The Relationship Between Psychological Variables and ... - PsycNET

Military Psychology “Drive On”: The Relationship Between Psychological Variables and Effective Squad Leadership Todd A. Gilson, Melissa A. Dix, and Marc Lochbaum Online First Publication, September 26, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mil0000136

CITATION Gilson, T. A., Dix, M. A., & Lochbaum, M. (2016, September 26). “Drive On”: The Relationship Between Psychological Variables and Effective Squad Leadership. Military Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mil0000136

Military Psychology 2016, Vol. 28, No. 6, 000

© 2016 American Psychological Association 0899-5605/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mil0000136

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

“Drive On”: The Relationship Between Psychological Variables and Effective Squad Leadership Todd A. Gilson and Melissa A. Dix

Marc Lochbaum

Northern Illinois University

Texas Tech University

The U.S. Reserve Officer Training Program (ROTC) conducts systematic assessments of cadets’ leadership abilities during field training exercises (FTX) to assess their leadership abilities. While cadets in ROTC programs learn specific tactical operation procedures to augment FTX performances, much less is known about the relationship between psychological variables and squad leadership performance. To this end, 220 cadets completed self-efficacy, psychological flexibility, and grit questionnaires, which were then compared to FTX performance scores. Results underscored that only selfefficacy was significantly related to cadets’ squad leadership ability. Furthermore, prior service in the U.S. Army had no effect on the performance score one attained, highlighting an interesting paradox. Therefore, while self-efficacy can be cultivated through prior experiences, it seems more prudent to educate ROTC cadets on how to apply psychological skills to bolster self-efficacy in preparation for upcoming challenging leadership experiences. Keywords: U.S. Army, self-efficacy, psychological flexibility, grit, prior service

during critical moments—when decisions are executed— errors in judgment can significantly impair one’s leadership performance (Johnsen, Eid, Pallesen, Bartone, & Nissestad, 2009; Johnson, Wrangham, & Rosen, 2002). Thus, squad leadership scenarios offer cadets a controlled environment where they can engage in real-world simulations and put into practice key principles they have learned. As a whole, leadership in the U.S. Army is a topic of thorough examination (see Fallesen, Keller-Glaze, & Curnow, 2011). Within the ROTC specifically, an important assessment tool is the Cadet Background and Experience Form (CBEF). Originally designed to augment the decision making process when awarding scholarships, this multiple subscale inventory has since been administered to cadets to help predict both retention and performance. Putka (2009) discussed how key variables, such as: army identification, educational identification, and self-efficacy were significantly related to cadets’ likelihood of dropout from the program, becoming an U.S. Army officer, and/or making the U.S. Army a career. Extending upon this work, Legree, Kilcullen, Putka, and Wasko (2014) administered the CBEF to cadets attending the Leader Development and Assessment

Within the U.S. Army it can be argued that effective leadership is the end goal for all officers. Leadership within this context is defined as the “process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization” (Department of the Army, 2012, p. 1-1) and requires proficiency in both attributes (i.e., who a leader is) and competencies (i.e., what a leader does) for the greatest chance of success. To train future U.S. Army officers, the U.S. Reserve Officer Training Program (ROTC) addresses both attributes and competencies through a military science curriculum and experiential learning via squad leadership scenarios. The focus on the latter applied practice is vital for cadets’ success, as it is known that

Todd A. Gilson and Melissa A. Dix, Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University; Marc Lochbaum, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd A. Gilson, Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Anderson Hall 234, Northern Illinois University, 1425 West Lincoln Highway, DeKalb, IL 60115. E-mail: [email protected] 1


