*** .71**

5. TMA 1.94 .53 .58 .26* .43** .31 * .30*

6. TPA .95 .65 .85 -.61*** -.50*** -.57*** -.67*** -.08

Note: Below (n=90); Peer (n=76)

•p < .05

•*p < .01

•**p < .001

MLQ

Legend:

TIL - Inspirational Leadership TCR - Contingent Reward

TIS - Intellectual Stimulation TMA - Management-by-Exception

TIC - Individualized TPA - Passive Leadership

Consideration

Self versus Others' Ratings. Table 9 provides the correlations between ratings of

self vs. others' subdivided by rater source for PLs and PSGs. A review of Table 9 indicates

that self and others' ratings for the PLs and PSGs were generally uncorrelated except for the

Platoon Leader's Idealized Influence (Below, .25; Peers, .23; and Above, .30). A general lack

of correlation with the self-other source ratings may be due to each source either perceiving

different patterns of leadership behavior, the sources being exposed to different styles

and/or, simply due to the fact that raters do not agree on the frequency that leadership

behaviors were displayed by their PLs and PSGs. These results are consistent with most

other research about self versus others' ratings (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). In general, selfratings are higher than those from others and don't provide a valid predictor except when

used for their discrepancies from other's ratings. Nonetheless, platoon leaders had a

somewhat accurate sense of how their influence was seen by others.

35
Table 9

MLQ Self versus Other Correlations by Rater Source

MLQ Leader Sergeant Leader Sergeant Leader Sergeant

Rater Source Below Peers Above

IL .25* .02 .23 .05 .30* .11

IS .04 -.14 .02 .22 .17 -.10

IC .00 .13 .08 -.11 .17 -.12

CR .19 .01 .38 -.16 .27 -.18

MA .33 .11 -.07 .22 .04 .14

PA -.12 .11 .25* -.06 .19 -.14

Note M• The maximum numbers for the different source correlations are as follows:

Self & Leader Below N=71; Self & Sergeant Below N=72; Self & Leader Peers N--68;

Self & Sergeant Peers N=69; Self & Leader Above N--69; Self & Sergeant Above N=71.

p <.05

MLQ Legend

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PA: Passive Leadership

In Table 1Oa through 1Oc we provide the mean comparison tests for self versus other

ratings. The general pattern that emerged was that both platoon leader and sergeant

evaluated themselves higher on the transformational and contingent reward scales, while the

reverse pattern was observed for ratings of passive-avoidant leadership.

36
Table 10a

MLQ Self-Other (Above) Rating Differences For Platoon Leader (PL) and Sergeant

(PSG)

Platoon Leader (PL) Platoon Sergeant (PSG)

Self Other T-value Self Other T-value

IL 3.20 3.06 -1.78* 3.31 3.02 -3.24**

IS 3.12 2.85 -3.32* 3.01 2.75 -2.52*

IC 3.19 2.97 -2.77** 3.21 2.92 -3.04**

CR 2.99 2.87 -1.57 3.17 2.92 -2.45*

MBEA 1.68 1.45 -1.68* 2.11 1.66 -3.09*

PL .60 .78 2.07* .49 .71 2.06*

Note: N--66

*p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

Table IOb

MLO Self-Other (Peer) Rating Differences for Platoon Leader and Sergeant

Platoon Leader (PL) Platoon Sergeant (PSG)

Self Other T-value Self Other T-value

IL 3.20 2.98 -2.64* 3.31 3.06 -2.96**

IS 3.11 2.71 -4.45*** 3.05 2.77 -3.47***

IC 3.18 2.83 -3.82*** 3.21 2.91 -3.23**

CR 2.97 2.56 -5.48*** 3.17 2.84 -3.23**

MA 1.70 1.88 -1.13 2.15 2.09 .36

PL .60 .78 2.31 .48 .66 1.64

Note: N--66

* p <.05; ** p <.01; p <.001

Table 10c

MLQ Self-Other (Below) Rating Differences for Platoon Leader and

Sergeant

Platoon Leader (PL) Platoon Sergeant (PSG)

Self Other T-value Self Other T-value

IL 3.20 2.61 -7.78*** 3.31 2.49 -9.73

IS 3.13 2.53 -7.09*** 3.01 2.28 -7.76***

IC 3.19 2.35 -9.63*** 3.20 2.20 -11.71**

CR 2.98 2.21 -9.56*** 3.16 2.15 -12.27***

MA 1.68 1.95 2.36* 2.11 2.23 .93

PL .60 .86 3.39*** .49 1.00 5.98***

Note: N--67

*p <.05; ** p <.01; **p <.001

Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership CR: Contingent Reward

IS: Intellectual Stimulation MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

IS: Individualized Consideration PL: Passive Leadership

37
Interrater Agreement and Intercorrelations for JRTC Performance. Results in

Table 1 la provide the different agreement rates for the two O/C raters aggregated across the

11 missions. As can be observed in Table 1 la, agreement rates for each of the four criterion

measures were all adequate ranging .73 for B to .92 for PLE.

Table 11a

Level of Interrater Agreement for OC Ratings Across All Missions for JRTC Performance

Level of Agreement

PLE .92

PSGE .88

A .78

B .73

Note: N=72 platoons

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish its tactical mission

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall in the bottom 1/5,

next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

Perf.LD14: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

Perf.SG14: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

Results in Table 11 b provide the intercorrelations among the four criterion measures

for O/C ratings. As expected, all of the performance measures were moderately and

positively intercorrelated. The values in parenthesis are the internal consistency value for

each performance rating scale. Both multi-item scales had relatively high values of internal

consistency for PL and PSG ratings. Results presented in Table 11 b indicated that each of

the four dimensions were measuring different aspects of performance at JRTC.

Table 11 b

Intercorrelations between O/C Performance Indices

1 2 3 4 5

A

B .70

PLE .55 .67 (.94)

PSGE .44 .51 .51 (.95)

Note: N=72 platoons; All correlations were significant at p <.001.

Values in parentheses are coefficient alphas for each scale.

JRTC Le-gend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish its tactical mission

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle

1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

Perf.LD14: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria

Perf.SG14: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

38
MLQ as Predictor of Home Station Platoon TMLQ Rated Outcomes

We first tested whether the TMLQ ratings could be appropriately aggregated to the

platoon level. Specifically, we examined whether the platoon was the appropriate level of

analysis using procedures recommended by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) called Rwg.

Similar to an intraclass correlation, values in excess of .7 indicate it is appropriate to

aggregate ratings to the group level, and that there is more variance between the 90 platoons

than within the 90 platoons. We present in Table 12 a summary of the results for 90 platoons

being rated on the TMLQ. The pattern of results indicated that aggregating to the group level

was generally warranted. For all of the leadership scales, nearly 70% of the Rwg values

were above the minimum cut off of .7, and were above 90% for ratings of Inspiring and

Contingent Reward Leadership.

Table 12

Estimates of Within Group Agreement (Rwg) for the TMLQ Survey

TMLQ Scales % of Rwg Above .7 Mean Rwg Value

IL 90% .80

IS 74% .83

IC 68% .77

CR 92% .87

MA 72% .68

PA 89% .84

Note: n = 72

TMLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PA: Passive Leadership

Tables 13a and 13b provide the intercorrelations between the MLQ PL and PSG

leadership scales and TMLQ outcome measures from a different source of raters from the

same organizational level collected in home station. The pattern of correlations for both PL

and PSG ratings from below provided strong support for Bass and Avolio's full range model

of leadership. Specifically, transformational and contingent reward leadership of raters from

below were each positively correlated with five outcomes measures, while Active

Management-by-Exception (MA) was uncorrelated, and passive avoidant leadership (PA)

was negatively correlated with each of the five outcome measures of team extra effort (EE),

team potency (TPOT), team cohesion (TCOH), team effectiveness (TEFF), and team

satisfaction (SA). Correlations were non-significant if obtained from peers or superiors of the

team's PLs and PSGs.

39
Table 13a

Correlation Between MLQ Ratings of Platoon Leader and Team Climate

Based on Different Sources at Home Station

TMLQ Outcomes

TEE TPOT TCOH TEFF TSAT

Below .28* .46** .55** .46** .42**

IL Peer .14 .13 .05 .14 .07

Above -.05 -.04 .04 .07 .02

Below .26* .43** .54** .49** .48*

IS Peer .12 .04 .09 .06 .00

Above -.02 -.05 .02 .04 .05

Below .21 W34** .46** ,40** ,42**

IC Peer .08 .01 .04 -.06 -.01

Above .00 -.02 .05 .11 .02

Below .33** .46** .59** .46** .52**

CR Peer .12 -.03 -.04 -.02 .02

Above -.14 -.17 -.04 -.08 -.06

Below .05 -.04 -.11 -.13 .07

MA Peer .24* .12 -.03 .04 .00

Above .09 .03 -.06 -.06 -.10

Below -.24* -.46** -.51 ** -.45** -.41 **

PL Peer -.04 -.11 -.16 -.06 -.08

Above .00 .04 -.02 -.03 .03

Note: n-size varied from 67 to 85

*p<.05

**p<.01

MLQ Legend:

IL - Inspirational Leadership

IS - Intellectual Stimulation

IC - Individualized Consideration

CR - Contingent Reward

MA - Management-by-Exception

PL - Passive Leadership

TMLQ Legend:

TEE: Team Extra Effort

TPOT: Team Potency

TCL: Team Cohesion

TEFF: Team Effectiveness

TSAT: Team Satisfaction

40
Table 13b

Correlation Between MLQ Ratings of Platoon Sergeant and Team Climate

Based on Different Sources at Home Station

TMLQ Outcomes

TEE TPOT TCOH TEFF TSAT

Below .30** .47** .59** .52** .48*

IL Peer .09 .09 .16 .23 .22

Above .13 .14 .11 .14 .09

Below .25* .43** .60** .53** .51 **

IS Peer .05 -.08 .03 .19 .09

Above .14 .08 .12 .12 .06

Below .30* .40** .58** .47** .50*

IC Peer -.02 -.05 .08 .18 .15

Above .12 .06 .08 .09 -.03

Below .34* .43** .52** .42** .39**

CR Peer .03 -.01 .12 .18 .20

Above -.02 .00 .05 .02 -.01

Below -.28* -.35** -.39** -.36** -.35**

MA Peer .19 .09 .17 .26* .14

Above .14 .14 .08 .20 .13

Below -.21 -.38** -.47** -.48** -.36**

PL Peer .14 .09 .14 .03 .11

Above -.15 -.08 -.06 -.10 -.01

Note: n-size varied from 67 to 85

*p<.05

**p<.01

MLQ Legend:

IL - Inspirational Leadership

IS - Intellectual Stimulation

IC - Individualized Consideration

CR - Contingent Reward

MA - Management-by-Exception

PL - Passive Leadership

TMLQ Legend:

TEE: Team Extra Effort

TPOT: Team Potency

TCOH: Team Cohesion

TEFF: Team Effectiveness

TSAT: Team Satisfaction

41
In sum, for both platoon leaders and sergeants the ratings from below provided strong

support for Bass and Avolio's Full Range model of leadership. Specifically, the

transformational and contingent reward leadership scales were all positively correlated with

the five outcome scales, while passive avoidant leadership was negatively correlated.

Management by exception was either not correlated with the outcome ratings or negatively

correlated, as observed with the below ratings of sergeants.

Table 14a summarizes results linking Platoon Leader MLQ ratings collected in home

station with JRTC performance.

An inspection of the correlations in Table 14a, provided support for the main premise

of the current study. Although the magnitude of relationships varied by source,

transformational and contingent reward leadership was each positively correlated with JRTC

unit and individual-level leadership performance. Active Management-by-Exception was

generally uncorrelated with JRTC performance, while Passive Avoidant Leadership was

negatively correlated with each of the four JRTC performance measures.

The correlations presented in Table 14a were subdivided by source of MLQ such as

peers. We explored different "below" ratings and uncovered some variations in the observed

relationships. For example, in Table 14a, we provide in parentheses, ratings from fire team

leaders with the four JRTC measures derived from the O/C's appraisals. In many instances,

the validity coefficients for ratings generated by fire team leaders were higher than the

aggregate pool of ratings from "below" for transformational and contingent reward leadership.

In Table 14b, we provide the correlational results partitioning the ratings category into

three sources: CO, XO, and FSG. The correlation coefficients presented in Table 14b for the

platoon leader were generally higher if the source of ratings were the XO and FSG. This

pattern was particularly evident for the correlations between IS, IC, and the JRTC overall

.measures of performance (A and B outcomes).

42
Table 14a

Correlations by Source between Platoon Leader MLQ Ratings Platoon Performance and Effective

Leadership in JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

MLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

Below .25* (.29*) .17 (.24*) .34** (.25*) .06 (.04)

IL Peer .11 .22 .27* .31

Above .04 .35** .30* .26*

Below .26* (.31*) .17 (.25*) .27* (.26*) .00 (.01)

IS Peer -.06 .26* .22 .17

Above .20 .37** .25* .26*

Below .26* (.30*) .16 (.26*) .32** (.25*) .06 (.01)

IC Peer -.01 .08 .17 .24*

Above .07 .35** .24* .24*

Below .27* (.32*) .18 (.24*) .28* (.25*) .14 (.09)

CR Peer -.04 .14 .17 -.04

Above .10 .30* .27* .30*

Below -.06 (-.06) -.04 (-.04) .02 (.08) .09 (.17)

MA Peer .11 .00 .02 -.03

Above .07 .13 .16 .28*

Below -.24* (-.06) -.16 (-.14) -.29* (-.15) -.07 (.03)

PL Peer .02 -.16 -.25* -.34**

Above -.06 -.27* -.28* -.23

Note: (n = 762 below; n = 122 peer; n = 192 above; n = 228 Fire Team Leaders; n = 49 XO's) *p<0.05

**p<.01 level.

Values in parentheses are based on ratings provided by fire team leaders.

MLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

43
Table 14b

Correlations by Source between Platoon Leader MLQ Ratings, Platoon

Performance and Effective Leadership in JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

MLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

CO .03 .20 .15 .25

IL XO .13 .22 .18 .04

FSG .12 .21 .18 .01

CO .05 .29* .07 .29*

IS XO .38** .44** .16 .17

FSG .36** .43** .14 .18

CO -.02 .18 .12 .18

IC XO .41 .45** .27 .18

FSG .41"* .45** .28* .18

CO .06 .24 .00 .31*

CR XO .25 .29* .25 .23

_FSG .25 .29* .23 .25

CO -.20 -.11 -.13 .10

MA XO .05 .02 .12 .03

FSG .04 .02 .12 .03

CO -.06 -.06 -.20 -.11

PL XO -.04 -.16 -.18 .03

FSG -.00 -.11 -.15 .10

Note: n = 52 (FSG); n =49 (XO); n = 50 (CO) *p<0.05

**p<.01

level.

MLQ Leqend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this

platoon accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

44
Table 15a provides results for (PSG) MLQ ratings by source correlated with the four

JRTC measures. Again, there was evidence provided to support the predictions of the full

range leadership model of leadership. Correlations with the O/C raters' evaluation of platoon

sergeant performance in JRTC provided the strongest evidence in support of the model.

In Table 15b we provide the correlational results for the PSG from MLQ ratings from

the CO, XO and FSG, three above sources, paralleling the results presented for predicting

PSGE from the platoon leader. In general, the validity coefficients for IL, IS, IC and CR were

higher when broken out by the different sources and particularly from the two positions, CO

and XO.

45
Table 15a

Correlation between Ratings by Source of Platoon Sergeant MLQ Ratings, and

Platoon Performance and Effective Leadership at JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

MLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

Below .02 (.03) .05 (.09) -.05 (.04) .19 (.10)

IL Peer .24* .25* .12 .36**

_Above .00 .06 .01 .35"*

Below .13 (.07) .06 (-.01) .00 (.00) .23* (.10)

IS Peer .20 .20 .11 .23*

Above .11 .10 -.03 .37**

Below .06 (.05) -.02 (-.02) -.05 (-.01) .12 (-.05)

IC Peer .23 .30* .19 .27

Above .04 .09 .00.31 **

Below .13 (.20) .03 (.21) .00 (.05) .23* (.14)

CR Peer .16 .19 .10 .16

Above .00 .05 .00 .26*

Below -.03 (.09) -.02 (.03) -.12 (-.03) .19 (.18)

MA Peer .00 -.02 -.02 .08

Above -.05 .02 -.20 .03

Below -.02 (-.01) -.02 (.03) -.02 (-.06) -.20 (-.13)

PL Peer -.09 -.06 .02 -.14

Above -.05 -.03 .00 -.30*

Note: (n = 734 below; n = 126 peer; n = 196 above; n = 231 Fire Team Leaders; n = 51 XO's) *p<0.05

**p<.01

level.

Values in parentheses are based on ratings provided by fire team leaders.

MLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon

accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14

criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according

to 14 criteria.

46
Table 15b

Correlations by Source between Platoon Sergeant MLQ Ratings, Platoon

Performance and Effective Leadership at JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

MLO Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

CO -.02 .10 .03 .34*

IL XO .09 .22 .02 .42**

FSG -.02 .07 -.01 .29*

CO .07 .17 .05 .31*

IS XO .11 .20 -.05 .39**

FSG .01 .07 -.09 .30*

CO .09 .16 .03 .32*

IC XO .10 .29* .06 .39**

FSG -.08 -.00 -.11 .21

CO .07 .20 .04 .31*

CR XO .06 .19 -.02 .39**

FSG -.07 .00 -.00 .24

CO .05 .08 -.10 -.13

MA XO -.11 -.16 -.14 .12

FSG -.01 .07 .02 .11

CO -.04 -.02 .07 -.27

PL XO .01 -.06 -.06 -.33*

FSG .05 -.03 -.04 -.18

Note: n = 63 (FSG); n = 49 (XO); n = 51 (CO) *p<0.05

**p<.01

level.

MLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon

accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to

14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

47
We examined the relationships between the TMLQ ratings provided by two sources

(below and peer) in Tables 16a and 16b, for both the leadership and outcome scales. There

were no significant relationships obtained with the four JRTC performance measures. The

correlations with the TMLQ outcome scales produced several significant relationships

between ratings of platoon cohesion and satisfaction by peers with the B outcome and

ratings of platoon leader effectiveness (PLE). The best predictors of JRTC performance

were peer ratings of platoon cohesiveness and satisfaction, which generated positive

correlations in the range of r=.15 to .45. However, the overall pattern of results did not

support the full range model of leadership.

Table 16a

Correlation Between TMLQ Ratings at Home Station, and Platoon Performance

and Effective Leadership at JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

TMLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSG

IL Below .04 .00 -.06 .09

Peer -.09 .08 -.06 -.06

IS Below .12 .08 .00 .19

Peer -.02 .04 -.03 .10

IC Below .01 -.09 -.12 .08

Peer -.14 .05 .04 -.15

CR Below .02 -.04 -.07 .14

Peer -.05 .07 -.03 .03

MA Below -.06 -.17 -.13 .08

Peer -.23 .09 .11 .01

PL Below -.03 -.01 .09 -.08

Peer .04 -.06 -.10 .00

Note: n = 72 *p <.05

**p <.01

TMLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

48
Table 16b

Correlation between TMLQ Outcome Ratings from "Below" and "Peer" at Home

Station, and Platoon Performance and Effective Leadership at JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

TMLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

TEE Below -.02 -.01 -.07 .12

Peer -.21 .05 .03 .00

TPOT Below .08 .10 .03 .19

Peer -.10 .09 .05 -.12

TCOH Below .10 .05 .04 .17

Peer .16 .29 .47** .25

TEFF Below .04 .10 .06 .06

Peer -.04 .01 .06 -.14

TSA Below .13 .04 -.01 .02

Peer .15 .38** .45** .17

Note: n=72

*p <.05

**p <.01

TMLO Legend:

TEE: Team Extra Effort

TPOT: Team Potency

TCL: Team Cohesion

TEFF: Team Effectiveness

TSAT: Team Satisfaction

JRTC Criterion Legend

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteriaEffects of Tenure

To explore these findings further, we examined whether the results would differ for

squad leaders in the platoon who were in the top and bottom half in terms of tenure in their

platoon using a median split on tenure. Squad leaders are pivotal leaders in the platoon and

may have a unique view of the platoon's collective leadership as they are in a lower ranked

leadership position. The squad leaders were sorted into high and low tenure in service by a

median split.

49
Results presented in Table 17 indicated there were generally higher positive

correlations between the TMLQ leadership ratings for the platoons and JRTC performance

where more tenured squad leaders were higher in tenure in the platoon. Specifically, for the

B criterion measure and PSG leadership effectiveness ratings of performance at JRTC, the

transformational and contingent reward TMLQ scales were each more positively correlated

with JRTC performance, for platoons with higher tenured squad leaders. Whereas, there

were generally no differences in results for squad members ratings of their platoons on the

TMLQ and their relationships to JRTC performance for higher versus lowertenured

members.

Moving to Table 18, there was some additional evidence provided that higher tenured

squad leader ratings on several outcome measures were more positively correlated with the

B criterion measure and PSG leadership. Indeed for potency, the relationship with PSG

effectiveness went from a -.31 to a positive .30 for low.to high tenured squad leaders.

However, for the most part, the results concerning the TMLQ did not provide consistent

evidence linking platoon-level leadership to JRTC performance.

50
Table 17

Correlation between TMLQ Ratings by Tenure, Rank and JRTC Platoon Performance

and Leadership Effectiveness at JRTC

JRTC Criterion Measures

TMLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSG

IL High Tenure Squad Member -.04 -.10 -.15 -.14

Low Tenure Squad Member .11 .14 .05 .21

High Tenure Squad Leader .14 .34* .11 .30*

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.25 -.19 -.12 .13

IS High Tenure Squad Member .03 -.07 -.04 -.02

Low Tenure Squad Member .10 .20 .02 .25*

High Tenure Squad Leader .04 .34* .11 .40*

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.16 -.12 -.17 .20

IC High Tenure Squad Member -.10 -.21 -.13 -.04

Low Tenure Squad Member .11 .14 .03 .13

High Tenure Squad Leader .05 .18 -.03 .29

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.12 -.10 -.11 .10

CR High Tenure Squad Member -.05 -.13 -.14 -.08

Low Tenure Squad Member .05 .08 .05 .19

High Tenure Squad Leader .10 .27 .00 .41

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.04 -.11 -.14 .20

MA High Tenure Squad Member .11 .00 .02 .12

Low Tenure Squad Member -.15 -.21 -.15 -.05

High Tenure Squad Leader -.04 .02 .02 .15

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.18 .03 -.06 .16

PL High Tenure Squad Member -.02 .08 .12 .01

Low Tenure Squad Member -.04 -.13 -.07 -.14

High Tenure Squad Leader .12 -.11 .13 -.04

,Low Tenure Squad Leader .09 -.03 .18 -.12

Note: High and Low tenured squad leaders/members were based on a median split on tenure

in the platoon *p < .05 **p <.01

TMLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership CR: Contingent Reward*

IS: Intellectual Stimulation MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

IS: Individualized Consideration PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon

accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed

overall in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according

to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

51
Table 18

Correlation between TMLQ Outcome Ratings at Home Station and JRTC

Platoon Performance and Leadership Effectiveness

JRTC Criterion Measures

TMLQ Factor Source A B PLE PSGE

TEE High Tenure Squad Member -.18 -.25* -.15 -.01

Low Tenure Squad Member .01 .10 -.06 .21

High Tenure Squad Leader -.09 .16 -.02 .27

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.17 -.09 -.20 .13

TPOT High Tenure Squad Member -.10 -.12 -.14 -.05

Low Tenure Squad Member .14 .19 .07 .23

High Tenure Squad Leader .07 .15 -.02 .30*

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.05 -.03 -.12 -.31"

TCOH High Tenure Squad Member .05 -.01 .02 .07

Low Tenure Squad Member .05 .10 .06 .13

High Tenure Squad Leader .23 .28 .14 .23

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.02 .02 -.10 .22

TEFF High Tenure Squad Member -.84 -.08 -.05 -.09

Low Tenure Squad Member .10 .14 .08 .03

High Tenure Squad Leader .13 .20 .12 .28

Low Tenure Squad Leader -.09 .01 -.08 .11

TSA High Tenure Squad Member .12 .00 -.06 -.11

Low Tenure Squad Member .15 .16 .06 .10

High Tenure Squad Leader .09 .24 .07 .09

,Low Tenure Squad Leader .05 .10 -.02 -.01

Note: (n = 68 for Squad Member High; n = 71 for Squad Member Low; n = 43 Squad Leader

High; n = 45 for Squad Leader Low) High and Low tenured squad leaders'members were

based on a median split on tenure in the platoon *p < .05

**p <. 0 1

TMLQ Legend:

TEE: Team Extra Effort

TPOT: Team Potency

TCOH: Team Cohesion

TEFF: Team Effectiveness

TSAT: Team Satisfaction

JRTC Criterion Legend

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon

accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

52
Trends in JRTC Performance

JRTC performance was based on evaluations of three sets of missions. To determine

whether there were any significant changes in aggregate performance, we ran separate one

way ANOVAs for each of the four performance measures. Graphical results of the means for

each performance indice across the three sets of missions are presented in Figures la, lb

and ic.

The only significant difference in mean ratings of performance, which trended upward

for the three sets of missions, was with the A performance index (F (2,372) = 4.74, P < .01).

Based on post hoc Scheffe tests, the difference appeared to be due to an increase in

performance from the second and third sets of missions. The upward trends suggest that

AARs by O/Cs at the end of a mission may have resulted in either improved performance or

more lenient judgements/ratings.

Figure 1 a - Trends in JRTC Platoon Performance and Leaders'

Effectiveness Over 3 Mission Phases

4

3-- B E 2 - • : .. ...:=.•: ........ ........ . B 

"0 PLE

1PSG

0.0 I I I

2 3

Mission Phases

Phase 1 = 107; Phase 2 143; Phase 3 142 OC Observations in 72 platoons

Note:

A 1.83 1.97 2.16* Mission Set 2 vs. 3 (significant at

p<.05)

B 2.81 3.01 3.07

PLE 2.72 2.73 2.8

PSG 2.62 2.62 2.75

53
Figure 1 b - Trends in Leaders' Effectiveness in JRTC Performance Over 3

Mission Phases

4

_3____ -- __ _ -u-•'-Q1 3- S • ............................. ... .. . 0-_:. 2

E 2- Q3 1.... .. "ý...•-. Q 4

__.* Q5

0 , ei Q6

1 2 3 -+Q7

Mission Phases

Phase 1 = 107; Phase 2 = 143; Phase 3 142 OC Observations in 72 platoons

Note:

A 1.83 1.97 2.16* Mission Set 2 vs. 3 (significant at p<.05)

B 2.81 3.01 3.07

PLE 2.72 2.73 2.8

Legend for JRTC Questions:

Q1 - Persisted in dealing with difficult challenges

Q2 - Kept focused on accomplishing the mission

Q3 - Shared knowledge of the situation

Q4 - Established and maintained appropriate priorities.

Q5 - Contributed to cohesiveness and teamwork

Q6 - Maintained high performance standards for completing tasks

07 - Was receptive to new information and ideas

54
Figure Ic - Trends in JRTC Performance Over 3 Mission Phases

4

Q8O

2 :10 S1 ... ..-::.---Q 11

- Q12

0 , .- Q13 0 

1 2 3-+-Q14

Mission Phases

Phase 1 = 107; Phase 2 = 143; Phase 3 142 OC Observations in 72 platoons

Note:

A 1.83 1.97 2.16* Mission Set 2 vs. 3 (significant at p<.05)

B 2.81 3.01 3.07

PLE 2.72 2.73 2.8

Legend for JRTC Questions

Q8 - Used AARs and debrief ings consturctively

Q9 - Set an example by his behavior

Q10 - Communicated clearly and precisely

Q11 - Coordinated effectively internally and externally

Q12 - Raised morale and enthusiasm

Q13 - Took responsibility for his actions

Q14 - Recognized outstanding performance

55
Multiple Regressions

Table 19 provides a summary of the significant regression results, for each rater

source, predicting the four JRTC outcome measures. Due to the relatively small sample size

for platoons (n = 72), we collapsed the three transformational scales into one scale to

maximize our degrees of freedom in these analyses. Also, we have reported in earlier

research, which tested the factor structure of the MLQ, that each of the transformational

scales loaded on a higher order latent construct of transformational leadership see (Avolio et

al., 1999). Thus to reduce problems with multi-collinearity, the three transformational scales

were aggregated for these regression analyses.

Table 19

Summary of Regression Results for PL and PSG Transformational Ratings Predicting

JRTC Performance with MLQ Leadership Ratings Collected at Home Station

Below Peer Above

Performance Index R2 Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta

A .07 PL-TL (.26**) .06 PSG-TL (.25**)

B .10 PSG-TL (.24**) .16 PL-TL (.40***)

PLE .12 PL-TL (.35**) .07 PL-TL (.22*) .10 PL-TL (.30**)

PSGE .10 PL-PA (-.33**) .15 PL-TL (.22*) .18 PL-TL (.22*)

PSG-PA (.14) PSG-TL (.27**) PSG-TL (.32***)

PL-PA (-.34-*) PL-PA (-.18)

PSG-PA (-.16) PSG-PA (-.27*)

Note: n=72

PL-TL: Platoon leaders' - Transformational leadership

PL-PA: Platoon leaders'- Passive-Avoidant leadership

PSG-TL: Sergeants Transformational leadership

PSG-PA: Sergeants Passive-Avoidant Leadership

*p <.01

**p< .05

p <.001

Leaend

TL: MLQ Transformational Leadership

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14

criteria.

The regression results paralleled the correlational results presented earlier. Indeed,

the 4 main predictors of JRTC performance were the transformational leadership ratings of

the PSG and PL, as well as the passive avoidant scale for each of these respective leaders

in the platoon. It is interesting to note that the passive avoidant leadership style of the

56
platoon leader and sergeant had as great a negative relationship in predicting performance

at JRTC, as the transformational leadership scale had in terms of a positive relationship with

performance. In terms of the two overall measures of platoon performance, both peer and

above ratings were the strongest predictors with the respective JRTC outcome measures.

Regression analyses were then run using self and other transformational ratings (by

source) to predict the four JRTC outcome measures. A summary of the significant results is

presented in Table 20. Overall, self-ratings only marginally predicted JRTC performance as

compared to below, peer and above ratings on the MLQ for PLs and PSGs. Moreover, in

several instances, the beta values were opposite to those generated with 'other' ratings,

indicating that higher self-ratings by the platoon leaders correlated with lower JRTC

performance.

Table 20

Summary of Regression Results for Self/Other PL and PSG Transformational Ratings Predicting

JRTC Performance and Leadership Effectiveness

Below Peer Above

Self Other Self Other Self Other

r2 Beta r

2 Beta r

2 Beta

A or -.15 .25* -----

B ----- .18* -.12 .43"*

PLE .08a .09 .26* .08 .09 .25* .10* .07 .30**

PSGE ----- .09 .05 .28* .12* .05 .33**

(.13)b (-.14) (.34**)

Note: n=72

a: p <.08, * p< .05, ** p< .01

b: Values in parentheses are for PSG ratings

JRTC Legend

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14

criteria.

Company Culture

For every three soldiers in each company, the TMLQ survey rated was based on their

respective platoon. A fourth soldier used the TMLQ to rate his company's leadership culture.

The company's home station team leadership and home station outcome assessments of the

TMLQ were seen to be proxy measures of the company's culture and climate. Analyses

were run examining the relationship between company culture and JRTC performance.

Summaries of these analyses appear in Table 22. Generally, all of the leadership culture

57
scales had sufficient levels of reliability except MA. Problems with the MA scale have been

consistent across all three levels of measurement.

The company culture results showed there was some positive relationships between

transformational, contingent reward and an active management by exception culture in home

station with the (A) overall measure of JRTC performance. Similar to earlier findings, a

passive-avoidant culture in home station negatively predicted overall platoon performance. A

parallel, but somewhat weaker pattern emerged for the (B) measure of overall platoon

performance.

In sum, the company leadership culture survey showed some promise for predicting

platoon outcomes in JRTC. Further exploration and refinements to the survey are needed.

Table 21

Correlation between Company TMLQ and JRTC Platoon Performance

JRTC Criterion Measures

TMLQ Factor A B PLE PSG

IL .25* .19 .11 .02

Is .22 .08 .08 .05

IC .28* .22 .21 .15

CR 33** .26* .18 .21

MA .21 .24* .11 .19

PL -.35* -.26* -.11 -.17

*p < .05

**p <.01

TMLQ Legend:

IL: Inspirational Leadership

IS: Intellectual Stimulation

IS: Individualized Consideration

CR: Contingent Reward

MA: Management-by-exception (Active)

PL: Passive Leadership

JRTC Legend:

A: Taking into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon

accomplish its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall in

the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness

according to 14 criteria.

58
Unit Leadership Strength as a Predictor of JRTC Performance

Chan (1998) recently suggested that estimates of within group agreement on

measures of climate could be interpreted as assessing 'climate strength' in a unit. Chan

argued that the mean and the variance could both be used on measures such as climate to

predict performance. In the current context, we examined the Rwg values on the TMLQ, as a

measure of unit leadership strength. For each platoon, we calculated an Rwg value for the

six respective TMLQ scales. We then regressed each of the 4 JRTC measures on the six

Rwg scores for each of the 72 platoons.

Examining the overall sample, we found the regression analysis containing all six

scales was marginally significant in predicting the B criterion measure from JRTC (R2 = 16, p.

< .07). The two TMLQ scales significantly contributed to the prediction of performance were:

IS Rwg B = .32 (p = .05) and MA Rwg B = .25 (p = .05). These preliminary results indicated

that the variance in platoon member perceptions of their own collective leadership helped

predict one overall measure of JRTC performance.

We next ran separate regressions entering on the first step of each regression

analysis the aggregate mean measure of transformational leadership followed by its

aggregate Rwg value for each platoon. The dependent variable for each regression analysis

was one of the four JRTC performance measures. Similar to the correlational results

presented for the TMLQ earlier, the above transformational mean scores did not predict

JRTC performance entered on the first step in the regression analysis. However the Rwg

value for transformational leadership entered on the second step, predicted the following

three measures: For (A) TF Rwg R2 = .14, p < .01, B = .40, p <.01; for (B) TF Rwg R2 = .07, p

<.08, B = .28, p < .03; and for (PSGE) TF Rwg R2 = .09, p < .05, B = .30, p < .05.

In sum, the level of agreement in the platoon member's perception of its collective

leadership style was a unique predictor of JRTC performance. Indeed, when we created a

total TMLQ leadership scale Rwg, using each scale score as an item, we found an r = .25, p

< .05, for the overall measure of agreement with the A measure of overall platoon

performance.

59
Table 22

Summary of Regression Results for TMLQ Rwg Values Predicting JRTC Performance

Independent Overall Squad Member Squad Leader

R;! Rz Rz

A .14* .09 .03

B .11+ .06 .07

PL Leadership Effectiveness .06 .04 .06

PSG Leadership Effectiveness .11+ .05 .06

Note: n = 72

p < .05

p< .10

JRTC Legend:

A: Taldng into account the weather, terrain, support & opposition, how well did this platoon accomplish

its tactical mission?

