UNCLASSIFIED

Defense Technical Information Center

Compilation Part Notice
ADP010355
TITLE: Officer Selection in the 21st Century

DISTRIBUTION: Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

This paper is part of the following report:

TITLE: Officer Selection [la Selection des
officiers]

To order the complete compilation report, use: ADA387133

The component part is provided here to allow users access to individually authored sections
of proceedings, annals, symposia, ect. However, the component should be considered within
the context of the overall compilation report and not as a stand-alone technical report.

The following component part numbers comprise the compilation

report: ADP010347 thru ADP010377

UNCLASSIFIED
 9-1

Officer Selection in the 21" Century

Michael G. Rumsey
U.S. Army Research Institute
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA, 22333-5600
USA

Laura A. Ford, Roy C. Campbell, John P. Campbell, Deirdre J. Knapp, and Clinton B. Walker
Human Resources Research Organization
66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400
Alexandria, VA, 22314-1591, USA

Summary reconsider the selection criteria that are currently

being used.
A key requirement in designing selection
systems is determining the attributes of people How are we to answer these questions?
that underlie their successful performance on the How are we to determine whether it is time to
job of interest. The present paper considers junior change current selection criteria, and, if so,
officer attributes which may be needed for how are we to determine what the new criteria
successful performance in the 21st century. are to be? In theory, there is a standard set of
This paper examines the application of a industrial- organizational principles for generating
methodology and findings from a project a valid set of selection measures: analyze a job to
examining future attributes needed for identify its major components, determine what
noncommissioned officers. It examines projected knowledges, skills, and attributes {KSAs) are
future changes in the world and the Army needed to be successful in tlus job, build
environment and considers how these may affect measures of these KSAs, and link these measures
future officer job demands. It then draws to measures of job performance. If this process
inferences about the implications of these changes results in the identification of measures which
for the following attributes: general cognitive can add substantial incremental validity to the
ability, integrity, achievement motivation, current selection criteria, then one must seriously
judgment and decision making, social competence, consider changing these criteria.
adaptability, communication ability, emotional
stability, and physical fitness. While the available While the application of these
information is judged to support the importance of principles is straightforward when the job of
these attributes for the period 2000-2025, the interest is one that is currenUy being
limitations of such information are emphasized.
A more thorough analysis using the approach performed, it is not so straightforward when
followed in the noncommissioned officer project the relevant job is one that is projected to exist in
NCO21) is recommended. the future. We cannot, in fact, ignore the future if
we are to ensure that whatever conclusions we
Introduction reach do not become obsolete shortly after we
reach them. The changes that are occurring are
Although there are many components of so dramatic that if we do not in some way take
a successful selection system, perhaps the most them into account, either to identify KSAs that
fundamental is that the selection criteria are are not now currently important but are
aligned with the job for which the individual is projected to be important soon, or to
being selected. As we look at the dramatic determine that the KSAs that are now important
changes in geopolitics, technology, and U.S. Army will remain so, then we risk having a
missions that have occurred within the last 20 seriously deficient selection system.
years and are projected to occur over the next
25 years, it is reasonable to ask whether the The problem we face, then, is how to
components of the Army officer job can be build an officer selection system for the future.
viewed as stable over that time and whether it is We are currently conducting a project addressing
time to a very similar question: how to build an NCO
9-2
Paper presented at the RTO HFM Workshop on “Officer Selection”,
held in Monterey, USA, 9-11 November 1999, and published in RTO MP-55.
 9-3