2

GILSON, DIX, AND LOCHBAUM

Course (LDAC) – a month long intensive training program for cadets after their Military Science III (MS-III) year in school1—to better understand the relationship to performance criteria. A range of individual CBEF scales were found to correlate to performance, including fitness motivation, interest in leadership, selfefficacy, peer leadership, and tolerance for injury. Findings from these works have helped in revision efforts of the CBEF to make the instrument psychometrically sound, as well as offer potential avenues to reshape the current ROTC curriculum. Other work, focused more broadly than on just ROTC programs, has noted the importance of an array of psychological skills in relation to leadership performance. For instance, creative thinking and complex problem solving (Zaccaro et al., 2012), psychological hardiness (Bartone, Eid, Johnsen, Laberg, & Snook, 2009), optimism (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000), and ego-centered behavior (Lonnqvist, Paunonen, Nissinen, Ortju, & Verkasalo, 2011) have all been trumpeted as key identifiers for competent, successful leaders. These studies have, at times, made the task of predicting one’s leadership ability more difficult, as contradictory results have been disseminated. As an example, Zaccaro and colleagues noted the importance of constructing a solution to problems as it related to U.S. Army officers’ career trajectories over a 15-year period; yet, a similar construct, cognitive flexibility (i.e., the willingness to entertain new approaches to solving problems) was included in the original CBEF, but then removed to improve the internal consistency of the scale (Putka, 2009). Perhaps because of this discrepancy of adequately predicting military leadership performance from one’s potential scores (Bartone, Snook, Forsythe, Lewis, & Bullis, 2007), a refinement to the process is warranted. To be clear, psychological variables are an important element in the makeup of a leader that can influence success in a military environment (Bartone, Snook, & Tremble, 2002). However, questionnaire development is also a process requiring careful examination. For instance, the CBEF was developed by the Army Research Institute and embeds questions about an individual’s past behavior to life events. Thus, the theoretical assumption of the CBEF is that “past performance predicts future performance” (Legree et al., 2014, p. 294). This is problematic

on two fronts. First many psychological variables previously discussed are state-like, meaning they fluctuate based on personal perceptions and environmental contexts (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Locke, 2003; Bond et al., 2011). Second, much of the past research— both in questionnaire development and administration— has not included participants’ perceptions about what might facilitate effective leadership in military settings. To address these limitations, the present methodology selected (or developed) questionnaires that are both malleable— based on perceptions and contexts— and have been highlighted by past research that used a participant-centered approach for understanding the experiences of ROTC cadets at LDAC.2 Studies focused on participant viewpoints are scarce within a military environment, and even more so with ROTC cadets. Larsson et al. (2006) conducted interviews with military officers from five different countries to better understand leadership and found that becoming more competent in abilities and learning how to adapt to situational demands were the most salient factors in the growth of a leader. Extending upon this work, Gilson, Latimer, and Lochbaum (2015) interviewed 25 ROTC cadets upon their return from LDAC and noted that cadets believed confidence, flexibility related to contextual demands, and perseverance directly related to individuals’ leadership ability and performance score attained. In both works by Larsson and colleagues (2006) and Gilson et al. (2015), the researchers called for further exploration of psychological factors related to leadership performance. One such construct noted by the aforementioned works that has been shown to directly relate to performance is self-efficacy. Defined as the belief one has to execute courses of action necessary to achieve desire results (Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy has been explored in a variety of settings. Specifically, meta-analyses in both work and competitive sport settings have 1 The MS-III year coincides with the junior year of college/university studies for most cadets. 2 As noted by Hannah, Jennings, and Nobel (2010), using an inductive approach—where participant responses are categorized into like themes—is an effective way to understand unique phenomena, such as training and development of future soldiers.


