&

. t 

.. 

  .K. - -m1v

ARI RESEARCH NOTE 86-24

CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO PERFORMANCE AS AN ARMY LEADER:

KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS, ABILITIES, OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

AND GENERIC SKILLS

Michael D. Mumford, Kerry Yarkin-Levin,

Arthur L. Korotkin, M. Reid Wallis, and Joanne Marshall-Mies

Advanced Research Resources Organization

* Lf

0for CD

*Leadership And Management Technical Area

iWilliam W. Haythorn, Chief

MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Newell K. Eaton, Acting Director

1ff JUN .6 

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1986

Approved 'or Public release; distribution jnlimited.

OTiC FILE COPY 86 0 13 02

- l p- .. . . .. -* 5 . .. % *. . . -
4~~~~J 4.. .-- 7 -1 L

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

Technical Director Cm adn

IThis report, as submitted by the contractor. has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center I(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distr ibution other than to DTIC

Iand will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Informationl

* I should not be eonstruouj as an ofliciat Ciepatmerii of the Army position, policy, or decision. unless so designated

aby other oflicial documentation. j4
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W7hon Dots Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS '~-'"' ~'~"* ~BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

TITLE ( d uMtrle) S. TYPE OF REPOT A PElTLOG CUMB ERI[ D

Characteristics Relevant to Performance as an Final Report

Army Leader: Knowledges, Skills, Abilities, December 82- January 85

Other Characteristics and Generic Skills 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORqt) I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Michael D. Mumford, Kerry Yarkin-Levin,

Arthur L. Korotkin, M. Reid Wallis, and MDA903-83-C-0062

Joanne Marshall-Mies

9. 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

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS It. REPORT DATE

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

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 71. NUMBEROF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 28

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(I differtt from Controlling Olfice) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of &li report)

UNCLASSIFIED

ISa. OECLASStFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

I5. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Wsle Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the obsuact eItered In Block 20, It different from Report)

IS. 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.

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side It neceeery aid Identify by block number)

Leadership

Generic Skills

Skils Taxonomy

KSAOs

20. ABST4rACT (Irnmc.e an re rse e/i It n,-weoear" sad Identify by block number)

This paper reviews the results obtained in attempting to construct a taxonomic

system capable of describing individual attributes that influence leadership

effectiveness. To identify the knowledges, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) as well as the generic skills involved, a literature review

was conducted examining studies concerned with relevant problem-solving processes. A general taxonomy of KSAOs capable of influencing leadership effectiveness was constructed which was applicable to both officers and noncommissioned officers.

D~ ,J 7s 1473 ETMoFIOVGSISOBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TtIIS PAGE (W),,en, Dera Entered)

. . . 'J* •** - .**. . o . ,- . . - . o . . . . . . . . . . . . - ° . * ., ... - . ,-- 
INTRODUCTION

While a wide variety of factors may contribute to organizational

effectiveness, the actions taken by an organization's leadership personnel may be the most significant. Recognition of the importance of

leadership potential has led many organizations to invest millions of

dollars in programs designed to enhance the quality of leadership. The

effectiveness of these programs depends on a sound and accurate understanding of the nature of leadership in the context of the organization. Social scientists and management specialists have devoted a great

deal of time and effort to the study of organizational leadership behaviors (Bass, 1981).

Over the years, a variety of theories have been advanced to describe and understand leadership. One of the earliest of these was the

"great man" theory of leadership which posited that effective leadership

was determined by certain enduring traits possessed by an individual.

However, Stogdill (1948) pointed out the limited value of trait measures

in the description and prediction of leadership performance. An attempt

was then made to attribute leadership effectiveness primarily to situational determinants (Shaw, 1963). While the outcome of this research

served to highlight many significant situational influences on leadership effectiveness, it did not prove to be any more effective in predicting leadership effectiveness than did the trait approach (Bass,

1981).

Recently, an attempt has been made to combine these two theoretical

perspectives. Contingency theories contend that leadership effectiveness is determined by a joint function of certain attributes of the

individual and certain attributes of the situation. Examples of leadership identification and development based on this model may be found in

the work of Fiedler (1972), House and Mitchell (1968), Vroom (1976) and

Yukl (1971). Unfortunately, these contingency theories have not proven

to be highly effective tools for leadership identification and development. This is due, in part, to an attempt to explain leadership through

a limited set of variables in situations that are highly complex.

.
& - 7,r .

An alternative approach to leadership identification and development has recently been developed by Mumford (1985). Drawing from

earlier work on leadership and organizational system theory, Mumford

(1985) contends that leadership effectiveness is a joint function of the

individual and the situation. However, because organizations can

generally be conceived of as open systems, there will be certain general

circumstances underlying the nature of effective leadership in all

organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1977). All organizations are engaged in a

sociotechnical transformation process in which certain goals must be

attained by the organization and its subsystems to ensure continued

adaptation and survival. The attainment of these goals is facilitated

by formal or informal integration and division of labor that serves to

enhance the efficiency of the transformation process. This perspective

suggests that an individual acts as a leader in any organization when

he/she influences the nature of the transformation process occurring in

all other subsystems within the organizational framework.

