Technical Report 1199

A Criterion-Related Validation Study of

the Army Core Leader Competency Model

Jeffrey Horey

Jennifer Harvey

Pat Curtin

Heidi Keller-Glaze

Ray Morath

Caliber, An ICF International Company

Jon Fallesen

Center for Army Leadership

April 2007

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1

Authorized and approved for distribution:

BARBARA A. BLACK MICHELLE SAMS

Acting Technical Director Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Caliber, An ICF International Company

Technical review by

Robert E. Solick, U.S. Army Research Institute

Angela Karrasch, Center for Army Leadership

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS,

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

April 2007 Final February - December 2005

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

A Criterion-Related Validation Study of the Army Core Leader DASW01-03-D-0016, DO 0016, Mod. 9

Competency Model

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

Jeffrey Horey, Jennifer Harvey, Pat Curtin, Heidi Keller-Glaze, 5d. TASK NUMBER

Ray Morath (Caliber, An ICF International Company) 103

Jon Fallesen (Center for Army Leadership)

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

H01

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

Caliber, An ICF Consulting Company

10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400

Fairfax, VA 22030

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

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

Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Technical Report 1199

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer's Representative and Subject Matter POC: Jon Fallesen

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

This report describes the gathering and evaluation of evidence of the criterion-related validity of the Army core

leader competency model. Predictor data, in the form of ratings of the competencies and components, were

collected from subordinates. Criterion data, in the form of ratings of leader effectiveness, were collected from

supervisors. Results showed evidence of the criterion-related validity for the Army core leader competencies.

Implications for an instrument to assess the competencies and components are also discussed.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Leadership Criterion-related validity Leadership assessment

Leader competencies Competency modeling

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

_ _ _ __ ABSTRACT OF PAGES

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

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 58 Technical Publication Specialist

703/602-8047
ii
Technical Report 1199

A Criterion-Related Validation Study of

the Army Core Leader Competency Model

Jeffrey Horey, Jennifer Harvey,

Pat Curtin, Heidi Keller-Glaze,

Ray Morath

Caliber, An ICF International Company

Jon Fallesen

Center for Army Leadership

Leader Development Research Unit

Stanley Halpin, Chief

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

April 2007

Army Project Number Personnel Performance

622785A790 and Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii
iv
A CRITERION-RELATED VALIDATION STUDY OF THE ARMY CORE LEADER

COMPETENCY MODEL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

In 2002, the Center for Army Leadership commissioned the Army Research Institute to

conduct a systematic examination of the Army's existing depiction of leadership (Headquarters,

Department of Army, 1999). This effort resulted in the development of a core leader model

which is described in terms of eight competencies, 55 components, and over 200 sample actions

and behaviors (Horey, Fallesen, Morath, Cronin, Cassella, Franks, & Smith, 2004). A series of

research efforts were recently concluded to establish evidence of validity of the model and

identify situational variations in the model. This report describes the criterion-related validation

study of the model.

Procedure:

Target Army leaders were identified and predictor data in the form of subordinate ratings

of Army leader behaviors and criterion data in the form of supervisory ratings of leader

performance outcomes were collected for these target leaders. Included in the criterion measure

was a rating of the extent to which the target leader influences certain performance criteria in an

attempt to adjust ratings for this influence. Leader survey materials were developed and pilot

tested at Ft. Drum and Ft. Hood. Procedures were implemented to attempt to obtain a random

sample of Army leaders. Initial surveys of Army supervisors led to the identification of Army

target leaders from the ranks of NCOs, Warrant officers and commissioned officers in the Active

and Reserve components. Once target leaders were identified, subordinates of these leaders were

then contacted to provide ratings of leader competencies and components. A total of 138

supervisors - subordinate match pairs provided ratings of target leaders retained for use in the

criterion validation portion of the analyses. Analyses of competency and component item

relationships to the criterion were conducted through multiple regressions and the best set of

predictor items was identified. In addition to the core competencies of primary interest, two new

competencies suggested by a recent review of the original core model and a set of leader

behavior items used in previous research were also analyzed for their contribution in predicting

the criterion.

Findings:

The results of these analyses provide support for the competencies and the components of

the core leader model in predicting a criterion of leader performance. An R-squared of .48

between the best set of predictor items (used to measure/represent the competencies) and the

criterion was observed. The addition of the two new competencies and the additional set of

leader behavior items did not significantly improve the relationship to the criterion of the core

leader items. Competency composites were highly correlated with one another (r = .91 to .96)

suggesting that ratings on these competencies reflect a single leadership dimension.

v
Utilization and Dissemination of Findings:

While there have been many leadership competency models developed within

organizations, there have been few if any attempts to validate these models against performance

criteria. The findings from the current study provide empirical support for the competency-based

core Army leadership model. These results indicate that the core model of competencies and

components are tied to supervisory perceptions of leader performance. This effort serves not only

to provide evidence of the validity of the model, but provides additional insight into leader

effectiveness survey development which is applicable to multi-rater feedback systems as well as

performance management dimensions that are often used for leader development and

promotions. Additional guidance on application of the model and further research to better

elucidate aspects of leadership are provided.

vi
A CRITERION-RELATED VALIDATION STUDY OF THE ARMY CORE LEADER

COMPETENCY MODEL

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... I

W hat is Leadership? ..................................................................................................... 2

W hy Is Leadership Im portant? ..................................................................................... 3

W hy Describe Leadership in Term s of Competencies? ............................ .......... .............. 4

M odel Description ...................................................................................................... 5

M odel Validation ......................................................................................................... 7

Criterion-Related Validity ............................................................................................ 7

M ETHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 8

Predictor M easure ...................................................................................................... 8

Criterion M easure ...................................................................................................... 9

Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 11

Sam pling/Participants ...................................................................................................... 11

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Item -level Statistics ..................................................................................................... 16

Scale (Competency) Statistics ..................................................................................... 19

M odel Validation ............................................................................................................. 21

Instrum ent Developm ent ............................................................................................ 22

Analysis of Additional Competencies and Leadership Item s ...................................... 24

DISCUSSION AND RECOM M ENDATIONS ........................................................................ 25

Validation of the Leader Competency M odel ............................................................ 26

Contribution of Additional Competencies and Item s ................................................. 27

Development of a Leader Assessm ent Instrum ent ..................................................... 27

Com parison with Other Leadership Instrum ents ........................................................ 28

Im plications for Applying the Leadership M odel ....................................................... 29

Aspects for Further Investigation ................................................................................. 30

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 32

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 33

APPENDIX A LEADER BEHAVIOR SCALE ........................................................................ A-I

vii
CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX B OVERALL PERFORMANCE SCALE ....................................................... B-I

APPENDIX C LEADER INFLUENCE SCALE ................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D SUPERVISOR PREDICTOR RATINGS ..................................................... D-I

APPENDIX E SUBORDINATE CRITERION RATINGS ................................................... E-1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. SAMPLE DEFINITIONS OF LEADERSHIP AND U.S. MILITARY

D E FIN IT IO N S ................................................................................................... 2

TABLE 2. ARMY CORE LEADER COMPETENCIES .......................................................... 5

TABLE 3. ARMY CORE LEADER COMPETENCIES AND COMPONENTS ................... 6

TABLE 4. SUPERVISOR DEMOGRAPHICS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS ....................... 12

TABLE 5. SUPERVISOR DEMOGRAPHICS FOR MATCHED PAIRS ............................. 14

TABLE 6. SUBORDINATES DEMOGRAPHICS FOR MATCHED PAIRS ...................... 15

TABLE 7. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR PREDICTOR MEASURE BY LEADERSHIP

CO M PET EN CY .............................................................................................. 16

TABLE 8. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR CRITERION AND COVARIATE

M E A SU R E S .................................................................................................. 18

TABLE 9. DESCRIPTIVE STATISCICS, RELIABILITIES AND INTERCORRELATIONS

OF LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES .......................................................... 20

TABLE 10. HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS .............................. 21

TABLE 11. FINAL MODELS FOR EACH COMPETENCY FROM FORWARD MULTIPLE

REGRESSION ANALYSES .......................................................................... 22

TABLE 12. FINAL MODEL OF 10 PREDICTOR ITEMS FROM BACKWARD MULTIPLE

REGRESSION AN A LY SIS ............................................................................ 23

TABLE 13. HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS INCLUDING

PLANNING & ORGANIZING AND DECISION-MAKING/PROBLEM

SOLVING COM PETENCIES ........................................................................ 24

viii
CONTENTS (continued)

TABLE 14. STANDARD MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS WITH 12 ITEMS FROM

ULM ER ET AL.'S (2004) SCALE ................................................................ 25

TABLE 15. LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS PROPOSED FOR ARMY

LEADER DEVELOPM ENT .......................................................................... 28

ix
x
INTRODUCTION

Leadership is one of the most researched and complex psychological constructs in the

behavioral science realm. Numerous theories, popular literature, websites, assessments, and

competency models are dedicated to it (Northouse, 2004; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Leadership

may be measured using multi-rater assessment instruments, developed through a wide variety of

educational programs, and rewarded based on pay for performance yet depictions of what makes

for good leadership vary widely in structure and content. Although leadership theory and

research over the past century have evolved through power, trait, process and style themes

arguably no single comprehensive model of leadership effectiveness has emerged (Chemers,

2000). In more recent times organizations ranging from religious to health care to the military

services have invested considerable resources developing their own leadership competency

models. Competencies have been promoted as the building blocks necessary for success in

leadership positions linking the knowledge, skills, and other attributes necessary to lead

effectively with behavioral outcomes. Yet despite the widespread practice of competencymodeling in the public and private sectors, there is a paucity of information regarding the validity

of these models for predicting organizational outcomes. This report describes a unique effort to

provide evidence of the relationship between a competency-based model of U.S. Army

leadership and the criteria and outcomes of leader performance.

Horey and Fallesen (2003) found that U.S. military leadership models vary significantly

in their coverage of leadership constructs. Clement and Ayres (1976) and Steinberg & Leaman

(1990) conducted empirical studies to identify Army leadership dimensions; however, neither

effort established the relationship of these dimensions to leader effectiveness outcomes. The

present study is an attempt to link leadership behaviors as defined by a competency model with

these outcomes in the form of individual and unit performance.

It is important for organizations to describe leadership using dimensions that contribute to

organizational success, and perhaps nowhere is this concept more critical than in the widely and

critically deployed U.S. Army. Many components of leader effectiveness, such as written and

oral communication skills, are universally included in leadership models while others, such as

managerial skills, are not. Despite the great emphasis placed on leadership competency

modeling, both the effectiveness of leadership in organizations (Hambrick & Mason, 1984;

Lieberson & O'Conner, 1972; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Thomas, 1988) and the utility of

competency modeling (Conger & Ready, 2004; Lievens, Sanchez, & De Corte, 2004; Reed,

Bullis, Collins, & Paparone, 2004) have been questioned. Competencies have been challenged

as being arbitrarily derived, overly complex and detailed, and not providing meaningful structure

for application (Reed, et al, 2004). This research addresses the potential value of a competencybased model of leadership.

In 2002, the Center for Army Leadership commissioned the Army Research Institute to

conduct a systematic examination of the Army's existing depiction of leadership (Headquarters,

Department of Army, 1999). This effort resulted in the development of a core leader model

which is described in terms of eight competencies, 55 components, and over 200 sample actions

and behaviors (Horey, Fallesen, Morath, Cronin, Cassella, Franks, & Smith, 2004). A series of

efforts are now being concluded to establish evidence of validity of the model and identify

situational variations in the model. This report describes the criterion-related validation study of

I
the model. As an introduction to this model, an overview of the definitions, importance, and

modeling of leadership is provided.

What is Leadership?

Definitions of leadership vary widely in the popular literature (Northouse, 2004). Of the

four U. S. military Services, only the U.S. Army and Air Force include definitions of leadership

in their doctrine. Alternately, the Navy and Marine Corps use lists of 11 principles and 14 traits,

respectively, to describe leadership. See Table I below for some examples of leadership

definitions and their sources.

Table 1. Sample Definitions of Leadership and U.S. Military Definitions

Definitions of Leadership ýOrigin

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality. Warren Benis

The leader is "Provider of Resources" and "Guide" to Thomas Aquinas

others.

The only definition of a leader is someone who has Peter Drucker

followers.

Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful Jacobs & Jaques, 1990

direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to

be expended to achieve purpose.

Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying Richards & Engle, 1986

values, and creating the environment within which things

can be accomplished.

Leadership is the process of making sense of what people Drath & Palus, 1994

are doing together so that people will understand and be

committed.

The ability to build and maintain a group that performs Hogan & Kaiser, 2005

well relative to its competition.

Influencing people - by providing purpose, direction, and U.S. Army, Field Manual

motivation - while operating to accomplish the mission 22-100, 1999

and improving the organization.

The art and science of influencing and directing people to Air Force Doctrine

accomplish assigned missions. Document 1-1, 2004

No doctrinal definition found in public access U.S. Navy

No doctrinal definition found in public access U.S. Marine Corps

No doctrinal definition found in public access U.S. Joint Forces

Note: Several definitions provided by permission from Dan Shogren's website LeadingValues.com

Because competency modeling is geared toward identifying the elements of effective

leadership, it is important to consider the definition of leadership as a logical starting point for

further description. Examination of the Army definition of leadership reveals the dimensions of

influencing, providing purpose, providing direction, providing motivation, operating to

accomplish the mission, and improving the organization. One might argue that these dimensions

2
describe the competencies of Army leaders. At the very least, it is logical to assume that

additional modeling of Army leadership should validate these dimensions. Within this definition

the stage is also set for determining the possible outcomes associated with effective leadership,

specifically accomplishing the mission and improving the organization. One challenge in

establishing the outcomes associated with effective leadership, which will be discussed

subsequently, is collecting reliable and uncontaminated measures of these outcomes. While the

definition provides the point of departure for communicating what leadership within an

organization is, it can hardly convey the complexity of situations, relationships, applications and

behaviors associated with it. Thus, competency models have evolved from this need for more

comprehensive depictions of the construct.

Why Is Leadership Important?

There are numerous reasons to continue research on leadership and its effects on

individual and organizational outcomes; three are presented here. The first is that leadership has

become a distinct part of military culture, doctrine, and development. Leadership and leader

development have received considerable attention in Army research and doctrine. All service

members are expected to become leaders and growth in the organization is not defined in terms

of technical ability as much as it is in terms of one's leadership ability. The mere fact that the

construct of leadership is so well embedded in the organizational psyche of its members supports

its continued study. While this may seem a self-perpetuating argument, it reflects the

organizational value associated with leadership as a construct.

Beyond the cultural and doctrinal investments in leadership exists the empirical support

for leadership as a distinct construct that has evolved from examinations of military job

performance. Despite the central role of performance criteria in employment research,

comprehensive models of job performance have been relatively late in arriving on the scene.

Fortunately, three notable empirically-based research efforts have elucidated models of general

job performance derived from examining military jobs (Borman, Motowidlo, Rose, & Hanser,

1987; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Hedge, Borman, Bruskiewicz, & Bourne,

2004).

Borman et al. (1987) developed a model of Soldier effectiveness based upon first-tour

Soldiers' performance requirements that fall outside the bounds of technical job proficiency.

While it is certainly less likely for leadership to be a significant part of entry level enlisted

performance, leadership was in fact found to be an important subcomponent of the teamwork

construct that combined with determination and allegiance to form the three main performance

components in their model.

The eight-factor model of job performance developed by Campbell and colleagues (1993)

using Army data has become one standard within the behavioral science community. According

to this model, supervision and leadership should be distinguished from other job performance

factors such as job specific task proficiency, team and peer facilitation, management and

administration, and communication. Campbell et al. describe supervision and leadership as "all

behaviors directed at influencing the performance of subordinates through face-to-face

interpersonal interaction and influence" (p. 48). The authors go on to state "supervisors set goals

for subordinates... teach them more effective methods. model appropriate behaviors.., reward

and punish in appropriate ways" (p. 48).

3
Hedge et al. (2004) set out to develop job performance dimensions for supervisors as part

of a performance rating system for the Navy. This empirically driven effort resulted in the

identification of nine dimensions, one of which was leading people. The authors describe

leading people as "... . building and leading individual and team activities; persuading, inspiring,

and motivating others,.., creating a sense of enthusiasm and purpose in own team;

demonstrating a positive attitude, team spirit, and personality to inspire subordinates; effectively

adopting different leadership styles as appropriate to individuals and settings" (p. 237).

Lastly, there is no shortage of literature describing the contribution of leadership research

to organizational functioning (see summaries provided by Chemers, 2000; Hogan, Curphy, &

Hogan, 1994; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Kaiser & Ferrel, 2005). Additionally, meta-analyses have

provided increased clarity on the relationship of various leadership aspects to individual and

organizational outcomes. For example, these studies have examined such topics as the effects of

consideration of others and initiating structure on follower behavior (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies,

2004), the effects of leader-member exchange and follower satisfaction and productivity

(Gerstener & Day, 1997), and transformational and transactional leadership styles on follower

job and leader satisfaction, follower motivation, and group and organizational performance

(Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and workgroup effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,

1996). The bottom-line of this research indicates that leadership behavior has been related to the

behavior of followers and individual, group, and organizational effectiveness. Therefore,

additional attempts to describe the relationship between leader behaviors and the effect of these

behaviors on individual and group performance warrants continued study.

Why Describe Leadership in Terms of Competencies?

Competency modeling has become a prevalent process for depicting effectiveness in a

job, position, or role within an organization. However, the definitions, goals and methods

employed in competency modeling are not consistent across organizations and applications and

this has resulted in confusion regarding this practice (Briscoe & Hall, 1999; Newsome, Catano,

& Day, 2003; Shippman, Ash, Battista, Carr, Eyde, Hesketh, Kehoe, Pearlman, Prien, &

Sanchez, 2000). One problem with competency modeling is that attempts to describe

competencies often commingle job requirements with person capabilities. Some models describe

the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristic (KSAO) clusters necessary to perform

certain functions. Other models describe the functions themselves. The answer regarding which

of these approaches is best may lie in the purpose of the competency model. Generally,

behavioral scientists develop job selection assessments that tap into the KSAOs necessary for

success when considering candidates for specific positions within an organization. That is, these

KSAOs attempt to describe candidate capabilities necessary for achieving success in these

positions. Therefore, identifying KSAOs or clusters of KSAOs assists in these efforts when prior,

more specific performance by a candidate may not be available. However, when the purpose of

the competency model is to inform performance assessment, training, development, and

performance management systems based upon observable performance within the organization

(as is the case with leaders), a model which more completely describes these performance

dimensions may be better suited to this purpose.

The Army expects leadership from all its members and promotes exclusively from

within. Hence, it is advisable that successful leadership performance be defined and

4
communicated clearly in behavioral terms that link these behaviors to individual, group and

organizational outcomes. The Army core leadership model under study attempts to provide this

information through leadership competencies, their subcomponents and sample actions which

demonstrate effective leadership functioning. Gayvert (1999, p. 21) supports such a depiction

when he argues that Army leadership 'ought to be identified, taught and discussed as a function,

or set of functions, different from management, administration or command." Describing the

leadership domain in detail is an extension of the work of Campbell et al. (1993), Borman et al.

(1987), and Hedge et al. (2004) and comparable to the work of Carpenter and Wisecarver (2004)

in their recent identification of interpersonal performance dimensions. The depiction of Army

leadership under examination in this study is one means for synthesizing the results of significant

leadership research findings into a single model which better expresses the roles, processes, and

goals of leadership within the Army.

Model Description

The Army's Core Leader Competency model identifies eight leadership competencies,

described in Table 2. Each of the competencies is further described by secondary components,

presented in Table 3, and sample actions for each component (see Horey et al., 2004). The model

was developed from several sources, including Army leadership doctrine, reviews of competency

and leadership literature, and input from subject matter experts. It has been proposed as the

framework for Army leaders in the current and future operational environments (Horey et al.,

2004). It has been recommended that the Army adopt this leadership framework and incorporate

it into the leader development cycle. These competencies would guide various leader

development processes such as training and education, assignments, and performance

assessment. Figure 5 in Horey et al., 2004 also places the competencies into what may be more

easily conceptualized as a model of leadership.

Table 2. Army Core Leader Competencies

-Competency- ~ ~D lýpioif

Lead Others A leader motivates and influences others to take initiative, work

toward a common purpose, accomplish tasks, and achieve

organizational objectives.

Lead by Example Maintaining standards and providing examples of effective

behaviors influences others to behave and perform similarly. All

Army leaders should model Army values continuously. Modeling

provides tangible evidence of desired behaviors and reinforces

verbal guidance through demonstration of commitment and action.

Create a Positive Environment A leader has a responsibility to establish and maintain positive

expectations and attitudes which produce the setting for positive

attitudes and effective work behaviors.

Communicate By understanding the nature and power of communication and

practicing effective communication techniques, one can better relate

to others and translate goals into actions. Communication is

essential to all other leadership competencies.

Develop Leaders Assisting others to grow as individuals and teams facilitates the

achievement of organizational goals and is a primary function of

leadership.

5
Competency- -- ecito'

Prepare Self to Lead Only through being prepared for missions and other challenges,

being aware of self and situations, and the practices of career long

learning and development can one fulfill the responsibilities of

leadership.

Get Results Ultimately, a leader's purpose is to provide guidance and maintain

control over the work environment in order to increase efficiency

and effectiveness in one's own and subordinate's activities.

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Leaders need to influence beyond their direct lines of authority and

Command beyond chains of command; this influence may extend to joint,

interagency, inter-governmental, multinational, and other groups.

Table 3. Army Core Leader Competencies and Components

Others Lead SLead by Example Communicate Extend Influence Beyond

Chain of Command

:Le • Provide intent, motivation, Display character Build trust outside lines of authority

inspiration Listen actively Understand sphere, means & limits

Enforce standards Display confidence in adverse Translate goals into action of influence

Balance mission & welfare of conditions Ensure understanding Negotiate, resolve conflict, build Demonstrate competence consensus

a Positive Environment SCreate Prpare Self to Lead Develop Leaders

Dev op4 Foster teamwork, cohesion, cooperation, Be prepared for missions & other Coach, counsel & mentor Sloyalty challenges Build team skills & processes

initiative, acceptance of SEncourage Expand knowledge in cultural & geo- Asses delm entalns & fosser

rsosblt poiia ra Assess developmental needs & foster job

Sresponsibility political areasdevelopment

Demonstrate care for people Be self-aware, recognize impact on others d

• • ; Get Results

cProvide direction & guidance, set clear Develop & execute plans to accomplish Accomplish missions consistently

priorities missions

This model was developed to have applicability to all leaders in all situations, levels, and

contexts rather than to be specific to leadership in a particular context. In another effort to

examine the likely effects of situational variance on the model's validity, the model was

determined to apply across rank, organizational level, operations, life-cycle and within

international contexts (Aude, Baranowski, Conrad, Harvey, Mitchell, Weingart, & Fallesen,

2005). The model was not found to be missing any needed competencies but rather how the

leader applies the model and which behaviors are exhibited were recommended to differ based

upon leader role, mission, time constraints and other situational moderators. It was noted that

various components and behaviors demonstrating the competencies may become more important

than other components and behaviors according to needs of the situation.

6
Model Validation

Due to a perceived lack of rigor in model development, Shippmann et al. (2000) note

concern that competency models may not meet necessary professional and legal requirements

associated with personnel decisions. Such professional and legal requirements call for validation

of assessments. Although competency models are not assessments per se, they are developed to

either explain or predict performance and thus, should have demonstrated validity with job

performance. Evidence of validity can be in the form of content-related, construct-related or

criterion-related (Gatewood & Feild, 1998). Content-related validity indicates that the measure

(or, in this case, model) is representative of the behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities

required by the job or role (e.g., leader). Generally, competency models are assumed to be

related to important performance outcomes based upon the process of model development (i.e.,

content validity). The Army core leadership model is useful to the extent that the behaviors

representing the competencies and components lead to individual, group and organization

effectiveness. Therefore, evidence of validity against a criterion of leadership effectiveness

should also be demonstrated. Construct-related validity refers to evidence that an assessment

actually measures the construct it is intended to measure. In other studies, content and constructrelated evidence for the Army's leadership model have been documented (Aude et al, 2005;

Harvey, Conrad, Morath, Keller-Glaze, & Fallesen, 2005). The focus of this study is on the

criterion-related evidence of validity of the model. The concept of criterion-related validity and

its application to the Army's competency-based leadership model is described below.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity applies when a relationship is hypothesized to exist between

test scores and performance on some criterion measure, and it is that hypothesized relationship

that is validated, not the test itself (Schneider & Schmitt, 1992). In terms of the Army's

competency-based leadership model, it is hypothesized that there is a relationship between a

person's performance of the competencies and his/her leadership effectiveness in the Army.

