U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1831

Developing Adaptive Proficiency

in Special Forces Officers

Susan S. White, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson,

David W. Dorsey, and Elaine D. Pulakos

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Edwin A. Deagle III and Kip G. Mendini

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy

Special Warfare Center and School

February 2005

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

20050413 001
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.

Technical review by

Robert Pleban, U.S. Army Research Institute

Jay Goodwin, U.S. Army Research Institute

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research 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: DAPE-ARI-PO,

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research 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 Research 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)

February 2005 Final January 2002 - June 2004

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

Developing Adaptive Proficiency in Special Forces Officers DASWO1 -98-D-0049

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0602785A

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

Susan S. White, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson, David W. Dorsey, and Elaine D. 20262785A790

Pulakos (Personnel Decisions Research Institutes. Inc.): Michelle M. Wisecarver

(U.S. Army Research Institute); Edwin A. Deagle III and Kip G. Mendini (U.S. 5d. TASK NUMBER

Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School). 103

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

Personal Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.

1300 North 17th Street

Suite 1010

Arlington, VA 22209

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

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

Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1831

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Subject Matter POC and Contracting Officer's Representative: Dr. Michelle Wisecarver

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Adaptive proficiency is critical for operating in the dynamic Special Forces (SF) mission environment and

a recent focus on this requirement has resulted in a greater emphasis on adaptability in current training

for SF. This report describes the development of a 31⁄2-day course on adaptability specifically tailored to

officers in the SF environment. The course, entitled Officer Adaptive Thinking and Leadership Course (0-

ATL), introduces students to the meaning of adaptability in the SF environment, covering the myriad of

ways in which SF officers are required to adapt. It focuses particularly on the topics of mental

adaptability, interpersonal adaptability, and leading an adaptable team and provides the students with an

understanding of each topic's relevance to their SF jobs, as well as tools and strategies for better

navigating situations that require these types of adaptability. Recommendations for enhancements of the

course and further applications of the course are discussed.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Adaptive performance, leadership, mental adaptability, interpersonal adaptability, leader adaptability, training adaptive

performance, Special Forces training

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON ________________________________ • _ ABSTRACT OF PAGES

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Ellen Kinzer

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 38 Technical Publications Specialist

703-602-8047
ii
Research Report 1831

Developing Adaptive Proficiency

in Special Forces Officers

Susan S. White, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson,

David W. Dorsey, and Elaine D. Pulakos

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Edwin A. Deagle Ill and Kip G. Mendini

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy

Special Warfare Center and School

Leader Development Research Unit

Stanley Halpin, Chief

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

February 2005

Army Project Number Personnel Systems and

20262785A7910 Performance Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii
iv
FOREWORD

In the current Global War on Terrorism, Soldiers may increasingly find themselves in quickly

changing circumstances. It is critical to mission success that Soldiers are able to adapt to these

changing environments. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ARI) has been involved in a number of basic research efforts to better understand

adaptive performance and how to train it, as well as more applied efforts to develop training for

adaptive thinking.

The objective of the present research was to provide officers who are in training for Special

Forces (SF) with additional instruction in adaptability to increase their ability to handle changing

situations. This report describes the development of a 31

/2-day course that provides tools and

strategies for approaching situations that require adaptive performance. The effort was funded

primarily by the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (JFK SWCS)

and the course has been implemented as part of the third phase of qualification training for

Special Forces officers. Information about the course was briefed to the Commanding General of

JFK SWCS prior to its implementation in January 2004. While the materials described in this

report were developed specifically for officers in training for SF, the concepts and approach that

are described are also being applied to other training programs at JFK SWCS and could be

readily applied to numerous other personnel and units within the Army.

MICHELLE SAMS

Technical Director

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. Steve Zaccaro, Mr. Patrick Flemming, and Ms. Gabrielle Wood of

George Mason University for sharing their research regarding adaptive performance training for

officers at the U.S. Army War College, as well as for their consultation regarding how to apply

this research to training officers for Special Forces. In addition, comments provided by Dr. Jay

Goodwin and Dr. Robert Pleban on earlier drafts of this report were insightful and greatly

appreciated.

We would also like to thank personnel from the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare

Center and School (JFK SWCS), particularly personnel from A Co, 4 th Bn, 1st Special Warfare

Training Group (Airborne), including CPT Will Cotty, who were extremely helpful in providing

reviews of the course materials.

Finally, we would like to thank the personnel at the 3d Bn, 3d Special Forces Group (Airborne)

and JFK SWCS who served as subject matter experts for this project and provided highly useful

materials for the training exercises.

vi
DEVELOPING ADAPTIVE PROFICIENCY IN SPECIAL FORCES OFFICERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirements:

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (JFK SWCS) and the U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) identified the need to

enhance the adaptive skills of Special Forces (SF) personnel. Adaptive proficiency is critical for

operating in the dynamic SF environment, and recent increases in mission tempo require that

officers be proficient and operationally prepared immediately'upon entering SF. This required

that the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) be modified to provide more direct training

in the area of adaptive performance.

Toward this objective, JFK SWCS provided funds to develop a 31

/2-day introductory course on

adaptability, specifically tailored to the SF environment. The course was developed with the

intent of better preparing officers for the adaptability requirements they will face during later

phases of the SFQC as well as in the field as SF officers.

Procedure:

The framework of the adaptability course was carefully constructed from current knowledge and

literature regarding the topic of adaptability. Specific lecture materials and exercise content were

then tailored specifically to SF by reviewing written materials about SF, observing SF field

exercises, and conducting surveys, interviews, and focus groups with SF, ARI, and personnel at

the JFK SWCS Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD).

Results:

The adaptability course that was developed is currently held during Phase Ill of the SFQC, and is

called the Officer Adaptive Thinking and Leadership course (O-ATL). The 31⁄2-day course

introduces the students to the meaning of adaptability in the SF environment, covering the

myriad of ways in which SF officers are required to adapt. In particular, the course focuses on

the topics of mental adaptability, interpersonal adaptability, and leading an adaptable team. The

course provides the students with an understanding of each topic's relevance to their SF job, as

well as tools and strategies for better navigating situations that require different types of

adaptability. Case studies and scenario-based exercises are used throughout the course to

provide students with learning experiences from which they can draw in the future.

The O-ATL Course was initially pilot tested with a group of SFQC officer candidates in April

2003. Subsequently, the course was refined and pilot tested again in January 2004. Final

revisions were made to the course based on the results of the second pilot test, and final course

materials were delivered in February 2004. The course has been permanently integrated into the

SFQC.

vii
Utilization of Results:

While the materials described in this report were developed specifically for officers in training

for SF, the concepts and approach that are described are also being applied to other training

programs at JFK SWCS. Currently new efforts at JFK SWCS are in progress to apply the

concepts and materials developed for officers to SF Warrant Officers, SF Non-commissioned

Officers, and Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations officers. The training principles and

processes could also be readily applied to numerous other personnel and units across the Army.

viii
DEVELOPING ADAPTIVE PROFICIENCY IN SPECIAL FORCES OFFICERS

CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

DEFININ G AND PREDICTING ADAPTABILITY ................................................................. 2

Defining Adaptability ...................................................................................................... 2

Predicting Adaptability ..................................................................................................... 3

OFFICER ADAPTIVE THINKING AND LEADERSHIP COURSE ...................................... 5

Overview ............................................................................................................................. 5

Development Process ...................................................................................................... 5

Training Principles ....................................................................................................... 6

Learning Objectives ........................................................................................................ 8

Training Topics ........................................................................................................... 8

PILOT EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 13

O-ATL EVALUATION PLAN ............................................................................................... 15

Background ..................................................... 15

Level 1 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 15

Level 2 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 16

Level 3 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 17

Level 4 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 18

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 18

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX A. Linking Adaptability Dimensions with SF Critical Incidents ...................... A-1

B. Sam ple Training Evaluation Questionnaires ................................................. B-1

C. Sample Adaptability Rating Scales ............................................................... C-1

ix
DEVELOPING ADAPTIVE PROFICIENCY IN SPECIAL FORCES OFFICERS

Introduction

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (JFK SWCS) and

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

need to enhance the adaptive skills of Special Forces (SF) personnel. Adaptive proficiency is

critical for operating in the dynamic SF environment, and recent increases in mission tempo

require that Soldiers are highly proficient, and that SF officers in particular, are proficient and

operationally prepared immediately upon entering SF. This required that the Special Forces

Qualification Course (SFQC) be modified to provide more direct training for officers in the area

of adaptive performance.

JFK SWCS requested assistance from ARI to expand the role of adaptability in the

training of Army Special Forces (SF) officer candidates. They provided funds to enable ARI to

contract with Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. (PDRI) to develop an adaptability

training course that would be integrated into the existing SF officer training program.

