ARI Research Note 86-21

TAXONOMIC EFFORTS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR: A GENERAL APPROACH

CArthur L. Korotkin, Michael D. Mumford,

Kerry Yarkin-Levin, M. Reid Wallis, and Edward A. Fleishman

Advanced Research Resources Organization

for

Leadership and Management Technical Area

William W. Haythorn, Chief

MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Newell K. Eaton, Acting Director

(~?~IJUN16 1986D

A

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1986

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

UhiC FILE COPY 86 6 10 .1 010

100 
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

' Commanding

.1 Technical Director

.

b|

This report, is submitted by the contractor, has been cleared fer release to Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

and will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS). The vicws. opiniens, end/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(sl and

should not be construei as an officia; Depatttment of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated

by other official documentation.

' ''* %'" " " '"" " ' ". " " . " " . " " " " ' "•" .' ,' ' ' " . " " ' " " " ' - ' " ' '' ' " " . '""' - '""" . '
!N

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION.....................................................1I

Overview of Taxonomies and Leadership Behavior...................1I

Taxonomies................................................... 2

DEFINITION OF A GENERAL TAXO1NOMY.................................. 15

Theoretical Background ....................................... 15

Taxonomic Categories ......................................... 16

APPROACH ........................................................ 17

Utilitarian-Based Taxonomy.................................... 17

Operational Definition of Leadership .......................... 19

Conceptual Framework ......................................... 19

Task List Development and Refinement .......................... 22

Development of Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs) ................ 23

Development of JPDs for Officers .............................. 24

Development of JPDs for Noncommissioned Officers ................ 25

AN ANALYSIS OF THE JOB PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS...................... 50

Officer JPD Ratings .......................................... 52

NCO Officer JPD Ratings ...................................... 59

JPD Field Verification ....................................... 64

Review of Field Test Results.................................. 70

A Theoretical-Based Taxonomy.................................. 71

VALIDATION ...................................................... 83

TAXONOMIC APPLICATIONS ........................................... 90

REFERENCES ........................................... 93

clef

'.3 (I.3

PMii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Leadership Behavior Dimensions ............................... 5

2. Leadership Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs) for Officers ... 26

3. Leadership Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs) for NCOs ....... 37

4. Sample Sizes ................................................ 51

5. Officer Ratings of JPD Importance ........................... 53

6. Officer Ratings of JPD Time Spent ........................... 55

7. Officer Ratings of JPD Freedom of Choice .................... 57

8. Officer Ratings of JPD Time to Results ...................... 58

9. NCO Ratings of JPD Importance ............................... 60

10. NCO Ratings of JPD Time Spent ............................... 61

11. NCO Ratings of JPD Freedom of Choice ........................ 62

12. NCO Ratings of JPD Time to Results .......................... 63

13. Summary of Officer JPD Verification ......................... 66

14. Summary of NCO JPD Verification ............................. 67

15. Summary of Tasks Assigned to Original JPDs and to the

Verification JPDs (for Officers) ............................ 68

16. Summary of Tasks Assigned to Original JPDs and to the

Verification of JPDs (for NCOs) ............................. 69

17. Definitions of the Leadership Job Performance Dimensions .... 85

18. Overlap Between the JPDs and the Literature ................. 87

Vi

.. - - ,,-- ; . .. .-. -. . - - . . ... . - - - . - - - . ..--. . . . . .. ,-.- - .. .- .. ,. - .- .. ..-, . . . -.
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Organizational systems approach .......................... 18

2. Conceptual plan for the project......................... .20

3. Schematic overview ............................ ..... 73

4. Interrelationships among the JPDs......................... 82

Vii
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wft.n Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

1BEFORE COMPLETING FOPI. REPORT NUMBER G2 GOVT ACCES .O S. *ECIPIETS CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 86-21 MY

4. TITLE (ad Subttle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Final Report

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of December 82 - January 85

Leadership Behavior: A General Approach . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMENR

7. AUTNOft(a) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMER(.)

Arthur L. Korotkin, Michael D. Mumford,

Kerry Yarkin-Levin, M. Reid Wallis, Edwin A. MDA903-83-C-0062

Fleishman

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Advanced Research Resources Organization AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

4330 East-West Highway, Suite 900 2Q263743A794

Bethesda, MD 20814

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral February 1986

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Is. NUMER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 101

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADDRESS(I dilferent fmwo Controllin4l Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of &ie itepoert)

Unclassified

ISe. DECL ASSIFICATION/DOWN GRADING

SCNEOULa

1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tal Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIF ITION STATEMENT (of the abetrt entered In Block 20. II fferwt or Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The Army Research Institute Technical Point of Contact is:

Dr. Paul van Rijn. His telephone number is (202) 274-8293 or

AUTOVON 284-8293.

William W. Haythorn, contracting officer's representative

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on rover* side It necessary and Identify by block nimber)

Leadership

Taxonomy

Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs)

Systems Theory

20. ABSTRACT (Cwtibe am mevora side Hf rto.ary no Identify by block numnbov)

A literature review of previous taxonomies of leadership behavior was conducted

and these taxonomies were found to be somewhat deficient. Therefore, an attempt

was made to generate a more comprehensive taxonomic system for the description

of leadership behavior. The approach used to develop this taxonomy was based

on organizational systems theory and the concept that the major categories of

behavior involved in problem solving should be considered as the basis for the

DD Uom EDITIO um o, oI NOV 95 Is O"CLETE 1473l ENO5IO TUNCLASSIFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF r TM4iS PAGE (Whwn Data Entered)
INTRODUCTION

Overview of Taxonomies and Leadership Behavior

, It has often been argued that the actions taken by individuals assigned to formal leadership positions may have a marked influence on the

effectiveness of modern organizations. Organizations invest substantial

amounts of time and energy in the construction and implementation of

programs designed to identify and develop leadership potential. Surprisingly, while substantial investments have been made by many organizations in developing leadership programs, they have not been proven to

be highly successful in enhancing leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1981).

Researchers, such as Bass (1981) and Mumford (1985) have suggested

that the limited effectiveness of some of these programs may be attributed to the tendency to explain a very complex field using a relatively

small set of constructs. Similarly, Fleishman (1953a) has suggested

that the limited effectiveness of many programs can be traced to their

failure to consider criteria such as the demands made on the leader by

organizational context. These points should be carefully considered

inany attempt to formulate more effective strategies for leadership

identification and development.

Any attempt to improve the selection and development of leadership

personnel must examine the nature of the leadership activities an individual will be expected to perform in a given position. Goldstein (1914)

has stressed that only by determining the activities an individual will

be expected to perform can a truly effective training ano development

system be constructed. Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) have underscored

the importance of an adequate description of job activities in the design of effective selection systems. Thus, it appears that the definition and description of the leadership activities required in various

positions may constitute a central step in the design of adequate leadership identification and development efforts (Mintzberg, 1973).

The definition and description of leadership activities is critical

for constructing effective leadership identification and development

.. .

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
- _ff % 

programs. Inability to adequately define and describe effective leadership behavior within organizations appears to be linked to certain

broader problems endemic in many current studies of leadership. First,

there is little or no agreement among investigators concerning exactly

how leadership behavior should be defined. Bass (1981) has noted that

11 readily distinguishable definitions of leadership appear in the

literature, ranging from leadership as a form of role behavior (Shaw,

1963) to leadership as a personality variable (Erickson, 1961). This

lack of a clear definition of leadership behavior makes it difficult to

specify exactly what is to be selected and trained for. Second, regardless of the particular definition in use, the number and kind of leadership activities which may occur in organizations is so large as to

prohibit a comprehensive description of each form of leadership behavior. Thus, some technique is required for formulating an effective

summary description of leadership behavior.

The design of more effective programs will require a general framework for the definition and summary description of leadership behavior. The first step in addressing this problem is formulating an

adequate definition of exactly what constitutes leadership behavior in

the organizational setting. The definition should be based on a careful

examination of the nature of organizations and its implications for the

nature of organizational leadership. A viable description of leadership

activities might be obtained through a systematic taxonomic effort

beginning with an appropriate definition of leadership. The resulting

taxonomy might then be employed as a framework for describing leadership

behavior and constructing more effective leadership identification and

devel opment programs.

Taxonomies

Recently, a great deal of research focused on the development of

taxonomic systems for understanding leadership behavior. Fleishman

(1975) has noted that taxonomies serve as a vehicle for organizing

observations concerning some phenomenon. This organization and summarization is brought about by the definition of certain categories or

dimensions that allow similar observations to be assigned to the same

I2
category while differentiating observations from those in other categories. Aside from this general characteristic of all taxonomic efforts,

they may differ from each other in a wide variety of ways. One factor

differentiating taxonomies is the particular phenomenon under study.

For instance, taxonomies of chemical elements are not likely to display

a great deal of similarity with taxonomies of leadership behavior. Even

when the same general phenomenon is under consideration, taxonomies may

differ as a result of the nature and generality of the definition used

to specify the relevant observations, as well as the specific measures

chosen to describe the similarities and differences among the the observations (Sokal & Sneath, 1963). Taxonomic efforts in a common domain my

also differ with respect to the procedures employed in defining the

relevant summary dimensions.

Two primary strategies may be employed in defining taxonomic categories (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). First, a quantitative procedure

may be employed in which categories are defined solely on the basis of

the similarities and differences observed. Alternatively, a qualitative

approach might be employed in which categories are defined solely on the

basis of theoretical considerations. The content of taxonomies will

differ as a result of their intended purpose; that is, investigations

concerned with parsimony will tend to generate a taxonomy containing a

limited number of summary dimensions whereas investigations concerned

with accuracy of description will tend to employ a larger number of- m1ore

complex categories (M'urnford & Owens, in press).

Validation of a taxonomic system cannot be accomplished through any

single measure. Rather, it requires a general construct validation

effort concerned with the interpretability and meaningfulness of the

summary descriptions provided by the taxonomic categories. In establishing the validity of a taxonomy, there are a variety of pieces of

evidence that might be considered including, the relationship of the

taxonomic categories to the categories obtained in similar taxonomic

efforts, the interpretability of the units assigned to common categories

and the predictive power of the resulting summary descriptions. The

extent to which the taxonomic categories meet their intended purpose is

one which should be carefully considered whenever a taxonomy is being

developed for some specific practical purpose.

3
Over the last 50 years, a number of taxonomies have been described defining dimensions capable of summarizing leadership or managerial behaviors in the context of groups or formal organizations (e.g., Bass, 4

1981). In a review of the management, military and leadership literatures, it was found that 42 different taxonomies were proposed between

1940 and 1985. These taxonomies and the dimensions incorporated in them

are presented in Table 1. Given the size and complexity of the literature base considered in this review, it is unlikely that Table i presents an exhaustive listing of previous taxonomic efforts.

An examination of Table 1 indicates that there is a great deal of

diversity in the dimensions of leadership behavior postulated by different taxonomies (e.g., Karmel, 1978). The point is readily illustrated

by comparing the dimensions postulated by Katz and Kahn (1977) and those

postulated by Stogdill, Wherry, and Jaynes (1953). These differences

priimarily are related to differences in theory and methodology. One

major influence leading to the identification of different kinds of

summary dimensions may be illustrated by contrasting the Tornow and

Pinto (1976) and Prien (1963) studies. Both these investigations relied

on a quantitative approach in the definition of summary dimensions that

was implemented by a factor analysis of task ratings. However, because

these studies employed different sample and tasks descriptions it is not

surprising that very different sets of summary dimensions were obtained.

The nature of the dimensions identified in a factor analysis is highly

dependent on the nature of the sample and task base in use as well as

the particular factor analytic procedure being employed. These observations point to a fundamental limitation inherent in the use of empirical

procedures to identify general summary dimensions -- dependence on the

characteristics of the sample, task base and analytic procedure.

Another factor contributing to the marked differences among the

categories included in these taxonomies may be found in their intended

applications. The significance of this influence may be seen by contrasting the Olmstead, Cleary, Lackey, and Salter (1973) taxonomy,

64
Table 1

Leadership Behavior Dimensions

(chronological order) ',

1. Coffin (1944)

A. Planning

B. Organizing

C. Coordinating

2. Barnard (1946)

A. Determination of objectives d

B. Manipulation of means

C. Instrumentation of action

D. Stimulation of coordinated effort

3. Krech and Crutchfield (1948)

A. Planning

B. Policy making

C. Expertise

D. External representation

E. Control of internal relationships

F. Rewards

G. Arbitration

H. Symbolic activity

4. Davis (1951)

A. Plan

B. uganize

C. Control

5. Hemphill, Siegel & Westie (1951)

A. Delegating

B. Controlling processes

C. Encouraging competition

D. Enforcing rules and procedures

E. Informing

6. Berkowitz (1953)

A. Maintaining standards of performance

B. Behavior in a nutrant manner

C. Acting upon awareness of situational needs

D. Maintaining coordination and team work

7. Stogdill, Wherry and Jaynes (1953)

A. Policy making

B. Administrative coordination

C. Methods planning

D. Representation of member interests

E. Personnel services

F. Professional consultation

G. Maintenance services

H. Inspection

S
Table I (cont.)

8. Fleishman (1953)

A. Consideration

" B. Initiating structure

9. Bennett (1955)

A. Decide

B. Plan

C. Analyze

D. Interact with people

E. Use equipment

10. Selznick (1957)

A. Definition of goals

B. Creation of structure

C. Defense of institution

D. Reevaluation of internal conflict

11. Showel and Peterson (1958)

A. Planning and foresight

B. Tiforinal teaching and briefing

C. Supervising and checking

0. Correcting and rewarding

L. Manner of dealing with subordinates

F. Concern with welfare of men

G. Attitude toward job

H. Deportment

I. Technical knowledge

12. Hemphill (1960)

A. Providing staff service for non-operations area

B. Supervising work

C. Business contrnl

D. Technical markets and production

E. Human, community, and social affairs

F. Long range planning

G. Exercise broad power and authority

H. Business reputation

I. Personal demands

J. Preservation of assets

13. Roby (1961)

A. Bring about congruence of goals

B. Balance group resources and capabilities with environmental

demands

C. Provide group structure for problem solution

D. Obtain information needed for decision making

"6 .
Table 1 (cont.)

14. Shutz (1961)

A. Establishing and prioritizing group goals

B. Recognizing and integrating the various cognitive styles

existing within the group

C. Provide group structure for problem solution

D. Obtain information needed for decision making

15. Prien (1963)

A. Employee supervision

B. Employee contact and communications

C. Union management relations

D. Manpower coordination and administration

E. Work organization, planning, and preparation

F. Manufacturing process supervision

16. Mahoney, Jerdee and Carroll (1965)

A. Planning

B. Investigating

C. Coordinating

D. Evaluating

E. Supervising

F. Staffing

G. Negotiating

H. Representing

17. Stogdill, Goode and Day (1965)

A. General persuasive leadership

B. Tolerance for uncertainty

C. Tolerance of follower freedom of action

D. Representation of the group

E. Influence with superiors

F. Production emphasis

G. Consideration I

H. Consideration II

I. Retention of leadership role

18. Bowers and Seashore (1966)

A. Support

B. Interactive facilitation

C. Goal emphasis

D. Work facilitation

19. Nealey and Fiedler (1968)

A. Production

B. On-the-job training

C. Control of materials and supplies

D. Maintenance

E. Cost control

F. Setting standards

G. Selection and placement

H. Coordination of work
1

Table 1 (cont.)

20. MacKenzie (1969)

A. Staff

a. Select

b. Orient

c. Train

B. Control

a. Establish reporting system

b. Develop standards

c. Measure results

d. Take corrective action

e. Reward

C. Communicate

D. Develop

E. Direct

a. Delegate

b. Motivate

c. Coordinate

d. Manage differences

F. Organize

a. Establish position qualification

b. Create position descriptions

c. Delegate relationships G. Plan

a. Develop policies

b. Set procedures

c. Budget

d. Program

e. Set objectives

21. Helme, Willemin, & Grafton (1971)

A. Team leadership

B. Resourcefulness

C. Command of men

D. Mission persistence

E. Tactical staff skills

G. Technical staff skills

22. Wofford (1971)

A. Order and group achievement

B. Personal enhancement

C. Maintenance of interpersonal relationships

D. Security

E. Dynamic achievement orientation

23. Miller (1973)

A. Supporting

B. Abdicating

C. Information sharing

D. Delegating

E. Group decision making

F. Persuading

8 7"
Table 1 (cont.)

Miller (continued)

G. Does favors

H. Encourages competition

I. Rewards

J. Supervises

K. Enforces rules and procedures

L. Defines goals

M. Monitoring

N. Negotiating

0. Participation

24. Mintzberg (1973)

A. Legal and social symbolic duties

B. Motivate subordinates

C. Obtain information from others

D. Collect internal information

E. Transmit information to other organizational members

F. Transmit information to others

G. Initiate change

H. Deal with unexpected changes

I. Negotiate with others

J. Allocate resources

25. Olmstead, Cleary, Lackey and Salter (1973)

A. Social skills

B. Communication skills

C. Adaptability

D. Motivation

E. Forcefulness

F. Mental ability

G. Decision making

H. Administrative skills

I. Organizational identification

J. Supervisory skills

K. Physical competence

L. Technical and tactical competence

M. Problem solving ability

N. Effectiveness in leadership role

26. Helme (1974)

A. Maintain morale

B. Set example

C. Define goals

D. Attain goals

E. Know members

F. Communicate

G. Maintain discipline

H. Motivate subordinates

9

'.4

* t.. - .- .. .. . - .- -. . . . .. . . -. . . . . . - ... - . . , .. , , - - - -.- . . , . ,,,
Table 1 (cont.)

27. Reaser, Vaughan and Kriner (1974)

A. Task professionalism

B. Task oriented consideration

D. Personal/interpersonal consideration

28. Gilbert (1975)

A. Unit command

B. Operations and training

C. Manpower and personnel

D. Logistics

E. Intelligence

F. Troop welfare

29. Olmstead, Lackey and Christensen (1975)

A. Making decisions

B. Assigning tasks

C. Rewarding others

30. Clement and Ayres (1976)

A. Communications

B . Human relations

C. Counseling

D. Supervision

E. Technical

F. Management

G. Decision making

H. Planning

1. Ethics

31. Olmstead, Cleary and Salter (1976)

A. Collect information and intelligence

B. Process information and intelligence

C. Analyze information and intelligence

D. Disseminate information and intelligence

E. Develop contingency plans

F. Executie maneuver scheme

G. Plan fire support

H. Supervise delivery of fire support

I. Issues orders

J. Supervise execution of orders

K. Stay abreast of situation L. Mintinin cpablitcomuniatins 

L. Maintaining communications cablity

32. Tornow and Pinto (1976)

A. Long range thinking and planning

B. Coordination of other organizational units and personnel

C. Internal control

D. Products and services responsibility

E. Public and customer relations

F. Advanced consulting

10
Table 1 (cont.)

Tornow and Pinto (1976) (continued)

G. Autonomy of financial commitments

H. Staff service

I. Supervision

J. Complexity and stress

K. Advanced financial responsibility

L. Board personnel responsibility 

I

Table 1 (cont.)