Criterion-related validity studies are conducted in one of two ways. In a predictive

criterion-related study, scores on the test or predictors are collected and then, at a later point in

time, performance is measured and the strength of the relationship between the predictor and the

criterion is evaluated. The observed correlation between the predictor and the criterion is called

the validity coefficient. In a concurrent criterion-related study, predictor and criterion data are

collected at the same time and correlated. The current research effort seeks to validate the

relationship between the Army's leadership competencies and leadership effectiveness using the

concurrent design.

With criterion-related validation studies, several factors need to be considered that can

affect the magnitude of the relationship observed. Given the sample size in most validity studies

and the usually moderate level of validity, criterion reliability and range restriction, the

probability of finding a statistically significant validity coefficient is low (Schneider & Schmitt,

1992). For this effort, range restriction is likely to be an issue to some degree. It is likely that

many leaders who were poor performers or unhappy with Army life have left the Army and

therefore, will not be included in the sample. Thus, the range of scores will likely be restricted

and the validity estimate underestimated to some degree.

7
In addition, validating the Army's competency-based leadership model through a

criterion-related approach is more complex than the typical criterion-related validation of a test

and a criterion because the model does not represent a predictor set (e.g., knowledge, skill,

ability, personality dimensions) in the traditional sense, but rather the antecedent behaviors that

are believed to result in effective individual, group and organization outcomes. In some cases,

there is great overlap in what might normally be considered the criterion of leadership

effectiveness and the components in the Army's competency-based leadership model (e.g.,

performance during training exercises might be viewed by some as a criterion while it can be

argued that this performance comprises the behaviors included in the competency set). Thus, a

measure of the Army's leadership competencies and measures of leader effectiveness are

actually on a continuum between antecedents and outcomes, rather than clearly belonging in one

group or the other. For the purpose of simplification, however, the measure of the Army's

leadership competencies and components will be referred to as the predictor, and the measure of

leader effectiveness as the criterion.

Despite the challenges, the principles of criterion-related validation can be applied to the

relationship between a set of behaviors and the effectiveness of those behaviors (see Ghiselli,

Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981). To do this, a measure of the Army's competency-based leadership

model to be used as the predictor was developed. Thus, this research also represents a validation

study of the measure, as well as the model. As such, results must be interpreted in terms of both

the measure (and the items) and the model. For example, items in the measure may not perform

as adequately as other items, such that some items may not account for additional variance in the

criteria. In measurement terms, these might be flagged for removal but just dropping those

behaviors from the model could result in an under-identified model. Thus, while the measure for

assessing the competencies may be shortened, such changes to the measure do not directly

translate to necessary changes in the model. Changes to the model should be considered in light

of the theoretical bases underlying its development and conceptualization.

METHODOLOGY

Predictor Measure

To measure leader performance on the competencies we used a measure of Army

core leader competencies that had been used in a previous study. In the content validity study,

data were collected on the importance and criticality of the competencies and components for

certain ranks. Based on the results of the item analysis for that content validity study, items that

were rated relatively low on importance were identified and removed. This content validity study

measure also included distracter items that are not part of the competency model and most of

these were also removed. Some of the distracter items were retained for the current pilot study to

compare their item statistics with the competency and component items.

In addition to the eight competencies of the Army's core model, two more were added,

Planning & Organizing and Problem Solving & Decision Making. Based on the results of

another effort that examined the construct validity of the Army's competency-based leadership

model, these new competencies were recommended as possible additions to the model. Also

included were 12 items from a measure used in Ulmer, Shaler, Bullis, DiClemente, and Jacobs

(2004). These new competencies and items were added to determine their potential contribution

8
to the prediction of leadership. The results of the analyses of these additional constructs and

items will be noted separately from the results of the validation of the original eight

competencies comprising the core leader competencies. However, the eight original core

competencies, the two additional competencies and the Ulmer et al. additional items were all

included within the "Leader Behavior Scale", which contains a total of 87 items.

Subordinates completed the instrument by identifying the extent to which the target

leader is performing below, at, or above expectations for each competency component. The 7-

point scale ranges from "performing well below expectations" to "performing well above

expectations." This Leader Behavior Scale is presented in Appendix A.

Criterion Measure

As stated above, the objective of the criterion-related validation study was to evaluate the

extent to which the leadership competencies outlined in the Army's core leadership model

predict an important outcome, such as leader effectiveness. As part of the validation study, the

correlations between the target leader ratings and a reliable measure of leader effectiveness were

analyzed.

Although there were several potential sources of leader effectiveness that could serve as

the criterion for this effort, each source has practical limitations. Consequently, several sources

of leader effectiveness were ruled out for this effort. In general, these criterion sources were

ruled out because data from the source were unavailable, because useful data did not exist, or

because the data were confounded with extraneous variables. The use of several sources of

leader effectiveness data were evaluated based on:

"* Degree of subjectivity

"* Criterion contamination

"* Data Accessibility

"* Use of existing measures versus developing new measures

"* Adequate variance in the criterion.

We identified potential objective measures of leader effectiveness; however, they tended

to be contaminated by other factors not under leader control. Criterion contamination occurs

when factors other than those under study impact the criterion. For example, personnel retention

rates, while an objective measure, are also likely to be contaminated by factors beyond the

leader's control. These factors include unit type, military occupational specialty density and

retention requirements, economic forces such as job market, reenlistment bonuses, and stop loss

effects. Other potential measures (e.g. increase in unit budget while under leaders' control,

productivity measures, and readiness measures) are also likely to suffer from contamination.

Data regarding promotion and morale of a leader's unit may all be confounded by other factors as

well. Many factors that are outside the control of the leader likely affect these criteria.

Research has shown that objective and subjective criterion measures produce similar

validities (Nathan & Alexander, 1988; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). In a metaanalysis of validity coefficients from tests of clerical workers for five criteria - supervisor

ratings, supervisor rankings, work samples, production quantity and production quality, Nathan

and Alexander (1988) found that the predictabilities of subjective ratings and objective

9
production quantity were very similar. The criteria examined were all highly predictable

regardless of the type of test used as the predictor measure, except for production quality. It

consistently produced the lowest validity and did not generalize across tests. Schmitt et al.

(1984) found a mean validity coefficient for performance ratings of .26, which was higher than

the mean validity coefficients for the objective measures of turnover and productivity. Thus,

there has accumulated a large amount of evidence suggesting that subjective measures are valid

indicators of performance.

For reasons cited above and other reasons, the majority of job performance criteria used

in validation efforts has focused on supervisory ratings. The Army has existing supervisory

ratings of leader values, attributes, skills, actions and promotion recommendations in the form of

Officer Evaluation Reports and Non-commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports and these were

considered as potential criteria measures. However, these reports likely have limited value based

upon their reported lack of variance on leadership dimensions and a caution by our sponsor with

respect to the difficulty in obtaining these reports. Other leader effectiveness ratings that were

considered come from observer-controller (O/Cs) ratings during training exercises (Joint

Readiness Training Center, for example), which were used recently to validate a leader

assessment measure (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). However, collecting these rating

during training exercises would require the development of a set of dimensions specific to the

training exercise, training raters to conduct ratings, and then collecting the data, which was not

practical for this effort. This approach would have also limited the types of leaders included in

the validation sample and the training environment would likely limit the range of leader

behaviors exhibited. For example a short-term training environment may not be conducive to

behaviors related to Arming Self to Lead or Creating a Positive Climate.

Due to the limitations described above, supervisory ratings of leader performance were

selected as the criterion measure. An "Overall Performance Scale" was created that contained 17

questions pertaining to target leader performance on individual, group and unit outcomes or

accomplishments. These items were successfully used as criterion items in other research efforts.

For our purposes, each of these items was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from "significantly

less effective than most leaders" to "significantly more effective than most leaders." This scale is

shown in Appendix B. Since factors other than target leader behavior may impact ratings of the

effectiveness of some of these items, a "Leader Influence Scale" was also developed so that the

raters could identify the extent to which the target leader influenced certain performance items.

For example, a given rater may not feel that the target leader has complete control over

'developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion.' Such things as operational pace,

mission involvement, and other environmental influences may have been present which

influenced unit and organization cohesion. Therefore, this scale was included as a way to adjust

effectiveness ratings for the influence directly attributable to the leader. Leader influence was

rated on a 3-point scale ranging from "Not at all" to "To a great extent." The Leader Influence

Scale can be found in Appendix C. Note that not all items comprising overall performance were

included in the leader influence scale as several of the items, e.g. are most clearly directly under

the influence of the target leader.

10
Procedure

All scales were evaluated during pilot studies at Ft. Drum and Ft. Hood, where selfratings were initially collected as a pilot of the leader competencies and component items. At

Ft. Drum, the site of the initial pilot test, no additional instructions on completing the measure,

other than the written instructions on the questionnaire, were provided. Analyses revealed a

problem with range restriction, as raters tended to use the positive end of the scale. To address

this, the written instructions were revised to emphasize the importance of making use of the

whole scale while still providing accurate ratings. The results from the subsequent pilot test at

Ft. Hood showed that item variance increased sufficiently and, therefore, the new instructions

were retained. Overall, results of the pilot study showed that the competency scales had

acceptable reliability. However, item statistics indicated that the distracter items were not

functioning well and there was feedback from respondents that the distracter items were difficult

to understand. This was likely due to the distracter items being overly complex, such as to render

them meaningless in the context of leadership. Thus, all remaining distracter items were removed

from the measure for subsequent administrations.

Data were collected using two methods. Army installations were visited by the

researchers and Soldiers were administered a paper-and-pencil versions of the target leader

overall performance and influence survey. An on-line version of the survey was also

administered to a random sample of NCOs and officers, composing a majority of the sample for

the study. For both methods, respondents were treated as supervisors. They were instructed to

select a subordinate leader (the target leader) with a last name beginning with a certain range of

letters. This was done to prevent supervisors from selecting especially high performing or low

performing leaders. Supervisors provided the name and rank of the target leader, as well as

contact information for a subordinate of the target leader. Supervisors were then asked to

provide ratings of the target leaders' overall performance and leader influence items. At some

locations, respondents were available for a longer period of time. In these cases, leader

competency and component data as well as leader effectiveness data were collected.

Following data collection from supervisors, subordinates of the target leaders were

contacted by e-mail, informed of the study, and asked to complete a survey. All data collection

from subordinates was conducted on-line. Subordinates provided ratings of target leader

competencies and components, as well as overall leader performance and influence items,

although only ratings from supervisors were used as the criterion. Once leader performance data

from the supervisor and competency and component data from the subordinate for the same

target leader were matched in the database, all names were removed from the data.

Sampling/Participants

The sampling plan targeted NCOs, warrant officers, and officers from the active and

reserve components, across combat arms, combat support, and combat service support. In total,

the sample included 1725 Soldiers (i.e., the supervisors of target leaders), of whom 428

responded (i.e., identified one of their subordinates as a target leader) for a response rate of

24.81%. Table 4 describes the initial supervisory respondents by installation. Based on

information provided by each of these respondents, 380 subordinates to the target leaders were

contacted and asked to participate. A total of 140 subordinates of target leaders responded, for a

11
response rate of 32.94% creating 140 matched pairs of subordinate and supervisory ratings.

Table 5 describes the target leaders' subordinate rater respondents for these matched pairs by

installation. Table 6 describes the target leaders' supervisory rater respondents for these matched

pairs by installation.

