Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONALITY TO VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS
EFFICACY WITHIN A MILITARY COMBAT ENVIRONMENT
by
Harry I. Nimon Jr.
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Business Administration
University of Phoenix
August 2008
© 2008 by Harry I. Nimon ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONALITY TO VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS
EFFICACY WITHIN A MILITARY COMBAT ENVIRONMENT
by
Harry I. Nimon Jr.
August 2008
Approved:
George J. Graham, Ph.D., Mentor
Leona M. Lobell, Ph.D., Committee Member
Paul E. Lockey, Ph.D., Committee Member
Accepted and Signed: _ George J. Graham Date
Accepted and Signed: _
Paul E. Lockey Date
Accepted and Signed: _ Leona M. Lobell Date
_ Dawn Iwamoto, Ed. D. Date Dean, School of Advanced Studies University of Phoenix
Signed
Signed
Signed 11 August 08
11 August 08
11 August 08
18 August 08 Signed
ABSTRACT
Military forces worldwide are increasing utilization of computer-mediated-
communications (CMC) systems and processes during combat operations. Interestingly,
studies of CMC utilization in industry virtual team settings reveal cultural, personal, and
cognitive dynamics influencing virtual team efficacy, not examined in military settings.
Examination of the behavior types associated with military combat decision makers in a
virtual environment is an important step in determining the potential of CMC systems,
particularly with the ongoing development of the Future Combat Systems program of the
U.S. Army. The study utilizes the Insights-Discovery model to assess personalities of
participating Army and Marine Corps combat leaders who operated in CMC
environments during the Bosnian, Desert Storm, Afghani, and Iraqi conflicts. The study
associates the personality data with information on the participants’ perceived efficacy in
communications skills using information transmitted via virtual means. The study
determined that evidence exists indicating that personality, trust, and expectation
violation influence combat decision making when utilizing virtual systems. The study
concludes recommending steps the U.S. Army should take to ascertain the degree of
influence of personality, trust, and expectation violation in CMC decision making to
develop mitigating procedures.
iv
DEDICATION
To my wife and family for their support and extensive assistance.
To my Doctoral Committee for their patience, professionalism, and dedication to
my success.
To my associates, specifically Leslie and Larry, whose assistance was critical.
To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and families of the United States Armed Forces
who sacrifice themselves for our right to be free.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Primarily, my sincere thanks to the members of my doctoral committee, Drs.
Graham, Lobell, and Lockey; without whom this work would not have progressed or
been completed. Their encouragement and support brought clarity of purpose and the
drive needed to overcome multiple challenges. I am in their debt.
Specific study design assistance was received from Dr’s Gloria Fawcett and Ann
Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. Their assistance has proven invaluable.
I wish to specifically acknowledge my wife, Marian, and family whose
encouragement and support has seen me through this process. A great help in editing and
ensuring readability were my daughter, Jessica, and Toni Williams of the University.
Additionally, the critical support provided by Leslie Amerman and her husband Larry
who provided technical and professional assistance in the gathering and evaluation of
data.
Special thanks to Insights-Discovery LTD of England for providing the instances
of the Insight-Discovery Survey, without which this study would have been impossible to
complete.
Finally, to the officers of the United States Army and Marine Corps who
volunteered to participate in the study and who stood in my stead in the Bosnian, Iraqi,
and Afghani conflicts; may God Bless them all.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem................................................................................................. 8
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 10
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 12
Dependent Variables ......................................................................................................... 14
Communication Style ........................................................................................................ 14
Virtual Environment Operational Efficiency .................................................................... 15
Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 16
Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................... 17
Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................ 19
Survey Instrument Validation ........................................................................................... 21
Sampling Methods and Procedures ................................................................................... 21
Analytical Methods ........................................................................................................... 22
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 23
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 23
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 24
Expectations Violations Model and Theory ...................................................................... 24
Collaborative Decision making ......................................................................................... 25
Fault-Tolerant Decision making........................................................................................ 25
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 26
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 28
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 29
vii
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 30
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 32
Documentation .................................................................................................................. 33
Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 34
Historical Overview .......................................................................................................... 34
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 37
Theories of Decision making ...................................................................................... 37
Concerns with Virtual Decision Making ..................................................................... 39
Expectations and Communications ................................................................................... 40
Social Condition of Humans ....................................................................................... 40
Psycho-Neurological Elements ................................................................................... 50
Determination of Expectation in Military Environments ............................................ 52
Expectation and Violation ................................................................................................. 53
Cognitive Dissonance .................................................................................................. 54
Expectation Violation Theory ..................................................................................... 56
Concept of Jungian Personality Analysis .......................................................................... 58
Dr. Carl Jung and Preferences ..................................................................................... 58
Jungian Functions ........................................................................................................ 59
Introversion & Extraversion ........................................................................................ 60
Thinking & Feeling ..................................................................................................... 61
Sensing & Intuition ..................................................................................................... 62
Computer-Mediated Communications .............................................................................. 62
viii
Communications in a CMC Environment ................................................................... 62
Network Centric Warfare Environment ...................................................................... 65
The FCS Concept, Environment, Issues, and Challenges ........................................... 66
Team Dynamics........................................................................................................... 68
Measurement of Knowledge Formation ...................................................................... 71
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 76
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 3: METHOD .................................................................................................. 79
Research Method and Design Appropriateness ................................................................ 80
Appropriateness of Design ................................................................................................ 87
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 88
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 89
Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale ............................ 90
Informed Consent .............................................................................................................. 93
Sampling Frame ................................................................................................................ 94
Confidentiality ................................................................................................................... 94
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 95
Instrument Selection Appropriateness and Reliability ...................................................... 96
Validity: Internal and External .......................................................................................... 97
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 99
Analysis of Personality-Type Approach ......................................................................... 100
Data Tabulation Procedures ............................................................................................ 103
Research Problems – Low Participation Rate ................................................................. 103
ix
Limitations of the Research............................................................................................. 105
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 105
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ................................................................................................ 107
Description of Population and Data Development .......................................................... 109
Data Analysis Procedures................................................................................................ 110
Demographic Information ............................................................................................... 110
Specific Findings ............................................................................................................. 111
Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................... 112
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 112
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 113
Findings and Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 114
Research Question 1: How is combat decision making altered by the information
management and leadership processes involved in the determination of the appropriate
level(s) and type(s) of information to process, pass, and include in the combat decision
evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 114
Research Question 2: Does previous exposure to virtual environments, personality types,
or education have an impact on the ability of an individual to overcome any degradation
of communication present in a virtual communications environment ............................ 117
Research Question 3: What are the effects on individual cognitive processes in an
environment where normal and expected social interactions, such as face-to-face,
sensorial, and other nonverbal stimuli, experience degradation or are nonexistent ........ 118
Research Question 4: How do the effects of expectation violation impact communications
at all levels ....................................................................................................................... 121
x
Research Question 5: When advanced CMC is considered or determined as suspect, what
is the impact on trustworthiness within the command team ........................................... 122
Research Question 6: What results, positive or negative, do these effects have on the
ability of decision makers to lead their organizations in the high-stress environment of
combat ............................................................................................................................. 122
Personality Results .......................................................................................................... 123
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 131
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 132
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 132
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 134
Strength of Individual Personality Typology .................................................................. 134
Trust ................................................................................................................................ 137
Cognitive Expectation ..................................................................................................... 139
Possible Areas of Improvement and Future Study .......................................................... 141
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 142
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 142
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 144
APPENDIX A: VIRTUAL TEAMING COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY PARTICIPATION FORM ....................................................................... 162
APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO USE EXISTING SURVEY—INSIGHTS-
DISCOVERY SURVEY ........................................................................................... 164
APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO USE EXISTING SURVEY—WAGNER SURVEY165
APPENDIX D: INSIGHTS DISCOVERY SURVEY .................................................... 166
xi
APPENDIX E: COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS ............................. 171
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Dependent and Independent Variables................................................................. 14
Table 2 Description of Decision making and Cognition Theories .................................... 38
Table 3 Insight-Discovery Color Dynamics.................................................................... 123
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Example of a military organization ................................................................... 20
Figure 2. Data/information flow and bleed-off ................................................................. 67
Figure 3. Structural model of team collaboration ............................................................ 70
Figure 4. Transition probabilities: Collaboration stages ................................................. 72
Figure 5. Transition probabilities: Process states ............................................................ 73
Figure 6. Study data development and analysis process .................................................. 91
Figure 7. Sample Size Calculation (from http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) ...... 96
Figure 8. Insights-Discovery learning dynamics structure matrix ................................. 101
Figure 9. Insights-Discovery personality matrix compilation wheel .............................. 102
Figure 10. Participants’ demographic data .................................................................... 111
Figure 11. Decision making efficacy perception ............................................................ 115
Figure 12. Understanding of the military problem ......................................................... 116
Figure 13. Ability to obtain required critical information .............................................. 117
Figure 14. Ability to communicate efficiently with superiors ......................................... 119
Figure 15. Ability to clarify misperceptions or miscommunications .............................. 120
Figure 16. Ability to communicate significantly complex dynamics or data .................. 121
Figure 17. Focused respondents’ personality structure summary .................................. 124
Figure 18. The Insights Wheel asterisk group ................................................................ 126
Figure 19. The Insights Wheel nonasterisk group .......................................................... 128
Figure 20. The Insights Wheel nonasterisk group .......................................................... 129
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The world is experiencing a revolution in the availability and use of information,
specifically concerning the utilization of Internet and computer-mediated
communications (CMC; Wagner, 2002). Researchers such as Kerr and Tindale (2004)
and Wagner (2002) study and discuss the growing tendency within organizations to
utilize CMC and virtual communications in the creation and processes of work teams,
which these researchers call virtual teams. Organizations link individuals of varied
cultures and nationalities in virtual teams to perform tasks once limited to collocated
groups (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2004; Kring, 2004).
Kerr and Tindale (2004) reviewed studies conducted since 1992, examining the
question of “whether electronic groups—where inter-member communication is managed
electronically rather than in face-to-face interaction—might have certain performance
advantages” (p. 626). Kerr and Tindale’s research, supported by the work by Wagner
(2002), concluded that, while a viable and growing process with many positive
tendencies, the structure of virtual groups is so complex as to render the reviewed studies
overly simplistic. Most research, according to the researchers, is limited to examining
only the relationships of group size, task type, available choices, stress conditions, or
decision scheme rather than the deeper cognitive structures of intelligence, personality,
social structure, and other non-face-to-face issues (Aldridge, 2001; Gibson et al., 2003;
Goh, 2004; Kerr & Tindale; Wagner).
Interest in CMC and virtual communications is also growing within the military.
This growth exhibits itself through published papers and research distributed through the
Command and Control Research and Technology Symposia (CCRTS, 2006), sponsored
2
by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and British, Australian, Italian, Japanese, and
other international defense organizations. Evidence exists also in the U.S. Army’s
expenditure of over $300 billion in technology development focused on CMC processes
and systems over the next 10 years (U.S. Army, 2004a).
CCRTS has as a charter to “enhance DOD’s understanding of the National
Security implications of the Information Age” (CCRTS, ¶ 1). A review of papers and
presentations on file with CCRTS reveals that CCRTS studies have focused primarily
upon the technological issues of hardware and software development (Powell, 2004).
Very few CCRTS-reporting researchers examined the cognitive and interpersonal aspects
highlighted by Kerr and Tindale and Wagner. No CCRTS-sponsored studies have
examined the relationship of CMC to human personality.
Maxwell (2006) cites numerous psychological studies linking cognition and
interpersonal aspects to adaptive behavior, or personality. Maxwell (2006) further states
that a primary faculty of emotion, or personality, is to reflect and motivate the
modification of individual-environment relations in an advantageous manner. Thus, there
appears to be a significant personality link to the cognitive and interpersonal aspects of
Kerr and Tindale and Wagner. Given this linkage of personality, the question is whether
personality is a factor in virtual team efficiency. As no known previous study examined
this linkage, specifically where military or combat environments are involved, this study
examines the personality type and efficacy of individuals utilizing CMC within military
virtual teams in combat environments. Specifically, this study examines the impression of
team efficacy as observed by senior military officers engaged in both virtual teaming and
3
combat activities in recent U.S. military engagements at Brigade and higher command
levels.
Support for the need for such a study originates with Claxton (2004) who
conducted a recent DOD leadership study examining the aspects of personality and how
personality relates to success in leadership. Claxton’s study utilized the Myers-Briggs
Personality Assessment behavioral tool, which has the personality model of Carl Jung as
its basis. Claxton’s study concluded that there is a major difference between successful
non-military and military leadership personalities and that additional study is required to
examine this difference in more detail (Claxton, 2004). Neither Claxton’s study, nor any
other known study, assesses of possible relationships between critical communication
efficiency by military leaders and personality types operating in CMC environments.
A second study discusses the relationship of trust where virtual teams have
different cultural structures (Wagner, 2002). Wagner studied American companies having
international virtual teams and the associated issues created when cultural differences
impacted the ability of participants to make cognitive links with virtual team members. A
third study associated the cultural and trust issues to the types of communications
processes preferred and under what cognitive conditions (Walters, 2004). None of these
three studies examined military forces or the effects of CMC and virtual teaming in
combat environments. Therefore, the researcher utilized the alternate studies as
comparative elements for the data developed within this study.
The most important element of a military operation is the ability to provide
decision makers the appropriate information necessary to respond accurately to changes
in combat environments (Ryan, 1997). Historically, passage of military or combat
4
information involved a mixture of face-to-face, radio, and telephonic communications
(Chen, Gori, & Pozgay, 2004; Ryan, 1997). However, the legacy processes of
communications, such as face-to-face interactions, are undergoing a major change.
The increasing use of internet-based and other computer-based communications
media is resulting in ever-increasing amounts of information transmitted through
electronic means without the benefit of direct human interaction (Alberts, Garstka,
Hayes, & Signori, 2001). Kerr and Tindale’s (2004) observations emphasize the belief
that the effectiveness of virtual teams results from the efficiency of the technology rather
than the ability of the individual. Specifically these researchers stated, “motivation
[cognition] gains and losses can largely be explained using the notion of instrumentation
in an expectancy-value framework” (Kerr & Tindale, p. 641). Kerr and Tindale also
concluded with the consideration that “modern technology [poses] questions that might
never arise in the usual context of face-to-face groups” (p. 643).
A gap exists in military research involving the nature or effects of non-personal
communications via CMC technologies. Current military CMC technology studies do not
account for human relationships and psychology. Given the nature and stress of the
combat environment, individuals working within a virtual domain respond differently to
stimuli, the effects of personality on efficient participation in virtual teams may be
exacerbated (Miller & Shattuck, 2006). The focus of this study examines the ability or
inability of certain personality types to work effectively in a combat team within a virtual
environment.
Humans, due to the social and communicative behavior established by lifelong
experiences, generate deeply rooted cognitive expectations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Hale,
5
Burgoon, & Householder, 2005; Scholl, 1981). Such cognitive expectations establish the
basis for data analysis during the decision making process (Burgoon & Hale; Mason,
2004). When a communicator does not satisfy necessary cognitive expectations, there is
the potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication by the recipient of the
message. The receiver may utilize individualized past experiences to fill in the missing
data. Because the exchange of data through communications is the basis of the decision
making process, inaccurate decision making occurs. In the absence of expectation
satisfaction, the human brain replaces the missing information with retained experiences,
irrespective of the applicability of the data to the subject (Burgoon & Hale). The nature,
degree, and results of such data replacement potentially depend upon the personality of
the individual involved.
Burgoon and Hale (1988) developed a theory on this relationship of personality to
decision making, expectation violation theory. The theory posits that humans develop
cognitive pathways of behavior for both themselves and those with whom they interact.
Experiences, culture, behavior, and nonverbal cues establish an expectation of the
message another person may send. Various types of nonverbal cues establish the
implication of the incomplete message and the brain supplies the remaining, missing
elements to complete an erroneous picture. Burgoon’s continuing work and work cited
through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (1996) posits
human emotional communications demonstrates this type of miscommunication.
Burgoon believed this is common, particularly during periods of high emotional stress
(Burgoon, Blair, & Moyer, 2003, J. K. Burgoon et al., 2005; J. K. Burgoon, Blair, &
Moyer, 2003; Buller & J.K. Burgoon, 1996). Schwartz and Begley (2005) expanded upon
6
this concept in their neurological research, stating the brain creates physical pathways via
neuron placement that enhances the natural selection of expected behavior as the default
in communications.
In situations of high stress, the communications receiver expects a particular
message based upon the cues, verbal and nonverbal, presented by the sender. Thus, when
the cues are not present, the receiver misses or ignores the actual message as the brain is
engaged in replacing this missing information to complete the picture. Bermudez et al.
(2004), Goh (2004), Halone and Pecchioni (2001), Hawkins (2002), and Higgins (2003)
establish that a situation of missing cues is particularly prevalent in virtual teams due to
the use of electronic communications media.
CMC expansion throughout government, industry, and academia is a result of the
fact that virtual teams are viable solutions to the issues of distance, cost, and globalization
of resources (Jang, 2003; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Scholtz, 2003). The obvious
benefits of virtualization and CMC have prompted the U.S. Army to commit $27 billion
between the years 2005 and 2012 for the development, testing, and fielding of an
advanced military System-of-Systems (SoS) CMC solution to the problem of Command,
Control, and Communications (C3) within the environment of U.S. global security
commitments (U.S. Army, 2004a).
Considering current military, non-warfare expenditures and extrapolating these
expenses over the same period at a constant rate of increase in budget of 4%, the
calculated cost of this program over its life equates to roughly 2% of the total expected
Army budget. When one includes the combination of highly advanced manned and
robotic ground and air vehicles, networked information dissemination, and virtual
7
teaming, the investment exceeds $300 billion in the period 2005 to 2020 (U.S. Army,
2004a). The goal is to link all elements of the battlefield, both human and machine, into a
single entity. The SoS establishes an integrated common operating picture, allowing
virtual teaming and efficient communications at all levels appropriate to the overall
objectives of the force (U.S. Army, 2004b).
Alberts (1996) is a primary author of Information (Network) Centric Warfare
(NCW), the military’s phrase for electronic combat media or virtual combat operations.