In many formal bureaucratic organizations, an individual's influence is prescribed based upon his/her position. Despite the fact

that these parameters are often specified by the organization, leadership is also an inherent property of the individual. Even in instances

where an individual action influences the transformation process occurring within an organization, this action constitutes leadership only

when the individual had some choice as to the nature, content and/or

timing of the action taken.

Effective leadership may be viewed as those actions taken by an

individual as occupant of a boundary role that influence the transformation process occurring in other systems or subsystems and enhance the

attainment of organizational goals. This definition distinguishes

leadership from administrative headship, since administration is reflected in the occupancy of a position, whereas leadership is reflected in goal attainment within a position via discretionary activities. This definition distinguishes management or administrative operations from leadership by its emphasis on discretionary activity.

2

9 > . - ~ -,-
The definition of leadership described above, along with its conceptual framework, has a number of implications for leadership identification and development. By defining leadership as discretionary activities influencing others so as to facilitate the attainment of organizational goals, all incidents of effective leadership will entail the

selection of a set of activities influencing others with the specific

objective of enhancing goal attainment. As a form of goal directed

discretionary activity, all leadership activities will involve social

problem solving (Scandura, 1977). Therefore, it is apparent that two

central phenomena are likely to influence leadership effectiveness.

First, the individual's effectiveness in solving problems is likely to

depend on the extent to which he/she has developed generic problem

solving skills or processes. Second, in applying these skills in

solving a specific problem, leadership effectiveness is likely to depend

on the availability of the specific knowledges, skills, abilities and

other characteristics required to understand and implement a solution in

a particular situation. The general processes entailed in all problemsolving efforts will be critical to leadership effectiveness, but these

processes cannot operate without the specific content required to solve

the problem at hand.

In order for this model to contribute to more effective leadership,

it will require identification of the generic problem solving skills,

and specification of the specific knowledges, skills, abilities and

other characteristics (KSAOs) required to solve the problems the individual will confront in a given position. Once these taxonomies of generic

skills and KSAOs have been defined, individuals can be selected for

leadership positions on the basis of the extent to which they already

have demonstrated that they possess the attributes required for effective problem solving. Alternatively, an attempt might be made to design

training strategies to facilitate the emergence of these KSAOs and

generic skills.

To implement this framework in a practical setting, several steps

must be carried out. First, the formal leadership positions must be

specified. Then, the leadership discretionary activities occurring in

these positions must be identified. In addition, the KSAOs required to

3
solve the problems entailed in these leadership discretionary activities

must be identified. Finally, the generic problem solving skills employing these KSAOs should be delineated.

The following sections will describe the results obtained in an

effort designed to provide a basis for applying this general approach to

the description of organizational leadership in the Army. The following

report will focus almost exclusively on defining KSAO and generic skill

taxonomies reflecting attributes of the individual capable of influencing performance on these tasks. In the first section of this

report, definitions of the KSAOs will be discussed. The second section

will focus on definitions of the generic skills. The final section of

this report will focus on the application of these generic skills and

KSAO taxonomies within the context of Army leadership identification and

development efforts.

--I' .. . ' "'"-..' '-".- ... . . .

• . .-. , y . .-. , 4.,. .,. . .-,.. , -. . .- . ., , < .. , , -- . :,. ...

. ¥ -,-,. k . -- . ~ J , , - ' ,, """" " " " " *b "- -* ' ! " , ' " " ' " -
i . Ty

DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS, ABILITIES,

AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS (KSAOs)

In defining a taxonomy of KSAOs relevant to performance in Army

leadership positions, a modified version of Fleishman's (1975) Ability

Requirements Approach was employed. This approach attempts to define

KSAO taxonomies through the following general procedure. Initially, the

tasks being performed in the various positions under consideration ar_

defined and described. These descriptions are then reviewed by psychologists who attempt to specify the KSAOs likely to influence task performance. The list of potential KSAOs employed in this phase is defined

on the basis of the literature pertaining to the measurement and description of individuality. Subsequently, a sample of subject matter

experts (SMEs) familiar with the jobs under consideration is obtained

and these individuals are asked to review the preliminary taxonomy of

KSAOs. In this review the SMEs are asked to recommend the addition and

deletion of certain KSAOs as well as any necessary changes in the definition of the KSAOs. Finally, SMEs are asked to evaluate the importance

of the KSAOs contained in the revised list with respect to their relationship to adequate job performance.

This general framework has been utilized in many empirical investigations and appears to provide an effective and relatively straightforward system for the definition of KSAOs (Fleishman & Quaintance,

1984). For instance, Fleishman and Mumford (1985) have found that

application of this technique to the definition of KSAOs provides a

highly valid technique for the definition of selection measures. Similarly, Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) have found that the KSAOs identified through this approach are excellent predictors of training and

performance levels. Finally, it has been shown that differences in KSAO

requirements provide an accurate, effective basis for the classification

of jobs and the summary description of their interrelationships.

In accordance with the general framework described above, the first

step in the present research involved defining the leadership discretionary activities occurring in E5 to 06 positions. These leadership

tasks were defined as part of the earlier phases of this effort for

officers and NCO respectively (see Wallis, Korotkin, Yarkin-Levin, and

5
-T -L -6 . . ..I,. ' 1; .;- %; %; N -_ 

L Schemmer, 1985 for a more detailed discussion). Field verification of

the task lists indicated that the officer and NCO task lists provided a

relatively comprehensive description of the leadership activities occurring in a variety of duty assignments and specialities.