Table 4. Supervisor Demographics for All Respondents

Rile I iy tewis Detricý Total

Supervisor Rank

SGT 14 2 5 2 23

SSG 28 1 3 7 39

SFC 14 0 3 7 24

MSG/ISG 2 0 2 0 4

SGM/CSM 3 0 0 0 3

LT 15 0 3 1 19

CPT 37 10 3 1 51

MAJ 30 3 6 2 41

LTC 65 13 7 0 85

COL 78 4 7 0 89

Other 2 0 0 0 2

Total 288 33 39 20 380

Supervisor Current Position

Commander 60 3 5 1 69

Key Staff 60 4 12 6 82

Supporting Staff 28 2 4 1 35

Special Staff 26 14 2 1 43

Special Assignment 16 2 0 0 18

Institutional Position 21 8 1 0 30

Platoon Leader 10 0 3 1 14

Squad Leader 15 0 4 4 23

Other 52 0 7 6 65

Missing 0 0 1 0 0

Total 288 33 39 20 380

Supervisor Time in Current Position

Less than month 21 * 6 2 29

1-3 months 52 * 10 3 65

4-6 months 31 * 7 4 42

7-9 months 25 * 1 3 29

10-12 months 22 * 2 24

More than a year 137 * 13 8 158

Total 288 * 39 20 347

Supervisor Time Working with Target

Less than month 7 * 3 1 11

1-3 months 23 * 4 5 32

4-6 months 32 * 12 5 49

7-9 months 38 * 3 2 43

10-12 months 55 * 10 1 66

12
More than a year 133 *7 6 146

Total 288 *39 20 347

13
Table 5. Supervisor Demographics for Matched Pairs

~AKO Riley Lewis Detrick Total

Supervisor Rank

SGT 2 2 0 0 4

SSG 4 1 1 1 7

SFC 2 0 0 1 3

MSG/ISG 0 0 0 0 0

SGM/CSM 1 0 0 0 1

LT 6 0 1 0 7

CPT 11 10 2 0 23

MAJ 10 3 2 0 15

LTC 26 13 2 0 41

COL 28 3 6 0 37

Other 2 0 0 0 2

Total 92 32 14 2 140

Supervisor Current Position

Commander 24 3 2 0 29

Key Staff 23 3 5 0 31

Supporting Staff 11 2 3 0 16

Special Staff 6 14 1 0 21

Special Assignment 8 2 0 0 10

Institutional Position 6 8 0 0 14

Platoon Leader 1 0 1 0 2

Squad Leader 4 0 1 0 5

Other 9 0 0 2 11

Missing 0 0 1 0 1

Total 92 32 14 2 140

Supervisor Time in Current Position

Less than month 5 * 1 0 6

1-3 months 16 * 4 0 20

4-6 months 9 * 2 1 12

7-9 months 6 * 0 0 6

10-12 months 8 * 1 0 9

More than a year 48 * 6 1 55

Total 92 * 14 2 108

Supervisor Time Working with Target

Less than month 0 * 0 0 0

1-3 months 4 * 1 0 5

4-6 months 10 * 4 1 15

7-9 months 12 * 1 1 14

10-12 months 19 * 5 0 24

More than a year 47 * 3 0 50

Total 92 * 14 2 108

* Item not asked

14
Table 6. Subordinate Demographics for Matched Pairs

Subordinate Rank

SGT 11 3 1 1 16

SSG 6 0 2 0 8

SFC 14 0 0 1 15

MSG/1SG 4 0 2 0 6

SGM/CSM 1 0 0 0 1

CW3 1 0 0 0 1

LT 4 5 0 0 9

CPT 24 12 7 0 43

MAJ 12 3 1 0 16

LTC 3 2 0 0 5

Other 12 6 1 0 19

Missing 0 1 0 0 1

Total 92 32 14 2 140

Subordinate Current Position

Commander 6 13 0 0 19

Key Staff 12 4 2 1 19

Supporting Staff 24 0 6 0 30

Special Staff 6 2 1 0 9

Special Assignment 4 0 0 0 4

Institutional Position 8 0 0 0 8

Platoon Leader 1 4 1 0 6

Squad Leader 6 3 2 1 12

Other 25 5 2 0 32

Missing 0 1 0 0 1

Total 92 32 14 2 140

Subordinate Time in Current Position

Less than month 4 1 0 0 5

1-3 months 9 3 2 0 14

4-6 months 7 8 3 0 18

7-9 months 7 5 4 0 16

10-12 months 16 4 2 0 22

More than a year 49 11 3 2 65

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Total 92 32 14 2 140

Subordinate Time Working with Target

1-3 months 3 * 0 0 3

4-6 months 6 * 3 0 9

7-9 months 15 * 2 0 17

10-12 months 24 * 3 2 29

More than a year 44 * 6 0 50

Missing 0 * 0 0 0

Total 92 * 14 2 108

* Item not asked

15
RESULTS

Item-level Statistics

A comparison of the item means by installation was performed to determine if there were

any differences that would preclude using the data as a group, and no significant differences

were found. Thus, all results presented include all installations. Using the subordinate ratings,

Table 7 presents the means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations (this is the

correlation between the item and the total scale or competency) for each item within each

competency on the predictor measure. The mean of the ratings for items on the predictor measure

ranged from 4.87 to 5.87, with an overall mean rating of 5.23. The standard deviations on the

items ranged from 1.36 to 1.78, with an average standard deviation of 1.50. Recall from the

method section that there were some target leader supervisors that also completed the predictor

measure. For those supervisors who completed the predictor measure the mean ratings for the

items were slightly lower, on average. The item mean ratings ranged from 4.35 to 5.29, with a

mean rating overall of 4.85. Appendix D presents the means, standard deviations and item-total

correlations for each item for the supervisor ratings.

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Measure by Leadership Competency

jJtemý i] tem ijIter-total

Item Text .I N. correlation

Lead Others

31. Leading others to success 137 5.21 1.42 0.91

25. Establishing and communicating clear intent and purpose 135 5.10 1.57 0.85

53. Conveying the significance of the work 137 5.26 1.40 0.83

3. Maintaining and enforcing high professional standards 138 5.23 1.62 0.79

36. Balancing requirements of the mission with welfare of followers 136 5.34 1.45 0.79

6. Creating and sharing a vision of the future 138 5.11 1.56 0.83

Lead by Example

60. Modeling sound values and behaviors 138 5.43 1.48 0.85

15. Modeling Army values consistently through actions, attitudes, and 138 5.34 1.53 0.88

communications

35. Exemplifying warrior ethos 136 5.39 1.69 0.84

70. Demonstrating commitment to the Nation, U.S. Army, one's unit, and 135 5.87 1.41 0.84

Soldiers

41. Displaying confidence, self-control, composure, and positive attitude 138 5.51 1.59 0.82

8. Demonstrating technical, technological, and tactical knowledge and skills 135 5.41 1.60 0.77

59. Understanding the importance of conceptual thinking skills and modeling 126 5.18 1.41 0.86

them to others

45. Seeking and is open to diverse ideas and points of view 138 5.32 1.44 0.74

64. Reinforcing verbal guidance through demonstration of own actions 138 5.38 1.51 0.87

Create a Positive Environment

42. Shaping climate 131 5.17 1.48 0.86

13. Fostering team work, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty 137 5.32 1.63 0.83

10. Encouraging subordinates to accept responsibility 137 5.44 1.39 0.76

2. Creating a learning environment 138 5.03 1.55 0.83

52. Encouraging open and candid communications 138 5.49 1.50 0.85

23. Encouraging fairness and inclusiveness 137 5.32 1.43 0.82

16
Communicate!

Item Text actvel 1 54 1.64 0.88

48. Expressing and demonstrating care for people and their well-being 137 5.53 1.47 0.81

29. Anticipating people's on-the-job needs 132 4.87 1.51 0.79

26. Setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals and teams 138 5.26 1.50 0.82

57. Accepting reasonable setbacks and failures 136 5.13 1.53 0.78 Communicate

54. Ensuring shared understanding 138 5.05 1.41 0.86

72. Listening actively 138 5.14 1.64 0.88

65. Employing engaging communication techniques 136 5.09 1.54 0.88

74. Determining information sharing strategies 135 4.98 1.53 0.89

21. Conveying thoughts and ideas to ensure understanding 138 5.25 1.45 0.81

47. Presenting recommendations so others understand advantages 135 5.19 1.40 0.88

69. Being sensitive to cultural factors in communication 126 5.29 1.50 0.76

Develop Leaders

22. Fostering growth in others 136 5.13 1.48 0.87

50. Assessing developmental needs of subordinates 133 4.95 1.54 0.90

73. Coaching, counseling, and mentoring 138 5.16 1.78 0.87

34. Fostering job development, job challenge, and job enrichment of others 134 5.02 1.56 0.91

12. Facilitating ongoing development 134 5.20 1.45 0.83

18. Supporting institutional-based development of subordinates 133 4.95 1.50 0.84

61. Building team skills and processes 137 5.23 1.49 0.89 Prepare Self to Lead

75. Preparing self to lead 134 5.33 1.60 0.89

38. Maintaining mental and physical health and well-being 138 5.39 1.58 0.71

67. Maintaining self awareness and recognizing impact of self on others 137 5.07 1.58 0.88

46. Evaluating and incorporating personal feedback from others 137 5.18 1.41 0.81

51. Expandify own knowledge of technical, technological, and tactical areas 129 5.32 1.54 0.84

11. Expanding own conceptual and interpersonal capabilities 131 5.15 1.44 0.83

27. Analyzing and organizing information to create knowledge 137 5.13 1.36 0.85

30. Maintaining relevant cultural awareness 128 5.05 1.60 0.76

44. Maintaining relevant geo-political awareness 119 5.23 1.41 0.73 Get Results

24. Guiding successful operations 135 5.41 1.46 0.89

28. Prioritizing, organizing, and coordinating tasks for teams or groups 136 5.22 1.47 0.84

19. Identifying and accounting for individual and group capabilities and their 13 5. 1.4 0.8 commitment to task 16 51 .3 08

55. Designating, clarifying, and de-conflicting roles 135 4.91 1.57 0.84

20. Identifying, contending for, allocating, and managing resources 136 5.19 1.48 0.81 71. Removing work barriers 133 5.14 1.52 0.86

39. Recognizing and rewarding good performance 135 5.25 1.51 0.82

1. Seeking, recognizing, and taking advantage of opportunities to improve 126 5.2 1.5 0.85 performance 16 52 .5 08

4. Making feedback part of work processes 138 5.17 1.51 0.79

63. Executing plans to accomplish the mission 138 5.53 1.40 0.88

7. Identifying and adjusting to external influences on the mission and 14 53 .0 08 organization 14 53 .0 08

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command

66. Extending influence beyond chain of command 127 5.29 1.50 0.83

56. Understanding sphere of influence, means of influence, and limits of 19 50 .3 08

influence 129 5.02 1.53 0.85

17
ImT'62. Building trust with those outside lines of authority 13 .9 .3 0.85

]33. Negotiating to reach mutual understanding and to resolve conflict 15 50 .2 0.81

17. Building and maintaining alliances 13____1.1 0.90

Note: A 7-point scale ranging from "1-performing well below expectations" to "7-performing well above

expectations" was used for the eight competencies. Item-total correlations are based on N's of 131, 121, 126, 125,

122, 109, 120, and 115 for the competencies in order presented due to missing data on any item in the competency.

Table 8 presents the means, standard deviations and item-total correlations for the

supervisor ratings of the target leaders on the criterion measures of overall performance and

leader influence. The item means on overall performance ranged from 3.81 to 4.29, with an

overall mean of 4.12. The standard deviations on the overall performance items ranged from .88

to 1.01, with an average standard deviation of .95. The item means on leader influence ranged

from 2.32 to 2.74, with an overall mean of 2.57. The standard deviations on the overall

performance items ranged from .46 to .58, with an average standard deviation of .53.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Criterion and Covariate Measures

Overall Performance

1. Earning Soldiers' trust in his/her combat judgment. 110 4.25 .97 0.83

2. Training Soldiers, unit, or organization 134 4.16 .97 0.79

3. Ensuring Soldiers, unit, or organization accomplish their missions. 137 4.28 .88 0.86

4. Making recommendations that improve unit or organization effectiveness. 138 4.22 .89 0.76

5. Ensuring that his or her team's equipment is operationally ready 125 4.06 .94 0.70

6. Developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion. 138 4.12 1.01 0.85

7. Developing Soldiers into leaders. 133 3.98 .96 0.84

8. Earning Soldiers' trust 137 4.21 .97 0.82

9. Improving the morale of Soldiers in his or her unit. 138 4.06 1.01 0.87

10. Improving Soldiers' task accomplishment. 137 3.99 .89 0.83

11. Increasing the likelihood that Soldiers in his or her unit will remain in the 129 3.81 .98 0.83

Army.