Alberts’ work and publications have initiated a series of studies and books on how NCW
functions, both technologically and operationally (Alberts, Garstka, Hayes, & Signori,
2001; Barnett, 2005). The basic premise for the Army’s transition to NCW is that
knowledge superiority over an enemy provides synergistic combat power and allows
operation inside of the enemy’s decision cycle (Alberts et al., 2001). Denying knowledge
to an enemy places that enemy in a position of disadvantage during which they may be
militarily defeated. The deeper into the military force this knowledge integrates, the
greater the generated power to positively influence military events. To integrate this
knowledge, the forces at the various levels of command require shared knowledge and
linkage to the information, successfully accomplished only within the time required using
virtual technologies (Alberts et al., 2001).
Warner and Wroblewski (2004) posited serious problems utilizing virtual
processes in combat environments. The researcher’s concern involves the known
elements of miscommunications inherent in virtual environments, exacerbated by the
stresses of the life-and-death situations of mortal combat. Anderson-Rudisill (2005)
concluded, “These [virtual] types of teams do not communicate as effectively using
8
computer-mediated communication as they do face-to-face” (p. 2). In such environments,
expectation and assumption become the norm for determining the intended message of a
sender, confused and interpreted without the nonverbal cues necessary for correct
understanding (Anderson-Rudisill).
The rapid operational and tactical successes on the combat field of battle during
the recent Operation Iraqi Freedom evidenced that currently fielded limited CMC
systems do enhance capability (Fontenot, Degen, & Tohn, 2004). Fontenot et al. also
discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the digitized structures as fielded for the Iraqi
war. The situational awareness provided to commanders hundreds of miles from the main
fighting enabled them to react appropriately to changing situations. Limitations in the
technologies as well as limitations in training resulted in some units reverting to
nondigital methods of communicating vital combat information, particularly during the
more critical stages of the operation (Fontenot, et al.).
Background of the Problem
Networked activities and the problems associated with leadership
communications in a military environment are not new. Count Helmut Graf von Moltke,
the Prussian Army Chief of General Staff (1870-1871), noted in his treatise on the
Franco-Prussian War, “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” (Bucholtz, 2001,
p. 23). Once armies meet, the situation changes from the planned battle operation to an
operation consisting of uncertainty and chaos, requiring battle leaders to constantly
monitor and adjust forces, tactics, and strategy. Until the 20th century, generals needed to
be in constant visual contact with the fighting, limiting battlefields to a relatively small
geographical area, usually only a few square miles (U.S. Army, 2004b). In the 20th
9
century, the geographic area of battle expanded to tens of square miles, and then
hundreds of square miles, for a single major commander (U.S. Army, 2004b).
Expectations for the 21st century are that this expansion will grow to be thousands of
square miles and, potentially, intercontinentally for the same sizes of forces (Barnett,
2005).
Operating in such an expanded area requires the electronic dissemination of
critical and operational information on multiple aspects of battle. The commander must
still compare the present reality to the battle plan, adjusting forces to exploit advantages
and defeat the enemy (U.S. Army, 2004b). The need for information of sufficient quality
and quantity to enable commanders at all levels to make appropriate combat decisions
requires them to establish highly structured communications networks to a degree never
before achieved (Alberts, 1996).
Alberts, Garstka, and Stein (1999) define a network as an interconnected group of
people, technology, and processes exploited to gain preferment, information, and
knowledge for professional advantage. In the military, networks in ancient periods began
as soldiers in chariots or on horseback carrying messages. Human messengers gave way
to signal flags and fires, then to carrier pigeons, telegraph, radios, and finally to CMC as
the primary means of communication (Alberts, 1996). With the advent of network-centric
operations, the Army’s term for the formalized structure of CMC-based warfare, there
has been exponential growth in information quantity, translation of information into
operationally relevant forms, and methods of information presentation. The structure of
CMC-based warfare is NCW, increasing combat strength and capabilities of defeating an
10
enemy beyond what mere numbers of troops and weapon systems would imply (Alberts
et al., 1999).
CMC may remove the requirement or limit the opportunity for interactive and
face-to-face contact between individuals of authority and leadership, where individuals of
authority are the implementers of leadership direction (Ulrich, 1999). Additionally, CMC
fulfills the requirement to operate around the clock, ignoring the human need for rest and
mental rejuvenation (Ulrich). Military researchers, particularly Miller and Shattuck
(2006), reviewed information from Operation Iraqi Freedom and developed a model
depicting the distortion in communications and understanding, and the subsequent
decision making inaccuracies that arise from the lack of rest and rejuvenation.
Existing research details information from studies conducted on industrial teams
in global virtual environments, as well as research on the cognitive aspects of
interpersonal relationships in both virtual and face-to-face environments (Anderson-
Rudisill, 2005; Bissoonauth, 2002; Boudreau, Loch, Robey, & Straud, 1998; Cho, 2004).
Studies also exist on leadership and communications issues within battle situations
(Dunn, Powell, Martin, Hamilton, & Pangle, 2004; Miller & Shattuck, 2006). Currently,
no studies consider questions concerning battle management utilizing a nearly total CMC
environment. As the effects of the utilization of CMC in a combat environment are
unknown, there are no studies of human interaction and decision making utilizing virtual
communications in combat.
Statement of the Problem
The use of virtual teaming, so prolific in industry, is expanding into the U.S.
Army with the advent of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and its reliance on
11
the virtual structure of NCW operations. Network centric warfare utilizes extensive CMC
structures in place of more traditional personal-to-person command, leadership, and
control interactions (Holloman, 2004). Existing studies (J. K. Burgoon et al., 2005;
Campo, Cameron, Broussard, & Frazier, 2002; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Wagner, 2002)
demonstrate cultural and psychological effects associated with non-military virtual and
interpersonal interactions. As Campo et al. noted, virtual teams experience cultural and
psychological effects because of their separation and impersonal nature of the media. The
greater these influences, the more they change the efficiency of the virtual team. The
cultural and psychological effects are elements of the individual’s personality (Campo et
al., 2002).
The problem this study explores is whether personality affects perceived
communication efficiency for individuals utilizing CMC systems while in combat
environments. Further, Miller and Shattuck (2006) identified that stress may influence
virtual team efficiency. As an individual’s reaction to stress has a basis in personality
(Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968), Miller and Shattuck’s study supports the need for a study on
the effects of personality, in general, on virtual team efficiency.
This quantitative study utilizes discriminate factor analysis to examine the
relationships that may exist between a soldier's personality type and the soldiers’
perceived ability to function effectively utilizing CMC systems while in a combat
environment. The central issue of this study is whether there exists a relationship between
communications efficiency in CMC activities within a combat environment, and the
nature and type of personality of the individuals involved. Approximately 100 military
officers, who experienced tours of duty in the combat zones of Iraq, Afghanistan,
12
Somalia, and Bosnia from 2000 to 2007 received surveys examining virtual systems
experiences and their individual personalities.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative comparative research study was to develop and
analyze data to determine if there is any relationship between personality typologies and
the effectiveness of military leaders operating in a combat virtual work environment. The
study of the relationship of personality to individual effectiveness in combat has
significant value in that, by definition of a combat environment, soldiers’ lives are at
stake. Inaccurate or incomplete knowledge of a situation may result in inappropriate
decisions, resulting in increased casualties.
Knowing if there is a relationship between specific personality types and the
individual’s ability to communicate effectively as part of a virtual team during combat,
military leaders will be able to engineer appropriate selection, training, and job function
assignments into the NCW processes. Military leaders will understand their limitations,
endeavoring to ensure greater accuracy in their communications processes. The basic
research question of this study is whether differences in the components of a person’s
psychological typology are sufficiently identifiable to distinguish effective versus non-
effective military personnel when working within a combat virtual communications
environment.
The study subject pool derives from the United States Army and focuses on
military officers in Brigade or above leadership roles who have served in combat
environments in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq during the period 2000 to 2007
where their positions involved CMC operations. The subjects for the study,
13
geographically dispersed throughout the United States, received the survey via internet
web links. Potentially available for the survey were 100 individuals, selected based upon
their involvement in these conflicts and use of MCMC systems while so involved.
The study determined the subjects’ personality type utilizing the internationally
validated Insights-Discovery© Personality Questionnaire (Insights Learning and
Discovery, Ltd., 2006). Individual perceptions of virtual operations efficiency was
determined utilizing a modification of a survey developed by Wagner (2002) which
developed data on individual perceptions of industrial virtual communications
efficiencies and issues. Use of both survey instruments was with written permission of
the copyright owners.
The MCMC survey also obtained textual information from the participants. This
data was prepared for comparative analysis utilizing the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s Analysis Software for Word-based Records (AnSWR) model to identify
comments relating to effectiveness using CMC. The effectiveness related comments,
compared with results of virtual communications studies of industrial virtual teams,
determined if similar subject concerns, by their appearance in these comparative case
studies, constitute a common thread applicable to the generation of a specific theory
(Neuman, 2003).
The purpose of the study researched the effects while individuals were in combat
situations. Simulated combat is not the same. There are stresses present in life-or-death
conditions simply not present when the participant knows there are no dangers of
personnel loss. Reactions and processes are different. Future research under simulated
combat conditions can refine the results of this study and is a recommendation. However,
14
simulation does not nor can it provide correct data of the effects of personality under such
stressful conditions.
Dependent Variables
The primary variables of this study are in Table 1. Subsequent paragraphs contain
discussion of each of the table’s elements. Explanation of specific tools is in Chapter 3.
Communication Style
The first dependent variable is the way an individual soldier communicates within
the virtual environment and how efficient the soldier is in transmitting and receiving
information. For the purpose of this study, the construct of this variable is defined by the
individual’s personality type as measured by the Insights-Discovery© Personality Profile.
The variable receives further definition through comparisons between the individual’s
level of experience and education as determined from their demographic information.
Specific groupings, identified from this information, complete the comparative analysis
of the second dependent variable.
Table 1
Dependent and Independent Variables Dependent variables Possible independent variables
Communication style Personality type
Efficiency in a combat virtual communications
environment
Psychological profile
Level of education
Level of military training
15
Virtual Environment Operational Efficiency
The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in work efficiency in
a virtual environment and in any of the psychological profile components. For the
conditions studied, the null hypothesis is: there exists no recognizable significant
difference in the ability of a soldier to transmit, receive, and interpret combat information
and instructions when not in a situation of face-to-face communications. As it is not
possible to structure a controlled experiment within combat situations, perceived
efficiency data derives from a survey of the study subject’s experiences in combat
environments in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq during the period 2000 to 2007
where their positions involved CMC operations. These individuals are from multiple
functional military positions specifically involved in virtual operations and operational
communications.
The study identifies the subject’s personality type utilizing the internationally
validated and Army accepted Insights-Discovery© Personality Questionnaire. The
subject identifies their perceived virtual team efficiency in a survey utilizing a modified
Likert survey as developed by Wagner (2002). Additionally, the study utilizes the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDCP) AnSWR model to identify specific issues
developed from entered textual information. Developed issues, compared with the results
of similar virtual communications studies of industrial virtual teams, determined if the
issues, by their appearance in these comparative case studies, are identifiable as a
common thread applicable to the generation of a specific theory (Neuman, 2003).
16
Significance of the Problem
Although military communication processes are extensive, previous research has
focused upon the efficiency of one mode or equipment type over that of another, seldom
considering the human element (Miller & Shattuck, 2006). The military assumes human
problems positively respond to training processes, given past experiences with face-to-
face or short-range radio communications (Alberts, 1996). The primary concern for this
study is the military’s assumption may not be valid for global network-based CMC
(Miller & Shattuck).
Leaders need to know what effects are present due to CMC in combat
environments to properly present information for accuracy and understanding by the
receiver, which is especially critical in situations where the leader and the subordinate are
not in direct, visual contact (Miller & Shattuck). Research shows a definite degradation in
accuracy and understanding the further two individuals are apart, as well as when they
utilize electronic media (Caldwell & Everhart, 1998). This degradation in understanding
can lead to a corresponding deficiency in the communications process (Caldwell &
Everhart). This research breaks ground in a domain that has potential to provide a source
of intense study as the military moves increasingly into virtual environments.
Within this study, communication is the transfer of information or data among
users or processes. Communication is also the branch of technology concerned with the
representation, transfer, interpretation, and processing of data among persons, places, and
machines. Data meanings are preserved during these operations (Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions, 2005). Communication is the process by which
17
humans transfer information, desires, needs, and other information and is the basis for
continued social interaction.
Nature of the Study
This quantitative comparative research study will involve analysis of the
relationship of personality, position, education, and previous familiarity with virtual
domains to the ability to operate successfully within these domains. Discriminate factor
analysis methodology will be used to determine the nature and degree of influence that
may exist between an individual’s personality type and the ability to perform military
tasks efficiently within a combat environment. The null hypothesis is that there is no
significant difference in work efficiency in a virtual environment and any of the
psychological profile components. For the conditions being studied, the hypothesis is
better stated as follows: there exists no recognizable significant difference in the ability
of a soldier to transmit, receive, and interpret combat information and instructions when
not in a situation of face-to-face communications. This process is valid as it utilizes Yin’s
methodology (as cited in Tellis, 1994, ¶ 4) for analyzing evidence:
1. Show that the analysis relied on all the relevant evidence
2. Include all major rival interpretations in the analysis
3. Address the most significant aspects of the data developed
4. Use the expert knowledge of other researchers to extend the analysis
and validate conclusions
The study considered three forms of research: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methodologies. The initial approach, qualitative methodology, failed to the specific
nature of the research and the existence of deterministic data in the form of specific
18
personality ratings comparable to the relationships of other individuals and deemed
inappropriate as an approach. Additionally, qualitative research deals in data that are
primarily words and images from documents, observations, and transcripts (Neuman,
2003) that are not available in the targeted environment of combat operations.
Utilization of a mixed methodology, driven by the nature of the information
gathered (quantitative) and the position by prominent psychological researchers (e.g.
Jung) received consideration. Jung stated that the construct of individual personalities
defies detailed analysis in a quantitative structure due to the variation in environments
within which one finds the subject and that exhibited personality adjusts to fit the
environment (Jung et al., 1968). However, during the construction of the methodology, a
sufficiently narrow environment exists to permit the development of specific measures
and concepts as to create distinct variables, which can be discriminated. Thus, the
quantitative methodology is the appropriate structure for this research.
Normal or usual methodologies for quantitative studies include experiment,
survey, content analysis, field research and historical-comparative research (Neuman,
2003). Of these, the only viable approach for this study is survey. The domain
environment is combat, an obviously dangerous domain. One cannot establish an
appropriate laboratory experiment to match the environment under controlled conditions
nor conduct field research without extreme risk to the researchers and the subjects.
Additionally, historical-comparative analysis is not possible as the virtual environment
has not existed prior to the latter quarter of the 20th Century and no previous
CMC/personality relationship research in the domain of a combat environment exists.
19
Data Collection and Analysis
The quantitative data source for the development of primary data involves the
utilization of two specific survey tools. The first tool, Insight-Discovery, establishes the
nature and profile of the participant so that some determination of the participant’s social
conditions is included in the analysis. The tool identifies the individual’s personality type
and is an accepted research tool for the U.S. Army.
The second tool required the creation of a specific survey instrument. This tool
gathers information on the participant’s familiarity with CMC technology, along with
experiences utilizing such technology in a military environment. Primary data from
senior military individuals, who have utilized CMC in combat conditions, provides the
necessary information for analysis.
The tabulated information details the type of activity, education, and position of
the subject during military operations, and the individual’s previous experiences using
virtual tools. The data, some of which collected utilizing textual responses, received
codification utilizing the CDC AnSWR tool. Responses involving conflicts were
identified and tabulated as indicators of the presence of expectation violation and
dissonance in the communications process. The type of dissonance; the driver(s) or
cause(s) identified as cultural, psychological, personal, or mixed; and any specific
remarks constitute the basis for follow-up data development and analysis (Caracelli &
Greene, 1993).
Participants selected were senior military personnel involved in Operations Desert
Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and the Bosnian Peace Keeping Force. The focus is on positions at
Brigade or higher levels of military organization to ensure their utilization of CMC
20
systems and decision making authority for operations. An example of a type U.S. military
organization is in Figure 1. A single X above the identifying block identifies brigade-
level organizations. Approximately 100 potential subjects received surveys based upon
their wartime positions and asked to forward the survey to associates of similar position.
Figure 1. Example of a military organization (1st Armored Division, 2008).
The two surveys utilize a single Web site instrument combining the Insight-
Discovery tool and the focused tool developed from Wagner’s (2002) virtual teaming
analysis study. The Wagner survey involves a study on conflict management on
international virtual teams. Wagner researched the relationships of culture, virtual
communications media, and the lack of interpersonal relationships on the ability of
design and manufacturing teams to perform and make critical decisions. Thus, the
researcher modified the tool, with Wagner’s permission, so that it addresses specific
situations associated with CMC communications and decision making in a military
environment (see Appendix A).
21
The Insight-Discovery personality survey establishes typology and psychosocial
information on each participant that is then related to their responses on virtual
communications and decision making issues. Specific information on the permission
affidavit is in Appendix B. The permission affidavit signed by Wagner is contained in
Appendix C.
Survey Instrument Validation
Appendix D contains the validation of the Insight-Discovery survey. The Insight-
Discovery Personality Survey is an Army accepted and utilized tool (Insights Learning
and Discovery, Ltd., 2006). The designers of the Insight-Discovery survey, Insights
Learning and Discovery, Ltd., at Westminster University in London, England and by a
local change management and culture analysis organization, MindStretch, Inc conducted
a review of the modified Wagner survey to validate both structure and format.
MindStretch routinely designs and analyzes personality and other surveys for major
international corporations and is a subsidiary of Insight, Inc. The validation was
completed and certified on April 3, 2006.
Sampling Methods and Procedures
Survey samples derive from individuals known by the author to have served in
military positions of Brigade or higher organization during the recent Bosnia Peace
Keeping, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom operations. Distribution of the survey will
occur via the Internet utilizing the services of MindStretch, Inc. as a disinterested third
party in a double-blind process, ensuring the researcher is unaware of and cannot
influence responses of the surveyed personnel.