EFFECTIVE SQUAD LEADERSHIP

demonstrated that increased efficacy beliefs results in improved performance (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This relationship has also held true within a military context, as findings from Putka (2009), Delahaij, van Dam, Gaillard, and Soeters (2011), and Mikuliciute (2012) highlight that augmenting self-efficacy coincides with decreased stress and enhanced performance. However, even though self-efficacy is embedded within the CBEF, this construct is most closely tied to outcomes when assessed immediately before a performance (Bandura, 1997); therefore, gauging cadets’ self-efficacy levels at the beginning of the ROTC program may mask the true relationship this variable has to a future performance. In addition to self-efficacy, work conducted by Larsson et al. (2006), Zaccaro et al. (2012), and Gilson et al. (2015) discussed the importance of being able to adapt to situational demands to achieve success. Bond and associates (2011) have developed a scale to assess the construct they refer to as psychological flexibility, which has many characteristics of the preceding work. While many individuals experience emotional states such as anxiety and self-doubt during pressure filled situations, those who possess greater levels of psychological flexibility respond to these emotions in a nonjudgmental manner, thereby reserving cognitive resources for the task at hand (Bond, Lloyd, & Guenole, 2013). Research has demonstrated that psychological flexibility correlates with one’s ability to learn, perceived autonomy, satisfaction derived from a task, and job performance (Bond, Flaxman, & Bunce, 2008; Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). While Zaccaro and colleagues (2012)did retrospectively examine creative thinking and problem-solving skills (both of which align to psychologically flexibility), it is somewhat surprising that only one article, focused on family reintegration following deployment (Sandoz, Moyer, & Armelie, 2015), has heeded the call from Bond et al. (2013) to examine this construct when individuals are immersed in pressure-filled environments. Finally, as noted by Gilson and associates (2015), the ability to persevere may be an important characteristic that separates exemplary leaders from ordinary ones. The CBEF contains an individual scale focused on stress tolerance,

3

focused on deciphering a cadet’s ability to remain calm and in control of one’s emotion when under pressure; however, cadets interviewed post-LDAC spoke more to enduring challenges, as opposed to responding with the “correct” emotions. Therefore, the construct of grit may better predict leadership performance as individuals who score high in “grittiness” continue to persist when tasks are repetitive, tedious, or frustrating (Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2011). Furthermore, Duckworth and Quinn (2009) have documented that the relationship between grit and performance exists even when controlling for physical and cognitive abilities. However, within a military context the extent of the relationship grit has with outcome variables is not completely understood. For instance, Duckworth and Quinn (2009) demonstrated that increased levels of grit predicted retention at West Point Military Academy. However, Maddi, Matthews, Kelly, Villarreal, and White (2012) found that, as time progressed, retention and performance of U.S. Army cadets were more correlated with learning and adapting to the task/environment, when compared to grit. Thus, further exploration of grit with ROTC cadets during squad leadership scenarios may lend insight into the value of cultivating this construct. The present study investigated the degree to which psychological variables identified by self-report methodologies utilized in the work of Larsson et al. (2006) and Gilson and colleagues (2015) actually predict leadership performance in an ROTC field training exercise. This investigation is particularly relevant to ROTC training given its focus on leader development (Vecchio, Bullis, & Brazil, 2006). In addition, because of the unique work constraints (that are difficult to replicate), Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, and Laberg (2002) have advocated for more ecologically sound studies in specific military settings that can help practitioners understand psychological variables important for success. One such avenue to explore ROTC cadets’ leadership abilities is squad leadership scenarios conducted during field training exercises (FTXs). At a FTX multiple ROTC programs converge for a weekend of training, resulting in performance scores issued to each cadet. FTXs provide cadets the unique opportunity to test their skills/abilities in novel settings, with an unfamiliar group of cadets, which are

4


then scored by cadre from multiple institutions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-efficacy, psychological flexibility, and grit for U.S. Army ROTC cadets during squad leadership scenarios at FTXs around the United States.


Method Participants A total of 220 U.S. Army MS-III cadets participated in this study (80% male; Mage ⫽ 22 years, SD ⫽ 2.6). Self-reported ethnicity data (rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent) revealed that 70.9% of participants classified themselves as Caucasian, 9.5% as African American, 8.1% as Hispanic/Latino(a), 6.3% as Asian American, and 5% as multiple ethnicities. Furthermore, 94.5% of cadets were undergraduate students at their respected universities. Finally, nearly one third of participants (31.4%) had prior service experience, meaning they had already enlisted in the U.S. Army and returned to school to complete the prerequisites necessary to become an officer (Mservice time ⫽ 42.3 months, SD ⫽ 29.9). Instrumentation Participants completed three questionnaires (in addition to demographic measures previous discussed) before initiation of FTX activities. First, a self-efficacy measure was developed in accordance with guidelines put forth by Bandura (2006). This measure contained eight items that related to cadets’ leadership ability in squad training scenarios. Example items began with the stem, “How certain are you in your leadership ability to . . .,” and included statements such as, “Successfully complete the op[eration] order process” and “Successfully make/implement contingency plans on short notice.” Question stems were developed with the help of four cadre members in the ROTC program. Cadets responded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 ⫽ not at all certain to 10 ⫽ completely certain, with an average self-efficacy score computed by researchers for subsequent analysis. Second, cadets completed the Work-Related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (WAAQ; Bond et al., 2013). In this seven-item psychological flexibility measure, participants respond to

