ARI Research Note 86-75

NMEANING AND FUNCTION OF MILITARY EXPERIENCE

0 Fred E. Fiedler

Va's University of Washington

r*%

YE

for

Contracting Officer's Representative

George H. Lawrence DTIC

ELECTE

A U G00 7 M O

BASIC RESEARCH LABORATORY - Milton R. Katz, Director

U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1986

Approved for public release; distrbution unlimited.

86 8 6 018 - ,. #p . . - . = '*' ~ Wi( . 2

-. -~ ~. -. ~ q ~ % %~~=*i°
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 Commanding

Peer Review by:

Steve Kronheim

This repon, as submitted by the contractor. has been cleared fer release to Defense Technical Information Center

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

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

Service (NTIS). The vicws. .piniens. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and

should not be construej s an officiv; Coepattment of the Army position. policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

ASAMNAIAJ169k. Or ~ F

* '17
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whenv Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2VT ACCESSION NO. . RECIPiENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 86-75 Ai -A lool- 4. TITLE (and Subttle)S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Meaning and Function of Military Experience Final Report

March 83-May 85 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUT4OR(a) •. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

Fred E. Fiedler M DA 903-83-M-3668

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGR,#M ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA& M ORK UNIT NUMBERS Organizational Research Group, Department of 2161102B74F

Psychology, NI-25, University of Washington,

Seattle WA 98195 I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

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

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria VA 22333-5600 11 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESSQIt different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of t i report)

Unclassified ISa. DECL ASSI FICATION/'DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebetract entered In Block 20. It different from Report)

IW. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

George H. Lawrence, contracting officer's representative

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree side It neceeeary and Identify by block number)

Cognitive Resources

Leadership

Intelligence

Experience

2A. AfTRACT (Ctinueo - evW8 St- Nt noer md Idenitifr by block nmber)

A recently-proposed cognitive resource" theory of leadership effectiveness

explains the role of cognitive resources such as intellectual abilities,

technical competence, and job-relevant knowledge (experience) in determining

group performance. This research note examines one aspect of the theory: the

conditions under which the leader's intellectual abilities and experience

contribute to performance on the part of the group.

Empirical evidence suggests that leaders' intellectual abilities contribute to

(over)

D . An 1 EmTOoF, ,VSSSOOETI UNCLASSIFIED

I SECUmIT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whn Date Entered)

* .- *~ ~ ... .. * **' '~'! .. ~ * ... "*? " N-
UNCLASSIFIED

SIECURIrY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whn Dat. Entored)

ARI Research Note 86-75

20. ABSTRACT

performance when leaders play a directive role in relatively stress-free

conditions. and when their abilities match the requirements of the task.

Under stress, however, leaders fall back on previously-learned skills and

behaviors i.e. on experience gained in the course of time in the organization.

Accesioi -For

NTIS CRAWI

DTIC TAB

Unannounced L

Justification

B y ............ .. Dist; ibution I

Availabiiity Codes

Dit Avail arid/or

Dist Spc-cial

UNCLASSIFIED

11SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T,4gS WAGEIRhoi Data EnterOE)
FINAL REPORT, MAY 10, 1985

Contract #: MDA 903 83-M-3668

Principal Investigator:

Fred E. Fiedler

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

MEANING AND FUNCTION OF MILITARY EXPERIENCE

Aims of the Project

The major aim of this project is the development of a new leadership

theory which fills some major gaps in our current understanding of leadership.

"Cognitive Resource Theory" postulates the conditions under which the

intellectual abilities, technical competence, skills, and job-relevant

knowledge of leaders and group members contribute to organizational performance.

The theory proposes an integrated model of how leadership performance is

affected by the several elements of the leadership process. These elements

are such cognitive abilities as intelligence, task-relevant skills and

knowledge, leader personality and behavior as well as the leadership situation.

The work promises to have major practical as well as theoretical implications.

Most important among the former is that a better understanding of the conditions

under which intellectual abilities and other cognitive resources are utilized

will enable us to make more efficient and cost-effective use of available

manpower. The implications for theory are that this is the first systematic

attempt to introduce intellectual abilities and other cognitive variables into

a theory of leadership which is related to an existing and well established

theory, the contingency model.
Background

We recruit and select leaders and group members at great expense, and

we devote an even greater portion of our resources to training and personnel

development. It is obvious that the abilities for which we select, and the

skills we develop, are often poorly utilized. The project has produced

further evidence extending our understanding of the leadership process in

organizations.