promotion system for the future. We believe that tactical tasks, 2) supervise subordinates, 3)
many of the procedures used in this project develop subordinates, and 4) perform managerial
2?“ Century NCOs (NCO21), apply in varying and administrative tasks (p. 2).” The processes
degrees to the officer selection problem, and will identified as needed to perform these functions
in tlus paper discuss the manner in which we were: “Planning, organizing, communicating,
think they apply. We will also discuss findings counseling, and decision making (p. 2).”
from this project and others and what
relevance we think they have to the issue of Projections into the future are necessarily
officer selection. uncertain, and become more uncertain the farther
into the future they are made. In our 21st
If we are to design a selection system Century NCOs project, we have focused on two
for the future, it must be keyed to future job eras that are particularly meaningful to the
demands. Most job analytic techniques are Army: the era from 2000 to 2010, which has
designed to describe present, not future jobs. been labeled Army
However, Schneider and Konz (1989) have XXI (AXXI), and the following era, which has
developed a technique known as strategic job been called the Army After Next (AAN) and,
analysis, which identifies job components based more recently, the Army After 2010. For
on current job analysis, then makes projections purposes of this paper, we are equating tlus
concerning future changes and examines how second era with the years 2010 to 2025. The use
these changes might impact upon these of these guideposts allows us to link our
components. Much of tliis paper will discuss projections with those the Anriy is making
what is now known about officer jobs, what and provides some reasonable limitations to
we have learned about future changes, and our planning horizons.
how these changes might impact upon future
officer jobs. However, since we have not Army XXI
formally conducted a strategic job analysis on
officers, this discussion must be recognized as General Characteristics
speculative and preliminary. Officer selection is
too important to rest upon such speculation—it The foremost characteristic of Army
is our recommendation that a formal job analysis XXI will be an emphasis on digitization in and
be done to generate more definitive conclusions. in support of military operations. This
digitization will be particularly prominent in
We must recognize at the outset that battlefield communications, which will
there is no single officer job. Officer job enhance situational awareness, and in weapons
demands vary by specialty and by rank. We systems.
will narrow our inquiry by focusing primarily
on entry-level lieutenant requirements which Another projected prominent
are reasonably common across specialties. A characteristic of Army XXI will be an
reasonable demand on a selection system is that increasing diversity of missions, including
it identify those who will perform effectively in peacekeeping, peaceinaking, humanitarian
their first job assignment. It is incumbent upon missions, and domestic assistance. As new
the promotion system to then identify who technology comes on line there will also be, as a
among these will perform well at higher levels. third characteristic, a diversity of forces, with
Of course, since the Army promotes from some units operating with new equipment and
witlun, one wants to ensure that among those enhanced capability and others operating with
who are selected there are a sufficient number less advanced equipment.
who have the capability to perform successfully
at these levels. Thus, ivlule performance at the A fourth characteristic will be
junior level is the primary concern, it is not the decentralized operations. With increased
sole concern. firepower range and improved
communications, doctrine will dictate greater
An earlier paper (Rumsey, 1998) dispersion among friendly units.
reviewed a variety of analyses of junior officer
jobs and found that officer demands were Training will also undergo evolution,
generally identified based on either function or with increased reliance on such technology-
process. The following functions emerged as driven techniques as distributed training,
particularly important: “ 1) perform technical distance learning, Internet training and
and computer-based
 9-3

instruction, less emphasis on institutional Rate of information change is also likely