B: Overall assessment - compared to similar platoons, this platoon performed overall

in the bottom 1/5, next lower, middle 1/5, next higher or top 1/5.

PLE: How frequently the Platoon Leader contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria.

PSGE: How frequently the Platoon Sergeant contributed to the platoon's effectiveness according to 14 criteria

Exploratory Analyses

Next, we examined how the overall transformational ratings for platoon leader,

sergeant and team transformational ratings blocked together, predicted each of the four

JRTC performance outcomes. Results in indicated that the combined ratings accounted for

11% of the variance in JRTC overall performance (A) and on up to 24% with respect to the

platoon leader's performance at JRTC. Generally, the effects were largely attributable to the

platoon leader's transformational leadership.

TEXT ANALYSIS OF OBSERVERICONTROLLER (O/C) AND CADRE COMMENTS ON

PLATOON LEADER, PLATOON SERGEANT, AND PLATOON PERFORMANCE AT NTC

In addition to testing the quantitative performance data, we also examined qualitative

results, using trained research assistants to code data concerning the quality of the PL-PSG

relationship. Specifically, each rater went through training on the transformational leadership

components, and then was asked to independently evaluate the comments from the O/C

raters regarding the question that refers to the quality of the relationship and observed

interactions between the PL and PSG. The qualitative codings were repeated for each of the

JRTC data sets. The interrater reliabilities were all above .88.

Dr. Avolio, Dr. Berson and COL (R) Snodgrass went through all of the qualitative data

from the O/C raters to identify and evaluate the strong and weak points for the platoons, PL,

60
and PSG. Col. Snodgrass also developed a comprehensive list of categories representing

both interpersonal aspects of performance (e.g., teamwork) and technical military expertise

(e.g., navigation) that could impact on platoon performance. Each platoon was scored on

these respective categories. Additional categories were also created to examine the

technical proficiency of these platoons, and were used to code additional comments made by

the 0/C raters during JRTC. All of these categories are described in detail below.

This section presents findings and conclusions from 0/C and cadre comments.

Comments focused on strengths and weaknesses of the platoon leader, platoon sergeant,

and the platoon as revealed during the 14 day field training exercise at the JRTC.

Frequency and Significance

Narrative comments cannot be readily "averaged." Each narrative comment of any

length is unique and potentially of significance to interpreting platoon performance. Yet,

many comments are common and their meanings are the same, and generalizations are both

possible and appropriate. In such cases, the more frequently a key word appears in the

comment database, the more relevance it may have to how the raters judged performance at

JRTC.

In Table 23, it can be seen that "experience" was the most frequently occurring key

word in the comment database. The high occurrence bears further consideration, later in

this section, in terms of differentiating level of experience within a platoon and general overall

military experience.

It should be noted that the software used to tabulate key words, by design, would not

count repeated occurrences of the same key word within the same comment. In any given

comment, only the first occurrence of each key word was tabulated. Where there were two or

more key words in a single comment, the software used will pick up all such unique

occurrences. (The average rate of occurrence is 1.31 key words per comment in an uncoded

data set, and 1.73 key words per comment for coded data sets.) The software screening a

single comment such as, "The leadership was poor because the leadership lacked

experience" would return two findings: one for the key word "leadership" (even though

"leadership" appeared twice) and one for the key word "experience."

At the opposite end of the spectrum shown in Table 23, the least frequently occurring

topic is "POW processing", which occurs in less than 0.12% of all key word hits. Its place at

the very end of this list is largely a function of the cut-off point for list preparation.'

Even small numbers can be of potential significance. "Honesty'for example, which is not even listed in Table 23, is mentioned only twice in the

database. "Integrity," "truthfulness," and "candor" are each mentioned only once. It may be reassuring to note that these four occurrences all

appear as strengths, but one might ask: Why so few "hits" on such key concepts? It is probably because core values for the Army such as

"integrity' and "candor,' etc. are taken for granted as being present, and in any case are so sensitive in the negative that most observers are

reluctant to identify those subjects. There was one comment in which a PSG was called "disloyal" because he did not make appropriate

suggestions to his platoon leader --a seemingly exaggerated indictment-- and one poignant comment on integrity: "he chose the easier wrong over

the more difficult right."

61
Regarding frequency and significance, the question is where should the line be drawn

to establish a threshold for analytical purposes and to draw conclusions? In this case, we

decided to focus on individual key word findings, which numbered at least one percent of all

key word findings. Those attributes occurring less frequently (about 25% of the initial

findings) are not considered significant for the analytical purposes of this report, though all

the findings have face validity and their relative infrequency may be of future interest to

certain military audiences, including the Joint Readiness Training Center.

Attributing comments as Strengths or Weaknesses by Subject

In every case, the respondent's original comments were categorized by subjects or the

target of evaluation (PL, PSG, or platoon overall) and were further categorized as either a

strength or a weakness. The software tabulates across all six categories: PL strengths, PL

weaknesses, PSG strengths, PSG weaknesses, platoon strengths, and platoon weakness.

Table 23 shows a complete distribution of findings for all key word occurrences greater

than one percent of total occurrences. The distribution shows the count of each occurrence

as either a strength, or a weakness relative to each attribute or topic.

62
Table 23

Comments Listed Initially of Key Words by Frequency of Occurrence

oIC Cadre Field Data Cards n=450

No. % Key Words describing No. % Key Words describing

CMTS CMTS Attributes/Topics CMTS CMTS Attributes /Topics

210 5.86% Experience 33 0.92% Attitude

188 5.25% Knowledge (technical tactical) 33 0.92% Marksmanship

155 4.32% Planning 32 0.89% Morale

134 3.74% Aggressiveness 32 0.89% SOP

131 3.66% Discipline 32 0.89% Time Management

124 3.46% Communication 31 0.86% OPORD (operations orders)

123 3.43% Motivation 28 0.78% Patience

113 3.15% Security 26 0.73% Accountability

108 3.01% Standards 26 0.73% Skills, Collective

108 3.01% Leadership 26 0.73% Decisiveness

106 2.96% Mission 25 0.70% Receptive

103 2.87% Initiative 24 0.67% Listen

100 2.79% Learn 23 0.64% Care

88 2.46% Rehearsals 21 0.59% Confidence

76 2.12% Flexibility 20 0.56% Enthusiasm

68 1.90% CASEVAC (casualty evacuation) 20 0.56% Responsibility

67 1.87% Willingness 19 0.53% Teamwork

67 1.87% Priorities 18 0.50% Resupply

64 1.79% Supervision 15 0.42% Dedication

61 1.70% Control 15 0.42% Improvement

59 1.65% Navigation 11 0.31% Shares (knowledge)

56 1.56% NOD (use of night obsrvtn dvcs) 11 0.31% Endurance

53 1.48% Focus 11 0.31% Skills, Individual

52 1.45% Cohesion 11 0.31% Strength

52 1.45% PCI (Pre-combat inspections) 9 0.25% Obstacle Employment

47 1.31% Maintenance 8 0.22% Fitness

47 1.31% Coordination 8 0.22% Toughness

46 1.28% Proficiency 7 0.20% AAR (After Action Rvw prtcptn)

36 1.00% Example 7 0.20% Stamina

35 0.98% Awareness 5 0.14% Judgment

34 0.95% TLP (troop leading procedures) 4 0.11% Persistence

34 0.95% Delegation 4 0.11% POW processing

3348 100% Total

63
Strength Bias. Respondents were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses in

equal proportion. An inspection of Table 23, however, reveals that overall, respondents

offered a total of 3348 comments; 1784 (53%) were registered as strengths and 1584 (47%)

were registered as weaknesses. Thus we can conclude that respondents comments overall

reflect a slight (3%) orientation toward commenting on strengths.

Total Net Strength. Attributes are rank ordered by Total Net Strength (TNS). TNS is

the sum of the strengths minus the sum of the weaknesses for any given attribute. Where

the number of weaknesses outweigh the number of strengths, the number showing the

difference appears in parentheses indicating a "negative" strength (a weakness) of that

magnitude. TNS serves as a convenient way of rank-ordering all attributes. Those attributes

at the top of the list represent soldier/leader functions where performances' were identified as

strongest. Toward the bottom of the list, one encounters the attributes where performance

was increasingly wo 'rse and, presumably, where more training or other corrective action might

be recommended. Total net strength are relative values that have significance only in the

context of the specific data set in which they occur for the purpose of rank-ordering the

relative strengths and weaknesses of all reported attributes, in this case, for the overall data

set (N=450 respondents).

For example, in Table 24 it is apparent that motivation was identified as the most

common strength and (lack of) experience is the greatest weakness based on 450 observers

of infantry rifles platoons at JRTC between 1997 and 1999. From these findings, one can

infer, based on the definition of experience (as used by respondents and defined in Appendix

A), that longer tenure for rifle platoon officers, junior NOOs / enlisted soldiers, and platoon

sergeants, in that order, should be considered for achieving improved platoon performance.

Of course, what is learned during their tenure is an area that requires further inquiry, as

simply accumulating more overall time may not have the intended positive impact on platoon

performance.

64
Table 24

Distribution of Cadre and O/C Comments on All PL, PSG, and Platoon Strengths

and Weaknesses at J RTC n Rank Order by Total Net Strength

•Field Data Cards N=450

AtaAculAttributes PL/L P S S S PTPTIPT TTIO TOT

Net Nt NetNET

CMSI% Topics T TWK T STRWK TWSSR SRWSSR

123 3.67% Motivation 19 5 14 23 3 20 66 71 59 108 15 93

134 4.00% Aggressiveness 23 5 18 10 7 3 76 13 63 109 25 84

100 2.99% Learn 56 6 50 6 1 5 30 1 29 92 8 84

76 2.2706 Flexibility 15 2 13 2 5 (3) 51 1 50 68 8 60

67 12.00% Willing 34 -3 31 9 1 8 20 - 20 63 4 59

52 11.55% Cohesion 2 - 2 1 - 1 45 4 41 48 4 44

46 1.37% Proficiency 10 1 9 18 31 15 10 4 6 38 18 30

188 5.62%o Knowledge 361 19 17 55 311 24 17 301 (13) 108 180 28

68 2.03% CASEVAC - - 15 11 4 32 10 22 47 21 26

106 3.17% Mission 24 22, 2 14 11 3 27 8 19 65 41 24

56 1.67% NOD usage - I I 1 39 15 24 40 16 24

59 1.76% Navigation 1 1 - 2 - 2 37 18 19 40 19 21

36 1.08% Example 11 4 7 13 6, 7 2 - 2 26 10 16

53 1.58% Focus 10 9 1 11 5 6 10 8 2 31 22 9

47 1.40% Maintenance 1 1 16 2 14 11 16, (5) 28 19 9

131 3.91% Discipline 2 5 (3) 20 7 13 43 54 (11) 65 66 (1)

103 3.08% Leadership 5 9 (4) 11 14, (3) 35 29 6 51 52 (1)

52 1.55% PCl 2 - 2 6 91 (3) 17 18 (1) 25 27 (2)

103 3.08% Initiative 9 14 (5)i 8 12 (4) 33 27 6 50 53 (3)

108 3.23% Standards 4 12 (8)1 38 29 9 10 15 (5) 52 56 (4)

88 2.63% Rehearsals 3 3 3 2 1 35 42 (7) 41 47 (6)

35 1.05% Awareness 4 2 2 3 2 1 6 18 (12) 13 22 (9)

34 1.020c TLP (trp Idg prcc 2 9 (7) 1 5 (4) 6 11 (5) 9 25 (16)

34 1.02% Delegation 1 13 (12) 3 12 (9) 1 4 (3) 5 29 (24)

47 1.40% Coordination 5 8 (3) 2 11 (9) 3, 18, (15) 10 37 (27),

124 3.70% Communication 23 21 2 8 24 (16) 13 35 (22) 44 80 (36),

64 1.91%o Supervision 2 5 (3)1 9 24, 15) 3 21 -(18) 14 50 (36),

67 2.00% Priorities 2 11 (9) 9 13 (4) 4 28 (24) 15 52 (37),

61 1.82% Control 3 21 (18) 3 8 (5) 2 24 (22) 8 53 (45'

113 3.38% Security 2 (2) - 7 (7) 32, 72, (40) 32 81 (49),

155 4.6306 Planning 26 43 (17) 4 15 (11) 19 481 (29) 49 106 (57),

_210 6.27% Experience 4 68 (64) 29 38 (9) 8 631 (55) 41 169 (128),

14%12% 1% 14% 11% 3% 26% 24% 2% 53%

*When listed as a weakness, each comment indicating a lack of what the comment is about.

Motivation is a strength; lack of motivation is a weakness.

65
Net Strength by Subject. By rank ordering by PL Net strength, we can also offer a

list of potential training achievements and training priorities for the platoon leaders. At the

top of the list would be the attributes representing the greatest current strength: learning with

a net strength of 50. Continuing down form the top: Willingness 18, Knowledge 17,

Motivation 14, Flexibility 13, and Proficiency 9. The greatest weakness for platoon leaders

was experience with a net strength of (64) at the bottom. Working up from the bottom, areas

for PL improvement would be: tactical control (18), planning (17), delegation (12), setting

priorities (9), standards (8), and troop leading procedures (7). The same could be done for

PSG and for the junior NCO and EM in the platoon overall. No two lists would be quite the

same, as can be seen in Table 24 where we present a breakdown based on these target

groups.

For example, in total net strength, motivation is most frequently occurring strength, as

is evident in Table 3, but considering subjects individually, motivation ranks 4th in frequency

with the PL, and second with the PSG and the platoon overall. Experience is most noticeable

weakness in PLs and the platoons. Platoon sergeants are somewhat less likely to be

inexperienced,~ communications is their weakest attribute. Table 24 compares the relative

frequency of different findings for the three subjects.

Questions for Analysis

The "distribution analysis" is a simple accounting process that addresses the following

questions:

"* How many times was a given attribute--" Enthusiasm" for exam pl e--mentioned?

"* Which attributes were the most frequently occurring?

"* How often did a given attribute occur as a percentage of all attributed occurrences?

-, To which subject --the platoon leader, platoon sergeant, or the platoon--did each

occurrence apply?

"* Was the occurrence listed as a strength, or a weakness?

"* What is the net effect of all reported strengths and weaknesses for each attribute?

These tabulations, in turn, allows us to address the following questions:

"* What were the greatest strengths of platoon leaders and platoon sergeants?

"* What were their greatest weaknesses?

"* To what extent were the leaders strengths and weaknesses reflected in the

platoons?

By running the tabulation application across different sub-sets of platoons, other issues can

also be addressed:

66
* How did the rank ordering of the leadership attributes of top performing platoons

differ from the ordering of attributes revealed in bottom ranked platoons?

* How did the observed attributes in platoons that scored highest in transformational*

leadership behaviors vary from the observed attributes of platoons which scored

lowest in transformational leadership behaviors?

* What is the relationship between PL/PSG cooperation and platoon performance?

* What are the implications of these findings for leader training and unit readiness?

Table 25

Differential Analysis Comparing P1, PSG, and Platoon Findings for Top and Bottom 14 Attributes in

Descending Order by Net Strengths

Respondents N=450 field data cards

Platoon Leader Platoon Sergeant Platoon NCOs and EM

AWlbuteaI P1- Pt. Pt. Attrlbute/ PSG P6PSG Aiffibutos! Pt.T P1-? Pt.?

STNet WI(S

Ze srn Thpic Wat3 Motivation 66 7 59 Aggressivene23 6 10 Proflolency 18 8 15 Flexibility 61 1 &0

KowIede 36 19 17 Crefo*17 2 15 Oohesfci45 

etiation 19 5 14. Maintenance 16 2 14 Learning 30 1 29

le)db1lity 15 2 13 Doipline 20 7 13 NOD u39 15 24

ProficIency 10 1 Accountability 17 5 12 CASEVAC 32 14) 22.

Example 11 4 7 Resupply 12 2 10 Morale 23 2. 21

Cohesion 2 2 Standards 38 29 9 Willing 20 20

24 22 2 WIlling........9. I 8 MissIon a.

2 2. Example 13 $ 7 Navigation $7 18 19

Awareness 4 2 2. Attitude 7 1 6 Teamwork 12 2 14)

Communication 23 21 2. Focus 11 5 6 Attitude 1-1 2 9

10 9 1 Confknce 5 6 ProficIency 10 4 8

Rehearsals 3. 3......Leaderslip. ff.j4 (3).SIre.ngtti...........

Security 2 (2) ResponsIbility 4 8 (4) Discipline 43 .54 (11)

Elaplln2 5 (3) Ptnce 4 (4) Awateness a 18 (12)

Coordlna.tion 5 $ (3) Initiative 0 12 (4) Knowledge 17 30 (13)

Supevision 2 5 (3) TLP I S (4) Time Mgmnt .. . 14 (14)

Leadership 5 9 (4) Priorities 9 13 (4) Coordination 3 18 (15)

InItiative 9 14 (5) Control 3 (5) 5().........2.19 (17)

UP 2 9 (7) Security 7 (7) $upervison 3 21 (18)

Standards 4 12 (8) Coordination 2 II (9) Control 2 24 (22)

Priorities 2 14 (9) Delegation 3 12 (9) Communication 13 35 (22)

gation 1 13 (12) Experience 29 38 (9) PrioritIes 4 28 (24)

Planning 26 43 (17) Planning 4 15 (11) P1annin19 48 (29)

Control 3 21 (1 8) Siervision 9 24 (15) Security $2 72 (40)

Experience 4 68 (64) Communication 8 24 (16) Experience 8 63 (56)

Total 462 412 50 Total 457 360 97 Total 865 792 73

67
Transcripts of Narrative Comments. All narrative comments on the top and bottom

12 platoons based on JRTC evaluations can be obtained from the authors of this report.