33. Fine (1977)

A. Analyzing

B. Negotiating

C. Consulting

D. Instructing

E. Exchanging information

34. Katz and Kahn (1977)

A. Induction of structure

B. Interpretation of structure

C. Use of structure

35. Dowell and Wexley (1978)

A. Working with subordinates

B. Organizing work of subordinates

C. Work planning and scheduling

0. Maintaining efficient quality production

E. Maintaining equipment and machinery

F. Compiling records and reports

36. Olmstead, Baranick and Elder (1978)

A. Information acquisition

B. Providing intelligence

C. Anticipating contingencies

D. Timeliness of adjustment of plans

E. Effectiveness of adjustment

F. Planning

G. Decision making

H. Coordination

I. Commnunication

37. Winter (1978)

A. Disciplines

B. Rewards

C. Understands

D. Monitors results

E. Influences

F. Delegates

G. Develops subordinates

H. Team Builds

I. Plans and organizes

J. Sets goals

11h
I- ..

Table 1 (cont.)

Winter (1978) (continued)

K. Conceptualizes

L. Takes initiative

M. Positive expectations

N. Realistic expectations

0. Task achievement

P. Use of influence

Q. Management control

R. Advising and counseling

S. Coercion

38. Elliott, Harden, Gielser, Scott and Euske (1979)

A. Maintenance and supply

B. Unit record keeping

C. Training administration and assessment

D. Counseling and personnel management

E. Evaluation

39. Bass (1981)

A. Defining

B. Providing means for goal attainment

C. Providing and maintaining group structures

D. Maintaining group cohesiveness and member satisfaction

E. Facilitating group task performance

40. Bass (1981)

A. Defining goals

B. Explaining how goals will be met

C. Defining evaluation criteria

D. Providing feedback

E. Allocating rewards

41. Yukl (1981)

A. Showing consideration

B. Providing praise and recognition

C. Training and coaching

D. Disseminating information

E. Encouraging decision participation

F. Delegating

G. Innovation

H. Facilitating the work

I. Monitoring the environment

J. Representing the unit

K. Managing conflict

L. Emphasizing performance

M. Inspiring subordinates

N. Goal setting

0. Planning

P. Criticizing

12

i ",
Table 1 (cont.)

Yukl (1981) (continued)

Q. Career counseling

R. Problem solving

S. Clarifying work roles

T. Administering discipline

U. Facilitating cooperation and team work

V. Monitoring reward contingencies

42. Jacobs (1983)

A. Sensing information

B. Communicating information

C. Making decisions

D. Communicating implementation

E. Stabilizing

F. Implementing

G. Getting feedback

13!

S * 5 5 . 5°
=-.

was intended to summarize behavioral indicators of leadership effectiveness among Army officers, and Gilbert's (1975) taxonomy which was intended to describe the major dimensions of leadership activity engaged

in by Army officers regardless of their relationship to officer performance. Differences attributable to the pragmatic concerns of the investigation also arise as a result of somewhat more abstract technical

issues. For instance, Bower and Seashore's (1972) taxonomy and

Fleishman's (1953a) taxonomy display substantial similarity to each

other in the number and nature of the categories identified as well as

in their concern with obtaining the most general and parsimonious summary description of leadership behavior. These two taxonomies are quite

different from those formulated by Miller (1973) and Yukl (1981), where

the authors primary concern was accuracy of description.

Surprisingly, given nearly half a century of research efforts in

the leadership area, the field still lacks a precise consensual definition of the basic dimensions of leadership in an organizational setting. In the following sections, an attempt will be made to formulate a

taxonomy capable of addressing many of the issues raised above.

"'I

.1

41

Z . . .
'

DEFINITION OF A GENERAL TAXONOMY

Theoretical Background

The first step in the definition of a taxonomy involves specifying

exactly what constitutes leadership behavior in the organizational

setting. There appears to be a some consensus that, as a general phenomenon, organizations are best described and understood through sociotechnical systems theory (Ulrich & Wieland, 1980; Katz & Kahn, 1977).

According to systems theory, organizations are viewed as open

systems that draw resources from their environment and produce certain

products to meet goals required for the organization's continued adaptation or survival. This conception is based on a socio-technical transformation process that changes new inputs into refined products. To

maximize the efficiency of this transformation process, organizations

create a division of labor among people and machines leading to the

emergence of a variety of discrete subsystems, each responsible for some

part of the overall transformation process. However, the activities of

these subsystems must be integrated and coordinated with respect to

organizational goals if the organization is to continue to survive.

Katz and Kahn (1977) have argued that leadership in organizations is

always a function of this integrative activity, where the individuals

must interact with other systems and subsystems. More specifically,

they argue that leadership within organizations can only occur when an

individual is acting in a boundary role capacity and is in some way

capable of influencing the long term pattern of transformation activities taking place in other subsystems or among other individuals.

Typically, in bureaucratic organizations, effective leadership will

require individuals to engage in legitimate activities that will influence the transformation process occurring in other subsystems in such

a way as to ensure the attainment of position goals and enhance the

overall adaptation of the organization (Jaques, 1977). This does not mean

that simply by carrying out the assigned or specified activities associated with some boundary role position an individual is acting as a

leader. Leadership is a property of the individual rather than the

organization. Leadership can only be exhibited in actions over which an

15
individual has some discretion as to when, where, how and why they are

performed. Effective administration or management may not be reflected

in the rote completion of organizational assignments, but rather can

only be reflected in discretionary activities that influence others.

Taxonomic Categories

There is substantial support in the research literature for the

conception of leadership described above. For instance, it has been

found that leadership behavior can account for the more and less effective predictors of performance in leadership positions as well as the

nature of the situational variables likely to mediate these general

relationships. This conception of leadership behavior provides a viable

explanation for the generic importance of consideration and initiating

structure dimensions, since nearly all leadership positions will present

an individual with both task oriented and social relations problems.

The next issue to be discussed concerns the relationship between

the conceptual framework and the specification of summary dimensions to

be used in the description of leadership behavior. Fleishman and

Quaintance (1984) describe two major purposes for classifying human

tasks:

1. Utilization Classifications - which have a specific purpose and categorize human tasks into sets which are "homogeneous and invariant" with respect to a given purpose.

2. Theoretical Classifications - which are "autonomous structures" or conceptual frameworks intended for theory development. While the characteristics of such classifications

are not dictated by a specific application, application is

distinctly possible.

Since this taxonomic structure was being driven by a specific application, the initial approach to the description of summary dimensions was

"utilitarian".

16
APPROACH

Utilitarian-Based Taxonomy

The primary purpose of the present research is to provide a data

ship development for the Army. Currently, leadership development occurs

as a function of three separate sets of Army experiences: formal

W training, skills acquired through the performance of assignments, and

the pattern of assignments received. The results of this research areI

intended to provide an integrated plan or model of leadership and to

prepare leadership training materials that can supplement the current

training procedures.

The approach used for the development of a model of leadership

behavior took the following into account:

0 The progression of job duties and adaptation processes

required from level to level within the Army in terms of

the specific knowledges, skills, abilities, and other

characteristics (KSA~s) possessed by individuals;

* The empirical determination of leadership KSAOs and job

performance KSAOs and job performance dimensions (JPDs);

9 The development of a model of leadership behavior which

specifies general job dimensions and generic skills relevant to commissioned and noncommissioned officer positions r

and compares these findings within and between officer and

NCO duty positions;

0 The projection of future requirements in the Army and the

relevance of the present methodology for projecting future

leader requirements; and

* The development of a taxonomy of training exercises related to the JPDs and KSAOs by level.

This research has emphasized an organizational systems approach to

the study of leadership behavior. As can be seen in Figure 1, the

systems approach emphasizes the relevance and importance of three major

components:

1. The organization--its mission, goals, and objectives.

2. The work required to accomplish the organization's mission, goals, and objectives.

17 i
i W VY13 W -

ORGANIZATION

(GOALS)

WOR K \ WORKER

(Tasks) (KSAs)

Figure 1. Organizational systems approach.

18
3. The workers--their knowledges, skills, abilities, and

other characteristics required to perform the work.

Not onl y does thi s approach hi ghl ight the importance of the context i n

which Army leaders lead, but it also emphasizes the importance of the

relationships among these three components.

Operational Definition of Leadership

Since the primary objective of this research was to develop a basis

for training future Army leaders, it focused on those parts of the

commissioned officer (officer) and noncommissioned officer (NCO) jobs

that are leadership-related (i.e., not technical in nature). This focus

was accomplished by delineating the leadership task domain with the

following operational definition.

A leadership task is defined as one that:

0 Impacts on personnel, equipment, information or other

resources;

0 Involves making decisions or choices, e.g., how and when

specific actions should be taken;

* May involve interpersonal aspects, communication aspects,

or management functions, e.g., coordination administration, planning; and

* Is not purely technical in nature.

This definition of a leadership task was intentionally designed to

include managerial as well as the more traditionally accepted leadership

tasks. It also was designed to include tasks at all levels within an

organization, recognizing that leadership occurs throughout all grade

levels for both officers and NCOs. Only those tasks which were considered technical in nature were eliminated. However, technical tasks

which were leadership-related were included in the initial task lists.

Conceptual Framework

* In order to guide the research within the context of a systems

approach, the project staff designed an overall conceptual framework.

This framework, presented in Figure 2, outlines the process by which

information relevant to the three organizational components can be

collected.

~1

19
W. - -7 W.P' aI -rrw-W TWImVJr ,W .wW

&I lu= 0-- Z I e)

I I 8 -.- .iJ

La__ _____.______,______..

9-

4 ' z QI; I

L, 1 - I

-JI **J

c~- J

Figure~~~C 2. Cocpulplnfre poet

Lbi *A0 .- 1)4

0 -J _.1 ____ -

"L -21

2C

Ia,

[ -. --

L 0

L&J "iI

iz -

Lei 1. :1 - A J;

-J 6) LO W30V, 1

..J 9L cc. Q..' lCI I 

FiguE 2. Cocetal plan for th prjet

20 1 C

. -

-- -- - -- - - - -- - -- - - ---. . L U
Using a top-down approach, the mission, goals, and objectives of

the organization--the Army--was defined. First, overall Army goals and

objectives were defined. Then, these overall goals were broken down

into subgroup objectives applicable to various officer and NCO grades

and duty positions. Data were gathered to determine the relative importance of the various goals to different grade levels and duty positions.

A bottom-up approach was used to define the work to be performed by

the various officer and NCO grade levels. As illustrated, this work was

initially defined at the task level for each grade. Then, the tasks

were clustered to form job performance dimensions (JPDs) applicable

across the various officer grades and/or across the NCO grades.

The data gathered from the top-down and bottom-up approaches were

examined to determine the relationship or linkage between the job objectives and JPDs for the various grade levels. That is, information about

the organization is mapped onto information about the work.

Next, the worker is brought into the system. This is accomplished

by defining the knowledges, skills, abilities, and other characteristics

(KSAOs) required to perform the work or JPDs at the various grade

levels. Once the KSAOs are identified, they will lead to the development of a taxonomy of generic skills. Again, in keeping with the emphasis on interrelationships among various system components, these generic

skills will be linked to the JPDs for each grade level.

The final step outlined in the conceptual framework is the development of problem sets for use in training Army leaders. These problem

sets will incorporate information concerning the goals/objectives of the

organization, the work or JPDs, and the generic skills of the worker.

These problem sets will be designed to be appropriate to the various

officer and NCO grade levels.

The methodology employed in the present research consisted of three

major steps including task list development and refinement, development

of JPDs, and the development and the analysis of the JPDs in the context

of Army leadership positions.

21
Task List Development and Refinement

The major purpose of this step of the research was to develop a

task information data bank for the development of JPDs. It was necessary to verify the already existing officer task list and to develop and

verify the NCO task list. The development and refinement of the task

lists is described in detail in Wallis, Korotkin, Yarkin-Levin, and

Schemmer (1985).

Briefly, the overall procedure used for remediating position task

4 data bases and for developing a set of leadership task lists for both

officers and NCOs consisted of:

1. Compiling a comprehensive list of non-technical, leadership-related tasks from existing task data sources;

2. Combining and reviewing the lists using leadership project

staff and external subject matter experts (SMEs) as

judges;

3. Preparing provisional task lists;

4. Subjecting the task lists to review and verification by

SMEs (position incumbents) at selected military posts in

CONUS;

5. Having the resulting task lists and data reviewed by a

panel of SMEs (a group of retired Army officers); and

6. Creating the final task lists for officers and NCOs.

This process was an iterative one which successively reviewed and

refined the initial task lists until the project staff and SMEs were

convinced that the task lists were accurate, comprehensive, and as

current as possible.

The sources of the tasks were: ARI Duty Modules, RETO Duty

Modules, CODAP officer task lists; the U.S. Army Sergeant Major Academy

list of non-MOS specific leader tasks for NCOs; the CODAP enlisted task

data bank; and other specific task lists developed by the Army and by

Army contractors. These data were reviewed and augmented by additions

from other published and unpublished task lists, field survey participants, panels of experts and project staff.

22

• v..... * . .* .. - . *-".. °.-- * .o* . -. .°-.°% *. .' - . - -.. -... %' .° -. . .. . .. . o".. . •, °.. .' •.
Development of Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs)

The development of JPDs was undertaken following the task list

development. JPDs are defined as aggregates or clusters of tasks that

reflect underlying similarities in work performed. The derivation of

JPDs is based on task co-occurrence across grade leve's and categories

of service. JPDs are thus generic in nature. Once they are derived,

qualitative and quantitative differences between grades are determined

by the application of rating scales focusing on such variables as time

spent on the JPD, importance of the JPD to accomplishing one's goals,

etc. Thus, while the JPDs permit across-grade generality, the use of

rating scales permits within-grade specificity and differentiation.

As can be seen in Figure 2, the derivation of JPDs is part of the

bottom-up approach to the study of leadership. Conceptually, they

represent major categories of work performed across grade levels and

categories of service, with the individual tasks subsumed under each JPD

varying by grade level.

It is important to differentiate JPDs from other elements in the

systems approach to leadership--including knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSAs), generic skills, and job objectives. The main distinction

between JPDs and KSAs/generic skills is that JPDs focus on the work

performed (i.e., common behaviors and work requirements), whereas KSAs/

generic skills focus on person competencies (i.e., what it takes to get

the work done). JPDs differ from job goals or objectives in that goals

and objectives describe the purpose behind the work rather than the work

itsel f.

The methodology used for JPD development consisted of a rational or

logical clustering of tasks by subject matter experts (SMEs). The SMEs

were six retired Army colonels representing various categories of service (i.e., combat, combat support, and combat service support) and

various areas of expertise. The panel was scheduled to meet for five

days in order to create JPDs for clustering officer and NCO tasks into

work-related performance categories. A secondary purpose of the meeting

was to review and organize the job objectives collected at Ft. Polk and

Ft. Hood (details will be described). Four days were allocated for the

development of JPDs for officers. The fifth day was allocated to developing a refined list of job objectives for officers and NCOs.

23
Since JPD development was to be based on task commonality across

grades and categories of service, the first step in preparing for the

SME meeting was to create one composite list of officer tasks and

another composite list of NCO tasks. This was accomplished by collapsing the task lists for 01 through 06 into a single list of 156 tasks

(including both field and company grade tasks). In a similar fashion,

the task list for E5 through E8 were consolidated into a single list of

260 tasks. During the consolidation process, grade level information

was preserved for future retrieval purposes.

Development of JPDs for Officers

In developing the JPDs, StiEs worked with the officer task list of

156 tasks and a list of 69 potential JPD categories that had been derived from the military and psychological literatures (e.g., Bass, 1981;

Clement & Ayres, 1976; Tornow & Pinto, 1976; Peterson & Rumsey, 1981).

The literature reviewed contained many classification schemes or taxonomies for grouping tasks. However, the commnonality among most of these

schemes was that the various functions or factors identified were generic (i.e., they can be applied across various jobs). A list of approximately 40 provisional JPDs was developed and reviewed to eliminate

redundancy and to identify apparent gaps in the coverage. The list was

reduced to 20, and two categories were added on the basis of discussion. The resulting list of 22 JPDs served as a first-cut or working

list of JPDs for the purpose of classifying tasks.

In order to test the usefulness of the first-cut JPD list, each

task on the officer list was examined separately by the SME group and

assigned to one of the JPDs. Assignment was made on the basis of where

the task seemed to fit best. Tasks which presented difficulty in classification usually indicated one of two problems. Either there was no

JPD to which the task logically seemed to belong, or the task wording

was ambiguous allowing for too much interpretation. In the former case,

the wording of a JPD was slightly modified to accommodate the task, or a

new JPD was created. In the latter case, the task was discussed at

length and clarified, either by breaking the task into two or more

separate tasks or by substituting a word(s) which communicated a more

precise meaning.

24
The next stage of the JPD development process called for examining

the contents of each JPD individually in order to determine whether the

tasks in that JPD were behaviorally related. Tasks that had been misclassified were assigned to a more appropriate JPD. In addition, tasks

within a JPD that were redundant were eliminated. Another purpose of

reviewing the JPDs in this manner was to ensure that each JPD could

stand on its own and be distinguished from other JPDs. At this stage,

several of the JPDs that contained only a few tasks were either merged

with other JPDs or dropped, and component tasks were reassigned to other

JPD clusters.

The final set of JPDs for the officer task list is presented in

Table 2, along with the tasks that were assigned to each JPD. Several

important characteristics of this JPD list are important. First and

foremost, all the JPDs are leadership-related as well as work-related.

Second, they are all behavioral and, for the most part, observable.

Third, they are generic in nature, with applicability to various grades,

job positions, and categories of service (combat, combat support, and

combat service support). Finally, each task is assigned to a single

JPD.

Development of JPDs for Noncommissioned Officers

The same basic procedure was followed in developing JPDs for noncommissioned officers (E5-E8) as was used in developing JPDs for officers, with one exception. Rather than having the SMEs generate a firstcut list of JPDs from scratch, we felt it was more expedient to use the

final list of officer JPDs as a starting point to make appropriate

modifications. SMEs proceeded to work through the list of 280 NCO tasks

one at a time, eliminating task redundancy and making revisions to the

officer JPDs as appropriate. The final set of JPDs and tasks for NCOs

is presented in Table 3.

As can be seen, there is much similarity between the officer and

NCO JPD lists. Some differences, however, are noteworthy. In terms of

planning, officers are involved more in Developing and Adjusting Plans,

whereas NCOs are more involved in Training/Teaching/Instructing.

25

" ""*.. .-' " " , .*-.. * " -
Table 2

Leadership Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs)

for Officers

1. SETTING THE EXAMPLE

2. EXERCISING COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

3. DEFINING AND MAINTAINING GOALS/STANDARDS/PRIORITIES

4. COMMUNICATING (INCLUDES DISSEMINATING INFORMATION, EXCHANGING

INFORMATION, SPEAKING AND WRITING)

5. MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

6. MANAGING AND MAINTAINING MATERIAL RESOURCES/FUNDS

7. EVALUATING INFORMATION AND MAKING DECISIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

8. DEVELOPING AND ADJUSTING PLANS (STRATEGIC, TACTICAL, EMERGENCY,

CONTINGENCY)

9. TRAINING/TEACHING/INSTRUCTING

10. PROMOTING/MAINTAINING ESPRIT AND MORALE

11. COUNSELING, MOTIVATING, AND ENCOURAGING OTHERS

12. PROMOTING HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP (SUBORDINATES, COMMUNITY, ETC.)

13. IDENTIFYING NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS

14 DEVELOPING/INITIATING/IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS TO MEET IDENTIFIED

REQUIREMENTS

15. CHECKING/INSPECTING/MONITORING

16. PERFORMING DISCIPLINARY FUNCTION (INCLUDING UCMJ)

17. COORDINATING WITH OTHER UNITS AND PERSONNEL

18. MANAGING/PERFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

26

." . , , %" - , " w. . . . . - .'.. . . .....
Table 2 (cont.)