12. Helping Soldiers in his or her unit grow as leaders. 134 3.98 .95 0.85

13. Earning the trust of his or her superior officers/supervisors. 137 4.22 1.01 0.85

14. Contributing to Army readiness. 136 4.18 .93 0.82

15. Showing concern for Soldier's families. 135 4.13 .89 0.68

16. Succeeding in all of his or her assignments. 138 4.29 .94 0.85

17. Making team members better Soldiers. 136 4.17 .98 0.92

Leader Influence

2. Training my Soldiers, unit, or organization 134 2.57 .50 0.56

3. Ensuring my Soldiers, unit, or organization accomplish their missions. 135 2.71 .47 0.60

5. Ensuring that my team's equipment is operationally ready 129 2.51 .55 0.47

6. Developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion. 137 2.59 .54 0.66

7. Developing Soldiers into leaders. 134 2.52 .53 0.71

9. Improving the morale of Soldiers in my unit. 137 2.55 .58 0.65

10. Improving my Soldiers' task accomplishment. 137 2.55 .51 0.66

11. Increasing the likelihood that Soldiers in my unit will remain in the Army. 132 2.32 .58 0.51

18
-timx 'Iternhtota1

12. Helping Soldiers in my unit grow as leaders. 134 2.51 .52 0.75

14. Contributing to Army readiness. 136 2.61 .55 0.61

16. Succeeding in all of my assignments. 138 2.74 .46 0.68

17. Making my team members better Soldiers. 136 2.61 .52 0.76

Note: A 5-point scale ranging from "1-significantly less effective than most leaders" to "5-significantly more

effective than most leaders" was used for overall performance. A 3-point scale ranging from "1-Not at all" to "3-To

a great extent" was used for leader influence. Numbering of leader influence items corresponds with their respective

overall performance item. Recall that not all performance items have a corresponding influence item. Item-total

correlations are based on N= 102 for the overall performance scale and N= 120 for the influence scale due to

missing data on any item in the scale.

In some cases, target leader subordinates completed the criterion measures and the mean

ratings for the overall performance items were slightly lower than supervisors' ratings, on

average. The item mean ratings ranged from 3.47 to 4.05, with a mean rating overall of 3.84.

The mean ratings from subordinates on the leader influence items were very similar to the item

means from supervisors. The item means on leader influence ranged from 2.18 to 2.61, with an

overall mean of 2.44. Appendix E presents the means, standard deviations and item-total

correlations for each item on the criterion measures for the subordinates.

Scale (Competency) Statistics

Table 9 presents the mean ratings, standard deviations and reliabilities for the eight Army

competencies and the two proposed competencies from the subordinate ratings and for the

overall performance and leader influence from the supervisor ratings. Internal consistency

reliabilities for the eight competencies ranged from .94 to .97. Cronbach's alpha for overall

performance and leader influence was .97 and .91, respectively. Table 9 also presents the

correlations between the competencies, overall performance (averaged across the 17 individual

items) and leader influence (averaged across the 12 individual items). The eight competencies

were found to be highly correlated with each other. The correlations ranged from .91 to .97

among the eight Army core competencies. Therefore, regression analyses including the

competencies may be weakened due to inflated error terms from the multicollinearity among the

competencies (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

In terms of the relationship between the competencies and overall performance, each

competency had a moderately high positive correlation with overall performance. The

correlations ranged from .49 to .53. The competency correlating the highest with overall

performance was Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command. The correlations between the

competencies and leader influence were considerably lower, ranging from .26 to .33; however,

they were still statistically significant. To take into account the fact that other factors may

influence outcomes more strongly than leaders' behaviors, the mean leader influence ratings was

used as a weight on the overall performance ratings. Correlating the competencies with this

weighted overall performance resulted in slightly lower correlations compared to the nonweighted overall performance. Note that results for the two proposed competencies, Planning

and Organizing and Decision-making and Problem-solving are also included in this table in

italics but the implications of these results will be discussed in a subsequent section.

19
00

"4C

000 c> 0

'20

0, ~ ~~ tr E

00

N~~C'to

o En

-S ,

"04 C \Oo w C4 k* o m oooooo6~sooc;

00

r- fn ") r4 C

0

C) ~ ZV-z ~ ~ )0CCDC ~ ~ .

kA Oý CCC ýO W ' U2 

4) 0

> >

-ý mON ýot >e 4r

Cý Cý Ora ýO 1W I

C) c.C ) )Z c

\0 k)t)'T ýc ()(.1. 0

eq wl 0

en o* Cý r-ý O *ý (0 - 'J ' Zý 

CD > C D > C (. Q ( 20C
Model Validation

To meet the objective of this effort, which was to provide evidence of the

criterion-related validity of the Army competency-based leadership model, a multiple

regression analysis was conducted using the scale score on overall performance as the

criterion. Prior to analysis, examination of the z scores for the individual variables and

the standardized residuals from the regression analysis identified two outliers. One of the

outliers had the lowest or second lowest z score on all of the predictor variables. The

other outlier was identified by the standardized residual as a multivariable outlier with p

<.001. Both outliers were deleted, leaving 138 cases for analysis.

A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to first determine the ability of

the eight Army competencies to predict overall performance and the eight proposed

competencies were entered in step 1. The unstandardized regression coefficients, the

standardized regression coefficients, the semi partial correlations, R, and R2 for this step

are presented in Table 10. R was significantly different from zero in step I (R = .56, F(8,

129) = 7.24, p <.001); therefore the model has evidence of criterion-related validity.

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command was the only predictor to have a regression

coefficient significantly different from zero. Extend Influence Beyond Chain of

Command contributed .02 in unique variability to the prediction of overall performance.

The proposed eight competencies combined contributed another .29 in shared variability.

Altogether, 31% (27% adjusted) of the variability in overall performance was accounted

for by the core leadership competencies. Even though the correlations between overall

performance and each of the eight Army competencies were significant, the relationships

are redundant due to the high correlations among the competencies and therefore, each

competency alone, with the exception of Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command,

did not contribute significantly to the regression. Extend Influence Beyond Chain of

Command, although still highly correlated with the other competencies, had the lowest

correlations with the other competencies.

Table 10. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

STEP 1 .56 .31**

Lead Others -0.23 0.19 -0.38 -1.21 0.23 0.01

Lead by Example 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.66 0.51 0.00

Create a Positive Environment 0.16 0.23 0.25 0.69 0.49 0.00

Communicate -0.19 0.19 -0.32 -1.01 0.31 0.01

Develop Leaders -0.06 0.16 -0.10 -0.35 0.72 0.00

Prepare Self to Lead 0.05 0.20 0.08 0.27 0.79 0.00

Get Results 0.24 0.21 0.37 1.12 0.26 0.01

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of

Command 0.28 0.14 0.45 2.02 0.05 0.02

21
Instrument Development

In addition to evaluating the criterion-related validity of the model, analyses were

also conducted to refine the predictor measure for assessing the leader competencies. To

determine the most predictive items in the measure for each competency, separate

multiple regression analyses were performed regressing the items comprising each

competency onto overall performance. The items were entered into the regression

analysis using the forward selection procedure, in which the items for a competency were

entered sequentially into the equation based on their partial correlation with overall

performance. The unstandardized regression coefficients, the standardized regression

coefficients, R, and R2 for the final model produced in each of these analyses are

presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Final Models for Each Competency from Forward Multiple Regression

Analyses

B SUtd.rrdr- Beta -'"' Sig.~ R lez

Lead Others .47 .22***

(Constant) 2.91 0.21 13.64 0.00

25. Establishing and communicating clear 0.24 0.04 0.46 5.96 0.00

intent and purpose

Lead by Example .54 .29***

(Constant) 2.56 0.23 11.00 0.00

64. Reinforcing verbal guidance through 0.29 0.04 0.54 7.03 0.00

demonstration of own actions

Create a Positive Environment .56 .32***

(Constant) 2.47 0.23 10.76 0.00

52. Encouraging open and candid 0.17 0.06 0.33 2.78 0.01

communications

13. Fostering team work, cohesion, 0.13 0.06 0.27 2.32 0.02

cooperation, and loyalty

Ensuring a Shared Understanding .49 .24***

(Constant) 2.92 0.21 13.82 0.00

65. Employing engaging communication 0.24 0.04 0.49 6.20 0.00

techniques

Develop Leaders .51 .26***

(Constant) 2.57 0.25 10.37 0.00

61. Building team skills and processes 0.16 0.06 0.29 2.48 0.01

12. Facilitating ongoing development 0.14 0.07 0.25 2.15 0.03

Prepare Self to Lead .54 .29***

(Constant) 2.59 0.25 10.57 0.00

27. Analyzing and organizing information to 0.30 0.05 0.54 6.61 0.00

create knowledge

Get Results .51 .26***

(Constant) 2.63 0.24 10.87 0.00

19. Identifying and accounting for individual

and group capabilities and their commitment 0.15 0.06 0.29 2.44 0.02

to task

1. Seeking, recognizing, and taking

advantage of opportunities to improve 0.14 0.06 0.26 2.18 0.03

performance

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command .54 .30***

22
(Constant) 2.66 0.23 11.76 0.00

62. Building trust with those outside lines of 0.28 0.04 0.54 6.90 0.00

authority

Note: N sizes ranged from 109 to 131.

Of the six items under the competency Lead Others, only item 25 met the

criterion for being entered into the equation. This item alone explained 22% of the

variance in overall performance. Similarly, of the nine items under Lead by Example,

only item 64 entered the equation and explained 29% of the variance in overall

performance. Items 13 and 52 under the competency Create a Positive Environment,

were the only items that were entered for the competency, and they accounted for 32% of

the variance in overall performance. The only item to be entered out of the seven items

under Communicate was item 65. It accounted for 24% of the variance in overall

performance. Items 12 and 61 under Develop Leaders were entered into the equation and

accounted for 26% of the variance in overall performance. Item 27 under Prepare Self to

Lead was the only item entered for the competency and it accounted for 29% of the

variance in overall performance. Two items, 19 and 1, were entered in the equation for

the competency, Get Results, and explained 26% of the variance in overall performance.

Lastly, of the five items under Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command, only item 62

was included in the equation, accounting for 30% of the variance in overall performance.

Thus, for each competency, only one to two items were able to account for roughly 20 to

30% of the variance in overall performance. These results are likely due to the high

correlations among all of the predictor items.

A multiple regression analysis was also performed, regressing all of the predictor

items on overall performance. Using the backward elimination procedure, in which all

items are entered and then sequentially removed based on their partial correlations, a final

set of 10 items was produced. Table 12 presents the unstandardized regression

coefficients, the standardized regression coefficients, R, and R2 for final model produced

from this regression analysis. Together, these items accounted for 48% of the variance in

overall performance.

Table 12. Final Model of 1O Predictor Items from Backward Multiple Regression

Analysis

Competency B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R R2

.70 .48***

(Constant) 3.22 0.25 12.71 0.00

13. Fostering team work, cohesion, Create a

cooperation, and loyalty Positive 0.17 0.07 0.38 2.41 0.02

Environment

22. Fostering growth in others Develop -0.20 0.08 -0.39 -2.40 0.02

Leaders

24. Guiding successful operations Get Results 0.30 0.10 0.62 3.03 0.00

26. Setting and maintaining high Create a

expectations for individuals and teams Positive 0.18 0.08 0.38 2.13 0.04

Environment

30. Maintaining relevant cultural Prepare Self _0. 11 0.06 -0.25 -1.96 0.05

awareness to Lead

23
Competency B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R R2

35. Exemplifying warrior ethos Lead by 0.16 0.07 0.37 2.30 0.02

Example

46. Evaluating and incorporating Prepare Self -0.38 0.09 -0.76 -4.26 0.00

personal feedback from others to Lead

52. Encouraging open and candid Create a

communications Positive 0.25 0.08 0.52 3.04 0.00

Environment

54. Ensuring shared understanding Communicate 0.21 0.08 0.44 2.49 0.02

63. Executing plans to accomplish the Get Results -0.40 0.13 -0.79 -3.19 0.00

mission

Note: Adjusted R2 = .42. p < .001. N=89.