Top and Bottom 12 of 72 Platoons. The top and bottom 12 platoons were selected

based on ratings for 72 platoons provided by O/C in Parts A and B of the field data cards. A

simple sum of ratings for A and B was used to identify the top 12 and bottom 12 platoons.

Platoons were also categorized based on falling into the top 12 and bottom 12 on

TMLQ transformational leadership. All of the narrative comments rendered on the high and

low 12 platoons in transformational leadership (TL) scores can be obtained from the authors

of this report. The high and low TL scores are based on the mean subordinate TL ratings for

all 72 platoons completing the TMLQ. The survey was conducted at home station by each

platoon a month prior to JRTC deployment. Earlier quantitative results showed that the TMLQ

did not appear to differentiate more or less effective platoon performance at JRTC, we

decided to explore the aggregate measures of transformational leadership further with

additional qualitative analyses.

Strengths and Weaknesses in Top vs. Bottom 12 Performing Platoons

Frequency of comments on strengths and weaknesses overall and by subject were

presented in Table 24 and 25.

O/Cs rated the performance of each platoon in parts A and B of the field data cards.

An overall rank ordering of all 72 platoons was produced based on these performance

scores. The narrative comments on the Top 12 and the Bottom 12 platoons are compared

and contrasted in this section. First, narrative findings for the top 12 platoons will be

quantified by topic. As before, attributes mentioned most often as strengths will appear at the

top of the list.

The strength bias is actually slightly less than for all platoons: 52% of all comments

were on strengths in Top performing platoons versus 53% for all platoons.

Findings for Bottom 12 Platoons in JRTC Performance. The results for the Bottom

12 of 72 platoons are presented in Table 26. Topics are listed in descending order by Total

Net Strength.

68
Table 26

Bottom 12 of 72 Platoons at JRTC Distribution of Cadre and O/C C.omments on

Strengths and Weaknesses

Respondents N=70 Field Data Cards

TOT 1% of Attributes / PL PL PSG PSG PLT PLT TOT TOT NET

CMTS CMTS Topics STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR

28 4.2% Motivation 5 0 2 1 18 2 25 3 22

24 3.6% Willing 13 1 4 0 6 0 23 1 22

23 3.5% Learn 14 1 2 0 6 0 22 1 21

23 3.5% Flexibility 9 1 0 2 11 0 20 3 17

15 2.3% CASEVAC 0 0 2 0 12 1 14 1 13

14 2.1% NOD 0 0 0 0 12 2 12 2 10

9 1.4% Persist 4 0 1 1 3 0 8 1 7

15 2.3% Initiative 2 1 2 1 6 3 10 5 5

7 1.1% Dedication 5 0 1 1 0 0 6 1 5

8 1.2% Rehearsal 0 0 0 1 6 1 6 2 4

39 5.9% Knowledge 10 5 7 8 4 5 21 18 3

18 2.7% Aggressive 0 2 2 0 8 6 10 8 2

23 3.5% Teamwork 4 0 1 4 7 7 12 11 1

15 2.3% Standards 2 0 4 4 2 3 8 7 1

7 1.1% Marksmanship 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 3 1

7 1.1% Listen 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 3 1

95 14.0% 33 Other Topics Omit ted Data Omitt ed Data

8 1.2% SOP 0 2 1 2 2 1 3 5 (2)

13 2.0% Skills, Individual 0 0 1 0 4 8 5 8 (3)

10 1.5% Aware 1 1 1 0 1 6 3 7 (4)

14 2.1% Supervise 0 1 4 7 0 2 4 10 (6)

24 3.6% Security 2 0 0 1 5 16 7 17 (10)

16 2.4% Leadership 0 1 0 5 3 7 3 13 (10)

14 2.1% TLP 1 4 0 4 1 4 2 12 (10)

16 2.4% Priorities 0 5 2 2 0 7 2 14 (12)

13 2.0% Control 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 13 (13)

24 3.6% Discipline 0 12 3 4 2 13 5 19 (14)

25 3.8% Skills, Collective 1 1 0 0 3 20 4 21 (17)

39 5.9% Communication 3 10 2 7 3 14 8 31 (23)

34 5.1% Planning 3 13 0 3 2 13 5 29 (24)

43 6 .

5 % Experience 0 11 7 12 2 11 9 34 (25)

663 100% Total 86 89 68 80 163 177 317 346 (29)

100% Percentages of total 13% 13% 10% 12% 25% 18% 48% 52% (4%)

comments

Findings for Top 12 Platoons in JRTC Performance. The strength bias is actually

slightly less than for all platoons: 52% of all comments were on strengths in Top performing

platoons vs. 53% for all platoons. These findings are presented in Table 27.

69
Table 27

Findings for Top 12 Platoons Distribution of Cadre and O/C Comments on

Strengths and Weaknesses in Top 12 Platoons at JRTC

Respondents N=72 field data cards

1.769

T % Attributes / PL P1 PSG PSG PIT PIT TOT TOT NET

CMTS CMT Topics STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR

S 1

45 5.9% 1 Knowledge 8 4 16 4 8 5 32 13 19

25 3.3% Aggressive 4 1 1 2 16 1 21 4 17

19 2.5% Motivation 3 1 4 1 10 17 2 15

30 3.9% Standards 1 1 17 3 4 4 22 8 14

20 2.6% Learning 7 3 3 1 5 1 15 5 10

10 1.3% Proficiency 3 - 3 - 4 10 - 10

29 3.8% Leadership 2 - 5 5 12 5 19 10 9

14 1.8% Flexibility 1 1 2 2 8 - 11 3 8

8 1.0% Willing 5 - 1 - 2 - 8 - 8

21 2.8% Mission 5 2 1 3 8 2 14 7 7

19 2.5% OPORD 10 3 3 3 13 6 7

11 1.5% Cohesion - 9 2 9 2 7

9 1.2% Listen 7 1 1 - 8 1 7

40 5.2% Discipline 1 2 7 5 15 10 23 17 6

10 1.3% Teamwork 1 - 3 1 4 1 8 2 6

8 1.0% CASEVAC - 3 1 4 - 7 1 6

6 0.8% Care for 2 4 - 6

soldiers

11 1.5% JPCl 1 7 3 8 13 5

16 2.1% Navigation . 1 1 8 6 10 16 4

42 5.5% Skills, 21 21 2 21

Collective

16 2.1% Rehearsal 1 7 8 8 8

8 1.1% Priorities 2 1 1 1 3 4 4

8 1.1% TLP 3 2 - - 1 2 4 .4

33 4.4% Planning 8 8 -2 8 7 16 17 (1)

29 3.8% Initiative 4 5 3 3 7 7 14 15 (1)

9 1.2% Maintenance 1 3 5 4 5 1

22 2.9% Skills, Individual 1 1 8 12 10 12 (2)

13 1.7% Patience 2 4 3 1 3 3 10

13 1.7% Supervision - 3 3 5 .2 3 10 (7)

10 1.3% Delegation - 5 - 3 2 - 10 (10)

22 2.9% Control 3 7 2 2 8 5 17 12

13 1.7% Coordination - 2 - 1 - 10 - 13 (13)

22 2.9% Scurity I - 1 - 3 3 15 3 19 (16)

28 3.7% Communicate - 4 2 8 3 11 5 23 (18)

55 7.3% Experience - 26 1 12 1 15 2 53 (51)

759 100% Total 103 93 98 74 196 195 397 362 35

Percentage Total 14% 12% 13% 10% 26% 26% 52% 48% 5%

70
Findings in Top 12 Platoons VS. Bottom 12 Platoons in JRTC Performance. Total

comments on top platoons registered 52% strengths and 48% weaknesses; in Bottom

platoons the figures were reversed: 48% of all comments were strengths vs. 52%

weaknesses. What may be of importance are the different qualities mentioned by 0/Cs of

the strengths in the top versus bottom groups. As will be seen, the greatest absolute

differences are in the leadership of these platoons.

Frequently Attributed Strengths. Both groups were described as "motivated" and

"learning". However, the bottom platoons were clearly described as being at an earlier stage

of development. They are "willing", while the top performing platoons are more noticeably "proficient" "aggressive", and "enforcing standards" under strong "leadership" notably from

the junior NOOs within the platoons. A comparison of the most frequently noted weaknesses

* is also revealing. Both groups have frequently observed weaknesses in experience,

interpersonal communication, and maintaining tactical control. However, in the Bottom

performing group, few collective skills and the lack of control are frequently combined with

lack of discipline.

Frequently Reported Strengths

Bottom 12 Platoons Top 12 Platoons

Motivation Knowledge

Willingness Aggressiveness

Learning Motivation

Casualty Evacuation Enforcing Standards

Use of night observation Learning

devices Proficiency

Persistence Leadership

Initiative

Frequently Reported Weaknesses

Bottom 12 Platoons Top 12 Platoons

Experience Experience

Planning Communicating

Communicating Security

Skills, Collective Coordination

-sDiscipline Control

Control Delegation

Priorities Supervision

Platoon Leaders versus Platoon Sergeants. In the bottom performing platoons,

there were a total of 323 comments on the performance of the platoon leaders and sergeants.

71
154 comments were registered as strengths and 169 as weaknesses: 52% were comments

on weaknesses and 48% were comments on strengths.

In the top performing platoons, there were a total of 368 comments on the performance

of the platoon leaders and the platoon sergeants. 201 comments were registered as

strengths and 167 as weaknesses. 55% were comments on strengths, while 45% on

weaknesses.

Qualitative Interpretation of Top and Bottom Differences

Most differences between top and bottom performing platoons in this analysis are

probably not attributable to differences in resources such as training time, home station

location, or personnel strength --although all such factors are clearly important to overall

performance. All platoons, including those scoring among the both the top and bottom 12,

were lacking in the experience.

Top and bottom performing platoons in this study were frequently to be found in the

same brigades, battalions, and even within the same companies. Although seven of the 12

top performing platoons emerge from one brigade rotation, there were platoons from all four

brigades that scored in the top and bottom 12. Five of the eight battalions participating in the

study, had platoons that were ranked in both the top as well as the bottom 12 of 72 platoons.

Three of the 24 companies had platoons ranked in both the top and bottom 12 of 72

platoons. Only one platoon out of 72 came to the JRTC under strength to the point that both

0/C respondents mentioned it as a significant factor in their performance.

The difference in the platoon's performance does not seem to be based on the quality

of the enlisted soldiers. In the current analysis of cadre and 0/C comments, the quality of the

performance of enlisted soldiers and junior NOOs (platoon findings) varied between platoons

to a far lesser extent than the quality of attributes of the platoon leader. While military skills,

technical and tactical knowledge, and high levels of competence are clearly important

elements for success in top performing platoons, these attributes were also present only to

slightly varying degrees, in all 72 platoons (see platoon tabulations in Tables 24 and 25).

Leadership appears to make a difference between top and bottom performing platoons

based on both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The relative importance of platoon

leadership is a finding that will be further supported in a comparative analysis of all five

subsets of platoon leaders following the next section of this report.

0/C and Cadre Comments According to the Platoon's TMLQ in Home Station

Transformational Leadership

Methodology. As noted earlier in our Methods section, platoon members completed

the Team Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaires at home station. The TMLQ was designed

to measure six leadership factors across a spectrum of transactional and transformational

behaviors. Those items on the survey that loaded on indicators of transformational leadership

were scored and a transformational leadership (TL) rating was determined for each platoon

72
on a scale of zero to four. A score of zero indicated no transformational behaviors were

observed in the platoon; a score of "4" indicated that transformational behaviors occurred

"frequently if not always." The average "TL" mean score for all 72 JRTC platoons was 2.30.

The lowest mean platoon score was 1.66. The highest was 2.92.

In this analysis, narrative findings will compared for the 12 High TL versus the 12 Low

TL platoons. Tabular data will be presented for both groups as before. Comparisons similar

to those made in the analysis of Top vs. Bottom performing platoons will be made. Finally,

an overall comparison of the relative strength of platoon leaders in all five groups is

presented.

Strengths and Weaknesses in High vs. 12 Low TL Platoons in Transformational

Leadership (TL)

Table 28 presents findings for the 12 high TL platoons. Comments are independent

observations by 0/C and cadre during tactical training at JRTC. The layout is the same as in

earlier comparisons, with all attributes! topics rank ordered by net strength. Again, the most

frequently occurring strengths are listed at the top progressing downward to the most

frequently occurring weakness at the bottom.

A count of total comments in the high TL data set indicated nearly a 50-50% split on

findings of strengths and weaknesses (i.e., 400 strengths vs. 393 weaknesses). The attribute

count of comments for platoon leaders favored strengths., The PSG and PL attribute count

favored weakness. The most distinctive finding in this set of qualitative data was the very

high occurrence of positive comments on cohesion.

Frequency of comments for the 12 lowest platoons in transformational leadership were

rank ordered by net strength and are presented in Table 29. The strength bias reported

earlier for the total data on all platoons was not evident among the comments on low TL

platoons. In fact, total weaknesses exceeded total strengths by about 4%--ranking with

Bottom 12 in overall performance. There were 247 comments on strengths and 263

comments on weaknesses. Among platoon leaders, the split was nearly equal with 61

comments on strengths versus 62 comments on weaknesses: There was a greater

percentage of comments on weakness (8%) in the PSG comments: 57 comments on

Strengths versus 67 on weaknesses. Comments on platoon (EM and junior NOOs) also

focused more on weaknesses (2%). Comments on cohesion were hard to locate in this

group--barely 6 comments of which were on weaknesses.

73
Table 28

High 12 Platoons Per Home Station TL Scores: Distribution of Cadre and O/C

Comments on Strengths and Weaknesses

Respondents N=77 Field Data Cards

TOT % Attributes PTL PL PSG JPSG PLT JPLT TOT TOTINET

CMTS; CMTS Topics S R WK STR JWKS STR JWKS STIR WK ISTR

S I I S

18 2.3% 1 Qohesion 1 10 10 10 17 0 18 0 18

20 2.5% Flexibility 3 1 11 10 14 1 18 2 16

52 6.6% KnovAedge 17 5 9 9 6 6 32 20 12

18 2.3% Teamwork 2 0 5 0 8 3 15 3 12

12 1.5% Proficiency 7 0 2 0 3 0 12 0 12

12 1.5% ,Morale 2 10 2 0 8 0 12 0 12

32 4.0% IlDiscipline 1 0 15 13 15 8 21 11 10

20 2.5% Motivation 4 1 13 11 8 3 15 5 10

45 5.7% Communication 16- 3 11 17 10 8 127 18 19

13 1.6% CASEVAC 0 0 6 2 5 10 11 2 9

11 1.4% Learn 7 10 0 0 3 1 10 1 9

8 1.0% ,OPORD 5 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 8

8 1.0% IlWilling 4 0 1 0 3 0 8 0 8

30 3.8% Aggressive 4 2 2 .6 12 4 18 12 6

9 1.1 % Accountability 0 0 6 2 0 1 6 3 M3

26 3.3% Mission 6 4 3 4 5 14 14 12 2

9 1.1% C.I. e 1 12 4 0 0 12 5 4 1

90 11% .. 22 Omitted Topics DATA OMI ED

30 3.8% Initiative 4 3 3 6 7 7 14 .16 (2)

26 3.3% '-§upervision 1 3 11 7 0 4 12 14 (2)

20 2.5% Leadership 0 1 2 3 7 7 9 11 (2)

10 1.3% Maintenance 1 .0 1 0 2 6 4 6 (2)

15 1.9% ,Standards 1 4 4 3 1 2 6 9 (3)

9 1.1% " Marksmanship 0 0 "o 0 3 6 3 16 (3)

20 2.5% Rehearsal 1 2 11 0 6 10 8 12

33 4.2% Skills, Collective 0 0 0 0 14 19 14 19 (5)

23 2.9% Security 0 .0 0 1 9 113 9 14 (5

9 1.1% IlCoordination 1 10 0 5 0 3 1 8 (7)

16 2.0% IlSkills, Individual 0 0 0 0 3 13 3 13 (10)

42 5.3% IlPlanning 8 11 2 6 5 10 15 27 (1

16 2.0% Delegation 1 6 0 4 1 4 2 14 (12)

15 1.9% Priorities 1 5 0 3 0 6 1 14 13)

16 2.0% IlControl 0 6 1 2 0 7 1 15 (14)

15 1.9% ITime Mngmnt 0 9 0 10 0 6 0 15 (15)

45 5.7% lExperience 0 17 6 7 1 14 7 38 (31)

793 Total 115 94 91 96 194 203 400 393 7

15% 12% 11% 12% 24% 26% 50% 50% 1%

74
Table 29

Distribution of Cadre and O/C Comments on Strengths and Weaknesses

Low 12 Platoons Per Home Station TL Scores

Field Data Cards N=50

TOT Attributes I PL PL PSG PSG PLT PLT TOT TOT NET

CMTS Topics STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR WKS STR

15 3.30% Aggressive 4 11 15 15

27 5.95% Knowledge 5 2 9 3 6 2 20 7 13

13 2.86% Motivation 4 1 1 7 12 1 11

13 2.86% Standards 1 8 1 3 12 1 11

10 2.20% Listen 9 1 10 10

11 2.42% Flexibility 3 1 1 6 10 1 9

11 2.42% Mission 3 1 4 1 2 9 2 7

9 1.98% Learn 3 1 2 3 8 1 7

7 1.54% Proficiency 1 - 3 - 3 - 7 - 7

25 5.51% Discipline 2 3 2 12 6 15 10 5

7 1.54% Navigation - 6 1 6 1 5

7 1.54% Leadership 1 - - - 5 1 6 1 5

4 0.88% Dedication 2 2 - 4 4

33 0.072 29 Omitted Topics Omitt ed Data

8 1.76% CASEVAC 1 1 4 2 5 3 2

27 5.95% Skills, Collective - 1 - 1 14 11 14 13 1

9 1.98% Teamwork 1 1 1 2 3 1 5 4 1

16 3.52% Skills, Individual - - 8 8 8 8 -

4 0.88% cohesion 2 2 2 t

6 1.32% PCI 1 1 1 3 2 4 2

6 1.32% TLP 1 1 - 2 2 4 (2)

4 0.88% Control 1 1 1 1 3 (2)

7 1.54% Marksmanship - 2 5 2 5 (3)

12 2.64% Priorities 1 21 4 1 4 4 8 (4

8 1.76% OPORD 2 4 - - 2 2 6 (4)

4 0.88% Patience 2 - - 2 - 4 4

12 2.64% Rehearsal 1 1 2 8 3 9 (6)

20 4.41% Initiative 1 3 1 3 4 8 6 14 (8)

11 2.42% Security 1 1 1 8 1 10 9

18 3.96% Supervision 2 4 9 - 3 4 14 (10)

10 2.20% Coordination - 2 - 2 - 6 - 10 (10)

11 2.42% Delegation 1 - 11 _3 (11) _7 

20 4.41% Planning 2 12 2 - 4 2 18 (16)

21 4.63% Experience 1 7 1 5 - 7 2 19 (17

28 6.17% Communication 1 5 2 6 1 13 4 24 (20)

454 100% Total 54 57 55 58 112 118 221 233 (12)

12% 13% 12% 13% 25% 26% 49% 51% -3%

75
Among the 12 low ranking platoons in TMLQ transformational leadership, observer

comments indicated the Junior NCOs and EM lack initiative. Orders concerning operations

were weak and poorly understood at the lowest levels. Lack of communication was the most

frequently occurring comment among observers of these platoons. Of the 33 comments

registered, all but eight were focused on weaknesses. One observer noted, "Mavericks",

where another oberserver noted "platoon focus only-- no communication or coordination with

adjacent unit or up the chain." As with other platoons, the platoon leaders and sergeants

lacked experience. In this group, one of the consistent comments concerned the junior NOOs

not keeping their soldiers informed or in check. Supervision was also commented on as

being a weakness in this group.