attendance, and more on self development. to accelerate. Because of technological advances
and increased variety of missions, the number and
Implications for Junior Ofj'icer Functions and nature of tasks will likely change during an
Processes officer's career, sometimes very rapidly. The
officer will need to be continually learning to
In our NCO21 project, we have used deal with these changes.
projected characteristics of Army XXI, which
expand on those presented above, and other
information and judgments about this future era, A second trend involves “increased
to draw implications about how NCO job exposure to differing ethnicities and cultures.
dimensions might change. While these Peace keeping and humanitarian missions
implications were necessarily tentative, they will bring the Army into contact with different
did at least draw on judgments thorn those who peoples. Moreover, while the AOE [i.e.,
were particularly knowledgeable about present Army of Excellence, a term used to describe
NCO jobs and projected changes to those jobs. the Army of the 1990s] tended to be insular, the
We do not have this advantage for lieutenants. nature of future deployments (joint, coalition, host
What we have for lieutenants is some fairly nation, NATO, UN, other government and
general information about job functions and non-government participation, civilian
processes, in some respects rather dated, and contractor supported functions) will expose
our own speculation about how these functions Army members to new relationships (Ford,
and processes might change as a result of the Campbell, Campbell, Knapp, & Walker, 1999,
characteristics identified and some reasoning by p. C-13).”
analogy based on projected changes to NCO st
jobs. These are precautionary statements given Supervise Subordinates. Ow: 21 Century
so that the speculative nature of the discussion NCOs project has identified a number of
presented below will be properly understood. factors which will likely make supervising
The objective of this exercise is to both subordinates more challenging in Army XXI.
generate a few tentative suggestions about First, non- traditional deployments, such as
future lieutenant requirements and to provide those involving assistance and humanitarian
an illustrative eKample of what kinds of purposes, “often involve soldiers performing
conclusions might be drawn about lieutenants if missions that are not entirely consistent with
the methodology we applied in NCO21 were what they perceive their Army jobs and roles to
properly applied to the issue of officer be (Ford et a1., 1999, p. C- 14).” Tliis will likely
selection. These suggestions are discussed make motivation of subordinates more difficult.
below.
Second, junior officers will need to
Perform Technical and Tactical Tasks. deal with ethnic and cultural diversity: “The
Two projected trends are noteworthy here. Hispanic youth population will increase to 20-
First, the technical components of an officer's 25% of the total youth population by 2010.
job are likely to become more complex. Three Urban youth will predominate. (Ford et al. 1999,
dimensions which have been associated with task p. C-21).”
complexity (Campbell 1988; Schroder, Driver, &
Streufert 1967; Zaccaro, 1996) are likely to Develop Subordinates. Developing
increase: (1) information load, (2) information subordinates will also be impacted by changes
diversity, and (3) rate of information change. associated with Army XXI. Steinberg and
With respect to information load, Hunt and Leainan (1990) identified a number of training
Phillips (1996, p. 3) noted that “Information requirements for platoon leaders, noting that the
flow and amount are increasing at an “most prominent leadership area for platoon
exponential rate; leaders will have to sort out leaders was Train in the Field to Enter Combat
critical information from high volumes of (p. 44).” The trend to shift more skill learning to
data.” the unit and the innovations in training
technology will place a greater training burden
Information diversity is likely to increase on the lieutenant. There may be a greater need to
as well. Officers will face a variety of potential apply different training strategies and training
enemies, assignments, environments, and methods to match different ability groups.
equipment, with each factor adding to infonnation
complexity.
9-4