Leadership Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs)

for Officers (01 - 06)

1. Setting the Example

This JPD is inherent in all leadership tasks, yet deserves

separate recognition. E7'e'ything the leader does that requires

discretionary action presents an example of professional

competence to the military chain of command. In that, positive

actions show superiors, peers, and subordinates a way to

perform, the officer affords the army one of the key elements of

leadership; "Do as I do" becomes, in effect, the major task of

the JPD.

2. Exercising Comand Responsibility

l.c.* Assume responsibility for performance of command and take

action to solve problems.

2.c. Represent commander and act for him/her in

his/her absence.

4.c. Apply directives, orders and information.

94.c. Assume responsibility for the care, security, and

maintenance of facilities, grounds, and installation

property in unit custody.

122.c. Coordinate/ensure overall security of command.

133.c. Control tactical elements in motor movements and in

occupation, organization, preparation and improvement of

positions.

139.c. Control employment of unit's organic fire support

weapons.

3. Defining and Maintaining Goals/Standards/Priorities

22.c. Establish priorities and production controls to

distribute workload and optimize use of facilities.

29.c. Develop and implement standards of performance and

conduct.

95.c. Assign maintenance priorities.

*Code: a. Task unique to field grade officers.

b. Task unique to company grade officers

c. Task common to both field and company grade officers.

27

......................... ,
Table 2 (cont.)

4. Comunicating (includes disseminating information, exchanging

information, spaking and writing)

12.c. Represents superior and organization in

U, contacts with news media. h 13.c. Schedule, plan and/or conduct appointment,

conferences, and meetings.

14.c. Prepare and present briefings.

l5.c. Advise commander/staff on matters within

my purview.

56.c. Attend meetings and conferences related to

tests concept and evaluation and observe demonstrations

and tests.

73.c. Keep abreast of NBC activities in actual or simulated

combat operations and post and display NBC tactical

information.

5. Managing Human Resources

17.c. Issue guidance, train in proper Resources, procedures,

and evaluate results.

20.c. Organize personnel and other resources into functional

elements to accomplish mission.

58.c. Coordinate personnel selection and career development.

59.c. Guide personnel management operations of subordinate

personnel section or special staff.

60.c. Recommnend/assign personnel to key positions.

64.c. Conduct a reenlistment program.

155.c. Discharge sub-standaed soldiers adrinistrative'y frc- tne

Army.

6. Managing and Maintaining Material Resources/Funds

32.c. Develop budgets and cost estimates for overall projects

and included work packages.

33.c. Prepare directives for development and

preparation of commland operating program and

budget, and concomitant budget execution review.

37.c. Develop plans, programs and directives concerning

maintenance systems.

28
Table 2 (cont.)I

79.c. Provide logistic support for supported units and

* activities.

80.c. Establish and organize special ammnunition supply points,

including safety and security arrangements.

83.c. Issue guidance for the requisitioning, movement,

storage, security and issuing of supplies.

84.a. Plan, coordinate, establish and operate supply, storage

and distribution facilities.

85.c. Control distribution of scarce and controlled items.

86.c. Operate food service facility.

87.c. Plan and coordinate assignment and employment of

subordinate maintenance unit and sites and facilities for

them.

88.b. Establish and operate an office, motor pool or comparable

field facility for dispatch of vehicles and displaying

the status of vehicles.

89.c. Allocate and coordinate transportation.

98.c. Plan/arrange for, and carry out construction, alteration,

maintenance, and repair of installation's physical plant

and facilities.

123.c. Coordinate employment of vehicles commrrunications,

and other equipment for commnand group during field

exercises.

157.c. Conduct financial management at unit level (TUFMIS).

163.c. Maintain accountability of equipment at all times by use

of hand receipts, inventories and provision of secu-e

storage areas.

7. Evaluating Information and Making Decisions/Reconmmendations

3.c. Review interpret directives, orders and

information.

19.c. Review studies, plans, orders, reports and

corrspondence prepared by assistants and approve,

disapprove or refer to supervisor with

recommiendat ions.

25.c. Interpret output of a management information system.

38.c. Evaluate budgetary constraints and other matters of risk

and sensitivity for the decision-maker.

29
Table 2 (cont.)

39.c. Conduct and review studies and surveys of organizations,

manpower, space and equipment to assist in management

improvements.

47.c. Report and investigate safety violations, accidents and

irregularities, and take corrective action.

54.c. Conduct concept organizational equipment and material

evaluations.

74.c. Interpret and apply specialized tables and instruments

pertaining to delivery systems and effects of nuclear

weapons.

76.b. Assess friendly and enemy activities in area of

operations for the application of PSYOP capabilities.

112.c. Determine operational readiness requirements and

evaluate readiness status of unit.

115.c. Evaluate relevant factors including mission, enemy,

terrain, and troops; reconnoiter physically or by use of

maps and photos and make an estimate of the situation.

136.c. Reconnoiter and select observation positions, areas or

routes of responsibility and fire positions.

B. Developing and Adjusting Plans (strategic, tactical, emergency,

contingency)

34.c. Modify and up-date plans, schedules, and

budgets on basis of program evaluation and review.

35.c. Develop plans, sequence key events and

actvities, coordinate interdependent network and identify

critical paths.

53.c Initiate concept documents in concert with the TRADC:

commnuni ty.

90.c. Make plans and preparations for movement of unit by rail

or ship and for its on-shore deployment and field set-up.

117.c. Plan/recoemmend disposition and employment of unit.

119.c. Evaluate plans of subordinate units and take action to

correct deficiencies.

120.c. Evaluate operation's progress and modify orders as the

situation warrants.

30
Table 2 (cont.)

128.c. Plan and coordinate actions concerning refugee handling

and control of civilian population in theater of

operations.

138.c. Develop and coordinate support plans such as fire

support, intelligence collection, nuclear employment, etc.

9. Training/Teaching/Instructing

99.c. Plan and prepare units of instruction, POI,

lesson plans, training aids and make

arrangements for physical facilities.

l0O.c. Coordinate instructional substance, coverage and phasing with others concerned.

102.c. Formulate training goals, policies and programs.

103.c. Conduct specialized training (cermonies,

counterintelligence, EW, NBC, etc.).

105.c. Request school allocations to meet needs of urits.

106.c. Plan and participate in ROTC summer camp training

activities.

107.c. Assist designated reserve component units with the

preparation and conduct of training.

109.c. Conduct physical training.

ll0.c. Manage range firing.

113.c. Ensure unit proficiency in basic soldier skills (hand-tohand combat, map reading, first aid, weaponry, drill and

ceremonies).

114.c. Plan and coordinate training exercises.

144.c. Train subordinate commanders how to develop/improve

morale and esprit in their units.

148.c. Conduct periodic assessments of status of

training/professional development of

officers/noncommissioned officers and design a training

program to sustain strengths/overcome identified

deficiencies.

154.c. Participate in leadership and tactical training seminars.

160.a. Plan/coordinate/host training meetings.

161.c. Supervise an on-the-job training (OJT) program.

31

.. . .- . .- , "," . . -"-. . . . v,. ** .* q" -. . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . " .) " "
W. Ir V r.r

 V 07 W . r .. W, . 

, w.  ,

Table 2 (cont.)

1 62.c. Plan/conduct the Army Test and Evaluation Program (ARTEP)

for unit.

10. Promoting Maintaining Esprit and Morale

11.c. Review complaints and suggestions and take

corrective action.

51.c. Conduct personnel administrative programs

such as decorations and awards, billeting, promotions and

separations.

P62.c. Arrange for health, legal and religious services. -

63.c. Encourage personnel to take full advantage of

recreaitional facilities, Post Exchange, mess and club

services.

101.c. Arrange for military personnel educational opportunities.

147.c. Ensure that multi-echelon training contributes toward

demonstrated competence and confidence of soldiers in

themselves, one another, their leaders and their units.

149.c. Prepare dependents of Army personnel for pronlonged

absences of sponsors to ensure that basic family survival

needs are established beforehand.

152.a. Establish programs that serve the needs of families

within the organization.

11. Counseling, Motivating, and Encouraging Others

18.c. Motivate subordinates and evaluate their

job performance.

57.c. Counsel and assist subordinates on

personal affairs, job performance, professional

development and disciplinary matters.

66.c. Conduct an alcohol and drug abuse program.

67.b. Operate corrective treatment and rehabilitation

program, with aid of professional specialists, including

counseling, training and vocational work tailored to

individual needs.

150.c. Develop a work climate that permits rapid development

of junior officers and noncommisioned officers, and which

encourages the best to opt for a career in the Army.

156.c. Establish programs to enhance the authority of

noncommnissioned officers.

32
* Table 2 (cont.)

159.c. Praise and censure subordinates as appropriate.

12. Promoting Harmonious Relationship (subordinates, comunity, etc.)

16.c. Plan, control, and take part in community

and public relations activities such as parades,

demonstrations, displays and civic assistance.

65.c. Conduct race relations and equal

opportunity programs.

68.c. Develop and conduct crime prevention or reduction

program.

146.a. Plan/monitor professional association activities (AUSA,

Division Assoc., etc.).

151.c. Resolves conflicts between subordinates.

153.c. Plan/attend social functions with peers, superiors, and

subordinates.

13. Identifying Needs/Requirements

21.c. Establish time requirements for developing

a master schedule.

27.c. Employ OR/SA methodologies such as simulation models,

statistical analyses, network portrayals, gaming and the

like for identifying solutions to complex problems.

31.c. Make managerial studies for improved efficiency of

operation.

45.c. Place demands upon a system for filing, retrieval,

display and reporting of information.

71.c. Determine intelligence and security requirements of rear

area.

78.c. Develop logistic requirements for supported anz,'or

subordinate units and activities.

137.c. Determine capabilities and requirements for overall fire

support.

143.c. Determine commuications requirements and capabilities and

plan for their employment.

33

................................. . .... !
Table 2 (cont.)

14. Developing/Initiating/Implementing Actions to meet Identified

Requirements

23.c. Plan assignment of work to organizational

elements.

72.c. Establish procedures for local security,

camouflage, cover, concealment, dispersion and

NBC protection.

77.c. Plan/employ surveillance radar, sensing devices, and

other measures to establish local

security.

8l.c. Conduct chemical combat service support operations.

82.c. Carry out nuclear weapons emergency procedures to recover

nuclear items and minimize hazards in event of an

accident.

92.c. Establish and spot-check inventory and stock control

procedures.

93.c. Establish safeguards against pilferage and other hazards.

97.c. Establish and operate special security measures for the

security of the access to ADM and associated classified

material.

118.c. Issue operations order to carry out unit's mission.

134.c. Issue guidance for establishment and operation of

headquarters command post and Tactical Operations Center

(TOC).

135.c. Establish and operate tactical operations center (TOC) to

include a fire support coordination center.

142.c. Perform tactical engineering work such as pioneering,

field fortifications, demolitions and mine laying.

15. Checking/Inspecting/Monitoring

75.c. Inspect and evaluate facilties and

activities for counter-intelligence security.

91.c. Inspect condition and verify quantities of organizational

equipment, weapons, and supplies.

96.c. Conduct or arrange for maintenance inspections.

9 108.c. Accompany Army reserve component unit commander and staff

on inspections and assist in handling remedial actions

for surfaced problems.

34
Table 2 (cont.)

lll.c. Conduct inspections to evaluate unit's performance of

mission, compliance with policies and regulations, state

of morale, discipline and readiness, and condition of

equipment and facilities.

121.c. Check personnel, weapons, equipment and supplies and

prepare for further operations.

145.a. Supervise nuclear surety (PRP).

16. Performing Disciplinary Function (including UCNJ)

5.a. Appoint investigating officers, boards and

members of courts-martial.

6.c. Review and take action on findings of

investigating officers, courts and boards.

7.c. Issue formal admonitions and reprimands and exercise

authority of non-judicial punishment under UCMJ.

8 a. Perform appelate functions for Article 15 appeals.

9.c. Prefer court martial charges.

lO.c. Recommend actions to be taken under the provisions of the

UCMJ.

69.c. Review MP blotters, obtain pertinent information from

other reports and sources and take appropriate action.

17. Coordinating with Other Units and Personnel

116.c. Coordinate operations planning within

staff and with higher, lower and supporting

organizations.

124.c. Arrange and control liaison with other headquarters.

125.c. Coordinate signal intelligence and sensor activities.

126.c. Coordinate logistical matters within staff and with

higher, lower, and supporting organizations.

127.c. Coordinate explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) plans and

operations with others concerned.

129.c. Coordinate/control subordinate combat service support

unit operations.

130.c. Coordinate actions with friendly units and civil

authorities.

35

k. . . . . . . . . . . . . ** t*..*. f
Table 2 (cont.)

131.c. Coordinate air defense support and observation plans with

supported unit and other fire support units.

132.c. Coordinate air-ground recognition, identification, and

forward air-control procedures.

18. Managing/Performing Adninistrative Operations

24.c. Plan and allocate ADP equipment

utilization time for supported units and

activities.

26.c. Operate a system for filing, retrieval, display, and

reporting of information.

28.a. Develop and implement management analysis methods.

30.c. Develop and implement procedures for work measurement and

simplification.

40.c. Design and control formats for receiving reports and

statistical summaries of operations.

41.c. Prescribe and review standing operating procedures for

internal functioning.

43.c. Arrange for headquarters facilties and support services.

44.c. Establish and operate a suspense system.

46.c. Screen incoming correspondence and distribute for action

or information.

48.a. Process and accommodate visitors to headquarters.

49.b. Administer unit funds.

50.c. Authenticate orders and official correspondence.

52.b. Perform maintenance record administration in unit.

61.c. Establish procedures for safeguarding classified

information.

a.'

36 -

e*% e .
Table 3

Job Performance Dimensions (JPDS)

for NCOs

1. SETTING THE EXAMPLE

2. COMMUNICATING (INCLUDES DISSEMINATING INFORMATION, EXCHANGING

INFORMATION, SPEAKING, AND WRITING)

3. MANAGING PERSONNEL (E.G., MAKING ASSIGNMENTS, REASSIGNMENTS,

PROMOTIONS, SENDING TO SCHOOL)

4. MANAGING AND MAINTAINING EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, SUPPLIES, AND

TRANSPORTATION

5. EVALUATING INFORMATION AND MAKING DECISIONS

6. SHORT-TERM PLANNING

7. PERFORMING GENERAL TRAINING TASKS (APPLIES TO BOTH TACTICAL AND

NON-TACTICAL TRAINING)

8. TRAINING/TEACHING/INSTRUCTING FOR NON-TACTICAL OPERATIONS

9. TRAINING/TEACHING/INSTRUCTING FOR TACTICAL OPERATIONS

10. PROMOTING AND MAINTAINING ESPRIT AND MORALE

11. COUNSELING/MOTIVATING/ENCOURAGING OTHERS

12. DEVELOPING/INITIATING AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS TO MEET

REQUIREMENTS

13. CHECKING/INSPECTING/MONITORING (OVERSEEING OPERATIONS)

14. PERFORMING DISCIPLINARY FUNCTION

15. COORDINATING WITH OTHER UNITS/PERSONNEL

16. MANAGNING/PERFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

17. COMPILING AND UPDATING INFORMATION/RECORD KEEPING

18. FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS/CARRYING OUT SOP

37

S . ~. . . . .. .S, .* *.* *.~ S '* -- S . . . . - * . . . S . ,'
Table 3 (cont.)

Leadership Job Performance Dimensions (JPDs)

for NCOs (E5 - E8)

1. Setting the Example

This JPD is inherent in all leadership tasks, yet deserves separate recognition. Everything the leader does that required

discretionary action presents an example of professional

competence to the military chain of command. In that positive . actions show superiors, peers, and subordinates a way to

perform, the non-commissioned officer affords the Army one of

the key elements of leadership; "Do as I do" becomes, in effect,

the major task of the JPD.

2. Communicating (includes disseminating information, exchanging

information, speaking and writing)

6.a.b.c.d.* Maintain/monitor bulletin board.

22.a.b.c. Prepare military correspondence (draft, assemble,

check, content, format, accuracy, etc.).

44.a.b.c. Prepare After-Action Reports.

46.a.b. Draft messages (DD Form 173).

47.a.b.c.d. Conduct meetings (briefings, discussions,

seminars, etc.

48.a.b.c.d. Participate in meetings (staff, commander,

council, promotion boards, courts martial

etc.).

67.a.b.c.d. Brief newly assigned personnel on mission and policies.

133.a.b.c. Conduct NCO calls.

196.a.b.c.d. Disseminate intelligence and weather data to

subordinates and support elements.

3. Managing Personnel (e.g., making assignments, reassignments,

promotions, sending to school)

8.a.b.c.d Answer/refer inquiries concerning personnel

actions.

- *Code: a. Task applies to E8

b. Task applies to E7 .

c. Task applies to E6

d. Task applies to E5

38
p

Table 3 (cont.)

13.a.b.c.d. Supervise the inprocessing/outprocessing of

personnel.

15.a.b.d. Conduct personnel asset inventory with commander.

32.a.b.c.d. Recommend individuals for personnel actions

(promotion, reassignment, reduction, flagging

action, etc.).

106.a.b.d. Recommend approval/disapproval of personnel

actions (DA Form 4187).

lll.a.b.c.d. Recommend personnel for administrative

elimination.

ll2.a.b.c.d. Recommend personnel for special/additional

duties.

113.a.b.c.d. Recommend duty assignment and changes in

utilization of personnel.

114.a.b. Review/correct unit manning.

119.a.b. Recommend personnel for MOS reclassification.

122.a.b.c.d. Prepare/review military personnel job

descriptions.

135.a.b.c.d. Recommend personnel to attend service schools/

additional or specialized training.

145.a.b.c.d. Designate personnel to attend unit training.

192.a.b.c.d. Evacuate/supervise evacuation of sick and

injured to aid station.

4. Managing and Maintaining Equipment, Facilities, Supplies, and

Transportation

52.a.b.c.d. Arrange for transportation of personnel and

equipment.

54.a.b.d. Monitor/coordinate resupply operations.

55.a.b.c.d. Determine supply requirements.

58.a.b.c.d. Control/monitor equipment usage.

59.a.b.c.d. Conduct physical inventories (installed

property, equipment, supplies, ammunition, etc.).

62.a.b.c.d. Maintain hand receipts.

39
Table 3 (cont.)

89.a.b.d. Organize/supervise the MUAA/IUA (trains)

area.