The following procedures were employed in developing the KSAO

taxonomy:

* Three ARRO staff members reviewed the officer and NCO task

lists.

e ARRO staff reviewed the research literature on individual

differences, management, leadership, and social psychology

to identify all KSAOs which might have some impact on

performance of two or more of these leadership activities.

* ARRO staff specified a list of potential KSAOs and provided a definition for each KSAO.

During the review, it was found that minimal work had been

done in specifying the knowledges likely to be relevant to effective

leadership in the Army. Consequently, it was necessary to supplement

this literature review with a knowledge-generation procedure. Two ARRO

staff members reviewed task content and all available information concerning current Army leadership training programs. On the basis of this

information, each staff member specified an initial set of knowledges

and attempted to provide a sound, comprehensive definition for each

knowledge. These knowledges were then added to the list of KSAOs identified on the basis of the literature and the leadership task review.

The list of KSAOs and definitions provided by each of the three

primary reviewers was then subjected to a staff evaluation. Five staff

members read through the definitions of the KSAOs and combined all

dimensions which the majority felt were redundant with respect to other

KSAO already included in the list. Additionally, an attempt was made to

eliminate all of the more specific KSAOs which the majority felt were

subsumed under some more general KSAO already included in the list.

Finally, any KSAO was eliminated which the majority of the staff believed would have little or no impact on leadership effectiveness in the

Army across a number of situations. After these initial decisions had

been made, revised definitions were formulated for each of the remaining

6
KSAOs. All these procedures were carried out separately for officers p,

and NCO. An overall list of the officer and NCO KSAOs may be found in

Table 1.

Once the initial sets of potential officer and NCO KSAOs had been

defined, a panel of SMEs was convened. The members of the panel consisted of recently retired Army Colonels who had served in combat,

combat support and combat service support specialties. These individuals were asked to review the initial list of KSAOs and their associated

definitions. During their individual reviews, panel members were asked

to consider the leadership demands facing both officers and NCOs in the

positions under consideration, and to recommended the elimination of any

KSAOs not having a significant impact on leadership effectiveness. They

were also asked to specify any KSAOs sufficiently similar to allow their

combination. Finally, they were asked to recommend the inclusion of any

KSAOs they felt might have a significant impact on leadership that were

not presently included in the taxonomy. Once panel members had made

their individual evaluations, they were asked to discuss them and come

to a consensus decision.

These reviews were carried out separately for officers and NCOs. As

a result of these reviews, a number of knowledges in the officer and NCO

KSAO lists were either combined or eliminated. Further, a number of

personal characteristics were added to both the officer and NCO lists,

such as "courage" and "establishing support." Once the revised list of

officer and NCO KSAOs was formulated, panel members were presented with

a revised list of KSAO definitions. They were asked to review each of

these definitions for clarity and appropriateness within the Army context. This review led to a few minor modifications in the initial

definitions of skills, abilities and personal characteristics, along

with somewhat more extensive revisions of the definitions associated

with the remaining knowledges. When presented with the final list of

officer and NCO KSAOs and their associated definitions, all panel members indicated that they provided a comprehensive list of leadership

comDetencies.