items such as “I can still work very effectively, even if I am nervous about something” and “Worries do not get in the way of my success” on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ⫽ never true to 7 ⫽ always true. Originally a seven-item measure, cadre members requested two additional— negatively phrased— questions be added to prevent participants from selecting “always true” for WAAQ questions. Thus, researchers included two negatively worded items from the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire—II (Bond et al., 2011) as filler questions, which were then removed (and not scored) during data analysis. Third, cadets completed the eight-item Short Grit Scale (Grit-S; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) focused on consistency of interest and persistence of effort. An example question from consistency of interest included “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one,” while a question related to persistence of effort is, “I finish whatever I begin.” Cadets responded on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ⫽ not like me at all to 5 ⫽ very much like me. Researchers then created a composite score for participants by combining each factor in the Grit-S (a practice established by Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Finally, performance was measured through existing U.S. Army ROTC protocols for infantry-based squad leadership scenarios. Specifically, cadets’ performances were scored by cadre members, who evaluated cadets on 19 leadership dimensions (see Figure 1), and then tallied a composite score for each cadet of Needs Improvement (N), Satisfies the Standard (S), or Exceeds the Standard (E). In developing a final score, an evaluator (i.e., cadre) took into account factors such as the impressions made on others, intellect, application of U.S. Army leadership principles, ability to develop other cadets, and achievement of the mission. Each cadet was afforded one to two attempts at leading a squad, based on previously established time allotments for FTX activities.3 Procedure The lead researcher, through established connections with ROTC programs, contacted 15 universities to solicit participation in the present study. To facilitate data collection, at least one 3

If a cadet was afforded two attempts, only the first attempt was used for data analysis.



Figure 1.

5

U.S. Army leadership assessment report.

researcher from the byline traveled to each of three FTX sites (as universities shared training facilities) and administered the aforementioned questionnaires. Initially, at the start of the FTX, all cadets were assembled in a common area and cadre members left the immediate premises. The researcher(s) then described the purpose of the study and cadets were allowed to ask questions. Packets that contained an informed consent document and all questionnaires were distributed to all cadets who wished to participate (in total only one cadet declined to participate). Upon completion, cadets returned packets directly to the researcher(s). After FTX ended, cadre members created a data set with all cadets’ performances and e-mailed this data to the lead researcher for analysis; no researcher was present during actual FTX assessment. Data Analysis Preliminary data analysis revealed that all psychological variables of interest were nor-

mally distributed, with self-efficacy demonstrating the most severe case of skewness (⫺.43) and the WAAQ displaying a kurtosis score of ⫺.58. However, one participant was removed from future analysis based on a Mahalanobis Distance score (22.1) that exceeded the critical value, resulting in a complete data set of 220 participants. Ordinal linear regression was then used to examine the relationship between psychological variables and cadets’ performances because the nature of dependent variable scores yielded three distinct categories (based on the Leadership Assessment Report completed by cadre). Results Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and intercorrelations for psychological variables and performance (all continuous independent variables were standardized to a 5-point scale before data analysis).

6


Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables Variable


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

M (SD)

␣

1

2

3

4

with higher outcomes when examining 95% CIs. Finally, both prior service and grit were nonsignificant when examined in relation to performance. In addition to examining factors that contributed to performance, a key assumption of ordinal linear regression is proportional odds between all dependent variable groupings. In essence, this test examines whether independent variables had an equal effect on performance, regardless of whether cadets earned a score of N, S, or E. A test of parallel lines revealed ␹2(4, 220) ⫽ 2.81, p ⫽ .59. This nonsignificant result confirms the effect of individual variables was identical between any two performance groups, thereby lending further support to the results of this study.

