Three factors, potential (P), motivation (M), and development (D) constitute the frame of reference proposed in this research for leadership development: P x M x D. The three factors are presented here in an interactive (multiplicative), rather than an additive relationship because of our prior assumption that if one of the factors is absent (or has zero value), the product of the multiplication will be zero, namely no leadership. This assumption has yet to be examined empirically, although it has been raised in the past on the basis of common sense. On the other hand, it may be argued that while one or two of the components (almost certainly potential and motivation) are essential for leadership, the third (development) is possible and additive, but not essential. This, then, is the aim of the present research: to examine the nature of the relationship between the three components. At the same time, the research assumption is that all three components are required in the leadership process and that the absence of one of them will invalidate the equation, in other words, will not produce effective leadership. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Leadership, potential to lead, motivation to lead, leadership development, self-efficacy, locus of control, anxiety, attachment, optimism, personality SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 20. NUMBER OF PAGES

This study returns to the question that occupied "trait approach" scholars in the early days of leadership research: identification of the major capacities required for leadership. The conceptual and methodological progress that has been made in psychology since the trait approach enables us to formulate models and deal with variables that did not exist in the early days of leadership research. We argue that three types of psychological capacities are essential for leadership: (a) self confidence, expressed and measured by three variables-internal locus of control, low level of trait anxiety, and self-efficacy; (b) proactive orientation, expressed by optimism; and (c) capacities required for prosocial relationships, expressed by secure attachment styles.A series of questionnaires was administered to 402 soldiers from Infantry and Armored corps who were nearing the end of 3 months' basic training. A sociometric questionnaire examining the peers' and commanders' evaluations of the soldiers' leadership capacities was used to evaluate each soldier and to classify the soldiers dichotomously as leaders and nonleaders.The findings reveal significant differences between leaders and nonleaders in all the variables that were defined as psychological capacities to lead. Leaders have more internal locus of control, a lower level of anxiety, higher self-efficacy, and more optimism, and they rank higher in the measure of secure attachment style. Anxiety, locus of control, and attachment style were found to be significant in the regression equation, but trait anxiety was found to be the most discriminant variable. The implications of the findings in the light of relevant psychological models are discussed.

The concept of morale, within its military context, was explored in the present work from both its theoretical and practical aspects. Following a review of the concept's definitional and historical background, the data from a pre‐war morale survey administered in May of 1981 to a large sample of Israeli combat troops were analyzed (by means of intercorrelations and factor analysis) as an illustration of the multifaceted structure of morale. While the intercorrelations revealed several major variables related strongly to morale, the factor analysis yielded eight factors, morale being just one of them. These eight factors were: (1) confidence in senior commanders; (2) confidence in one's self, team, and weapons; (3) unit cohesion and morale; (4) familiarity with missions and frontage; (5) confidence in immediate commanders; (6) enemy evaluation; (7) legitimacy of war; (8) worries and concerns. The present analysis may suggest the existence of a higher order concept—perhaps “unit climate”— of which all of the found factors, including morale, are the comprising components.

This paper is an analytical review of studies comparing stress reactions in threatening situations during which the person can or cannot take action. The studies reviewed were conducted mainly in real-life situations and involved diverse forms of coping activities under various conditions of danger and distress. To achieve a better understanding of the effect of activity on stress reactions, several distinctions are made: between various types of stress reactions; between various indices and measurements of stress reactions; between activity which is directly related to the source of threat and activity which is not; and between various personality dimensions. The adaptive potential of activity in stressful situations is discussed in terms of: the sense of mastery and control provided by activity; activity as a means of attention diversion; and activity as a means of discharging energy generated by mobilization. It is suggested that taking action under stressful conditions, as opposed to remaining passive, is a powerful coping tool.

Based on therapeutic studies revealing positive prognostic factors and on research findings revealing how trauma is processed, we developed the memory structuring intervention (MSI) in attempt to prevent posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The MSI attempts to shift processing of traumatic memory from uncontrollable somatosensory and affective processes to more controlled linguistic and cognitive processes by providing patients organization, labeling, and causality. In a single-blind randomized-controlled pilot study, 17 traffic accident victims at risk for PTSD (heart rate >94 BPM) were assigned to two MSI or two supportive-listening control sessions. Three months later, MSI patients reported significantly less frequent intrusive, arousal, and total PTSD symptoms than controls. A replication study with a larger sample is underway.