22
Survey forms were Internet loaded and collected. Each participant received a
unique, single access code number to gain access to the Internet survey site. The first
page of the site is a study waiver and permission form. The participant’s selection of the
form acceptance button in the website permitted the participant to continue with the
survey; non-selection rejects the form and closes the survey, invalidating the control
code. The survey management group utilized personal information to control access to
the control code thus avoiding multiple surveys from a single participant. The final page
of the site requests personal contact information from the participant for follow-up
interviews and to deliver the participant’s personality profile, should the participant
desire a copy. MindStretch will maintain this personal information only for the duration
of the study. MindStretch will destroy personal information at the conclusion of the
study. The survey management group maintains this data indefinitely on their servers.
Analytical Methods
The research study examines the consolidated literature data using a method
described by Taylor and Bogdan (1998). Existing literature provides the basis to analyze
the outcomes of similar occurrences experienced by other organizations. Taylor and
Bogdan noted the viability and availability of public data as appropriate for such a study.
This compiled information provides insights from other sources and data types that lead
to conclusions of import to this study. The literature validity derives from the
examination of the study population, analytical methodology, curricula vita of the
researcher, and relationship of the conclusions to the data. Comparative analysis, through
discriminate factor analysis, establishes the relationships of the variables.
23
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. How is combat decision making altered by the information management and
leadership processes involved in the determination of the appropriate level(s) and type(s)
of information to process, pass, and include in the combat decision evaluation?
2. Does previous exposure to virtual environments, personality types, or
education have an impact on the ability of an individual to overcome any degradation of
communication present in a virtual communications environment?
3. What are the effects on individual cognitive processes in an environment
where normal and expected social interactions, such as face-to-face, sensorial, and other
nonverbal stimuli, experience degradation or are nonexistent?
4. How do the effects of expectation violation affect communications at all
levels?
5. When advanced CMC is considered or determined as suspect, what is the
impact on trustworthiness within the command team?
6. What results, positive or negative, do these effects have on the ability of
decision makers to lead their organizations in the high-stress environment of combat?
Hypotheses
H0: There exists no recognizable effect of personality in perceived work
efficiency from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment, nor can personality
be a predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
24
H1: There exists an observable effect of personality in perceived work efficiency
from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment; and personality can be a
predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
Theoretical Framework
Three major theories receive consideration in this research. The choice of these
three theories derives from the initial research completed as the precursor for the study.
These are the expectations violations model and theory, collaborative decision making
theory, and fault-tolerant decision making theory. Researcher participation in and
observation of the activities within various Army-based experiments at the U.S. Army
Maneuver Battle Laboratory (UAMBL) at Fort Knox, Kentucky, established the research
questions defined in the preceding section. The questions resulted in discussions with
various retired general officers who are also involved in the development of the concept
of NCW. The questions and concerns raised within this document reflect these
discussions.
Expectations Violations Model and Theory
The expectations violations model and theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) involves
the development of subconscious expectations concerning communication. Humans
expect an exchange of information in a relational content. This relational content can fail
to meet the psychological needs of another and be viewed either positively or negatively,
depending upon the individual’s interpersonal relationship and the method of
communication. CMC removes necessary and expected psychological inputs thus
creating the conditions where expectation violation may activate.
25
Collaborative Decision making
Collaborative decision making involves the unification of information and process
between all elements of a deciding authority. The authority’s participation is essential in
the successful implementation of the decision (Bridgland & Watro, 1987; Buchanan &
Kock, 2000; Higgins, 2003; Pidd et al., 2003; Ryan, 2002; Thomas, 2003; Warner &
Wroblewski, 2004). Without authoritative participation, the decision may not be
completed or completed with inappropriate results. In a CMC environment, the receivers
of electronic communications are free to interpret the communications while not
providing non-verbal feedback to the sender, potentially negating participation of the
authority to the idioms of individual personality. Thus, unification of information and
processes effects can occur resulting in decision anomalies.
The nature and structure of network centric operations (NCO) involves extensive
CMC and virtual communications activities. The receivers are generally not in visual or
other sensory range of the sender, creating the absence of authority (Bridgland & Watro,
1987; Pidd et al., 2003). This study will examine the conditions and efficacy of
individuals in such an environment to determine if anomalies exist and if such anomalies
may be traceable to individuals.
Fault-Tolerant Decision making
Brown (2004) determined that strategies of distributed decision making derive
from social choice theory to create a balance between organizational complexity and
uncertainty. Although group decision support systems include options for making human
collective choices, their design requires optimal rules such as laws, ethical standards, and
others that make human interaction mandatory. This interaction establishes the basis for
26
cognitive process misunderstandings (Brown). Such a misunderstanding within the
cognitive process creates additional areas of uncertainty in the CMC environment,
leaving the individual more reliant upon individual expectations and personal preferences
of action. Again, the very nature of the NCO environment, particularly under the
conditions of combat, may cause a breakdown of the rules, laws, and processes identified
by Brown, increasing the reliance of the individual with their own expectations and
preferences of action. This study will endeavor to identify the existence or absence of this
breakdown within the NCO structure.
Definition of Terms
This section provides definitions and terms considered necessary to establish a
common understanding for this study:
Expectation violation theory: Expectancy violation theory sees communication as
the exchange of information that is high in relational content and used to violate the
expectations of another, perception of which is either positive or negative depending
upon the degree of liking between the two people (Burgoon & Hale, 1998).
Computer-mediated communications (CMC): Computer-mediated
communications, which take place through or facilitated by computers, are any
communications utilizing computerized networked systems rather than voice or
interpersonal relationships (Ulrich, 1999).
Future Combat Systems (FCS): The FCS program is an Army transformation
initiative designed to link soldiers to a wide range of weapons, sensors, and information
systems by means of a mobile ad hoc network architecture that will enable unprecedented
27
levels of joint interoperability, shared situational awareness, and the ability to execute
highly synchronized mission operations (Future Combat Systems, n.d.).
Network: “An interconnected group of people; an organization; spec. a group of
people having certain connections (freq. as a result of attending a particular school or
university) which may be exploited to gain preferment, information, etc., esp. for
professional advantage” (Alberts, Garstka, & Stein, 1999).
Network-centric operations: The act of utilizing a networked environment to plan,
conduct, evaluate, and correct activities leading to an established goal or end state
(Alberts, 1996).
Network-centric warfare (NCW): Network-centric warfare is also known as
information-centric warfare. Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (2003) provided the
most concise definition of NCW to date. During a speech to the Network Centric Warfare
Conference, Cebrowski identified NCW as warfare that derives its enhanced capabilities
from an integrated (networked) and geographically dispersed force. This dispersion
enables the force to see a much larger picture of the battlefield than an enemy and
respond rapidly and appropriately with the minimal force necessary to achieve the desired
results.
Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Laboratory (UAMBL): A U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) analysis and development organization tasked with the
management and evaluation of the FCS program equipment, tactics, doctrine, and
development (U.S. Army UAMBL, 2006).
28
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC): The principal U.S.
Army organization tasked with the design, development, training, and analysis of Army
forces (U.S. Army TRADOC, 2006).
Virtual Team: Gibson and Cohen (2003) posited virtual teams as having three
attributes: they function as a cohesive team, maintain geographical dispersion, and rely
on technology-mediated communications.
Assumptions
Virtual communications enable members of an organization to transcend
geographical and temporal boundaries (Moser & Vander Nat, 2003). The following
assumptions support this study’s analysis. First, the FCS program will maintain a human-
in-the-loop structure for all elements of the program, thus requiring an understanding of
the issues and the nature of this human involvement. The human-in-the-loop structure
means there will be no machine-made decision capability. This assumption is necessary,
as, should machine-decision making replace human interaction; the problem behind the
study becomes moot.
The second assumption considers the nature of human communications and the
theories researched regarding the nature and the importance of human expectations in
communication as accurate (Monge & Cappella, 1979). The nature of a theory is that it
represents the researcher’s perception of observed data and not necessarily reality.
Further experimentation and research may alter or negate the theory. Should this occur,
the basis of this study would require re-examination.
Third, the organizations and individuals required for this study will be available
and willing to participate. Without the study individuals, the data for the study will be
29
unavailable, relegating the study to a qualitative format. A specific risk is the current state
of research within the U.S. Army where numerous individuals and organizations are
asking combat personnel for research input.
Finally, the organizations and individuals required for the study have sufficient
experience with combat CMC systems so their responses relate to the impacts and issues
of the systems, rather than to their unfamiliarity with the technology. To limit this risk,
the survey contains questions that identify respondents having limited or no CMC
experience. Such individual’s data will not be included in the analysis.
Limitations
There are aspects of this study beyond the investigator’s control. This study is
limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily. Second, the study is limited to the
number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the research.
The final primary limitation involves the reliability and validity of the survey instrument
used.
Showing that a relationship or association exists between two variables, in and of
itself, does not necessarily indicate the independent variable causes a resulting condition
with the dependent variable. An additional study limitation is correlation methodology
chosen for analysis (Neuman, 2003). While this limitation may pose concerns, the
research results may make important incremental contributions toward the understanding
of transformational effects of outreach education, and may set the stage for further
exploration in this field.
30
Delimitations
The study confines to surveying a set of soldiers formerly or currently in
command or leadership positions engaged in military operations within Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia, and Bosnia. Subjects who have returned to the United States since the period
following the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2002 are included in the study set. A
further limitation exists in that only those individuals who have utilized military CMC
technologies while part of virtual teams within the command structure are included.
This study focuses upon the nature of personality to virtual teams in a combat
environment. However, personality may also have impact on virtual teams in general.
Thus, the research will still make incremental contributions to the analysis of how to
assess and improve individual performance in virtual or CMC environments.
Summary
This study endeavors to explore the nature of personality to the ability of
individuals to communicate effectively as part of a virtual team in a combat environment.
Understanding and substantiating the nature of how an individual’s personality interacts
with the communications process, when utilizing CMC methods, enables military
engineers and analysts to determine if changes to the basic specifications of the new FCS
systems and processes are required. Additionally, demonstrating the ability to identify
and quantify a personality-to-virtual teaming relationship will enable the Army to
restructure and measure training programs to maximize virtual team performance.
The literature review of Chapter 2 examines past industrial, human relationship,
and decision making research with the goal of identifying key themes and concepts
related to the issues of human decision making and relationships within a CMC
31
environment. The information provides a baseline for continued exploration into the
development of a current theory of communications within the NCW environment. The
key element examined in this study is the interaction of individual personality to the
virtual team in terms of associated trust of the other team members (Wagner, 2002).
Trust, an element of personality, most readily achieved through face-to-face activities
(J.K. Burgoon et al., 2005; Wagner, 2002) occupies a major segment of the analysis.
Burgoon examines trust within the construct of interpersonal relationships and Wagner in
virtual relationships. However, neither Burgoon nor Wagner examines the nature of
individual personalities in situations concerning the successful application of virtual
technologies to combat. Therefore, the literature review will focus on identifying CMC
and personality themes with cross-applicability to the combat environment.
32
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Alberts (1996) noted that military forces change their operational processes,
equipment, and structure as the technology and need for change arises. The actual change
in operational processes extends back to the very beginnings of warfare. Military changes
can occur due to major defeats in battle. For example, the Battle of the Somme in World
War I demonstrated the suicidal nature of a massed infantry charge against entrenched
enemies armed with rapid-fire weapons (Foley & McCartney, 2006). Pearl Harbor
demonstrated that the battleship was obsolete when paired against carrier-based aircraft
(Clausen & Lee, 2001). The war in Vietnam demonstrated that vertical lift technology,
the helicopter, rapidly and aggressively shifted the balance of military power even in the
most remote areas (Young, 2000). Each of these events catalyzed a change in operational
processes necessitated by improvements in technology or military art.
Similarly, the rise of networked information, communication, and simulation
systems creates an environment that enables those using this technology to drastically
overpower a lesser equipped enemy (Alberts, 1996). Proof of this statement came from
both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. The question is whether this new technology can
and will have negative impacts on military decision making due to the absence of
required cognitive inputs from individuals. Demonstrated battlefield successes does not
equate to CMC communications efficacy.
Each of the above cases of change demonstrates a lack of judgment and
understanding of the true power and limitations of emergent technology operating at the
time. A parallel exists with networked technology. The expansion of communication to
the virtual dimension creates cultural, linguistic, and operational difficulties that have
33
been the subject of numerous studies and other writings. These writings primarily focus
upon the nature of the interaction and difficulty between individuals and teams of
differing nationalities (Hofstede, 2001). Few studies have examined the structures and
issues of allied nationalities and cultures, and none examines virtual activities within the
highly dynamic and stressful environment of combat.
Documentation
Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2005), in a study on cognition in virtual teams,
asserted that virtual team capability theories are in the formative stages. Similar to
Kanawattanachai and Yoo’s study, this research relies heavily on literature from recent
dissertations, recent studies from various universities, U.S. DOD research organizations,
and data development through a text survey of a specific set of test subjects. The primary
source of literature was the University of Phoenix online library, the ProQuest database,
and official military studies and writings.
The literature review and methodology sections refer to 126 peer-reviewed
sources; two thirds are articles published since 2001. The currency and seminal nature of
following three topics, NCW, virtual teaming, and the initiation of the FCS program
mitigate concerns regarding this low ratio of recent articles and the related literature gap.
Network centric warfare is a recent development. Research is only now underway
with the commitment of the U.S. Army to spend over $24 billion on the research and
development of the necessary technology (U.S. Army, 2004a). Much of the research on
NCW is defense-classified information not available to the researcher for the study.
However, three of the 39 older articles are germinal works on NCW (Alberts, 1996;
Alberts et al., 1999; Chen, Gori, & Pozgay, 2004). An additional 10 are germinal works
34
on CMC, the psychological effects of virtual teaming, or the development of the
expectation violation theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Burgoon
et al., 1994; Burgoon & Ruffren, 1978; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1957; Heylighen, Joslyn,
& Turchin, 1995; Kincaid, 1987; McPhee & Cushman, 1980; Reynolds, Koper, &
Burgoon, 1975; Sherman, 1975).
The remaining older articles are significant, primarily published between 1999
and 2000, and continue to be of interest because they were written immediately after the
rise of internet technology as a primary medium for virtual teaming. Of the works about
virtual teaming, 90% have published dates within the 2001 to 2007 period. The final
topic, the initiation of the FCS program by the U.S. Army in 2003, involves technology
and operational processes available to very few individuals. FCS expands this technology
to the lowest operational levels of the Army. Thus, until the present, there has been no
cause for military CMC-related analysis, as appropriate integrating technology did not
exist.
Literature Review
Historical Overview
Wass de Czege and Sinnreich (2002) described the reasons behind the significant
changes being made by the U.S. Army concerning the rise of virtual teaming and CMC
technology use in combat. In Wass de Czege and Sinnreich’s text, Conceptual
Foundations of a Transformed U.S. Army, General Gordon R. Sullivan provides the
justification for the study via the following statement, which appeared in the foreword:
Although military transformation only recently has become a matter of
widespread public discussion, efforts by the U.S. Army to understand the
35
requirements of a rapidly changing strategic and technological landscape have
been underway for more than a decade. At the heart of transformation are changes
in the geopolitical context of operations, the physics of the battlefield, and the
nature of future threats. Recent events in this country and elsewhere provide an
unarguable example of just how quickly and unexpectedly the geopolitical
environment for military operations can change. The prospect is for more of the
same. Future military forces must be prepared for operations of uncertain duration
and intensity, launched with little or no warning, against a diversity of enemies
who have adapted their own patterns of operation to their perceptions of U.S.
strengths and weakness. (p. v)
The structure of rapid change is the environment in which the Army is shifting
toward networked technology. The Army believes NCW will improve the efficiency of
communications, thus increasing battlefield awareness and military combat efficiency
over opposing forces (Moffat, 2003). This belief may or may not be justified since
multiple studies have shown that expanding communication to the virtual dimension
creates cultural, linguistic, and operational difficulties (Burgoon et al., 1978, 1998, 2000;
Burgoon et al., 1994, 1998, 2000; Campo et al., 2002; Wagner, 2002). These studies have
primarily focused upon the nature of interaction and the difficulty between individuals
and teams of differing nationalities. Few examined the structures and issues of similar
nationalities and cultures. None examined virtual activities from the highly dynamic and
stressful environment of combat.
The CMC environment requires a detailed examination to determine if the
application of virtual technology is to occur efficiently (Firth, 2003). The ancient Chinese
36
philosopher Sun Tzu wrote, “If one knows neither himself, nor his enemy, he is a fool
and shall meet defeat in every battle” (Sun Tzu, as cited in Alberts et al., 2001, p. 35). A
major element of this knowing is the ability to place the location, strength, actions, and
objectives of both friendly and enemy forces on a battlefield. Prior to 2002, that process
involved the use of written, verbal, and audio-radio communications from individuals
submitting reports. These reports, transcribed by operators, distributed by couriers, and
posted to situation maps in headquarters by numerous individuals, are time consuming
and subject to transcription error. When the information was confusing or incomplete,
retransmissions were requested and verified at each step before full credibility was
allowed. The CMC technologies provide nonhuman systems the ability to acquire
information, automatically apply a set of heuristics to determine the veracity of the sensor
report, and then post the information as a foregone and accurate conclusion to the
viewing screen. The lack of human interaction can cause gaps in the communication
structure, not yet researched.
Understanding how and through what processes humans communicate is a
mandatory first step for the purposes of this study. Next is the examination of the
relationship structures of human communication in virtual environments. Finally, the
study considers the process of communications efficiency in a virtual environment, as
military action is a series of critical and rapid decisions in response to ever-changing
conditions. The literature review examines the relationship of virtual environments to
human communications, personalities, and interactions. The review searches for
information that examines communications and decision making in virtual environments
as a starting point for relating possible similarities to the military environment.
37
Theoretical Framework
The framework the study utilizes for analysis and theory creation is CMC
communications. No matter the technology, the media or type of communications, or the
technology used to obtain and transmit information, the root requirement is the ability to
understand rapidly what the information communicates and make a decision based upon
it. The Army understands this requirement and includes in the lexicon and metrics of the
FCS program the Quality of Firsts: See First, Understand First, React First, and Finish
Decisively (U.S. Army TRADOC, 2006).