5

Prior servicea .31 (.47) — — Self-efficacy 3.86 (.57) .84 ⫺.09 — WAAQ 3.93 (.56) .85 .08 .60ⴱⴱ — Grit-S 3.92 (.46) .72 ⫺.02 .40ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ — Performanceb 2.2 (.49) — .04 .19ⴱⴱ .15ⴱ .04 —

Note. WAAQ ⫽ Work-Related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire; Grit-S ⫽ Short Grit Scale. a No prior service ⫽ 0; prior service ⫽ 1. b N (Needs Improvement) ⫽ 1; S (Satisfies the Standard) ⫽ 2; E (Exceeds the Standard) ⫽ 3. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Additionally, the categorical variable of prior service was included in the present analysis and all subsequent analyses to control for the knowledge and experience some cadets might have gained through previous enlistment. However, somewhat surprisingly this variable did not correlate to cadets’ performances. When all variables were included in a model, the result was a significantly better fit than the intercept-only model, ␹2(4, 220) ⫽ 9.68, p ⫽ .04. As outlined in Table 2, both self-efficacy and psychological flexibility were associated with higher squad leadership scores for cadets; however, only self-efficacy reached conventional significance (p ⬍ .05). Furthermore, the odds ratio for cadets related to self-efficacy was 2.12 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [1.06, 4.26]. This suggests that with every 1-unit change in self-efficacy, cadets were more than twice as likely to score in the next “group” (i.e., N, S, or E) during their respective FTX. While enhanced psychological flexibility also improved cadets’ odds of achieving a higher score (odds ratio ⫽ 1.30, 95% CI [.65, 2.61]), self-efficacy was the only variable associated

Discussion The purpose of this study was to ascertain the most salient psychological variables related to squad leadership performance for U.S. Army ROTC cadets. Results align with the majority of the literature base showing a positive relationship between self-efficacy and impending performance in a variety of tasks and settings (Moritz et al., 2000; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). While the positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance may not seem especially novel, it is important to note that a growing chorus of recent studies have posited the relationship between self-efficacy and performance may in fact be negative—as individuals with low self-efficacy use more effort to compensate for their diminished perceptions, thus enhancing performance over time (see Vancouver, 2008, for a review). Furthermore, while this inverse relation has usually only been observed at the within-person level of analysis (i.e., comparing an individual to his or her pre-

Table 2 Effects of Study Variables on Squad Leadership Performance Variable

B

SE

Wald

p

95% CI

Odds ratio

95% CI

Prior service Self-efficacy WAAQ Grit-S

⫺.19 .75 .26 ⫺.30

.33 .36 .36 .37

.34 4.49 .56 .63

.56 .03 .46 .43

[⫺.85, .46] [.06, .1.45] [⫺.43, .96] [⫺1.03, .43]

.83 2.12 1.30 .74

[.43, 1.58] [1.06, 4.26] [.65, 2.61] [.36, 1.54]

Note. CI ⫽ confidence interval. WAAQ ⫽ Work-Related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire; Grit-S ⫽ Short Grit Scale.