162.a.b.c.d. Supervise and monitor cleaning and lubrication

of equipment.

168.a.b.c.d. Establish maintenance priorities.

170.b.c.d. Initiate Equipment Improvement Recommendation

(EIR).

171.b.c.d. Prepare both serviceable and unserviceable

equipment for turn-in and initiate requests

for issue/turn-in.

191.a.b. Supervise establishment and operations of a unit motor pool.

207.a.b.c. Request/provide/supervise provision of PLL

to elements at worksite.

5. Evaluating Information and Making Decisions

9.a.b.c. Monitor/analyze contents of communications

correspondence, messages, directives, etc.)

for action to be taken.

57.a.b.c.d. Review and make recommendations regarding reports

of survey and statements of charges.

84.a..b.d. Determine or assists commander to determine

criteria for probable cause for search and

seizure.

93.a.b.c.d. Evaluate operations orders for impact on unit

capabilities.

142.a.b.c.d. Implement/conduct training to correct individual/

unit deficiencies.

181.a.b.c.d. Conduct physical security inspections and

determine unit physical security requirements.

184.a.b. Recommend suspension/revocation of security

clearances.

6. Short-Term Planning

78.a.b.c. Plan/coordinate ceremonies.

90.a.b.c. Direct coordination and preparation of advance

party.

40
Table 3 (cont.)

99.a.b.c.d. Prepare loading plans and spot check loaded

vehicle for compliance with vehicle loading

plans.

125.a.b.c.d. Establish work priorities and distribute

workloads.

149.a.b.c.d. Plan use of available training time.

205.a. Develop plan for medical support. (8)

206.a. Prepare operations estimate.

7. Performing General Training Tasks (applies to both tactical and nontactical training)

72.a.b.c.d. Explain local laws, regulations, customs, and

civilian-military relations (e.g., Status of

Forces Agreement, city status, off-limit

establishments, etc.) to personnel.

75.a.b.d. Assist in development of junior officers.

103.a.b.c.d. Instruct personnel on standards, traditions,

and division of duties in Army.

136.a.b.c.d. Provide input to training schedules.

137.a.b.c.d. Plan/provide input for unit NCO training.

139.a.b.c.d. Monitor subordinates' attainment of DA minimur

civilian education goals.

143.a.b.c.d. Implement/conduct training to correct individual/

unit deficiencies.

144.a.b.c.d. Supervise/conduct training rehearsals and both

classroom and outdoor/field type training.

146.a.b.c.d. Review training performance objectives.

150.a.b.c.d. Plan, coordinate, and supervise/conduct unit and

individual training.

151.a.,b.c.d. Establish performance objectives based on

commander's and SQT training guidance.

153.a.b.c.d. Designate and train enlisted training

instructors.

155.a. Determine priorities of tasks selected for

training in unit.

156.a.b.c.d. Draft/review a training outline.

41
Table 3 (cont.)

157.a.b.c.d. Implement an on-the-job (OJT) training program.

159.a.b.c.d. Conduct training briefings.

215.a.b.c.d. Instruct members of crew served weapons and

vehicles in the operation and maintenance of

their equipment.

8. Training/Teaching/Instructing for Non-Tactical Operations

23.b.c.d. Brief subordinates on precautions for using high

voltage equipment and treat casualties for shock

and burns, if required.

45.a.b. Conduct a fire prevention program to include SOPs,

drills, firefighting equipment.

77.a.b.c.d. Train/form and march unit for drill and

* ceremonies.

104.a.b.c.d. Monitor guard mounts and guard performance)

instruct personnel on guard duties, conduct

guard mount, post and inspect sentinels.

138.a.b.c.d. Develop/supervise/conduct physical fitness

training/program.

140.a.b.c.d. Instruct NCO's on relationship between soldiers'

manuals, SQT's, and ARTEP's.

148.a.b.c.d. Organize/monitor/implement unit SQT study

program.

163.a.b.c.d. Instruct personnel in vehicle operator maintenance techniques and spot check vehicles for

preventive maintenance indicators.

186.a.b.c. Conduct unit physical security training.

195.a.b.d. Train for/conduct civil disturbance

operations.

216.a. Train and certify personnel for NBC weapons

logistical movement.

9. Training/Teaching/Instructing for Tactical Operations

91.a.b.c.d. Train for or Erect/inspect/repair field

fortifications.

98.a.b.c.d. Train for/conduct tactical ground movements.

134.b.c.d. Instruct personnel in combat patrol techniques.

42

2" ,., . .. -.
Table 3 (cont.)

152.a.b.c.d. Instruct subordinates in the basic military

skills, e.g., firing and maintenance of TOE

weapons, map reading, first aid, communication,

etc.).

193.a.b.c.d. Train for/establish a tactical bivouac.

194.a.b.c.d. Train for/conduct rear area protection

operations.

197.a.b.c.d. Train for/establish observation and listening

posts.

198.b.c.d. Train for/conduct day and night surveillance.

199.a.b.c. Train for/occupy and secure company CP.

200.a.b.c.d. Train for/assist in site reconnaissance,

selection and improvements.

203.a.b.c.d. Train for/implement/supervise unit defensive

posture.

204.a.b.c.d. Train for/identify opposing force (OPFOR)

weapons and equipment.

208.b.d. Train in range estimation and adjustment of fire.

209.a.b.c.d. Train for/supervise/implement response to air/

ground attack.

213.a.b.c.d. Train/organize for combat operations.

10.Promoting and Maintaining Esprit and Morale

2.a.b.c.d. Recommend approval/disapproval of leave and

pass requests.

12.a.b.c.d. Answer/refer pay inquiries from service members.

18.a.b.d. Screen Leave and Earnings Statement (LES)

for potential pay problems.

35.a.b.c.d. Monitor/maintain suggestion program.

65.a.b.c.d. Monitor troop health and welfare and advise

superior of problem areas.

69.a.b.c.d. Visit personnel in hospital/confinement.

81.a.b.c.d. Plan/organize unit recreation activities.

43
I Table 3 (cont.)

10l.a.b.c.d. Develop, implement, and monitor human relations

program.

llO.a.b.c.d. Make appointments for enlisted personnel

(medical, chaplain, IG, AER, etc.).

116.a.b. Supervise the unit enlisted sponsorship

program.

121.a.b.c.d. Write/provide input for recommendations for

awards/decorations and monitor program.

123.a.b.c.d. Write letters of welcome to newly assigned personnel.

11. Counseling/Motivating/Encouraging Others

lO.a.b.c. Conduct both formal and informal counseling

sessions and prepare and maintain couseling

records.

56.a.b.d. Counsel soldier on the procedure e/she must

follow to be relieved from pecuniary liability.

105.a.b.c.d. Counsel and assist personnel with personal

problem.

107.a.b.c.d. Evaluate and counsel military personnel on job

performance (good or bad).

108.a.b.c.d. Counsel/assist personnel concerning personnel

actions.

ll5.a.b.c.d. Monitor/implement/supervise unit weight control

program.

117.a.b.c.d. Counsel personnel on SQT (e.g., preparation,

scoring, importance, etc.).

128..b.c.d. Talk to dependent wives, husbands (requests,

NEO procedures, etc.).

132.a.b.c.d. Assist/counsel in career planning and personal

development.

141.a.b.c.d. Critique deficiency of enlisted instructors.

127.a.b.c.d. Promote understanding and compliance with orders.

12. Developing/Initiating and Implementing Actions to Meet Requirements

(no SOP)

24.a.b.c.d. Develop inspection checklist.

44

.. .

-. - . " •" " - . - . . • o" ". '"- . A "I - E"-- . -. ' . "%" %* "• "'. -. ' " ," "" . " ' - " " . :'
Table 3 (cont.)

92.a.b.c.d. Plan/implement field sanitation activities.

95.a.b. Prepare/monitor unit tactical feeding plan.

lO0.a.b.d. Supervise handling of prisoners of war and

refugees.

102.a.b.c.d. Support and coordinate post/community details.

103.a.b.c.d. Instruct personnel on standards, traditions,

and division of duties in Army.

124.a.b.c. Provide input to manpower survey documentation.

147.a.b.c.d. Provide input to unit Master Training Forecast.

169.b.c.d. Review maintenance/repair work assignments and

prepare work schedules.

175.a.b.c.d. Correct/report security violations.

177.a.b.c.d. Insure personally owned high dollar value items

are registered by serial number.

188.a.b.c.d. Develop and enforce unit safety program.

189.a. Establish and operate field ration mess.

190.a.b.c.d. Emplace/recover or supervise the emplacement and

recovery of field expedient warning devices.

13. Checking/Inspecting/Monitoring (overseeing operations)

26.a.b.d. Monitor fund drive collections.

30.a.b.c.d. Prepare assigned area for inspection and

assist commander in the conduct of inspections.

Record inspection results.

33.a.b. Supervise unit clerk.

40.a.c. Supervise maintenance of leave control log.

41.a. Supervise unit mailroom operations.

49.a.b.c.d. Check area of responsibility and equipment

for unsafe condition/fire hazards and

correct/report unsafe conditions/safety

violations.

50.a.b. Evaluate/monitor effectiveness of troop mess

facility (sanitation, food preparation, etc.). ,-

45
L. Vw~~ ~ ~ ~ V I- V- .4 -0 I. Ir %. I .- I.T ,

Table 3 (cont.)

51.a.b.c.d. Evaluate effectiveness of unit supply (economy,

accountability, etc.).

61.a.b.c.d. Inspect basic loads.

64.a.b.c.d. Enforce standards of military discipline,

courtesy, and dress.

73.a.b.c.d. Inspect individual and organizational equipment

for serviceability.

83.a.b.d. Monitor Unit Fund Council meetings and functions.

86.a.b.c.d. Supervise occupation and restoration of bivouac

area.

87.a.b.c.d. Supervise local area security.

97.a.b.c.d. Monitor use of unit radio during NBC survey/

monitoring.

131.a.b.c. Supervise/monitor conduct of counseling in the

unit.

161.a.b.c.d. Inspect unit buildings and grounds.

164.a.b.c.d. Check/monitor unit vehicles, equipment, and

area for hazardous/unsafe conditions and

correct/report safety program violations.

165.a.b.c.d. Spot check/monitor vehicle trip tickets and

dispatch records.

166.a.b.c.d. Supervise/monitor personnel performing preventive

maintenance.

167.a.b.c.d. Review operational readiness status of unit

vehicles and equipment.

183.a.b.d. Conduct arms room inspections and inventories of

ammunition.

217.a.b.c.d. Monitor energy conservation program.

14. Performing Disciplinary Function

14.a.b.c.d. Initiate administrative action on AWOL soldiers.

66.a.b.c.d. Determine projects and details for extra duty

personnel.

68.a.b.c.d. Recommend judicial (court martial) and nonjudicial (Article 15) action to commander.

46
~Table 3 (cont.)

70.a.b.c.d. Recommend and initiate non-punitive (letters

of reprimand, admonishment, etc.) disciplinary

measures.

76.a.b.d. Recommend pretrial confinement.

79.a.b. Prepare and post summary of non-judicial

punishment administered form (DA Form 374R)

on bulletin board.

82. a.b.d. Research manual for courts martial.

15. Coordinating with Other Units/Personnel

17.a.b.c.d. Control unit personnel visiting Personnel Actions

Center (PAC).

154.a.b.c.d. Determine and coordinate required support for

training.

173.b.c. Process maintenance/calibration requests/work

orders and coordinate workload with supporting

unit.

212.a.b.c. Perform command and liaison visits.

16. Managing/Performing Administrative Operations

l.a.b.c.d. Insure suspenses are met.

5.a.b.c.d. Supervise/serve as Charge of Quarters (CQ).

7.a.b.c.d. Receive/monitor and route correspondence.

25.a.b.d. Supervise/use the functional files maintained

at the unit.

27.a.b.d. Prepare sick slips (DA Form 689).

29.a.b.d. Initiate/monitor requests for orders.

36.a.b.c.d. Supervise requisition/maintenance of publications

and blank forms.

38.a.b.c. Supervise transmittal of documents to Finance

(leaves, allotment, pay elections, etc.).

42.a. Supervise the preparation and maintenance of

SIDPERs transactions, records, and reports.

43.a. Supervise preparation and maintenance of

Personnel Data Cards (DA Form 2475-2).

47

"-o i

' "

g" "'. "", °

°

°"a" m 

°

' • ° . . . . o - . .- ° " " " . . , °" "- .- .. .. ° "- .. " ° o°. ~ ",. -. ° "-° °.. o"- °
Table 3 (cont.)

60.a.b.c.d. Conduct/monitor inventory of absentees'

personal effects and military equipment.

74.a.b.d. Review/prepare/forward accident reports.

80.a.b. Monitor administrative preparation of record

of proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ.

85.a.b. Supervise the preparation of sworn/unsworn

statements.

109.a.b.c.d. Prepare EER/SEER and review for accuracy and

completeness.

126.a Prepare/review civilian evaluation reports.

176.a.b.c.d. Supervise/monitor key control.

211.a.b.c.d. Provide/insure laundry exchange.

214.a.c. Implement and monitor Personnel Reliability

Program (PRP).

17. Compiling and Updating Information/Record Keeping

3.a.b.c.d. Prepare/maintain/monitor duty rosters.

4.a.b.c.d. Review and annotate promotion eligibility roster.

ll.a.b.c.d. Review/monitor/report and correct unit

Personnel Information Roster.

16.a.b.c.d. Prepare/maintain unit alert roster.

19.a.b.c.d. Maintain unit standard operating procedures

(SOP), e.g., draft changes and corrections and

post.

20.a.b.c.d. Prepare and maintain status reports, boards,

and charts.

21.a.b.c.d. Consolidate/prepare recurring reports.

28.a.b. Supervise/contribute to preparation of daily

staff journal/unit historical report.

31.a.b.c.d. Maintain special activities calendar.

34.a.b. Check log of incoming/outgoing correspondence

to PAC.

37.a.b.c.d. Supervise maintenance of limited military

publication library.

48

.'..--...-..,.-.--.-...-....... .......... .. . ... , .-.-.-.
16'4

Four JPDs are unique to officers: Exercising Command Responsibility, Defining and Maintaining Goals/Standards/Priorities, Promoting

Harmonious Relationships, and Identifying Needs/Requirements. Two JPDs

are unique to NCOs: Compiling and Updating Information/Record Keeping,

and Following Instructions/Carrying Out SOP. In addition, the language

of several officer JPDs is simplified on the JPD list for NCOs. For

example, Managing Human Resources for officers becomes Managing Personnel (e.g., making assignments, sending to school, promotion, reassignment) for NCOs.

The final NCO task list contained 216 tasks. Of the original 280

tasks, 65 were eliminated and one was added.

49
AN ANALYSIS OF THE JOB PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS

Using a questionnaire format, ratings of the JPDs were obtained

from samples of officers and NCOs. The first booklet contained introductory material including a definition of leadership and a list of JPDs

with examples of tasks included in each JPD. Each JPD was rated on four

scales: importance, time spent, freedom of choice, and results. The

importance scale asked respondents: "How important do you consider your

performance on this part of your current job to accomplishing unit

missions?"; the time spent scale asked: "How much of your total working

time do you spend on activities that are in some way related to this

part of your current job"; the freedom of choice scale asked: "How long

does it typically take you to learn about the effects or results of what

you do in this part of your job?" Each scale was presented with appropriate definition. In addition to these scales, the booklet contained a

background section concerning the respondent's grade/rank, duty

position/title, unit/organization, and primary MOS/specialty code.

The questionnaire was adminstered at Ft. Ord, California and at Ft.

Bragg, North Carolina. Subjects at the two sites were provided by the

7th Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne Division respectively.

Table 4 presents the number of respondents in each grade of officer

and NCO personnel who completed surveys at Ft. Ord and Ft. Bragg. At an

earlier stage in this project, one subject matter expert had suggested

that personnel in Command positions at various grade levels might have

more in common with one another than with personnel at the same level

who were in Staff positions. To examine this hypothesis, personnel at

.- each grade level were subdivided into those in Command and those in

Staff positions. This latter classification was based upon the duty

assignment each participant listed in the background information section

of the survey.

Table 4 shows very few survey instruments completed by Second

Lieutenants and Colonels. Due to the small sample sizes, these two

groups were combined with similar grades for this set of analyses.

Specifically, Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels were analyzed as a single

group (referred to as Colonels) and Second Lieutenants and First Lieutenants were analyzed as a single group (referred to as Lieutenants).

50
Table 4

Sample Sizes

OFFICER SAMPLE

RANK COMMAND STAFF TOTAL

2LT 5 0 5

ILT 12 6 18

CPT 16 29 45 MAJ 1 13 14

LTC 12 0 12

COL 2 0 2 .

TOTAL 48 48 96"

NCO SAMPLE -

GRADE COMMAND STAFF TOTAL

E5 10 11 21

E6 14 8 22

E7 11 11 22

E8 10 6 16

TOTAL 45 36 81

V5 :1

'a

51

- -, -,-. - - ,' ,""-,-• ., ,,.*-,.'.-,.'->%>.. .',- .'.., .. ,:" './ '-', '. ...- ... " .'- . "'.... . .,.. . . ..- -.. . .'.. -" - . "
A second important aspect of the sample is the confounding (nonindependence) of the grades and of the Staff-versus-Command distinction. This is most evident in the officer portion of the sample in

which all Colonels were in Command positions and almost all Majors and

* two-thirds of the Captains were in Staff positions.

The analysis of the data collected at Ft. Ord and at Ft. Bragg is

described in several sections. The first section presents analyses of

the officer ratings of the JPDs on the four rating scales of Importance,

Time Spent, Frequency, and Time to Results. A second section presents a

similar set of analyses of the NCO ratings of the JPDs on the four

rating scales. (Tables 2 & 3 provide a summary of the JPDs for officers

and NCOs respectively).

Officer JPD Ratings

Table 5 presents descriptive statistics for the Importance ratings

made by the officer sample on each of the 18 officer JPDs. In this

table, the first column presents the mean ratings of each JPD on the

Importance criterion scale across the entire officer sample. An examination of the means in this column indicates that all 18 of the JPDs

were considered to have relatively high importance for officers. JPD

16, Performing Disciplinary Function, has the only mean rating that is

below the middle point of 4 on the Importance scale. Setting the

Example and Communicating (JPDs 1 and 4) both have mean ratings higher

than 6.0.