Current research in the domain of virtual teaming focuses on the effects of virtual
communications or decision making across various nationalities and cultures or strictly
on the human aspects of decision making in the controlled environment of a
psychological laboratory setting (Caldwell & Everhart, 1998; Cueni & Seitz, 1999; Ford
& Chan, 2002; Wagner, 2002). Few studies analyze the effects of CMC-supported
decision making of a military organization under the stresses, uncertainty, and structures
of a combat environment. No research exists to analyze various types, styles, and formats
of information presentation or depiction given the various technologies and environments
presented to a military commander.
Theories of Decision making
There are multiple theories on the structure of decision making. Table 2 contains a
listing of these theories with short definitions that provide a basis of analysis. The
purpose of this study is not to identify a new or modified theory of how humans make
38
Table 2
Description of Decision making and Cognition Theories
Theory Description of theory
Cognitive dissonance Decisions utilizing approaches which reduce individual discomfort
Consistence theory Decisions made given the degree to which it satisfies internal
alignment to other factors
Commitment A linkage between a previous public stand forcing a decision path
Certainty effect The linkage between the level of impact of a decision and the
probability of the decision’s direct influence on the impact
Confirmation bias The ability to obtain external support for a particular decision
Scarcity principle We anticipate regret and so want what is scarce for personal
satisfaction
Sunk-cost effect The degree to which a decision-path is maintained is in proportion
to the amount of previous decisions in that direction
Augmentation principle Decisions are based upon previous, similar correct decisions
Bounded rationality The utilization of limited logic in decisions
Explanatory coherence Simple, explainable hypotheses
Filter theory The use of personal biases to filter information and options to an
acceptable conclusion
Multi-attribute choice Utilization of various theories simultaneously or in structured
progression
Mere exposure theory Personal exposure to various issues generates acceptance
Perceptual contrast effect Utilization of comparisons for determination
Involvement Desire for increased information being directly related to personal
involvement prior to decision making
39
decisions (Buchanan & Kock, 2000; Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Campo et al., 2002;
Cooper, 2004; Gadanho & Custodio, 2002; Higgins, 2003; Hoch et al., 2001; Pidd et al.,
2003). Rather, the purpose is to develop information on the influence of the utilization of
virtual technologies based upon widely accepted decision making and cognition theories.
The limited amount of research into the domain of military virtual teaming and
decision making makes detailed discussion difficult. Searches through multiple databases
revealed more than 295 dissertations, theses, research articles, and books on the concepts
of decision making related to the military. Only two of these involved decision making
within a combat environment and neither of these related virtual or CMC structures to
decision making. The majority of the decision making in virtual teaming research focuses
on international corporations and the relationships between various cultures.
Concerns with Virtual Decision Making
General (Retired) Pretrosky, former commander of the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and one of the authors of the FCS program, expressed
his concerns for the Army’s increased reliance on virtual decision making in a seminar
discussion held in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2005. The discussion focused on
the automation of indirect fire engagement decisions. General Pretrosky expressed the
need for more rapid and accurate decision making in providing long-range fires, yet
remained highly critical of efforts of the various involved organizations to make the
engagement sequence totally automated. Pretrosky stated,
I can see no situation where a commander in the field, and especially not
Congress, would ever authorize a machine to decide when to fire on a target.
40
There are simply too many unknowns and possibilities for error that only a human
would be able to determine. (2005, npn)
The Army, through the FCS program, is moving into the domain of autonomous
and semiautonomous systems linked to human systems via virtual global networks.
Decisions based increasingly upon information, concepts, orders, and virtual
communications processes have increasingly less direct human interaction. Anyone who
has attempted to perform critical communications or make a decision based solely on
virtual sources has experienced the angst and uncertainty associated with this
environment (Pretrosky, 2005). Adding the rigors, stress, and costs of a military
operation, the need for such research, along with the development of methods for
analysis, reaches the point of criticality.
Expectations and Communications
Expectations are established norms, processes, and beliefs of an event yet to occur
(Campo et al., 2002). Although the aspect of expectation in communications appears
superficially to be a dichotomy, the future event derives from an analysis of clues, inputs,
sensorial attributes, and other factors that stimulate memories and other conscious and
subconscious drivers (Campo et al.). These drivers provide fillers for informational gaps
that allow an individual to prepare for action based upon the perceived need for that
action (Burgoon, 2002). The question remains whether expectations exist in a military
environment and, if not met, could these expectations create negative values.
Social Condition of Humans
Social norms as the basis of communications and expectation development.
People are social animals reared and developed within the confines of society (Darwin,
41
1965; Dickson et al., 2004; Kincaid, 1987). People establish themselves as an element of
society and conform to the social and normative strictures inherent therein. Society and
the necessary communications of a societal organization results from a lifetime of
learning expected, acceptable, and unacceptable standards of interaction. As cited by
Allot (2001), researchers such as Levins (1570), Butler (1634), Flint (1740), and De
Saussure (1916) studied the innate character of language or communications as the basis
for the creation of society. Dating back to the 5th century BCE, Plato utilized the
structure of language to comment upon patterns of thought, societal dynamics, and
relationships in ancient Greece (Sherman, 1975). Plato specifically developed dialectic
dialogue and showed the importance of defining each matter under consideration,
concluding that matter’s definition before effectively applying the matter, and its logic, to
any given communication.
Since Plato’s time, the application of scientific methodologies has considered the
nuances of language, spoken and unspoken, on the human process of cognition (Gadanho
& Custodio, 2002; Sherman, 1975). Allot (2001), quoting De Saussure, examined the
nature of language as deriving from society. Allot posited that the nature, structure, and
acceptability of a particular social construct create the language, rather than the language
creating the society. Several authors (Buchanan & Kock, 2000; Burgoon et al., 2000;
Burgoon, Hunsaker, & Dawson, 1994; Burgoon & Ruffner, 1978; Kincaid, 1987) echoed
the concept that social norms and idiosyncrasies through the use of language affect
cognitive, affective, and conative components of human thought. Burgoon and Hale
(1998) noted the following:
42
According to the expectancy violation model, expectancies may include
cognitive, affective, and conative components and are primarily a function of (1)
social norms and (2) known idiosyncrasies of the other. With unknown others, the
expectations are identical to the societal norms and standards for the particular
type of communicator, relationship, and situation. That is, they include judgments
of what behaviors are possible, feasible, appropriate, and typical for a particular
setting, purpose, and set of participants. (p. 60)
In a study published in 2002 at the 130th Annual Meeting of the American Public
Health Association, Campo et al. (2002) reported the link between social norms and
expectancy violation. Their work demonstrated that socially developed expectations
create inaccurate perceptions when required information is not present. These violations
cause misconceptions of correct attitude or behavior, leading to incorrect attitude changes
in the participants.
The information from Campo et al.’s 2002 study points to the powerful effect
social norms have on behavior. This behavioral change effect links to and derives from
the instinctual desire of humans for acceptance and social membership. Communities
establish the processes and forms for human interaction that are a force in humans’
physical, mental, cognitive, and emotional architecture. An examination of CMC
influences on these cultural, social, and psychological imperatives of decision making is
vital to the understanding of their effect on decision making and, for the purpose of this
study, on military combat processes.
The role of society in human cognition. Allot (2001), in The Physical Foundation
of Language, aimed “to contest the view of language which became rigid orthodoxy for
43
the most part of this century and of which De Saussure was posthumously the most
influential exponent, that it [language] is a social and essentially arbitrary construct” (p.
2). Burgoon et al. (1994), Burgoon and Ruffner (1978), and Kincaid (1987) echoed this
concept. Burgoon and Hale (1988) noted:
According to the expectancy violations model, expectancies may include
cognitive, affective, and conative components and are primarily a function of (1)
social norms and (2) known idiosyncrasies of the other. With unknown others, the
expectations are identical to the societal norms and standards for the particular
type of communicator, relationship, and situation. That is, they include judgments
of what behaviors are possible, feasible, appropriate, and typical for a particular
setting, purpose, and set of participants (cf. Kreckel, 1981). (p. 60)
Campo et al. (2002) reported the existence of expectancy violation. Campo et al.’s
study identified violations of perceived social norms for the various participants linked to
the participant’s expectation of what an expert should and would communicate. The
participants, based upon this violation, immediately began to moderate their behavior to
match what their new expectations of behavior were irrespective of how that behavior
conflicted with their personal standards of correct behavior in like situations.
The information in Campo et al. supports the opinions concerning the effect social
norms have on behavior. The effect links to and derives from the structure of the human
desire for acceptance and social membership. Such structures establish the processes and
forms for human interaction that are the force of humans’ physical, mental, cognitive, and
emotional architecture (Campo et al., 2002).
44
Expectations as guides to communication. Given the relationship of society to
communications, the relationship of the development of communicative processes and
societal mores provides humans with a set of expected interactions and inputs. Humans
utilize these expectations to establish relationships, structures, and processes to assess the
communications, irrespective of their form, and formulate conclusions regarding the
meaning of that communication, resulting in a decision (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). In the
absence of sufficient external stimuli or information, the brain delves into memory to
supply appropriate patches from similar past events (Burgoon & Hale). Therefore, it is
also reasonable to conclude that the absence of expected or required data results in some
reaction or effect to the cognitive processes leading to the formulation of a potentially
faulty decision.
Principal to the establishment of communications expectations is the work by
Burgoon and Hale (1988). Specifically, “The [nonverbal expectations violations model]
posits that people hold expectations about the nonverbal behaviors of others” (Burgoon &
Hale, p. 59). Burgoon and Hale hold that such expectations, when violated, are triggers
within the brain to previously stored data, reinforcing the absent data to the point the
individual believes it to be present. Whether this data is applicable to the situation at hand
or not, the brain utilizes it to reach a conclusion, decision, or course of action (Burgoon &
Hale, 1998). Mulder (2000) and Donath (2004) supported the concept of the modality of
human communications with a majority of communication occurring in a nonverbal
format.
Nature of communications as a cognitive process: Conscious versus subconscious
processes, nonverbals, and decision making. This next element of the study seeks to
45
determine the processes involved in communications and the subsequent decision making
processes within the human brain and if these processes are voluntary, autonomic, or a
combination of both. Research into this domain is recent. The tools to enable such
research have only existed since approximately 1998 within the introduction of
neuropsychology and neurosurgery (Schwartz & Begley, 2005).
The structure of the human mind, in particular mental processes for all human
beings, is indicative of the extent to which external, nonverbal communications stimulate
mental activity and decision making (Zaltman, 2005). Zaltman noted that language is
limited and should not be confused with the process of thinking or thought. There are
many facets of what comprises thought. These include domains outside or beyond simple
speech (Mahoney, 2003; Yoogalingam, 2003). Such mental aspects as emotion, memory
of scents, tastes, and visual stimuli incorporate themselves into the thought process.
People think not simply in words, but in pictures, feelings, and other factors. The process
of thinking involves the creation of complex protein structures within the brain that
stimulate the various neurological centers into performing the functions culled by the
protein inputs (Baylor Medical School, 2004; Schwartz & Begley, 2005).
An example of the process of mental storage discussed during a Baylor lecture
involves the simulated re-creation of a meeting with a favorite individual (Baylor
Medical School, 2004). One does not remember the individual in terms of words
addressing hair color, skin tone, scents, clothing, and so forth. One simply recalls the
mental picture developed at the time of observation. This mental picture is often a single
protein string. When no longer required, the brain secretes an enzyme that severs the
bonds holding the various protein segments of the string into their component parts for
46
reuse or discarding. However, while the protein string picture is in the mind, one can
relive the emotions, scents, and other aspects of the person in his or her absence.
Zaltman (2005) noted that a consumer is motivated not so much by the tangible
elements of a product or service, but by their own subconscious and, potentially, the
emotional aspects expected from the use of the product or service. The research
conducted by Zaltman and others (McClure et al., 2004; Reynolds et al., 1982) provides
significant support for the conclusion that language plays a minimal role in understanding
and utilizing the social cues governing interpersonal relationships and, therefore, decision
making. A researched example of unconscious communications effect reported by the
Baylor College of Medicine involved a blind taste test of Coke and Pepsi drinkers
comparing the two products (McClure et al., 2004). In a blind test, the participants are not
given the identity of the products prior to making their comparison conclusions.
In the McClure test, the majority of the pre-test participants stated that they
preferred Pepsi and did select Pepsi during the blind test. In a second test where the
participants were first shown the labels, but the contents were not what the labels
identified (e.g. Coke was in a Pepsi can), 75% preferred the product labeled as Coke.
During the testing, the researchers conducted brain scans mapping the neurological
patterns of the participants. During the viewing of the can labels, the scans revealed
significant brain activity with the Coke label and significantly less activity for the Pepsi
label, opposite of the scan results during the tasting portion of the tests. This led the
researchers to the following conclusion.
“There’s a huge effect of the Coke label on brain activity related to the control of
actions, the dredging up of memories and self-image.” The mere red-and-white
47
image of Coke made the hippocampus, our brain’s vault of memories, and the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for many of our higher human
brain functions like working memory and what is called executive function or
control of behavior, light up. The point, says Montague, is that “there is a
response in the brain which leads to a behavioral effect.” And, curiously, it has
nothing to do with conscious preference. (McClure et al., 2004, p. 384)
Malaspina and Coleman (2003) discussed the addition of other sensory input as
primary elements of communication and decision making. Specifically, they discussed
the physical structure of the sense of smell. Unlike most of the other senses, olfactory
information attains privileged status within our sensory-reaction process. Smells often
relate to physical danger requiring immediate reaction. Therefore, the neuro-pathways
transcend the normal process of entering the thalamus for processing. Rather it links
directly to the amygdala and prefrontal cortex where immediate processing and reaction
occur.
Many animals utilize the sense of smell as a major factor in identification and
communication (Wallheim, 1999). It is an accepted fact that animals such as dogs can
sense emotion in humans by smell (Darwin, 1965; Wallheim, 1999). The olfactory
membranes of humans are the only sense process connected directly to the action–
reaction centers of the brain, thus indicating a direct linkage between smell and
neurological reaction (Wallheim).
Researchers including Burgoon and Hale (1988), Burgoon et al. (2005), and
Reynolds et al. (1982) studied the impacts of odor and other sensorial elements in mating
and in such behavioral factors as menstrual cycle synchronization. Malaspina and
48
Coleman (2003) noted that humans have this capability from the first moments the brain
develops in utero. The pathways exist as hard wiring of the brain and recent research
shows there are many other elements also so developed within humans (Schwartz &
Begley, 2005). This research also demonstrates that humans are capable of mutating, or
changing the functions of some of these neurological pathways to other functions through
repetition and common usage, often to their detriment. Schwartz (2005) identifies
situations where individuals, such as pianists, who perform repetitive functions (e.g.
playing a particular set of finger exercises excessively) discover that when they move one
finger in a similar fashion for a different reason, the neighboring fingers will
simultaneously and involuntarily make the same movement.
Schwartz, a neurosurgeon and the department director at the University of
California Los Angeles Neurological Institute, learned that many aspects of neurological
disorders once believed to be the result of chemical deficiencies are actually neurological
pathway mutations or rewiring (Schwartz & Begley, 2005). The rewiring can and does
lead to logical, physical, and behavioral errors that are uncontrollable and sometimes
unknown to the subject. These errors can include compulsions, involuntary muscle
spasms, repetitive verbalizations, and other manifestations (2005).
Allot (2001) supports the concepts considered by neuroplasticity research and
posited that his hypothesis related speech, gesture, and perception and treated phonetic
symbolism as a manifestation of the natural foundation of language in the functioning of
the human body and brain. Neuroplasticity is “the brain’s ability to reorganize itself by
forming new neural connections throughout life” (American Neurological Association,
2006, npn). Allot (2001) further noted that the brain integrates the construct of language
49
and nonverbals as an automatic and necessary function without which the higher process
of the human cortex dysfunctions to some degree. Therefore, language is a voluntary
function or neurological movement (2001). The way humans can expand upon and create
new meanings for words are indicative of the nature of the human psyche. To be able to
perform this function, the brain must have linkages with other parts of the brain rather
than exist segmented into specific processing domains.
Thus, the “wiring” of the human brain extends to areas within which other types
of neurological processing are occurring. This creates a need for order
relationship similar to that of a computer’s hard drive memory. The brain
catalogues the pathways so that stored information is retrievable. At times, it
accesses and incorporates information, physical protein strings, which create a
new element of information or knowledge that did not previously exist as a stored
entity. Thus [Allot concludes] other aspects such as movement, perception, and
expectation affect speech and vice versa. (Allot, npn)
The aspect of interconnectivity of neural processes supports the assertion that
humans rely on numerous elements and aspects of their senses in making decisions.
Various studies have contended with the above statement with varying degrees of
acceptance. In a book review in Communication Education, Comadena (1990) examined
the relationship of nonverbal communications in various studies. The purpose of the
review was to determine if the differences in defining the meaning of various nonverbal
cues by different individuals was a matter of symbolic behavior or a result of cultural or
other factors. The primary issue involves the aspect of intent: whether the communicator
deliberately utilizes nonverbal cues to enhance communications or if the use is purely an
50
unconscious element of process of communications. If it is intentional, expectation is no
longer significant as a factor in miscommunications. If unintentional, expectation
increases in importance as the use and interpretation of the nonverbal cues are no longer a
conscious activity (Comadena).
Donath (2004), in a seminar on body language without the body, discussed that
the physical body is embedded with social cues used in communications that include gait,
race, gender, hairstyle, gesture, position, motion, scent, inflection, and others. Donath
stated, “The premise that I am working from is that social cues are really essential to have
any kind of very vibrant society that is mediated” (Donath, npn). In Being Real, Donath
(2004) noted nonverbal cues carry complex meanings and that the rise of CMC as a
primary medium for information exchange has silenced this major mode of
communications. Computer-mediated communication has not silenced the need to receive
the nonverbal inputs as, again, the need for these inputs are wired into humans from
before birth (Donath, 2004).
Psycho-Neurological Elements
The study of the human brain versus the human mind, or more clearly the
physical brain versus the processes of thought, is a domain of research that covers many
centuries. It has gained extensive scientific study only since the early 19th century, with
the advent of psychology and psychoanalysis. The primary gains have only been since
1996, with the development of a theory on the relationship between the human brain,
mind, and quantum physics called neuroplasticity.