7

7- :*
Table I

Initial List of Knowledges, Skills, Abilities, and

Other Characteristics Required to Perform Leadership

Job Performance Dimensions

IOWLEDGES

1- MILITARY TACTICS 6. VOCABULARY 18. EMPATHY

2. MILITARY STRATEGY 7. IDEATIONAL FLUENCY 19. ETHICAL

3. WEAPONS SYSTEMS 8. FIGURAL FLUENCY 20. ENERGETIC

4. NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, 9. ORIGINALITY 21. CONCENTRATION

AND CHEMICAL WAREFARE 10. CREATIVITY 22. PERSISTENCE

S. ENEMY UNITS 11. SPATIAL ORIENTATION 23. DEPENDABILITY

6. MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 12. VISUALIZATION 24. EMOTIONAL MATURITY

7. TERRAIN 13. SHORT-TE4r MEMORY 25. EMOTIONAL STABILITY

B. COMMNICATIONS 14. LONG-TERM EMORY 26. TOLERANCE OF STRESS

9. SUPPORT UNITS 15. MMORY SPAN 27. CALWESS VS. ANXIETY

10. OTHER UNITS 16. NUMBER FACILITY 28. WELL BEING VS. DEPRESSION

11. MAINTENANCE LOGISTICS 17. MATHEiATIC REASONING 29. OBJECTIVITY VS. PARANOID

12. SUPPLY LOGISTICS 18. SENSORY ALERTNESS TENDENCY

13. TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS 19. MONITORING 30. ADAPTABILITY

14. UNIT GOALS 20. SELECTIVE ATTENTION 31. DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS

15. GOAL PRIORITIES 21. ATTENTION SPAN 32. SELF-NITORING

16. GOALS SIGNALS 22. ATTENTION TO DETAIL 33. MANIPULATIVENESS

17. MILITARY JUSTICE 23. TIME SHARING 34. INTERNAL CONTROL

18. RIGHTS 24. PROBLEM SENSITIVITY 3S. DECISIVENESS

19. PRIVILEGES 2S. FLEXIBILITY OF CLOSURE 36. TOLERANCE OF HUMAN NATURE

20. CONSTRAINTS 26. SPEED OF CLOSURE PSYCH TOR ABILITIES

21. STANDARD OPERATING 27. INDUCTIVE REASONING I

PROCEDURES 28. DEDUCTIVE REASONING 1. RESPONSE ORIENTATION

22. RECORD KEEPING 29. CONVERGENT THINKING 2. RATE CONTROL

23. INFORMAL NETWORKS 30. DIVERGENT THINKING 3. CONTROL PRECISION

24. MATERIAL RESOURCES 31. INFORMATION SEEKING 4. REACTION TIME

2S. PERSONNEL RESOURCES 32. INFORMATION ORDERING S. CONTINUOUS IJSCULAR CONTROL

26. TRAINING 33. ANALYZING INFORMATION 6. RESPONSE INTEGRATION

27. EVALUATION OR DATA SENSORY AND PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES

28. COUNSELING 34. COMBINING INFORMATION

29. MORALE 35. CATEGORY FLEXIBILITY 1. GENERAL VISION

30. PERSONAL CAPABILITIES 36. ESTIMATION 2. COLOR DISCRIMINATION

31. HOUSEKEEPING 37. PROBABILITY ESTIMATION 3. DEPTH PERCEPTION

32. MILITARY DEPORTENT 38. RISK TAKING 4. ENERAL HEARING

33. MILITARY LIFE 39. DECISION MAKING S. PERCEPTUAL SPEED

34. HUMAN BEHAVIOR 40. AONINISTRATIVE SKILLS 6. MOVEMENT DETECTION

35. COMMANDER 41. AESTHETIC JUDMENT 7. RESPONSE TIMING

36. MECHANICS 42. CHANICAL APTITUDE 5. RECOGNITION

37. ELECTRONICS PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS PHYSICAL ABILITIES ' "38. ENGINEERING'

39. MATHEMATICS 1. SURGENCY VS. REPRESSION 1. PHYSICAL CAPACITY ENDJRAs:E

40. ARITHMETIC 2. REFLECTIVE VS. IMPULSIVE 2. BODY COORDINATION

41. COMPUTER SCIENCE 3. INTROVERT VS. EXTROVERT INTERPERSONAL CAkAVTERIS-ICS

42. PHYSICAL SCIENCE 4. AGREEABLENESS

43. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES S. OPEN MINDED VS. DOGMATIC 1. WORKING ALONE

44. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 6. AUTHORITARIAN 2. WORKING WITH OTHERS

45. MANAGERIAL SCIENCES 7. TOUGH VS. TENDER MINDED 3. WORKING UNDER SPECIFIC

46. CIVIL AFFAIRS 3. SELF CONFIDENCE INSTRUCTIONS

47. POLITICAL AFFAIRS 9. SELF SUFFICIENCY 4. PRESTIGE/ESTEEM FtM OTHERS

48. WORLD AFFAIRS 10. DOMINANCE S. SOCIABILITY

49. CULTURAL BEHAVIOR 11. COURAGE 6. STAGE PRESENCE

$0. SURVIVAL TECHfiIQUES 12. NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT 7. SOCIAL PRESENCE

13. ACHIEVEMENT VIA 8. GROUP TOLERANCE

COGNITIvE ABIITIES INDEPENDENCE 9. 6ROUP AFFILIATION

1. FIELD INDEPENDENCE 14. ACHIEVEMENT VIA 10. ADVISING

2. LEVEL-SHARPENING CONFORMITY 11. NEGOTIATING

3. ORAL COMPREHENSION 15. CONSIDERATENESS 12. PERSUADING

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. COOPERATIVENESS 13. SEPARATION FROM FAMILY/O4til

S. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 17. COMPETITIVENESS 14. ESTABLISHING COP" .ICATION,'

RAPPORT

15. NONVERBAL CONMUNICATION

8
A panel comprised of five senior NCOs was convened to evaluate the

NCO KSAOs. All these individuals were Master Sergeants who were currently completing a course at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.

Panel members were again drawn from the combat, combat support and combat service support branches. In this meeting, panel members were presented with the list of NCO KSAOs that had been formulated in the

previous meeting along with their definitions. The panel was asked to

identify any additional KSAOs that might influence the leadership performance of noncommissioned officers, and any KSAOs they thoujht should

be combined or eliminated. Once panel members had made their personal

evaluations they were asked to discuss them and come to a consensus

concerning any necessary changes. After a consensus had been reached

concerning the content, they were asked to review the definitions associated with this revised set of KSAOs and recommend any changes necessary to enhance the clarity of these definitions and their

appropriateness within the Army context. Finally, they were asked to

evaluate the comprehensiveness of the KSAO taxonomy as a basis for describing individual characteristics contributing to effective leadership.

In this panel session, two new knowledges and one personal characteristic were added. Most panel members felt the KSAOs were important

to effective leadership and were not redundant. All indicated that the

revised taxonomy provided a highly comprehensive description of the

personal characteristics that might influence leadership effectiveness.

There are some slight differences between the officer and NCO

taxonomies. In general, however, the findings indicated that a nearly

identical set of characteristics was relevant to performance in various

leadership positions for both officers and NCOs. Comparison of the

final KSAO taxonomies derived for officers and NCOs provides evidence

supporting the comprehensiveness of this descriptive system.

