A New Perspective on Military Leadership

Martinsen, Ole J.; Fosse, Thomas Hol; Johansen, Rino Bandlitz; Venemyr, Geir Ove

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2020.17616abstract

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the fact that we use applicant P -O Fit data for a young population not yet socialized into the armed forces might remedy this somewhat. Moreover, though the task performance setting (leading a team of soldiers on a field exercise) is undeniably military, four of the five competences by which we measured task performance are based on the balanced leadership model, with theoretical roots in transformational leadership (Martinsen, Fosse, Johansen, & Venemyr, 2018 ). Although the measure used by the organization is not validated, these competences are considered to be indicative of good leadership across domains, a point that might make these results applicable beyond a military setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Person-Organization Fit in a military selection context

Sørlie

Hetland

Dysvik

et al. 2020

Military Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of personnel selection is to find predictors that, together, maximize the explained variance in important job outcomes such as Task Performance or Work Engagement. Common predictors include Intelligence and Big Five Personality. Using Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit) for selection purposes has been discussed, but, beyond Intelligence and Personality, evidence of the incremental predictive validity of P-O Fit in relation to task performance and work engagement is scarce. This study examines the practical utility of indirectly measured P-O Fit as a selection tool in a military setting. Measures of objective P-O Fit were obtained from actual applicants in a military selection setting and combined with self-report measures of Work Engagement upon organizational entry, and supervisor-rated Task Performance approximately two weeks later. P-O Fit predicted both Task Performance (R 2 = .041) and Work Engagement (R 2 = .038). More importantly, P-O Fit yielded incremental predictive validity in relation to both outcomes, also after controlling for intelligence and personality traits. While our initial models (including age, gender, intelligence, and personality) explained 25.1% and 5.8% of the variance in work engagement and task performance, respectively, this increased to 26.3% and 6.3%, respectively, after the inclusion of P-O Fit. Implications for practical use in selection systems are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%