Analysis of Additional Competencies and Leadership Items

The two newly proposed competencies, Planning & Organizing and Decisionmaking & Problem-solving, were evaluated to determine if adding the competencies of

Planning & Organizing and Decision-making & Problem-solving improved the

prediction over the proposed eight core competency set (see Table 13). These

competencies were highly correlated with each other and with the eight core

competencies, although Planning & Organizing had slightly lower correlations with the

other competencies. Planning & Organizing and Decision-making & Problem-solving

were entered in step two to determine if they would account for variance in overall

performance above and beyond the variance accounted for by the eight Army

competencies. Planning & Organizing had the lowest correlation of all competencies

with overall performance. The addition of Planning & Organizing and Decision-making

& Problem-solving in step two was not significant (R2 change=.02, ns).

Table 13. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis including Planning & Organizing

and Decision-making/Problem solving competencies

STEP 2 .57 .33**

Lead Others -0.17 0.19 -0.29 -0.90 0.37 0.00

Lead by Example 0.15 0.17 0.24 0.84 0.40 0.00

Create a Positive Environment 0.04 0.24 0.07 0.17 0.86 0.00

Communicate -0.19 0.19 -0.32 -1.04 0.30 0.01

Develop Leaders -0.02 0.17 -0.04 -0.14 0.89 0.00

Prepare Self to Lead 0.03 0.20 0.04 0.14 0.89 0.00

Get Results 0.32 0.22 0.51 1.44 0.15 0.01

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of

Command 0.28 0.14 0.46 1.99 0.05 0.02

Planning & Organizing -0.22 0.14 -0.35 -1.57 0.12 0.01

Decision-making/Problem-solving 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.86 0.39 0.00

Note: Adjusted R2 = .27 in step 1. p < .001. Adjusted R2 = .27 in step 2. R2

change =.02 (ns). N=138.

A standard multiple regression analysis was performed between the 12 items from

Ulmer, et al.'s (2004) scale as the independent variables and overall performance as the

24
dependent variable. Table 14 presents the unstandardized regression coefficients, the

standardized regression coefficients, R, and R2 for the 12 items. The R was significantly

different from zero, F(12, 110) = 5.15, p<.001, and predicted 36% of the variance in

overall performance.

Table 14. Standard Multiple Regression Analysis with 12 Items from Ulmer et al. 's

(2004) Scale

BW'_ Std .Error' Beta' d F 'Si R

.60 .36***

(Constant) 2.64 0.27 9.80 0.00

76. Keeping cool under pressure 0.09 0.08 0.17 1.14 0.26

77. Clearly explaining missions, standards, and -0.06 0.10 -0.11 -0.60 0.55

priorities

78. Seeing the big picture; providing context 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.54 0.59

and perspective

79. Making tough, sound decisions on time 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.92 0.36

80. Adapting quickly to new situations and 0.17 0.10 0.30 1.67 0.10

requirements

81. Setting high standards without a "zero 0.15 0.08 0.29 1.90 0.06

defects" mentality

82. Handling "bad news" -0.15 0.09 -0.28 -1.65 0.10

83. Coaching and giving useful feedback to 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.62 0.53

subordinates

84. Setting a high ethical tone; demanding -0.08 0.08 -0.16 -1.12 0.26

honest reporting

85. Knowing how to delegate without

"micromanaging" -0.18 0.08 -0.33 -2.35 0.02

86. Building and supporting teamwork within 0.14 0.10 0.27 1.40 0.16

staff and among units

87. Being positive, encouraging, and 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.96

realistically optimistic

Note: Adjusted R2 = .29. p < .001. N=123.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This effort sought to provide support for an empirical relationship between a

proposed set of Army leader competencies and performance outcomes associated with

leadership. Conducting field research in large and complex organizations such as the

U.S. military services is challenging, particularly during heightened operational periods

brought on by the Global War on Terrorism, and this limited the opportunities for

collecting data as well as the participating sample needed for conducting more rigorous

model testing (i.e., factor analyses of competency and performance measures).

Nonetheless, this research represents a unique and relatively scientifically rigorous effort

to link a competency model to leader effectiveness. The results will be discussed in

terms of the validation of the core leader competency model, the addition of additional

competencies and predictor items to this model, the development of a leader assessment

25
instrument, the implications for applying the leadership model, and aspects for further

research.

Validation of the Leader Competency Model

Overall, the results of this research provide evidence of the validity of the

leadership model competencies and components. One issue of obvious concern is the

high inter-correlations between the core competencies. These can be interpreted in

several ways. First, the competency model was developed to measure the construct of

leadership and it is important that the competencies representing this construct do, in fact,

correlate significantly with one another. Second, it is well documented that performance

ratings are affected by various types of error including halo (Bass, 1990) and the

perception of a single performance factor (Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2005) and this

is a likely influence on the present results. Finally, the leaders included in this research

were all second term and beyond-level leaders that have experienced various amounts of

institutional training and feedback on their performance. It is possible that these

experiences have helped to round them into more consistent performers across various

leadership dimensions than would be found in the general population. Naturally, when

sub-dimensions (competencies) are so highly inter-correlated there is a limitation on their

subsequent independent prediction of a criterion. Using a purely statistical determination

of the contribution of the various leadership competencies and components toward

predicting outcomes of leadership would greatly limit the competencies and components

recommended in a 'predictive' final model. However, the fact that all of the core

competencies demonstrated a significant relationship to the overall performance

composite supports their inclusion as part of the leader model.

The eight proposed competencies were all found to be significantly

correlated with the overall performance composite. Using select items from six of the

eight competencies predicted nearly 50% of the criterion variance and this is considerable

when compared with other leadership assessment instrument criterion-related validation

studies within Army contexts (Bass, Avolio, Jung, Berson, 2003). Additional

information on these comparisons is presented in a section to follow.

Efforts to control for possible situational constraints on leader

effectiveness ratings by weighting those effectiveness items which may not be

completely under the leader's influence using influence weights did not prove fruitful.

The positive correlation with both leader behavior ratings and effectiveness ratings

indicates that influence judgments are likely already being estimated (to some extent) in

the overall performance ratings. Ideally, one would expect ratings of the extent to which

any leader has influence over outcomes to be independent of the performance of a given

leader. One likely reason for the positive correlation is the phrasing of the performance

criteria items in terms of the target leader's effect on outcomes rather than just the

outcomes themselves. That is, the stem for these items read 'The following items ask for

your assessment of the person's overall performance as a leader, as compared to most

leaders in the Army. Please mark the answer that best reflects his or her level of

effectiveness for each of the items below.' The items included such things as 'Training

Soldiers, unit, or organization', 'Developing Soldiers into leaders', and 'Developing a

26
unit or organization that has high cohesion.' In essence then, ratings on these items

might necessarily already include consideration of whether or not the leader has influence

over these outcomes. Perhaps a better strategy would be to have supervisors make

ratings of leadership outcomes independent of considering the 'relative effectiveness' of

the leader. Referring back to the previous items as examples, if the supervisors simply

rated 'training level of soldiers, unit or organization', 'leadership ability of soldiers', and

'unit cohesion' then the ratings of the extent to which the leader influences these aspects

would have more meaning. There were indications during the data collection that some

participants were confused about the Leader Influence scale in relation to the Overall

Performance scale. To be consistent with this approach, rephrasing the leader influence

item stem from 'extent to which the target leader influences these outcomes' to 'extent to

which any leader influences these outcomes' is recommended. This may be a valuable

area for future research, particularly in military contexts where leadership is a 24-hour-aday concern and the outcomes associated with it often have life and death implications. It

could prove detrimental to leader development to hold leaders accountable for unit and

organization outcomes which are considered by others to be beyond their control. At the

very least, it is important to further understand potential situational constraints on ratings

of leader effectiveness.

Contribution of Additional Competencies and Items

The comparison of the eight proposed competencies with the two additional

competencies of Planning & Organizing and Problem-solving & Decision-making

indicates that neither of these competencies adds significantly to the predictability of the

model. The original rationale for not including these competencies in the model was that

these aspects of leadership were already embedded at the component level within several

of the existing competencies. For example, one cannot Get Results, Lead Others, or

Create a Positive Environment without also planning and making decisions. To the

degree the results of this effort are reliable and can be generalized across leadership

situations, this rationale was supported.

Comparing the results of Ulmer et al.'s (2004) leadership items with the

competency model indicates that these items similarly predict leader effectiveness.

While these items do explain a significant amount of the overall performance criterion,

they do not outperform the model items. The fact that these items are correlated with the

overall performance items serves to support the criterion used in this study. If parsimony

alone were the goal, then a subset of leadership items from the proposed model would

also out predict the Ulmer et al. items.

Development of a Leader Assessment Instrument

One question which should be raised given the results presented here is how well

do the model items perform as a potential leader assessment instrument? When

developing a predictive instrument, reliability and validity, as well as other practical

considerations such as length, and development and application costs are relevant. The

criterion-related validity issue has already been addressed. Face validity is likely to be

27
high, given the content approach to competency development and subsequent content

validity results (Fallesen & Reichard, 2005). Another important aspect of creating a

predictor instrument is to cross-validate results on a hold out sample. The demographic

characteristics of the cross-validation sample, particularly related to leader types (e.g.,

officer vs. enlisted, rank) must also be considered.

With respect to the reliability of the items comprising an assessment instrument

based upon the model, only internal consistency (content sampling) was addressed.

Further tests of the instrument using multiple raters (inter-rater reliability) and multiple

administrations (time sampling) are recommended. These estimates notwithstanding, the

scale and total instrument reliabilities appear adequate to support continued use of the

items as leader assessment instrument.

Instrument length is particularly pertinent given current Army operational pace

and the preponderance of surveys in the military. It can be argued that the regression

results support using a much shorter instrument. While the exact length of such an

instrument cannot be determined from these results, additional data collection under the

conditions previously suggested is recommended to better establish the ideal length of a

measurement instrument.

This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using the instrument in an online

environment which greatly reduces the administration and analysis costs and the

timeframe associated with data collection. Additional research is recommended to

determine the practical value of using the survey results as developmental feedback for

target leaders. Also, additional research on improving the instructions for both

subordinates and supervisors to improve rating accuracy and reduce potential rating bias

is recommended.

Comparison with Other Leadership Instruments

A number of leadership assessment instruments have been proposed as valuable

for Army leader development (Zaccaro, Klimoski, Boyce, Chandler, Banks, & Gade,

1999). Table 15 provides an overview of those instruments that have been applied in

U.S. Army settings with corresponding validity with supervisory (or trained rater) ratings

for comparison with this study's results. The current model compares favorably with

these other instruments. The potential to greatly reduce the length of the assessment

instrument and actually improve validity with the leader effectiveness criterion warrants

additional research using the current model.

Table 15. Leadership Assessment Instruments Proposed for Army Leader Development

Instrument Items # ofDneisions1n ReliabiliWy Validity References

"Competency 63 8 competencies .85-.96 .40 - .45 with This report

Based Isupervisory

Leadership I ratings

Model [

28
Multifactor 36 6 Factors .84-.96 .04 - .55 with Bass, Avolio, Jung, &

Leadership (2 Transactional; 4 potency, Berson, 2003

Question Transformational) cohesion,

(Form 5X) performance

ratings

Multifactor 80 8 Leadership; 3 .60-.92 .04-.35 mean Lowe, Kroeck &

Leadership (depends Organizational corrected Sivasubramaniam,

Questionnaire on outcome with 1996

version) supervisory

ratings.

Leader 72 14 Aspects .66 - .87 None Zaccaro, et al., 1999

Azimuth (version available.

Check II 2)

Implications for Applying the Leadership Model

The construct of leadership in the Army has been under examination for many

decades and considerable research contributed to the development of the model validated

in this report. The reliability and criterion-related validity results presented here indicate

that the model serves as a good predictor of leadership outcomes. As stressed in Horey,

et al. (2004), the value of a competency model is in its application to assessment,

development and feedback, and managerial processes. Beyond just predicting

effectiveness then, the model should serve as a template for providing developmental and

performance feedback to target leaders. While the model provides such a template, it

should not be perceived as exact, static, or exhaustive. Certainly what has been included

in leadership depictions and information related to how leaders effectively influence

others has changed over the years. The model should be open to additional revisions as

more is learned about leadership and leader effectiveness.