Perform Managerial and Administrative

conclusions based on systematic research on
Tasks7Decision Makfng. Digitization will offer officers. Again, the methodology applied in
a variety of applications, as well as NCO2l provides a basis for generating more
presenting problems when digital systems fail. solidly based judgments although, since we
It can thus be expected to increase managerial, are dealing with the future, even judgments
administrative, and decision making drawn using that methodology contain a
requirements for junior officers. substantial element of uncertainty.
Future deployments can be expected to What we would like to do at this point
present junior officers with additional managerial is identify a set of attributes that we think
and administrative requirements as they merit particular attention in thinking about future
provide input to decisions on how to staff these officer selection. We would like to begin by
deployments. These deployments may rely more looking at those KSAs which military and
on ad hoc arrangements than on more psychologist subject matter experts agreed
traditional personnel structures, further would likely be important for mid-level NCOs
complicating the decision making process functioning in Army XXI. These included the
involved. Unconventional missions following: judgment and decision making skill,
are more likely to involve unanticipated general cognitive aptitude, directing,
situations, requiring officers to solve problems monitoring, and supervising others, motivating
with unfamiliar elements. Unconventional and and leading others, oral communication skill,
other decentralized operations are also likely to and training others. Each of these was ranked
provide junior officers with an opportunity to in the top ten by both expert groups. In
make decisions that lustorically have been made addition, integrity and discipline,
at a higher organizational level. conscientiousness, and job-specific knowledge
and skill were ranked in the top ten by one
Planning and Organfzing. Non-
group and the top fifteen by the other (Ford et
traditional missions tend oflen to involve relatively
al., 1999). For our purposes, we will view three
small units, with the result that lieutenants can
KSAs from these lists, directing, monitoring and
be expected to take on greater planning and supervising others, motivating and leading others,
coordinating responsibilities with respect to these and job-specific knowledge and skill, not as
missions. attributes but as behavioral dimensions which may
be predicted by one or more attributes.
Communicating/Counseling. Lieutenant
communication responsibilities include Now we are faced with a daunting
maintaining two-way information exchange question: If we were to accept these KSAs as the
with supervisors and subordinates, important ones for Anny XXI mid-level NCOs,
communiCating performance standards to to what extent would they be applicable to
subordinates, and telling soldiers when they are junior officers as well? That is, what important
performing well (Steinberg & Leaman, 1990). attributes for officers are omitted from tliis list,
The growing reliance on computer and wilt attributes tliat are important for NCOs
communication, including e-mail, will put are not sufficiently important for officers to be
pressure on lieutenants to communicate considered in a selection context? One attribute
effectively in this medium. Also, “the ability that is not included that may well apply to
to speak rationally and convincingly and keep future officers is adaptability. TRADOC
others informed” will be particularly important Pamphlet 525-5 (Training and Doctrine
to deal with the uncertainty associated with Command, 1994) anticipated an era in which
deployments and non-conventional missions “complex, adaptive armies (p. 2-5)” would need
(Ford et al., 1999, p. C-13). to adapt to a variety of operations. It thus
stated tlut “Increased flexibility and
InlplfCations for Junior Officer Attributes adaptability will be required at all levels (p. 4-
10).”
As we move from implications for
functions and processes to implications for In comparing the list of mid-level NCO
attributes, our exercise becomes even more attributes with models of executive leadership
speculative. We are generating inferences (e.g., Zaccaro, et al., 1997) the primary
based on inferences. It should be understood difference seems to be the greater einplusis on
tliat wlut we are offering here is only a starting cognitive skills in the latter. Also, some
point—a set of speculative suggestions rather noncognitive attributes which are important at
th a set of
lower levels may
 95
be less so at higher levels. Indeed, in our
NCO2I project, conscientiousness was ranked as Similarly, Kilcullen and Goodwin (1998,
the most important KSA for promotion to junior p. 2) noted: “The lightning pace of 21”
NCO but was not listed in the top ten by Century warfare may require delegation of more
either panel for promotion to senior NCO. decision- making to junior officers, and the
lethality of new weapon systems increases the
Based on these considerations and chance that the actions taken by these officers
the implications for junior ofEcer leadership will have a critical impact on the battle's
drawn from the NCO21 project, the following outcome.”
attributes were identified, on a preliminary,
A variety of critical cognitive skills are
tentative basis, as deserving particular attention as suggested by the projected future officer demands
we think about officer selection for Army XXI. we have discussed. As an earlier paper (Rumsey,
These are not listed in ranked order. 1998, p. 7) noted: “...it seems reasonable to
expect tha the Army of the future will need
• General cognitive ability officers who can effectively acquire, retain,
• Integrity retrieve and apply information needed to solve
• Achievement motivation problems and make decisions, who can develop
• Judgment and decision making strategies for knowing which problems to solve
• Social competence and which decisions to make, for deciding which
• Adaptability information is important and which is not, and
• Communication ability who can develop and apply strategies for
dealing with multiple inputs in a coherent,
Cognftive Ability. Let us first consider integrated fashion.” We will devote additional
cognitive ability. Higher order cognitive attention to problem solving as part of our
abilities and skills have been related to higher discussion of judgment and decision making
organizational levels (e.g., Jacobs & Jaques, below. These skills are linked to Stemberg's
1987, 1991; Streufert & Streufert, 1978; concept of analytic intelligence (1994, 1996).
Streufert & Swezey, 1986). It has been Stemberg has identified two other types of
postulated (Rumsey, 1998, p. 6) that “the cognitive abilities: creative intelligence, or
operating environment of the “the need to be flexible and see old problems
21st century will require greater exercise of higher
in new ways (1994, p. 321),” and practical
intelligence, which lS based more on experience
than formal
order cognitive abilities and skills in two ways: l) militaries.”
by increasing the responsibility of lieutenants
such that they will, in effect, be operating at a
liiglier organizational level and will need to
apply the higher order cognitive abilities and
skills required for success at these levels, and
(2) by directly increasing the task complexity of
the lieutenant's job.”

As noted above, increases in

information load, information diversity, and rate
of information change can be expected to
increase task complexity at the junior officer
level. Why might we expect an increase in
responsibility at the lieutenant level? TRADOC
Pampliiet 525-5 (Training and Doctrine
Command, 1994, p. 2-8) noted that “New
communication systems will allow
nonhierarchical dissemination of intelligence,
targeting, and other data at all levels. The new
way of managing forces will alter, if not
replace, traditional, hierarclucal command
stnictures with internetted designs....Because
tlus intemetted structure can diffuse
command authority, new leadership and
command structures will be required in many
9-6trainingor education (1994). The variety and
novelty of projected missions and assignments
in the Army XXI era suggest that creativity
and practical intelligence will be important
junior officer attributes as well.