vious score), Vancouver, Gullekson, Morse, and Warren (2014) demonstrated that when compared to others, participants’ performances were significantly lower if efficacy beliefs were robust—as highly efficacious individuals suffer from a greater percentage of incorrect responses. However, lost within this explanation is the fact that participants with higher selfefficacy were not deterred from making multiple attempts to find a correct solution, even when previous attempts resulted in failure. Given the fact that within the ROTC program a great deal of emphasis is placed upon learning how to be an effective leader (Vecchio et al., 2006), it may serve cadets well to develop a resilient sense of efficacy—impervious to failures—for eventual success at complex, realworld tasks. Extending upon the findings related to selfefficacy in this study, it was also demonstrated that a cadet’s prior service in the U.S. Army had no effect on their impending squad leadership performance. This finding supports the assertions of Bandura (1997) and Bandura and Locke (2003) that past performance levels do not directly relate to present performance levels and helps to highlight the differences in training between ROTC cadets and enlisted soldiers. In particular, the former group learns troopleading procedures by focusing on theoretical aspects of leadership and engaging in “leadership laboratories,” where learned principles can be applied to various environments. In contrast, enlisted soldiers acquire their primary soldiering knowledge from Basic Combat Training (BCT). The 10-week BCT focuses more on the technical skills an individual needs to possess as a soldier, such as physical fitness, rifle marksmanship, and basic first aid. It is important to note that as enlisted personnel progress in rank, more opportunities for leadership training are provided (i.e., Warrior Leader Course). However, data about advanced training experiences for prior service cadets were not collected in this study, meaning it is possible that none of the participants with prior service had received any leadership training. In contrast to self-efficacy, psychological flexibility did not demonstrate a significant relationship with cadets’ performance scores during squad leadership scenarios. This finding was somewhat unexpected given both the first-hand account of its importance (Gilson et al., 2015;

7

Larsson et al., 2006; Zaccaro et al., 2012) and the documented research highlighting the adaptive outcomes experienced when individuals display a healthy level of psychological flexibility (Bond et al., 2008; Hayes et al., 2006). To account for this inconsistency, the methodology of the present study needs further examination. Specifically, during squad leadership scenarios cadets’ goals as squad leaders were not assessed, as it was assumed that all individuals would have the implied goal of completing their assigned mission competently. This omission may be important because Bond and colleagues (2011) have noted that behavior is based upon values and goals in any situation; thus, the latter variable could serve as a mediator between psychological flexibility and performance. Additionally, because the level of one’s psychological flexibility can fluctuate based on situational contexts, the cross-sectional design of the present work may have masked the developmental nature of this construct with U.S. Army ROTC cadets (Bond et al., 2013). To this very point, Putka (2009) addressed how the measure of cognitive flexibility was dropped from the CBEF because data collected from MSI cadets (i.e., freshman) added little to predicting ROTC cadets retention. Thus, further work should be undertaken to ascertain the impact of psychological flexibility, using longitudinal designs, within military settings. Akin to psychological flexibility, the relationship between grit and squad leadership performance was not strong. This result contrasts with Duckworth and Quinn (2009) who found grit to be and important factor for both the performance of National Spelling Bee competitors and retention of cadets during their first year at West Point Military Academy. Additionally, work examining grit in other career fields (e.g., police officers and mental health professionals) supported the notion that those individuals who are “grittier” display higher levels of work engagement (Eskreis-Winkler, Shulman, & Duckworth, 2014). While a number of studies have cited the influence of grit, Silvia, Eddington, Beaty, Nusbaum, and Kwapil (2013) provided insight into how grit operates during cognitive tasks. In particular, grit scores had a larger effect on effort mobilization than on actual performance scores. Therefore, analyzing the effects of grit on key outcome variables may be better suited to tasks in which participants be-


8


lieve they have extensive autonomy and require sustained effort over a period of time (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Implications from the present work center around the indispensible nature of self-efficacy related to cadets’ performance when leading a squad. It is well established that the most effective way to build a strong sense of self-efficacy is through mastery experiences—where individuals overcome obstacles as they acquire new skills/behaviors (see Bandura, 1997, for a review). However, even if self-efficacy increases with practice, experience alone may not translate into improved performance (i.e., the inability of prior service cadets to score higher during squad leadership scenarios). Thus, ROTC programs should instead focus on infusing adaptive psychological constructs within the current curriculum to bolster self-efficacy. As an example, a psychological skills training intervention with Royal Air Force pilots (who required remedial assistance) focused on goal setting, imagery, and self-talk increased self-efficacy upon completion of the program and subsequent performances after a 2-month follow-up (McCrory, Cobley, & Marchant, 2013). Furthermore, the adaptive nature of self-efficacy in combat situations provides benefits in other areas of a solder’s life; specifically, combat veterans with a strong sense of self-efficacy were better able to cope with posttraumatic stress disorder and depression upon their return (Smith, Benight, & Cieslak, 2013). Thus, regardless of the challenging conditions faced, if cadets possess the firm belief that they can exercise some level of control over perceived threats, efficacy beliefs mitigate negative reactions such as anxiety, fear, and panic (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008). A few notable limitations in the present study must be addressed. First, the generalizability of results beyond squad leadership performance is limited. Specifically, drawing upon Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 2012), both one’s leadership style and maturity (i.e., experience) of group members are important components when determining leader effectiveness. Since squad leadership scenarios are a highly specialized task, success at this endeavor may not equate to success in other ROTC evaluations (e.g., physical fitness tests, marksmanship, land navigation course). Furthermore, overall squad leadership performance scores may mask cadets’ ability on individual