Most Frequently Reported Strengths

High 12 TL Platoons Low 12 TL Platoons

Cohesion Aggressiveness

Flexibility Motivation

Knowledge Flexibility

Teamwork Knowledge

Proficiency Standards

Morale Listening

Discipline Mission focus

The top ranking for cohesion in the High TL group is most noteworthy. In no other

data set does cohesion rank as the top attribute when sorting by net strength; the highly

positive finding is unanimous among 0/C and cadre respondents. The platoon leaders

received 23 comments on their technical and tactical knowledge. 77% of those comments

were favorable. Teamwork, Proficiency, Morale, and Discipine all ranked high in this group

both for leaders and followers.

Both the high and low TL groups were commented on as being "flexible" and

"knowledgeable" in both technical and tactical subjects. Low TL platoons were seen as more

often enforcing military standards--something of a weakness in high TL platoons.

The greatest qualitative strength associated with the high TL platoons was their

cohesiveness, unmatched in other subsets. Also important were their high ratings on

discipline. Of the 32 comments by observers of this attribute, nearly half focused on junior

NCOs and EM, and the majority of these were also favorable.

The greatest qualitative strength for low TL platoons was their aggressiveness. They

also received high marks in motivation, standards, and mission focus. There were 35

comments on knowledge, most of which pertained to technical understanding. Of these

comments, 66% were positive.

76
Most frequently Reported Weaknesses

High 12 TL Platoons Low 12 TL Platoons

Experience Communications

Time Management Planning

Control Experience

Priorities Delegation

Delegation Supervision

Planning Coordination

Skills, Individual Security

Both the top and bottom TL groups lacked experience and did poorly in planning.

Beyond the attributes listed, there were 28 comments on discipline in the low TL platoons:

57% were positive. However, the platoon leaders and sergeants in the low TL platoons,

apparently did not set the example in terms of being effective planners.

Comparison of Strengths Among all Platoon Leaders. The final objective of this

qualitative analysis was to take a closer look at the overall quality of leadership for the 72

platoon leaders. To undertake this analysis, only narrative data on platoon leaders was

considered. The intent here was to compare the consolidated findings on the 72 platoon

leaders with findings for each of the four included subsets:

Only comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the platoon leaders were

considered. The basis for rank ordering the five groups is the percentage of total comments

attributed as strengths; this "strength rating" is calculated by dividing the total comments on

strengths by total comments on strengths plus total comments on weaknesses. All comments

on the platoon leaders, both strengths and weaknesses, are thereby considered for purposes

of comparisons by attribute and for rank ordering of overall results. Only the most frequently

occurring attributes! topics were selected for use in the body of Table 30.

Topics receiving at least one percent of all PL comments are presented in the tabular

data; this is the same frequency cut-off point used earlier. There were comments on every

attribute in the baseline data set, which included all 72 platoon leaders. In those cases where

only a few comments were received, the tabular percentage for each attribute becomes less

meaningful. Where the number of comments per attribute is less than 5, the corresponding

percentage is shaded in Table 30, as a reminder of the low frequency rate reported for that

attribute.

In Table 29, a list of the 32 attributes constituting at least one percent of all PL

comments are listed in the left-most column. At the very top of the chart are the total numbers

of respondent field data cards that were received for the platoon leaders in each subset. In

the first group of comparative data, the number of comments and their strength rates are

shown for all 72 platoon leaders. This was used as baseline for comparing platoon leaders.

The findings for the four comparison groups of platoon leaders are shown in

subsequent sets of columns: "Top 12" platoon leaders in the first set of data; "High 12 TL"

77
platoon leaders in the second set; "Bottom 12" in the third set, and "Low 12 TL" platoon

leaders in the fourth set. Attributes listed on the left were encountered in at least one percent

of all PL comments in the baseline group of 72 platoon leaders. In the body of the chart, for

each attribute, the total number of received comments (strengths and weaknesses) is listed,

followed by the strength rate for that attribute. The strength rate was the percentage of those

comments recorded by respondents as strengths. Thus, both strengths and weaknesses are

reflected in the strength rates per attribute. The strength rate per attribute is determined by

dividing the total strengths by total strengths plus total weaknesses for each attribute.

Near the bottom of Table 29 are the total numbers of comments and total strength

rates recorded for all comments attributed to the platoon leaders in each data set. Again, the

total weaknesses are accounted for in the overall strength rate. Thus a strength rate of 50%

would indicate half the comments were attributed as strengths and half were attributed as

weaknesses. A strength rate of zero indicates all comments were recorded as weaknesses.

These totals at the bottom of Table 29 included omitted attributes. Since only the most

frequently mentioned attributes are included in the body of the table, the totals at the bottom

are greater than the sums for attributes in the body of the table. Total percentages are

calculated by dividing total strengths by the sum of total strengths plus total weaknesses.

Comparisons between data sets

In the aggregate, the total numbers of comments in each subset, though lower for the

"uLow TL" and "Bottom 12" groups, still netted more than a 100 comments on strengths and

weaknesses and are considered adequate for purposes of determining overall strength

comparisons.

The overall strength rates for the four sub-sets selected for comparison in Table 30

vary from a high of 55% for the High TL group to a low of 48.6% for the Low TL Group. The

PL groups are arranged in Table 30 in descending order by overall strength rates from 55%

for the High TL group to 48.6% for the low TL group.

The reader should keep in mind, that the total net strength is an appropriate measure

for comparing the frequency of attributes within a given subset. However, it is less useful for

comparisons between data sets since there were variations in the numbers of respondent

field data cards received for the four sub sets. Comparisons across groups should be done

with some degree of caution. Note that there was complete source independence of the

TMLQ differentiation and the 0/C comments while the JRTC differentiation was biased by

same source variance as both identification of top and bottom 12 JRTC: groups and

comments came from the 0/Cs.

78
Table 30

Platoon Leader Strength Comparisons: All vs. Four Selected Subsets

All Plat Ldrs High12 TL Topl12 Bottoml12 Low 12TL

Respondents N=450 N=76 N=72 N=70 N=50

Attributes / TOT STR TOT STR TOT STR TOT ISTR TOT STR

Comment Key Word CMTS RATE CMVTS RATE CMTS RATE CMVTS IRATE CMTS RATE

Aggressiveness 28 82% 6 67% 5 8% 2 4 A~

Attitude 12 75% 4 3 2

Communication 44 52% 19 84% 4 ~ % 13 23% 6 17

Conf idence 13 31% _____ 4 '4% 4 >

Control 24 13% 6 0% 10 30% 7 0%/C 1 -~%

Coordination 13 38% 2_2_. 2 ._._. .2.'. 

Decisiveness 21 29% __ 4 4% 2 .% 2 %

Dedication 8 100% ___ 2 10% 5 100% 2

Delegation 14 7% 7 14% 5 0% 3

Enthusiasm 16 88% __ _____ __ ___

Example 15 73% ____________

Experience 72 6% 17 0% 26 0% 11 0% 8 13%

Flexibility 17 88% 4 T 2 5% 10 90% 3

Focus 19 53% 2~0%~

Improve 10 90% _ 2 1 1__ ._00 1.. . ..

Initiative 23 39% 7 57% 9 44% 3 07" 4

Knowledge 55 65% 122 77% 12 67% 15 67% 7 71%

Leadership 14 36% __ __ 2 10% 1 1 100%

Learn 62 90% 7 100% 10 70% 15 93% 4

Listen 21 67% 5 80% 8 88% 6 50% 9 100%

Mission 46 52% 10 60% 7 71% 2 0% 4 %

Motivation 24 79% 5 80% 4 fl%* 5 100% 5 80%

OPORD 26 58% 5 100% 13 77% 6 33% 6 33%

Patience 12 33% ______ 6 330% 4 100% 2 ggW

Planning 69 38% 19 42% 16 50% 16 19% 114 14%

Priorities 13 15% 6 17% 2 ~A0< 5 0% 1

Proficiency 11 91% 7 100% 3 1~ __ 0%

Receptiveness 16 94% 1___

Standards 16 25% 5 20% 2 5% 2 ....... 1 ...... %

Time Management 17 0% 9 0% 3 % 1 0% 3

TLP (trp leading pr) 11 18% 4 :JQ1 5 6% 5 20% 2

lWilling . 37 92% 4 ~0% 5 100 149MY 3 t

ITotal/Avg (ALL) 8__4 52.9%/ 209 55% 19 2.5%1 175 49.1%j 111 46

79
Findings for Platoon Leader Comparisons

The "High 12 TL" group. This group of officers received a total of 209 comments of

which 115 comments described strengths and 94 comments described weaknesses. The

High TL group achieved an overall strength rating of 55%, which was higher than any other

group of leaders in this study.

The platoon leaders in the High TL group achieved above average strength

percentages in 15 of the 22 (68%) attributes in which they were scored. Qualitatively, the

areas of above average performance included: mission, focus, attitude, learning, listening,

motivation, communications, knowledge, proficiency, the issuing of operations orders,

planning, proficiency, delegation, and willingness. The group scored at the average for all

platoon leaders in one area: that area was time management --an attribute in which no group

had any observed strengths. The group scored below average for all platoon leaders in 6 of

22 scored areas (27%): Aggressiveness, Control, Experience, TLP (Troop Leading

Procedures), Flexibility, and Standards.

The "Top 12" JRTC Group achieved a strength rating of only 52.5%, which was nearly

identical to the percentage achieved by all 72 platoon leaders (52.9%).

The lieutenants in Top 12 group achieved above average strength percentages in 18

of 28 rated areas (64%): attitude, confidence, control, decisiveness, improvement, initiative,

knowledge, leadership, listen, mission, motivation, OPORD preparation, willingness, troop

leading procedures, planning, priorities, proficiency, and standards enforcement.

This group scored at the average in three attributes: dedication, patience, and time

management.

The group scored below the average for all platoon leaders in seven of 28 areas

(25%): aggressiveness, learning, communications, coordination, delegation, experience, and

flexibility.

"Bottom 12" JRTC Group. There were 175 total comments received on the "Bottom

12" group; 89 were recorded as strengths. The Bottom 12 platoons achieved a strength rating

of 49.1 % from the observer group of 0/C and cadre--a rating nearly 4% below the baseline

average for all lieutenants.

Platoon leaders in the "Bottom 12" group achieved above average strength

percentages in nine of 25 rated attributes (36%): flexibility, improvement, initiative,

knowledge, learning, patience, standards, willingness, and troop leading procedures (TLP).

The group achieved an average score in one attribute: dedication. The "average" score was

100%, a finding that is not particularly surprising as will be discussed in our conclusions

regarding the qualitative data analysis. Platoon leaders in this "Bottom 12" group scored

below average in 15 of 25 attributes (60%): aggressiveness, attitude, communications,

confidence, control, decisiveness, experience, leadership, listening, mission, motivation,

OPORD preparation, planning, priorities, and time management.

80
"Low 12 TL" Group. The low transformational leadership group received a total of

111 comments from 0/C and Cadre observers: 54 comments identified strengths; 57

identified weaknesses. This group had a total strength report of 48.6%--a score that was

4.3% lower than the baseline average of 52.9% achieved by all 72 platoon leaders. The

relatively lower numbers of total comments on the strengths and weaknesses of this group is

due in part, to the larger number of platoons in this group that participated in the first rotation,

before field data cards were modified to provide information equally on strengths and

weaknesses. This, in turn, has resulted in lower numbers of comments per attribute, which

has reduced the precision of the percentages by which individual attributes are measured.

The total number of comments is adequate for measuring a total strength percentage for this

group overall, but comparative measurements by attribute is often not possible, due to the

fewer numbers of qualified field data cards.

In only seven of 25 attributes are there sufficient numbers to yield comparisons with

the baseline group. Above average findings by attribute were found in experience, listening,

motivation, and knowledge. Below average strength percentages were found in

communication, OPORD preparation, and patience.

Summary of Qualitative Comment Analysis Findings

The strongest group of leaders was from platoons rated highest in transformational

leadership by platoon members at home station. Platoons rated by members as being

highest in transformational leadership, accrued the highest strength rating in narrative

comments by 0/C and Cadre observers a month later in the field at JRTC. The strength rate

achieved by the High TL group was 55%, which was higher than the strength rating achieved

by any other group of leaders. This top rating was determined by a comparative analysis of

0/C and cadre comments on four subsets of leaders.

The weakest group of platoon leaders was from platoons that were rated lowest in

transformational leadership by platoon members at home station. Their strength rate at JRTC

was 48.2%, which was the lowest of the five groups. The low strength rating was based on

comments by 0/C and Cadre at JRTC comparing descriptions of strengths and weaknesses

on the final version of the Field Data Card--the same methodology used to determine

strengths ratings for all platoons. The Low TL group of platoons was selected based on their

having achieved the lowest mean transformational leadership scores as determined by

Platoon TMLQ instruments completed by platoon members at home station a month prior to

JRTC.

Regarding comparisons between the High and Low TL group, the raters who

completed the comment cards were totally different from the raters who completed the home

station survey. While the company cadre who completed some of the field data cards

describing platoon behaviors at JRTC, also completed MLQ questionnaires on the PL and

PSG at home station, however these cadre- the company commander, company X0 and

Company First Sergeant- did not participate in the TMLQ survey used to determine platoon

transformational leadership scores. The mean platoon transformational leadership scores

81
were derived from Platoon TMLQ data collected from platoon members only, and no

company cadre were involved in these evaluations.

Comparisons between "Top and Bottom 12" JRTC Platoons involved some raters from

the same source: the Observer /Controllers. The Top and Bottom 12 platoons were

determined based directly on 0/C answers to questions in parts "A" and "B" of the field data

cards and also on 0/C ratings on 14 points of PL and PSG performance. The strength ratings

were determined indirectly from 0/C and cadre narrative comments on strengths and

weaknesses in part "C" of the field data cards. Six of the nine field data cards per platoon

were completed by the 0/C.

Methodologies and data used to select the top and bottom 12 platoons were distinctly

different from the methods used in this text analysis. However, the 0/Cs provided all of the

data for platoon selection to high and low groups, and two thirds of the comments used to

determine their strengths rates in the narrative analysis.

Inconsistencies between O/C Ratings and 0/C Narratives. The £top 12" group,

based on 0/C performance ratings, also included four platoons, which platoon members had

rated as being among the 12 lowest in transformational leadership. Further investigation

reveals that two of the "Top 12" platoons were also described by the 0/Cs in their narrative

comments as having weaknesses which would have ranked them among the lowest 12 TL

platoons.

This inconsistency helps to explain why the final strength rate among the "Top 12"

JRTC platoons were slightly below the average for all 72 platoons. (All four Low TL platoons

might have been so rated, but narratives on strengths and weaknesses on two platoons were

collected before the Field Data Cards had been modified to include these items.)

Consistency of findings. An average score of 100% on the attribute dedication

appears overstated, yet such high marks on dedication are generally consistent with findings

from a recent survey of 11,680 respondents in a US military climate and culture survey. The

overall strongest levels of agreement found anywhere in that study were in response to the

statement, "I am proud to serve in America's armed forces." The strongest levels of

agreement in general were with the clusters of questions focusing on pride, duty, and

commitment. (American Military Culture in the twenty-first Century, A Report of the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC. February 2000)

Implications for training

Earlier in the qualitative analysis, the relationship between "motivation" and

"1experience" was touched upon. In Table 24 it was revealed that motivation was the greatest

strength and experience was the greatest weakness based on more than 3000 comments

from 450 observers of infantry rifle platoons at JRTC. From these findings one can infer,

based on the common definition of experience, that longer tenure for rifle platoon officers,

junior NCOs / enlisted soldiers, and platoon sergeants, in that order, could likely result in

improved platoon performance at JRTC. In context, experience was usually taken to mean

82
the length of time an incumbent leader had served in his current position (See key word

definitions in Appendix B).