Integrfty. Rather than listing integrity

and conscientiousness as separate attributes
here, we will focus on integrity and suggest
that one's definition of this term should be
sufficiently broad to capture much of the
meaning of conscientiousness as well.
Professional ethics was identified as the most
important of nine Army competencies by a
group of predominantly company-grade
officers (Savell, Tremble, & Teague, 1993).
Integrity has received consistently liigli ratings
by NCO judges in our NCO21 project (Ford et
a1., 1999; Rumsey, Busciglio, & Simsarian,
1997). In future deployments, where junior
officers may not be closely supervised but
where their actions could have profound
consequences, the importance of this attribute
may be particularly great.
9-6

Achievement Motivation. Although be viewed as a behavioral indicator of social

effort and initiative was listed separately from competence. Motivating and leading others,
need for achievement and general energy level the fourth-ranked KSA for these NCOs, is another.
in NCO2I, all of these are incorporated here As decentralized operations increase, the ability
under the term achievement motivatfon. in of junior officers to work effectively and closely
Army XXI, officers will be frequently faced with with subordinates in small groups will become
new assignments and new missions in which their
more important. Also, officers are likely to be
previous training and experience will have only
more challenged by the soldiers they are leading
limited value. Individual effort and initiative will
and by the diversity of these soldiers, as well as
be important in helping officers meet these new
by the diverse cultures and social situations
challenges, both by direct action and through
they are likely to encounter in Army XXI
continuous self development.
deployments. As less hierarchically
Judgment and Decision Making. oriented forms of communication
Problem solving, a component of decision and operation begin to
making, is incorporated in Stemberg's (1996) predomiiute, officers will likely need to engage in
definition of analytic intelligence. Thus, it may more participative forms of leadership.
be puzzling to see these listed here separately
Adaptability. Officers will be faced with
from general cognitive ability. However,
a variety of teclmical environments,
Zaccaro et a1. (1997) presented a model of
geographic environments, and missions.
leadership which also separated problem
solving and general cognitive abilities.
“Nontraditional missions, urban orientations,
new political realities, and ill-defined or
The fact tlut the judges in the NCO21 rapidly changing tloeats can cause confusion
project listed both decision making and and ambiguity (Ford, et al. 1999, p. C-13).”
general cognitive ability among the top-ranked Missions will change and tasks will change.
KSAs for mid-level NCOs and rated decision Peacekeeping and other unconventional
making as the third-ranked KSA for senior missions are particularly likely to involve
NCOs in Anny XXI suggests that, while it complex and unpredictable situations that officers
certainly could be considered a cognitive task, will need to deal with.
one should probably closely consider whether a
separate measure for decision making should be Adaptability may not be a single attribute,
considered for officer selection even if a general but rather a combination of attributes. Pulakos,
cognitive ability test is already available. The Arad, Plainondon, and Kiecliel (1997) described
increased availability of digital tools and other a project being conducted for the Army
sophisticated equipment, the proliferation of Research Institute wliicli is exanuning cognitive
unconventional missions, the increased abilities and such non-cognitive characteristics as
operational autonomy and responsibility in the openness, flexibility, and tolerance of
Army XXI environment, wluch were presumably ambiguity as predictors of adaptive
factors feeding into these judgments of the performance.
importance of decision making for NCOs, will
all also likely challenge the junior officer's Coinntunication Ability. We have
ability to use good judgment, to make effective addressed issues relating to the future importance
decisions, and to solve problems in Army XXI. of communication ability under the discussion of
the officer processes contiitunicating/counseling
Social Competence. Social competence above. Communication is, like some of the other
is a rather broad concept, and perlups is best “attributes” described above, perhaps best viewed
viewed as a constellation of abilities, including the as a constellation of attributes rather than a single
ability to understand social cues, the ability to act attribute. Certainly some measures of
effectively in social situations, and the ability general cognitive ability would incorporate some
to influence others. features of communication ability. However, the
judges in our NCO21 project gave oral
Supervision of subordinates, as noted communication skill a liigli ranking even when
above, is an important component of the junior general cognitive ability was included as a KSA,
officer's job. Directing and supervising others, so we should not assume tliat a general cognitive
the third highest ranked KSA for mid-level NCOs, measure would sufficiently encompass the
can features of communication ability tliat the judges
felt were important.
 9-7

Army After 2010 Part of

General Characteristics

Some of the projected characteristics

of Army After 2010 that are useful in
considering relevant junior officer
characteristics are: (1) the emphasis on
knowledge, (2) the emphasis on speed, (3) the
concept of hybrid forces, and (4) the concept of
Battle Forces.