Currently, SF candidates progress through four phases of assessment and training before

earning the SF tab. All four of the phases include elements of both assessment and training.

Phase I is referred to as Special Forces Assessment and Selection (or SFAS), while Phases II-IV

are collectively known as the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC). SFAS and the SFQC

are regularly evaluated and modified to ensure that appropriate and high quality assessment and

training methods are being used. In the current effort, the phases were evaluated for their

emphasis on adaptive performance in part due to field survey results showing lower-than-desired

adaptive proficiency from recent SFQC graduates (e.g., see Zazanis, Kilcullen, Sanders, &

Litton, 2000). Given that adaptability has been rated as critically important for the jobs of SF

Soldiers (Russell, Crafts, Tagliareni, McCloy, & Barkley, 1994), it was important for the SF

training process to address this. It is now particularly important that officers develop their

adaptive capabilities early in their SF careers because the recent increase in mission tempo often

places these officers the field immediately upon leaving the SFQC and entering SF.

The course developed in this research addresses this need. First, we present our working

definition of adaptability. Second, we describe the development of a 31

/2-day training course to

enhance officers' adaptive performance, including a recommended plan for evaluating the

course's effectiveness. While the 31/2-day time frame appears to provide a sufficient initial

foundation for later adaptive performance requirements in the course, a structured evaluation

would be needed to determine this empirically.

The materials and design of the course were drawn extensively from the adaptability

research literature, but also relied heavily on expert input from current and past SF Soldiers and

knowledgeable personnel at ARI and the Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD) at JFK

SWCS to ensure that the course met SF's specific requirements.
Defining and Predicting Adaptability1

Defining Adaptability

Given an increased call for people to be more adaptable in their jobs, the first question to

ask is, "What does it mean to be adaptable?" Several definitions of adaptability have been

presented in the literature (e.g., Chan, 2000; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000; Ross

& Lussier, 1999; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997; Zaccaro, 2001), and they can be summarized

with the definition presented here: Adaptability is an effective change in response to an altered

situation.

There are three main points to note about this definition. First, behavior change is at the

core of the definition. Persisting in a course of action despite environmental changes is not

adaptive -- even if it is effective. In other words, continuing to do what one has been doing is not

a display of adaptability. Second, the change that is made must be effective. It is not adaptive to

make a change that makes it more difficult to reach a goal or takes one further from a desired

end-state. To be adaptable, the change that is made must work. Third, the change must be a

response to some shift in the environment. Changing one's behavior in a random or whimsical

fashion is not adaptive. Rather, adaptation arises from situational and environmental changes.

While several researchers have provided definitions of adaptability in general, less work

has been done on exploring the dimensions of adaptability in more detail. One model of

adaptability that has been developed is that of Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000).

This model was developed from analyzing reports of effective and ineffective instances of

adaptability, with many of the reports coming from military settings. Eight dimensions of

adaptability emerged from this analysis, describing different kinds of adaptive behavior that

might be displayed. These dimensions are as follows:

"* Handling Emergencies or * Learning Work Tasks, Technologies,

Crisis Situations and Procedures

"* Handling Work Stress * Demonstrating Interpersonal

Adaptability

"* Solving Problems Creatively * Displaying Cultural Adaptability

"* Dealing Effectively with * Demonstrating Physically Oriented

Unpredictable or Changing Adaptability

Work Situations

Certainly, some aspects of adaptability are less relevant for some jobs than others. For

example, many desk jobs have low requirements for Demonstrating Physically Oriented

Adaptability. The job of the SF Soldier, however, requires all of these elements of adaptability.

Appendix A presents the definitions of each of the adaptability dimensions listed above, as well

as examples-that demonstrate their relevance to the SF environment.

More detailed information on defining adaptability and its predictors can be found in White and Dorsey (2002).

2
This 8-dimension model of adaptability provided us with a starting point for developing

adaptability training materials; however, for simplicity's sake during training and development,

these dimensions can be grouped into three overarching types of adaptability, each of which is

important in the SF environment:

" Mental Adaptability - Being mentally adaptable means adjusting one's thinking in

new situations to overcome obstacles or improve effectiveness. It includes things like

handling emergency or crisis situations, handling stress, learning new things, and

creative problem solving.

" Interpersonal Adaptability - Being interpersonally adaptable means adjusting what

one says and does to make interactions with other people run more smoothly and

effectively. This includes trying to understand the needs and motives of other people

- especially people in other cultures.

" Physical Adaptability - Physical adaptability means adjusting to tough environmental

states such as heat, cold, etc., pushing oneself physically to complete strenuous or

demanding tasks, and adjusting weight/muscular strength or becoming proficient in

performing physical tasks as necessary for the job.

For officers, it is not enough to be individually adaptable. They must also help develop

adaptability in their teams by encouraging and rewarding adaptive behavior in the team and by

ensuring everyone works together in a coordinated fashion. Therefore, we have added the

concept of Leading an Adaptable Team to the above types of adaptability, and together these

four concepts provide a framework for describing adaptability in the course.

Predicting Adaptability

It is important to understand personal characteristics that serve as antecedents to adaptive

performance. Adaptability is often discussed as though it were a personality trait; that is, some

people are simply adaptable to changes while others are not. However, while there are certainly

personality components that contribute to people's levels of adaptability, several knowledge,

skills, and abilities (KSAs) also contribute to adaptability. The personality traits and KSAs that

have been associated with adaptability are described below.

First, adaptive performance has been related to several personality traits, including:

"* General Self-Efficacy - Confidence in one's ability to succeed (e.g. Eden & Kinnar,

1991; Sherer & Adams, 1983; Sherer et al., 1982).

"* Resiliency - The ability to recover quickly from change, hardship, or misfortune (e.g.,

Pulley, Wakefield, & Van Nestor, 2001).

"* Openness - One's curiosity, broad-mindedness, and receptiveness to new

environments and events (e.g. LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Zaccaro 2001a;

Pulakos et al., in press).

3
" Achievement Motivation - One's desire to achieve results and master tasks beyond

others' expectations (Dweck, 1986; LePine et al, 2000, Pulakos et al., 2000; Schmeck,

1988).

"* Tolerance of Ambiguity - Coping easily with environmental uncertainty (e.g. Pulakos

& Dorsey, 2000; Zaccaro, 200 1a).

In addition, several knowledge, skills, and abilities are also predictive of adaptive

performance.

"* General Cognitive Ability - Intelligence or "g" (e.g., LePine et al, 2000; Pulakos et al,

in press; Zaccaro 2001a).

"* Metacognitive Skill - Skill in monitoring and correcting one's own thoughts, or

"thinking about thinking" (e.g., Endsley & Robertson, 2000).

e Problem Solving/Decision Making Skills - Developing appropriate solutions to

difficult problems and choosing appropriate courses of action (e.g., Klein, 1997;

Endsley & Robertson, 2000).

" Interpersonal Skills - Communication skills, negotiation skills, conflict resolution

skills, persuasion skills, collaboration skills (e.g., Pulakos et al., 2000; Zaccaro,

2001a).

"• Awareness - Understanding how self and others relate to each other and fit into larger

settings (e.g., Fernandez, 1991; Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1993; Zaccaro, 2001a).

In addition to the personality characteristics and skills described above, domain-specific

knowledge is a key element in being able to respond adaptively (e.g., Ross & Lussier, 1999).

For example, to determine a creative fix to a machine, one would need at least a basic knowledge

of the machine. To respond effectively to a medical emergency, one would need specialized

knowledge of medical treatment. As Cohen et al. (2000) stated, effective decision making

"...requires extensive domain-specific knowledge, such as mental models that describe causal

relationships among events in the domain" (pp. 32-33). For that reason, many training programs

in critical or adaptive thinking are specifically geared toward a particular context so that domain

knowledge can be assumed or trained (e.g., Ross & Lussier, 1999; Cohen et al., 2000; Endsley &

Robertson, 2000).

Experience is another critical predictor of adaptive performance. For example, Pulakos,

Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad, Hedge, and Borman (2002) empirically demonstrated a positive link

between past experience in adaptive situations and adaptive performance. A key component of

this research was that the experiences that were studied were those requiring adaptability.

Gaining the same experience repeatedly may not aid performance in a novel situation, and it may

even hurt performance if the individual insists on approaching the situation from a particular

mindset that might not be appropriate (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997; Zaccaro, 2001).

However, experiencing a variety of situations requiring adjustments to the environment does

appear to aid in the adaptation process.