Based upon the above findings, relatively little effort was required

to carry out this additional refinement due to the high degrfee of

similarity bet&een the final officer and NCO KSAO taxonomies. Two ARRO

staff members reviewed the content of these two taxonoi,lies and retained

all KSAOs that appeared in both lists. These comon KSAOs constituted

the core elements of the general taxonomy. In all instances, the defi9
nition assigned to these KSAOs was the simplest of those found in the

two original taxonomies. The remaining KSAOs that were unique to both

the officer and noncommissioned officer lists were examined. All KSAOs

that appeared to be of little importance were eliminated. Those KSAOs

that could be subsumed under other categories were incorporated into

already existing dimensions. Finally, any unique KSAO that was unrelated to the KSAOs already included in the core list, and that appeared

to be of some importance in describing leadership activities, was included in the general list of KSAOs although its definition was broadened to allow its application in the description of both officer and NCO

competencies.

A complete listing of the KSAOs included in the officer and NCO

taxonomy along with their associated definitions may be found in Appendix A. In constructing this general taxonomy, three KSAOs were eliminated and six KSAOs were merged. The KSAOs included in this taxonomy

do not appear amenable to further reduction. Attempts to combine the

KSAOs could not be justified on the basis of either the literature or

expert judgment. This general taxonomy was not only comprehensive but

provided the most parsimonious set of descriptive categories that could

be obtained without the aid of more advanced, statistical data summarization techniques.

While the general KSAO taxonomy appears to provide a comprehensive

and general summary description of the personal characteristics likely

to influence effective performance in various leadership activities,

this taxonomy can only provide an effective basis for the identification

and dvelopment of Army leadership if it is possible to determine which

of these KSAOs are more or less important to effective performance in a

given leadership position. This linkage is essential because it serves

to specify which KSAOs should be developed or used in selection and

training. A small pilot study was carried out to determine the feasibility of linking KSAOs to specific position requirements.

There are a variety of ways in which this linkage might be accomplished.

Incumbents and their supervisors or job analysts could be asked to

evaluate the importance of each KSAO in performing each task, or to

10

€. ................-.. . .. . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . . .. .. ..
evaluate the importance of each KSAO in performing the task incorporated

within a performance dimension. These evaluations might be made on the

basis of the job as a whole. Finally, a variety of specific strategies

might be used in evaluating importance including the frequency, criticality or general importance of a given KSAO to performance on tasks,

dimensions or jobs.

The complexity of leadership activities in the Army positions under

consideration indicates that reliable and accurate evaluations would not

be obtained by examining the job as a whole due to the complexity of the

rating task (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). The number of tasks that

would have to be evaluated in each position is large enough that it is

not feasible to evaluate the KSAOs with respect to each task. Instead,

the linkage should be made through some form of task summary dimensions. The evaluations should focus on the general importance of the

KSAOs, since it is difficult to assess the frequency or criticality of a

KSAO.

The initial pilot study was carried out using a sample of 87 officers and 163NCOs from Fts. Carson, Riley, and Benning. Those individuals were currently assigned to E5 to 06 positions in combat, combat

support and combat service support branches. In a series of group

testing sessions, these individuals were presented with a description of

the project and were then asked to read through the questionnaire booklets.

While the sample size employed in this pilot effort was not sufficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn concerning the specific

KSAO requirements of various positions, it did provide some important

information concerning the feasibility of the approach. It was found

that most individuals could complete this task in the two hours provided. It also was found that subjects had little difficulty in understanding either the KSAOs or the rating tasks. Finally, it was found

that consistent patterns of KSAO ratings characterized certain positions

and that incumbents could differentiate among KSAOs with respect to

their criticality.

11a
GENERIC SKILLS TAXONOMY

The introduction to this report indicated that generic skills may

.5: be viewed as general attributes of the individual which will influence

the individual's success or failure in all problem solving activities.

It was argued that generic skills represented general processes underlying all problem solving efforts. This particular conception of the

generic skills leads to one fundamental problem in defining the generic

skills taxonomy.

If generic skills are conceived of as a process underlying all

problem solving efforts, it becomes somewhat unclear as to how the

components of this taxonomy are to be defined. Standard task analysis

procedures and expert observations do not provide an adequate framework

for such efforts since they depend upon overt behavior. Further, it

seems likely that the underlying abstract nature of these processes

would effectively prohibit the empirical specification of generic skills

through incumbent interviews or critical incident techniques. Finally,

it appears that a simple clustering of KSAOs will not lead to the definition of an adequate generic skills taxonomy.

A purely empirical approach of the type employed in industrial

psychology may not provide a fully adequate basis for the definition of

a generic skills taxonomy. This is not to say that generic skills

cannot be identified through more subtle and powerful laboratory

methods. In fact, a variety of laboratory investigations have been

conducted, resulting in the identification of general problem solving

processes (Sternberg, 1981). Unfortunately, the scope of the present

study did not permit a comprehensive replication of these investigations

within the Army. The existing literature did appear sufficient to allow

the development of a preliminary, qualitative taxonomy of generic problem-solving skills.