leadership dimensions. Thus, the psychological antecedents of leadership performance may deserve more careful scrutiny to produce the best implications for practitioners. Second, ROTC cadets’ prior service was coded as a categorical variable in the present study. While cadets were instructed to indicate the numbers of months they had in experience on the demographic form, many participants who self-reported prior U.S. Army service skipped this question, rendering the ability to analyze this variable impracticable. Because enlisted soldiers are entrusted with leading others soldiers—in a squad of up to 10 individuals—after the third year of their military career (Department of the Army, 2010), information on the previous squad leadership experiences would be valuable data for future researchers to collect when ascertaining the effects of psychological variables on impending performance. Finally, data were collected using a cross-sectional design. Aforementioned works in the areas of psychological flexibility and grit have highlighted the importance of longitudinal methodologies to tease out cause-and-effect relationships among satisfaction, retention, and performance (Bond et al., 2013; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Furthermore, researchers who study a state-specific constructs such as self-efficacy also benefit from repeated observations in close proximity to outcome measures because this design allows for assessment of learning and skill acquisition to take place (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Future longitudinal methodologies would benefit both researchers and practitioners alike, as causation could be drawn between psychological variables and performances/outcomes. In summary, a positive association was demonstrated between self-efficacy beliefs and squad leadership performance for cadets in the U.S. Army ROTC program. These findings validate and extend previous research (see Bandura & Locke, 2003; Moritz et al., 2000; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), noting the importance of efficacy beliefs for improved performance and functioning with ROTC cadets, engaged in the real-world task of squad leadership. Even though success cannot always be assured, Army leaders should strive to foster a resilient sense of self-efficacy with cadets because an occasional poor performance will not erode individuals’ beliefs if a foundational sense of confidence exists (Feltz et al., 2008). By appropriately us-


ing psychological skills to enhance selfefficacy, any cadet can increase the chance of future success.


References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1– 43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative selfefficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0021-9010.88.1.87 Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, 498 –521. http://dx.doi .org/10.1108/01437730910981908 Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing smallunit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/S15327876MP1401_01 Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A., Forsythe, G. B., Lewis, P., & Bullis, R. C. (2007). Psychological development and leader performance of military officer cadets. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 490 –504. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.008 Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A., & Tremble, T. R., Jr. (2002). Cognitive and personality predictors of leader performance in West Point cadets. Military Psychology, 14, 321–338. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/S15327876MP1404_6 Bond, F. W., Flaxman, P. E., & Bunce, D. (2008). The influence of psychological flexibility on work redesign: Mediated moderation of a work reorganization intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 645– 654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.93.3.645 Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., . . . Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire—II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676 – 688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03 .007 Bond, F. W., Lloyd, J., & Guenole, N. (2013). The Work-Related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire: Initial psychometric findings and their implications for measuring psychological flexibility in specific contexts. Journal of Occupational and