The second through fifth columns of Table 5 present the means and

standard deviations (in parentheses) of the Importance ratings made by

each of the four officer grade groups. The sixth column displays the Fratio used to test for significant differences among the grade groups on

each JPD. Six of the JPDs are indicated as having differential importance for the four grade categories. The six JPDs are Communicating

(JPD 4); Training, Teaching, and Instructing (JPD 9); Promoting and

Maintaining Esprit and Morale (JPD 10); Counseling, Motivating, and

Encouraging Others (JPD 11); Performing Disciplinary Function (JPD 16);

and Managing and Performing Administrative Operations (JPD 18). A

closer examination of the grade means of these JPDs indicate no consistent increase and/or decrease in Importance as rank increases. Rather

52

..
Table 5

Officer Ratings of JPD Importance

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND LT CPT MAJ COL CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N-23 N=45 N=14 Nu14 F-testa N=48 N-48 F-testb

1 6.15 6.39 6.04 5.64 6.57 2.479 6.63 5.67 24.690*

(0 .94 )c(1 .2 1) (0.93) (0.51) (0.53) (1.23)

2 5.54 6.00 5.31 4.86 6.21 2.287 6.44 4.65 34.033*

(1.31) (2.07) (1.61) (0.89) (0.77) (1.98)

3 5.76 5.74 5.84 5.07 6.21 1.782 6.06 5.46 4.823*

(1.18) (1.52) (1.38) (0.97) (1.12) (1.54)

4 6.01 5.52 6.24 6.43 5.64 3.231* 5.52 6.50 20.409"

(1.24) (1.05) (1.02) (1.28) (1.18) (0.92)

5 5.49 5.48 5.58 4.93 5.79 5.77 5.21 3.635

(1.27) (1.57) (1.82) (0.89) (1.08) (1.74)

6 4.74 4.96 4.62 4.86 4.64 5.13 4.35 4.349

(1.87) (2.04) (1.79) (1.22) (1.55) (2.04)

7 5.86 6.00 5.93 5.57 5.71 5.83 5.90

(1.31) (1.32) (1.45) (1.20) (1.28) (1.36)

8 5.11 5.22 5.11 5.00 5.07 5.10 5.13

(2.04) (1.70) (1.75) (1.07) (1.65) (1.76)

9 4.92 4.83 5.02 3.71 5.93 4.325" 5.44 4.40 9.44i1

(1.47) (1.71) (2.16) (1.00) (1.32) (1.94)

10 5.15 5.26 5.18 4.07 5.93 4.207* 5.73 4.56 17.517*

(1.29) (1.54) (1.54) (0.92) (1.03) (1.64)

11 5.53 6.09 5.09 5.50 6.07 4.324" 6.08 4.98 20.736"

(1.04) (1.49) (1.02) (0.73) (1.03) (1.33)

12 4.43 4.35 4.58 4.14 4.36 4.54 4.31

(1.37) (1.54) (2.07) (1.50) (1.38) (1.74)

13 4.77 4.35 5.13 4.79 4.29 1.355 4.60 4.94

(1.87) (1.77) (2.19) (1.38) (1.65) (1.98)

14 5.01 5.43 5.20 4.71 4.00 2.475 5.04 4.98

(1.65) (1.71) (1.98) (1.36) (1.57) (1.90)

15 5.19 5.39 5.24 4.21 5.64 2.090 5.77 4.60 12.914 -

(1.62) (1.75) (1.81) (1.22) (1.26) (1.87)

16 3.81 4.00 3.64 2.50 5.36 4.627 5.08 2.54 4S.647"

(2.00) (2.31) (1.83) (1.50) (1.75) (1.82)

17 5.36 4.83 5.53 6.00 5.07 1.685 4.65 6.08 19.86-

(2.15) (1.59) (1.66) (1.27) (1.84) (1.27)

18 4.65 4.22 5.07 5.36 3.29 5.078 3.81 5.48 24.933'"

(2.19) (1.63) (1.39) (1.38) (1.79) (1.46) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

aDegrees of freedom = (3,92). p<.05.

Degrees of freedom = (1,94). 01.

* CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

53
in most instances the Lieutenants and Colonels seem to attach similar

importance to a JPD as do the Captains and Majors.

The seventh and eighth columns of Table 5 present the mean and

standard deviation of the Importance ratings of each JPD by personnel in

Command and Staff positions respectively. The ninth column contains the

F-ratios used to test for significant differences between the Command

and Staff means. All six JPDs that had significant differences among

the grade levels also show significant differences between Command and

Staff positions. Again, the confounding effects between these two

classifications provides a possible explanation of this overlap. Six

additional JPDs also have Command and Staff mean Importance ratings that

differ significantly. They include: Setting the Example (JPD 1);

Exercising Command Responsibility (JPD 2); Defining and Maintaining

Goals, Standards, and Priorities (JPD 3); Managing and Maintaining

Material Resources and Funds (JPD 6); Checking, Inspecting, and Monitoring (JPD 15); and Coordinating with Other Units and Personnel (JPD

17).

Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics for the Time Spent

ratings of the 18 officer JPDs. Most of the JPDs have overall mean Time

Spent ratings in the range of 4.0 to 5.0. The JPD indicated as having

the least amount of Time Spent is Performing Disciplinary Function (JPD

16) which was also considered the least Important JPD. Communicating

(JPD 4) is the JPD upon which the greatest amount of time is spent.

Table 6 indicates grade differences in mean Time Spent ratings for

Exercising Command Responsibility (JPD 2); Communicating (JPD 4); Evaluating Information and Making Decisions or Recommendations (JPD 7);

Training, Teaching, and Instructing (JPD 9); Promoting and Maintaining

Esprit and Morale (JPD 10); Checking, Inspecting, and Monitoring (JPD

15); Coordinating with Other Units and Personnel (JPD 17); and Managing

and Performing Administrative Operations (JPD 18). With the exception

of JPD 7, the Command versus Staff responsibility groups differ in mean

Time Spent on all the JPDs just listed and on Setting the Example (JPO

1); Defining and Maintaining Goals, Standards, and Priorities (JPD 3);

Counseling, Motivating, and Encouraging Others (JPD 11); and Performing

Disciplinary Function (JPD 16).

54
. .

 .; 

; N . ;  

. . % k :,

Table 6

Officer Ratings of JPD Time Spent

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND LT CPT MAJ COL CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N-23 N-45 Nz14 N=14 F-testa N-48 N=48 F-testb

1 4.93 5.09 4.89 4.21 5.50 1.469 5.35 4.50 6.506*

(1 ,56 )c(1 ,8 1) (1.67) (1.34) (1.58) (1.70)

2 4.52 5.13 4.29 3.29 5.50 4.148* 5.69 3.35 48.492**

(1.58) (2.24) (1.68) (1.40) (1.39) (1.86)

3 4.59 4.87 4.58 3.86 4.93 1.372 5.04 4.15 7.675**

(1.49) (1.69) (1.66) (1.64) (1.47) (1.69)

4 5.82 5.30 6.11 6.29 5.29 3.741* 5.27 6.38 21.704*

(1.55) (1.11) (0.91) (1.27) (1.41) (0.84)

5 4.52 4.17 4.58 3.86 5.57 2.564 4.88 4.17 3.700

(1.72) (1.88) (1.83) (1.50) (1.59) (1.99)

6 3.96 3.78 4.04 4.00 3.93 4.27 3.65 2.316

(1.91) (2.28) (2.11) (1.33) (1.70) (2.28)

7 5.29 4.61 5.62 5.57 5.07 2.835* 5.04 5.54 2.822

(1.47) (1.48) (1.40) (1.21) (1.43) (1.49)

8 4.27 4.26 4.36 4.50 3.79 4.13 4.42

(1.57) (1.88) (1.51) (1.37) (1.51) (1.84)

9 4.31 4.35 4.38 3.00 5.36 4.233** 4.92 3.71 11.297*

(1.75) (1.91) (1.57) (1.45) (1.47) (2.01)

10 4.09 3.96 3.98 3.29 5.50 4.639** 4.79 3.40 18.209*

(1.36) (1.83) (1.86) (1.16) (1.40) (1.78)

11 4.33 4.43 4.20 3.79 5.14 1.761 5.04 3.63 20.849**

(1.38) (1.82) (1.63) (1.51) (1.30) (1.71)

12 3.58 3.26 3.71 3.29 4.00 3.81 3.35 1.655

(1.57) (1.77) (2.13) (1.62) (1.51) (1.95)

13 4.21 3.74 4.42 4.43 4.07 4.06 4.35

(1.81) (1.84) (1.87) (1.49) (1.56) (1.99)

14 4.31 4.48 4.56 4.00 3.57 1.182 4.33 4.29

(2.04) (1.83) (2.08) (1.40) (1.64) (2.09)

15 4.45 4.70 4.29 3.43 5.57 3.742* 5.13 3.77 15.004*

(1.40) (2.07) (1.55) (1.28) (1.48) (1.92)

16 2.83 2.83 2.62 2.29 4.07 2.589 3.77 1.90 29.271*

(1.99) (1.86) (1.86) (1.82) (1.77) (1.63)

17 4.70 4.30 5.00 5.43 3.64 3.255* 3.69 5.71 41.457*

(1.94) (1.69) (1.91) (1.60) (1.57) (1.50)

18 4.27 4.13 4.76 4.43 2.79 4.895** 3.71 4.83 10.323*

(1.96) (1.65) (1.65) (1.37) (1.60) (1.83)

aDegrees of freedom = (3,92). < .05. |-." b~egrees** ..

bDegrees of freedom = (1,94). .01.

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

55

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-..........,... .......--.. .....-...... , -.... '.,....'......,,...,,.,.,
The descriptive statistics for the Freedom of Choice ratings made

by the officer sample are presented in Table 7. The mean Freedom of

Choice ratings indicate that, across this sample of personnel, the most

frequently performed JPDs are Counseling, Motivating, and Encouraging

Others, and that the least frequently performed JPD is Performing Disciplinary Function.

Table 7 T1hdicates five JPDs that differ in Freedom of Choice across

the grade levels: Setting the Example (JPD 1); Communicating (JPD 4);

Identifying Needs or Requirements (JPD 13); Performing Disciplinary

Function (JPD 16); and Managing and Performing Administrative Operations

(JPD 18). Only two of these JPDs show significant differences in mean

ratings made by Command versus Staff personnel. The six JPDs that

yielded significant differences between Command and Staff were: Exercising Command Responsibility (JPD 2); Managing Human Resources (JPD 5);

Checking, Inspecting, and Monitoring (JPD 15); Performing Disciplinary

Function (JPD 16); Coordinating with Other Units and Personnel (JPD 17);

and Managing and Performing Administrative Operations (JPD 18).

The data gathered on the Time of Results scale are presented in

Table 8. The first column of the table, which displays the mean Time to

Results for each JPD across the entire officer sample, shows that twothirds of the JPDs provide feedback earlier than the midpoint of the

scale (less than a month). The JPD with the longest Time to Results is

Managing and Maintaining Material Resources and Funds (JPD 6). Not

surprisingly, the JPD which has the most immediate feedback, as indicated by the Time of Results mean, is Communicating (JPD 4). Far fewer

JPDs yielded significant differences among grade levels or between Command and Staff groups on the Time to Results Scale than on the other

three rating scales. The three JPDs with significant mean differences

among grade levels are: Evaluating Information and Making Decisions or

Recommendations (JPD 7); Developing and Adjusting Plans (JPD 8); and

Managing or Performing Administrative Operations (JPD 16). Only two

JPDs had significant differences between the mean Time to Results

mation and Making Decisions (JPD 5) and Counseling, Motivating, and

56
Table 7

Officer Ratings of JPD Freedom of Choice

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND LT CPT MAJ COL CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N=23 N=45 N=14 N-14 F-testa N=48 N=48 F-testb

1 6.02 5.30 6.31 5.57 6.71 2.787* 6.21 5.83 1.063 I (2.34f (1.46) (2.10) (0.61) (1.66) (1.89)

2 4.81 5.00 4.58 4.29 5.79 1.933 5.67 3.96 23.978**

(1.60) (2.04) (2.09) (1.48) (1.36) (2.00)

3 4.77 4.22 4.84 4.79 5.43 1.847 4.96 4.58 1.370

(1.65) (1.69) (1.31) (1.02) (1.52) (1.62)

4 5.40 4.30 5.64 6.00 5.79 5.134 5.21 5.58 1.232

(1.72) (1.54) (1.52) (1.37) (1.64) (1.67)

5 4.73 4.61 4.51 4.71 5.64 1.416 5.17 4.29 5.708

(1.64) (1.97) (2.02) (1.34) (1.46) (2.07)

6 3.98 3.96 3.58 4.86 4.43 2.099 4.23 3.73 1.763

(1.92) (1.99) (1.56) (1.16) (1.68) (2.00)

7 5.26 4.78 5.44 5.50 5.21 1.235 5.21 5.31

(1.44) (1.45) (1.65) (1.05) (1.37) (1.52)

8 4.29 4.13 4.13 4.93 4.43 4.27 4.31

(1.55) (1.74) (1.69) (1.28) (1.35) (1.88)

9 5.00 4.52 4.84 5.50 5.79 1.986 5.15 4.85

(1.95) (1.80) (1.91) (0.97) (1.52) (2.03) 10 5.74 5.30 5.60 6.29 6.36 2.574 5.98 5.50 2.800 .

(1.43) (1.63) (0.91) (0.50) (1.18) (1.60)

11 6.19 6.17 6.04 6.43 6.43 6.33 6.04 1.426

(0.94) (1.52) (0.85) (0.51) (0.78) (1.50)

12 5.73 5.48 5.62 6.21 6.00 1.044 5.67 5.79 1 8

(1.53) (1.57) (0.97) (0.96) (1.40) (1.44)

13 4.66 3.91 4.62 5.57 5.07 3.115* 4.67 4.65 29o

(1.70) (1.83) (1.65) (1.21) (1.71) (1.82)

14 4.74 4.61 4.64 5.07 4.93 4.79 4.69

(1.85) (1.64) (1.69) (1.27) (1.57) (1.72)

15 5.02 5.04 4.78 4.57 6.21 2.512 5.71 4.33 14.678

(1.66) (2.14) (1.65) (0.97) (1.53) (1.96)

16 3.59 3.00 3.62 2.86 5.21 4.122 4.56 2.63 23.987

r (1.95) (2.07) (2.41)(1.81) (1.95) (1.93) 17 5.29 4.57 5.44 5.57 5.71 2.067 4.81 5.77 8.499*

(1.85) (1.63) (1.55) (1.38) (1.88) (1.29)

18 4.76 3.78 4.89 5.86 4.86 4.202* 4.19 5.33 9.940**

(2.04) (1.77) (1.23) (1.75) (2.00) (1.53)

aDegrees of freedom - (3,92). -< .05.

bDegrees of freedom - (1,94). *

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

57
Tabl e 8

Officer Ratings of JPD Time to Results

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND LT CPT MAJ COL CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N=23 N=45 N=14 N=14 F-testa N=48 N-48 F-testb

1 3.63 (

3.48 3.78 3.57 3.43 3.79 3.46 1.130 1 .50 )C(1 .57) (1.65) (1.50) (1.56) (1.52)

2 3.40 2.91 3.69 3.50 3.14 1.635 3.38 3.42

(1.16) (1.47) (1.70) (1.51) (1.59) (1.33)

3 4.19 3.74 4.36 4.29 4.29 1.164 4.38 4.00 1.920

(1.05) (1.37) (1.33) (1.59) (1.28) (1.37)

4 2.84 2.70 2.80 2.86 3.21 3.00 2.69 1.593

(0.76) (1.16) (1.61) (1.58) (1.19) (1.24)

5 3.72 3.74 3.71 3.29 4.14 1.252 4.02 3.42 6.714*

(1.01) (1.14) (1.33) (1.35) (1.10) (1.18)

6 4.41 4.43 4.33 4.57 4.43 4.65 4.17 3.416

(0.95) (1.38) (1.09) (1.70) (1.21) (1.33)

7 3.38 2.78 3.49 3.93 3.43 3.277* 3.27 3.48

(1.00) (1.20) (1.38) (0.94) (1.22) (1.17)

8 4.02 3.26 4.18 4.57 4.21 3.146* 3.88 4.17

(1.51) (1.35) (1.28) (1.63) (1.48) (1.46)

9 4.24 3.91 4.40 4.43 4.07 1.071 4.31 4.17

(1.35) (1.07) (1.28) (1.14) (1.24) (1.14)

10 3.84 3.83 3.84 4.00 3.71 3.98 3.71 1.264 (1.07) (1.31) (0.96) (1.20) (1.14) (1.22)

11 3.80 3.78 3.82 3.57 4.00 4.04 3.56 4.400*

(1.00) (1.21) (1.22) (1.11) (1.07) (1.17)

12 3.07 4.09 3.84 4.07 4.07 4.00 3.94

(1.44) (1.35) (1.33) (0.92) (1.30) (1.31)

13 4.10 3.87 4.07 4.57 4.14 3.96 4.25 1.289

(1.52) (1.14) (1.28) (1.17) (1.34) (1.18)

14 4.11 3.70 4.18 4.71 4.00 2.092 4.00 4.23

(1.29) (1.23) (1.33) (0.96) (1.22) (1.28)

15 3.36 3.35 3.29 3.86 3.14 3.29 3.44

(1.37) (1.31) (1.70) (1.17) (1.40) (1.34)

16 3.54 4.04 3.40 3.86 2.86 2.787* 3.65 3.44

(1.15) (1.23) (1.75) (1.41) (1.31) (1.41)

17 3.43 3.26 3.36 4.00 3.36 1.600 3.38 3.48

(0.86) (1.11) (1.24) (1.08) (1.04) (1.13)

18 3.80 4.09 3.60 3.93 3.86 1.056 3.94 3.67 1.409

(1.28) (1.12) (1.07) (0.86) (1.10) (1.14) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- aDegrees of freedom = (3,92). < .05.

bDegrees of freedom - (1,94). * 01.

CNumbers In parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale. U

58
Encouraging Others (JPD 11). For both of these JPDs the Command group

had longer Time to Results than did the Staff group.

With the exception of the Time to Results scale, the ratings showed Pu

a greater number (not necessarily magnitude) of significant differences

between Command and Staff positions than they did among the four grade

categories. Particularly on the Importance scale and the Time Spent

scale, there was substantial overlap between those JPDs that yielded

significant differences among the grades and those that yielded significant differences between Command and Staff positions. Due to the

unbalanced sample sizes in the grade by command/staff matrix and the

possible confounds, it is not feasible to determine whether the JPDs

with significant differences in both classifications might be more

related to one or the other of the grouping factors.

NCO JPD Ratings

Tables 9 through 12 present rating data for NCOs. Table 9 shows

that the JPDs of Communicating; Managing Personnel, and Coordinating

with Other Units/Personnel are rated as more important as grade increases (E5 through E8). Completing and Updating Information/Recordkeeping shows a similar relationship but is not a totally linear relationship.

With respect to Command vs. Staff positions, 6 JPDs reflected

differences. All of the training JPDs, i.e., Performing General

Training Tasks; Training/Teaching/Instructing for Non-tactical Operations; and Training/Teaching/Instructing for Tactical Operations rated

as more important to the Command as compared to staff positions.

Checking/Inspecting/Monitoring; Performing Disciplinary Functions, and

Following Instructions/Carry Out SOP were also rated as more important

to their job by Command position incumbents than by NCOs in Staff

positions.