The science formed because of research into brain-mapping techniques made
possible through the development of the positron emission tomography (PET) scan and
51
magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) technologies. Scientists learned there is much more
to the brain than simply the complex webbing of neurons and the passing of electro-
chemical signals. Scientists began to decipher complex interactions and research results,
confirming “there is a very real difference between understanding the physiological
mechanisms of perception and having a conscious perceptual experience” (Schwartz &
Begley, 2005, p. 29). Schwartz indicated it is possible to understand the pathways and
electro-chemical processes associated with the brain perceiving a stimulus and quite a
different thing to be able to imply meaning to that stimulus.
A camera is capable of taking a stimulus (light) and transmitting that stimulus
through a complex pathway of lenses and, in the case of digital cameras, electrical
circuitry to produce an image for retention (Schwartz & Begley, 2005). The brain does
the same thing. The eye takes in light and transmits the impulses to various nerve centers
where the image is stored. However, the camera can never understand, or experience, the
beauty of a bright red apple or a golden sunset. The brain does understand and appreciate
these events (Schwartz & Begley).
Scientists at the University of California Los Angeles and other organizations
have found that various sub-chemical and often subatomic functions are critical in the
formulation of behavioral skills (Schwartz & Begley, 2005). After these functions are
established, they become the basis for obsessive behaviors and are changeable through
conscious interaction. In 1995, the concept of subatomic neurological function became
more than theory. Schwartz provided detailed data concerning research into such mental
disorders as dyslexia and obsessive-compulsive disorder that led one researcher,
Merzenich, to coin the term “learning-based representational catastrophe” (Schwartz &
52
Begley, p. 218) to describe how humans, through their experiences and interpretations,
establish detailed neurological pathways to specific behaviors.
Although many scientists do not accept neuroplasticity (Schwartz & Begley,
2005), research evidence is expanding to the point that other studies are striving to
determine ways to use knowledge of the science to cure various neurological and
psychological problems. A potential conclusion given neuroplasticity research is that the
brain and the mind, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, will respond with
behavior appropriate to the expected elements of a situation rather than with the actual
elements (Schwartz & Begley).
Determination of Expectation in Military Environments
The research cited in the preceding section demonstrates a significant relationship
between expectation and the foundations of communications structure in all forms. The
research led to the conclusion that the basis for expectation develops within each human
being from birth as the means to develop the ability to communicate, interact, and survive
within society (Lee, 1999). The research also demonstrates an increasing reliance upon
expectation norms as stress and external uncertainty increase (Henderson, 1999; Hoch,
Kunreuther, & Gunther, Eds., 2001; Lussier, 2002). Subconscious expectations exist in
all aspects of the military environment, which increases the subconscious’ influence as
the battlefield environment becomes increasingly uncertain or lethal. It may be logical to
infer that violation of these expectations will have an effect on the mental activities of
humans in such an environment.
53
Expectation and Violation
The presence of a negative effect regarding expectation issues within a military
environment provides a litmus test of the effectiveness of current communications. When
an individual has a preconceived expectation of how an event or transference of
information should occur, and it does not, there is usually some form of dissonance
exhibited (Burgoon & Ruffner, 1978; Cooper, 2004). This dissonance may cause the
message or event to be misinterpreted (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Therefore, the presence
of miscommunications in the study population is a likely identifier of an area for deeper
evaluation.
Given the identification of the presence of miscommunications, two structured
theories are considered key elements to the development of a theory of military CMC-
communications analysis: cognitive dissonance and expectation violation theory. The
first, cognitive dissonance, also involves the Abilene paradox and groupthink. Each of
these corollaries, dissonance and expectation violation, appear to establish dynamics of
participation and decision making in group domains, thus necessitating evaluation and
inclusion into a generalized theory for military domains.
Cognitive dissonance involves the aspects of discord between behavior and belief
(Cooper, 2004). Expectation violation involves a person’s own habitual behavior and the
habitual behavior of others within a society (Burgoon & Ruffner, 1978). A person begins
not only to anticipate that others will behave in a particular fashion but also to assign
evaluations, or valences, to these actions (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Lee, 1999).
54
Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger and Carlsmith (1957) formulated cognitive dissonance theory, which
involves the creation of a distressing mental state caused by an inconsistency between a
person’s beliefs, beliefs and specific actions, or actions in opposition to societal
expectations or norms. Cognitive dissonance theory establishes that humans have a basic
need to avoid stress (dissonance) and to reestablish a comfort zone or consistency with
the established norm rather than be internal to self or external to the society. To do this,
the person must change either beliefs or behaviors. Research has shown that the greater
the issue and discrepancy, the greater the magnitude of dissonance (Griffin, McClish, &
Bacon, 2003). Aronson purported cognitive dissonance is caused by psychological rather
than logical inconsistency and is supported by works from other authors such as Cooper
(2004) on such domains as stress and psychosis. Cooper noted that dissonance is not only
experienced in acting, but in witnessing behavior inconsistent with personal expectations
and beliefs. Cooper concluded that the greater the level of dissonance, the greater the
level of behavioral reaction.
Two corollaries appear to relate to the theory of cognitive dissonance and
potentially add value to this study: the Abilene paradox and groupthink. A further
examination of these corollaries may shed light on why there is a reluctance to pursue
military CMC effects analysis more aggressively. The purpose involves the possibility for
predecision ambivalence leading to a greater potential for expectation violation.
Kim (2001) reviewed the Abilene paradox and groupthink and posited nine points
of difference: (a) group cohesiveness, (b) leadership style, (c) stress from external threats,
(d) private views versus group illusion, (e) coerced versus voluntary, (f) dissatisfaction
55
versus satisfaction, (g) passive versus active attitudes, (h) blamer versus mind guards, and
(i) fear of separation versus cohesiveness. Kim concluded that the Abilene paradox and
groupthink are different in the energy state that exists at the point of decision. Individuals
involved in the Abilene paradox are in a low energy state, ambivalence. Individuals
performing groupthink are in a high-energy state where they are actively replacing
missing information with expectation information. Carson (2005) further supported this
conclusion stating that the Abilene paradox is prevalent during periods of decreased or
nonexistent organizational communications. Groupthink exists when there are incomplete
communications that have sufficient perceived validity to require completion, particularly
under stress (Carson).
Groupthink establishes cohesiveness within the set of individuals. The aspect of
group cohesiveness involves the desire of an individual or a set of individuals to remain
within the group. The degree to which individuals believe they are in danger of
separation from the group will increase the level of dissonance to the point of either
catatonia or the willingness to perform any action no matter how dangerous or deadly to
self. Taras states that following the point of decision making, group members often bond
to a degree representing near brotherhood, a trait not uncommon in military units (as
cited in Kim, 2001). This trait of bonding exhibits primarily in situations where
groupthink is involved and is the reverse in situations where decision making follows the
Abilene paradox (Kim).
Another factor appropriate to the military environment is stress from external
threats. Studies have shown that “group members show increased motivation to retain
affiliation with a face-to-face group and avoid actions that deviate from its
56
counterproductive norms during a crisis because the loss of group membership is
intolerable and dissent is unthinkable” (Kim, 2001, p. 178). Such cohesiveness exists
within small and medium-sized military organizations and is the subject of extensive
study within conventional military units. Entire libraries of such studies fill the halls of
institutions such as the Army War College, the Naval War College, West Point, and
many other military establishments of higher learning. One example is the U.S. Army
Western Military Training Region newsletter (2004), which lists a series of lectures on
the Abilene paradox for military leaders. These theories have received minimal attention
or study in units containing primarily virtual connections and communications.
Expectation Violation Theory
Humans receive a structured set of social communications expectations that, if left
unfulfilled, may alter the cognitive reasoning processes of human psychology in ways
that affect decision making (Burgoon et al., 2005). Research into expectation violation is
ongoing and has led to the generation of a major theory on how, why, and to what degree
violation of these expectations alters cognition (Jensen, Meservy, Kruse, Burgoon, &
Nunamaker 2005). Expectation violation theory is vital in a CMC environment as this
environment causes definite and significant violations of cognitive expectations such as
verbal and nonverbal cues. Add the impacts of combat and the cognition effects may be
dramatically increased. The pressure for immediate decisions becomes intense the more
desperate a combat situation becomes. Lives are at stake including the life of the decision
maker. Action must occur or the decision shifts from the decision maker to those creating
the threat, to the detriment of the decision maker.
57
The concept of expectation violation presented by Burgoon et al. (2005) involves
individuals learning or structuring the nature of their respective positions during the
process of communication. The verbal and nonverbal elements of the episode combine to
produce a relativistic position set among all the participants based upon their
understanding of the ranks, costs, and risks that may or may not be accurate (Burgoon &
Saine, 1978).
Discussions with Burgoon (personal communication, August 12, 2005) revealed
information that the majority of Burgoon’s work at Arizona State University, and that of
others involved in similar research, focuses on interpersonal relationships within
businesses, private parties, and courtship or marriage. To Dr. Burgoon’s knowledge, no
study exists of such issues in a military setting. Some current studies have examined the
effect of expectation violation within virtual environments, but only in the settings of
industry and academia.
Lane (n.d.) researched the effect of expectation violation within the confines of
nonverbal communications and CMC environments discussed in the next section. Of
particular note, Lane referenced numerous other studies (Archer, 1990; Hesse, Kiesler,
Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Lane, n.d.; Rice, 1993; Rice & Love, 1987; Walther &
Tidwell, 1994; Walther, 1992, 1993, 1994; Walther & Burgoon, 1992; Werner & Altman,
1988; Zimmerman, 1987) that conclude CMC is very different from face-to-face
communications in ways that have significant effects within the communicators
themselves and interpersonally. When violation occurs, the result is dissonance of some
form. Burgoon indicated that this dissonance is not always unwanted (Burgoon & Hale,
1988). The arousal of hidden cognitive expectations results in focused attention on the
58
violator so the individual receives more cognitive evaluation, which is appropriate and
necessary in interpersonal relationships but may not necessarily be a factor in computer-
mediated communications (Burgoon et al., 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998).
Human beings are social creatures irrespective of the environment within which
they exist (Buchanan & Kock, 2000). The absence of a social condition results in severe
dysfunction and insanity. As social creatures, humans establish conditions of behavior.
These conditions reinforce themselves through the creation of expectations deeply rooted
in the subconscious. Violations of these expectations represent a threat to the foundation
of being and require voluntary or involuntary adjustment (Buchanan & Kock). In a
military environment, such adjustments may result in negative deviations from the
desired course.
Concept of Jungian Personality Analysis
Expectations, being a major element of both cognition and an individual’s basic
psychological make-up, are therefore elements of personality (Buchanan & Kock, 2000).
Psychologists use personality as a means of determination of behavior and utilize various
processes for the codification of individual personality. Key among these psychologists is
Carl Jung.
Dr. Carl Jung and Preferences
Jung developed a personality typology used as a central element of this study.
Jung believed that every human possesses preferences; humans simply have an
inclination for one over another (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968). Following is a discussion
concerning the distinction between Jung’s attitudes, introversion, and extraversion,
synopsized from the cited text. People with a preference for introversion feel more
59
comfortable in their internal world of thoughts, feelings, fantasies, dreams, and so on,
while those with a preference for extraversion feel more comfortable in the external
world of things and people and activities.
Introvert and extravert have become commonly used words to describe behaviors
such as shyness and sociability, partially because introverts tend to be shy and extraverts
tend to be sociable. Jung intended for them to refer more to whether the individual
("ego") more often faced toward the persona and outer reality, or toward the collective
unconscious and its archetypes (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968). In that sense, the introvert is
somewhat more mature than is the extravert.
Jungian Functions
Whether one’s preference is introvert or extravert, we need to deal with the world,
inner and outer. In addition, each person has preferred ways of dealing with the
preference. Jung suggests there are four basic ways, or functions.
Sensing, the first function, involves obtaining information by means of sight,
touch, smell, and so forth (Amerman, 2008). A sensing person generally succeeds at
looking and listening, acts involved in generally getting to know the world. Jung called
this one of the irrational functions, meaning that it involved perception rather than
judging of information.
The second function is thinking (Amerman, 2008). Thinking means evaluating
information or ideas rationally, logically. Jung called this a rational function, meaning
that it involves decision making or judging, rather than simple intake of information.
These are cognitive skills.
60
The third function is intuition. Intuition works outside of the usual conscious or
cognitive processes. It is irrational or perceptual, like sensing, but comes from the
complex integration of large amounts of information, rather than simple seeing or
hearing. Jung said it was like seeing around corners. Recent studies in neuroplasticity
tend to combine deeper, quantum-level theories to this function (Schwarz & Begley,
2005).
The last function is feeling. Feeling, like thinking, is a matter of evaluating
information. This time the individual evaluates through a process of weighing one's
overall, emotional response. Jung labels this a rational function.
Each individual has a superior or dominant function (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968).
This function is a preferential function, which has the greatest degree of development.
Additionally, each individual has a secondary function, used in support of the superior
function. A tertiary function, which is only slightly less developed and generally residing
in the subconscious and an inferior function also exist. These functions are poorly
developed and so unconscious that their existence is often denied in oneself.
Jung’s work, referred to as typology (Amerman, 2008), is the study of human
differences. Jung's psychological typologies are not based on set descriptions that real
people must be fit into, but on basic elements which, when combined together, can be
used to describe the differences among people. A typology is the label placed on a group
of characteristics or types. Types are a bridge between the universal and the particular.
Introversion & Extraversion
The extravert is someone whose energy and attention directs outward to the
people and things in the world (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968). These objects are decisive in
61
the adaptation to the world the individual makes and the actions taken. For the extravert,
the external world is real and to which one must adapt. The individual’s inner world is
less real and a secondary influence on conduct.
In contrast, the introvert's energy and attention directs inwardly (Jung, Adler, &
Hull, 1968). The inner world is the real world to which one must adapt and determines
behavior. The introvert strives to protect this inner world from too strong an influence
from the outer world. This outer world is less real and of less influence. Extraversion and
introversion form a pair of opposite basic attitudes to life. Each of us is both extraverted
and introverted, for we relate both to the world around us and the world within, but we
tend to favor one attitude over the other.
Thinking & Feeling
As with all Jungian functions, thinking and feeling are both equally valid (Jung,
Adler, & Hull, 1968). A person with a thinking preference will make decisions
impersonally on the basis of logical consequences. A person with a feeling preference
will rely largely on feelings to make a decision primarily based on personal or social
values.
Feeling people take their expectations about people or things into themselves and
have confidence in their judgments. People with a feeling typology preference might state
that they like something because it has a right feeling, causing others with a thinking
preference typology to feel frustration (Amerman, 2008). What the individual with a
thinking preference does not know is; the individual with a feeling preference has put a
subject person or situation inside on a special feeling scale and from this scale, the feeling
typology person derives a judgment or conclusion.
62
The individual with the thinking preference expects that all judgments are
preceded by the kind of analysis, where things are divided, compared, and then
reconnected in a considered final judgment (Amerman, 2008). If thinking compares one
thought with another in order to advance to a new idea, feeling weighs the situation and
compares it to others. However, feeling cannot spell out exactly where the final decision
of like or dislike derives because feeling is more holistic than thinking (Amerman, 2008,
Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968).
Sensing & Intuition
The next set of preferences is Sensing and Intuition. Jung referred to these as
Irrational Functions because they do not depend on logic (Jung, Adler, Hull, 1968). Each
is a way of perceiving simply what is: sensation sees what is in the external world;
intuition sees (or "picks up") what is in the inner world. Sensing is in the present, it is
physical, the use of the five human senses. Sensation is concrete as opposed to abstract.
Intuition on the other hand is a hunch, a way of sniffing out possibilities. It focuses on the
future.
Computer-Mediated Communications
Communications in a CMC Environment
Several authors have researched CMC environments examining how aspects of
personality have affected the efficacy of the virtual teams. Claxton (2004) who conducted
a recent DOD leadership study utilized the Myers-Briggs Personality Assessment
behavioral tool, which has the personality model of Carl Jung as its basis. Claxton’s study
concluded that there is a major difference between successful non-military and military
leadership personalities and that additional study is required to examine this difference in
63
more detail (Claxton, 2004). Neither Claxton’s study, nor any other known study,
assesses of possible relationships between critical decision making by military leaders
and personality types operating in CMC environments.
A second study discusses the relationship of trust where virtual teams have
different cultural structures (Wagner, 2002). Wagner studied American companies having
international virtual teams and the associated issues created when cultural differences
impacted the ability of participants to make cognitive links with virtual team members. A
third study associated the cultural and trust issues to the types of communications
processes preferred and under what cognitive conditions (Walters, 2004). None of these
three studies examined military forces or the effects of CMC and virtual teaming in
combat environments. Therefore, these studies are used as comparative elements for the
data developed within this study. Additionally, as Wagner’s study examined team
efficacy, this study draws upon the process utilized as an accepted approach.
Wagner (2002) revealed the existence of a distinct disadvantage of CMC within
global virtual teams. Wagner noted that geographical separation of team members and the
costs of physically meeting often discourage face-to-face relationships forcing the
transference of global teams to virtual CMC environments. Wagner’s literature review
presented information from Hollingshead and McGrath (1995) concluding that virtual
teams reduce communications and take longer to complete tasks compared to collocated
teams. Additionally, the types of task are either positively or negatively affected, with
those tasks requiring interpersonal relationships suffering the most (Wagner).
Wagner (2002) also quoted from various other studies. For example, according to
Mannix et al. (2002), “The general implication is that it takes longer/is harder to foster
64
functional conflict and minimize dysfunctional conflict in virtual teams than in co-located
teams” (as cited in Wagner, 2002, p. 18). Montoya-Weiss et al. (2001) noted, “Avoidance
and compromise behaviors were negatively related to performance, while competition
and collaboration positively related to performance” (as cited in Wagner, p. 18). Wagner
states Mortensen and Hinds reported, “A surprising finding was that cultural
heterogeneity was negatively related to conflict levels in this sample, which the authors
suggest might be explained by underlying similarity in cognitive processes and
training/efforts to avoid demographically-based conflict (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001, p.
297)” (Wagner, p. 18).
Wagner (2002) noted the following issues and benefits from CMC. Drawbacks of
technologically mediated communications include (a) fewer cues, (b) process losses, (c)
misdirected or unintended direction of communications, (d) position rigidity after making
written comments, (e) communication volume resulting in cognition heuristics, (f)
response reluctance, (g) wrong recipients or incomplete communications, and (h) less
restraint. Benefits of technologically mediated communications included (a) time
management and availability, (b) psychological distance, (c) venting, (d) impersonal
nature (while there is less restraint, there is also less agitation), (e) written records, and (f)
convenience.