The work has progressed at a relatively rapid pace, given the available

resources. One laboratory experiment nears completion. We have completed

a pilot study for another experiment which is to be conducted this fall,

and extensive analyses have been undertaken on previously conducted research.

This report summarizes the more important findings and briefly describes

work in progress. The hypotheses of cognitive resource theory are here

briefly presented.

Predictions of the Theory

Cognitive resource theory advances seven major hypotheses:

(a) intellectual abilities determine the quality of the leader's

plans, decisions and strategies.

(b) directive leader behavior is required for communicating the

leader's plans, decisions and action strategies to the group;

(c) a supportive group will implement these plans, decisions and

strategies;

(d) the group will be effective to the extent to which the leader

and group members possess the particular abilities the task

requires.

2
(e) the leader's directive behavior is in part determined by the

interaction of the leader's task or relationship-motivation

(LPC) and situational control, i.e., the contingency model.

(f) If the leaders is not directive, the abilities of supportive

group members contribute to performance.

The theory further postulates that

(g) stress, especially with the boss, distracts the leader and

focuses the leader's intellectual abilities on problems (e.g.,

anxieties about his or her adequacy) not relevant to the task.

Under these conditions, a directive leader's intellectual

abilities will correlate negatively with task performance, while

the leader's job-relevant and overlearned knowledge ("experience')

correlates positively with performance.

Major Activities

Study 1.

An ongoing laboratory experiment tested 40 3-person and 4-person

teams. They were to assume that their hypothetical aircraft made an

emergency landing in the middle of a desert. The survivors find various

items in the plane and they are required to rank these 10 items that are

most likely to assure their survival. The leader was privately instructed

to play a directive or nondirective role, and either given or not given

technical information of the value of the 10 listed articles.

This experiment is the dissertation project of CPT Dewey Blyth, now

at West Point, and a master's thesis project of Susan Murphy, and is being

written up at this time.

Study 2. Leaders who are more intellectually able make better plans

and action strategies under conditions of low stress.

3
A preliminary test based on data from a previous study by Mai-Dalton,

enabled us to determine whether relatively more intelligence leaders make

more task-relevant responses. The study asked participants to role-play

their part under supposedly stressful or less stressful conditions. This

study provided weak but significant results in the expected direction.

We are now planning a laboratory experiment, using an In-Basket test,

to explore this problem with stronger stress manipulations and more sophisticated measures of mental abilities and social skills. We hope to use ROTC

cadets as subjects this coming fall.

Study 3. Prediction of leader behavior.

One of the hypotheses advanced by cognitive resource theory states that

the leader's directive behavior is predicted by the interaction of the leader's

LPC score and situational control. Data from five different studies have

been analyzed to test this prediction. The studies were of (a) 48 army

messhalls, (b) 105 army squad leaders, (c) 40 public health volunteer teams,

(d) 40 4-man ROTC teams which had to decipher as many coded messages

(cryptograms) as possible in a 30-minute period, and (e) 54 3-man teams of

ROTC cadets engaged in two creative tasks (developing a new basis for

paying ROTC cadets, and inventing a fable to illustrate the need for a

standing peace-time army).

We found that task structure played a major role in determining the

magnitude and direction of the correlation between LPC and the leader's

directive behavior. The analysis involved the following steps.

1. The structure of the group task was rated in each of the studies

by five independent raters.

2. Four sub-groups of leaders were created in each of the studies by

dividing both intelligence scores and situational scores at the median. The

4

- 4 '.I~~% % ~ **~* * a. *~ 4 *
four-celled design is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1

The four cell experimental design of Study 3

INTELLIGENCE

High Low

High

SITUATIONAL

CONTROL Low

When the studies were arrayed on the basis of their task structure,

we found that the correlation coefficients between leader LPC and directive

behavior decreased monotonically from most structured to least structured

* group tasks (messhall, squad leaders, cryptogram, public health teams,

ROTC creativity tasks.) The resulting curve is shown on Figure 2. This

figure shows the magnitude of the correlations between leader's LPC score

and the leader's directive behavior on the vertical axis, and the type of

group on the horizontal axis.