Some of the studies examined in this effort included Sternberg's

(1981) book on intelligence and problem solving, Einhorn and Hogarth's

(1981) book on decision making and Scandura's (1977) book on problem

solving. In defining potential generic skills on the basis of this

literature, it was argued that each generic skill must fit into an

12

". . . "" . ". "" ," '" W, "" "" . ."", . ."" "" ."". -"". " "" " "". "' " ," .". '".' ."4 -" '"o' "" ,"". , € ." .' .""" ." ."", '
organized framework that begins with the identification of a problem and

ends with the evaluation of solution implementaton.

There are several considerations that should be pointed out with

respect to the generic skills. First, generic skills should not be

viewed as traditional knowledges, skills and abilities. Rather, they

are more similar to the meta-process held to underlie problem-solving,

reasoning and general intelligence (Sternberg, 1981; Resnick & Glaser,

1977). Second, the list of generic skills was derived from a comprehensive review and evaluation of the relevant literature. The recent

emergence of this literature, and the approach taken in the present

effort, suggests that this list should not be viewed as exhaustive.

Third, training, which effects these generic skills, has been shown to

lead to enhanced performance on problem-solving tasks (Campione & Brown,

1977, 1979; Polson & Jeffries, 1982). Finally, while these generic

skills are general enough to be involved in all problem-solving attempts, the pattern of skill usage may vary across roles and positions.

A schematic overview of the generic skills identified in the review

may be found in Figure 1. Twelve generic skills were identified in the

literature, seven of which represent control processes and five of which

represent production processes.

1.P.

II

bb

13
* ~- a . - a - - as S-.-V ;70...;Z Vll1. monitoring and Assessment of Goal Relevant Cues0

5, 2. valuation of Discrepency h.,-.tanc

4. Deiiino rbe

F5. Uvaluattnt rb of tmSlat it

Unsolvable Solvable

Stop

6. Selection of Solution Components and Information Representation

7. Inforrmation Encoding

B. Combination and Comparison

9. Generation of Alternative Solutions

10. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions 4 -

Inadequate Solution Adequate Solutior

12. Monitoring Implementation and Solution Outcome

Figure 1. Generic skills.

14

N-1i N
IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATIONS

Because generic skills represent general processes employing many

KSAOs relevant to the problem situation at hand, there will not be a

fixed relationship between any given subset of KSAOs and particular

generic skills. The nature of these relationships is likely to shift

with problem content, since an individual's definition of the problem

and the available information will tend to structure the selection of

KSAOs. Because an individual's background and life history will exert a

significant influence on the operation of any process, it is quite

possible that different individuals will utilize or rely on different

KSAOs when employing a generic skill in a common problem situation.

Different individuals may use different KSAOs in a common generic skill

framework to arrive at equally acceptable but qualitatively different

problem solutions. One factor especially likely to contribute to these

differences among individuals is their pattern of strengths and weaknesses in the KSAOs. Regardless of the specific origin of these complexities, it is clear that there will be no simple one-to-one relationship between the KSAOs and the generic skills.

The relationship between leadership activities and the KSAOs and

generic skills is more straightforward. The generic skills will influence the effectiveness of all discretionary activities, regardless of

the particular problem-solving demands made by the leadership positions. However, it is possible that the amount of time an individual

employs a generic process and the importance of effective application of

this process to effective leadership activity, will vary with respect to

position and to the particular nature of the problem-solving demands.

For instance, the development of alternative solutions may be more

important for staff officers, whereas the evaluation of alternative

solutions may be more important for line officers. While the generic

skills will be relevant to all incidents of effective discretionary

activity, it is possible that the profile of skill utilization may vary.

In the areas of leadership identification, these taxonomies might

have substantial value as a guide to selection and placement efforts.

Initially, the extent to which an individual can employ the generic

15
V-VVV . V V W WU - U

problem-solving skills might be assessed through standard tests of

reasoning ability (Mumford, 1985). The individual's performance on

these indices might then be used for selection. Alternatively, the

KSAOs likely to be related to effectiveness in a given position could be

defined and standardized measures of these characteristics might be

developed. Those KSAOs which could not be trained might be defined.

Individuals' status on these KSAOs might then also be employed as a

basis for selection.

While these selection strategies are likely to have substantial

value, they have their own strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the

generic skill of general intelligence is most likely to be useful when

individuals are being selected for a long-term career involving a number

of assignments. When individuals are being selected for a specific

position, the KSAO strategy would seem more appropriate. Of course,

individuals must be capable of performing effectively in their first

leadership position as well as any other positions they might enter

during a later phase of their career. An optimal selection strategy

would entail selecting individuals on the basis of KSAOs and generic

skills. A similar strategy may be used to identify high potential

leaders when the KSAOs and generic skill requirements of the higher

level positions targeted for developmental efforts have been defined.

A second area in which taxonomies might be employed is in the

differential placement of leadership personnel. For instance, various

technical specialties might be clustered, and the KSAOs required for

effective leadership in each of these specialties might be delineated.

Subsequently, the status of individuals on these KSAOs would be assessed

and the individuals would be assigned to that specialty among the best

available alternatives. Alternatively, the KSAOs might be determined

for each specific leadership position. This information would then be k

used to place individuals by assigning the individual to that specialty

that provides the best match with the KSAO demands made by her/his most 16

recent successful assignment.