A key question for the Army is whether the "experience" gap, is a product of

assignment tenure or of not learning from past experience--or a combination? If it is

assignment only, then we are bringing into the equation something over which the

participants had no control. Experience does not fit in the improvement model except to say

that most folks need time to learn. Should the duration of assignments at the platoon level be

reconsidered? Should the MAR process and other tools for enhancing the lessons of

experience be reviewed? These questions are raised by the current findings, but cannot be

answered on the basis of the data collected for this study.

Implications for Leadership Training and Development

The implications of these findings are particularly significant for Army leadership

training and development. Differences in platoon performance at JRTC appear to be

attributable to differences in the frequency of transformational leadership behaviors seen by

platoon members at home station.

Transformational leadership (TL) may become an even more powerful model for

leader training and development at higher levels in the organization where elements of selfmotivation and coordination are typically more critical to organizational effectiveness. What is

not at all clear, however, is whether transformational behaviors can be learned by all leaders,

or even identified by them, without specific coaching. This must continue to be a critical area

for further study and experimentation.

Looking back to the inconsistencies in 0/C responses on the field data cards, perhaps

0/Cs, being untrained in the identification and importance of TL, might be more inclined to

misinterpret or overlook instances of low TL behavior at the platoon level and below.

Perhaps, in rifle squads and fire-teams, high or low levels of transformational leadership go

unnoticed, not because they are undetectable by an 0/C, but because they are not seen as

the critical issue to comment on given limited space and time. Interviews with 0/C on this

topic might be fruitful in answering this question. Perhaps those four "Low TL" platoons that

were evaluated by 0/Cs that ended up in the "Top 12" group, were somehow able to draw

upon other attributes and thus perform exceptionally well at JRTC in spite of their low TL

scores. Alternatively, JRTC is viewed by many 0/Cs as a development lab where leaders

and followers can make mistakes. Consequently, the 0/Cs may have judged those platoons

more on progress then on levels of absolute performance. The type of developmental

message they intended to convey to the platoon leaders may have affected the ratings

feedback that was given by the 0/Cs.

Communication

Another obvious follow-on topic concerns the weaknesses noted in communication

skills. This attribute is frequently lacking between PL and PSG in low performing units; but

communications is also a very frequently observed weakness among junior NCOs and EMs in

83
rifle squads and fire teams. There needs to be additional attention placed on improving

communication processes in platoons.

The comments were almost always with reference to interpersonal communications.

The comments referred to "cross-talk" which, taken in context, always seemed to be a

positive attribute. We know survey respondents were not talking about shortcomings in radio

telephone procedures. "Cross-talk" implied recurrent dialogue between and among members

and across organizational boundaries focusing specifically on interpersonal communication.

The seemingly broad preference for increasing levels of communication and quantity

requires further investigation. Such research might begin with a series of follow-up interviews

with 0/Cs. Surely, better units do not simply talk more. 'Or do they? Where are the boundary

lines where healthy "cross-talk" becomes dysfunctional "back-talk'? And, in very high

performing units, where are the boundaries between explicit telling and implicit knowing? To

what extent is "cross-talk" a substitute for the lack of excellence and practice in field

operating SOPs? Again, interviews with 0/C would probably help clarify this issue of

communication weaknesses.

Tactical training implications

These data are a rich area for distilling training implications. One example will be

offered based on four closely related training problems evident in these findings. We have

observed weaknesses in planning, setting priorities, time management and troop leading

procedures (TLP). All four are closely related areas of frequently observed weaknesses in

infantry platoons operations. The Troop Leading Procedures are a proven checklist of about

14 time sensitive actions, in priority order, that small unit leaders oftentimes should take

when preparing for combat operations. When the TLP checklist is most needed, the small

unit leaders have the least time to look for it. This simple "time management" tool is probably

over due for renewed command emphasis. Small unit leaders could memorize the list in

about 50 minutes. It would probably pay big dividends if this checklist could be recalled from

memory while small unit leaders, under the stress of combat, are trying to decide what to do

next.

Qualitative Model Improvements

In terms of the validity of the model used in these analyses, the use of net strength (or

weakness) as calculated, is considered to be an adequate approach for rank ordering

leadership attributes within a given data set. In Table 29, the methodology is modified to

embrace the notion of strength rates to allow comparisons of strengths and weakness across

data sets of differing sizes.

Future qualitative analyses will need to take into consideration the relative importance

or seriousness of the individual dimensions, beyond simply examining the frequency of their

occurrence? For example, should three comments on "motivation" count more than one

major comment on demotivational behavior? Maybe.

84
Finally, to extend our analyses the observed attributes could potentially be classified

into larger groupings-such as the Be, Know, Do, attributes discussed in FM 22-100. Using

this approach might help focus future Army leadership assessment and training on areas of

more direct relevance to platoon performance?

Summary of Qualitative Findings

There were several interesting patterns that emerged from the qualitative data

analysis. First, the more effective platoons at JRTC had PLs and PSGs that were rated by

0/Cs as having significantly better relationships with each other, which could be described as

transformational. These relationships were typically described as being more open,

supportive, challenging of each others' assumptions, willingness to listen to each other,

inspiring each other, etc. We also found that there was a positive correlation between the

type of relationship that the PSG and PL had in home station, as seen by members of the

platoon, and the relationship observed/described by the 0/C raters at JRTC. Finally, the

worst performing platoons had PLs and PSGs that did not listen to each other, openly

disregarded each other's opinion, intervened with each other only when things went wrong

and were not helpful to each other's development.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that PL and PSG transformational leaders were generally more

effective in home station and again in JRTC combat readiness missions. Results varied by

source of ratings as well as in terms of the level of agreement across rater groups. The

pattern of results observed with respect to rater source indicated that simply combining

different source ratings into an overall average would mask some of the leadership

differences observed in home station and/or at JRTC. Also, from a developmental

perspective, relying only upon self-ratings of leadership is simply inadequate to predict

performance. The best predictors of performance in near combat conditions came from other

sources of ratings, not from self-ratings of leadership.

Although many leadership training programs tend to concentrate on the positive styles

of leadership, our results point to the importance of examining and eliminating passive

avoidant styles as well. Results presented here clearly indicated that leaders, who were

more passive and/or avoidant in home station, also led platoons that performed worse at

JRTC. Moreover, the qualitative observations collected from the 0/Cs at JRTC also

confirmed that leaders who were either passive or simply focused on correcting problems as

they arose, lead to lower performing platoons at JRTC.

We also reported that the level of agreement concerning the collective leadership of

the platoon can potentially serve as a proxy for cohesion, and can serve as an important

indicator of the platoon's overall effectiveness. Further analysis of different member levels in

the platoon are currently being explored to determine whether alternative sources of ratings

have more or less shared variance and its implications for predicting platoon performance.

85
Company culture was also shown to be a potential predictor of platoon performance.

Examining how company culture over time effects the pattern of individual and team

leadership seems worth pursuing in future research.

Limitations

In any complex project, there are always a number of potential limitations to be

considered when interpreting the results. This current study is no exception. First, although

.the survey scales were well-established, modifications were made to scales for use in the

military context. Ironically, the largest number of changes was made to the MA scale, which

consistently generated the lowest estimates of internal consistency.

Second, survey ratings only capture a limited set of behaviors. In the current setting,

the relationship between the PL and the PSG appeared to be quite relevant to the platoon's

performance in JRTC. Collecting field observations of their interactions in home station

would likely have helped augment predictions of performance. Third, results presented here

were based on an examination of a light infantry platoon's performance as seen by an

observer, who was charged with the goal of developing platoons. Hence, we need to restrict

our conclusions to this sample and now recommend these leadership measures be used to

predict platoon performance with other forces across different evaluation contexts.

Overall, the current study provided ample justification for linking individual

transformational and contingent reward leadership to platoon performance. The next obvious

step is to see how such leadership can be developed to augment unit performance.

86
REFERENCES

Atwater, L., Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). A retrospective/prospective view of leadership

development, emergence, and performance. U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. Alexandria, VA.

Atwater, L., Lau, A., Bass, B., Avolio, B., Camobreco, J., & Whitmore, N. (1994). The

content, construct and criterion-related validity of leader behavior measures. (ARI

Research Note 95-01). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Avant, D.D. (1994). Political institutions and military change: Lessons from peripheral wars.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and

advanced manuals. Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton, NY.

Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1993). Cross generations: A full range leadership development

program. Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University, NY.

Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1994). Evaluating the impact of transformational leadership

training at individual, .roups, organizational and community levels. Final report to the

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University,

Binghamton: New York.

Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of

analysis. A multilevel framework for examining the diffusion of transformational

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.(1999) Reexamining the components of transformational

and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462

Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., Murry, W.D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly

developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and

performance. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson, S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in

Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: 173-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Einstein, W.O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a

management simulation: Impacting the bottomline. Group and Organization Studies,

13, 59-80.

87
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stoqdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

applications. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1998) Transformational leadership: Individual, military and educational impact.

Mahwah, N.J.,: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993A). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In

M.M. Chemers & Ayman, R. (Eds.). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions. (pp. 49-80). New York: Academic Press.Bass.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993 B). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.

Public Administrative Quarterly, 17, 112-122.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving or-ganizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B.M., and Steidlmeier, P. (1999) Ethics, character and.and authentic transformational

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-218.

Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A, Avolio, B.J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and

the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.

Boyd, J.T., Jr., (1988). Leadership extraordinary: A cross national military perspective on

transactional versus transformational leadership. Doctoral Dissertation, Nova

University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Bowers, D.G, & Seashore, S.E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourfactor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11: 238-263.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burns, J.M. (1996). Empowerment for change. Unpublished manuscript, Kellogg Leadership

Studies Project, University of Maryland.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R-D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)

conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 468-478.

88
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, C.A. (1993). Relations between workgroup

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850

Campion, M.A, Papper, E.M., & Medsker, G.J. (1996). Relations between work team

characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology,

49: 429-452.

Chan, D. (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at

different levels of analysis. A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 234-246.

Cohen, S.G., Chang, L. & Ledford, G.E. (1997). A hierarchical construct of self management

leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived group

effectiveness. Personnel Psychologiy, 50:275-308.

CSIS (2000). American Military Culture in the twenty-first Century. A Report of the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC.

Dalton, J.H. (1994, Jan. 27). The character of readiness: The ethics of moral behavior. Vital

Speeches of the Day. LX 10, 296-298.

Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved

performance? Human Relations, 49: 677-699.

Dvir, T. (1998). The impact of transformational leadership training on follower development

and performance: A field experiment. Doctoral Dissertation, Tel Aviv University,

Israel.

Gal, R. (1990). Limits of military legitimacy to military commitment. In Wyatt, T.C., & Gal, R.

(Eds.), Legitimacy and commitment in the military. New York: Greenwood.

Gasper, S. (1992). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature.

Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

Graves, H.D. (1994, Oct/Nov); Developing leaders of character. Executive Speeches, 92,

3-5.

Guzzo, R-A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R-J., & Shea, G.P. (1993). Potency in groups:

Articulating a concept. British Journal of Social Psychology, 322, 87-106.

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors valuations and subordinates perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,

695-702.

89
Howell J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business

unit performance. Journal of Applied Psycholoqy, 7, 891-902.

Howell, J.M., & Higgins, C.A. (1990). Champions of technological innovations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.

Howell, J.M., & House, R.J. (1992). Socialized and personalized charisma: An essay on the

bright and dark side of charisma. Unpublished Manuscript, Western Business School,

The University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Hyatt, D.E., & Ruddy, T.M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group

characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology,

50: 553-585.

Ilgen, D., Major, D., Hollenbeck, J., & Sego, D. (1993). Team research in the 1990s. In M.

Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions (pp. 245-270). New York, NY: Academic Press.

James, L.B., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability

with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 85-98.

Jung, D., Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1995). Convergent and divergent validity of MLQ Form

5X. Technical Report 95- 1. Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton, University,

Binghamton, NY.

Katzenbach, J.R. (1997). Teams at the too: Unleashing the potential of both teams and

individual leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J.P., & Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free

Press.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996a). Team leadership

and development: Theories, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams.

In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciolinary

studies of work teams, 253-291. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional

Psychology, 11, 497-508.

Longshore, J.U. (1988). The associative relationship between transformational and

transactional leadership styles and qroup oroductivity. Doctoral dissertation, Nova

University, Boca Raton, FL.

90
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership

Quarterly. 7, 385-425.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are

buildincq high performance companies. New York: Wiley.

Martin, D. (1993). Teamthink: Using the sport connection to develop, motivate, and manage a

winning business team. New York, NY: Penguin.

McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, Irvington.

Neck, C.P., & Manz, C.C. (1994). From groupthink to teamthink: Toward the creation of

constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams. Human Relations, 47: 929-

952.

O'Keeffe, M.J. (1989). The effects of leadership style on the perceived effectiveness and

satisfaction of selected Army officers. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Onnen, M.K. (1987). The relationship of clergy and leadership characteristics to growing or

declininq churches. Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, KY.

Patterson, C.E.P., Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., & Stringer, D.Y. (1995). A meta-analytic

examination of leadership style and selected follower compliance outcomes;

Symposium paper. Academy of Management, Vancouver, B.C.

Podsakoff, P.M., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A

methodological and substantive review. In Staw, B., & Cummings, L.L. (Eds.)

Research in Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Salter, D.J. (1990). Leadership styles in United States Marine Corps transport helicopter

sguadrons. Masters thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and

consideration.

Seltzer, J., Numerof, R.E., & Bass, B.M. (1989), Transformational. leadership: Is it a source

of more or less burnout or stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources

Administration, 12, 174-185.

Siebold, G. L. (1992). Research confirms importance of the "human element" for unit

preparedness. ARI Newsletter, 20l), 3-4.

Siebold, G.L. (1994). The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit

performance. In H.F. O'Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings, (Eds.). Motivation: theory

and research. (pp. 171-190). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum,

91
Siebold, G.L., & Kelly, D.R. (1988). The imoact of cohesion on platoon performance at the

Joint Readiness Training Center. Technical Report 812. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Siebold, G.L., & Lindsay, T.I. (1991). Correlations among ratings of platoon performance.

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association, U.S.

Air Force Armstrong Research Laboratory, San Antonio, TX, 67-72.

Taylor, W. (1999, June 7). Private correspondence.

Tesluck, P.E., Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M., & Mathieu, J. (1997). Task and aggregation issues

in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. Brannick & E. Salas

(eds.), Assessment and measurement of team performance: Theory research and

applications. (pp. 197-224). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tremble,T.R.,& Alderks,C.E. (1991). Measures for research on small unit Preparedness for

combat effectiveness (Research Note). Alexandria VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Ulmer, W.F. (1998). A bridge too far. Parameter

Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward

behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organizational

Studies, 15, 381-394.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social organizations. (T. Parsons, Trans). NY: The Free

Press.

Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership

and its effects among Naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In Clark, K.E. & Clark,

M.R. (Eds.), Measures of leadership, (pp. 151-169). Greensboro, NC: Center for

Creative Leadership. West Orange, NY: Leadership Library of America.

Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993). Transformational leadership and

performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.

Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers:

Transformational and transactional. Doctoral Dissertation, United States International

University, CA.

Zakay, E. (1995, May). The school for leadership development. Introductory Notes. Israeli

Defence Forces.

92
APPENDIX A

Survey Measures and JRTC Scorecard

A-1
TEAM MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio P ATOON

DIRECTIONS:

The questionnaire makes it possible to describe the leadership behaviors that you see in

your Platoon.

Your marks will be combined with those of others to describe the Platoon. Your individual

responses will be kept confidential. Only the combined results for the unit will be

reported, and they will not be reported by unit designation. Your completion of the

survey constitutes voluntary participation.

0 First, fill in all the boxes above to indicate your Platoon, Company,

Battalion, and today's date. Do not put your own name or ID anywhere

on this form.

* Following are descriptive statements about the Platoon. Starting with

question 1, decide how frequently each statement fits the behavior of the

Platoon you are describing and mark your answers in the corresponding

circle.

* Use a pencil and fill the circle completely. If you wish to change a

response, erase your first mark completely.

0 If you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave that answer blank.

0 Use the scale below for your responses.

01234

* EXAMPLE: The Platoon engages in training exercises. O000

The answer marked in this example was "3" indicating

that the Platoon engages in training exercises 'fairly

often."

0 12 3 4

Not at all Onice in a wh~ile Sometimes Faiuly Often Frequently, if niot always

FINAL

Product Code MLQTP-Military/Male/Platoon Form, Revised3/4/97.

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. All rights reserved.