Knowledge. “’Knowledge’ has an

absolute and relative side. Absolutely, it
means knowing all that we need to know;
relatively, it means having much better
information than the enemy (‘information
dominance’). A wide range of capabilities is
implied, including these: giving commanders a
view of the location and condition of all of our
human and material assets (‘total asset
visibility’); giving forces a common, complete,
accurate, and current picture of the battle situation
at the level they need to know it; knowing
enemy locations, actions, forces, and
intentions; synchronizing the many parts of
our joint and coalition forces; and denying an
enemy comparable knowledge. Knowledge will
let us maintain advantages of position to initiate
surprise, standoff engagements instead of
predictable force- on-force ones (Ford et a1.,
1999, p. C-26).”

Speed. “The complement to

Knowledge, ‘Speed, is required at the strategic,
operational, and tactical levels. The AAN vision
calls for Battle Forces in a high state of readiness
to deploy themselves within days to anywhere
in the world.....As a matter of tempo, speed
involves maintaining a continuous pace of
operations until each objective is achieved.
Knowledge encourages speed by permitting
forces, with awareness of friendly and hostile
locations, to avoid overmatch, and make
every move count (Ford et al., 1999, p. C-26).”

Hybrid Forces. The force of 2025 will

be a hybrid force, composed of a number of
components, including Army XXI forces and
other more traditional forces, as well as a
component particularly designed for the
clmllenges of the 2010-2025 timeframe, the
Battle Forces. It is on the Battle Forces that we
focus on to identify requirements that may go
beyond those required of AXXI officers.

Battle Forces. It should be understood

that the concept of Battle Forces, while it is
based on recent sources, is subject to revision.
9-8

this concept involves organization in small effectively will be, if anything, more vital to BF
teams, mixing of roles across ranks, and cross-
training of team members who are
multifunctional in terms of being able to
conduct diverse activities and participate in
diverse missions. The concept of Battle
Forces is in many ways comparable to the
concept of Special Forces.

Implications for Junior Officer Functions and

Processes

There are just a few implications for

the officer functions and processes that we
are considering tliat we would like to highlight
here.

Perform Technical and Tactical Tasks.

It is expected tliat Battle Force soldiers and
leaders will need to be multi-skilled. Their jobs
will be more complex, less standardized and
less proceduralized with more individual
innovation required. Jobs will require
constant, career-long learning to keep up with
clinging systems. The spread of
computerization will likely increase, requiring
soplustication in understanding computers
and maximizing their use by officers. The
quantity of available information will likely
continue to increase, so “[p]rocessing large
amounts of information with speed, accuracy,
discipline, and discrimination....(Ford, et al.
1999, p. C-40)” will probably be required.

Supewise Subordinates. “Directing

and supervising in the Battle Force
environment will be a more shared,
collaborative effort rather than a sole
responsibility of those ‘in charge’ (Ford, et al.
1999, p. C-41).” Leader roles are expected to
be more fluid.

Develop Subordinates. Training in the

Battle Forces will involve more learning by
apprenticeship, so officers who are
comfortable with tlus type of arrangement will
be more likely to effectively perform their
training roles.

Decision Making. Battle Force leaders

will need to be effective decision makers in a
variety of complex, uncertain, and changeable
environments, using a variety of sophisticated
equipment, under conditions of high stress.