The KSAO and generic skill taxonomies are also likely to have

substantial value in leadership development efforts. The generic skills

provide a set of constructs likely to be relevant to performance on

16

-- .. .... . .. , .. .;.. ..; .."-.. ..-..-....-... . .. .. .....- .. ... .. - . ... .- ,. -_ ... .. ._, ..- -. . .. ..... ..- , 
j1~~~.V~~I M2.! X ' . ~ ~ .. ~v.f WW 7~ .~ RPV .r. W *. P W C I -. -. V WV % I-VI

nearly all leadership positions and thus to serve as a global framework

for guiding all leadership development efforts. This might be accomplished by constructing realistic training experiences, and then systematically providing trainees with feedback on their application of the

generic skills. Alternatively, training efforts could be designed in

such a way that they would provide the background required to effectively employ the generic skills.

These generic skill training strategies could be supplemented by

use of the KSAO taxonomy. For example, a knowledge of the KSAOs required for effective leadership in a riven position should provide

trainers with a general set of guidelines for focusing their efforts on

the development of specific knowledges and skills. If a variety of

positions spanning a number of levels of the organizational leadership

were examined, this information could be used to develop a sequential

and progressive leadership development program that would maximize the

efficiency of training efforts.

7.

17
I

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York:

Free Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational

Review, 31, 21-32.

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1977). Memory and meta-memory development in educable retarded children. In R. V. Kail, Jr. & J. W.

Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1979). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded persons. In

R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Human intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labor in society. Translated by

G. Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory.

In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Behavioral decision

theory. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Fiedler, F. (1972). Predicting the effects of leadership training and

experience from the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 14-119.

Fleishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance.

American Psychologist, 81, 1121-1149.

Fleishman, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1985). The ability requirements

approach: Determining the cognitive psychomotor and physical requirements of jobs. In G. Gael (Ed.). Handbook of job analysis.

Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. New York: Academic

Press.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1968). Path goal theory of leadership.

Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological

analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: Free

Press.

Jaques, E. (1977). A general theory of bureaucracy. London, England:

Heineman.

Katz, D., & Kahn, K. L. (1977). The social psychology of organizations.

New York: Wiley.

18
:

T . . . .b 1 ._T .T , _W0 , Z .. 1i 

Korotkin, A. L., Mumford, M. D., Yarkin-Levin, K., Wallis, R. M., &

Fleishman, E. A. (1985). Taxonomic efforts in the description of

leadership behavior: A general approach. Bethesda, MD: Advanced

Research Resources Organization. %

Mumford, M. D. (1985). Leadership in the organizational context:

A conceptual approach and its applications. Bethesda, MD:

Advanced Research Resources Organization.

Paris, S. W. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 16, 278-291.

Polson, P., & Jeffries, R. (1982). Problem solving as search and understanding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of

human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Raia, A. P. (1966). A study of the educational value of management

games. Journal of Business, 39, 329-352.

Resnick, L. B., & Glaser, R. (1977). Problem solving and intelligence.

In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Riegel, J. W. (1952). Executive development: A survey of the experience in fifty American corporations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press.

Scandura, J. M. (1977). Problem solving. New York: Academic Press.

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.

Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Toward a unified componential theory of human

intelligence. In M. Friedman, J. Das, & N. O'Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and Learning. New York: Plenum.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership:

A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Vroom, V. H. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally.

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. Bethesda, mD:

Advanced Research Resources Organization.

Yukl, G. A. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414-440.

19
S 

 7 F.;. , V N1 -. - - 7

Appendix A

Definitions of Knowledges, Skills, Abilities, and

Other Characteristics for Both Officers and NCOs

Knowl edges

1. Military Tactics: Has knowledge of operational procedures in

combat (e.g., attack,defend, delay, feint) and

how they are to be carried out in a combat

situation.

2. Military Strategy: Has knowledge of long range planning and

extensive operations in order to achieve

objectives of national policy.

3. Short Range Plan Has knowledge of short range planning for use of

and Planning unit for combat, non-combat and emergency

Procedure: operations.

4. Weapons Systems: Has knowledge of the nature, maintenance and

potential uses of available armaments and the

defense of units against such armaments.

5. Survival Has knowledge of land navigation and of

Techniques: requirements and strategies for survival in

various physical environments.

6. Military Has knowledge of the enemy and relevant

Intelligence: geographic areas as well as the implications on

training, tactics, logistics, etc.

7. Information Has knowledge of how, when and to whom

Channels: information should be communicated and the

appropriate channels for this communication.

8. Other Units: Has knowledge of other units within the

organization; particularly their , responsibilities, current activities,

capabilities, limitations and procedures for

obtaining support.

9. Logistics: Has knowledge of logistic needs and the

appropriate procedures for fulfilling these

needs in an economical fashion.

10. Unit Goals: Has knowledge of unit goals/missions, their

priorities and how they relate to the mission

and goals of the Army.

11. Military Justice: Has knowledge of the U.C.M.J. and its

application in particular situations.

12. Standing Has knowledge of the routine operations which

Operating must be accomplished as well as the rules or

Procedures: procedures specifying how, when, and where they

are to be accomplished or modified.

A-i '
13. Informal Has knowledge of the alternative, informal ways

Networks: of accomplishing tasks within the organization.

14. Resources: Has knowledge of the techniques for managing

resources (e.g., personnel, facilities,

equipment, time and money) and how resources

should be obtained in and retained allocated to

meet unit goals.