Distributed by Mind Garden Inc., P. 0. Box 60669, Palo Alto, CA 94306
0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Somefirnes Fairly often Frequently, if not awy

MEMBERS OF THE PLATOON... 01 234

17 set high standards. 00 0 0

2. are proud to be associated with each other. 00 00

3 allow performance to fall below minimum standards before trying to make improvements. 0 0 00

4. emphasize the importance of being commited to our beliefs. 00 00

5. focus attention on mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. 0 0 0 0

6. avoid getting into arguments. 00 00

7 clearly communicate what each member needs to do to complete assignments. 0 0 0 0

8. emphasize the value of questioning each other's ways to solve problems. 0 0 0 0

9. *avoid dealing with problems. 00 00

10. listen to each other's cocrs 00C 00

11- delay tking action until problems become serious. 00 00

112. go beyond their own interests for the good of the platoon. 00 .00

13. closely monitor each other's performance for errors. 00 00

I14 display conviction in the Army ethic and values. 00 00

15. work out agreements about what's expected of each other. 00 00

16. generate exciting future possibilities. 00 00

17. motivate each other to do more than they thought they culd do. 00 00

18. encourage each other to rethink ideas. 00 00

19, fail to follow-up requests for assistance from each other. 00 00

20. foc-us on developing each other's capabilities. 00 00

121. talk about what we've done wrong but not what we've done right 00 00 1

22. display extraordinary talent and competence. 00 00

23. spend timedealing with immediate rse. 0,0 00

24. clarify the core reasons for our existence and purpose as an Airny. 0 0 0 0

25. provide each other with assistance in exchange for each member's effort. 0 0 0 0

26. talk optimistically about the future. 00 00

27. heighten our motivation to succeed. 00 00

28. try fo find better ways to dothings. 0 0 00

29. avoid making decisions. 00 00

30. spend time teaching and coaching each other. 00 00

31. wait until things have gonewrong before taking action. 00 00

1 32. behave in ways that build respectfor one another. 0o0 0 0

133. track each other's mistakes. 00 00

134. talk about how trusting each other can help overcome our difficulties. 00 00

35. discuss the level of performance we expect from each other. 0 0 00

36. talk enthusiastically about how we achieve our mission.,. 00 00

37. encourage each other to do more than we expected we Could do. 00 00

38. seek a broad range of views when solving problems. 00 00

39. delay responding to urgent requests from each other. 00 00

40. treat each other as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations. 0 0 0 0

141. show we are firm believers in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."00 0

I42. display confidence in each other. 

43 direct 00 001 attention toward failure to meet standards. 00 00

44. emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.00 00

45. recognize member and/or Platoon accomplishments. 00 00

46. provide each other with a positive view of the future. 00 00

47. look at problems fom many different angles. 00 00

48. help each other learn new skills. 00 00

49. have confidence in each other. 00 00

So. expectto bea high performance Platoon. 00 00

51. can solve problems we encounter. 00 001 52. canface unexpected problems and handle them. 0o 00

153. work hard to fulfill the Platoon's responsibilities. 00 00

THE PLATOON LEADER, PLATOON SERGEANT, AND SQUAD LEADERS...

54. pull together to get the job done. 00 00

55 respect each other. 00 00

56. trust each other. 00 0 0

57. display leadership collectively that is satisfactory. 00 00

58. In my view, the overall effectiveness of the platoon is... -D( 10G

0 1 2 3 4

not effective only slightly effective effective very effective extremely effective ansm~r hwer

1 2 3 45ansver here Sq~uad Member Fire Team Leader Souad Leader Platoon Sergeant 1 st Se. geant. XO. or CO

or Platoon Leader

6C0. My military grade is El. E2, EU.... 01, 02. 03... (Wile in grao~k) ____ Grade

61. How many months have you been in the Platoon? (Wfite in) ______Months
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio PLATOON SERGEANT

DIRECTIONS:

The questionnaire makes it possible for you to describe the leadership behavior of the

Platoon Sergeant you are describing.

Your marks will be combined with those of several others to describe the Platoon Sergeant's

behavior. Your individual responses will be kept confidential. Only the combined

results for the unit will be reported, and they will not be reported by unit designation.

Your completion of the survey constitutes voluntary consent to participate.

"* First, fill in all the boxes above to indicate the Platoon, Company, and

Battalion of the Platoon Sergeant you are describing, and today's date.

Do not put your own name or ID anywhere on this form.

"* Following are statements which you will use to describe the Platoon

Sergeant's behavior. Starting with question 1, decide how frequently each statement fits the behavior of the Platoon Sergeant you are

describing and mark your answers in the corresponding circle.

"* Use a pencil and fill the circle completely. If you wish to change a

response, erase your first mark completely.

"* If you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave that answer blank.

"* Use the scale below for your responses.

01234

"* EXAMPLE: The Platoon Sergeant engages in athletics. 0 0 000

The answer marked in this example was "3" indicating that

the Platoon Sergeant engages in athletics "fairly often."

0 12 3 4

Nat at all Once in a while Somnetimies Fairly Often Frequently, if not always

FINAL

Product Code MLQM MLQ Military/Male/Platoon Sergeant Form, Revised 8129/97

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. All rights reserved.

Distributed by Mind Garden Inc., P. 0. Box 60669, Palo Alto, CA 94306
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio PLATOON SERGEANT

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if not always

THE PLATOON SERGEANT I AM DESCRIBING... 0 1 234

1. seeks different points of view when solving problems. 00 00

2. expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.. 00 00

3. fails to take action until problems become serious. 0 0 00

4. tries to catch you making mistakes. 0 0 00

5. avoids getting involved when important issues arise. 00 00

6. talks about the importance of Army ethic and values. 0 0 00

7. is absent when needed. 00 00

8. rewards us when we do what we are supposed to do. 00 00

9. talks optimistically about the future. 0 0 00

10. makes us proud to be associated with him. 00 00 F 11. states who is responsible for getting the job done. 0 0 00

12. waits for things to go wrong before taking action. 00 00

13. sets high standards. 0 00

14. specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 0 0 00

15. spends time teaching and coaching Platoon members. 00 00

16. makes clear exactly what Platoon members will get if performance goals are met. 00 00

17. dwells on what I have done wrong. 0 00

18. goes beyond self-interest for the good of the Platoon. 0 0 00

19. treats each Platoon member as an individual. 0 00

20. avoids trying to make improvements until performance falls below minimum standards. 0 0 00

21. acts in ways that build respect. 0 0 0O

22. looks for reasons to make on-the-spot inspections. 0 0 00

23 makes moral and ethical decisions based on high standards. 0 0 0 0

24 keeps track of all mistakes. 00 0O

25. displays a sense of authority and confidence. 0 0 00

26. talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 0 0 0 0

27 directs attention toward failures to meet standards. 00 00

28. avoids making decisions. 00 00

29. considers that you have different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. 0 0 0 0

30. gets you to look at problems from many different angles. 0 0 00

31. helps Platoon members to develop their strengths. 0 0 00

32. suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. 00 00

33. delays responding to urgent problems. 0 0 00

34. emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 00 00

35. lets Platoon members know when they have met expectations. .0 0 00

36. reviews basic assumptions about the way we do things to see if they are appropriate. 0 0 0 0

37. is effective in helping Platoon members get their jobs done. 0 0 00

38. uses methods of leadership that are satisfactory. 00 00

39. gets youtodo more than you expectedtodo. - 00 00

40. is effective in representing your Platoon to higher authority. 0 0 0

41. works with you in a satisfactory way. 00001

42. heightens your desire to succeed. 0 0 00

43. is effective in meeting organizational requirements. 00 00

44. increases your willingness to try harder. 00 00

45. leads a group that is effective. 00 00

46. tells us what we've done wrong rather than what we've done right. 00 00

47. My position is... (Select one ansmcr ory) D 0 D 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 answer here

Squad Member Fire Team Leader Squad Leader Platoon Sergeant or 1st Sgt, XO, or CO

Platoon Leader

48. My military grade is: El, E2, E3... 01, 02, 03... (Write in grade) Grade

49. How many months have you observed the Platoon Sergeant in his current Months

position? (Write in the rurbner of onoths)

Product Code MLQM MLO Mlitary/Mate/Platoon Sergeant Form, Revised 8/29/97

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. Ail rights reserved.

Distributed by Mind Garden Inc., P. 0. Box 60669, Palo Alto, CA 94306
MULTiFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. AvoliPLATOON LEADER

DIRECTIONS:

The questionnaire makes it possible for you to describe the leadership behavior of the

Platoon Leader you are describing.

Your marks will be combined with those of several others to describe the Platoon Leader's

behavior. Your individual responses will be kept confidential. Only the combined

results for the unit will be reported, and they will not be reported by unit designation.

Your completion of the survey constitutes voluntary participation.

" First, fill in all the boxes above to indicate the Platoon, Company, and Battalion

of the Platoon Leader you are describing, and today's date. Do not put your

own name or ID anywhere on this form.

" Following are statements which you will use to describe the Platoon Leader's

behavior. Starting with question 1, decide how frequently each statement fits

the behavior of the Platoon Leader you are describing and mark your

answers in the corresponding circle.

" Use a pencil and fill the circle completely. If you wish to change a response,

erase your first mark completely.

"* If you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave that answer blank.

"* Use the scale below for your responses.

01234

"* EXAMPLE: The Platoon Leader engages in athletics. 0 0 0 0O

The answer marked in this example was "3" indicating

that the Platoon Leader engages in athletics "fairly often."

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly Often Frequently, if not always

FINAL

Product Code MLQM MLQ MiiitaryfMaie/Platoon Leader Form, Revised 3/4/97.

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. All rights reserved.

Distributed by Mnd Garden Inc.. P. 0. Box 60669, Palo Alto, CA 94306
MUL71FACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio PLATOO0N LEADER

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a M~ile Sometimes Fairly Often Frequently, if not always

THE PLATOON LEADER I AM DESCRIBING... 01 234

1 . seeks different points of view when solving problems. 00 00

2. expresses confidence that goals will be achieved. 00 00

3. fails to take action until problems become serious. 00 00

4. focuses attention on mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. 0 0 0 0

5. avoids getting involved when important issues arise. 0 0 0o

6. talks about the importance of the Army ethic and values. 0 0 0 0

47. is absent when needed. 00 00

8. rewards us when we do what we are supposed to do. 00 00

9. talks optimistically about the future. 00 00

10. makes us proud to be associated with him.00 0

17. showes thato is aesofirmbeliever gting itanth jbroe done t fix it0

18. goets beondself-inteo rest bforte goofthein Plactoon.00 0

19. treats tie tecigadoachin Platoon as anidviul members 

20. avoids trying to make improvements until performance falls below minimum standards. 0 0 0 0

21. acts in ways that build respect.0 0

22. concentrates his full attention on dealing Viith mistakes, complaints, and failures.00 0

23. makes moral and ethical decisions based on high standards.00 0

24. keeps track of all mistakes.00 0

25. displays a sense of authority and confidence.00 0

26. talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.00 0

27. directs attention toward failures to meet standards. 00 0

28. avoids making decisions.00 0

29. considers that you have different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. 0

30. gets you to look at problems from many different angles.00 0

31. helps Platoon members to develop their strengths.00 0

32. suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.00 0

33. delays responding to urgent problems.00 0

34. emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission.00 0

35. lets Platoon members know when they have met expectations.00 0

36. reviews basic assumptions about the way we do things to see if they are appropriate.00 0

37. is effective in helping Platoon members get their jobs done.00 0

38. uses methods of leadership that are satisfactory.00 0

39. gets you to do more than you expected to do. .0 0

40. is effective in representing your Platoon to higher authority.00 0

41. works with you in a satisfactory way.00 0

42. heightens your desire to succeed.00 0

43. is effective in meeting organizational requirements.00 0

44. increases your willingness to try harder.00 0

45. leads a group that is effective.00 0

46. tells us what we've done wrong rather than what we've done right. 0OJ

47. My position is... (Sele one ansirmwono D0 (

1 2 3 4 5

Squad Member Fire Team Leader Squad Leader Platoon Sergeant or I1st Sgt, XO, or CO

Platoon Leader

48. My military grade is: El, E2, E3... 0 1, 02, 03... (Wrte in grad) _ ___Grade

49. How many months have you observed the Platoon Leader in his current position? Months

(WMite in the nuntbeirctnrmoths)

Product Code MLOM MVLQ ?KlitaryIMale/Platoon Leader Form, Revised 3V4/97

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avciio. AJI rights reserved.

Distributed by Mind Garden Inc., P. 0. Box 60669, Palo ~AJto, CA 94306
TEAM MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio COMPANY

DIRECTIONS:

The questionnaire makes it possible to describe the leadership behaviors that you see in your

Company.

Your marks will be combined with those of others to describe the Company. Your individual

responses will be kept confidential. Only the combined results for the unit will be

reported, and they will not be reported by unit designation. Your completion of the survey

constitutes voluntary participation.

* First, fill in all the boxes above to indicate your Platoon, Company, Battalion,

and today's date. Do not put your own name or ID anywhere on this

form.

9 Following are descriptive statements about the Company. Starting with

question 1, decide how frequently each statement fits the behavior of

your Company and mark your answers in the corresponding circle.

* Use a pencil and fill the circle completely. If you wish to change a

response, erase your first mark completely.

* If you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave that answer blank.

* Use the scale below for your responses.

01234

EXAMPLE: The Company engages in training exercises. 0 0 000

The answer marked in this example was "3' indicating

that the Company engages in training exercises "fairly

often."

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Sornefmes Fairly Often Frequently, if not always

FINAL

Product Code MLOTC-MLO Team Military/Male/Company Form, Revised 9/11197.

Copyright 1996 by Bernard Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. All rights reserved.

Distributed by Mind Garden Inc., P.O. Box 60669, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if not always

MEMBERS OF THE COPAY. 0 12 34

1 . set high standards. 00 00

2. are proud to be associated with each other. 00 00

3. allow performance to fall below minimum standards before trying to make improvements. 0 0 0 0

4. emphasize the importance of being commited to our beliefs. 00 00

5. try to catch each other making mistakes. 00 00

6o. motivate each other to do more than they thought they could do. 00 00

7. clearly communicate what each member needs to do to complete assignments. 0 0 0 0

8. emphasize the value of questioning each other's ways to solve problems. 0 0 0 0

9. avoid dealing wvith problems. 00 00

10. listen to each other's concerns. 00 00

11. delay taking action until problems become serious. 00 00

12. go beyond their own self-interests for the good of the Company. 00 00

13. closely monitor each other's performance for errors. 00 00

14. display conviction in the Amy ethic and values. 00 00

15. work outagreements aboutwhat'sexpeced of each other. 00 00

16. generate exciting future possibilities. 00 00

17. dwell on what has been done wrong. 00 00

18. encourage each other to rethink ideas.00 0

19. fail to follow-up requests for assistance from each other. 00 00

20. focus on developing each other's capabilities. 00 00

21. talk about what we've done wrong rather than what we've done right. 0 0 0 0

22. display extraordinary talent and competence. 00 00

23. spend time dealing with immediate crises. 00 00

24. clarify the core reasons for our existence and purpose as an Army. 0 0 0 0

25. provide each other with assistance in exchange for each member's effort. 0 0 0 0

26. talk optimistically about the future. 00 00~

27. heighten our motivation to succe. 00 00

28. tryto fnd better ways to dothings. 00 00

29. avoid making decisions. 00 00

30. spend time teaching and coaching each other.00 0

36. walk entithuiagstial habou howe woachievoe ourin mission.0 0

37. bencuage enach otherto doilmorespc thanwe expethed. we colddo

33. sbeektaebroads randrgeuof tiews wihen s t lolving p orobems. tos.00 0

39. delays rheespndn tof uefrgent r e equests from c each other.00 0

40. treat each other as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations. 00 0

41. ciosely monitor each other to assure that no mistakes are made.00 0

42. display confidence in each other.0 0

43. focus on failures.00 0

44. emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.00 0

45. recognize member and/or Comnpany accomplishments.00 0

46, provide each other with a positive view of the future.00 0

47. look at problem~s fromn many different angles.00 0

48. help each other learn new skills.00 0

49. have confidence in each other.00 0

50. expect to be a high performance Company.00 0

THE OFFICERS AND NCO's OF THE COMPANY AND PLATOONS...

54. pull together to get the job done.00 0

55. respect each other.00 0

56. trust each other.00 0

57. display leadership collectively that is satisfactory.00 0

58. In my view, the overall effectiveness of the Company is...

0 1 2 3 4 answ~er here

not effective only slightly effective effective very effective extremely effective

59. My position is..(ee one ansvwe oily) DD000 1 2 3 4 5 nvehm

Squad Member Fire Teamn Squad Leader Platoon Sergeant 1 st Sergeant. XO, or CO

Leader or Platoon Leader

60. My military grade is El, E2, E3, ... 01, 02, 03... (Write in grade) Grade

61. How many months have you been in the Company? (Write in) Months
0) 0 w

0

0 '0

CO 0 0V

2 0 bi 0 o

OIZ 1 0 t mIr I. cc Im 0

CD 0 > - .c c , t = 7- E E2 0C5~ 

E 0 W CDD ~ CUE ~ C ~ ZC 

< ' ' I 2 -0oo cc C- o~ 

J02 -. 2 2CZ - r

D Z0 "S CL) w- 5~ E j, :E 5- E co. Ca* C0CO

(D E 4PCE r= ED E Z ý F 0 

00 > ~ 0 = 0 -0 0j Z)- W o ~~c - 0~ CC W C O CD =OD r--. 0 .0 N-, 0~ ca L EW .J 0 C - M 00 L

ou- -0 ~ c- 'o E >zI;

L 0- N rr - E CD 0-O Oj I**-u. 2 o0 G Ca 

_ co V O LE 8~ 2c a)<< c .0 -C cua E: i L Z 

0-0 ** r- ) 0 U--

Cý -Cl : -, az0< 

0.0~ (U 0 ~~C6 r, ~ -E -LLJ w

-1 (1) CO- mEE => E a

0. E C C 00 Z. z z- _

CO~ 00 -D - -

co) 0. 0

~ 0-0

C-3 ~ CC Z< :~0 -5 car ~ ~ o ID W -ID. 000 ~ ~~~U 

0C _0 C3 oD Cb CD.) a. 

