ED 163 295

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE'

NOTE

,JOURNAL CIT

"EDRS'ARICE

DESCRIPTORS

'DOCUMENT RESU!E

",p0 019.097

A" Bleda, Paul R.t And Others,

* Perceptionqof Leader Attributes and Satisfaction , "with Military Life. Personnel Accession and

Utilization Technical 'Area. Technical paper 307. . Boston. Area Academic Contortium, Inc,,, Mast.

Army Research Inst. for the Behavioral and

Sciences, Arlington, Va.

Aug 78

26p.

Journal 'of Applied Diyhology; y62 p43-49 1977

MF-4.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.

Armed Forces; *Enlisted Personnel; FaCtor.Analyeie;

Interviews; *Job Satisfact?bn; *Leadership. Qualities;

Leadership Styles; Militar Service; Predictor

Variables; Quality of Life; Questionnqires1 *Role.

Perception; *Supervisors

,IDENTIFIERS Army; United States

1 ABSTRACT

This study assessed the relative degree of

association between guality'of army life and perceived attributes of . different types of leaders. Interviews with one hundred thirty lower

ranking enlisted perSonnel provided informttion about soldiers'

satisfaction with various facets of military experience and their'

perceptions of the behavior, of superiors whom they viewed as either

formulating (originators) or merely relaying (givers) daily orders.

Regression analyses indicated that satisfaction with both the quality

of away life in general and leadership in particular were related

more closely to perceived attributes of the originator rather than to

such attributes of the.giver. This finding is attributed to the

originator's greater hierarchical influence within the army

structure. (Author)

***********************************************************************

,* Reproductions supplied by EDRS Are the best that can be matAe

from the original document.

****************************************.*******************************

>-
. I

I' ,. in Technical Paper 307 . , ci%

ANJ tr\

PERCEPTIONS OF LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND

cn

La. -.SATISFACTION WtTH MILITARY LIFE , .

t\

. .

s

,1 Paul R. Bifida

Army Research institute . VI

and

George A. Gitter and Ralph B. IYAgostino

- Boston University

. . ,

''

It

U S oEprov.AE raw HE ALTri

EDUCATION A WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION.

TmiS 00(umENT NAS BEEN REPRO- OuCEO ExACTty as,aetE,veD c QOM

THE PERSON OR ORGAN,LA t ION ORIGINATINO IT POINTSOF vlEvi OR 00.410NO

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY RERRE.

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION POSNT40/4 OR POLICY '

. PERSONNEL ACCESSION . AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

SubmIttEd Si complete and

technicellx accurate, by: , Ralph R. Canter

Technical Area Chief

Approved Eit

E. Ralph Dusek, Director

INDIVIDUALTRAIN1NG AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCtl LABORATORY

14

. '

JoBsph Zeldner

TECHNICAL DIRECT0i4IDESIGNATE)

iJ.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Mt:nue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

a

, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff foi Personnel

Department of the Army

.. . . , , August 1978 .

. Army Priojedt Number : Basic Research in

20161104E174E . .. Behavioral Science -

. ..

. Apocovid for public Ouse; distribution unlimited

.A....,

,

.

. N, i.' . 2

....:: . i

4,
1

1

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

4

).

JOSEPH'ZEI DN E

Techitical-Director (Designate)

3

WILLIAM J... HAUS Eift

Colonel, US Army

Commander

Research accomplished under contract.

to the Depirtminit of the Army

Boston Area Academic Consortitp

- ' : 1

00.

"

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution of this rgport has been made by ARS Pim* address correspondence

concerning chstribution 0 reports to U' S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and S9erSi Sciences.

ATTN 'PE-R1 500f Eisenhoinor Avenue, Alexandria. VIrgeoa 22333

. . . . FINAL OlgPOSiTION This report may be destroyed when It i(no longer needed Neese do not returnnit to

the U S Army Research Institute for the Behevrorel end Social Sciences *

. %al The findings in this report In not to be oconstrved es an official Department 0 tha'Arrnyaotrtion,

unless so designated by sitter etathorited documents

t

ti 3
1

..-:,

, . 1 ....

: . I

. ( ,

1

,., ,

! . t.

e

1

i . ... i ...

:

f

0 4 . , 1~

. 1

.4.1 i . AllyfRase*ch Reports and Technical Paper arc .idtended for isparrsors13f

; R8Ottaskfi and other ritearch and military)agendiels. Any findi ready for . immentition at te time df pubricition ar presOnted in the I tter par of

.:th,13rief; Upon completion of a major phase:of the task, forma recommenr.datipnkfor official action normally are -conveyed tb appropriate militry

- igencjasibY° biiefing or Disposition Foim.

1 4 1

it

s

.

0 ;

4 l

.

1

. . .

,.

4.

.

. -I ,

4

1, . . :, r o

4

t. 1(

4

.

. s

0 i

I

: .

..

'

x

.,

r

I

,
f'

SEcu ITV CLASSIFICATION OF TiciS PAGE (When Date Entered)

Unclassified

0 _ REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE . , o

REAB INSTRUCTIONS

, BEFORE COMPLETING FOR

I REPORT NUMBER , . Technical Paper 307 : '

I GOVT ACCESSION NO. .,

3 RECO:4E10'S CATALOG HUNGER

t . 4 TITLE rand Subettte) .

-

,

. . PERCEPTIONS OF LEADER ATTRYBUTES AND .

SATISFACTION WITH MILITARY LIFE *

S. TFIE o_F keART Pr_TRw.o COVE aza1.,, __

.

4 PERFORMTG1.91r REPORT NUMBER .

. -- t . -,..

7 AuTNOR(e/ . k Paul R. Bleda

, George A. Gitter . .

.

. Ralph B. D'Agostino .

S. Eops*ros 518 *limo' Howse pro ,

..

. . . ".

. .

. J ',..,

.

. ":'"

_

't PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME Awe ADDRESS

Botton Area Academic Consortium, Inc.'