9

Organizational Psychology, 86, 331–347. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/joop.12001 Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167200265001 Delahaij, R., van Dam, K., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Soeters, J. (2011). Predicting performance under acute stress: The role of individual characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 49 – 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020891 Department of the Army. (2010). Enlisted promotions and reductions (AR-600 – 8-19). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Department of the Army. (2012). Army leadership (ADRP 6 –22). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. (2011). Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174 – 181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385872 Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (GritS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166 – 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002238908026 34290 Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Survivor mission: Do those who survive have a drive to thrive at work? Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 209 –218. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888579 Fallesen, J. J., Keller-Glaze, H., & Curnow, C. K. (2011). A selective review of leadership studies in the U.S. Army. Military Psychology, 23, 462– 478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.600181 Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Gilson, T. A., Latimer, M., & Lochbaum, M. (2015). Post-LDAC reflections of ROTC cadets: Relationship to leadership and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 235–248. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.982306 Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., & Nobel, O. B. (2010). Tactical military leader requisite complexity: Toward a referent structure. Military Psychology, 22, 412– 449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 08995605.2010.513253 Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006


10


Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 2, 6 –34. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (2012). Management of organizational behavior (10th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Pallesen, S., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2009). Predicting transformational leadership in naval cadets: Effects of personality hardiness and training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2213–2235. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00522.x Johnson, D. D. P., Wrangham, R. W., & Rosen, S. P. (2002). Is military incompetence adaptive? An empirical test with risk-taking behavior in modern warfare. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 245– 264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01) 00087-3 Larsson, G., Bartone, P. T., Bos-Bakx, M., Danielsson, E., Jelusic, L., Johansson, E., . . . Wachowicz, M. (2006). Leader development in natural context: A grounded theory approach to discovering how military leaders grow. Military Psychology, 18(Suppl.), S69 –S81. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/s15327876mp1803s_6 Legree, P. J., Kilcullen, R. N., Putka, D. J., & Wasko, L. E. (2014). Identifying the leaders of tomorrow: Validating predictors of leader performance. Military Psychology, 26, 292–309. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/mil0000054 Lönnqvist, J., Paunonen, S., Nissinen, V., Ortju, K., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Self-enhancement in military leaders: Its relevance to officer selection and performance. Applied Psychology, 60, 670 – 695. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00452.x Maddi, S. R., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., Villarreal, B., & White, M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military Psychology, 24, 19 –28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2012.639672 McCrory, P., Cobley, S., & Marchant, P. (2013). The effect of psychological skills training (PST) on self-regulation behavior, self-efficacy, and psychological skill use in military pilot-trainees. Military Psychology, 25, 136 –147. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/h0094955 Mikulicˇiu៮ te˙, V. (2012). The interaction between cohesion, team trust, perceived self and collective efficacy, stress and performance efficacy in military teams. Psichologija, 46, 105–122. Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

71, 280 –294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367 .2000.10608908 Putka, D. J. (Ed.). (2009). Initial development and validation of assessments for predicting disenrollment of four-year scholarship recipients from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ARI Study Rep. 2009 – 06). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Sandoz, E. K., Moyer, D. N., & Armelie, A. P. (2015). Psychological flexibility as a framework for understanding and improving family reintegration following military deployment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 495–507. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12086 Silvia, P. J., Eddington, K. M., Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Kwapil, T. R. (2013). Gritty people try harder: Grit and effort-related cardiac autonomic activity during an active coping challenge. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 200 –205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho .2013.04.007 Smith, A. J., Benight, C. C., & Cieslak, R. (2013). Social support and postdeployment coping selfefficacy as predictors of distress among combat veterans. Military Psychology, 25, 452– 461. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/mil0000013 Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 –261. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr .2008.02.001 Vancouver, J. B., Gullekson, N. L., Morse, B. J., & Warren, M. A. (2014). Finding a between-person negative effect of self-efficacy on performance: Not just a within-person effect anymore. Human Performance, 27, 243–261. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/08959285.2014.913593 Vecchio, R., Bullis, C., & Brazil, D. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory; A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, 407– 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649 6406291560 Zaccaro, S. J., Gilrane, V. L., Robbins, J. M., Bartholomew, L. N., Young, M. C., Kilcullen, R. N., & Young, W. (2012). Officer individual differences: Predicting long-term continuance and performance in the U.S. Army (Tech. Rep. No. 1324). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Received December 3, 2014 Revision received June 23, 2016 Accepted August 31, 2016 䡲