15. Instruction: Has knowledge of what must be trained and how,

when, where, and by whom training should be

given.

16. Evaluation: Has knowledge of the appropriate procedures for

appraising individuals (e.g., their capabilities

and limitations) and programs.

17. Individual Has knowledge of the methods for eliciting

Guidance: needs and problems facing subordinates and t.

actions which may be taken in order to improve

subordinates' military performance.

18. Morale: Has knowledge of the general motivational level

and organizational commitment of individuals and

the steps which may be taken to improve them.

19. Personal Has knowledge of the importance of personal Capabilities: strengths and weaknesses and requirements and

standards for technical compatible and further

professional development.

20. Military Life: Has knowledge of military history, organization,

traditions, protocol, deportment, rights

privileges, benefits, constraints, and

obligations.

21. Military Has knowledge of how individuals are likely

Behavior: to behave in various military and social

situations.

22. Science and Has knowledge of the basic principles of

Engineering: science and engineering.

23. Political and Has knowledge of major trends and current issues

International in political, cultural and world affairs and

Affairs: their implications for the military.

24. Professional Has knowledge and understanding of the highest

Ethics: standards of fundamental values of the U.S. Army

Officer.

A-2

-. .
I',

Cognitive Abilities

1. Oral Understand the meaning of spoken

Comprehension: words and the ideas associated with them.

2. Oral

Communication: Communicate ideas with spoken words.

3. Written Understand written words and

Comprehension: sentences.

4. Written Communicate with written words and

Communication: sentences.

5. Originality: Produce creative and effective responses related

to a given topic or situation.

6. Inductive Use separate pieces of informaReasoning: tion to form general rules or principles.

7. Deductive Apply general rules to specific

Reasoning: problems to come up with logical conclusions.

8. Decision Select and evaluate possible

Making: options which lead to the solution of a

problem. This includes selection of the best

approach to use in reaching the decision.

9. Information Assess information in order to determine

Evaluation: whether the value of additional information

is likely to be greater than the cost or

effort of obtaining it.

10. Alertness: Maintain mental awareness and physical endurance

over extended periods of time.

11. Concentration: Perform a task in the presence of distractions

or under monotonous conditions without

significant loss in efficiency.

12. Attention to Give careful attention to various aspects

Detail: of the work; are sure that nothing is overlooked.

13. Multiple Shift back and forth between two or

Attention: more sources of information.

14. Problem Recognize difficulties before or

Sensitivity: early in their development.

A-3
15. Memory: Learn and store relevant information and

selectively recall and use that which is

relevant to a specific context.

16. Mechanical Determine the functional interrelationship of

Comprehension: parts within a mechanical system.

17. Monitoring: Maintain an awareness of relevant indicators

over a period of time, especially where they

occur infrequently or against a continually

changing background.

del

,-4

. . -4 .

.'.,, '',,',"---",'?,L ' _ -. , . --. * .-...- . . . .. . . . . .. -.. . . .-. . . .-
* Physical Abilities

18. Physical Abilities including strength, endurance and

Capabilities: coordination, as well as adequate sensory

capacity.

A-5
Other Characteristics

19. Judgment: Analyze people and events or think things over

rather than to act in a spontaneous fashion.

20. Conformance to Function in structured situations, taking

Organizational orders from superiors, giving orders, and

Requirements: closely controlling subordinate activities.

21. Self Confidence: Believe in own abilities, personal competence or

expertise, and do not fear failure.

22. Courageous: Willing to take personal risks to achieve

objectives, does not avoid unknown or

stressful situations, and is willing to take

necessary but unpleasant actions in various

situations.

23. Initiative: Have strong motivation for accomplishing

challenging tasks, trying to do personal best,

and trying to achieve results.

24. Considerateness: Interested in the welfare of others, trying to

put others at ease, being polite, displaying

warmth and respecting others.

25. Competitiveness: Try to win, to enjoy competition and challenge.

26. Integrity: Keep promises, to carry out responsibilitties,

to follow plans, and to be careful and

conscientious.

27. Adaptability: Adjust to new situations, long separations from

home and family and other valued interpersonal

situations, being resourceful in solving

problems, anticipating difficulties, enjoying

new people, things, and activities, and

operating in changing, frustrating, stressful,

or dangerous situations.

28. Persistence: Continue working on difficult tasks in spite of

obstacles, when tired or bored, and not become

discouraged.

29. Enthusiasm: Inspire others to work willingly.

30. Work Actions: Willingness to work towards group goals either

alone or with others and expend substantial

effort to meet these goals.

31. Public Speak well before audience.

Speaking:

A-6

LT, . .,., .: .. v ... ..-.- v v.-, --. ." -. v .. . .-.- ...-. .. ......... *..-*. .--...... i .. ' . .. " "• " -"- " - .. . ..- ,, '- .'. . . ; _ ?. ' - - . . - - . , , . . - ',. 'j .- ',
32. Social Poised and self-assured in social situations and

Presence: engage in socially appropriate behavior.

33. Tact: Sensitive to the behavior, attitudes, and

opinions of others.

34. Persuasion: Influence others with respect to some action or

point of view.

35. Establishing Interact in a way which creates openness, trust,

Rapport: and confidence among persons involved.

36. Negotiation: Deal with others in order to reach an agreement

or solution.

A

A- 7q

'-I