Army leaders participate in institutional, on-the-job and self development at

various intervals and to varying degrees throughout their service career. The institutional

portion of this development is derived from needs analyses with professional educators

delivering this content. It is a given that this is the most systematic of the three aspects of

development. There is little doubt, based on the overwhelming success of Army

operations and the relative lack of widespread behavioral problems, that this development

is highly effective. What isn't known is how much more effective this development

might be if it were aligned to a common theoretical model. That is one of the purposes

for producing a leader competency model and based upon the empirical results presented

here, there is reason to believe that the proposed model may help guide and align all

aspects of development to a common metric.

Beyond the question of what model should be used to align Army leader

developmental experiences is that of how such an alignment would take place. It is

unlikely that all competencies and components would be addressed by any one specific

leadership course or during individual on-the-job or self-development exercises.

However, linking course and exercise objectives to the competencies and components

would assist target leaders, course administrators, and other stakeholders in recognizing

29
how those courses and exercises fit into the 'big picture' of leadership. Another

validation of sorts of the model would be to examine existing leader development courses

to see how their objectives align with the competencies and components and to determine

if there are aspects of leader development that are not represented in the model.

The use of a common model (and instrument) to measure leadership also serves

the purpose of providing comparisons of leadership aspects over time and situations. The

assumption is that leadership develops with experience, maturity, and exposure to

systematic development. Yet this presents challenges for individuals to track their own

development as Army leaders without the use of some kind of standardized measurement

instrument. Obviously, it would be of value to the individual and the organization to see

how leadership competency improves over time and how various educational and

assignment experiences affect leadership behaviors.

Quantifying leadership effectiveness for performance feedback and managing

leaders has been particularly challenging for most organizations. Edward Deming, the

noted quality improvement innovator, went so far as to recommend that performance

appraisals are not valuable for organizations because they imply that performance

deficiency is a reflection of the individual rather than the system that supports the

individual (Deming, 1986). Certainly performance ratings can suffer from a variety of

rater errors and some subordinates or supervisors may think unfavorably about the use of

their feedback for promotions, rewards, and disciplinary actions. However, feedback is a

necessary component of performance improvement (indeed, the basis of total quality

improvement is grounded on process measurement and feedback) and to the extent this

feedback can be given in a structured, constructive, and actionable way, it provides great

value to the individual. The model provides the structure for this feedback.

An often overlooked aspect of developing a leadership competency model is to

provide meaningful job aids to leaders in the form of something other than a multi-rater

or self assessment instrument. Leaders in the Army at various times are asked to be

visionaries, team members, sounding boards, family counselors, sergeants at arms, and

even babysitters. Remembering the responsibilities that go along with these roles is

demanding. While there have been advances in terms of technology-based applications to

assist with 'planning and organizing' in the form of personal digital assistants, the

leadership model provides additional content and structure for helping to organize one's

daily leadership activities in a manner that reduces the likelihood important activities will

be forgotten.

Aspects for Further Investigation

One area of potential improvement in the measurement of model leadership

behaviors has already been mentioned, that of using multiple subordinate raters to assess

leader behaviors. This approach would allow for separating halo error from the general

performance factor which may underlie the competencies represented. Another means to

improve measurement of leader behaviors would be to pursue alternative rating formats.

Several methods, including forced choice ratings (Bass & Avolio, 1989) and adaptive

scales that reduce the amount of data necessary for making reliable ratings (Borman,

Buck, Hanson, Motowidlo, Stark, & Drasgow, 2001) may prove useful in improving the

30
accuracy of leadership competency ratings. Uleman (1991) provides additional

suggestions specifically for improving the accuracy of rating leadership behaviors.

Additional validation of the leader behaviors in the model is also recommended

using more objective criteria and more comprehensive subjective criteria of leadership

outcomes. Improvements in supervisory ratings which may result in more objective

assessment of leader effects on individual, unit, and organizational outcomes have

already been mentioned. Research to investigate potential other objective criteria is also

recommended. Measures of unit performance in combat, cohesion, potency, readiness,

and morale, while confounded with other influences may still prove valuable as

effectiveness criteria. Moreover, considering additional dimensions of leader

effectiveness beyond those included in the criterion measure in this study may also prove

valuable.

Finally, another important and perhaps overlooked aspect of leadership research is

to further isolate what isn't leadership. Competency and other construct modeling

techniques run the risk of including performance aspects within a construct that may be

best categorized elsewhere. This is perhaps the main criticism of military leadership

models and relates directly to the definition of leadership from which models are evolved.

Leadership, as indicated in the prevailing performance models covered in the introduction

to this report, does not equate to individual performance in an organization and therefore

should not necessarily include all aspects of technical, managerial, and interpersonal

competency. It is interesting to note that the single core competency which best

predicted the performance criterion was Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command.

This competency was the only one of the eight core competencies that contained the verb

'influence' which is most closely aligned with the Army definition of leadership.

31
CONCLUSIONS

Fallesen and Reichard (2005) provided support for the content validity of the

leader competency model proposed by Horey et al. (2004). The findings of this study

support the value of the designated competencies and components in predicting

leadership performance outcomes in the form of supervisor ratings. The subordinate

ratings of leader behaviors resulted in highly reliable competency scales. While the

multiple regression results do not allow comparison of the relative contributions of the

competencies due to the high correlations between competencies, one would be hard

pressed to argue that those competencies or components not found to be significantly

related to the criterion should be dropped from a model of military leadership

effectiveness.

Competency-based models of leadership are prevalent in organizations and no

doubt have been credited with aspects of performance that are likely beyond ascribed

leadership definitional boundaries. It is important to keep more global performance

models in mind, such as those proposed by Campbell et al. (1993), Borman et al. (1987),

and Hedge et al. (2004), when considering how leadership is related to overall

performance within an organization. Further distinguishing how leadership constructs

are related to other individual performance dimensions will assist in understanding how

these constructs can be better described, measured and developed.

In closing, we must stress that competency models are not developed to represent

wholly comprehensive or absolute depictions of leader effectiveness. Rather, they

provide key areas of leader functioning that should lead to effective organization

outcomes. With this guidance in place, the Army leader competencies and components

should be promulgated through doctrine and reflected in developmental and assessment

processes to encourage dissemination, understanding, and application toward improving

leader behaviors.

32
References

Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1. (2004). Leadership and force development. United

States Air Force Chief of Staff.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-3 1.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes,

leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and ranking of transformational and

transactional leadership construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,

509-527.

Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 207-218.

Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S. & Drasgow, F.

(2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of

performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 965-973.

Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M. (1987). Development of a

Model of Soldier Effectiveness: Retranslation of Materials and Results (ARI Research

Note 87-29). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Briscoe, J. P. and Hall, D. T. (1999). Grooming and picking leaders using competency

frameworks: Do they work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for

practice. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 37-52.

Campbell, J., McCloy, R., Oppler, S., & Sager, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In

N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 35-70).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Carpenter, T. D., & Wisecarver, M. M. (2004). Identifying and Validating a Model of

Interpersonal Performance Dimensions. (ARI Technical Report 1144). Alexandria,

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

Cascio, W.F. (1991). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management, 2 nd Ed. Reston,

VA: Reston Publishing Co.

Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 27-43.

33
Clement, S. D. & Ayres, D. B. (1976). Leadership for the 1970s. A Matrix of

Organizational Leadership Dimensions. (Leadership monograph series no. 8). Ft.

Benjamin Harrison, IN: Army Administration Center.

Conger, J. A., and Ready, D. A. (2004). Rethinking Leadership Competencies. Leader to

Leader, 32, 41-47.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Institute for Advanced

Engineering Study.

Drath, W., & Palus, C. (1994). Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-making

in a Community of Practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Fallesen, J. J. & Reichard, R. (2005). Leadership Competencies: Building a Foundation

for Army Leader Development. Paper presented at the 20th annual Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference. Los Angeles: CA.

Gatewood, R.D. & Feild, H.S. (1998). Human Resource Selection (4"h edition). Fort

Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

Gayvert, D.R. (1999). Leadership and Doctrinal Reform. Military Review, 79. 18-22.

Gerstener, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 827-844.

Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement Theory for the

Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a

reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.

Headquarters, Department of Army. (1999). Army Leadership (Field Manual 22-100).

Washington, DC: Author.

Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C., Bruskiewicz, K. T., & Boume, M. J. (2004, Oct.) The

development of an integrated performance category system for supervisory jobs in the

U.S. Navy. Military Psychology, 16, 231 - 243.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership.

American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology. 9, 169-180.

34
Horey, J., & Fallesen, J. J. (2003). Leadership Competencies: Are we all saying the same

thing? Paper presented at the 4 5th annual International Military Testing Association

conference, Pensacola, FL.

Horey, J., Fallesen, J. J., Morath, R., Cronin, B., Cassella, R., Franks, Jr., W., & Smith, J.

(2004). Competency Based Future Leadership Requirements (Technical Report

1148). Arlington, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Jacobs, T. 0., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In K. E. Clark and M.

B. Clark (Eds.) Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ: US: Leadership Library of

America, p. 281.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A

meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-

768.

Kaiser, R.B., & Ferrel, S.G. (2005). Leadership and the fate of organizations: On the

measurement of effectiveness. Paper presented at the 2 0th annual conference of the

Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A

study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 3 7, 117-130.

Lievens, F., Sanchez, J. I., & De Corte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in

competency modeling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter

expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57, 881-904.

Lowe, K. G., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Nathan, B.R. & Alexander, R.A. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A

meta-analytic investigation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 517-535.

Newsome, S., Catano, V. M., & Day, A. L. (2003). Leader Competencies: Proposing a

Research Framework. Kingston, ON: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource

Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Reed, G., Bullis, C., Collins, R., & Paparone, C. (2004). Mapping the route of leadership

education: Caution ahead. Parameters, 46-60.

35
Richards, D., & Engle, S. (1986). After the vision: Suggestions to corporate visionaries

and vision champions. In J. D. Adams (Eds.) Transforming Leadership (pp. 199-215).

Alexandria: VA: Miles River Press.

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.D., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity

studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study

characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 3 7, 407-422.

Schneider, J. & Schmitt, N. (1992). An exercise design approach to understanding

assessment center dimension and exercise constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77, 32-41.

Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J.,

Pearlman, K., Prien, E. P., & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of competency

modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.

Steinberg, A. G., & Leaman, J. A. (1990). Dimensions ofArmy Commissioned and

Noncommissioned Officer Leadership. (Technical Report 879). Alexandria, VA:

United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd edition).

New York: Harpers Collins College Publishers.

Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational

performance? Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 388-400.

Uleman, J.S. (1991). Leadership ratings: Toward focusing more on specific behaviors.

Leadership Quarterly, 2, 175-187.

Ulmer, Jr., W., Shaler, M.D., Bullis, C.R., DiClemente, D.F., Jacobs, T.O. (2004).

Leadership Lessons at Division Command Level - 2004. Carlisle Barracks, PA:

United States Army War College.

Viswesveran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in

ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive

and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131.

Zaccaro, S. J., Klimoski, R. J., Boyce, L. A., Chandler, C., Banks, D., & Gade, P. A.

(1999). Developing a Tool Kit for the Assessment ofArmy Leadership Processes and

Outcomes: Version 1.0 (ARI Research Note 99-35). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

36
APPENDIX A

Leader Behavior Scale

•¢ ~~U C_,• 

2. Ceatig a earnng eviromen

4. Mkingfeebackpar of orkprocsse

6. Ceatig a vsionof ad shrin he ftur

8. tehnoogial, Dmontraing echica, nd actcal nowedg and3 skll

10.x uodntst cetrsosblt Enorgn 

12.~~~~~C dvlomn Faiittngogon 

18. Creaoting aerinstitutironalbaent deelpmn of 3ubor5nate

A-S.
CL C rL X

X

0 4)

C It > 0

0 CL 4)

CL111 - I ý' ý I (L

a. cc Z

"Co v

22. Fostering growth in others 1 2 3 4 6 7 Not

Obs.

'0

24 . Guiding successful operations 1 2 3 4 6 7 ot

hQ `4i WAARLIWI 2 5,-, E s ta b I i qh! 6 g -an dq'Iý m ui t

26. Setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ot

teams bs.