Within Wagner’s (2002) research, and confirmed by Buchanan and Kock (2000)
and Mortensen and Hinds (2001), when faced with the violation of basic empirical
expectations or an overload of information beyond the capacity of the individual to
manage, the individual resorts to a set of cognitive heuristics for decision making rather
than what would be considered logical analysis. Buchanan and Kock noted a direct
65
inverse relationship between information overload, stress, decision-maker experience,
and decision quality.
Network Centric Warfare Environment
Operating concepts change as strategic orientations, missions, and operational
contexts evolve and interfacing technology advances. The U.S. Army has conducted
organizational studies involving advanced technologies since the Army’s inception
(Wilson, 2005). These studies have continued to the present period with the advent of the
Future Combat Systems studies. Army Chief of Staff, General Sullivan, began the FCS
studies with the revised Louisiana Maneuvers, conducted between 1991 and 1995. These
studies addressed the challenges of future missions, the potential of new technological
combinations, and the most useful ways to use them, which is referred to as “new
paradigm tactics” (Wass de Czenge, 2001, p. 1).
Network centric warfare is the future for the U.S. Army and involves the
establishment of a global information grid incorporating what is being called the System
of Systems (SoS) and is inclusive of the individual soldier on the battlefield (Phister &
Plonish, 2004). Rodriquez and Robina (1992, as cited in Lane, n.d.) noted an increasing
quantity and media of electronic communications within industry, now being echoed by
the military as the need for strategic and tactical advantage becomes more critical on the
battlefield. Major General (Retired) Scales addressed this in a presentation on October
13, 2005. Scales’ specific comments are not available for public distribution; however,
the significance of his presentation involved the increasingly available military materiel
and weapons on the open market as well as the evolving nature of the enemy. Scales
stated the enemy is increasingly sophisticated and uses networked processes to attack the
66
American people and military in its most vulnerable areas. Only through expert
utilization of this electronic medium will the United States be able to defeat the enemy
and retain its security.
Wass de Czege and Sinnreich (2002) noted, “Armies that adapt successfully to
[changes in geopolitical, demographic and especially technological] developments win.
Those that fail to adapt lose, and the nations they defend with them. Organizational
[technical] adaptation thus is a vital and continuing professional military obligation”
(p. 2).
The FCS Concept, Environment, Issues, and Challenges
Concept. Beginning in 2012, the Army will modernize maneuver brigades with
FCS. Maneuver brigades equipped with FCS will have greater lethality and be easier to
deploy and sustain than anything in the current force. The future force will utilize an
extensive array of electronic systems to seize and hold control of the informational and
decision making elements of the battlefield of the future.
The FCS program will develop network centric concepts for a multi-mission
combat system [inclusive of the individual soldier] that will be overwhelmingly
lethal, strategically deployable, self-sustaining and highly survivable through the
use of networked manned and unmanned ground and air platforms, sensors, and
weapon systems. The goal of the FCS program is to design such an ensemble that
strikes an optimum balance between critical performance factors, including
ground platform strategic, operational and tactical mobility; lethality;
survivability; and sustainability. (Defense Acquisition and Research Product
Agency, 2005, p. 3)
67
Information flow. Figure 2 illustrates the main issue concerning information flow
within the FCS-equipped Army, which is the ability to model reliably the process of
fusion during the course of exercises. As shown, there will be a bleed-off of data and
information at various levels as well as a constant introduction of new data and
information. Removal of a portion of this information as unnecessary occurs at each
specific level of fusion due to geographic location, mission, and other factors. Elements
of this information may be of importance and potentially of critical value to the user
agency and are thus maintained. There is currently no automated method of determining
this structure. According to Ashby’s law (factored to cybernetics), “The variety in the
control system must be equal to or larger than the variety of the perturbations in order to
achieve control” (Heylighen et al., 1995, p. 2).
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2 2 –– Mix Auto/HumanMix Auto/Human
3 3 –– Mostly HumanMostly Human
4 4 –– Human Human
RegulatorsRegulators
InformationInformationKnowledgeKnowledge
COP Data andCOP Data andInformationInformation
Bleed OffBleed Off
UnknownViability
Semi-knownViability
ConfidentViability
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2 2 –– Mix Auto/HumanMix Auto/Human
3 3 –– Mostly HumanMostly Human
4 4 –– Human Human
RegulatorsRegulators
InformationInformationKnowledgeKnowledge
COP Data andCOP Data andInformationInformation
Bleed OffBleed Off
UnknownViability
Semi-knownViability
ConfidentViability
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2 2 –– Mix Auto/HumanMix Auto/Human
3 3 –– Mostly HumanMostly Human
4 4 –– Human Human
RegulatorsRegulators
InformationInformationKnowledgeKnowledge
COP Data andCOP Data andInformationInformation
Bleed OffBleed Off
UnknownViability
Semi-knownViability
ConfidentViability
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2 2 –– Mix Auto/HumanMix Auto/Human
3 3 –– Mostly HumanMostly Human
4 4 –– Human Human
RegulatorsRegulators
InformationInformationKnowledgeKnowledge
COP Data andCOP Data andInformationInformation
Bleed OffBleed Off
UnknownViability
Semi-knownViability
ConfidentViability
Fusion LevelFusion Level
0 0 –– Fully automatedFully automated
1 1 –– Mostly automatedMostly automated
2 2 –– Mix Auto/HumanMix Auto/Human
3 3 –– Mostly HumanMostly Human
4 4 –– Human Human
RegulatorsRegulators
InformationInformationKnowledgeKnowledge
COP Data andCOP Data andInformationInformation
Bleed OffBleed Off
UnknownViability
Semi-knownViability
ConfidentViability
Figure 2. Data/information flow and bleed-off. Note. From Issues and Requirements for
Information Processing Modeling Within the Scenarios and Wargaming Group (p. 8), by
H. I. Nimon, 2004, Huntington Beach, CA: Boeing. Copyright 2004 by H. I. Nimon.
68
The Army has no known process or guidance for ensuring the necessary control
of cognitive dissonance inherent in virtual environments beyond operational training
(Nimon, 2004). The greater the utilization of virtual processes and tools as the primary
means for communications, the greater the risk in unintentional miscommunication. This
risk increases as the utilization of autonomous processing increases.
Team Dynamics
The structural model of team collaboration (see Figure 2), taken from a white
paper by Warner and Wroblewski (2004), illustrates the primary factors affecting military
teams in the analysis and decision making process. Of note are the dynamics of syntax,
structured and unstructured definitions (e.g., I think I know what you said, but do you
know that what you said is what I think?), cultural dynamics (both native and coalition
force dynamics), and the structure of the organization in the decision making process.
Each stage of the model provides a mechanism for analysis. Although the structural
model of team collaboration is not the only possible model, it provides a concept for
consideration and comparison.
Each of the stages of the structural model of team collaboration establishes
domains of cognitive processes. By understanding these processes, it should be possible
to institute specific metrics and design them into exercise stimulators to drive the
evaluation. Some of this will, of necessity, use the survey or Delphi-style approaches
requiring specific game pauses to collect the data at the point of event. Experimental
controls are also a necessity. Primary to this endeavor are the metacognitive process, the
method the team utilizes to develop agreements and understanding of the overall goal, the
team mental vision of the associated issues and problems, the communication procedures
69
of this vision to include definition at each level, and the problem-solving process utilized.
This procedure must include both the human and the machine processes.
The Warner and Wroblewski (2004) white paper established process state
transition probabilities capable of calibrating the processes within virtual operations
exercises (shown in Figures 3 and 4). The process states element of the model diagrams
the functions and probabilistic occurrence of the various collaboration stages while
Figure 4 dissects the structure to a greater degree of detail. Forming a link, these
cognitive aspects need the data/information fusion processes and tasks with the variable
of time keyed to the tactical/strategic decision points of the environment. This linkage
assisted in determining the appropriate means of analysis within the military virtual
environment under consideration.
70
Collaborative Situation
Parameters
•tim
e p
ressure
s•
info
rmation/k
now
led
ge
uncert
ain
ty•
dyn
am
ic info
rmation
•la
rge a
mount of know
ledge
(cognitiv
e o
verload)
•hum
an-a
gent in
terf
ace
com
ple
xity
Team Types
•asyn
chro
nous
•dis
trib
ute
d•
cultura
lly d
ivers
e•
hete
rogeneous k
now
ledge
•uniq
ue r
ole
s•
com
mand s
tructu
re
(hie
rarc
hic
al vs. flat)
•ro
tating team
mem
bers
Operational Tasks
•te
am
decis
ion m
akin
g, C
OA
sele
ction
•develo
p s
hare
d u
nders
tandin
g•
inte
lligence a
naly
sis
(te
am
data
pro
cessin
g)
Team
K
now
ledge
Base
Constr
uction
Collabora
tive
Team
Pro
ble
mSolv
ing
Team
Consensus
Outc
om
e
Evalu
ation a
nd
Revis
ion
Collabora
tion
Com
ple
te
Achie
ve
Goal
Yes Yes
Meta-Cognitive
•in
div
idu
al u
nde
rsta
nd
ing
of
pro
ble
m c
ond
itio
ns
•in
div
idu
al m
en
tal m
od
el
de
ve
lop
men
t of
situationa
l sig
nific
ance
Information Processing
•pro
ble
m iden
tifica
tion
•un
de
rsta
nd
ing p
roble
m t
ask
•esta
blis
h te
am
com
munic
atio
n a
nd t
rust
•esta
blis
h d
ata
filt
ering
m
eth
ods
•esta
blis
h m
ea
nin
g t
ran
sfe
r con
ve
ntion
s
Knowledge Building
•pro
ble
m d
efin
itio
n•
ind
ivid
ual ta
sk k
now
ledg
e•
ind
ivid
ual te
am
kn
ow
ledge
Meta-Cognitive
•go
al d
evelo
pm
ent
•te
am
menta
l m
odel o
f pro
ble
m•
tea
m p
lan
to
so
lve
pro
ble
m
•Information
Processing
•go
al d
efinitio
n•
itera
tive info
rmatio
n
colle
ction
and
an
aly
sis
•de
velo
p,
rationaliz
e, a
nd
vis
ua
lize s
olu
tion
alte
rna
tives
Knowledge Building
•m
en
tal m
odel o
f te
am
•te
am
task k
no
wle
dg
e•
do
main
expe
rtis
e•
sha
red
und
ers
tan
din
g•
colla
bo
rative
kno
wle
dge
Meta-Cognitive
•tr
ack t
ea
m’s
me
nta
l m
ode
l ch
an
ge
•u
nd
ers
tan
din
g
rem
ain
ing
ite
ms to
re
solv
e
Information Processing
•te
am
neg
otia
tio
n o
f so
lution
altern
atives
Knowledge Building
•co
llabora
tive
know
ledg
e•
sh
are
d u
nd
ers
tan
din
g
Meta-Cognitive
•co
mpa
re p
rob
lem
so
lution a
gain
st go
als
Information Processing
•a
na
lyze a
nd r
evis
e
outp
ut
Knowledge Building
•g
oa
l re
quir
em
ents
•e
xit cri
teria
Communication Mechanism for Information Processing and KnowledgeBuilding (applies to all stages):
•pre
sen
tin
g in
div
idu
al
info
rmatio
n•
dis
agre
em
en
t•
qu
estion
ing
•dis
cussin
g in
div
idual
info
rma
tio
n•
ne
gotia
ting p
ers
pectives
•dis
cussio
n o
f po
ssib
le
solu
tion
s
•d
iscussin
g te
am
gen
era
ted
in
form
ation
•p
rovid
ing
ration
ale
fo
r in
div
idua
l solu
tions
•a
gre
em
ent
Collaborative Situation
Parameters
•tim
e p
ressure
s•
info
rmation/k
now
led
ge
uncert
ain
ty•
dyn
am
ic info
rmation
•la
rge a
mount of know
ledge
(cognitiv
e o
verload)
•hum
an-a
gent in
terf
ace
com
ple
xity
Team Types
•asyn
chro
nous
•dis
trib
ute
d•
cultura
lly d
ivers
e•
hete
rogeneous k
now
ledge
•uniq
ue r
ole
s•
com
mand s
tructu
re
(hie
rarc
hic
al vs. flat)
•ro
tating team
mem
bers
Operational Tasks
•te
am
decis
ion m
akin
g, C
OA
sele
ction
•develo
p s
hare
d u
nders
tandin
g•
inte
lligence a
naly
sis
(te
am
data
pro
cessin
g)
Team
K
now
ledge
Base
Constr
uction
Collabora
tive
Team
Pro
ble
mSolv
ing
Team
Consensus
Outc
om
e
Evalu
ation a
nd
Revis
ion
Collabora
tion
Com
ple
te
Achie
ve
Goal
Yes Yes
Meta-Cognitive
•in
div
idu
al u
nde
rsta
nd
ing
of
pro
ble
m c
ond
itio
ns
•in
div
idu
al m
en
tal m
od
el
de
ve
lop
men
t of
situationa
l sig
nific
ance
Information Processing
•pro
ble
m iden
tifica
tion
•un
de
rsta
nd
ing p
roble
m t
ask
•esta
blis
h te
am
com
munic
atio
n a
nd t
rust
•esta
blis
h d
ata
filt
ering
m
eth
ods
•esta
blis
h m
ea
nin
g t
ran
sfe
r con
ve
ntion
s
Knowledge Building
•pro
ble
m d
efin
itio
n•
ind
ivid
ual ta
sk k
now
ledg
e•
ind
ivid
ual te
am
kn
ow
ledge
Meta-Cognitive
•go
al d
evelo
pm
ent
•te
am
menta
l m
odel o
f pro
ble
m•
tea
m p
lan
to
so
lve
pro
ble
m
•Information
Processing
•go
al d
efinitio
n•
itera
tive info
rmatio
n
colle
ction
and
an
aly
sis
•de
velo
p,
rationaliz
e, a
nd
vis
ua
lize s
olu
tion
alte
rna
tives
Knowledge Building
•m
en
tal m
odel o
f te
am
•te
am
task k
no
wle
dg
e•
do
main
expe
rtis
e•
sha
red
und
ers
tan
din
g•
colla
bo
rative
kno
wle
dge
Meta-Cognitive
•tr
ack t
ea
m’s
me
nta
l m
ode
l ch
an
ge
•u
nd
ers
tan
din
g
rem
ain
ing
ite
ms to
re
solv
e
Information Processing
•te
am
neg
otia
tio
n o
f so
lution
altern
atives
Knowledge Building
•co
llabora
tive
know
ledg
e•
sh
are
d u
nd
ers
tan
din
g
Meta-Cognitive
•co
mpa
re p
rob
lem
so
lution a
gain
st go
als
Information Processing
•a
na
lyze a
nd r
evis
e
outp
ut
Knowledge Building
•g
oa
l re
quir
em
ents
•e
xit cri
teria
Communication Mechanism for Information Processing and KnowledgeBuilding (applies to all stages):
•pre
sen
tin
g in
div
idu
al
info
rmatio
n•
dis
agre
em
en
t•
qu
estion
ing
•dis
cussin
g in
div
idual
info
rma
tio
n•
ne
gotia
ting p
ers
pectives
•dis
cussio
n o
f po
ssib
le
solu
tion
s
•d
iscussin
g te
am
gen
era
ted
in
form
ation
•p
rovid
ing
ration
ale
fo
r in
div
idua
l solu
tions
•a
gre
em
ent
Figure 3. S
truc
tural m
odel of t
eam
col
labo
ratio
n. Note. F
rom
The Cog
nitiv
e Processes Used in Team Collabo
ratio
n du
ring
Asynchronous, Distributed Decision making, by N. W
arne
r and
E. W
robl
ewsk
i, 20
04, S
an D
iego
, CA: D
ODCRTS
Sym
posium
. Cop
yrig
ht 200
4 by
N. W
arne
r and
E. W
robl
ewsk
i. Rep
rint
ed w
ith perm
ission
.
71
Measurement of Knowledge Formation
Primary to the success of the FCS concept is the ability of soldiers to rapidly fuse
data from a multitude of sources into the correct picture of the battlefield and transmit
that knowledge to the appropriate users. Systems can transmit data. Systems can also
perform limited analysis based upon preprogrammed sets of options and in some minimal
cases using dynamic machine intelligence. Only humans can derive intent, the targeted
level of knowledge, and transition that intent into understanding, thus enabling the
manipulation of events to achieve a future outcome (Schwartz & Begley, 2005). The
commander, presented with the appropriate knowledge derived from processed data and
fused information, is the user of that product of understanding and acts as the primary
decision maker. Unfortunately, this knowledge development and fusion process requires
the structure of the virtual environment of the global information grid. Because of this
requirement, CMC becomes a mandatory foundation leading to the issues under
investigation.
Warner and E. Wroblewski (2004) conducted a probabilistic analysis of
information processing in their work shown in Figure 4. The figure displays the
relationship of team dynamics when in face-to-face situations vice asynchronous
operations. The asynchronous activities occurred, primarily, in virtual structures. The
model demonstrated a greater time cost for asynchronous teams due to a longer process
period for collaboration (see Figure 5).
72
TRANSITION PROBABILITIESCOLLABORATION STAGES
Outcome, Evaluation & Revision
(OER)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 0% AD: 0%
.77/.89
Team Knowledge Base Construction
(TK)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 39% AD: 12%
Collaborative TeamProblem Solving
(TPS)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 54% AD: 76%
.30/.73
.22/.11
.00/.04 .01/.02
TeamConsensus
(TC)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 8% AD: 12%
1.00/.86
.69/.24
.00/.03
.00/.11
PROBABILITIES KEYFace to Face (F2F)/Asynchronous Distributed (AD)
TRANSITION PROBABILITIESCOLLABORATION STAGES
Outcome, Evaluation & Revision
(OER)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 0% AD: 0%
.77/.89
Team Knowledge Base Construction
(TK)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 39% AD: 12%
Collaborative TeamProblem Solving
(TPS)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 54% AD: 76%
.30/.73
.22/.11
.00/.04 .01/.02
TeamConsensus
(TC)Probability of Occurrence
F2F: 8% AD: 12%
1.00/.86
.69/.24
.00/.03
.00/.11
PROBABILITIES KEYFace to Face (F2F)/Asynchronous Distributed (AD)
Figure 4. Transition probabilities: Collaboration stages. From The Cognitive Processes
Used in Team Collaboration during Asynchronous, Distributed Decision making, by N.