4
Officer Adaptive Thinking and Leadership Course

Overview

The course developed for officers attending SF training is entitled the Officer Adaptive

Thinking and Leadership (O-ATL). It is a 31⁄22-day classroom-based course focused on the

adaptability requirements of the SF officer. It is placed at the beginning of the third phase of

training for the officers, and introduces them to various concepts related to adaptability, using a

combination of training techniques. Brief lectures are used to introduce ideas to the students,

examples and case studies show their relevance to the SF environment, and exercises increase

student understanding of the topics and allow them the opportunity to practice performing

adaptively in a controlled setting.

A classroom-based setting was chosen because the course was intended to provide the

officers with the initial foundation for approaching adaptive performance in the higher-fidelity

field training exercises in which they participate at later stages of training. Past research has

shown that training is more effective if participants have a framework for understanding what

they will encounter in training (e.g., Goldstein, 1993), and one of the goals of the O-ATL was to

provide this framework. As such, the course was designed to set the students up for success in

handling the adaptive performance requirements of their later SFQC training as well as their SF

jobs.

Development Process

To best meet the needs of SF, personnel from ARI and DOTD outlined certain

requirements for the O-ATL course. These requirements were as follows:

"* The course would be completely classroom based, and would therefore not include

any field exercises or simulations.

" The initial course was to involve approximately 40 hours of instruction, including

time dedicated to one-on-one sessions between the students and psychologists to

allow for discussions and counseling regarding issues of adaptability. 2

"* The training materials would be designed or tailored specifically for the SF audience

to be of maximum relevance to them.

With these requirements serving as a framework, the first step was to thoroughly review

the existing literature on adaptability (White & Dorsey, 2002). One of the main purposes of this

review was to learn about commercially available adaptability training from which the O-ATL

might draw. Our initial development strategy was to identify already-developed adaptability

training and then customize it for the SF audience; however, the small number of acceptable

2 Note that following the first pilot, the number of hours of instruction, including counseling sessions, was

reduced to approximately 30 hours to accommodate scheduling constraints. Given this reduction in classroom

time, some of the work was shifted outside the classroom in the form of reading and other homework

assignments.

5
training materials located in this search preempted this strategy. Rather, we found that most

"adaptability" courses tended to focus on only certain aspects of adaptability (i.e., critical

thinking/decision making, handling stress, interpersonal interactions, intercultural interactions) in

isolation of the others. These products concentrated on particular pieces of the adaptability

puzzle, but they failed to provide students with a broad, overarching framework for thinking

about adaptability and approaching situations requiring adaptability. Because the O-ATL was

intended to provide just such a broad, integrative view of adaptability, we revised our

development strategy from customizing existing products to primarily developing original course

materials. While we did draw from a few developed products, the vast majority of the O-ATL

products were specifically developed for the SF officer candidates.

The second major goal of our review of the adaptability literature was to ensure that the

content of the O-ATL represented the most up-to-date research and understanding of the topic of

adaptability. Since our strategy was now to develop primarily original training materials, we

drew heavily from this review to identify issues to cover in the course as well as training

principles for the design of the course. We discuss both these design principles and the content

of the course in more detail in later sections.

It is important to note, however, that our review of adaptability literature and products

was just a starting point for the development of the O-ATL. To make the training materials

relevant to the officers, we incorporated information about the SF environment, and the types of

adaptive situations that SF Soldiers face, throughout the lectures, examples, and exercises of the

course.

Extensive information about the SF environment was gathered through written materials

on SF operations, observation of training and assessment activities, and interviews with

numerous SF personnel. Furthermore, interviews, focus groups, and surveys with SF officers

and NCOs provided stories and incidents for the exercise scenarios and lecture examples

throughout the course. In addition, DOTD and SF personnel thoroughly reviewed the course

materials, and provided feedback regarding relevance and appropriateness of the materials. For

example, these reviewers would indicate when a scenario we had represented as ambiguous

actually had a clear-cut solution, thereby requiring us to develop a new scenario. They alerted us

to scenarios and examples that did not seem believable (even when they were based on actual

situations), and helped us to revise or replace them. In sum, there was extensive involvement of

SF personnel in the development of the course to help ensure that it was as relevant to the officer

candidates as possible.

We now turn to a review of the training principles that guided the development of the 0-

ATL, followed by an outline of course's content.

Training Principles

The best way to train adaptive performance is still in question, as people have only

recently begun to examine this issue. As Kozlowski (1998) pointed out, the study of adaptability

training is still "...in its infancy" (p. 120). However, there were several training principles

followed in designing the O-ATL.

6
Advance Organizers. The course begins with an overview of the concept of

adaptability, and how it is displayed in the SF environment. This overview served as

an advance organizer, or a set of materials (verbal, quantitative, graphic, conceptual,

or other) presented at the beginning of training that helps students organize the

information that is to be presented (Goldsmith & Kraiger, 1997; Goldstein, 1993;

Howell & Cooke, 1989; Smith et al., 1997).

* Mastery Orientation. The O-ATL was designed to encourage students to adopt a

mastery orientation toward the adaptability materials they were learning. When

people hold a mastery orientation, they are more likely to look upon difficult training

situations as learning experiences, rather than as situations to be avoided because they

may interfere with performance. Furthermore, because a mastery orientation involves

treating mistakes as opportunities to learn, people with mastery goals tend to get less

frustrated in the face of failure. This may make them more resilient in maintaining

performance out of the training context and under demanding conditions (Kozlowski,

1998). Given the focus of adaptability in performing in new and different situations,

and the superior transfer of training that is thought to accompany a mastery

orientation, it might be that a mastery orientation toward adaptability training

improves adaptive performance (Smith et al., 1997; Kozlowski, 1998).

Discovery learning. Discovery learning is an inductive method of instruction where

students must explore and experiment with tasks to infer and learn the strategies for

effective performance. Thus, rather than being told how to approach particular

situations, students must determine these strategies for themselves. During this

process, students to develop and test hypotheses about what they are learning, and

this active processing of information can lead to knowledge that is better integrated

with existing knowledge.'For example, rather than instructing students on how to

communicate with someone of a different culture, students would practice the task in

a controlled setting and devise the principles associated with cross-cultural

communication. Figuring things out for themselves tends to increase students'

understanding of topics, and also improves the extent to which they can apply the

concepts they have learned to new settings - a key to adaptability (Atlas, Cornett,

Lane, & Napier, 1997; Lussier, Ross, & Mayes, 2000; Smith et al., 1997).

Accordingly, the O-ATL includes many exercises and class discussions, allowing

students to uncover key principles for themselves.

Deliberate practice. Ross and Lussier (1999), in their development of the Adaptive

Thinking Training Methodology, recommend a focus on deliberate practice.

Deliberate practice involves a focus on practicing skills in an effortful fashion

(approaching training as work rather than play) and receiving active coaching and

feedback on one's results. The outcome is planned and structured activity rather than

casual practice. Therefore, the O-ATL has been designed to'incorporate several

highly structured practice sessions for which participants receive structured feedback.

* Feedback. During training, individuals should have the opportunity to practice new

skills, obtain feedback on their results, and apply what they learned from this

feedback in subsequent practice sessions. In an adaptability context, individuals

should have ample opportunities to practice their adaptability related skills in a

7
variety of settings and obtain feedback from a variety of sources. Therefore, the 0-

ATL has been designed so that students receive a substantial amount of feedback

during the course from both the facilitators and their peers.

Learning Objectives

The purpose of the O-ATL was to provide the students with tools and strategies for

increasing their adaptive proficiency throughout their SF training and their SF careers. In

particular, the training had the following objectives:

* Understand the meaning and necessity of adaptability in the SF environment. The

adaptability requirements of the SF officer job are very high and very diverse. While

students realize this to some extent, the course is designed to make them more fully

aware of the myriad ways in which their jobs will require them to adapt. This

provides the students with more information about their jobs, and it also allows them

to start thinking through how they might handle the situations described in the class if

they were to encounter them. Thus, the course in a sense provides the students with

vicarious adaptability experiences.

Use effective strategies for handling changes in the environment. The O-ATL goes

beyond describing adaptability situations and provides the students with strategies for

how they might handle them. Students should emerge from the class with not only a

clear understanding of adaptability, but also with strategies for approaching different

adaptability situations.

Demonstrate interpersonal adaptability. Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability

was identified as a separate learning objective to emphasize to students that

interacting with other people is an adaptive skill. In thinking about their adaptive

proficiency, students need to keep in mind how critical interpersonal adaptability is

for their success as an SF officer, given the high level of interpersonal contact (often

with people from different backgrounds and cultures) that their job requires.

o Demonstrate skills associated with leading and developing an adaptive team. The

students in the O-ATL are officers and will be responsible for an operational team if

selected into SF. Therefore, they must recognize that it is not sufficient that they

themselves are adaptable, but also that they do what they can to ensure that their

teams are adaptable and operating as integrated units.