Table 10 shows the data for Time Spent scale results. The JPDs

showing a dual relationship between grade and Time Spent were Managing

Personnel and Managing/Performing Administrative Operations. Setting

59 *P,'*..f -- Pu.. " 

*S€.% **S - -
Table 9

NCO Ratings of JPD Importance

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND E5 E6 E7 E8 CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N=21 N=22 N=24 N=17 F-testa N=42 N=36 F-testb

1 6.38 6.14 6.41 6.33 6.71 1.342 6.43 6.36

(1.24 (0.67) (0.87) (0.47) (0.99) (0.76)

2 5.55 4.71 5.45 5.88 6.24 4.300* 5.64 5.44

(1.76) (1.50) (1.15) (1.03) (1.46) (1.58)

3 5.32 4.48 4.95 5.75 6.24 5.549 5.57 5.03 2.402

(1.83) (1.76) (1.07) (1.03) (1.56) (1.52)

4 5.13 4.90 4.82 5.79 4.88 1.798 4.98 5.28

(1.92) (1.59) (1.41) (1.69) (1.69) (1.72)

5 4.67 4.19 4.50 4.92 5.12 1.206 4.71 4.67

(1.91) (2.04) (1.35) (1.27) (1.71) (1.66)

6 5.07 4.52 5.23 5.50 4.94 1.325 5.14 5.06

(2.23) (1.85) (1.06) (1.48) (1.75) (1.62)

7 5.40 5.90 5.59 5.17 4.88 2.050 5.81 5.00 6.873*

(1.14) (1.56) (1.49) (1.32) (1.33) (1.39)

8 5.38 5.38 5.27 5.38 5.53 5.90 4.92 10.866*

(1.28) (1.39) (1.50) (1.59) (1.14) (1.50)

9 5.29 5.67 5.50 5.04 4.88 5.86 4.64 9.964**

(1.46) (1.97) (1.76) (1.93) (1.49) (1.91)

10 4.99 4.57 5.14 4.71 5.71 1.479 5.31 4.69 2.336

(2.09) (1.73) (1.78) (1.65) (1.70) (1.85)

11 5.46 5.19 5.27 5.58 5.88 5.60 5.33

(1.78) (1.55) (1.47) (1.50) (1.64) (1.57)

12 4.87 4.29 4.64 5.38 5.18 1.973 4.90 4.94

(1.79) (2.06) (1.24) (1.33) (1.75) (1.57)

13 5.63 5.05 5.73 5.83 5.94 1.625 5.98 5.14 6.919"

(1.60) (1.55) (1.37) (1.09) (1.16) (1.64)

14 4.76 3.90 5.09 4.83 5.29 2.632 5.40 4.06 13.823*

(1.87) (1.48) (1.79) (1.61) (1.58) (1.62)

15 4.32 3.10 4.45 4.83 4.94 4.673** 4.21 4.42

(2.07) (2.02) (1.37) (1.60) (1.93) (1.93)

16 4.36 3.19 4.05 4.71 5.71 6.138 4.36 4.36

(2.18) (2.03) (1.68) (1.45) (1.99) (2.15)

17 4.14 3.24 4.36 4.08 5.06 3.109 4.21 4.06

(2.21) (2.04) (1.38) (1.78) (1.96) (1.94)

18 5.36 5.10 5.50 5.50 5.29 5.71 4.89 5.335*

(1.79) (1.63) (1.38) (1.86) (1.40) (1.75)

aOegrees of freedom = (3,92). *< .05

bDegrees of freedom = (1,94). .01.

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

60
Tabl e 10

NCO Ratings of JPD Time Spent

* GRADE GROUPING COMMiAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND E5 E6 El E8 CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N-21 N=22 N-24 N-ll F-testa N-42 N-36 F-testb

*1 5.88 5.90t (6.18 525 63 2.738* 6.17 5.58 3.420

2 4.6 43 .2 52 .9 1.957 5.10 4.75

3 .5 3.62 4.18 4.67 5.53 3.228* 5.02 3.83 7.250

(2.13) (2.15) (1.14) (1.14) (2.08) (1.18)

4 4.32 4.24 4.11 4.29 3.88 3.98 4.69 2.829

(1.97) (1.88) (1.88) (1.73) (1.88) (1.88)

*5 3.95 3.71 4.00 3.92 4.24 3.90 4.03

(1.90) (2.18) (1.84) (1.99) (1.94) (2.01)

*6 4.01 3.11 4.05 4.61 3.11 1.413 4.26 3.89

(1.82) (1.81) (1.58) (1.96) (1.10) (1.95)

7 4.46 4.05 5.05 4.42 4.29 1.414 4.93 4.03 5.867*

(1.86) (1.56) (1.12) (1.40) (1.45) (1.83)

*8 4.73 4.67 5.21 4.42 4.53 1.399 5.21 4.22 9.844*

(1.24) (1.32) (1.69) (1.77) (1.39) (1.40)

9 4.45 4.43 5.09 4.29 3.88 1.383 5.12 3.78 11.201*

(1.86) (2.02) (1.85) (1.90) (1.63) (1.91)

10 4.11 3.38 4.41 3.75 5.12 3.075* 4.67 3.56 6.633*

(2.13) (1.84) (1.82) (1.80) (1.84) (1.96)

11 4.82 4.38 4.86 4.58 5.65 1.855 5.02 4.53 1.549

(2.16) (1.58) (1.69) (1.46) (1.10) (1.81)

*12 3.98 3.38 3.59 4.25 4.82 2.602 4.17 3.81

(1.91) (1.91) (1.62) (1.55) (1.85) (1.86)

*13 4.77 4.29 5.32 4.67 4.82 1.392 5.24 4.36 5.783*

(1.68) (1.43) (1.90) (1.67) (1.46) (1.76)

14 3.45 2.90 3.55 3.46 4.00 1.211 3.95 2.94 6.748*

(1.70) (1.63) (1.77) (2.09) (1.81) (1.58)

15 3.63 2.76 3.77 3.88 4.18 2.331 3.48 3.83

(1.84) (1.88) (1.75) (1.74) (1.93) (1.84)

16 3.86 3.14 3.55 3.96 5.00 3.448* 3.74 4.03

(1.80) (1.99) (1.90) (1.62) (2.00) (1.87)

*17 3.68 3.19 3.45 3.33 5.06 3.273* 3.69 3.44

(2.11) (2.13) (1.86) (2.14) (2.21) (2.05)

*18 4.63 4.81 5.09 4.29 4.29 1.021 4.86 4.39 1.336

(1.94) (1.17) (1.18) (1.72) (1.12) (1.86)

aDegrees of freedom =(3,92). <* 05

bDegrees of freedom =(1,94). -S 0

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale. j

61
Table 11

NCO Ratings of JPD Freedom of Choice

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND E5 E6 E7 E8 CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N=21 N=22 N=24 N=17 F-testa N-42 N=36 F-testb

1 5.62 4.57 5.68 5.88 6.47 3.517 5.43 5.92 1.231

(2.13)C(2.12) (1.85) (1.01) (2.13) (1.68)

2 4.83 3.57 4.64 5.46 5.76 6.352 5.07 4.56 1.443

(1.89) (1.89) (1.59) (1.60) (2.05) (1.68)

3 4.42 3.14 4.00 5.25 5.35 7.044** 4.60 4.25

(1.80) (1.75) (1.67) (2.09) (2.11) (1.90)

4 4.45 3.95 4.23 5.13 4.41 1.622 3.86 5.06 8.106*

(2.09) (1.95) (1.54) (1.97) (1.93) (1.76)

5 3.87 2.90 3.32 4.75 4.53 4.988** 4.00 3.89

(1.79) (2.10) (1.75) (1.81) (2.13) (1.89)

6 4.10 3.62 4.36 4.29 4.06 3.95 4.28

(1.77) (2.08) (1.60) (2.25) (2.16) (1.58)

7 4.65 3.76 4.59 5.17 5.12 2.996* 5.17 3.97 9.519*

(1.87) (1.50) (1.66) (1.90) (1.45) (1.96)

8 4.73 4.10 4.91 4.79 5.18 1.393 5.17 4.17 6.732*

(1.45) (1.87) (1.82) (1.78) (1.48) (1.92)

9 4.45 3.95 4.23 5.13 4.41 1.634 4.90 3.89 5.821*

(2.01) (2.33) (1.30) (1.73) (1.74) (1.98)

10 5.05 3.81 4.91 5.54 6.06 5.437** 5.29 4.78 1.239

(1.89) (2.00) (1.72) (1.78) (1.89) (2.14)

* 11 5.35 4.33 5.09 5.96 6.06 4.359** 5.67 4.94 2.987

(2.03) (1.66) (1.49) (1.89) (1.68) (2.01)

12 4.13 3.38 3.86 4.50 4.88 2.403 4.21 4.03

(2.01) (1.83) (1.77) (2.06) (2.03) (1.92)

13 4.65 3.76 4.50 5.17 5.24 2.715 4.86 4.42

(2.02) (2.26) (1.49) (1.71) (2.21) (1.66)

14 4.07 2.76 3.50 4.71 5.53 9.482** 4.48 3.47 4.959*

(1.92) (1.77) (1.55) (1.87) (2.06) (1.89)

15 3.87 2.62 3.41 4.63 4.94 5.701* 3.83 3.94

(2.04) (2.38) (1.66) (2.01) (2.32) (2.16)

16 4.17 3.43 3.41 4.67 5.35 5.544* 4.31 4.00

(2.04) (1.84) (1.58) (1.73) (2.08) (1.82)

17 3.64 2.57 2.77 4.00 5.59 11.306* 3.76 3.44

(1.72) (1.74) (1.87) (1.80) (2.18) (1.95)

18 4.55 3.86 4.86 4.71 4.76 1.176 4.98 3.94 5.467*

(2.22) (1.93) (1.68) (2.05) (1.76) (2.14)

a--egrees of freedom = (3,92). --. 05.

aDegrees of freedom = (3,92).

boegrees of freedom ( 1,94). 2.5.01 .

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

62
Table 12

NCO Ratings of JPD Time Spent

GRADE GROUPING COMMAND STAFF GROUPING

GRAND ES E6 E7 E8 CMND STFF

JPD MEAN N=21 N=22 N=24 N=17 F-testa N=42 N=36 F-testb

1 3.54 3.43 3.50 3.42 3.88 3.74 3.31 1.200

(1.99)c(2.02) (1.67) (1.36) (1.70) (1.79)

2 3.32 3.33 3.23 3.33 3.41 3.60 2.94 3.059

(1.71) (1.93) (1.81) (1.33) (1.75) (1.49)

3 3.98 4.29 3.77 4.04 3.76 4.26 3.58 4.017

(1.45) (1.97) (1.43) (1.30) (1.71) (1.18)

4 3.57 3.57 3.64 3.46 3.65 3.71 3.36 1.088

(1.54) (1.87) (1.41) (1.22) (1.50) (1.48)

5 3.45 3.67 3.59 3.33 3.18 3.48 3.25

(1.68) (1.87) (1.49) (1.19) (1.70) (1.46)

6 3.21 3.48 3.00 3.33 3.00 3.48 2.89 3.257

(1.44) (1.80) (1.37) (1.00) (1.58) (1.24)

7 3.82 4.05 3.73 3.96 3.47 4.17 3.39 5.356*

(1.66) (1.70) (1.23) (1.42) (1.56) (1.38)

8 3.80 3.67 3.68 4.13 3.65 3.98 3.50 1.898

(1.49) (1.89) (1.30) (1.50) (1.49) (1.56)

9 3.75 3.52 3.77 3.92 3.76 4.02 3.36 4.645* (1.44) (1.54) (1.28) (1.56) (1.32) (1.40)

10 3.52 3.71 3.45 3.58 3.29 3.69 3.28 1.671

(1.52) (1.74) (1.28) (1.36) (1.32) (1.50)

11 3.62 3.43 3.36 3.88 3.82 3.93 3.19 5.907*

(1.36) (1.71) (1.36) (1.19) (1.31) (1.35)

12 3.51 3.62 3.50 3.50 3.41 3.86 3.03 9.039**

(1.56) (1.41) (1.10) (1.00) (1.39) (0.97)

13 3.27 3.57 3.36 2.88 3.35 3.48 3.08 1.298 (1.89) (1.84) (0.95) (1.00) (1.69) (1.30)

14 3.42 3.67 3.55 3.21 3.24 3.52 3.11 1.818

(1.43) (1.68) (1.32) (1.03) (1.44) (1.24)

15 3.24 3.24 3.41 3.17 3.12 3.48 2.97 2.208

(1.81) (1.84) (0.96) (1.05) (1.67) (1.25)

16 3.17 3.52 2.95 3.17 3.00 3.45 2.75 4.873*

(1.50) (1.86) (1.24) (0.79) (1.61) (1.11)

17 3.33 3.71 3.14 3.46 2.94 3.52 3.11 1.363

(1.79) (1.98) (1.14) (0.90) (1.71) (1.35)

18 3.01 3.10 2.95 2.96 3.06 3.26 2.69 2.582

(1.64) (1.96) (1.08) (1.43) (1.50) (1.62)

aDegrees of freedom - (3,92). p<__.05.

bDegrees of freedom = (1,94). .01.

CNumbers in parentheses

are standard deviations on a 7-point scale.

63

q i- 4. . . . . . .. . . ... .
the Example and Promoting and Maintaining Esprit and Morale tended to

show greater Time Spent for E6s and E8s. Completing and Updating

Information/Recordkeeping was a JPD requiring much more time of the E8

than any other grade participating.

The Command-Staff differences again showed greater Time Spent by

Command position incumbents on JPDs involving Managing Personnel; Performing General Training Tasks; Training/Teaching/Instructing for Nontactical Operations; Training/Teaching/Instructing for Tactical Operations; Checking, Inspecting and Monitoring; and Performing Disciplinary

Functions.

The Freedom of Choice measure (Table 11) showed the greatest number

of differences. Eleven of the 18 JPDs were rated as generally increasing in freedom with increasing grade. The Command vs. Staff differences were significant for 6 JPDs. Again, those in command rated

themselves as having more freedom in performing 5 of the JPDs than did

those in Staff positions. These included the 3 Training JPDs; Performing Disciplinary Functions; and Following Instructions/Carrying Out

SOP. Managing and Maintaining Equipment, Facilities, Supplies and

Transportation was the one JPD rated higher by those in Staff positions

(i.e., those in Staff positions have more freedom in the performance of

that JPD).

The Time to Results findings (Table 12), indicated no differences

among grade levels in the ratings of the JPDs. Six JPDs did show differences in ratings between Command and Staff, with the Command incumbents having a greater period of time until results were realized.

Due to limited sample sizes, the findings obtained on the JPD

ratings should be interpreted with some caution. The data do suggest,

however, that the JPDs vary in their importance, time spent, frequency

of performance, and time to results.

JPD Field Verification

The final step in the development of the JPDs was a field test

designed to verify the content and nature of this initial set of JPDs.

To carry out this test it was decided that senior officers and senior

64

p- -
NCOs would be presented with the label of each of the relevant dimensions and the associated task lists. They would be asked individually

to assign each task to one and only one JPD. After they had completed

their individual assignments, they would be asked to discuss them and

reach a consensus with respect to the JPDs to which each task should be

assigned. These consensus assignments were then to be compared to those

made by the initial panel to obtain an index of overlap and consistency

in the task definition of the JPDs.

This field test was conducted during the summer of 1984. Four

senior officers, two each at the 05 and 06 levels and five senior NCOs

at the E8 level participated in the panel sessions. Separate panel

sessions were conducted for the officers and NCOs. The officer meeting

was held at Fort Monroe and the NCO meeting was held at Fort Bliss.

Tables 13 and 14 present a brief overview of the results obtained

in this verification effort. Overall, the officers assigned 66% of the

tasks to the same JPD as did the original panel while the NCOs assigned

57% of the tasks to the same JPDs as did the original panel. As can be

seen in these tables, there were substantial differences among the JPDs

with respect to the degree of agreement. In some cases, it was above

90%, and in others, below 20%. Tables 15 and 16 present comparison of

the task assignments made by the original panel and those made by the

officer and NCO verification panels across all JPDs. The results presented in this table indicate a high degree of overlap but also a failure to distinguish certain JPDs. For instance, NCOs apparently had some

difficulty in distinguishing between general training and non-tactical

training.

Given that the verification panels were supplied with only minimal

information concerning the nature of a JPD (i.e., only the title) and

that the use of mutually exclusive clustering procedures forces truly

overlapping tasks into a single dimension, these overall agreement

figures tend to support the validity or replicability of the taxonomic

structure. However, these results also indicated that better agreement

might be obtained by revising the nature of the JPDs so as to minimize

confusion between closely related dimensions. Agreement would likely

61

65

•........... ..............................- ,. .-.......-. -............ ,-.... . -:
Table 13

Summary of Officer JPD Verification

% Tasks Assigned

JPD No. Tasks (compared to

No. Name (field test data) original panel)

2 Exercising Command Responsibility 7 42.85

3 Defining and Maintaining Goals

Standards/Priorities 3 33.33

4 Communicating (includes 6 66.66

disseminating informations,

exchanging information, speaking

and writing)

5 Managing Human Resources 8 37.50

6 Managing and Maintaining Materiel 16 75.00

Resources/Funds

7 Evaluating Information and Making 13 61.54

8 Developing and Adjusting Plans 11 54.54

(strategic, tactical, emergency,

(contingency)

9 Training/Teaching/Instructing 18 83.33

10 Promoting and Maintaining Esprit 8 37.50

and Morale

11 Counseling, Motivating, and 7 42.85

Encouraging Others

12 Promoting Harmonious Relation- 6 83.33

ships (subordinates, community, etc)

13 Identifying Needs/Requirements 9 55.55

14 Developing/Initiating/Implementing 10 40.00

Actions to Meet Identified

Requirements

15 Checking/Inspecting/Monitoring 7 85.71

16 Performing Disciplinary Function 7 85.71

(including UCMJ)

17 Coordinating with Other Units and 9 88.88

Personnel

18 Managing/Performing Administrative 17 58.88

Operations

Total 162 62.96

% Range 33.33% to 88.88%

66
Table 14

Summary of NCO JPD Verification

% Tasks Assigned

JPD No. Tasks (compared to

No. Name (field test data) original panel)

2 Communicating (includes disseminating 9 88.88

information, exchanging information,

speaking and writing)

3 Managing Personnel (e.g. making 15 53.33

assignments, reassignments, promotions,

sending to school)

4 Managing and Maintaining Equipment, 16 87.50

Facilities, Supplies, and

Transportation

5 Evaluating Information and Making Decisions 7 100.00

6 Short-Term Planning 8 12.50

7 Performing General Training Tasks 17 41.17

(Applies to both tactical and nontactical training)

8 Training/Teaching/Instructing for 11 9.09

Non-Tactical Operations

9 Training/Teaching/Instructing for 15 93.33

Tactical Operations

10 Promoting and Maintaining Esprit 13 46.15

& Morale

11 Counseling/Motivating/Encouraging 12 66.66

Others

12 Developing/Initiating and Implementing 14 14.28

Actions to Meet Requirements (no SOP)

13 Checking/Inspecting/Monitoring (over- 23 69.13

seeing operations)

14 Performing Disciplinary Function 8 67.50

15 Coordinating with Other Units/ 4 50.00

Personnel

16 Managing/Performing Administrative 19 52.63

Operations

17 Compiling and Updating Information/ 17 47.05

Record Keeping

18 Following Instructions/Carrying 9 33.33

Out SOP

Total 217 55.20

% Range 9.09% to 100.00%

67
Table 15

Sun mary of Tasks Assigned to Original JPDs and to the

Verification JPDs (for Officers)

Original JPDs

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 k 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS TOTAL

11 1 1 1 1 1 18

S

63 _ .. 3 8

1 2 _ 2 1 2 18.-

I 8 3 12

81 6 _ 1 2 10

I 35 1 1 18

10 1 3 4

12

5 5 5

13 2 22 5 9

14 3 1 31 14 4 11

16 66

68 6

17 9

1 3 1 1 10 20

*TOTAL 7366 816 13 1118]I 8 17 16 9 0 7 7 9 17 62

68
Table 16

Sumary of Tasks Assigned to Original JPDs and to the

Verification JPDs (for NCOs)

Original JPDs

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 TOTAL

218 2 12 112

II 4 14 2 4 2 2 1 25 "

5 2 7 1 2 12

6 , 3 1 1 1 7

7 7 81 1 19 5:1111 17± -

z 06 1- 7

gi-,l-< 1 2 8 1 11

,--12 3 112 8 .