T nalyzing -an ..organizing 6JO

ý4'

28. Prioritizing, organizing, and coordinating tasks for teams or 1 2 3 4 7 ot

groups ` - e_'ý ý' -rE

ng p pp p s',q

30. Maintaining relevant cultural awareness 1 2 3 6 7 Not

Obs.

31- . _®r, -1 F , X--

32. Visualizing second and third order effects of decisions before 2 3 6 7 Not

they are made Obs.

3 3'ý-, N e'g`6t i at in gi to r 6 a c h!, rný 1, 1iiilýi 11,Uhl 1111 1

g

34. Fostering job development, job challenge, and job enrichment of 1 2 3 5 6 7 ot

others bs.

35.'Bempl* r

36. Balancing requirements of the mission with welfare of followers 2 3 4 5 7 ot

bs.

ocusingo Z. U,

38. Maintaining mental and physical health and well-being 3 ot

bs.

rb lltlý I Recognizing-bo, ewar intill

40. Creating alternate or contingency plans 3 4 5 6 7 Not

I I Obs.

41 D' I cb, ce 11, 11111111 DROM M E

J4 attiti

42. Shaping climate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ot

bs.

A-2
'ý

,•,•5• ., • .0

?C

44.~~~~~~~~~~ wrns ManannEeeatge-oiia 

46 Evauain Mn inoprtn pesoa fedbc fro other

48. ~ ~ ~ ar ~ o epean ~ ~ Exr0sn hiel and ~ deosrtn ~ ~~C 

54.~~~0 Enurn ccre znesadn

44. Mandrtainding shrelvn g oftinfluence, reanes of influece,5an

46. Evaluaing in esta-efc 1fetvl 3iutoswt 

infor a ndio n coprtn esnlfebc rmohr

48. Expressing aond valemostratng aehavorspol n hi el

b4 einfrig hoghdmntaino w S.blgiac 

tactions~ i

52.Enourgig oenancadi co muictios 2A-453
//)

56. chan xtedin o coman infuene byon 

58. emostrainggoo judmen whn th siuaton i unlea

70. t emostraingcom theNatonU.S.Arm, itmet on's nit

72.~C Litnn atvl

74.~~ DeemnnUnomtonsaigsrtge

76. prssur Kepin coo undr 

A-4L
-,o CD

ý75

CL

CL x 4) x

0 J3

0

CL M

40) CL

87,.-4, ein'gpb:

min,

A-5
A-6
APPENDIX B

Overall Performance Scale

12 &-,0 ,-%.,

E 'a U) Eý-- 0 E E:_ r U) W CD r

U)

.2 E, :0

E 12 q- LQ CL

0

U) 4) 55- E U)- CD .2 U5 Z

1,-LLIEýarningýoiý"I' HIMM I

2. Training Soldiers, unit, or organization 2 3 4

E-n s-u-ni hg-So fd'146U

1 

;;3

4. Making recommendations that improve unit or organization 1 2 3 4 5 N/A effectiveness,

5. Ensuring t at h s 6rher.tee 1 1 -- '- '-t--- -Jý, " L ý I 115,11P 11 1 All, I I I 

BEEN= -

6. Developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion. 1 2 3 4

7 DeýýIip-pi

8. Earning Soldiers'trust 1 2 3 4 5 10 111IN 111,111 10 1:1111119 -11 ,1111 IF I I11111 111 ý 9. Improvirigtbe f I

10. Improving Soldiers' task accomplishment. 1 2 3 4 5 jj hcý , -M6,- ý-f 7 easing -e.liýe

,-;ý,,Jeirnain ijý

12. Helping Soldiers in his or her unit grow as leaders. 1 2 3 4 5

13., Q run I im =

1.4.-Contributing to Army readiness. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Succeeding in all of his or her assignments. 1 2 1 3 4 5

B-1
B-2
APPENDIX C

Leader Influence Scale

C C 

Q w

- U

12 Herainigm Soldiersi unit, orowgnias leaders.A io 

4. Making recommendations that improve unit or organization 1 2 3N/

effectiveness.

6. Develo inu a unit or oranization that has high cohesion. 1 2 3 /

8 annm ldiers' trust 1 2 3 /

14. Contributing mtolArmy rass.

16. SueedinSoldiers in amy asitro nmens 

C-1
C-2
APPENDIX D

Supervisor Predictor Ratings

Lead Others

3 1. Leading others to success 57 4.84 1.72 0.94

25. Establishing and communicating clear intent and purpose 58 4.93 1.66 0.90

53. Conveying the significance of the work 57 4.72 1.53 0.82

3. Maintaining and enforcing high professional standards 59 4.92 1.76 0.84

36. Balancing requirements of the mission with welfare of followers 59 4.85 1.51 0.83

6. Creating and sharing a vision of the future 56 4.39 1.40 0.83

Lead by Examples

60. Modeling sound values and behaviors 57 5.02 1.52 0.86

15. Modeling Army values consistently through actions, attitudes, 59 5.05 1.69 0.75

and communications

35. Exemplifying warrior ethos 59 5.08 1.61 0.82

70. Demonstrating commitment to the Nation, U.S. Army, one's unit, 58 5.28 1.65 0.74

and Soldiers

41. Displaying confidence, self-control, composure, and positive 58 5.22 1.61 0.71

attitude

8. Demonstrating technical, technological, and tactical knowledge 59 5.22 1.55 0.66

and skills

59. Understanding the importance of conceptual thinking skills and 48 4.71 1.43 0.72

modeling them to others

45. Seeking and is open to diverse ideas and points of view 59 4.76 1.37 0.72

64. Reinforcing verbal guidance through demonstration of own 57 5.04 1.57 0.84

actions

Create a Positive Environment

42. Shaping climate 55 4.65 1.55 0.79

13. Fostering team work, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty 59 5.14 1.68 0.75

10. Encouraging subordinates to accept responsibility 56 5.29 1.38 0.77

2. Creating a learning environment 57 4.53 1.62 0.86

52. Encouraging open and candid communications 56 5.00 1.36 0.67

23. Encouraging fairness and inclusiveness 58 4.79 1.31 0.86

48. Expressing and demonstrating care for people and their well- 57 5.02 1.33 0.80

being 57 5.2_.3 0.80

29. Anticipating people's on-the-job needs 58 4.57 1.53 0.83

26. Setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals and 56 5.02 1.57 0.78

teams

57. Accepting reasonable setbacks and failures 53 4.57 1.58 0.63

Communicate

54. Ensuring shared understanding 57 4.65 1.51 0.89

72. Listening actively 58 4.69 1.57 0.86

65. Employing engaging communication techniques 55 4.64 1.61 0.87

74. Determining information sharing strategies 49 4.84 1.50 0.79

21. Conveying thoughts and ideas to ensure understanding 58 5.07 1 1.30 0.83

D-1
47. Presenting recommendations so others understand advantages 58 4.83 1.40 0.81

69. Being sensitive to cultural factors in communication 54 4.70 1.50 0.84

Develop Leaders

22. Fostering growth in others 58 4.83 1.48 0.87

50. Assessing developmental needs of subordinates 55 4.78 1.50 0.86

73. Coaching, counseling, and mentoring 54 4.93 1.44 0.82

34. Fostering job development, job challenge, and job enrichment of 56 4.80 1.2 0.71 others

12. Facilitating ongoing development 58 4.84 1.44 0.75

18. Supporting institutional-based development of subordinates 55 4.78 1.47 0.70

61. Building team skills and processes 58 4.95 1.39 0.87

Prepare Self to Lead

75. Preparing self to lead 57 5.11 1.76 0.80

38. Maintaining mental and physical health and well-being 59 5.22 1.63 0.57

67. Maintaining 

others self awareness and recognizing impact of self on 56 4.80 1.52 0.71

46. Evaluating and incorporating personal feedback from others 58 4.74 1.40 0.73

51. Expanding 

tactical areas

own knowledge of technical, technological, and 59 4.8 1.58 0.79

11. Expanding own conceptual and interpersonal capabilities 56 4.96 1.55 0.69

27. Analyzing and organizing information to create knowledge 57 4.67 1.57 0.71

30. Maintaining relevant cultural awareness 53 4.64 1.53 0.68

44. Maintaining relevant geo-political awareness 40 4.35 1.55 0.68

Get Results

24. Guiding successful operations 59 5.12 1.57 0.84

28. Prioritizing, organizing, and coordinating tasks for teams or 59 4.8 1.47 0.73

groups

19. Identifying 

and their commitment and accounting to taskfor individual and group capabilities 56 4.91 1.50 0.91

55. Designating, clarifying, and de-conflicting roles 53 4.64 1.39 0.85

20. Identifying, contending for, allocating, and managing resources 58 4.91 1.47 0.84

71. Removing work barriers 53 4.72 1.52 0.81

39. Recognizing and rewarding good performance 57 4.93 1.53 0.82

1 . Seeking, recognizing, and taking advantage of opportunities to 59 481.7 0 3

improve performance 4. Making feedback part of work processes 57 4.65 1.51 0.81

63. Executing plans to accomplish the mission 57 5.18 1.47 0.85

7. Identifying and organization and adjusting to external influences on the mission 55 4.44 1.57 0.82

Extend Influence Beyond Chain of Command

66. Extending influence beyond chain of command 53 4.89 1.56 0.80

56. Understanding sphere of influence, means of influence, and limits 52 4.63 1.48 0.83

of influence

62. Building trust with those outside lines of authority 55 5.00 1.41 0.80

33. Negotiating to reach mutual understanding and to resolve conflict 55 4.44 1.57 0.82

17. Building and maintaining alliances 56 4.79 1.40 0.83

D-2
APPENDIX E

Subordinate Criterion Ratings

Overall Performance

I1. Earning Soldiers' trust in his/her combat judgment. 188 3.93 0.98 0.80

2. Training Soldiers, unit, or organization 205 3.77 0.94 0.81

3. Ensuring Soldiers, unit, or organization accomplish their 212 3.97 0.89 0.81 missions. 22 39 .9 08

4. Making recommendations that improve unit or organization 217 3.90 0.89 0.76

effectiveness.

5. Ensuring that his or her team's equipment is operationally ready 196 3.72 1.06 0.71

6. Developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion. 210 3.76 0.99 0.80

7. Developing Soldiers into leaders. 199 3.71 0.98 0.85

8. Earning Soldiers' trust 212 3.98 1.01 0.79

9. Improving the morale of Soldiers in his or her unit. 208 3.82 1.06 0.76

10. Improving Soldiers' task accomplishment. 205 3.71 0.87 0.86

11. Increasing the likelihood that Soldiers in his or her unit will

remain in the Army.

12. Helping Soldiers in his or her unit grow as leaders. 205 3.75 0.97 0.86

13. Earning the trust of his or her superior officers/supervisors. 215 4.05 0.95 0.74

14. Contributing to Army readiness. 215 3.92 0.89 0.80

15. Showing concern for Soldier's families. 209 4.00 0.99 0.59

16. Succeeding in all of his or her assignments. 215 3.95 0.91 0.76

17. Making team members better Soldiers. 205 3.81 0.93 0.91

Leader Influence

2. Training my Soldiers, unit, or organization 201 2.48 0.54 0.59

3. Ensuring my Soldiers, unit, or organization accomplish their 215 2.61 0.51 0.63

missions.

5. Ensuring that my team's equipment is operationally ready 191 2.46 0.59 0.65

6. Developing a unit or organization that has high cohesion. 207 2.46 0.56 0.66

7. Developing Soldiers into leaders. 207 2.37 0.62 0.74

9. Improving the morale of Soldiers in my unit. 207 2.44 0.56 0.58

10. Improving my Soldiers' task accomplishment. 212 2.39 0.57 0.69

11. Increasing the likelihood that Soldiers in my unit will remain in 202 2.18 0.65 0.65

the Army. 202 2.8 065 06

12. Helping Soldiers in my unit grow as leaders. 210 2.39 0.58 0.76

14. Contributing to Army readiness. 213 2.49 0.55 0.64

16. Succeeding in all of my assignments. 216 2.61 0.53 0.58

17. Making my team members better Soldiers. 211 2.44 0.58 0.75

E-1
E-2