Training Topics

Using these training principles, the course was structured around the following topics:

Introduction to Adaptability, Mental Adaptability, Interpersonal Adaptability, and Leading an

Adaptable Team. We did not include Physical Adaptability, given the classroom nature of the

course and the emphasis that Physical Adaptability receives elsewhere in the SFQC.

Brief descriptions of the content and exercises in each of the different course modules,

are provided in the subsequent sections.

8
Introduction to Adaptability

The introductory section of the O-ATL is intended to (1) emphasize the importance of

adaptability in SF, (2) introduce the basic concepts of adaptability, and (3) provide students with

information and guidance for continued self-development in the area of adaptability. Elements of

this section include:

" Importance of Adaptability in SF. While the students in the O-ATL are generally

familiar with the types of work performed in SF, they may not have a clear

appreciation of the extent to which their jobs will require them to adapt. The course

therefore begins with exercises and examples designed to emphasize to the students

the numerous ways in which they, as SF officers, will be required to adapt to their

surroundings. The students engage in a planning exercise that was developed to

illustrate these points and was based on the real world experience of an SF

Operational Detachment-Alpha (ODA). They also discuss a case study of how an SF

ODA adapted to its surroundings during a surveillance-reconnaissance mission.

"* Basic Adaptability Concepts. The course reviews some basic concepts associated with

adaptability so that the students will have a clear understanding of what is meant by

adaptability and what will be covered in the remainder of the course. For example,

this section of the training course reviews the different types of adaptability (mental,

interpersonal, physical, leading an adaptable team). Additionally, students are

presented with a set of "Adaptability Rating Scales," and they are encouraged to use

the scales to periodically measure their own adaptability skills.

" TAIS Workshop. The TAIS (Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style) Workshop is

delivered by Winning Minds. During the workshop, students receive feedback on

their TAIS scores (the TAIS is administered to all the students prior to the O-ATL).

Students also receive guidance on how to interpret their scores and how their

individual attentional and interpersonal style may relate to their performance.

" Guided Self-Development. As was mentioned above, adaptive proficiency is likely to

be driven in part by one's personality and intelligence, which are fairly stable.

However, while certain people may be more prone to being adaptable than others,

everyone can improve his/her level of adaptability through structured developmental

opportunities. For example, people can learn to manage personality traits that might

inhibit adaptability, even if they cannot change the trait. Consistent with this line of

reasoning, students are presented with a planning guide to help them develop and

record goals for improving their adaptive performance. The students complete the

guide on their own, and they are also encouraged to engage in developmental

activities upon leaving the course to meet their personal adaptability goals.

Mental Adaptability

The second module of the O-ATL focuses on mental adaptability, or the ways in which

people must adjust their thinking to handle situations effectively. This module of the course

focuses on (1) being willing and able to recognize and adjust to changes, switching mindsets as

necessary, (2) thinking critically and solving problems, and (3) making decisions/choosing

9
courses of action. In essence, this section is concerned with how problem solving and decision

making skills can be applied to achieve adaptive performance, and how the students can improve

their skills in those areas. An overriding theme of this module is that the students should always

be monitoring their own thought processes to respond adaptively to new situations. By thinking

about their own thinking, students are more likely to catch errors in their judgment and therefore

to be better problem solvers and decision makers. This module also heavily emphasizes the

importance of experience in honing mental adaptability skills, and it encourages students to

acquire as many experiences as they can and to draw from the experiences of others around

them. This message is particularly important for the O-ATL audience, because new team

captains are often the least experienced members of their operational teams. Elements of this

section include:

Switching Mindsets. Mindsets are ways that people mentally frame or represent

situations so that they can understand them and approach them appropriately. For

example, an SF Soldier might react differently to a man approaching the camp

depending on whether he adopted a "peacetime" or "wartime" mindset. From an

adaptability standpoint, people need to be able to adopt new mindsets toward

situations when circumstances change. Switching mindsets, or looking at situations

through different lenses, can sometimes bring overlooked solutions to light.

Switching mindsets entails recognizing the need for change and being willing to

change when change is appropriate. These concepts are illustrated with an exercise.

Tools and Strategies for Critical Thinking. Since mental adaptability is concerned

with the ways in which people cognitively approach changing situations, the O-ATL

provides information on thinking critically about dynamic situations and solving the

problems that emerge from them. First, the course reviews common errors that

people make in their thinking (e.g., identifying the wrong problem; jumping to

conclusions; not evaluating the information received for consistency; taking

information on faith; ignoring information in favor of personal feelings), To illustrate

this concept, students read a case study of a historical situation. Next, the course

reviews active problem solving strategies that the students might use to solve a

difficult problem (e.g., breaking a problem into parts; restating a problem in different

terms; using prompting questions to guide analysis of the problem; taking different

perspectives toward the problem). The students then engage in an exercise in which

they watch a video of four SF Soldiers solving a problem. As the Soldiers discuss the

problem, the students identify critical thinking errors and the use of problem solving

strategies. An instructor-facilitated discussion of the video highlights the effective

and ineffective examples of critical thinking and problem solving.

Decision Making. In addition to providing problem solving strategies to the students,

the O-ATL also provides the students with information on different decision-making

approaches. The course reviews the standard Military Decision Making Process

(MDMP) and emphasizes that it is an appropriate approach when time pressure and

stress are low enough to allow someone to develop and evaluate alternative courses of

action (COA). However, many SF environments are characterized by time pressure,

stress, poor information, ill-defined and/or shifting goals, and changing

circumstances. For these types of situations, the students are encouraged to consider

10
a naturalistic approach, in which someone chooses a likely course of action, "wargames" it in his mind, and implements it if it seems like it will work. This

approach to decision making rests on having the experience needed to properly assess

a situation and identify an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the O-ATL

emphasizes to students that they should build up their store of experiences to more

easily assess situations, and that they should learn from the way that experienced SF

officers assess situations. The students then watch a video of experienced SF officers

describing how they assessed different situations and the COAs that they chose in

carrying out actual SF missions. Students compare their own approach to that of the

Soldier on the video and an instructor facilitates a discussion.

Interpersonal Adaptability

The third module of the O-ATL focuses on interpersonal adaptability, or the ways in

which people adjust their behaviors depending on the social demands of a situation. In

interviews with current SF NCOs and officers, the need for training in interpersonal adaptability

emerged as particularly strong because it is critical to building rapport and communicating with

others. This module of the course focuses on (1) understanding social settings, including an

awareness of oneself, others, and the larger social system, and (2) strategies for more effectively

negotiating with others to obtain desired outcomes. The interpersonal adaptability module

addresses interactions with others in a general sense, where the others might be Soldiers on the

officer's ODA, host nation personnel, personnel from higher commands, etc. An important

concept in this module is that adjusting one's own behaviors to accommodate others will enable

them to accomplish their tasks more effectively. That is, interpersonal adaptability is not about

being nice and getting along with others - it is ultimately about interacting with others

effectively in order to be productive. Elements of this section include:

Understanding Social Settings. Interacting effectively with others often requires

adjusting one's approach to a situation based on the perspectives, beliefs,

personalities, etc. of the other parties involved.

Understanding Oneself: A starting point for interpersonal adaptability is

understanding how one is viewed by others in interactions. Someone may think

that he is acting deferentially, but others actually see him as timid and passive.

To this end, the O-ATL provides the students with feedback on how they are

viewed by others. The students interact in small groups to solve a problem then

rate their teammates on a variety of attributes and behaviors. The ratings are

exchanged so that each student can see how he is viewed by his teammates in

these areas.

Understanding Others: After addressing the importance of understanding oneself,

the course addresses the importance of understanding others in social interactions.

The key to interpersonal adaptability is to be able to see the world through

someone else's eyes, and the students are provided with strategies for finding out

about the perspectives of others. To practice these strategies, the students engage

in a role-playing exercise.

Understanding the Social System: Another piece of understanding social settings

is seeing how they fit in with the larger environment. For example, most social

11
settings are characterized by rules, norms, regulations, an historical context, etc.

These characteristics constrain what sorts of behaviors might be appropriate, and

they must be understood to achieve effective interactions with others. This is

particularly important for SF officers since their success is often dependent on

their ability to understand and adapt to the larger cultural setting in which they are

operating. The instructor leads the students through a discussion of how elements

of social systems are likely to influence their interactions with others.

Negotiation Strategies. Interactions involving negotiations are particularly relevant to

SF officers. They must negotiate with the Soldiers on their own teams, with others in

their Battalion, Group, or higher, with host nation personnel, and others to allow the

ODA to operate effectively in different situations. Different approaches to

negotiations are presented and specific strategies for conducting effective

negotiations are provided. The students practice these skills by negotiating in pairs

and in a larger group setting (simulating an ODA's interaction with another group).