AL. ~Q O & D cuDC C < LL C CO)
APPENDIX B1

Glossary of military terms and abbreviations.

Individual and Organizational Abbreviations & Terms

BDE: Brigade-a tactical headquarters controlling two or more battalions;

BN: Battalion-a light infantry organization including 3 rifle companies;

CO: Company; a light infantry or airborne / airmobile unit including 3 rifle platoons; also

CO: Commanding officer, usually the company commander, a captain, grade 03

XO: Executive officer, second in command of the company, usually a first lieutenant, grade

02;

1 SG: First sergeant, senior enlisted member of the company, usually grade E8--;

EM: Enlisted members, soldiers in grade El-E4

NCO: Noncommissioned officer, soldiers in grade E5-E9;

PLT: Platoon, a light infantry unit of 2 or 3 rifle squads and a weapons squad;

PL: Platoon leader, usually a 2d Lt. grade 01;

PSG: Platoon sergeant-the senior NCO in the PLT. usually grade E7;

SL: Squad leader, grade E5-E6;

SOD: Rifle or weapons squad-a light infantry unit of 7-10 soldiers armed with rifles,

machine guns, or grenade launchers, usually organized into two fire teams: Alpha and

Bravo.

TL: Fire team leader, E4 or E5 member of an infantry squad who leads a fire team of 4 or

5 EM.

O/C Observer / controllers; evaluated SOD and PLT performance at JRTC or NTC; E7 &

03;

Technical and Tactical Abbreviations & Terms

AAR: After action review.

ARTEP 7-8: Army training and evaluation plan for infantry platoons-a doctrinal publication.

AT Weapons: anti-tank weapons.

C of C: Chain of command

c2 Command and Control;

C3 Command, Control, and Communications;

CAS EVAC: Casualty evacuation;

CCP: No code available; Rec id#s: 2-1047.

CDR: Commander

CFV: Cavalry fighting vehicle.

COA: Courses of actions-alternatives considered by PL or CO in making an estimate of the

situation.

CSS: Combat service support; activities related to personnel services, transportation, and

logistics.

CTC: Combat training centers; JRTC and NTC were locations for this data collection.

CLASS I: Supplies of food

CLASS Ih: Supplies of equipment;

CLASS II: Supplies of fuel; sometimes called POL;

CLASS IV: Supplies of barrier materials / barbed wire;

'R- 1
APPENDIX BI - continued

CLASS V: Supplies of ammunition

Combat Multiplier anything that achieves tactical synergy, especially well integrated

supporting arms and services, e.g.: defensive barriers covered by pre-planned artillery, etc.

Estimate of the Situation: a structured thought process undertaken by leaders and their staff

in preparing an operations order (OPORD) or plan (OPLAN).

EA development: No code available; Rec id#s: 2-1039, 2-1041.

EM: Enlisted members. Soldiers in the grade E-1 (Private) through E-4 (Specialist or

Corporal)

EPW: Evacuation of prisoners of war-procedures for their segregation, security, and

evacuation;

FRAGO: Fragmentary order; supplementary tactical instructions amending or altering

OPORD or implementing an OPLAN

JRTC: Joint Readiness Training Center;

M-60: a 7.62 mm machine gun.

MILES: Multiple integrated laser engagement system;

MDMP: No code available; Record ID # 3-0051

MOUT: Military operations in urban terrain / fighting in buildings;

NAV: Navigation / also map reading, terrain orientation, finding one's way.

NBC: Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare equipment and/or procedures;

NOD: Night observation device.

NTC: National Training Center.

NVG Night vision goggles; (a specific type of NOD used by individuals)

OPORD: Operations order-written or verbal instructions for tactical operations in a pre-set

format;

OPLAN: Operations plan-same as OPORD, but includes specified assumptions and

requires a separate order or FRAGO for execution. Issued to facilitate contingency planning

and rehearsal.

PCC/PCI: Pre-combat checks / pre-combat inspections-EM "check" equipment; NCOs

"inspect"

POL: Petroleum, oil, and lubricants; also called CLASS III

R&S: Reconnaissance and security-patrolling and other measures to defend against

surprise attack.

RTO: Radio / telephone operator

SOP: Standard operating procedures-pre-set instructions for performing routine tasks to

standard.

TDMP: Procedures. No code available; Rec ID: 3-0022.

TLP: Troop leading procedures-a check-list of time-sensitive actions to be completed in a

specified sequence by small-unit leaders preparing for tactical operations.;

TTPs: No code available; rec id#2-1076; 3-0083.

WPNs Weapons

B-2
APPENDIX B32

Attributes / Topics, Codes, Definitions, and Tentat ive Classification for

Text Analysis of O/C and Cadre Comments

Class Attribute ITopic Code Meaning

(Tentative)

Do Accountability Account - Keeping track of equipment, supplies, and personnel.

Be Aggressive Aggress * Assertive, bold, or forceful pursuit of the missionI

enemy.

Be Alert Alert * Vigilantly attentive; watchful, perceptive.

Do Care Care * Demonstrated concern for the soldier's wellbeing.

Be Dedicated Dedicat * To commit oneself to a particular course of thought or

action in accordance with Army values.

Be Discipline Discip - Duty performance adhering to military code, orders,

doctrine, rules, regulations, or standard operating

procedures--especially when soldiers are unsupervised

by off icials from their chain of command

Be Endurance Endurance - Physical and mental capacity for sustained effort over

time; effective continuance in spite of fatigue.

Be Fitness Fitness * Demonstrated strength and physical conditioning of the

human body.

Be Honesty Honesty - Truthfulness in word and deed.

Do Initiative Initiative - Actions taken to understand, identify, and complete the

implied tasks in any give situation or circumstance.

Be Learning Learn * Indications of improvement based on experience

Be Patience Patience * Ability to sustain readiness over a longer period than

expected without compromising security.

Be Persistance Persist - Never giving up while still having the means to carry

on.

Do Poise Poise - A state of military bearing, balance or equilibrium;

stability.

Be Stamina Stamina * Physical endurance.

Be Toughness Tough * Physically hardy; rugged.

Do Attitude Attitude * A state of mind, feeling, or disposition.

Be Awareness Aware * Watchful, attentive, perceptive.

Do Cohesion Cohes * Indications that platoon members have formed

themselves into a trusting, orderly unit, with implicit

understandings about platoon values, purpose, and

operations.

Be Morale Morale *The state of mind and spirit of a person or unit as

exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, or willingness to

perform assigned tasks.

Be Motivation - Any behavior signaling enthusiasm for anything

Motiva related to unit, mission, or the Army. (E.g.: unit or

group cheer, "Hoo Ah! ")

Be Willing Willing * Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant.

Know Communication Communicat * Human process of giving, receiving, and

understanding information, reports, plans, and orders

B-3
both within the platoon and betwee n the platoon and

the company, through verbal, written, or electronic

means. (Not primarily about communications

equipment.)

Do CASEVAC CASEVAC *Prompt removal of wounded soldiers from the

battlefield for treatment (casualty evacuation)

Do Confidence Confidence - The display of a feeling of assurance, especially of

self-assurance

Do Control Control 9 Demonstrated ability to manage or direct.

Do Coordination Coord * Actions taken to insure harmonious interaction

between the platoon and adjacent platoons and

supporting units.

Do Decisiveness Decisiveness * Characterized by decision and firmness; resolute.

Do Delegation Delegation 9 Actions entrusting subordinates with specific

responsibilities for mission or task accomplishment.

Do Experience Experience * Time in the duty position to which now assigned.

Do Flexibility Flexibility * Mental agility; open-minded consideration of practical

alternatives for achieving goals.

Do Garrison Activities Garrison Activities

Do Improvement Improvement Learning

Be Judgment Judgment * The demonstrated capacity to assess situations or

circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good

sense.

Know Knowledge Know * Understanding of tactical and technical subjects

regarding platoon operations.

Do Leadership Leadership - Comments using the word "leader" or "leadership" to

describe the supervisory behavior or skills of the PL,

PSG, SL or TL.

Do Listen Listen * That part of communication having to do with hearing

and understanding what another person is saying or

implying.

Do Maintenance Maint * Actions by soldiers to keep equipment in working

order

Do Marksmanship Marksmanship * Ability to "hit"s targets with simulated rifle fire using the

multiple integrated laser engagement system (MILES).

Know Navigation Nay Finding the way across terrain using a map, compass,

and other means.

Do NOD Use NOD Use - Effective employment of night observation devices

including starlight scopes, night vision goggles, and

similar devices.

Do Obstacle Obstacle *Construction of physical impediments to tactical

employment ,mployment movement such as barbed wire, mines, and ditches,

and their effective integration into an overall plan--

usually in platoon defensive operations.

Know OPORD OPORD * Operations Order: written or verbal instructions for

tactical employment of military units in a preset format;

OPLAN Operations Plan; same as OPORD but includes

specified assumptions and requires a separate

fragmentary order (FRAGO) for execution.

Do PCI /PCC PCI * Pre Combat Inspections. Inspections performed by squad and team leaders prior to tactical operations to

insure that all pre combat checks (PCC) are completed

by squad members and all personnel and equipment

are ready for the mission as specified.

B-4
Do POW POW *Prisoner of War processing. Handling enemy soldiers

whom have surrendered or been captured in combat.

Know Priorities Priorities * Demonstrated sense of the relative importance and

timeliness of the various tasks to be performed.

Know Proficiency Proficiency - Competence.

Do Reconnaissance Recon 9 An inspection or exploration of an area to gather

military information.

Do Resupply Resupply *Providing replenishment of food, fuel, ammunition,

clothing and other equipment to the platoon.

Do Security Security * Saf ety or protection f rom discovery or surprise by the

enemy.

Do Skills, Collective Skills, *Military tasks to be performed to a specified standard

Collective by a soldier as part of a crew, team, squad or platoon.

Know Skills, Individual Skills, 9 Military tasks to be performed to a specified standard

Individual by a soldier alone.

Know Standards Standard * Performance of tasks to an established minimum

expectation.

Do Supervision Supervise o The act of overseeing activities during

implementation.

Know Terrain, Use of Terrain, Use * Positioning of soldiers and weapons on the ground so

Of as to achieve a tactical advantage.

Do Time management Time a Effective implementation of troop leading procedures

management to fit the time available.

Know TLP TLP * Troop Leading Procedures--a check-list of timesensitive actions to be accomplished in a specified

sequence by small unit leaders preparing for tactical

operations.

Know Planning Plan * Working out a scheme, program, or method

beforehand to accomplishment an objective; the

mental process of preparing or implementing the

details in an OPORD or OPLAN.

Do Mission Mission * Achieving a tactical end state specified by higher

Accomplishment authority by a military unit at a given place and time.

Do Rehearsal Rehearsal - Practicing all or part of an operations plan or order

ahead of the time specified for actual implementation.

Do Teamwork Teamwork - Cooperative effort by members of the unit to achieve

a common goal.

Know SOP SOP * Standard Operating Procedures. Standing

instructions for the conduct of certain routine activities

to specified unit standards.

Uncla Strength: Strength: * Numbers of assigned personnel relative to the total

;sif ied numbers authorizes by Army organizational documents.

B-5
APPENDIX C

Charts & Graphs

Overview

In this Appendix, we provide a series of charts that can be used for pres entations to

groups, who do not have advanced statistical background. The charts presented here provide

a general overview of our findings in terms of predicting JRTC performance, self-other ratings

and general trends with the data.

Charts la-i1c

Provide self-other rating differences for the Platoon leader for Above, Peer, and Below

ratings. These charts demonstrate that there were greater discrepancies between self-other

ratings, as one moves from comparisons with Above to Peer to Below ratings.

Charts 2a - 2c

Provides self-other rating differences for the Platoon Sergeant for Above, Peer and

Below ratings. These charts demonstrate that there were greater discrepancies between selfother ratings as one moves from comparisons with Above to Peer to Below ratings paralleling

findings with Platoon Leaders.

Charts 3a - 3c

Compares the top and bottom 12 platoons on the 6 leadership scales as rated by the

above peer and below raters demonstrating that the top platoon leaders were evaluated as

more transformational, and active transactional if they were in the top performing platoons.

Charts 4a - 4c

Compares the top and bottom 12 platoons on the 6 leadership scales for Platoon

Sergeants, as rated by the Above, Peer and Below raters. Paralleling the findings for Platoon

leaders. Sergeants who were more transformational and transactional in their leadership led

the top platoons.

r Charts 5a - 5b

Compares the top and bottom platoons based on ratings provided from Below and

Peers on the TMLQ Survey. Both charts show that there are relatively minor differences

between the top and bottom JRTC platoons based on the TMLQ survey.

C-I
Chart 6

Presents self-other MLQ (combined rater groups) for the Platoon Leader and

Sergeant. The values in this chart represent the differences score for self-other ratings. Overall, the leaders in the top platoons tended to have lower differences in terms of their own

perceptions of leadership compared to the aggregated group of their raters.

Chart 7

Provides comparisons between Below and Peer evaluations of the Platoon's collective

leadership and its Company culture. For the TMVLQ, Peers on average evaluated their

platoons as more transformational, transactional and less avoidant than did those below.

Results for company culture were more mixed. In comparison to those below, peers rated the

company culture as more intellectually stimulating, more transactional and less avoidant.

c-2
Platoon LeaderMLO Self Ratings vs.

Ratings From Above

0.00-

2.4.00

01350-

0000

~IL IC CR MA Pt. IS 

Range of Leadershp Full Platoon Leader Self Ratings vs. ito 

Peerm Ratings

IL00 IS C CeMAPt

1.0

1.0

0.C-3
Platoon Sgt. Sel va Above

41OD

?-so- Self

1.00- kChaft 2a -2c

IL IS IC CR MA PL

_______ ______Platoon Sgt.w mdv Pew

4.00-

1350

IL IS IC CR MA PL 4O - Pl t o Sg .S elf vs 9a Blo

3.00

o250

iL ICCR iS MA Pt

CPOO
Chart 3a

Platoon Leader MLQ Ratings from Below

for Top/Bottom Platoon JRTC

Effectiveness

4 .00 ...................................................................................

3.50

3.00

*2.50 - S2.00 2.00 - EBottom

2 1.50 L Top

1.00

0.50

0.00

IL IS IC CR MA PL

Full Range of Leadership

Chart 3b

Platoon Leader MLQ Ratings from

Peers for Top/Bottom Platoon JRTC

Effectiveness

4 .00 . .................................................................................................

3.50 '

3.00.

2.50. IN BotftomI

2.00-

1.00

0.50

0.00

IL IS IC CR MA PL

Chart 3c

Platoon Leader MLQ Ratings from Above for

Top/Bottom Platoon JRTC Effectiveness

4.00

3.50-

3.00"

2.50 - Bottom

2.00-

1.50 - Top

1.00

0.50 L

"0.00 It

C; IL IS IC CR MA PL

c-5
Chart 4a

Platoon Sergeant MLQ Ratings from Below for

Top/Bottom Platoon JRTC Effectiveness

4.00-

3.50-

3.00-

2.50-[~

2.00-I

1.50-. jp

1.00-

0.50-

0.00H

IL IS IC CR MA PL

Chart 4b

Platoon Sergeant MLQ Ratings from Peers for

Top Bottom Platoon JRTC Effectiveness

4.00-

3.50"

3.00•

2.50•

2.00- M Bottp

1 .5 0 •

1.00

0.50

0.00 1 1 1

IL IS IC CR MA PL

Chart 4c

Platoon Sergeant MLQ Ratings from Above for Top

Bottom Platoon JRTC Effectiveness

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50- U Bottom 2.00T

1.00 M Top 1.50 -

1.00

0.50

0.001 1 -r 1'' "r

. ý, IL IS IC CR MA PL

C-6
Chart 5a

Platoon TMLQ Ratings from Below for Top vs.

Bottom JRTC Effectiveness

4 00................... .................

3.50-

3.00-

2.50t T Bottom

2.00-

1.502.

1.00

0.50

0.00

IL IS IC CR MBE PL

Chart 5b

Platoon TMLQ Ratings from Peer for

Top/Bottom Platoon JRTC Effectiveness

3.00

2.50

2.00 U Bottom

S1.50 0 TOP

1.00

0.50

0.00

IL is IC D/E PL

Full Range of Leadership

C-m7
Chart 6

Mean Differences in Self and Other MLQ Ratings in the

JRTC Top (n=12) and Bottom (n=12) Platoons

PL PSG

Bottom Top Bottom Top

IIABM .72 .32 .52 .13

IC .44 .50 .96 -.08

IS .85 .31 .90 .25

CR .74 .36 .58 .23

MA -.49 .13 .00 .10

MPLF -.40 -.18 -.30 -.25

Note: n = 66 Self -other PL

n =65 Self-other SGT

Chart 7

Comparisons of Below and Peer Ratings for Platoon Team Leadership and Company Culture

TMLQ Team TMLQ Company

Below Peer T-value T-test Below Peer T-value T-test

TII 2.32 2.84 4.81 0.001 2.35 2.49 1.35 NS

IS 2.17 2.55 4.56 0.001 2.09 2.37 2.75 0.006

IC 2.33 2.78 4.22 0.001 2.27 2.52 2.24 0.025

CR 2.49 2.93 4.40 0.001 2.46 2.76 2.97 0.003

MA 2.34 2.22 1.39 NS 2.42 2.4 0.18 NS

MPLF 1.34 0.96 4.15 0.001 1.38 1.04 3.23 0.001

Leaend

TII = Idealized

IS = Intellectual Stimulation

IC = Individualized Consideration

CR = Contingent Reward

MA = Management-by-Exception (Active)

MPLF = Management-by-Exception (Passive) & Laissez-Faire

c-8