Boston, Mass. -

,/

.

10 PROqP MA ELEMENT PRonot ';AEK AREKB INORK.UMT NUMBERS ' , - ..%

,

. 2Q161102, 874E

. ;,, 11 coNTRoLLING oF sloe HAMS ANO OKIORESS

Army Research Institute . 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, Va. 22333 -

12 REPORT DATE . August 1978 ...

13 NuRGER OF PAGES

. ,16 . :

. $4 mONITOVO AGENCY NAME & ADDRESStrf different hew Controlling Offreei -- . r

IS VECuRiTy CLASS Waite repo td

. Unclassified , .*: .- 14 OECLAssirtcpTiop/oov GRADING

SCHEDULE cOE --*/ -, -

IS Etistmt au VON STATEMENT fel We Repent) ...

. ' .:- . Approved for putaic release: distribution unlimited. ~ .-

, 4'

. ..

%. ._ ... * 17 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Me abstract *titled in litiock10, It dttferAt heat Report) -

. .

.., ... i.). ' Z ,

.

. . ,.

. . . , . S V N. r

IV SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES . .

,._ e ..t.

Published in JourgaZ of Applied Psychology, 197/, Vol. 62, No. 1, . - 43-4?.' , . 0,

..4 e '.

.

, ' t 4..

IS KEY woROg (Confine,e on reverse aid* 11.eaeoseAty tettl'ident1t, Pr Steeknn$7,40

. , Qualitir of'Army Life .

. Leadership

. Enlisted Man AY Types of Leaders i . Regression Analysis -.

. Factor Analysis . .

'

. ".-

. - 20 ABSTRACT (Continue an revere* Md. it neceeeary end identify b,,btodkrtuntettrj

, .

t

This seudy.assessed. the relative :degree of association .between,

quality of Army life and perceived aitributes a:tf aifferent types of

leaders. Interviews With lower ranking enliste4 personnel (N = 130)

provided information about soldiers' 'satisfaction with various facets

of military experience and their perceptions of,the behavior of

superiors who thdy viewedOs either armulating (originators) or , merely relaying (Rivers) daily orders. Regression agalyses indicated

DD J titt 7 3 1473 EDITIote or 1 Nov eS is dem-Esc

//

Unclassified t SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When' Dees Entered)

5

___6-

AO

1,
sect; wry CI.ASSIOZCASION OliTmt$IPA01471444, Doti itoteted) dr. 10. A

8 . '44 gnat satisfaction with boith,the quality of 'Army life in general and

leadexthip:in particular were related, more closely to perceived attributes of Ole originatOf rather than to such attributes of the giver.

,T4is.tiriding is attribueed to the originator's greater hierarchical

iiffluecive within &Army structure.

;*'.

J

.

41:

6

S6CoRITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS FAGCOMAA IMO IlAtionotO

Unclassified
4

FOREWORD'

. The Personnel Accessionapd Utilisation Technical Area of the U:S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ART)

has among its objectives the improvement of military competence through

enhancement of morale and reduction of disciplinary failure. Previous

efforts had been designed to provide, overall methodology for a wide- . ranging piogram of systematic research as well as specific information

on dimensions underlying the idea of discipline in the Army, indicators

of the quality of life of enlisted personnel. The efforts were also designed to provide attitudinal and behavioral date on the_socialization

and adjustment of soldiers to Army life.

This report is concerned with the development of a data base that

reflects the social and psych6logical factors underlying the quality of

life in the Army, and that provides, specifically, a set of attitudinal

indicators that express how a broad Sample of first-term enlisted per-'

sonnel evaluate the quality of their Army lives. Several of these indicators appear to be predictive of reenlistment intentions.

The res4arCh, was conducted under Army Project 2Q161102B74E, Basic

Research in Social Sciences, FY 1974 Work Program as an in-house effort

augmented by contracts with organizations having unique capabilities' in

the area. Personnel of the Boston Area Academic Consortium, Inc., and

the Army Research Institute jointly conducted the present research.

, N PH. ZEIDNO

A nical Director (Designate)

-
PERCEPTIONS OF LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND SATISFACTION WITMMILITARY LIFE

BRIEF

Requirements:

. To discover what characteristics of Army leaders axe related most

closely to sVisfaction of first-term enlisted personnel with the

military 1if4rin, order to learn possible wan to improve the quality

of Army life. Thereby more readily to attract and retain personnel for

the present volunteer Army. To find out'wjether any aspects of the

quality of Army life are predictive of reenlistment.

Procedure:

A descriptive set of aspects significant to the quality of Army

life was first developed through analysis of 76 unstructured in-depth

interviews with first- term-enlisted personnel. The resulting .16 attitudinal indicatorsf6rmed the basis for a self-administered questionnaire, in which respondents could mark a 0-100 scale ("satisfaction

thermometer") for each of the 16 items, plus a summary item, to indicate

their relative satisfaction with each One. Three pretests with 50 soldieis checked t4at the questions were clear and that,all major problems,

were addressed.

To study the influence of leider attributes, interviews conducted

with 130 lower ranking '(El -E4) soldiers provided. information pertaining

to their perceptions of the attributes of superiors, who the soldiers

perceived as either formulating (originatorS)or merely relaying (givers)

their daily orders.

Findings:

t . .A global measure of satisfaction with Army life was used as the

. primary dependent easure. It correlated, highly with a global index

that included a n er of specific quality of Army life dimensions.

_ ' ' AlOng all of e quality'of military life dimensions, "givers"

received higher ra ings than :'originators." However, the correlations

between quality of Army life responses and ratings of leader attributes

were higher for origimators than for givers. These findings indicate

that slforts to heighten morale and satisfactioh with military life

;4ould be" direCted more fruitfully toward modifying the behaviors of

originators than of'givers.