Leading an Adaptable Team

The last major training module of the O-ATL is dedicated to providing information to the

students about leading an adaptable team. Because the officers will not be operating

independently, but rather as leaders of ODAs, it is critical that they gain an understanding of

what they can do to enhance their team's capacity to adapt as an integrated unit. The module

emphasizes (1) communication and leadership styles that have been effective in the SF ODA

environment, and (2) the importance of effective feedback for improving individual and team

skills. Elements of this section include:

Communication/Leadership Styles. There are certain ways of leading that have been

associated with more effective and more adaptive teams (e.g., see McIntyre & Salas,

1995; Zaccaro, 2001b; Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, & Waterson, 2000;

Edmondson, 1999; West & Wallace, 1991). Students are led through a discussion of

effective leadership strategies in the SF environment. Following this discussion,

students read descriptions provided by SF NCOs that describe effective and

ineffective characteristics of their previous team leaders. All of this information is

intended to guide the students in adopting a leadership style that is conducive to an

effective and adaptive team.

Effective Feedback. Feedback can be a powerful tool both for improving individual

performance and team performance. A frank examination and discussion of a team's

past performance, coupled with concrete suggestions for improvement, can be

instrumental in developing a high performance team. In this section, the students are

presented with guidance on delivering effective feedback in a team setting. The

students practice delivering team feedback by engaging in a scenario-based exercise.

Summary

The O-ATL concludes with a brief summary of the major points of the course. The

students are encouraged to continually evaluate their own adaptive performance and seek

continual improvement. The final activity is a course evaluation.

12
Pilot Evaluation

The description provided of the O-ATL should not suggest that the development process

has stopped. Two pilot courses have been conducted to obtain feedback from students and

instructors regarding modifications for greater effectiveness. The intent of the pilots was to

determine which activities in the course led to appropriate learning and positive student

reactions, and which ones did not.

The first of these pilot administrations took place from 31 March 2003 through 4 April

2003. The instructors were two SF officers (both of the rank of Major), and the students were 16

SF officer candidates preparing to begin Phase II of the SFQC. Personnel from PDRI observed

the administration of this course and gathered feedback from .the instructors, DOTD staff who

were observing the course, and from the students themselves, via daily surveys and a focus group

at the end of the course. After making changes to the O-ATL, a second pilot administration was

held on 6 January 2004 through 9 January 2004. The students in this second pilot consisted of

34 officer candidates preparing to begin Phase III of the SFQC. Again, personnel from PDRI

observed the administration of the course and obtained feedback from the students and

instructors.

Information from these pilot administrations provided useful feedback regarding both the

topic content of the course and the course lessons and exercises.

Topic Content. Both the instructors and the students in the pilot course largely agreed

with the relevance of the topics covered by the course. They clearly saw the links between the

information presented in the course and the jobs of SF officers. Because there was variation in

the experience and proficiency levels of the students, some students felt that they did not need

training in certain areas, while others were unfamiliar with even the basic concepts in these

areas. Differences among students will continue to arise in future administrations of the O-ATL,

and the instructor(s) should encourage the more knowledgeable students to share their expertise

with the others.

Course Exercises. During the pilots, each exercise was carefully evaluated to ensure that

it was teaching appropriate lessons, that students responded positively to it, and that the exercises

were properly tailored to the students' skill levels. Most of the exercises in the training course

met these criteria, although some adjustments needed to be made. Below is a summary of points

of discussion and potential areas for future modification.

e Students found that the SF case studies that were presented in the course very useful.

Not all students reacted positively to the use of historical non-SF case studies. In

some cases students did not clearly see a link between the situations of the historical

case study and current SF operations. Ensuring students recognize the parallels

between the historical case study situations and those they might encounter in their

SF careers is critical to the successful incorporation of these in the course.

9 The video exercises that were included in the training were well-received by the

students. This element of the course could be expanded by increasing the complexity

of the problems presented in the video and providing greater detail regarding the

consequences of decisions.

13
* Students responded very positively to the lecture and exercise components of the

negotiations unit, although they requested that more time be spent on negotiation

theory. This may not be the appropriate location to add information on negotiation

theory, as the intention of this unit is to focus on the adaptive performance

requirements entailed in negotiations.

Some students felt that they did not need additional training in leading an adaptable

team and felt comfortable with their abilities to lead small teams in SF environments.

Course instructors should encourage those with more leadership experience and

proficiency to share their knowledge with the other students in the class. In addition,

an exercise could be incorporated into this section that involves a role-play of the first

meeting between a Captain and his Team Sergeant and/or Warrant Officer. Soldiers

playing the role of Team Sergeant or Warrant Officer would follow scripts that would

present the Captain with unexpected interactional styles or approaches.

The students generally preferred discussions, activities, and exercises to lecture, and

they believed that the amount of time spent on lectures during the first pilot course

should be decreased. In the second version, almost all lecture components of the

course were redesigned to take no more than 20-30 minutes. It is not clear that the

lecture content could or should be substantially reduced beyond this level, without

eliminating important concepts. The instructor should make every effort to keep the

class engaged during the brief lectures through enthusiastic presentations and the use

of examples to illustrate key concepts.

Another lesson learned from the pilots of the O-ATL was the importance of providing

feedback to the students. They responded very positively to the parts of the course

that provided them with direct feedback on their adaptability performance.

Accordingly, the instructor(s) should continue to provide the students with guidance

on interpreting and applying the feedback obtained in the course.

The qualifications of the course instructor(s) are critical. Optimally the primary

instructor would have both a behavioral science background and experience in that

specific performance domain - in this case the SF environment. The behavioral

science background enables the instructor to have a more thorough understanding of

the subject area and its theoretical foundations, and having experience with SF

enables him to supplement the course materials with his own examples. To be

maximally effective the instructor also needs a detailed understanding of the SF

training pipeline as well as excellent facilitation skills. Ideally, guest instructors or

guest speakers with operational experience would be used to cover certain topics.

These could be current team sergeants, team leaders, or warrant officers who have

recently returned from deployments.

* In addition to choosing the right instructor, the pilot course highlighted the

importance of instructor training. Instructors must dedicate the necessary time to

learn the training content, then tailor the materials to his own style and preferences.

Overall, the reception of the course was positive. While there were a number of changes

recommended by students and instructors, all parties believed that the course was valuable and

14
taught important lessons. Future versions of the O-ATL will likely allow for further

enhancement of the course. We now turn to a discussion of an evaluation plan for the O-ATL to

enable regular course evaluation and improvement.

O-ATL Evaluation Plan

The O-ATL has been carefully designed to enhance officers' adaptive proficiency.

However, to ensure that it is having the maximum possible impact, it should be continually

evaluated to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Evaluation data will provide the necessary

diagnostic information to ensure that the course remains up-to-date, effective, and integrated

with rest of the SFQC. In this section we provide a recommended plan for evaluating the 0-

ATL.

Background

In the training literature, the dominant model of training evaluation is based on the work

of Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick (cf. Kirkpatrick, 1998). According to this model, training evaluation

can be arranged in the following four hierarchical levels:

"* Level 1: Participant reactions to the training.

"• Level 2: The extent to which participants acquire new knowledge or skills or change

their attitudes.

"* Level 3: The extent to which training results in a positive behavior change in the

work environment.

"* Level 4: The extent to which training has an impact on organizational results such as

mission accomplishment, productivity, cost savings, etc.

The recommendations for the O-ATL evaluation draw from Kirkpatrick's model where

appropriate and are tailored to the unique environment of SF.

Level I Evaluation

Level 1 evaluation is by far the most popular type of training assessment. According to a

recent survey by the American Society of Training and Development, 78% of courses are

evaluated by some sort of reaction measure at the conclusion of training, and the vast majority of

organizations stop at this level (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002). Typically, level 1 evaluation

consists of directly surveying training participants at the conclusion of a course. The surveys

usually include questions about how well people liked the course, facilities, instructors, etc.

Participant reactions can provide valuable insights on the quality of training, particularly if the

right questions are asked. However, participant reactions should be interpreted in light of the

fact that they provide a limited view of training effectiveness. Before making major revisions to

a course or even canceling it altogether, information beyond reactions is needed.

15
With this caveat in mind, level 1 evaluation should be conducted at the conclusion of the

O-ATL, but the results of these reactions should be interpreted with some caution. Based on the

relevant research, the contents of the surveys should include questions from the each of the

following areas (see the Appendix B for a sample questionnaire):

* The extent to which the training increased the participant's knowledge of and

confidence in meeting SF adaptive performance requirements;

e The perceived usefulness of various parts of the course and the course materials;

e Logistics:

- Reactions to the course instructor;

- Course length (i.e., was the course too long or too short given the material that

needed to be covered);

- Difficulty level of material/instruction (i.e., was the level appropriate to the

audience - not too easy or difficult), and;

- Facilities.