Warner and E. Wroblewski, 2004, San Diego, CA: DODCRTS Symposium. Copyright
2004 by N. Warner and E. Wroblewski. Reprinted with permission.
73
TR
AN
SIT
ION
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
IES
CO
LLA
BO
RA
TIO
N S
TA
GE
S
.33/.0
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
IES
KE
YFace to F
ace (F2F)/
Asynchro
nous
Dis
trib
ute
d (A
D)
IP:
IP:
Go
al D
efinitio
nG
oa
l D
efin
itio
n
KB
:K
B:
Indiv
idu
al
Ind
ivid
ual
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
KB
:K
B:
Data
Filt
ering
D
ata
Filt
erin
g
Me
tho
ds
Meth
od
s
IP:
IP:
Tea
m
Te
am
N
ego
tiatio
nN
eg
otia
tio
n
KB
: K
B:
Colla
bora
tive
Colla
bo
rative
K
no
wle
dg
eK
no
wle
dge
MC
: M
C:
Tea
m P
lan
Te
am
Pla
n
IP:
IP:
Info
rmatio
n
Info
rma
tion
C
olle
ctio
n a
nd
C
olle
ction a
nd
Analy
sis
Ana
lysis
IP:
IP:
Ana
lyze &
A
naly
ze
&
Re
vis
e O
utp
ut
Revis
e O
utp
ut
KB
:K
B:
Goa
l G
oal
Att
ain
men
tA
ttain
me
nt
KB
:K
B:
Dom
ain
D
om
ain
E
xp
ert
ise
Expe
rtis
e
MC
: M
C:
Pro
ble
m
Pro
ble
m
Solu
tio
nS
olu
tion
IP: In
form
ation P
roce
ssin
gK
B: K
no
wle
dge B
uild
ing
MC
: M
eta
-Co
gnitiv
e
NO
TE
: T
ransitio
n p
rob
abili
ties
are
repre
se
nte
d o
nly
if
at
least
on
e v
alu
e o
f th
e F
ace
-to-f
ace
/ A
syn
chro
nous p
air is >
0.2
5.
TE
AM
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
NT
EA
M C
ON
CE
NS
US
CO
LLA
BE
RA
TIV
E T
EA
M
PR
OB
LE
M S
OLV
ING
TE
AM
CO
NC
EN
SU
S
.38/.23
.0/.27
.33/.61
.67/.10
MC
:M
C:
Item
s t
o
Item
s t
o
Re
solv
eR
eso
lve
KB
:K
B:
Sha
red
Sh
are
d
Und
ers
tan
din
gU
nders
tan
din
g
.25/.55
.76/.69
.75/.32
KB
: K
B:
Te
am
T
ea
m
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
.85/.0
IP:
IP:
Und
ers
tan
din
g
Un
ders
tan
din
g
the
Pro
ble
mth
e P
roble
m
.43/.20
.45/.0
.50/.0
.40/.72 .30/.28
.56/.10
.28/.42
.0/.30
.40/.0
IP:
IP:
Tra
nsfe
r T
ransfe
r C
onve
ntio
ns
Con
ven
tio
ns
.60/.0
KB
:K
B:
Indiv
idu
al
Ind
ivid
ual
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
.10/.31
KB
:K
B:
Pro
ble
m
Pro
ble
m
Defin
itio
nD
efinitio
n .33/.24
IP:
IP:
So
lution
S
olu
tio
n
Altern
atives
Alte
rna
tive
s
.20/.28
.13/.43 .04/.36
.47/.40
.38/.11
.36/.41
KB
:K
B:
Co
llabo
rative
C
olla
bora
tive
Kno
wle
dge
Kno
wle
dg
e
.0/.46
.27/1
.0
KB
: K
B:
Share
d
Sh
are
d
Un
de
rsta
ndin
gU
nd
ers
tan
din
g
.32/.39
.58/.46
.50/.01
IP:
IP:
Tra
nsfe
r T
ran
sfe
r C
onve
ntio
ns
Con
ven
tio
ns
TR
AN
SIT
ION
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
IES
CO
LLA
BO
RA
TIO
N S
TA
GE
S
.33/.0
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
IES
KE
YFace to F
ace (F2F)/
Asynchro
nous
Dis
trib
ute
d (A
D)
IP:
IP:
Go
al D
efinitio
nG
oa
l D
efin
itio
n
KB
:K
B:
Indiv
idu
al
Ind
ivid
ual
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
KB
:K
B:
Data
Filt
ering
D
ata
Filt
erin
g
Me
tho
ds
Meth
od
s
IP:
IP:
Tea
m
Te
am
N
ego
tiatio
nN
eg
otia
tio
n
KB
: K
B:
Colla
bora
tive
Colla
bo
rative
K
no
wle
dg
eK
no
wle
dge
MC
: M
C:
Tea
m P
lan
Te
am
Pla
n
IP:
IP:
Info
rmatio
n
Info
rma
tion
C
olle
ctio
n a
nd
C
olle
ction a
nd
Analy
sis
Ana
lysis
IP:
IP:
Ana
lyze &
A
naly
ze
&
Re
vis
e O
utp
ut
Revis
e O
utp
ut
KB
:K
B:
Goa
l G
oal
Att
ain
men
tA
ttain
me
nt
KB
:K
B:
Dom
ain
D
om
ain
E
xp
ert
ise
Expe
rtis
e
MC
: M
C:
Pro
ble
m
Pro
ble
m
Solu
tio
nS
olu
tion
IP: In
form
ation P
roce
ssin
gK
B: K
no
wle
dge B
uild
ing
MC
: M
eta
-Co
gnitiv
e
NO
TE
: T
ransitio
n p
rob
abili
ties
are
repre
se
nte
d o
nly
if
at
least
on
e v
alu
e o
f th
e F
ace
-to-f
ace
/ A
syn
chro
nous p
air is >
0.2
5.
TE
AM
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
NT
EA
M C
ON
CE
NS
US
CO
LLA
BE
RA
TIV
E T
EA
M
PR
OB
LE
M S
OLV
ING
TE
AM
CO
NC
EN
SU
S
.38/.23
.0/.27
.33/.61
.67/.10
MC
:M
C:
Item
s t
o
Item
s t
o
Re
solv
eR
eso
lve
KB
:K
B:
Sha
red
Sh
are
d
Und
ers
tan
din
gU
nders
tan
din
g
.25/.55
.76/.69
.75/.32
KB
: K
B:
Te
am
T
ea
m
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
.85/.0
IP:
IP:
Und
ers
tan
din
g
Un
ders
tan
din
g
the
Pro
ble
mth
e P
roble
m
.43/.20
.45/.0
.50/.0
.40/.72 .30/.28
.56/.10
.28/.42
.0/.30
.40/.0
IP:
IP:
Tra
nsfe
r T
ransfe
r C
onve
ntio
ns
Con
ven
tio
ns
.60/.0
KB
:K
B:
Indiv
idu
al
Ind
ivid
ual
Kno
wle
dge
Kn
ow
led
ge
.10/.31
KB
:K
B:
Pro
ble
m
Pro
ble
m
Defin
itio
nD
efinitio
n .33/.24
IP:
IP:
So
lution
S
olu
tio
n
Altern
atives
Alte
rna
tive
s
.20/.28
.13/.43 .04/.36
.47/.40
.38/.11
.36/.41
KB
:K
B:
Co
llabo
rative
C
olla
bora
tive
Kno
wle
dge
Kno
wle
dg
e
.0/.46
.27/1
.0
KB
: K
B:
Share
d
Sh
are
d
Un
de
rsta
ndin
gU
nd
ers
tan
din
g
.32/.39
.58/.46
.50/.01
IP:
IP:
Tra
nsfe
r T
ran
sfe
r C
onve
ntio
ns
Con
ven
tio
ns
Figure 5. T
rans
ition
pro
babi
lities: P
roce
ss states. Note. F
rom
The Cog
nitiv
e Processes Used in Team Collabo
ratio
n du
ring
Asynchron
ous, Distributed Decision making, by N. W
arne
r and
E. W
robl
ewsk
i, 20
04, S
an D
iego
, CA: D
ODCRTS
Sym
posium
.
Cop
yrig
ht 200
4 by
N. W
arne
r and
E. W
robl
ewsk
i. Rep
rint
ed w
ith perm
ission
.
74
Card, Hutchins, and Pirolli (2004), in a paper on intelligence analysis using a
critical decision model, identified three major domains of concern and investigation: time
pressure, high cognitive load, and difficult human judgments. Two other considerations
should be added to this domain. It is necessary to factor in politics (Walton, 1986) and the
consequences of results (Wass de Czege, 2001) in combat operations as a fact of modern
media attention.
Time. No battle plan outlasts the first shot; thus, a critical need exists to have
accurate, timely, and applicable situational intelligence. The past fluidity of the battlefield
has aptly demonstrated and confirmed this requirement. Wass de Czege (2001), in his
writings on future strategy, noted the need for rapid analysis of data for translation into
information for the commander. Wass de Czege (2001) discussed the extremely high
tempo and information-rich environment of the process. Changes present themselves
rapidly and need understanding just as rapidly. Battalion Intelligence and
Communications Center analysts have very little time to collect, process, translate into
understanding, and communicate data. This is not a change for the intelligence analyst. It
is a change in the tempo of the incoming data. General Wass de Czege (2001) discussed
the following elements.
Cognitive load. Alberts et al. (2001) posits that the greatly increased tempo of
present day military operations coupled with the quantity of information to create
overload in the command personnel. Large amounts of these data reiterate and have the
potential for deliberate obfuscation. An analogy of drinking water from a fire hose aptly
illustrates this point. No single person can understand, process, interpret, fuse, and create
an assessment of all the pertinent data (Wass de Czege, 2001). The team dynamics of
75
syntax, structured and unstructured definitions, cultural dynamics, and the structure of the
organization in the decision making process, therefore, now come into play. Stress
develops, resulting in conflict. Without the necessary cognitive and emotional tools, the
team cannot maintain efficiency (Wass de Czege).
Human judgments. Different individuals observe, interpret, and develop
conclusions from identical facts in different ways, often with differing results. Judgments
applied based on experiences, training, knowledge, and other factors determine the
accuracy of the individual or possible set of conclusions (Wass de Czege, 2001).
Politics. Humans are social animals and establish rankings of individuals, both
official and unofficial (Wass de Czege, 2001). These rankings create power for those of
higher position ceded by those of lower position. Challenging or crossing the line rarely
occurs. Often, the exercise of power, real or assumed, will create unintended results.
Deming noted individuals obtain the behavior they are measuring or, more accurately,
they reinforce such behavior overtly or unconsciously (Walton, 1986).
Consequences of results. A factor present in decision making, yet largely ignored,
is the realization of consequences. Leaders generally recognize these consequences and
understand the relationship between the costs of various choices. Lower level personnel,
due to a lack of experience, information, or clearance, do not. This dichotomy may result
in a catharsis of action, at a subconscious level, that is neither recognized nor appreciated
in the process of decision making. Thus, consideration of consequential results is required
as an element of the model and assessed for effect within the relationship of the fusion
process (Wass de Czege, 2001).
76
Conclusion
The literature presented humans as social animals that establish communications
as the means of interacting with their environment. Such interaction with the environment
then establishes the capability to communicate. The cognitive process of communication
is primarily not a conscious activity. Through the processes of nonverbal attributes,
humans’ ability to interact socially with their environment roots itself in subconscious
activities far more nonverbally than verbally. Assuming the accuracy of the literature
review, only 5% of human communications and decision making occurs within the
conscious elements of the mind utilizing direct and focused control. The remainder is
composed of nonverbal and subconscious elements (Allot, 2001; Burgoon, 2002;
Burgoon et al., 2005; Burgoon et al., 1994).
The removal of the ability to interact in nonverbal domains (i.e., nonverbal
sensory domains) takes out a major element of the communications process. Humans
must establish other forms and processes for establishing the communication linkage of
subconscious to conscious mind. This process is only now receiving appropriate research
and analysis into the effects on decision making.
Stressful environments with limited time and high failure costs create situations
where the lack of sensorial stimulation forces humans into a heuristic pattern of decision
making that does not rely on facts. Humans will often revert to suppressed emotions, and
the experiences linked to those emotions to arrive at a decision, to maintain a level of
comfort and to avoid specific cognitive dissonance events. This is particularly true when
unintended injury or death to another person results. Combat is such an environment
77
(Burgoon, 2002; Burgoon et al., 2005; Burgoon et al., 1994; Campo et al., 2002; Clausen
& Lee, 2001).
The removal of significant portions of nonverbal and nonsensorial domains, as in
physical impairment or the structure and utilization of virtual teams, creates violations in
highly structured cognitive environments. Research has demonstrated that this causes
changes in both cognition and decision making efficiency (Tasa, 2002). In virtual
combat, the effects are unknown.
The U.S. Army intends to move to a high-technology organization for military
forces with plans to field this force in the next 15 to 20 years. How this domain will
affect human cognition is not known. The impacts on the cognitive process of decision
making have not been researched quantitatively.
Summary
The decision making process within a nonverbal or nonsensorial domain, such as
the CMC environment, may affect efficiency in methods related to the personality of a
given individual. Given the Army’s development of an organization that establishes and
extends the CMC environment to the individual soldier level, the logical result is a
potential for efficiency impacts in decision making, particularly in severe combat
situations, similar to that found in non-military settings. Although it is difficult to
measure such an environment, CMC-based decision making issues require study and
processes for overcoming the potential deficiencies developed. This is not possible
without first establishing some model or theory of how these factors influence the
military environment. Chapter 3 presents an approach to study the relationship of
78
expectation violation within the CMC structures of a military or combat environment,
which may lead to a possible theory of the effects.
79
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
Leadership involves the ability to obtain, catalog, and assess complex information
to arrive at appropriate and actionable decisions (Kotter, 1990). Leadership decision
making efficiency and accuracy may be degraded in the highly stressful environment of
combat because of the increased use of virtual teaming and CMC inherent in a NCW
organization (Alberts et al., 2001). Additionally, the literature research in Chapter 2
indicated a critical link between communications and nonverbal sensorial inputs that
establishes key, primarily subconscious expectations for these inputs. The research also
pointed out a strong link between subconscious expectations and personality (Burgoon et
al., 2005). Studies on virtual and CMC communications indicate potential disassociation
for accurate decision making in the absence of nonverbal sensorial elements (Campo et
al., 2002; Wagner, 2005).
The U.S. Army initiated the development of the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
program in 2003 having, as its core structure, a virtual command and control architecture
defined by the concepts of Network Centric Warfare (NCW). Not only is technology
changing, the basic structures of combat doctrine and individual soldier interaction and
communications processes are changing as well (U.S. Army, 2005). As these changes
extend to the lowest level of the military organization, the individual soldier, they may
create situations and conditions requiring understanding, measurement, and management.
Without the knowledge of how the technology changes affect communications to the
soldier level, military operational strategists lack the knowledge of how to develop the
appropriate mix of personnel type(s), training processes, and doctrinal guidance
necessary for optimal utilization of the systems. This study focuses on the nature and
80
degree of the impact individual personality may have on communications effectiveness,
and decision making, targeted on a CMC-based virtual military architecture.
The research methodology for this study derives from a study performed by
Miller and Shattuck (2006) of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
In 2004 and 2005, they were involved in an experiment at the Unit of Action Battle
Laboratory (UAMBL) at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The experiment assessed the CMC-based
structure of the Future Combat Systems program focusing on the stress levels of the
participants. Several hundred military personnel gathered to conduct a computerized war
simulation utilizing simulated CMC structures in small teams of 5-6 members. The teams
had no face-to-face communication. The Army exercise limited communications to the
experimental electronic systems for the FCS program.
Miller and Shattuck determined there are situations where the dynamics normally
observed in decision making under stress did not apply. However, the study normalized
their approach to account for education and military training, not for the aspects of
personality (personal communication, April 18, 2006). Miller and Shattuck agreed that
including the effects of personality in the evaluation of combat virtual communications
may influence their findings, leading to the concept of this study.
Research Method and Design Appropriateness
Three forms of research methodology considered for this study were qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed. The research rejected a qualitative methodology due to the
specific nature of the research and the existence of deterministic data in the form of
specific personality ratings analytically comparable to the relationships of other
individuals. Additionally, qualitative research uses data that are primarily words and
81
images from documents, observations, and transcripts (Neuman, 2003). Such information
and data are not available in the subject environment of combat operations as it relates to
the study topic of personality and CMC efficiencies.
The researcher considered the mixed methodology, due to the nature of the
qualitative nature of the information gathered and the position on psychological research
methodologies espoused by Jung (1968). Jung stated that the construct of individual
personalities defies detailed analysis in a quantitative structure due to the variation in
environments within which one finds the subject and that exhibited personality adjusts to
fit the environment (Laszlo, 1990). Given the availability of quantifiable data and Jung’s
statement, the mixed methodology appeared to be the correct approach. However, this
approach again requires documentation, observations, and data that are simply not
available, leaving only the quantitative approach as the viable option.
Usual methodologies for quantitative studies include experiment, survey, content
analysis, field research, and historical-comparative research (Neuman, 2003). Of these,
the most appropriate approach for this study was survey. Since the domain environment
was combat, it was impossible to establish an appropriate laboratory experiment
matching the environment under controlled conditions or conduct field research without
extreme risk to the researchers and the subjects.
Additionally, historical-comparative analysis was not possible as the virtual
structure for a combat environment did not exist prior to the latter half of the 20th century.
No previous CMC or personality relationship research in the domain of a combat
environment exists. Therefore, the quantitative methodology utilizing a survey is
appropriate.
82
Researchers, such as Wagner (2002) and Campo et al. (2002), have studied team
dynamics in environments of electronic communications. While not identical to the FCS
structural environment under construction for the U.S. Army, Wagner’s and Campo’s
study methodologies were sufficiently robust to transfer to this research. Specifically,
Wagner (2002), justifying the study methodology, stated a significant amount of research
existed concerning the interpersonal relationships and dynamics of face-to-face groups
whereas little work existed for virtual groups. Virtual groups are, by virtue of their
geographical separation, forced to utilize CMC technologies creating an environment
somewhat similar to that facing the U.S. Army.