The LPC score of leaders predicted the behavior of the relatively

more intelligent leaders in each sample, but did not predict directive behavior

of relatively less intelligent leaders. Further analyses are underway.

Figure 2

5
FIGURE 2

____ SS HALL

- -. SOAD BOSS STRESS

SQUAD JOB STRESS

now- PUBLIC HEALTH

.20

6W°O

. ... .

STRESS LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

FIGURE 2. Correlations (in z-transfonms) between leader intelligence scores i,

and performance of leaders or groups led by relatively directive and less

directive leaders in relatively stress-free and stressful environments,.i

N. 1
Study 4. Conditions under which leader and member abilities appear

incompatible in contributing to performance.

The previous quarterly report showed that the intellectual abilities of

leaders contributed to group performance only when the leader was directive

and had high situational control. Leader abilities of nondirective leaders

did not contribute to performance, nor did the abilities of leaders who

lacked group support or situational control.

Thus, leader intelligence contributed to performance in only one fourth

of the groups. A similar analysis considered the conditions under which the

abilities of group members contribute to performance. Our findings thus far

indicate that the group members' intellectual abilities contributed only when

the leader is (a) nondirective and (b) has high situational control (e.g., a

supportive group). These effects were relatively weak. The average correlations between performance and the leader's and the group members' intelligence

within the four conditions (refer to Figure 1) are shown on Table 1. Note that

this table summarizes the results of four different studies.

Table 1

Correlations averaged over four studies between performance and the leader's

and the group members' intelligence in groups with directive or nondirective

leaders, and high or low group support.

Directive Leader Nondirective Leader

Group Support Group Support

High Low High Low

Leader IQ x Performance .58 .16 -.34 .02

Member IQ x Performance -.04 -.21 .38 .07

6
. . , 

,. . 

I 

.

In other words, the leader's abilities contributed only when the leader

was directive and had high group support; the group member abilities also

contributed in only one of the four conditions: when the leader was nondirective and group support was high, (e.g., high control). Members'

abilities were effectively utilized only in groups with nondirective leaders

and high member support (also high situational control).

Discussion

This research program makes possible the development of new approaches

for supplementing and increasing the power of present selection and training

efforts. It is now highly likely that we shall be able to develop methods

for increasing the performance of already available personnel by teaching

them how to design their jobs and their immediate work environment so that

they can make full use of their abilities, competence, and experience. Methods

for teaching leaders how to modify their jobs and leadership environment have

been successful in improving leadership performance.

Most current theories largely ignore the leader's or the group members'

abilities and job-relevant knowledge in their formulation of the group process,

even though leader abilities and job-related experience are probably the two

most important determinants of selection and promotion decisions. (An

exception is recent work on cognitive complexity by Streufert). Our own

studies also are now utilizing more sophisticated measures of intellectual

functions.

Current research is under way to elaborate the cognitive resource model,

and to incorporate such other cognitive variables as technical competence and

experience. We propose to conduct further experiments to make specific and

more definitive tests that permit causal interpretation.

7
TECHNICAL REPORTS

Fiedler, F. E. (1984). Cognitive Resource Utilization & Leadership

Performance; A Preliminary Model. Organizational Research Group

Technical Report No. 84-1. University of Washington, Seattle.

Fiedler, F. E. (1984). The Contribution of Cognitive Resources & Leader

Behavior to Organizational Performance. Organizational Research Group

Technical Report No. 84-4. University of Washington, Seattle.

Fiedler, F. E., & Bettin, P. J. (1984). The Effect of Leader Experience

on Organizational Performance: A Review. Organizational Research

Group Technical Report No. 84-5. University of Washington, Seattle.

COMPLETED THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

Bettin, P. J. (1983). The role of relevant experience and intellectual ability

in determining the performance of military leaders: a contingency

model interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Washington, Seattle.

Blythe, D. L. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Washington,

Seattle.

PUBLICATIONS

Fiedler, F. E. The contribution of cognitive resources and leader behavior

to organizational performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology

(in press).

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. New approaches to effective leadership:

cognitive resources and performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

(in press).

8