Note that this type of evaluation will serve two purposes. The first is to diagnose and

remedy potential problems with the course and identify ways that the course could be improved.

The second is to provide information regarding whether the course actually helps students

develop knowledge of adaptive performance requirements, some basic skills for performing

adaptively, and strategies for applying what they have learned on the job. The first purpose can

be evaluated directly - negative ratings or comments would indicate a problem, although the

absence of negative comments does not mean there are no problems with the course. Moreover,

participants can offer valuable suggestions for improvements. The second purpose, however,

would be evaluated indirectly. Because new knowledge and skills acquired in training often take

time to develop fully on the job, evaluation at this level is focused on assessing attitudes and

beliefs, which are necessary prerequisites for actual behavior changes on the job.

Data analysis at this level is likely to be purely descriptive. For example, the percentage

of people who felt the course was useful, who felt the instructor was effective, etc. could be

reported. These ratings could be tracked over time to see if they increase or decrease.

Specifically, these results, coupled with summaries of the written comments could then be used

in a variety of ways, such as:

"* To identify activities in the course which are off the mark in terms of level, focus,

difficulty, etc.

"* To identify instructors who may be ineffective.

"• To gather suggestions for course improvement.

Level 2 Evaluation

The intent of the O-ATL is to ensure that officers understand and are prepared to meet the

broad range of adaptability requirements they are likely to face both in later training phases and

16
on-the-job. As such, the course should have an impact on the students' knowledge, attitudes, and

beliefs about their ability to be adaptable. Therefore, a level 2 evaluation should be conducted to

assess the extent to which the course had a positive impact on the students' understanding of SF

adaptive performance requirements, related strategies for adaptive performance, and their

confidence in their ability to be adaptable.

This evaluation could be done using a pre/posttest within group comparison. The

pre/posttest within group comparison would entail administering a survey to the students both

before and immediately following the training (see Appendix B for a sample survey). To

preserve anonymity and confidentiality, the survey could be coded with a random ID number to

facilitate matching. If the posttest scores were significantly higher than the Fretest scores, this

would be evidence that the training improved knowledge and self-efficacy.

Additional evidence for the positive effects of the training could be gathered through a

comparison between a group that received the training and a control group who did not receive

the training. While this strategy may not be possible with the officer course, given that course

administrators will likely want all officers to receive the training, it may be a strategy that could

be used in applications of this course to other training venues. If the course was being applied to

Soldiers in a new setting, this technique could be used to compare Soldier's knowledge and

confidence in the class prior to implementation of the course and following the implementation

of the course. Surveys would be given to members of both classes at the same point in the

course. Significantly higher scores for the group that received training would provide evidence

that the training improved knowledge and self-efficacy.

Level 3 Evaluation

Because of its relatively early placement in the SFQC, the impact of the O-ATL on

subsequent performance is probably best measured during future training rather than waiting

until the students are assigned to an actual ODA. Evaluation of behavior in training could be

assessed by the cadre (and perhaps through peer evaluations) during hands-on exercises in the

final phase of SFQC training (e.g., the Unconventional Warfare Practical Exercises or Robin

Sage). The scales presented in this report could be used as tools for these assessments (See the

rating scales in Appendix C). It would be important that any measure used to evaluate the

effectiveness of the O-ATL be focused on adaptability and not a measure of general

performance, because a general performance measure would most likely be too broad to capture

any improvements in adaptive performance.

As with level 2 evaluation, comparisons could be made between the performance of

individuals who have completed the course and a control group of individuals who entered

3 The anonymity of the data will need to be emphasized particularly strongly with the students in the SFQC since

they are so accustomed to being assessed in the SFQC. They may not be willing to admit to any deficiencies in

their knowledge or their confidence. As such, the students' answers to the pretest survey might be so high that

there would be no room for improvement in the posttest survey following the course. Therefore, it is critical

that students believe that their survey answers are not going to be used for evaluating their personal

performance. Furthermore, if administrations of pretest measures consistently indicate that students rate

themselves extremely high in all categories, other evaluation methodologies may need to be considered.

17
training before this course was offered. Again, while this would probably not be possible with

members of the O-ATL course, it would be a useful technique for future applications of the

course. If individuals who completed the training demonstrated more adaptable behaviors in

subsequent training than individuals in the control group, this would be evidence for the

effectiveness of the course in changing behavior. Additionally, the evaluators could note any

barriers to adaptive performance that are outside of the students' control (e.g., rules that prohibit

implementing novel solutions to problems). Once identified, steps can be taken to reduce or

eliminate these barriers.

Level 4 Evaluation

Because the O-ATL is only one part of an extensive training program, its long-term

impact on force readiness or mission success would be difficult to assess. Therefore, while

evaluation targeted at levels 1-3 addresses the effectiveness of the O-ATL in particular, level 4

evaluation is better suited to assess the effectiveness of adaptability training across the entire

training pipeline.

One way to accomplish this evaluation would be to appoint an independent task force to

evaluate the extent to which adaptability training in the SFQC has been effective. Gathering data

for this evaluation should come from multiple sources, such as:

e Interviews and focus groups with recent SFQC graduates and their commanding

officers.

e Reviews of AARs from ODA missions.

a Observations of selected operations.

Data gathered from these sources could be summarized and evaluated against SF

standards for performance and goals for mission success. Gaps between what is observed and

what is expected would indicate a need for changes to training and development in the SFQC.

Conclusions

This report provided a summary of the research and processes that were used to develop

the O-ATL Course. It also described lessons learned from the pilot courses and provided a plan

for continued evaluation and improvement of the course contents. While the materials developed

in this effort were developed specifically for officers in training for SF, the concepts and

approach provide a road map that can be used to establish adaptive performance training for

other personnel as well. In fact, course materials based on the O-ATL have already been

developed and implemented for students attending the SF Warrant Officer Basic Course, and

work is in progress at JFK SWCS to apply the concepts to the SF Advanced Non-commissioned

Officer Course, and the qualification courses for Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations

officers. In addition, the training principles and processes could be readily applied to numerous

other Soldiers and units across the Army. Personnel at DOTD, JFK SWCS have been in

coordination with other Army units to discuss the potential application of these materials for the

training and development of their personnel.

18
References

Atlas, R., Cornett, L., Lane, D. M., & Napier, H. A. (1997). The use of animation in software

training: Pitfalls and benefits. In M.A. Quifiones and A. Ehrenstein (Eds.) Training for

a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 281-302).

Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000).

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.

Chan, D. (2000). Conceptual and empirical gaps in research on individual adaptation at work.

In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.) International review of industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 143-164). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cohen, M. S., Thompson, B. B., Adelman, L., Bresnick, T. A., Shastri, L., & Riedel, S. L.

(2000). Training critical thinking for the battlefield: Volume I: Basis in cognitive theory

and research. Cognitive Technologies Technical Report 00-2. Arlington VA.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,

1040-1048.

Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase

volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76i 770-780.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Endsley, M. R., & Robertson, M. M. (2000). Training for situation awareness. In M. R.

Endsley & D. J. Garland (Eds.) Situation awareness analysis and measurement.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fernandez, J.P. (1991). Managing a Diverse Workforce: Regaining the Competitive Edge.

Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Gardenswartz, L., and Rowe, A. (1993).Managing Diversity: A Desk References and Planning

Guide. Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Goldsmith, T. E., & Kraiger, K. (1997). Applications of structural knowledge assessment to

training evaluation. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas & M. S.

Teachout (Eds.) Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 73-96).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goldstein, I. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development and evaluation

(3rd edition). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Howell, W. C., & Cooke, N. J. (1989). Training the human information processor: A review of

cognitive models. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.) Training and development in organizations

(pp. 121-182). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs (2 nd edition). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.

19
Klein, G. (1997). The Reognition-Primed Decision (RPD) Model: Looking Back, Looking

Forward. In C.E. Zsambok and G. Klein (Eds.) Naturalistic Decision Making: Mawah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1998). Training and developing adaptive teams: Theory, principles, and

research. In J.A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.) Making decisions under stress:

Implications for individual and team training (pp. 115-153). Washington DC:

American Psychological Association.

LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A., Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of

general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel

Psychology, 53, 563-593.

Lussier, J. W., Ross, K. G., & Mayes, B. (2000). Coaching techniques for adaptive thinking.

Proceedings from Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference.

McIntyre, R.M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Lessons

from complex environments. In R.A. Guzzo, & E. Salas and Associates (Eds.), Team

Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 9-45). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Pulakos, E.D., & Dorsey, D.W. (2000). The Development and Validation of Measures to Predict

Adaptive Job Performance. Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. Technical

Report No. 347, Arlington, Virginia.

Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2002).

Predicting adaptive performance : Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human

Performance, 15, 299-323.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the

workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 612-624.

Pulakos, E.D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D.W., Arad, S., Hedge, J.W., and Borman, W.C. (In

Press). Human Performance.

Pulley, M.L., Wakefield, M., and Van Velsor, E. (2001). An Ideas Into Action Guidebook:

Building Resiliency -- How to Thrive in Times of Change. Center for Creative Leadership:

Greensboro, NC.

Ross, K. & Lussier, J. W. (1999). A Training Solution for Adaptive Battlefield Performance.

Proceedings of the 1999 Interservice/IndustryTraining, Simulation, and Education

Conference, Orlando, FL.

Russell, T. L., Crafts, J. L., Tagliareni, F. A., McCloy, R. A., & Barkley, P. (1996). Job analysis

of Special Forces jobs (ARI Research Note 96-76). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A324 584)

Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning style. New York: Plenum.

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. (1983). Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological

Reports, 53, 899-902.

20
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. (1982).

The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1997). Building adaptive expertise:

Implications for training design strategies. In M. A. Quifiones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.)

Training for a rapidly changing workplace (pp. 89-118). Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.

Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002). State of the Industry: ASTD's Annual Review of

Trends in Employer-Provided Training in the United States. Alexandria, VA: American

Society for Training and Development.

West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 21, 303-315.

White, S. S., & Dorsey, D. W. (2002). Review of Adaptability Literature and Products. Briefing

prepared by Personnel Decisions Research Insitutes, Inc., Arlington, VA. Presented to

U.S. Army Research Institute.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001a). Leader Adaptability course syllabus prepared for the U.S. Army War

College.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001b). Social complexity and the competencies required for effective military

leadership. In J.G. Hunt, G.E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.) Out-of-the-box leadership:

Transforming the twenty-first century army and other top-performing organizations (pp.

131-151). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Zazanis, M. M., Kilcullen, R. N., Sanders, M. G., & Litton, D. A. (2000, Fall). The SF

Pipeline Review: Voices From the Field. Special Warfare, 13(4), 6-16.

21
Appendix A: Linking Adaptability Dimensions with SF Critical

Incidents

Handling Emergencies or Crisis Situations Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, &

"* Reacting with appropriate urgency in Procedures

threatening, dangerous, or emergency * Demonstrating enthusiasm for learning

situations. new approaches for conducting work.

"* Reacting appropriately in emergency 9 Doing whatever is necessary to keep

situations, quickly analyzing options for knowledge and skills current in a rapidly

dealing with danger or crises and their changing environment.

implications. e Quickly and proficiently learning new

"* Making split second decisions based on tasks and/or methods, inquiring about and

clear and focused thinking, obtaining training for unfamiliar

"* Maintaining emotional control and tasks/methods, adjusting to new work

objectivity during emergencies while processes and procedures.

maintaining focus on the situation at e Anticipating changes in work demands

hand. and then searching for and participating in

"* Taking initiative in emergencies and/or in assignments or training that will prepare

dangerous situations as appropriate, oneself for these changes.

e Taking action to improve work

performance deficiencies.

"* En route to a meeting in a small village, * The HN post commander curtailed routine

one of the detachment vehicles struck a communications with the SF team leader

mine. Two men were seriously injured because the team leader could not speak

and the detachment medic was mortally the language. This team leader made no

wounded. The team sergeant was attempt to improve his language

initially stunned and disoriented due to his capabilities, even though he was in an

injury. This detachment commander ideal learning environment where many

ensured that medical treatment was would have volunteered to help him. The

initiated, and that communication was HN personnel tactfully ostracized the

established with higher headquarters, and team leader.

that medical evacuation was requested.

The wounded Soldiers were quickly An 18E right out of the 0-course was

stabilized and helicopters were on their assigned to an A-team without the benefit

way as soon as possible. of a senior commo sergeant to mentor

him. He realized he was not trained on

"* During OCONUS (Outside Continental the radio equipment at the team level, nor

US) military operations in urban terrain was he familiar with the base operating

(MOUT) training, this 18B saw an procedures for the battalion. On his own,

explosion in an indigenous Soldier's this 18E inventoried team radio

hand. The 18D was on another range equipment, identified equipment he was

and this 18B did not have any bandages. not familiar with, and asked for and then

This 18B used an indigenous Soldier's T- received classes on all radios and

shirt to stop the bleeding. The bleeding equipment he was not familiar with. He

was stopped until the 18D arrived to became familiar with all team radio

suture the wound and treat it for infection, equipment, all company and battalion

radio procedures, and all SOPs.

A-1
Handling Work Stress Demonstrating Interpersonal Adaptability

" Remaining composed and cool when * Being flexible, open-minded and

faced with difficult circumstances or a cooperative when dealing with others.

highly demanding workload/schedule. o Listening to and considering others'

"• Not overreacting to unexpected news or viewpoints and opinions, and altering

situations. ones own opinion when it is appropriate

"* Managing frustration well by directing to do so.

effort to constructive solutions and not e Being open and accepting of negative or

blaming others. developmental feedback regarding work.

"* Demonstrating resilience and high levels o Working well and developing effective

of professionalism in stressful relationships with diverse individuals.

circumstances. o Demonstrating keen insight of others'

"* Acting as a calming and settling influence behavior and tailoring own behavior to

that others look to for guidance. persuade, influence, or work more

effectively with others.

"* While assigned as the senior US advisor 9 A composite team was preparing for

to a host nation battalion on a border deployment to Africa; this new team

screen mission, this SF officer was told leader who had just graduated from the

the unit was under attack. The host Q-course was placed in charge of the

nation battalion commander panicked and core team. This team leader did not ask

was ready to evacuate the area of for help from the experienced 180A on

operations. This SF individual lit a the team, was threatened by criticism,

cigarette, asked for a cup of coffee, and and voiced his anger once by shouting

sat down. After making a humorous and raving in front of HN personnel.

remark to a host nation officer, this officer

methodically questioned the host nation This junior NCO was given duties as a

staff to ascertain the exact situation. team sergeant even though another

Addressing US Soldiers present, he member of the team outranked him. This

calmly issued instructions to prepare junior NCO used the input of the senior

ODA reaction forces and an ODA level of NCO at all times. The senior NCO felt his

base security. Observing the SF officer's opinions were important and the team's

leadership style, the host nation battalion morale remained intact.

commander began issuing

complementary orders to his staff. The

battalion responded efficiently to the

limited attack and maintained its position

on the border.

During a vehicle movement on a major

highway in a host nation, a group of SF

Soldiers came upon an accident scene;

two regular Army medics were upset,

running around and alarming the victims.

This SF medic assigned onlookers to be

litter bearers, splinted the fractures,

initiated IVs and talked to victims and

onlookers to calm them down. The host

nation troops felt confident in the SF

medic's abilities.

A-2
Solving Problems Creatively Displaying Cultural Adaptability

"* Employing unique analyses, and * Taking action to learn about and

generating new, innovative ideas in understand the climate, orientation,

complex areas. needs, values, etc. of other groups,

"* Turning problems upside down and inside organizations, or cultures.

out to find fresh, new approaches. 9 Integrating well and being comfortable

"* Integrating seemingly unrelated with different values, customs and

information and developing highly cultures.

creative solutions. e Willingly adjusting behavior or

"* Entertaining wide ranging possibilities appearance as necessary to comply with

others may miss, thinking outside the or show respect for others' values and

given parameters to see if there is a more customs.

effective approach. * Understanding the implications of one's

"* Developing innovative methods of actions and taking steps to maintain

obtaining or utilizing resources when positive relationships with other groups,

insufficient resources are available to do organizations, or cultures.

the job.

"* The ODA was short of food and still a few While in Africa, this team sergeant was

days away from exfil. With the food told to meet with the indigenous colonel at

supply low, this 18E ran an antenna lead 0530. This team sergeant, upon arriving

to a nearby tree noted to harbor a hefty at the colonel's tent, was informed that it

squirrel population. He placed a small was the host nation's tradition that the

amount of peanut butter on the wire to eldest in the village eat goat's eyes; the

attract the squirrels' attention, then keyed team sergeant was the oldest and was to

the transmitter and shocked the squirrels receive this great honor. This team

when they had the peanut butter in their sergeant ate the goat's eyes. The

mouths, stunning them long enough to indigenous colonel was pleased and

have someone hastily retrieve the impressed as he knew this was not

squirrels. The ODA was able to have something Americans usually ate,

sufficient food for a couple of extra days. particularly before coffee.