-7-

I
Utilization of Findings:

The satisfaction ratings assigned to the 16 aspects of Army life_

by enlisted personnel could be used in several ways. The ratings could

become a means for periodic monitoring of the quality of Army life as

perceived by the soldiers. A particular indicator could be used to

evaluate the effectiveness of a program designecrtá improve an aspect

of Army life. Responses to the indicators could be used as an early

warning system tolidentify potential trouble spots in morale and could

aid in setting priorities in personnel programs.

If an effort is to be exerted in the area of leadership training,

greater payoff wouldresult from improving the actions of the leader

who formulates the duties rather than the one who merely relays the duty

orders.

9
/21

.4

PERCEPTIONS,OF LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND SATISFACTION WITH MILITARY LIFE

CONTENTS

Page

4 INTRODUCTION 1

METHOD 2

Sample 2

Procedure 2

RESULTS 4

Quality of Army Life 4

Leadership 6

c Quality of Army Life and Leader Behavior

tor

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION . . 9

REFERENCES 13

DISTRIBUTION 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Intercorrelations among quality of Army life indexes. 5

2. Mean ratings of originator and giver attributes 7

3. Correlations between the global satisfaction

measure and leader attributes & 8

ft

.0
PERCEPTIONS OF LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND SATISFACTION

WITH MILITARY LIFE

INTRODUCTION

During the last two decades, much attention has been focuied on

the relations between certain leader behaviors and subordinate job

satisfaction (e.g., Fleishian, 1973). Included awing these supepisor

attributes is the extent to which supervisors possess technical competence, establish initiating structure, and are considerate of subordr7

nates. One situational condition which may moderate the relations

between such leader behaviors and subordinate satisfaction is the extent

to which the supervisor possesses hierarchical influence within the

organizational structure (House, Filley, & Gujarati, 1971). Peli (1952)

found that workers responded favorably to influential leaders Who

followed practices generally considered to reflect "good" supervisor

behavior, wher'eas noninfluential superviibrs who applied the same

techniques often failed to elicit favorable reactions from subordinates.

It has been argued that leaders who possess technical competence,

establish initiating structure, and show consideration to subordinates

tend to increase the expectations of subordinates regarding important

dimensions of the subordinates' job experience (Likert, 1961: Pelz,

1952). These dimensions may involve the quality of working conditions,

fringe benefits promotions, and the like. The fulfillment of such

potential outcomes is presumed to be contingent on the ability of

leaders to control resources necessary to achieve the, desired goals of

the work group. Such control is assumed to be derived not only from the

supervisor's influence with his immediate superior but also with the

supervisor' d ability to represent the work unit in the broader

organizatidhaltsystem (House et al., 1971), According to this logic,

persons of "marAnal"'organizational status are especialiysensitive.

togtheir leader's hard influence due to tl4e greater dependence of

"marginal" status workers on others to achieve work goals.

It is conceptually relevantto test the relation between leader

behavior and worker satisfaction in a military context in view of the

hierirchical readership structure.9f the Army and the holistic nature

of the soldier's work role. A pilot study revealed that enlisted

personnel distinguished betweed leaders according to the soldiers' .

perceptions of the leaders' responsibility for formulating everyday

duties. In particular, some superiors were seen as initiators

(originators) while others were perceived as relayers (givers) Of

daily duty orders. Since the originAtors held higher positions of

authority than the givers, this dichotomy corresponds to two classes of IP

superiors who differ according to their hierarchical influence within

the Army structure:

1

11 .
AC

On the basis of previous work, satisfaction 4rth the quAity of . Army life we predicted to be related to the behavior of both originators

and givers. However, the association between satisfaction and

originator behavior we expected to be relatively greater than the

corresponding relation for the giver. The,rationale fjpr the latter

hypothesis is that originators would be viewed as having more influence

than givers, due to the originators' greater responsibility'for determinorders and their higher positions of authority in the Army bommand.

As in previous work (Holz 6 Gitter, 1974), quality of Army life was

defined in terms of the, sum ot soldiery' positive and negative attitudes

regarding the various components of their daily military experienpes..

In a military.organization, quality of life encompasses reactions not

only to the work environment but ether facets, such as living quarters

and food.

METHOD

Sample

The total sample consisted of 130 first-term enlisted men from a

combat engineer battalion located in the United States. All respondents

received pay at one of the four lowest grades (i.e., El-E4) and held

'nonadministrative jobs. The mean age of.respondents was about 20 years

and average length of service was approximately. 18 months. Of the

sample, 80% had enlisted, 75% were single, and'80% were Caucasians. While

50% had at least a high school education, only. 15% had some college

'education when they entered the service. Also, respondents were equally

divided by the types of community from which they came (.i.e., about 25%

each from rural areas, small towns, suburbs, and large cities). All

soldier, participated individually in 60-minute interviews during which

they coimpleted a series of pencil-and-paper tests. . y procedure,. , Quality of Army Life /tens. During the initial part of the interview, subjects' en 17 quality of Army life items which had been

used in a vious stu y (Hblz & Gitter, 1974). The instrument "ncluded

16 itImor esigned to asse s specific dimensions of military servi

includ g organizational limate (e.g., rules and regulations), b

(e.g., food), and fringe enefits (e.g., post facilities) and a

globe. 'tem that tapped e overall satisfaction of enlisted personn

with A life. This glal measure asked, "All thing's considered, ow

satisf d are you with your life in the Army at your presefilt post?'

Respons= to each of the 17 items were made on a "satisfaction the om

eter" whi h ranged im value from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10

(completel satisfied), with 50 representinu..a neutral point.

.0*

4

1

2
40

Functional Differentiation of Leadership. After completing theme

quality of Armylife items, subjects were asked with the following

questidn to name the originator of their orders: "Who do: you thitik

really decides what your daily duties are, or in other words, who

actually determines most of the-time what your work is?" Subjects-also

were asked with the following question to identify their giver: Who

tells you what your work will be everyday--thit'is,.*ho actual4 gives

you your orders?" About 80% of the sample nominated different non-

.comthissionid or commissioned offi'cers as originators and givers, while

the rest indicated the same person as both originator and giver.