COltilnHnfcating. “Conveying thoughts,

ideas, conclusions, and recommendations will be a
critical part of BF [Battle Force] operations.
Wlfile relaying of much information will be
automated, the human ability to communicate
 9-9

[Battle Force] operations. The ability of

destroy team nucleus. All these factors will
individuals to organize, present, conduct, and increase mental and emotional stress under
respond to verbal and non-verbal communications
conditions that we cannot yet anticipate (Ford et
will be crucial (Ford, et al., 1999, p. C-41).”
a., cci).'
Implications for Junfor Officer Attributes
The emphasis on speed during military
operations, particularly if these operations become
When we asked military and psychologist extended, could place a premium on fitness.
subject matter experts to identify knowledges, The following conclusions, while again not
skills and abilities that Battle Force NCOs would focused on officers, may nonetheless have
need in the Army After 2010, the two panels had relevance: “Fitness will likely have three
general agreement that the following were components: physical, mental, and emotional.
important: judgment and decision making, general Physical fitness will likely be in terms of stamina
cognitive ability, knowledge of battlefield function and endurance rather than AOE characteristics
integration, emotional stability, general self- of strength and leg speed. The ability to cycle,
management skill, and self-directed learning skill. at will, between rest and activity may be
There was somewhat less consensus for increasingly important. Age, up to a point, may
adaptability, knowledge of system inter-relations be incidental and the average age of the Battle
and physical fitness (Ford et a1., 1999). Force soldier will likely be mid-30s. Mental
fitness will include agility, comprehension,
For purposes of selection, our interest is acuteness, and memory. Emotional fitness
more on abilities than on knowledges and will probably require stress resistance (Ford
skills, although the possibility that there are et a1., 1999, p. C-41).”
specific measurable attributes associated with
general self- management skill and self-directed
Integrity, achievement motivation, social
learning skill may merit further investigation.
competence, and communication ability were
Many of the environmental factors related to
general cognitive ability, adaptability, and
the other attributes discussed in the Army XXI
problem solving in the Army XXI discussion
section. These or related KSAs were given
above might be expected to be equally relevant attention by our expert panels, but were not
in the Army After 2010 era. Task complexity consistently ranked highly for NCOs by these
will likely remain liigli. Junior officers will likely panels. In general, the points made about these
encounter a variety of situations that require with respect to Anny XXI above would seem
flexible, adaptive, creative thinking. They will to hold for Battle Force officers as well. Officers
need to make decisions in a variety of may well be in situations where a lapse of
complex, unstructured environments. integrity could love significant consequences.
Achievement motivation will likely be needed
to help officers deal effectively with new
Emotional stability may become
assigmnents and new missions , and to help
increasingly important, based on projections
them pursue continual self development. The
about the stressful nature of Battle Force need for clear, effective communication, as
operations. While the following observations noted above, will likely be critical to the success
are not focused specifically on officers, they
of Battle Force operations. The social ability
provide a sense of the type of environment officers
to exercise leadership in a more participative
may need to operate in: “Battle Force soldiers manner will likely be as important, if not more
will be used in combat situations that we so. The reduced rankings for these attributes or
currently cannot forecast. They may witness related KSAs for NCOs probably reflects a
employment of WMD [weapons of mass judgment not so much tliat these will become
destruction] including large-scale civilian less iinporiant in a Battle Force context, but
casualties. They may be deployed while the U.S.
rather reflects the judged significantly greater
homeland (and their families) are under missile
importance of such attributes as judgment and
or WMD threat or attack. They may be placed
decision making in that context. We must at
in situations that their training did not cover or
least consider the possibility that there might be a
be faced with unanticipated equipment
comparable shift in relative importance of these
failures. Invariably they will be expected to
attributes for officers, but we have no empirical
operate in very small groups and sometimes
even alone. Battle Force elements can expect data, even in judgment form, with wluch to test
tliis hypothesis.
casualties tliat can
9-10