13 1 16. 2 1 2 23

14 5 s

1 s 5- -- i 2 3 ,,

16 3 -- - - - 3 2 2 I 10. 2 1 2: .

17 1 1 1 1 2 8 4

19 1 14 3 1 j __

TOTAL 915 16 7 8 1711 1513 12 14 238 4 1917 9 1_ -"

< 69

• .. .° "-
have been improved by revising the original conception of the JPDs to

allow for possible assignment of the overlapping tasks to two or more

dimensions.

Review of Field Test Results

During the summer of 1984, the results of each of these field tests

was reviewed in a series of conferences with Army Research Institute

personnel. At this time, a number of conclusions were drawn concerning the progress made to date and the future activities to be accomplished. In general, the results obtained in the present effort were

viewed as promising. However, it was also apparent that larger samples would be required if any firm conclusions were to be drawn concerning the nature of Army leadership and the requisite developmental

I programs. It was also recognized that for the resulting effort to

have any lasting value for the Army, specific procedures must be designed for institutionalizing and updating it. For instance, procedures must be designed for assigning new tasks to the JPDs, adding new

KSAOs to the taxonomy and developing problem sets for new training

programs. Consequently, it was decided that more emphasis should be

placed on the construction of a system for the description and development of leadership behavior which was capable of ongoing application

in the Army setting.

Aside from these issues, a number of other concerns emerged in the

ARRO/ARI review of the results. First, it was pointed out that there

was a high degree of similarity between the officers and NCOs with

respect to both the content of the JPDs identified in these analyses,

and the KSAOs linked to these dimensions. This led to the suggestion

that it might be possible to formulate a combined set of JPDs and

KSAOs applicable to both officers and NCOs. The construction of such

general taxonomies would allow examination of leadership requirements

from the lowest to the highest level of the organization. However, it

was recognized that the development of the taxonomy would require a

more general set of leadership task statements applicable to both

officers and NCOs.

A second specific concern which arose in the course of the review

was the Sergeants Major Academy's request that sergeants major (E9) be

considered in the study. Originally, this position had been excluded

70
from consideration due to ongoing changes in the nature of the E9 position, and its rather ambiguous position within the Army organizational

structure. However, it did appear that the E9 tasks might be adequately

incorporated within a broader, more general task list, and so this

question was to be considered in further descriptive efforts.

Finally, the results obtained from the verification effort indicated that although it is possible to formulate a reasonably effective

taxonomy of leadership tasks through the JPDs, the existing taxonomy of

JPDs might not provide a fully adequate vehicle for the summary description of leadership tasks in the Army. The conclusion was based on the

fact that some JPDs were not readily discriminated with respect to their

task content. As a result, it was decided that an effort should be made

to revise the content of the JPDs on the basis of the existing data and

a review of the relevant literature.

These considerations led ARRO and ARI to conclude that a number of

steps should be taken to enhance the effectiveness of the system. It

was agreed that an emphasis would be placed on the definition of a more

general taxonomy of JPDs, tasks, and KSAOs applicable to both officers

and NCOs. Further, an attempt was to be made to construct a more general set of JPDs based on a global theoretical perspective. Finally,

instruments and data collection procedures were revised to facilitate

institutionalization, i.e., the development of a data base which could

be maintained and updated by the Army.

A Theoretical-Based Taxonomy

Since the focus of this taxonomic effort is on the definition of

general summary dimensions, it was decided that a more qualitative,

theoretically guided strategy should be employed in the definition of

these dimensions. It was argued earlier that effective leadership in

bureaucratic organizations will involve the selection of discretionary

activities that will result in the attainment of certain predefined

goals. Thus, effective leadership may be viewed as a form of organizationally-based, socia-technical problem-solving.

In a boundary role position within any bureaucratic organization,

effective problem solving and the selection of discretionary activities

71
are not carried out randomly. The individual in a leadership position

must first acquire information pertaining to the problem situation by

examining the nature of the relevant subsystems and the impact of their

activities on goal attainment. Because organizations present individuals with choices, it is clear that individuals must analyze this

information and determine the nature of the discretionary activities.

Thus, it will be necessary to carry out discretionary activities in such

a way as to permit the effective management of people or the effective

management of things with respect to the goals at hand.

The preceding statements imply that, in any bureaucratic organization four superordinate categories of leadership behavior are likely

to be apparent in any integrated effort to obtain some goal. These

include:

0 Information acquisition;

* Information use;

e Managing people; and

* Managing things.

Figure 3 presents a schematic overview of the relationship among these

superordinate dimensions in an integrated problem solving effort.

As may be seen in Figure 3, the management of people and of things

are assumed tc be interrelated. The management of things constitutes an

important aspect of leadership because actions such as the allocation of

physical resources may have a significant impact on the nature and

effectiveness of the transformation process occurring in other subsystems. Further, it can be assumed that the results observed in managing people and things will feedback into information acquisition. In

essence, the organized sequence presented in Figure 3 represents an

information processing model.

As is the case in any information processing model, these categories may be too broad to have any substantial descriptive value.

However, like many other models of this type, it is possible to break

down each of these categories into a set of more basic dimensions -

capable of providing a more accurate description of the leadership

7-

r 72
- - - - - - - -- w. 7 

ep

Fiur 3.Shmtc vriw

73
W

 T V49 . 

c 

behavior. Because of their focus on the description of leadership

behavior, we have chosen to refer to these more basic categories as

% , JPDs. For instance, it appears that information acquisition subsumes

three fundamental JPDs. Information may be acquired from new sources or

as a result of the outcomes obtained in previous problem solving efforts. These two aspects of the superordinate dimension might be referred to as Information Acquisition and Feedback and Control , respectively. The third JPO subsumed under the information acquisition dimension derives from the observation that information from the environmental surround will not provide a sufficient understanding for effective problem solving until they have been screened, synthesized and

organized with respect to the goals at hand. This suggests the need for

a JPD that reflects behaviors concerned with Organizing and Evaluating

Information with respect to the goals of the position. Thus, the behavior subsumed under the superordinate information acquisition dimension may be broken down into Acquiring Information, Feedback and Control , and Organizing and Evaluating Information.

Once information has been organized and evaluated with respect to

the goals at hand, there are a number of ways it might be employed.

First, the information must be used to identify the needs and requirements for achieving a particular goal. In other words, information

might be used to specify the nature of the problem situation and the

factors that will influence the effectiveness of problem solutions.

After the nature of the problem has been specified, two kinds of behavior may occur. The individual may decide that the information and/or

problem lie outside the scope of his/her legitimate activities and are

better dealt with in another area of the organization. The individual

also might decide to take direct action and, as a result, engage in the

planning and coordinating activities required to implement action.

While planning and coordinating might be considered separate dimensions

as in some of the taxonomies presented earlier, this distinction may not

be fully appropriate. Coordination with other subsystems is a necessary

concomitant of planning in any organizational system and may occur in a

highly interactive fashion. These observations suggest that Information

Use may be broken down into three JPDs: Identifying Needs and Requirements, Commuunicating and Planning, and Coordinating.

74I
After a plan of action has been formulated, real world leadership

will demand effective implementation of the plan. There are two strategies by which individuals can directly act on the transformation process

to obtain the goals specified for a boundary role position. First, they

can attempt to manipulate or manage the actions of other people within

the subsystem. Second, they can attempt to manipulate or manage the

nature of the materiel and technical resources being employed in the

transformation process. Of course, effective leadership will involve

the simultaneous and integrated management of people and materiel.

Nevertheless, these two strategies appear to reflect distinct aspects of

leadership behavior, and each of these superordinate categories may be

broken down into a number of more discrete JPDs.

Four JPDs are subsumed under managing people. First, the nature of

the transformation process may be affected by attempts to obtain effective workers for some task, and the effective assignment of workers to

the available tasks. The acquisition and allocation of human resources

represents an integrated function in that individuals are selected to

fulfill certain production requirements on the basis of their availability. Thus, behavior concerned with obtaining and allocating personnel may be subsumed under one JPD. Second, the nature of the transformation process may be influenced by systematic efforts to develop the

competencies of the available personnel, such as coaching, performance %

feedback, and the assignment of on-the-job training. This developmental

function is viewed as any action taken designed to enhance the performance capabilities of individuals assigned to the systems under consideration. A third kind of leadership behavior that may be used to

manipulate the nature of the transformation process is reflected in

actions intended to increase an individuals willingness to perform the

desired work. Finally, the nature of the transformation process will be

affected by direct application and monitoring of available human resources in carrying out the tasks entailed in the transformation process. Thus, under the general category of managing neople, leadership

behavior in an organizational context may be viewed as involving four

JPDs which include:

Obtaining and allocating personnel resources;

75

S....%
0 Developing personnel resources;

o Motivating personnel resources; and

o Utilizing and monitoring personnel resources.

In examining the management of things, only three categories were

identified that appear to constitute JPDs. One of these might be described as obtaining and allocating materiel resources. Obtaining and

allocating materiel resources might be considered separate functions.

However, they appear sufficiently interwoven to require the use of a

common descriptive category. A second kind of leadership behavior subsumed under the management of things is the maintenance of materiel

resources. This dimension is concerned with the upkeep of the physical

plant required to carry out the transformation process as well as actions taken to ensure that the resources will be used in the most effective manner possible. The third dimension incorporated under management

of things reflects the fact that effective leadership requires utilizing

materiel resources and monitoring their utilization with respect to the

goals at hand. Thus, the three JPDs subsumed under managing things are:

o Obtaining and allocating materiel resources;

o Maintaining materiel resources;

o Utilizing and monitoring materiel resources.

To some extent these dimensions parallel those specified for the management of people. The difference is that behavior concerned with the

development of materiel resources is not considered to be a significant

aspect of managing things as it pertains to leadership in the organizational context. The exclusion of this dimension was based on the observation that the development of materiel resources is more often than not

a purely technical activity with little relevance to solving social

problems emerging in the course of the transformation process. As a

result this dimension was not considered to be appropriate for inclusion

in a general taxonomy of leadership. It might be necessary to include

this dimension in the taxonomy when leadership is being examined in

certain kinds of organizations, such as professional firms where the

development of new tools often constitutes a significant component of

organizational leadership.

76
There are thirteen JPDs that might be used to summarize and describe the leadership behavior occurring in various formal leadership

positions in bureaucratic organizations. A brief definition of each of

the dimensions is described in Table 17. There are some more subtle

points concerning the nature of the taxonomy that should be examined.

Perhaps the most important issue concerning the taxonomic structure

outlined above is that it provides a general framework for the description of leadership behavior in bureaucratic organizations. The dimensions appear to be equally applicable in the description of leadership

behavior in industrial, civil service and military organizations. In

the sense that Identifying Needs and Reqdirements and Acquiring Information are relevant to the description of military leadership in both

combat and garrison, these dimensions are capable of providing a framework for the summarization of leadership behavior in markedly different

situations. This taxonomy might be employed in summarizing the leadership behavior occurring in most bureaucratic organizations across a

variety of positions.

Another important characteristic of this taxonomy concerns the

content and importance of these dimensions. While the taxonomic structure outlined above may be used to summarize leadership behavior in a

variety of -ositions and organizations, this does not mean that each of

these dimensions will be of equal importance to effective leadership in

various positions. The structure of bureaucratic organizations may

require individuals in certain positions to devote more time and importance to the leadership behavior incorporated under some dimensions than

others. For instance, senior managers may devote a great deal of time

to Identifying Needs and Requirements and Planning and Coordinating,

while lower level managers may devote more time to Acquiring Information

and Developing Human Resources.

Various positions and organizations may differ with respect to

their patterns of JPD utilization. The nature of the activities occurring under each dimension may also vary with the nature of the position and organization. For example, although both combat and staff

officers may be concerned with communicating information, it is unlikely

that staff officers will brief troops on unit objectives, or that line

77
Tabl e 17

Definitions of the Leadership

Job Performance Dimensions

1. ACQUIRING INFORM4ATION

Gathering, assimilating, storing raw information from all available

sources.

2. ORGANIZING AND EVALUATING INFORMATION

Categorizing and converting raw information into useful knowledge or

awareness by carefully considering sources, timeliness, accuracy,

relevance, and overall usefulness.

3. IDENTIFYING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

Being alert to existing or potential problem areas or to possibilities for improving an existing system, method or status; identifying significant factors or constraints which influence the

nature of a problem or the requirements for problem solution;

recognizing, or anticipating whenever possible, the thrust of

orders, directives or guidance from a higher headquarters.

4. COMUNICATING INFORM4ATION

Transmitting, exchanging, reporting or passing on information in

d the form of words, messages, emotions, ideas or signals by any

means such as speaking, writing, facial expression, gestures,

automatic data processing or any combination of these either to

individuals or groups.

5. PLANNING AND COORDINATING

Conceiving ways and means to accomplish jobs, goals and missions

with available resources or to satisfy identified needs and re-

* quirements and to solve problems; consulting with others in order

to adprise them to your plans and activities and to become knowledgeable as to what they are doing or planning to do; confirming

what assistance others can and will provide to you and you to them.

'.4 78I
IoTable 17 (cont.)

6. OBTAINING AND ALLOCATING MATERIEL RESOURCES

Requisitioning and issuing supplies, food and equipment; requesting

and providing facilities and transportation; requesting and disbursing funds; turning-in supplies and equipment.

7. MAINTAINING MATERIEL RESOURCES

Storing, safeguarding, servicing or repairing supplies and equipment; repairing facilities and vehicles; safeguarding funds and

documents.

8. UTILIZING AND MONITORING MATERIEL RESOURCES

Prescribing how supplies, equipment, facilities, transportation and

funds will be used; preparing and maintaining reports, charts,

receipts, logs, files, journals, calendars, checklists and automatic data processing records as a means of monitoring the status

of supplies, equipment, facilities, transportation, funds and

documents.

9. OBTAINING AND ALLOCATING PERSONNEL RESOURCES ..

Requisitioning, processing, classifying and assigning personnel in

accordance with authorizations, qualifications and needs.

10. MOTIVATING PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Initiating, processing, acting upon personnel actions (separations,

retirements, pay inquires, transfers, etc.); counseling, critiquing, exhibiting a genuine personal interest in the success of

soldiers as individuals; improving the quality of life for individuals and their dependents; instilling pride in unit and pride in

self; providing equal opportunity, credibility, security and a

sense of belonging.

79

.-- '---.
ruWLV1T Ir 

V

Table 17 (cont.)

11. DEVELOPING PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Setting standards; fostering promotions, schooling and professional

development for the deserving; teaching soldiers things they need

to know in order to survive and win in combat or simulated combat

and that will increase their potential value to the Army in both

war and peace.

12. UTILIZING AND MONITORING PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Dividing workloads; assigning responsibilities; delegating authority, preparing and maintaining reports, charts, logs, files, journals, calendars, records and checklists as a means of monitoring

the status or morale, health, welfare, training and esprit.

13. FEEDBACK AND CONTROL

Following up on guidance and orders to learn whether they are

understood and being followed at all levels; determining whether

the end results of your guidance, policies and orders are what you

expected and desired.

80
A7 1% .. X" -1 -7 1" 

officers will brief superiors or support requirements in a combat situation. In an attempt to employ the JPDs to fully describe leadership

behavior occurring in specific positions, it will be necessary to evaluate their relative importance and determine their specific behavioral

content.

Notably, these dimensions do not reflect completely independent

domains of leadership activity. Rather, they must be viewed as highly

interdependent entities. An attempt to develop personnel through

training must consider the available materiel resources as well as

motivational levels. The actions taken in managing people and things

will depend upon earlier leadership behavior occurring under the dimensions labeled Acquiring Information and Identifying Needs and Requirements. The hypothesized nature of the interrelationship among the 13

JPDs, is depicted in Figure 4. These dimensions represent an organized

set of interrelated activities oriented toward the attainment of some

goal. Activity will begin with the acquisition of information flowing

through a number of other activities to planning and coordinating, and

feeding into the various dimensions incorporated under managing people

and things. The integrated set of activities will coincide with feedback and control, which in turn influences all the previous forms of

activities.

The dimensions described in Figure 4 should not be considered

absolute entities which all individuals must perform in the same way to

exhibit effective leadership. Rather, they are part of a dynamic system

which is dependent on the nature of the organization, the position at

hand, and the propensities and experiences of each individual occupying

a leadership position. It does appear that this conception of leadership behavior has produced a set of taxonomic categories capable of

providing a summnary description of leadership behavior. This taxonomy

might well provide the general descriptive system required for the

design of more effective leadership identification and development

programs.

81
pn

IIrv

LLU

LUJ

R-i -

Figure 4. Interrelationships among the JPDs.

82
'U

VALIDATION

There are a variety of criteria available to assess the effectiveness of a taxonomic structure. In this section, the information processing taxonomy will be evaluated by each of the criteria suggested by

Fleishman and Quaintance (1984).

One criterion employed in assessing the overall effectiveness of a

taxonomy is the clarity of the taxonomic structure; that is, its ability

to yield an unambiguous and consistent assignment of units to certain

categories. The ability of the information processing taxonomy to

satisfy this criterion was examined in a study by Wallis, Korotkin,

Yarkin-Levin, and Schemmer (1985). A set of task lists describing the

activities performed by incumbents in a number of Army leadership positions was obtained. These task lists were then edited, revised and

synthesized resulting in a separate task list describing the leadership

activities performed by officers in the 01 (lieutenant) to 06 (colonel)

grades, and NCOs in the E5 (squad leader) to E8 (master sergeant)

grades. The editing and revising of the initial task lists was carried

out in accordance with the definition of leadership presented earlier in

this paper.

Once this general leadership task list had been formulated, two

trained psychologists familiar with the JPDs and task lists reached a

consensus concerning the summary dimension each leadership task should

be assigned to. Subsequently, two other psychologists unfamiliar with

the JPDs and leadership tasks were presented with this material and

asked to indicate which dimensions they thought each of these leadership

tasks should be assigned to. It was found that one reviewer in the

second panel assigned 87% of the leadership tasks to the same JPD, while

the second reviewer assigned 94% of the tasks to the same JPD as did the

initial panel. This high degree of correspondence in the independent

allocation of leadership tasks to the JPDs suggests that the information

processing taxonomy is characterized by a high degree of clarity.