While the givers were mostly either squad leaders (52Wor platoon

rgeants (45%), the originators were platoon sergeants (33%), platoon

leaders (45%), or company commanders' (15%). The perceiveeErViEt of

both types of,leaders on'tatisfaction was assessed directly'by having

ete, subjects estimate what percentage of their perceptions of the

quality of Army life was influenced by'each type of leader.

4 . Leadership Behavior Scales. A set of 10 scales.was,administered

using first the originator and then the giver as the target perSOn.

'Bight of these scales were from Stodgill's (1963) Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire--Form XII; These scales werd used because

they represented the items that loaded highest and second highest on ,

four leidership factors found in previoui work (Vaughan, gri.ner, &

Reaser, 197,3), Desc40.ptions of these four factors and their two

highest loading items follow*:

,Task Professionalism factor. Pertains to the provision of

. structure in terMs of scheduling., task allocation, task achievetent, communication abibitt task requir'ements, competency, and a

positiVe approach.

'. 1. Leader establishes and maintains a high level of

discipline.

2. Leader is technicalompetent.to perfortvwn duties.

Task-Oriented Consideration factor. Pertains to structure

with respect to setting an example, reduction of ambig4iity

in the work situation, supporting subordinates, and pr viding

positive rewards. 4 4 4

1. Leader backs up subordinates in their actions.

2. Leader is. easy to understand,

-

3
Person-Oriented Consideration factor. Pertains to exhibiting

consideration for members of the group, being concerned for group

welfare and morale, and openhanded relations with group members:'

. * , '

1. Leader refuses to explain actions taken... 0

2. Leader treats people in an imperional manner, like cogs

in,a machine. '4

. . Personal /interpersonal Professionalism factor. Pertaint to

leader's behavior in terms of maintaining functional relationships- -

vertically and horizontally in the organization--and flexibility

in active fulfillment- of responsibilities as a leader.

1. Leader seekxesponsibflity and accepts responsibility

for actions taken.

2. Leador is willing to make ch anges in ways of doing

things.

The foregoing factors correspond closely to dimensions identified in 1 earlier industrial (Bowers & Seashore, 1966) and military (Halpin &

Winer; 1952; U.S. Army,War College, 1971) research. Also,.these factors

have been related to ratings of "reputation.for getting the job done,"

"receiving recognipion for a job well done," And overall leader performance (Downey & loledland, 1974). For each of the eight scales, respondents

indicated on a.100 -point continuum (ranging from never to always) the

frequency with which the leader evidenced the behavior described by the

scale. The remaining two scales dealt with the leader's perceived

fairness encl. overall leadership quality., Along these two scales,

responses could range from 0 (most negativ%) to 100 (most positive).

RESULTS

Quality of Army Life.

Because the global measure of satisfaction with Army life was 'used

as thevrimary dependent measure in subsequent analyses, it was

important to know which Individual oomponente are most and least

represented in this measure. intercorrelations among the 16'specific

quality of Army life items and the global measure are given in Table 1.

A factor analysis of the 16 individual items was performed using the

principal components methqd to reduce the complexity.Of the data to a

few ymderlying dimensions. This analysis produced four initial factors

(with eigenvalues exceeding unity) which were rotated orthogonally

according to the varimax criterion. While one of these factors explained

30% of the variance in the quality of Army life measures, the other three

factors combined to account for only 13% of the variance. Thus, only

one factor can be considered to have anyimportance for the preient

purposes. This factor had high loadings with the following facets of

)

4

14 .
4 c

ui

Table 1

Intercorrelations Among Quality'of Army Life In xes Indexes 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Getting things

done

2. Hair

-3. Food

4. Rules and

regulations

5. Meaningfulness

of .work

6. Tour of duty

7. Housing- barracks

8. Pay

9. Opbortunitk, to

get ahead

10. Treatment as

individual

11. Leadership

12. Equal treatment

13. Facilitie on post

14. Personal freom

15. Educational

opportunities

16. Medical/dental

care 17. Overall

satisfaction

.31* .40* .50*

.18444*

.41*

.43*

.28*

.25

.47*

.18

.23

.17

.28*

.22

.40* .27*

'.29* .22

.33* .31*

.3617.27*

.13 .21

.14 .2/*

-.15

.55* .40*':50* .21 .31*

.34* .31* .32* .08 .13

.31*33* .3501/.39* .35*

.38* .53* .50*:.27*...31*

.26* .26* .32* .23 .31*

.13 .24 .23 .14 .28*

,39* .34* .37* .19 .33*

.26* .17 .21 :18 .12

.39* .45* .23 .31*

.61* .28* .30*

.28* .25

.24

.31* .13

.25 .00

.49 .38*

.26* 04

.3411 .11

.24 .43*

:29*, .18

.22 .27*

.29* A.

.38* X110

.181 .30*

.27* .23

'.15

.26*

.28*

.18

.25

.22

.14'

.40*

.1'8 .341* .28w

.21

.33*

37w

.13*

le

.63*'.

.40*

.44*,

.45*

.40*

.27*

.41.*

.34*

.58*

.49A

-.18

.31*

.38*

3

. 33*

*p<.01.

',
.

Army life; (a) being treated as an individual (es), (b) getting

things done (.63), (c) leadership (.63),(d) rules'and regulations

(."64), and. de) oppo4unity tq get ahead (,55). This factor' was labeled

Otganizational Climate since it seemed to reflect this dimension of

(Army life as opposed to either kiesics pay) or fringe benefits.