ConclUSlORS
References
The Army will need strong leadership Campbell, D.T. (1988). Task
to help it meet the challenges of the 21" century. complexity: A review and analysis. Academy
The question in selection terms is: What of Management Review, 13, 40-52.
attributes make a strong junior leader† The
answer to that question is not independent of the Ford, L. A., Campbell, R. C., Campbell,
environment the leader will be operating in or J. P., Knapp, D. J., & Walker, C. B. (1999).
the functions the leader will perform. Thus, it is 21st century soldiers and noncommissioned
necessary to take a close look at leader officers: critical predictors of performance.
functions in the context of future environments Manuscript in preparation.
in attempting to identify these attributes. The
exercise engaged in here should be considered Hunt. J. G., & Phillips, R. L. (1996).
more as a demonstration of an approach rather 1996 Army Symposium: Leadership challenges
than an attempt to provide a definitive list of of the 21‘ century Army. Executive Summary
attributes. Since we have relied so much on (Research Note No. 96-63). Alexandria, VA:
information obtained from a focus on NCOs, U.S. Anny Research Institute for the Behavioral
this is best viewed as an indirect application of and Social Sciences.
that approach. A more direct application
would generate a more defensible list. Jacobs, T. 0., & Jaques (1987).
Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner
From our indirect approach, we do (Ed.), Haitian productivity enhancement.
have some interesting hypotheses. The possible Volume 2: Organizations, personnel and decision
importance of judgment and decision making, making. New York: Prager.
either as a component of general cognitive ability
or as a separate attribute, suggests a path worth Jacobs, T. 0., & Jaques (1990).
pursuing, particularly as we look beyond the year Military executive leadership. In K. E. Clark
2010. General cognitive ability is likely to & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadershfp.
continue to be important, including analytic, Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative
creative, and practical components of this ability. Leadership.
Achievement motivation, adaptability, social
competence, communication ability, and stress Jacobs, T. 0., & Jaques, E. (1991).
tolerance also look like potentially fruitful areas. Executive leaderslup. In R. Gal & A. D.
Manglesdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military
Clearly, identification of promising psychology, Chichester, England: Wiley.
attributes is but a first step toward
implementing any change to the current officer Kilcullen, R. N., & Goodwin, J. (1998).
selection system. Other questions to be asked Requisite attributes for 21‘ century combat
include: (1) Is the attribute adequately leaders. Unpublished manuscript.
measured in the current selection system? (2)
Can the attribute be measured accurately? (3) Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Plainondon, D.,
Does the attribute indeed predict the & Kiecliel, K. L. (1997). Examining the
performance it is hypothesized to predict, and feasibility of developing measures of stress
(4) Does the benefit of having tlus measure in adaptability {Tech. Rep. No. 1068).
the officer selection system justify the cost of Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute
developing and using tlus measure? We for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
recognize that any changes to the current selection
system involve some cost, and we clearly are Rumsey, M. G. (1998). 21"’ century
not in a position now to judge whether lieutenants. Paper presented at Cadet
expanding the current system would be a cost- Command Study Group, Norfolk, VA.
effective step. However, we will suggest that it
is a prudent step to periodically examine Rumsey, M. G., Busciglio, H., &
whether the officer selection system being Simsarian, S. (1997). 21st century NCOs. Paper
used is actually selecting those who will serve presented at the 9° Defense Analysis Seminar,
the Army best, both now and in the future. Seoul, Korea.
9-10

Savell, J. M., Tremble, T. T., Jr., &

Teague, R. C. (1993). Some lessons learned
about leadership in Operation Desert Shield7Storm
(Study Rep. No. 93-05). Alexandria, VA: U. S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.

Schneider, B., & Konz, A. M. (1989).

Strategic job analysis. Human Resource
Management, 28, 51-63.

Schroder, H. H., Driver, M. J., &

Streufert, S. (1967). Human inforitiation
processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Steinberg, A. G., & Leaman, J. A.

(1990). Dimensions of Aritty coitiitiissioned and
noncommissioned officer leadership (Tech. Rep.
No. 879). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Stemberg, R.J. (1996). Successful

intelligence. New York: Simon & Scliuster.

Steinberg, R.J. (1994). The PRSVL

model of person-context interaction in the study
of human potential. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B.
Walker, & J. H. Harris tEds.), Personnel
selection and classification (pp. 317-332).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Streufert, S., & Struefert, S. C. (1978).

Behavior in the complex enviromnent. New
York: Wiley.

Streufert, S., & Swezey, R. W. (1986).

Complexfty, managers, rind organizritions.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Training and Doctrine Command

(1994). Force XXI operations. (Pamphlet No.
525-5). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command.

Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and

theories of executive leadership. A
conceptual/empirfcal review and integration.
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Marks,

M. A., Connelly, M. S., Threlfall, K. V., Gilbert,
J. A., & Fleishman, E. A. (1997). Cogniti›•e
and temperament determinants of Ariity
leadership. Manuscript in preparation.