Because one of the major concerns of the present effort was the

development of a taxonomic structure capable of summarizing the leadership activities occurring in a wide variety of positions, the robustness

83
of the taxonomy, was of some concern. The robustness and power of the

taxonomic structure may be assessed by examining the extent to which the

theoretically derived JPDs are replicated by an empirical clustering of

leadership activities into a set of summary dimensions. This issue was

addressed by having individuals who had served in a variety of Army

leadership positions review a set of leadership tasks for officers (01

to 06) and NCOs (E5 to E8) positions. These individuals were asked to

cluster the tasks on the basis of similarity in task content, and to

generate a dimensional label describing the task cluster. The initial

dimensional structure was refined on the basis of additional data obtained from five Army lieutenant colonels (05) and six master sergeants

(E5) describing the perceived similarity among these dimensions. The

ten empirical dimensions that resulted from this effort are presented in

Table 18.

Table 18 also presents the 13 JPDs incorporated in the information

processing taxonomy. There is a high degree of overlap among the dimensions incorporated in these two taxonomies. Dimensions concerned with

Communicating Information, Evaluating Information, Identifying Needs and

Requirements, and Planning and Coordinating appear in both taxonomies.

The empirical taxonomy also includes a number of dimensions concerned

with aspects incorporated in other dimensions also appearing in the

information processing taxonomy. For example, Training, Counseling, and

Motivating and Encouraging Others are in fact subsumed under the dimensions labeled Motivating Personnel Resources and Developing Personnel

Resources in the Information processing taxonomy. The similarity in the

dimensions incorporated in these two taxonomies suggests that the information processing taxonomy is sufficiently robust and powerful to

capture the organization of leadership activities. This convergence in

* the dimensions provides some additional evidence regarding the generality and construct validity of the dimensions in the information processing taxonomy.

The apparent construct validity of a set of taxonomic categories

provides an additional criterion that may be employed in evaluating the

* effectiveness of a taxonomic effort. Any attempt to establish the

84
(L u u L I..

00 4-4

'44- a.. A ~ Qj j S- -~~S U 0) L I- L~ cu 

a) r_ 0. 0. O0 C) c 0( 0 0 0 m

4-) (A 0 O i(A (

*.-( Q 4) 4

E 0)j 0) 4

cm 0 ea V C _ (0 U- 0 CL) V m . 0) r (U m c cn 4- ea V 0 0

(cm c C C C_ 0 4- C 44 CL

M 4.) a 4-J 44 >

0- *- C 4) j)-

- EC 04-)J 0 E ~ 0 ~ L

to

C

.0 (0

CA

M) 0 L

ea 4J c

0 0 4-fa

CA 4-J )O

C 0 U 4) 0 4j(

C 0) (AJ 0.(A0 u (U LU-.-

4- Cc 0e cnL 0) CO)( ix E u .- U = - *a 0) fa ) 4- CL .,...Q) >C O41 4.>.- 0 C -E 2 0 C.- 4C -- fa 

LU - 0 CA C) 4A -U .

C A 04- 0 - r_ (

0)~( PC~0)0

C~~ C 01m) 

4.m 2) c -m ..

= C C 00 0 r_ A0 0 ,- .- ~t '4- C 2 4

to Gi L L.0

85

so
construct validity of a taxonomy is concerned with providing some

evidence for the meaningfulness of the summary dimensions or categories incorporated in the taxonomy (Cronbach, 1971). One of the more

powerful strategies entails contrasting the taxonomy under consideration with other taxonomic efforts examining similar phenomena

(Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984).

In the present study, this comparison was addressed by contrasting the information processing taxonomy with the various taxonomies

of leadership behavior. This was accomplished by eliminating all

* those dimensions contained in Table 1 which did not conform to the

definition of leadership used in this research (e.g., general problem solving, technical competence). Then, the remaining dimensions

Ct were allocated to the JPDs in accordance with the following procedures. Initially, the behavioral content of each of the dimensions

was specified. The content was then evaluated in light of the definition of each JPD, and the dimension was assigned to those JPDs

which appeared to examine similar behaviors. An attempt was made

not to give a dimension to more than one JPD unless this was clearly

called for by overlapping behavioral content. If a dimension did

not display substantial behavioral overlap with any JPD, it was not

arbitrarily forced into a dimension; rather, it was considered unclassifiable within the information processing taxonomy. The assignments were then reviewed to determine the number of dimensions

found in the literature that could be assigned to each JPD, the

* number of taxonomies found in the literature containing a dimension

similar to the JPD, as well as the number of dimensions and taxonomies appearing in the literature that could not be fully described

by the 13 JPDs.

Of the 404 dimensions examined in this comparison, 90% could be

assigned to one or more of the thirteen JPDs, while only six taxonomies (14% of the sample) contained one or more dimensions that

could not be assigned to any of the JPDs. The information processing taxonomy provided a highly effective description of the domain

of leadership behavior as defined by the literature. This overlap

between the JPDs and the dimensions found in other taxonomies supports the validity and meaningfulness of the 13 summary dimensions.

86
NE' ~ E'4w C4~q U. 4 N *~C aaaa at 

0@' Nv W4 0 c" WN(" en 

x 0 , L..; -- 7 -C4 4 P- az f- %a Go-r O . " a 0

Lo qa a x a Cm :3~ 3c k r CIO 0 U %n. Nc m Cc. kaC NO M4N 0C

-4 cc- 4" *@ Li 0 * LLJ ~J L J 0Pa do a ~ Me 0%.C * ~ ~i (i.

cc -1 a1 aa ac a dNc a - a

-1 u N -ox 0 coG o OO

~~4.i 0u0 a a a ~ *N- a O *. LI

S-P 0AM % en q *(y C1 61O .%.( o-e 0-

S-C%~ C%

-- aC~j -

41J.. (U -Ci *LaW *l 9" F.

c. a% al aa a. a a aa 4-a 

.43

caa

00

(a

a) ac

Na afl A.0 'Cca 

-o 3

ac ar

I= CDLW $-

-CAN- tu -

-b L16J .

aLa

2--

a) 0 0 - -87
%"N %7 N:- A; 1, %a . a74-- a a 

a; 0, J ; a a ; a; a; ; ta 0a- a ; LU7c

.4 0$.. m% .v -4 0 - -4 0A t~ fn qr lM -V -N 

0 L.; c m- &7

P ~ aa . ao %D u. r, D a4 a a

0;..@ U. (%a~.- c"O% 0- C wr r . 0r) 

6 *01 k aai a a co a Cc aaa a1 0, -L Cc a 0 u

c a 0 C ~ OONb 1 L 0 c

.. ja 0bC2%

ccj ccU a a a on 0 a a a a a 4 a a a a a q o .

2c.- 41 M V 0u nr cNr.- .. rC7% - r(4r we C

mg. 0P C%j C" 4 -4en r d CNJ 01 qr 1

CL c

S C

S- Lin%)

4-)

a)) L

4- aoG

* 0

0

*0 Go -l- -- %i 

.0 2

ea r- co w00

04

CDD

CD CD

OW

-. =.L 4A 0

W 0. KA be

C) zo=)

49 (A ~ Q Lai 0j

I.- Ae CIA z. LC

LU ~ ZL CDiLL

z~c a5 ca88 -
. . .A .~ 

There is additional information supporting the validity and generality of the information processing taxonomy. First, some support for

the validity of the information processing taxonomy may be found in the

literature indicating that there has been an increase in the emphasis

placed on information processing dimensions over the last 20 years.

Second, the information processing taxonomy incorporates both the management and interpersonal aspects of leadership behavior frequently

emphasized in the literature. Finally, aspects of both consideration

and initiating structure may be identified among the JPDs subsumed under

managing people and managing things. These conclusions suggest that

the dimensions postulated by the information processing taxonomy are not

only capable of reflecting the dimensions found in the broader taxonomic literature, but are also capable of synthesizing and integrating

the diverse literatures. Thus, these observations provide some compelling support for both the generality and meaningfulness of the information processing taxonomy as well as its associated definition and

description of leadership behavior.

8.

8989 .-
TAXONOMIC APPLICATIONS

The design of effective leadership identification and development

* programs will be dependent on knowledge and understanding of the leadership activities likely to be required in various organizations. Below,

some of the potential applications of the information-processing taxonomy will be described.

The f irst i ssue that i s i kel y to ari se i n the des ign of any l eadership identification and development program is determining exactly

what constitutes effective leadership behavior. This is an especially

salient problem due to the complexity of leadership as a behavioral

phenomenon (Bass, 1981). In defining and describing leadership behavior

as a basis for the design of leadership development programs, the dimensions incorporated in the information processing taxonomy will provide a

set of guidelines for enhancing the efficiency of these descriptive

efforts.

Another issue concerns the instability or variability in discrete

leadership behavior performed across time, positions, and individuals.

The efficiency of any program based on a description of leadership

behaviors depends on the continuing applicability of the program over

time and its utility in enhancing performance in a variety of positions. It should be possible to obtain a general and stable description

of leadership behavior occurring in various positions by having incumbents evaluate the importance of each dimension with respect to overall

performance in their leadership position. Because all of these positions would be evaluated in terms of the general descriptive framework

provided by the taxonomy, it should be feasible to make statements

concerning the relative similarities and differences among positions in

associated leadership behaviors. This represents a substantial improvement over simple task descriptions of leadership behavior since these

leadership activities will tend to be highly sensitive to changes in

position requirements. The general surmmary dimension incorporated in

the information processing taxonomy may provide a more appropriate and

efficient vehicle for collecting descriptive information than sample

task inventories.

90

. . . . . . .. . . -

I Vk
S II ; ,, .

Generally, leadership identification programs are concerned with

ciently in one or more leadership positions. This information is used

to either assign individuals to special developmental programs or to

select individuals for assignment to some leadership position. The

descriptive framework provided by the JPDs should have a number of uses

in programs of this kind. For example, Fleishman's (1975) ability

requirements approach might be used to define the knowledges, skills,

abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) likely to influence effective performance on each of the JPDs. This information might then be

used to specify the characteristics of the individual likely to facilitate effective leadership in various positions. Measures of these KSAOs

could be formulated and used to select individuals for assignment to

various leadership positions. Alternatively, those individuals who

possessed the KSAOs in certain higher level positions might be identified on the basis of this information and assigned to the relevant

training programs. An individual's relative strengths and weaknesses

with respect to the KSAO requirements might also be used to provide the

background information concerning the individual and the leadership role

required for the specification and tailoring of leadership efforts.

A second potential application of the JPDs incorporated in the

information-processing taxonomy may be found in the design of leadership

development programs. Evaluation of the importance of each of the JPDs

to effective performance in the leadership positions might then be used

to determine which of the content areas should be given greater weight

for training purposes. In the design of training materials and exercises, individuals could be provided with hand-on experience in the

kinds of leadership activities subsumed under the more important JPDs.

Application of this general strategy might be further enhanced if the

KSAOs related to effective performance on each dimension could be specified and used to specify the knowledges and skills which these training

exercises should attempt to develop. This information coupled with that

provided by the JPDs, form the basis for highly effective training

exercises. The more important JPDs might be used as a basis for eliciting critical incidents reflecting actual leadership problems. The

incidents could be analyzed in terms of their KSAO content. When the

91

. . .
potential applications of this taxonomic approach in the design of

problem set exercises is considered, it becomes apparent that the JPDs

incorporated in the information processing taxonomy might provide a

systematic framework for the design and implementation of leadership

development programs.

Aside from its utility, there are a number of other applications of

this taxonomic structure. The categories of leadership behavior specified by the taxonomy might be employed as general rating dimensions for

evaluating the performance of individuals assigned to various leadership

positions. This application of the JPDs seems especially attractive

because their generality and behavioral basis should allow them to be

used with high reliability. This information might have substantial

value in spotting weaknesses at both the individual and the aggregate

level. Another potential application of the JPDs might be found in

attempts to define general categories of leadership positions. Evaluations of the importance of each JPD to adequate performance in various

positions might be obtained and used as a general framework for

clustering these positions on the basis of the observed similarities and

differences in leadership requirements. These categories of leadership

positions might then be used to specify common training programs and

KSAO requirements for all individuals assigned to those positions incorporated in a common category.

While a number of other potential applications of the dimensions in

the information processing taxonomy might be specified, the present

discussion indicates that the taxonomy is likely to have practical

value. It appears to provide the general descriptive framework required

for the design of effective leadership identification and development

programs. Thus, the proposed taxonomic approach to leadership development should serve to eliminate redundancy, minimize the number of requisite problems, and maximize the utilization of human and materiel resources.

92

-.5 . %VI
REFERENCES

Barnard, C. I. (1946). The nature of leadership. In S. D. Hoslett

Human factors in management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: The

Free Press.

Bennett, E. B. (1955). Discussion, decisions, commitment and consensus

in "group decision." Human Relations, 8, 251-273.

Berkowitz, L. (1953). An exploratory study of the roles of aircraft

commanders. USAF Human Resources Resources Research Center

Bulletin, #53-65, 1-27.

Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational

effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263.

Clement, S. D., & Ayres, D. B. (1976). Organizational leadership tasks

for Army leadership training. Leadership for the 1970s, Monograph

#9. U. S. Army Administration Center.

Clement, S. D., & Ayres, D. B. (1976). The matrix of organizational

leadership dimensions. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Administration

Center.

Coffin, T. E. (1944). A three-component theory of leadership. Journal

of Abnornal and Social Psychology, 39, 63-83.

Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.),

Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education.

Davis, F. S. (1951). Conceptions of official leader roles in the

Air Force. Social Forces, 32, 253-258.

Dowell, B. E., & Wexley, K. N. (1978). Development of a work behavior

taxonomy for first-line supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology,

63, 563-572.

Elliott, M. P., Harden, J. T., Giesler, R. W., Scott, A. C., & Euske, N.

(1979). The process and procedures used for job preparation: Field

artillery and infantry officers and NCOs. Carmel, CA: McFann-Grey

and Associates.

Erickson, E. (1961). Young Man Luther. New York: Norton. '.

Fine, S. E. (1977). Job analysis for heavy equipment operators.

Washington, DC: International Union of Operating Engineers.

93

.-
T. V

Fleishman, E. A. (1953a). Leadership climate, human relations and

supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6, 205-222.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953b). The measurement of leadership attitudes in

industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 153-158.

Fleishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance.

American Psychologist, 81, 1127-1149.

Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human

performance: The description of human tasks. New York: Academic

Press.

Gilbert, A. C. (1975). Dimensions of certain Army officer positions

derived by factor analysis. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Goldstein, I. I. (1974). Training: Program development and evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

Helme, W. H., Willemin, L. P., & Grafton, F. C. (1971). Dimensions of

leadership in a simulated combat situation. Washington, DC:

Behavioral Evaluation Research Center.

Helme, W. H. (1974). Leadership research findings applied to the

officer personnel management system. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Hemphill, J. K. (1960). Dimensions of executive positions. Columbus,

OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Hemphill, J. K., Seigel, A., & Westie, C. W. (1951). An exploratory

study of relations between perceptions of leader behavior, group

characteristics, and expectations concerning the behavior of ideal

leaders. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Personnel Research

Board, Unpublished Report.

Jacobs, T. 0. (1983). Leadership requirements for the airland battle.

Paper presented at the Leadership on the Future Battlefield Symposium, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Jaques, E. (1977). A general theory of bureaucracy. London, England:

Heineman.

Karmel, B. (1978). Leadership: A challenge to traditional research

methods and assumptions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 475-482.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1977). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and problems of social

psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

94

I
MacKenzie, R. A. (1969). The management process in 3-D. Harvard

Business Review, 47, 80-87.

Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. I. (1965). The job(s) of

management. Industrial Relations, 4, 97-110.

Miller, J. A. (1973). A hierarchical structure of leadership behaviors. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Technical Report

#64.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:

Harper and Row.

Mumford, M. D. (1985). Leadership in the organizational context: A

conceptual approach and its application. (Submitted for

publication).

Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (in press). Individuality in a

developmental context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. In Press.

Nealey, S. M., & Fiedler, F. E. (1968). Leadership functions of middle

managers. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 313-329.

Olmstead, J. A., Baranick, M. J., & Elder, B. L. (1978). Research on

training for brigade command groups: factors contributing to unit

combat readiness. Washington, DC: Human Resources Research Organization.

Olmstead, J. A., Cleary, F. K., Lackey, L. L., & Salter, J. A. (1973).

Development of leadership assessment simulations. Alexandria, VA:

Human Resources Research Organization.

Olmstead, J. A., Cleary, F. K., & Salter, J. A. (1976). Functions of

battalion command groups. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Organization.

Olmstead, J. S., Lackey, L. L., & Christensen, H. E. (1975). Leadership actions as evaluated b experienced company-grade officers.

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Peterson, G. W., & Rumsey, M. G. (August 1981). A methodology for

measuring officer job competence. Paper presented at American

Psychological Association.

Prien, E. P. (1963). Development of a supervisor position description

questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 10-14.

Reaser, J. M., Vaughan, M. R., & Kriner, R. E. (1974). Military

leadership in the seventies: A closer look at the dimensions of

leader behavior. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Organization.

95

• *_ .*. %* -.- . . . - .p*~ .
° ... . .. . . -.. 

1

11T

Roby, T. B. (1961). The executive function in small groups. In L.

Petrullo and B. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Scandura, J. M. (1977). Problem solving. New York: Academic Press.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological

interpretation. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.

Shaw, M. E. (1963). Some effects of varying amounts of information

exclusively possessed by a group member upon his behavior in the

group. Journal of General Psychology, 68, 71-79.

Showel, M., & Peterson, C. W. (1958). A critical incident study of

infantry, airborne and armored junior noncommissioned officers.

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Shutz, W. C. (1961). The ego theory, and the leader as completer. In

L. Petrullo and B. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Sokal, R. R., & Sneath, P. H. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomies. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Stogdill, R. M., Wherry, R. J., & Jaynes, W. E. (1953). Patterns of

leader behavior: A factorial study of Navy officer performance.

Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., & Day, D. R. (1965). The leader behavior of university presidents. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business

Research.

Taylor, L. T., & Rosenbach, W. E. (1954). Military leadership in

pursuit of excellence. Boulder, CO: West View Press.

Tornow, W. W., & Pinto, P. R. (1976). The development of a managerial

job taxonomy: A system for describing, classifying, and evaluating

executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 410-418.

Ulrich, R. A., & Wieland, G. F. (1980). Organizational theory and

design. Homewood, IL.

Wallis, M. R., Korotkin, A. L., Yarkin-Levin, K., Schemmer, F. M., &

Mumford, M. D. (1985). Leadership job dimensions and competency_

requirements for commissioned and noncommissioned officers:

Remediation of inadequacies in existing data bases. Advanced

Research Resources Organization, Bethesda, MD.

Winter, D. G. (1978). Navy leadership and management competencies:

convergence among tests, interviews and performance ratings.

Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

96

. . . . . . . . . .. .
Qk

Wofford, J. C. (1971). Factor analysis of managerial behavior variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 169-173.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership requirements for the airland battle.

Paper presented at the Leadership on the Future Battlefield Sym- - posium, Texas Tech University Lubbock, Tx.

* 97