(e.g., medical/dental care); r If the global satisfaction'aleasure

the quality of Army life donstiuct, the

with the items that load on the Organiz

with the factor created from the combi d scores on the items.. The

correl tions between the overall mews e of quality of Army life

(M = 4/2.32, S.D. =' 23.23) and the fivcomponents that compriee'the OrganiZatio 1 Climate factor were all ab9ve .45 (see Table 1). Moreover,

the correlation between the global sa iefaction item and the Organize-,

tional Climate factor was .66 (p<.601 . These findings indicate that'

in the presbnt circumstances the glob 1:satisfaction measure is'most

elosdly identified with theflorganizat oval climate of the Army.

is a representative index of,

it should correlate highly

tional Climatefactor and also

Two approaches were taken to as

behavior and viality.lof military.lif

. asking-enlisted personnel to estimat

two leaders on the soldiers' percept

The 'indirect approach (correlational

/

ls

the relkion between leader

., The direct approach involved

the relative influence of, their

ons of the quality of Army life.

method involved determining the 7 proportion of variance in the global satisfaction measure that was'

explained by Subordinate ratings of *otti originator and giver behavioral

tendencies

I /

,Direct Assessment Of Perspeived Leader Impact. The mean percentages

of estimated impact of and givers on the quality of Army

were 32% for each type of ider.' The mean pexigeniage for the -

combined estimated influence of both superiors--53%--did not equal the

sum of each,taken separately bttause about'20% of the soldiers had

inditated that their originatoand their giver were the same person.

These results show that enlisted personnWperceive their originator and

their giver as exerting egkial,and.substantial,iifluence on the, pleasantness:of the military experience.

Perceived" ehavior of Leaders. Mean ratings'along each of the 10.

leaddrship dimensions are presented' Table 2. Inspection of the means

'indicates that originators were fated less favorably than were givers in . ''terms of all nine specific leader behavior's and the gerall evaluation

of leadership ability. A univariate t test was performed to compare

subordinates' ratings of their superiors'in terms of overall leadership

quality. The results'of this analys4 indicated that originators were V.

6

ai
evaluated significantly (p<.05) less favorably than were'givers. It

would be inappropriate to perform a series, of univariate t tests for

statistically comparing ratings of the two types of leaders along the

nine specific leadership dimensions, since the number of tests and

correlations among the responses would lead.to erroneous alpha probabilities (Morri4on, 1961). A Notelling T2 statistic indicated that tpe

vector of-specific originator ratings differed from that of givers.

(p<.05).

Table 2

Mean Ratings Of Originator and Giver Attributes

1

. Type of leader

Leadership

attributes Originator

rS

DisCipline 67.48 *

Knowledgeability ' 69.0

Understailda4lity 65.15

4Supportiveness 61(1

,Personal treatment 66.04

.to

Mh.

, Willingness explain 59.82

Willingness to change 57.88

AssumptiOn.of responsibility 69.96

Fairnessp:-. 65.81

Overall quality I 63.90

..0iver

71.12

75.98

69.35

71.09

73.95

66.27

64..23

75.00

68.06

68.98.

v 18

rlit
0

/ 1

, / . : t . V t

f Qualify of Army Life and0.eader 8.ehavior

. . - To test hypotheses/ concerning the nature of the relation between

. quality of Army life .ind perceived leader behaviors, correlational

ahalfrses were perforTed. .Ttie resulting Coefficients between the global

satisfaction measuro and the,10 leader attributes are shownin Table 3.

Theke were highly significant positive relations between Satisfaction

and perceived behakriorsiof the originator'fip<.01 It all 10 cases). In

8 of 10 cases, significant relations (p <.05) alto existed between th#

global satisfaction measuie and ratings of the giver's behavior. The

more favorable the actions of both leaders, the more satisfied were

respondents with their present military circumstances.

.

1

,

Table 3

Correlations Between the Global Satisfaction

measure and Leader Attributes

.

a Leadership . r attributes

Type of leader,

Originator Giver

Discipline .41** .23*

Knowledgeability 35* .27**

Understandability .38** .18*

supportiveness :48** .25**

Personal treatment - .27**

Willingness Ito explain :43** .16

Willingness to-change .431* .30**

4 Assumption of responsibility 45** ,27**A

Fairness .26** .11

Overall guality .52** 25**

2 *p<.05.

**p<.01.

1D

r
Inspection, of the correlations between the global measure and

leadership ratings.revealed that the coefficients were greater for the

originator than for` the giver in all cases. A t test for correlated

data (Edwards, 1967) compared the relative m4gnitude of the association

between the Obbal .katisfaction measure and ratings of overall. leadership

abilit both types of leaders. The results indicated that the

gnitude' of the reJ,atiot between the, global satisfaction measure and

the perceived'abiliiy of the leader was significantly greater (p .(.01)

for the originator than for the giver. A very similar pattern, of findings

was obtained when responsei to a subscale Of the quality of Army life

instrument--"satisfaction with leadership"--were related to ratings

of originators and givers along the 10 leader behavidr dimensions. As

with the global satisfaction measure of quality of Army life, the correlation coefficients between satisfaction withexmy leadership in general

and perceived attributes of specific originators or givers were significant and in a positive direction. Moreover, in all of the comparisons

the strength of the relation between satisfaction with Army leadership

and leader behaviors was greater for originators than for givers.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

In support of the two .hypotheses, satIsfiction with the quality of

both Army life in general and Army leadership in particular was more

closely tied to perceived attributes of the originator rather than .of

the giver, even though behaviors of both leader types were correlated

with enlisted personnel's satisfaction, The, correlations between

4 satisfaction and leader behaviors cpuld reflect merely methods variance

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959) rather than ap inherent association between the

two variables. That is, because these correlations involved perceptions

by the same person, response bias Eguld account for the shared variance

between satisfaction and percepVida-of leader behavior's. This argument:

however, woule6ot be applicable to the major finding that satisfaction

is differentially related to attributes.of the originator ai,comPared to

those,of the giver. ' 'The differential magnj.tude of the relation between satisfaction

and the behavior of originators as opposed to givers derives from the

originators' greater hierarchical influence within the Army chain of

'command. Presumably, enlisted personnel perceived their originators as

having greater responsibility for establishing the organizational climate

in which the soldiers' daily activities occurred. Because organizatioA61

climate was related closely to the quality of Army'life for the present

sample; it is not surprising that behaviors of the originator rather

than & the giver are more,strongly,linked to subordinate satisfaction.

