The findings in this report are organized in 3 main sections: the quality of leadership, the effects of climate and situational factors on leadership, and the quality of leader development. The findings are based on responses from over 16,800 uniformed leaders with an overall accuracy within +/-0.7%. Leadership quality continues to be a strength of the Army, and most of the Leadership Requirements Model competencies and attributes are effectively demonstrated. Leading others and getting results are two strong competencies. Attributes dealing with character, values, empathy, fitness, resilience, knowledge, sound judgment, and mental agility are strong as well. Elements recently added to emphasize discipline, trust, and stewardship are also effectively demonstrated by Army leaders. One consistent exception in strong indicators is the Develops Others competency. Many leaders are perceived as not providing useful counseling, nor encouraging individual development, and not showing genuine concern for subordinate development. Three-fourths of leaders are seen as putting the needs of the unit and mission first before their own needs. Leaders with negative leadership behaviors are more likely to be associated with low unit cohesion, unit discipline problems, low subordinate motivation, poor work quality, and lowered commitment to the Army. Ratings of the LD effectiveness of professional military education (PME) courses improved from the last two years. The report concludes with a look at trends and recommendations to improve leadership and leader development in the Army.

No abstract

This research consisted of two phases. In the initial phase, covered in this report, emphasis was placed on identification of psychological constructs that were determined to be critical for operational units as they prepared to deploy. To support the research objectives, a comprehensive literature review including academic and military sources was conducted and approximately one hundred Soldiers and leaders were interviewed. Several meta-constructs were identified, each of which had multiple sub-constructs embedded within them. Interviews with Soldiers and leaders assisted in reducing the list to those intangibles most critical to mission readiness and identifying training gaps related to the criticality and effectiveness of the relevant intangibles. This identification assisted the second phase of this research that focused on instrument development and identification of effective learning methods; the second phase is covered in a second report. See also ARI

No abstract

The overall objective of this research was to develop a prototype measure of performance for a collective task; a more thorough description is provided in Curnow, Barney, Bryson, Keller-Glaze and Vowels (2015). To accomplish the objective, a collaborative effort was initiated with a U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Military Police (MP) unit to select a task for metric development and then develop and refine a prototype measure for that task. Through collaboration between the research team and the unit, a need for measurement development involving the task of mass casualty triage was identified. Thus, we developed an assessment tool designed to measure the degree to which Soldiers could correctly triage injured civilians during a mass casualty training event. Based on a review of military and civilian literature regarding mass casualty triage and interviews with members of the unit, the triage assessment development involved three steps: (1) identification of key functions associated with mass casualty triage; (2) identification and categorization of subtasks for each task; and (3) review and conversion of tasks and/or subtasks into proper task statements. The Mass Casualty Triage Performance Assessment Tool is ARI Research Product 2015-02.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 11-08-20062. REPORT TYPE AUTHOR(S)Christina Curnow, Rebecca Mulvaney, Robert Calderon, Eric Weingart, Kenny Nicely, Heidi Keller-Glaze (Caliber, an ICF International Company) Jon Fallesen (Center for Army Leadership) 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Caliber, an ICF International Company 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Center for Army Leadership 250 Gibbon Avenue Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2314 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThis report describes the development and implementation of an application of advanced learning theories to leadership development. A literature review was conducted to identify advanced learning theories that have been used across disciplines. These learning theories were then operationalized into a six hour training module on influencing others using tactics described by FM 6-22. Pre-and post-test measures of influencing behaviors and the outcomes of these behaviors were also developed. The module was implemented in L310, an optional negotiations course that is part of the Command General Staff College curriculum. Results showed evidence of improvement in influencing behaviors as a result of the module. SUBJECT TERMS LeadershipLearning Theory Influence Training INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this task was to conduct research to exploit learning technologies to improve leadership development. The goal of the project was to implement an innovative training approach that incorporated advanced learning technologies/theories to encourage faster, deeper learning with respect to "Influencing Others." In this effort we sought to identify, adapt or develop an application of an advanced learning theory and evaluate the impact of the application as it relates to leadership.In this effort we performed the following tasks:Defined leadership as "influencing others" for the purpose of this project BACKGROUND ON LEADERSHIP AND ADVANCED LEARNINGIn this chapter we describe our definitions of leadership and deep learning as well as provide an overview of advanced learning theories. LEADERSHIPWe focused our research on ...

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. ii OFFICER LEADER DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe present research investigated officer attitudes about leader development and education to confirm that re-design of the officer education system (OES) is valuable, and to provide perspective, information and concepts for re-design of OES. GEN Wallace, the commanding general of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), asked that a survey be conducted to find out what captains, majors and lieutenant colonels want. Research questions were answered through an online survey by 17,884 officers and warrant officers in the active and reserve components. The primary sample consisted of captains, majors and lieutenant colonels in the active component. Additional sampling was conducted of chief warrant officers, lieutenants, and colonels in the active component, and all ranks from chief warrant 2 to colonel were surveyed in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Altogether, the number of randomly selected participants produced a margin of error of plus or minus 0.7%. The survey sampling was designed to assess attitudes primarily of captains, majors and lieutenant colonels; check for differences among career fields and branches; consider additional perspectives of lieutenants and colonels; and check for differences with the reserve components. The differences that existed were mostly predictable based on differences in current OES practices for different ranks, components, or branches (e.g., TDY courses received favorable ratings for company grade officers and reserve component officers).Findings show that Army officers recognize the value that OES has for learning (e.g., increasing knowledge) over ‗secondary' benefits of attendance (e.g., a break from the operational pace of deployments). Army officers believe that increasing understanding or knowledge, improving skills, and learning from and networking with peers are important outcomes of OES. Further, lieutenant colonels and colonels who supervise officers see the value in the knowledge and skills OES graduates attain and bring to their units or organizations. Two-thirds of all lieutenant colonels and colonels rate OES as effective at providing well-educated graduates to their unit; howe...

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Jon J. Fallesen