"* An SF ODA was tasked with teaching a An SF team was given the task of

foreign SF unit technical mountain teaching specific skills to an indigenous

climbing skills. Although the US SF team force. In this country the leadership does

had several hundred thousand dollars not like to associate with the enlisted

worth of high speed equipment, they personnel. This 18C explained to an

knew the other SF team would never see English-speaking officer that the enlisted

such equipment. This SF Soldier taught team members of his team actually did

the foreign students using cheap, the teaching, but that they could work

fabricated equipment such as large nuts something out if this was not acceptable

and bolts on ropes as pieces for to his staff. He met with the officer

protection. The fabricated equipment separately to determine classes to teach,

was cheap, easy to obtain, and very times, numbers, etc. The host nation

effective, making the technical mountain officer was able to save face and the

climbing techniques applicable to these Soldiers learned the necessary skills.

foreign students.

A-3
Dealing Effectively with Unpredictable or Demonstrating Physically Oriented

Changing Work Situations Adaptability

"* Taking effective action when necessary * Adjusting to tough environmental states

without having to know the total picture or such as extreme heat, humidity, cold, etc.

have all the facts at hand. e Frequently pushing self physically to

"* Readily and easily changing gears in complete strenuous or demanding tasks.

response to unexpected events and * Adjusting weight/muscular strength or

circumstances. becoming proficient in performing

"* Effectively adjusting plans, goals, actions, physical tasks as necessary for the job.

or priorities to deal with changing

situations, and doing whatever is

necessary to get the job done.

"* Imposing structure for self and others that

provides as much focus as possible in

dynamic situations.

"* Not needing things to be black or white,

and refusing to be paralyzed by

uncertainty.

"* A platoon-type raid was planned to *An SF team spent two to three hours a

snatca p ron-tyerad Te plannled for aday preparing for its high alpine ski trip snatch a prisoner. The plan called for a with foreign troops that trained in that

large force to hit the objective and grab environment all the time. This SF

the prisoner under cover of darkness, individual prepared by spending the

The enemy force size was unknown, but previous two months running four to six

was thought to be squad +. This miles a day on mountain trails, doing ski

reconnaissance team leader set up his exercises, swimming, and doing

surveillance team at the objective and ruckmarches. Even though the trip was

saw that the prisoner had been brought extremely physically demanding, this out with only two guards far from the individual sustained no injuries.

camp. This team leader decided to

rescue the prisoner there and then. The

prisoner was rescued; this mission would During team mountain training, an SF probably have failed if it had been Soldier was unable to physically climb a executed as planned, training platform without aid. He knew basic mountain climbing techniques but

he was physically unprepared. He During an actual combat mission, the UH- modified his PT program to improve his ID was receiving heavy ground fire. It physical condition and didn't quit. On the

was relayed to the air crew that friendly next mountain training exercise, he easily

indigenous troops were in the field of fire. climbed and maneuvered around the

The order was given to the gunner to training platform.

ignore this and provide fire. This 18B

heard the order and asked for it to be

repeated to be sure that he was in fact

being told to fire on friendly troops. This

18B shifted his fire in the mean time so

that it affected no one. The order had in

fact been a mistake.

A-4
Appendix B: Sample Training Evaluation Questionnaires

Sample O-A TL Adaptability Course Participant Reaction Questionnaire

Directions: Please take a few moments to provide your reactions to the O-ATL. Your answers will be

completely anonymous and confidential and will be used to continually improve the course. If you

have additional questions, please contact XXXX. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

.I. As a result of this course, I feel more confident in my ability to be adaptable. 51 __2 4 I3_ 2 1_ 

2. As a result of this course, I feel better prepared for the rest of the SFQC. 5 4 3 2 1

3. I think the information covered in this course will be relevant to my future job ,2 4 3 1

as an SF officer.

4. The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject matter. 5 4 3 2 1

5. The instructor effectively facilitated the course. 5 4 3 2 1

6. The instructor presented information in a clear, easy-to-understand manner. 5 4 3 2 1

7. The materials used in this course helped me to understand the topic of 5 4 3 2 1

adaptability.___________

8. The facilities for this course were satisfactory. 5 4 3 2 1

9. Overall I think this course was valuable. 5 K 4 .L L2 L L

10. The length of the course was: 11. The lectures and discussions in this 12. The exercises in this

course were: course were: __ Too long for the material covered

Too short for the material covered Too academic Too difficult

_ About right Too basic (mostly common sense) - Too easy

_ About right About right

What did you like best about the course?

What did you like least about the course?

Please provide any additional comments and suggestions for improving the course. Please be as specific as possible:.

B-1
Sample O-ATL Adaptability Course Participant Evaluation Questionnaire

Directions: Please take a few moments to complete this survey. The results will only be used for

research purposes and will be completely anonymous and confidential. Therefore, it is very important

that you respond to these questions openly and honestly. If you have additional questions, please contact

XXXXXXXXXXXX. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

[] I am completing this survey at the beginning of the Officer ATL course.

I] I am completing this survey at the conclusion of the Officer ATL course.

Evaluate each item presented below in three different ways:

1. Rate how well you understand what is involved in effectively performing in each of the listed

activities in an SF environment. For example, considering the first item, how well do you

understand what it takes to conduct a successful negotiation in SF settings?

2. Rate how strong your knowledge is of specific strategies for carrying out the activities listed

below. For example, considering the first item, how strong is your knowledge of specific

strategies for conducting negotiations?

3. Rate how confident you are in carrying out the activities below. For example, considering the

first item, how confident are you that you could successfully conduct a difficult negotiation at this

time?

Understanding of What is Knowledge of Specific

Involved in Successfully Strategies for Caring out Confidence in Successfully

Performing Activities in the Activities Performing Activities

SF Environment

~'T

1. Conducting difficult negotiations. promne 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2

2. Adjusting your behaviors to effectively interact with and persuade others.

3. Handling emergency or crisis situations. : . .5 4 .

4. Solving difficult problems creatively. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

:5. Maintaining situational awareness and accuratly • .. Sassessing situations to make decisions•:..3 2 1 5 4 3 2..1 52 1

6. Avoiding critical thinking errors. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 13 2 1 5 14 13 12 11

7. Co mmunicating and listening effectivelyas ai•: ; : •• 1

lae.5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

feedback as a leader.

9. Leading a team to be more adaptable. .:• 5 4.... 4 2 4 1 5 4. 3 2 1

10. Identifying and learning from past mistakes. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 [3 2 1 5 4 3± 2 1

11..Accurately:monitoring/evaluating~performance: e. ::; 5! , 4, 31i 2 ~i• 5: •:4• 3 2' 1 1 5 !:4 13 2 1

B-2
Appendix C: Sample Adaptability Rating Scales

Demonstrating Interpersonal Adaptability

* Demonstrates flexible, open-minded, and cooperative behaviors when dealing with

others.

* Is extremely skilled at "reading" others, and demonstrates keen insight into others'

motivations and behavior.

e Takes action to understand the needs of other cultures and individuals.

e Understands even the subtle implications of own actions on others of different

backgrounds.

M4 - - Excellent - always or almost always acts this way

S-"-l- Satisfactory - usually behaves this way

[ = Needs some improvement - sometimes behaves this

way

•j- ,- • Needs much improvement - rarely or never behaves this

way

C-1
Demonstrating Mental Adaptability

"* Maintains emotional control during threatening or dangerous situations.

"* Adjusts plans/actions to remain highly effective when dealing with changing situations.

"* Deftly adjusts to new situations and changes of plan, incorporating knowledge and

experience to achieve success.

"* Remains calm and focused on the task at hand, even when faced with an extremely

demanding workload.

"* Arrives at solutions to complex problems by entertaining a wide range of possibilities that

others may miss.

rn .. ,i_=. Excellent - always or almost always behaves this way

rn _ Satisfactory - usually behaves this way

rNeeds some improvement - sometimes behaves this

way

In Needs much improvement - rarely or never behaves this

way

C-2
Leading an Adaptable Team

* Models adaptive behavior for team members by learning from experience and seeking

self-improvement in weak areas.

9 Provides accurate, timely, motivational and constructive feedback to subordinates

* Helps team members learn from mistakes in order to be more adaptable in the future.

* Involves team members in decisions and keeps them informed of consequences of their

actions.

e Provides opportunities for subordinates to gain experience in new areas and helps draw

"lessons learned" to transform experience into knowledge.

e Encourages shared understandings of situations among team members through

appropriate communications to facilitate coordinated responses.

W "-' Excellent - always or almost always behaves this way

[ -'-- Satisfactory - usually behaves this way

- . Needs some improvement - sometimes behaves this

way

F1 ..--.• Needs much improvement - rarely or never behaves this

way

C-3