Moreover, due to their higher positions of authority in the Army, originators were most likely perbeived as having potentially greater control

over the acquisitioa>and distribution of resources necessary for

satisfying the goals and expectations of their military units.

v 20

L
ji

The direct and indirect:methods of. assessing the relation

. between qu'ality of Army life and leader behavior yielded somewhat

discrepant findifigs. Specifically, enliS4ed.personnel.estimated that

53 %, of their4oerteptions of the quality of their Army life was .due to'

the 'Combined and equal' nfluence of their two superiors, However,

separate multiple Correlations between the global satisfaction

measure and (a) the originator leadership scalei, (b) the giver leader-

., ship ratings, and (c) both sets of measures' showed that 27%, 7%, and

29% respectively of the variance was explainhd. Thus, the combined

3: perceived behaviors of both leaders' accounted for only 29% of the

vSriance in satisfaction scores',"with originator attributes having a

dOprogortionately greater influence than those of the giver.

° N. . Two possible explanations can be offered for'the obtained

. discrepancy between the two:methods ,of analyzing the magnitude of the

. relation between leader behavior and quality of Army life. First,

the correlational approach'may have yielded an underestimation because

it did not take into account all possible leader behaviors that poteritially Could be related to the quality, of Army life froi the perspective

of enlisted personnel. Alternatively,the direct estimation of

influence may have included other aspects of military life that were

'highly related to leadership N( e.g., the Correlation between being treated!

like an individual and satisfaction with leadership is .61).

It is harder to explain the discrepancy between the two methods in

assessing Ehe strength of the relation between overall satisfaction and

'behaviors of originators as compared to givers. One can speculate that

from the view of enlisted personnelg_the formulation and the implementation of thqic orders are two equally important stages in the organizetiohal prodess by which their daily activities are determined. Thus,

using the direci,approach, originators and givers were rated as equal with

regard to their perceived influence in the resolution of daily duties.

Co the other hand, the correlational method tapped soldiers' reactions

to daily orders in terms of the orders' consequent impact on the quality

of their lives. In.this regard, the actions of the originators would

be more closely linked to the perceived quality of such orders.

The present,findings have important implications for policymakers

who try too improve the pleasantness of Army life for enlisted personnel.

At least Or the predent sample, qualty,of Army life is mot closely

identified with the organizational cflmate.on mkt). Therefore, efforts

to heighten morale and motivation would be directed more fruitfully ' toward modifying' the organizational, facets of day-to-day existence rather

than either improving the basics (e.g, pay) or providing more fringe

benefits (e.g., post facilities). Also, while the behavibr of originator's

1-07was viewed less favorably than that of givers, attributes of the originators are more closely tied to subordinate satisfaction,.. In other words,

the "management" and not the "foreman" play the critical role in

determining the nature of the rank and file's military experience.

10

21
40

the inference for policy is clear. If effort is to be exerted

in the leadership area, a greater payoff would result from focusing on

improving the actions of the leader who formulates the duties rather

than the one who merely relays ,the orders.

r

a

4

11 ,22

-rPoo
REFERENCES

Bowers, D. G., & pashore, S. E. Predicting Organizational Effectiveness

with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership. Administjative Science

Quarterly, 2966, 11, 238-263.

Campbell, D. T.; & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Discriminate Validation

by the Multitrait-multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959,

56, 81-105. .04

Downey, R. G.,_&fltiedland, F. F. Development of a Measure of grmy Leadership Climatel The Military Leadership Behavior Survey (Technical

Paper 74-5), Alexandria/ Val Army Research Institute, December

1974. . . . . . Edwards, A. L. StatisticakMethods., New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston, 1967.

- . Fleishman, E. A.

i

Twenty !Yearsof Consideration and Structure. In E. A.

Fleishman and J. G. Huhi (Eds.), Current Developments in the Study

I' of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,

1973.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J% .Studiessin Aircrew Composition: The

Leadership Behavior of.the Airplane,Commander (Tech Rep. No. 3).

Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board,

1952.

'Holz, R. F., & Gitter, A. G.., Assessing the Quality of Life in the U.S.

Army (Technical Paper 256). Alexandria, Va.: Army Research Institute, September 1974.

House, R. 3., Filley, A. C., & Gujarati, D. N. Leadership Style, .

- Hierarchical Influence, and the Satisfaction of Subordinate Role

Expectations,: A Test of LikeresInfluence Proposition. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 422-432.

Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York:. McGlw-Hill, 1961.

Morrison, Donald F. MultivaiiAte Statistical Analysis. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Pelz, D. C. Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership in the First Line

Supervisor, 'Personnel,, 1952, 29, 3-11. vim*

Stodgill, R. M. Manual for the LeaderBehavior_Description Question -

naire- -Form XII. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio.State University, Bureau

of'Business Research, 1963.

13 23

.=+,...
I U.SL Army War College'. Leadership in, the 1970's. Carlisle Barracks,

'Pa.: Author, 1971. .

t - .

A

Vau4han, M. R.r Kriner, R. E., & Reeser, J. M. Military Leadership

' in the 1970s:4 Selected Analyses (Report D2t73-2). Alexandria,

1 Va.: Human Resources Research Organizations June 1973.

1.

4.

14

24

A

106
DISTRIBUTION 1

4 OASO (M&RAI

2 14130A MIAMI CS2)

1 /SODA (0APEPFIR

1 IfODA (DAMAAR)

1 HOOA 10APEHRE-P01

1 HODA (SGRO1 . I HODA (DAMI,DOT.C)

1 HOM IDAPC-P112-A)

1 HODA IDAC14-PPZA)

1 I/00A IDAPE-HREI

HCIOA CDAPI-PAPCI

1 1100A (GAPE -DWI'

t HODA (t/APEFIRE/

I HODA IC/APE-CP&

1 1400A (DAFD MFA)

1 HODA 10AROARSP)

HODA IDAPCPASA1

1 HODA (OUSAC1R1

1 HODA IDAMOROR)

1 HODA (DASG1

HODA WAWA)

1 Chief. Consult Ow (OA-OTSG), AdelPhi, MD

1 Md Ant Hum Res, DOOR&E, OAD IE &LS)

1 HO USAR AL, APO Seattle, ATM. ARAGP-11

1 HO First Army. ATTN. AFK A.01.T1

2 HO Fifth Army, Ftjam Houston

1 Dor, Army Stf Studies ON, ATTN OAVCSAIDSP)

1 Ofc Chief of Stf, Studies Of c

1 DCSPER, ATTN Cg/OCP

t The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN RS8 Chief

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN ANRAL

1 Ofc, Asst Sect of the Amy (h&D)

1 Tech Support Ole. OJCS

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARDT

1 USA ftsCh Ole, Durham. ATTN Life Sciences Ow

2 USARIEM, Natick, ATTN. SGRO.UECA

usarrc. Ft Clayton, ATTN STETC14/0A

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg. ATTN A7Stl-CTOOM

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN Maroust Lob

1 US WAC CU is Sch. Ft McClellan, ATM. Lib

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan, ATTN Tng Orr

1 ugA CluartermastetSdi, Ft Lea, ATTN ATSM.TE

I Mullion*, Klemm/ Dev Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird

1 USA SE Signal Sch. Ft Gordon, ATTN ATSOEA

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch. Ft Hamilton, ATTN. ATSTE-RD

1 USATSCH. Ft Eustis, ATTN. Educ Advisor

1 USA War College, Cathsle Borsch, ATTN: Lib

2 WRAIR, Neuropsychsetnt Div

I 0 LI, SOA, Monterey

I USA Concept Anal Arley, Bethesda, AX1 MOCA.WGC

1 USA Concept Mal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN MOCAIR

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN. MOCA4F

1 USA Attic Test Ca, APO Seattle. ATTN STEACMOSL

1 USA Artie Tod CU, APO Seattle. ATTN ANSI EPUTS

1 USA Armament Cold, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN. ATSKTEM

1 144A Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN AMSARTOC

1 FAANAF EC, Atlantic City, ATTN. Library

I FAANAF EC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Eng/ Br

I FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City, ATTN. AAC441)

2 USA Fld Arty Sch, Ft Sill. ATV/ _Library

1 USA Armor Sds, Ft Knox, ATTN. Lobrary

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN ATS0-01-E

1 USA Armor 5th. F t KnOx, ATTN; ATSBT-TP

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox, ATTN A TSB-COA0

AR1 Distribution Lott

2 HOUSACDEC. Ft Ord, ATTN Library

1 HOUSACOECt Ft Ord, ATTN ATEC- EX-E -Hum Factors

2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN Library

1 USAPACOC, Ft Bentamon Harrison, ATTN ATCP-HR

I USA Comm-Elect Sch. Ft Monmouth, ATTN. ATSN- EA

1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN AMSEL-CT-HDP

1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN. AMSEL-PA-P

1 USAEC, Ft Monmoutn, ATTN. ANSEL -St-CEI

1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN C, Fact Oev Br

1 USA Materials Sys Alai Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN AMXSY -P

1 Edgeweod Arsenal, AbOdecn, ATTN SARA -BL -if

USA OM-Gi«& Seto, A6rNeen, ATTN ATSL-TEM-C

2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN LibtaryiDor

1 USA Cimba1 Arms Tng 8d, Ft flennong, ATTN Ad Supervisor

1 USA Infantry Hum Rich Unit, Ft Banning, ATTN Chief

1 USA Infantry 8d, Ft Bennong. AT711 STEBC-TE-T

1 USASMA, Ft Ellos, ATTN ATSS-LRC

1 USA Air Pet Sch. Ft Bliss. ATTN. ATSA-CTO-ME

1 USA Ad Oaf Sch, Ft Bbss, ATTN Tech Lob

I USA Air Oef Ed, Ft Blip, ATTN. FILES

1 USA An Oaf 8d, Ft Bliss, ATTN STEBO -PO

1 USA Cmd & General SO College, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN Lob

1 USA Cmd & General Stftollege, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN. ATSIA14-SE-L

1 USA Cmd & General SO College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN Ed Advisor

1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dew Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN DepCdr

1 USA Combined/Arms Cmbt 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN CCS

1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Der Act, Ft Leavenworth, A1171, ATCASA

1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dew Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN ATCACO-E

I USA Combined Arms Votes Dn. Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN. ATCACC-Ci

I USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Eleivog, ATTN. ANISE L-NV-iS0

3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Beivoir, ATTN Tech Library

1 USAME ROC, Ft Beivoir. ATTN- SISFEI-00

I USA Eng Sch, Ft echoic ATTN. Library

I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN ETL-TD-S

I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Detroit, ATTN: S71NF D Center

I USA Topographic Lab, Ft EleWorr, ATTN: ETL-GSL

I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca, ATTN CTD-M9

1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sods, Fr Huachuca, ATTN ATS-CTD-MS I I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN ATSO-T£

I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN ATSI-TEX-GS

1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Hutchuca, ATTN ATSI-CTS-OR

1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN. ATSI-CTO-DT

1 USA intelligence CV & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN ATSI - CTD -CS

1 USA Intelligence Ctr &Sett, Ft Huachuca, ATTN. OAS/SRO

1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Mummies, ATTN. ATSI -TEM

1 USA intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca, ATTN. Library

1 CDR. HO Ft Huachuca, Allfil Tech Ref Ow

2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg GM, ATTN STEEP-MT-S

1 CDR, Project MASSTER, ATTN Tech Info Center

1 Ho MASSIE R, USATRADOC, LNO

I Research Institute, HO MASSTER, Ft Hood

1 USA Becoming Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN. USARCPM-P

I Senior Army Adv , USAFAGOINTAC. Elgin AF Aux Fld No 9

1 HO USAIIPAC, OCSPER. APO SF 90558, AWN GPPE -SE

$1 StImsoh Lob, Academy of Health Seen , 1' I Sam Houston

. r is Marino Corps Inst., ATTN Dean-MCI

HOUSPAC, Commandant. ATTN Cod. KTMT 51. *.

I efOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN Code MPI -20

2 USCG Academy, New Landon, ATTN Admission

2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN Library

I VSCG Training Ctr, NY. ATTN CO

I IJSCG Trammg Clr, NY,T7N E due Svc Olc

1 USCG, Psychol RA 13r, DC, ATTN GP 1/62

1 HO Mid-Range Br. MC Oct, Ouanhoo. AT/TN P&S Div

15

25
t US Marine Corps Liaison Ole. C. Alexandria. ATTN: AMCGS-F

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, A17N: RO-E

USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN. ATPR -AD

USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: AT TS-EA

1 USA Faces and. Fe McPherson, ATTN: Libretti

2 USA Aviation Test 13d, Ft Rucker, ATTN. STEDG-P0

1 USA Agcy foe Aviation Se

t USA Agcy for Aviation

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ft el

r1 HOUSA emotion Sys Cind,

t Rucker, ATTN: Library

Ft Rucker. ATTN. Edit* Advisor

ATTN: PO Drawer 0

t Loan, ATTN: AMSAV -ZOR--

0 USA Avietion Sys Tett Act.. Edwards Ape. ATTN: SAVTE-T

1 USA Air Clef Sail, Pt Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & Der Lela, Moffett :Id, ATJW: SAVOL-AS

1 USA Aviation SUL Res Tog Mgt, Ft Rucker. ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

I USA Aviation Soh, CO, Ft Ruder, ATTN: ATST -D -A

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN: AMXCD-41. 1 HO, DARCtif,)Alexandrie, ATTN: CDR

1 US Military Academy. West Point. ATTN: Seriels Unit

1 US tannery Academy, West Point. ATTN. Ole of Mile Ldrsh0

1 US Military Aenderrty, West Point. ATTN. MAOR

1 USA Standardization Op, UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE-GC

1 Mei Naval Rol% Arlington, ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofc of Navel Rich, Arlington/ ATTN: Code 458

Ofc of ',level Fisch, Arington. ATTN: Code 450

Cric of Naval Rich, Arlington. ATTN. CodeA41

1 Navel Awspc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: AcoliO3% Div

1 Naval Airosoc Med Res Lab, Pensacola ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Amigo Med Res Lela Pensacola ATTN: QV. LS

1 Catiet aNavOers, ATTN: PersOR

1 NAVAiRSTA, Norfolk, ATTN. Safety Cu

1 Nav Oceanographic, ATTN Code 62S1. Charts & Tedh

1 Canter of Naval Aner:ATTN Doc Cu

1 NavairSirsCom, ATTN: AiR -5313C

1 Nay Sumo. ATTN. 713

NavNelicopterSubSoue 2, FPO SF 90801

I AFHRL (FYI William AFB

1 AFfiRL (171 Lowry APBAFHRL (AS) WPAFB, 9H

2 AFHRL 100.12) ()rooks APB

1 AFHRL (COM) Leckland A:9

1 HOUSAF ONTSDi .- , 1 HOUSAF (DPX XA)

AF VTG MN Randolph AFB

3 MARL 114E1 WPAFB, Obi

2 AF inn of Tech, WPAF13, ON, ATTN: ENE/SL

I ATC (Xf701 Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brooks APB 1SUL -41, ATTN: DOC SEC

AFOSR (NL). Arlington

AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFL ATTN: ALCADPCRO

1 Air Force Academy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bel Sen

lerA'an & Dire Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy Med NeuropSYchlettic Ruh Unit. Sen Diego

1 Nov Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: Res Lab

1 Net Trigeen, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000-Lib

tforPostOraSch. Monterey, A1714: Code OA,

1 NerPostOraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1,NavTrrigEtapCtr. Orlando. ATTN: Tech Lib

1 Os Dept of Lebo', DC, ATTN Manpower Admit'

1 US Dept of Justice, TIC, AT,Tsi Drug Enforce Admln

Net Due of Stendards. DC. ATTN: Computer info Section

1 Net Clearing Hoene for MH-info, flockv9le

1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lakewood, ATTN: BOA

-12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Mr Psych, Army 1g. Russell Ofes, Cenbetre

1 Scientific Advsr: Mil /3d, Aunty Ha, Rinsed Olgs. Cortisone

1 Mil and Air Attache. Austrian Embassy

1 Centre Os Recherche Des Factours. Hueneme de le Defense

Nationale. annals

2 Canadian Joint Such Washington

C/Aor Staff, Royal Cenedien AF, ATTN: Pies Sul Aral Si

3 Chief, Canadian Def Rids Staff, ATTN: C/CROS(W)

4 British De Staff. Bullish Embassy, Washington

16

1 Oaf & Civil inst of EiwiroBedlcine. Canada

1 AIR CRESS, KensingtontATTN: info Sys Br

1 MintfloPsYkOlegiSk 'nines*, Copehogen

1 Military Attache, French Embassy, ATTN: Doc Sec

1 Medecin Chef. C.E.R.P.A.-Anerial, Toulon/Naval France

1 Prin Scientific Off, Appi Hum Erse Rich Div, Ministry

of Wens*, New Delhi

1 Pets Rich life Library, AKA. Israel Preens* Forces

Ministeels van Delensie, DOOP/KL ANISomiai

PsydPicgische Zaken, The Hague, Welke lands

.

26

f

,

r