Wagner (2002) designed and conducted a study appropriate for divergent groups
involved in developing technologies. The approach involved a review of grounded theory
with comparison of cases utilized by Eisenhardt (1989b) and Glaser and Straus (1967) for
the study of new and complex phenomena. Wagner’s approach established a survey and
interview structure to identify threads of events, reexamined in more detail. Hypotheses
derived from such previous research were inappropriate in cases requiring the creation of
new theories for study (Wagner, 2002).
Wagner’s (2002) research is both similar and differs from this study in several
areas. Wagner (2002) researched existing international global teams from varied cultures
and languages working in virtual teams on development and engineering projects.
Conversely, this study’s research involved teams of the United States Army in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, and Bosnia utilizing new and developing virtual technology and
methods. The Army, by design, molds individuals to a standardized culture and language,
without changing the baseline culture and heritage from which the soldier originates.
83
Second, multiple cross-functional entities with differing educational and
experiential histories were available to Wagner (2002). This study involves a single entity
set, U.S. Army officers who have served in combat environments. While the Army
groups have varied and dissimilar educational and experiential histories, soldiers receive
training in the same military specialty schools using identical curricula designed to
integrate them into a standardized military culture.
Third, Wagner’s (2002) study involved cross-cultural teams in industrial settings
that had low levels of relative stress. This study conducted research within the Army
structure and involved situations of future national security, as well as experiences within
the life-or-death environment of war. While the structure and methodology of Wagner’s
approach is transferable to this study, modifications to the questionnaires were required.
Wagner’s (2002) study and this study shared some common elements. Both
studies involve geographically separated organizations utilizing electronic and
asynchronous processes for communications and critical decision making activities.
Wagner conducted research concerning the dynamics of the cognitive elements of
decision making. Wagner’s dynamics included how trust issues developed and how these
issues shaped the virtual team interactions. Trust is an element of personality (Campo et
al., 2002) touching on the personality aspects of this study, although not in as in
Wagner’s research. This study continues Wagner and Campo’s research in the logical
direction of the totality of the individual’s personality and keys it to current issues of
military CMC.
Next, the Wagner (2002) study involved teams with little or no face-to-face
contact during the most critical periods of data development, processing, and decision
84
making as does this study. Wagner was required to establish a methodology that enabled
the measurement of interpersonal dynamics over distance. The current study incorporates
this methodology, adding in the additional and unique elements of personality assessment
and measurement and the combat environment.
Finally, the Wagner (2002) study, as did this study, focused on human interaction
dynamics examining how these interactions affect the team’s performance. The Wagner
approach linked the elements of interaction and trust to the operational effectiveness of
the team. This study linked the elements of personality to interaction and operational
effectiveness of the team within the combat environment.
Wagner’s (2002) approach involved a bidirectional data development and analysis
process involving breadth and depth. Wagner (2002) defined the breadth process as
selecting participants from a sample of organizations to complete a questionnaire on
demographics, situation, reactions, and issues. The depth domain involved a series of
random and selected interviews to delve into the personalities and structures of the issues
identified (Wagner, 2002).
This study also utilized a bidirectional approach similar to that utilized by Wagner
(2002). A similar questionnaire, the Military CMC Effectiveness Survey (M-CMCE), for
participants established what information, data, and knowledge existed within the unique
environment of a military organization involved in high-stress combat situations. The
questionnaire design for the study, the Wagner Virtual Teaming Communications Survey
utilized with Wagner’s permission, created a baseline where questions were adjusted to
obtain specific data relevant to this study.
85
The depth domain for this study involved comparative reviews of the data and
findings of two additional studies researching the relationship between personality and
leadership. The first researched the relationship of personality and leadership among
project managers within the Department of Defense. Claxton (2004) focused on
participants in leadership or leadership staff positions within the U.S. DOD. Thus, the
relationship of the Blue and Red rankings indicate similar findings to the findings
discussed by Claxton (2004) in his dissertation involving personality types and leadership
roles in the U.S. DOD.
Claxton’s (2004) work utilized the Myers-Briggs methodology rather than
Insights-Discovery; however, both methodologies originate in the work of Jung. Claxton
found that 57% of his population ranked in the thinking/judging domain, which is similar
though not identical to the thinking/extrovert domain of the Insights-Discovery process
(pp. 94-98). Claxton establishes a caveat on his finding with a quote from Fitzgerald and
Kirby (1997), who noted that the Myers-Briggs thinking/judging domain is “an over
presentation when compared to the general population” (as cited in Claxton, p. 93).
According to Claxton, organizations prefer thinking and judging individuals in leadership
roles. Thus, personality surveys of leaders will skew to the thinking/judging domain
(Claxton). The skewing tendency is also evident in the Insights-Discovery results for the
study respondents in the current study.
The second study, Walters (2004), specifically studied trust in virtual teams in
100 American companies and found that cognitive trust, trust in the team participants’
ability to perform appropriate and accurate decision making, is the key in developing
effective virtual teams. Walters noted that the issue of trust falls into two specific
86
domains: social interactions and task-related efficiency. The first domain tracked with the
data developed for the current study with reference to the high-perceived efficacy from
face-to-face operations.
This study’s subject pool derived from the United States Army and focused on
those individuals who have served in combat environments in Somalia, Bosnia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq during the period 2000 to 2007 where their positions involved
CMC operations. The subjects for the study, geographically dispersed throughout the
United States, received the survey via internet web links. Originally, the research targeted
900 officers attending the Army Command and General Staff College. However, the
Army denied access to this group stating no availability as the justification.
The researcher resorted to identifying approximately 100 individuals as alternate
subjects for the study. The identification resulted from research of the subject’s
involvement in the stated conflicts. Additionally, the participants identified additional
potential subjects. Of the total set of 100 potential subjects, only 23 individuals
completed the M-CMCE and 11 of the 23 completed the Insights-Discovery© surveys.
This low response rate created problems with the analysis, discussed later in the report.
Survey instrument distribution and retrieval was by internet managed by
MindStretch Associates Incorporated of Houston, Texas. MindStretch, Inc., the sponsor
organization for the Insights-Discovery tool, incorporated the M-CMCE survey into their
internet structure using the Survey-Monkey tool. Survey participation agreements,
subject personal data, and the bonded company maintained the survey results with the
understanding that no personal information be provided to the researcher beyond required
87
demographics such as age, rank, military position, level of education, and
knowledge/experience with CMC operations.
Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd. is granting the necessary instances of the
Insights-Discovery tool licenses for the purposes of this study in return for the use of the
military personality data and a copy of the final dissertation. Insights Learning and
Discovery, Ltd. has also provided permission for use of the Insights-Discovery survey.
The permission affidavit is included as Appendix C of this study.
Appropriateness of Design
A military organization contains multiple levels of control and management. Each
individual within that structure receives instruction on the operation and desired outcome
through the issuance of orders or specific guidance of movement, organization, limits of
activities allowed, and other factors. Conditions within the military operational
environment may necessitate changes in these orders, which the local authority has the
power to do. Therefore, a team not collocated with the initial managerial structure may,
in fact, evolve into a collocated structure, given a change in environment, conditions, or
knowledge of the environment not previously available to the higher organization. Such a
situation influences the cognitive dynamics affecting the team, engaging a different set of
dynamics than existed prior to the event. Knowledge of these conditions, the events
triggering the change, and the level of dynamic shift is necessary (Wagner, 2002; Campo
et al., 2002).
The communication of such shifts historically has occurred during face-to-face
command and staff meetings conducted at a single location; then passed forward to the
lowest levels of command by similar methods. Thus, operational change would take an
88
extended period to filter to the individual soldiers tasked with achieving the objectives of
the operation.
Fielding and utilization of CMC enables near instantaneous transmission of the
operational changes to the various levels of command. Current CMC technology extends
this reach only to the higher subordinate levels of command and control, e.g. Brigades
and Divisions. The future capabilities of the FCS technology will transmit this
information all the way to the individual soldier. Such dissemination, filtered to avoid
information overload, greatly increases the potential for miscommunications due to bias
and personal translation of the information to cognitive understanding.
Only a process, whereby the military understands the relationships of personality
to communications dissonance, permits maximizing systems engineering to limit such
dissonance. Only through the development of personality data, and relating this data to
communications efficiency in virtual environments, is the root data on the
communications dissonance causes available. This study provides this data.
The data developed through this study includes individual personality types at a
detailed level of confidence due to the utilization of the validated and globally accepted
Insights-Discovery© tool set. As both the Insights-Discovery© and M-CMCE tool sets
are established in electronic sources, the study is repeatable and modifiable for
comparative or triangulative analysis. The resultant information enabled the researcher to
answer with confidence the study hypotheses.
Research Questions
The literature review identified several issues that require study with respect to
the issue of CMC within the military environment and the subsequent ability of the
89
soldier to perform leadership functions in a virtual environment. The research questions
for this study are as follows:
1. How is combat decision making altered by the information management and
leadership processes involved in the determination of the appropriate level(s) and type(s)
of information to process, pass, and include in the combat decision evaluation?
2. Does previous exposure to virtual environments, personality types, or education
have an impact on the ability of an individual to overcome any degradation of
communication present in a virtual communications environment?
3. What are the effects on individual cognitive processes in an environment where
normal and expected social interactions, such as face-to-face, sensorial, and other
nonverbal stimuli, experience degradation or are nonexistent?
4. How do the effects of expectation violation impact decision making at all
levels?
5. When advanced CMC is considered or determined as suspect, what is the
impact on trustworthiness within the command team?
6. What results, positive or negative, do these effects have on the ability of
decision makers to lead their organizations in the high-stress environment of combat?
Hypotheses
The study seeks to develop data to answer whether or not there is a significant
difference in work efficiency in a virtual environment based upon the personalities of the
individuals involved and if those differences can predict or improve individual potential.
As stated, there have been previous studies designed to assess the impacts of
communications issues on virtual teams (Anderson-Rudisill, 2005; Bermudez et al.,
90
2004; Bassoonauth, 2002; Campo et al., 2002; Kanowattanachai & Yoo, 2005; Wagner,
2002). Additional studies exist researching the impacts of computer-mediated-
communications environments on decision making (Bridgland & Watro, 1987; Cueni &
Seiz, 1999; Dunn et al., 2004; Gibson et al., 2003; Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995;
Kring, 2004; Miller & Shattuck, 2006; Powell, 2004). However, this research may be the
first study to tie an individual’s personality type and virtual communications
effectiveness in a combat environment. As such, the study examined the hypotheses that
follow:
H0: There exists no recognizable effect of personality in perceived work
efficiency from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment, nor can personality
be a predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
H1: There exists an observable effect of personality in perceived work efficiency
from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment; and personality can be a
predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale
The graphic in Figure 6 depicts the structure and relationships of the methodology
and tools discussed in this section. The study subject pool derives from the United States
Army and focuses on those individuals who have served in combat environments in
Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq during the period 2000 to 2007 where their
positions involved CMC operations. The subjects for the study, geographically dispersed
throughout the United States, received the survey via internet web links. Approximately
100 individuals were available for the survey identified by research of the subject’s
involvement in these conflicts and their subsequent identification of additional potential
91
subjects of which 23 responded.
Data Development
M-CMCSurvey
Analysis
Mind-StretchDatabase
SoldierSubject
Insight-DiscoveryPersonality
Survey
Combat CMC ExperiencePersonality Type Data
• Soldiers with CMC/Combat experience are surveyed via internet • Personality Data – Independent Variable
•Education/Demographic Data – Independent Variable•Experiential Information with CMC – Dependent Variable
• Data obtained using single survey combining Insight-Discovery and Military-Computer Mediated Communications (M-CMC) surveys into one interface
• M-CMC gathers demographic and experiential data as to the subject’s CMC activities/experiences in combat
• Personality/Likert data stored in Mind-Stretch, Inc. (Insight-Discovery Company) servers and fed to the IDTA Tool for base analysis and display as ‘Insights Wheel’
• Textual information fed to Analysis Software for Word-based Records (AnSWR) and codified based on commonalities such as recurring themes, etc.
• Codified information compared to personality and demographic elements
AnSWRAnalysis
Tool
Insight-DiscoveryTeam Analysis
Tool
Text Data
Personality-LikertInformation
LikertData
Structured CommonAttributes
Study Data Development and Analysis Process
PersonalityData
Figure 6. Study data development and analysis process.
The Insights-Discovery System, which includes as a primary element the Insights-
Discovery survey, determined and categorized the participants’ personality typology,
which is the independent variable. The Insights-Discovery System codified data from the
survey, recorded it for analysis, and presented the information as a numeric value and as
a detailed report of the typology dynamic definitions for that participant. This study used
only the numeric value and codification structures.
A mixture Likert and open text survey of experiences and impressions of the
virtual environment and the soldier’s ability to operate therein measured the participant’s
efficacy within combat virtual domains, the dependent variable, codified by the AnSWR
92
analysis tool obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). AnSWR is an open source U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services validated software system for conducting and
coordinating large-scale analysis projects generally integrating qualitative and
quantitative research techniques. Comparing the information developed through the
AnSWR tool to similar text in the concomitant Wagner, Claxton, and Walters studies,
enables determination of similarity. Taken context within the Wagner, Claxton, and
Walters studies, the author was able to make a determination of applicability to this
study.
The personality instrument is the Insights-Discovery survey, validated by
Westminster University, London, England. The CMC decision making survey, entitled in
this study the M-CMCE survey, is an extensive adaptation of a previous virtual teaming
analysis study used with the permission of Wagner (see Appendix C), author of the
teaming analysis study, and reviewed by Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd. and their
U.S. affiliate, MindStretch, Inc.
Themes and textual information from the data utilize the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s AnSWR tool set to codify and analyze information to compare
CMC-based combat information processing and decision making experiences with
various personality types. AnSWR is a free text analysis tool designed to derive and
codify recurring themes and information.
Given supportive data and conclusions through the research, a theory of the
effects of CMC-based information processing and decision making may be determinable.
The researcher graphed relationships between personality types and the existence of
93
information indicative of successful virtual operations utilizing a data correlation tool
developed by Insights Learning and Development, Ltd. and Westminster University of
London, England. Insights Learning and Development, Ltds’ assistance, via their
American subsidiary, MindStretch Inc, in the analysis ensures accurate utilization of their
tool. The tool maps the relationship between individual typologies and their relationships
with others. The correlation tool then examines and maps the informational and
emotional needs of the related styles to identify gaps and strengths. The Insights
correlation tool, coupled with the codified structures determined within the AnSWR
model, permitted assessment of comparative relationships of these cognitive styles within
the military virtual structure.
The resultant sample proved to be of insufficient quantity for statistical analysis.
Therefore, the researcher utilized a comparative analysis with the Wagner, Claxton, and
Walters studies provided three additional data points for comparison. Comparative
analysis, defined by Pickvance (2001) “allows the study of variation in variables that are
controlled in a particular case to vary between the cases being compared” (p. 14). In this
research, the controlled variables were the societal aspect of a virtual environment and
relationship of personality to the subjects operating effectively within that environment.
What the comparison between the four studies accomplished was the development of a
quasi-random sample from four dissimilar points, each having similar results.
Informed Consent
The data collection process involved use of the internet. The first page of the data
survey web site contained a permission authorization statement explaining the purpose of
the study and the personality and CMC usage information. The permission authorization
94
also detailed the anonymity of the individuals involved, unless they agreed to participate
in follow-up contact interviews. Individuals could not continue unless they accepted the
requirement for authorization by checking the appropriate box on the screen. This process
ensured participation only by authorized individuals. A copy of the authorization
statement is in Appendix D.
Sampling Frame
The U.S. Army comprises the sample population. Specifically, the sample
contained, and was limited to, Army individuals who were involved in the utilization of
CMC in an actual combat environment. A second limitation required that the participant
hold a position involving decision making through the utilization of CMC systems. These
individuals included operations officers, commanding officers, and warrant officers in
leadership roles, and data analysts (i.e., intelligence personnel, operations support
personnel) who received, assessed, and provided processed information to the decision
maker through CMC technologies.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality protection occurred through the utilization of a third-party
organization with no interests or ties to the study. The organization MindStretch Inc.
assisted in developing the Internet survey instrument, ensuring the security of
participants, and gathering data. All identification given to the researcher regarding the
participants was through a random number assignment with no other identifying data.
The number related to a listing of the actual individuals held by MindStretch, Inc. that is
not releasable without participant authorization.
95
Data Collection
Data collection involved the utilization of an Internet-based survey tool
constructed by MindStretch, Inc. of Houston, Texas. MindStretch, Inc. collected and
collated the data and provided it to the researcher for analysis. The researcher then used
Microsoft Access and Excel, both products of Microsoft Corporation, to structure the
data and create appropriate reports for analysis.
AnSWR codified the textual information for analysis. AnSWR utilizes a
structured map of words to gather, collate, and analyze textual data to create maps of
similar comments and inputs, relating this information. AnSWR performs these tasks via
a mnemonic code of defined text. The code loads the text into a Microsoft Access
database for sorting and analysis.
As stated earlier, detailed statistical analysis of the data was inconclusive. The
sample size selected, 100 participants, doubled the calculated required sample size.
However, the minimum sample size based on power analysis is 49 (see Figure 7). There
were 23 usable individual respondents. Thus, hypothesis testing cannot yield sufficient
strength to avoid Type II error. Repeated attempts to increase the sample size failed, due
to the Army’s reluctance to approve sampling of a more appropriate body at the U.S.
Army Command and General Staff College. Therefore, the study utilized the comparative
analysis procedure discussed earlier, comparing the study results to non-combat virtual
studies conducted by Claxton (2004), Walters (2004), and Wagner (2002).
96
Figure 7. Sample Size Calculation (from http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm)
Instrument Selection Appropriateness and Reliability
Wagner’s (2002) approach involved a qualitative bidirectional data development
and analysis process involving breadth and depth. Wagner (2002) defined the breadth
process as selecting participants from a sample of organizations to complete a
questionnaire on demographics, situation, reactions, and issues. The depth domain
involved a series of random and selected interviews to delve into the personalities and
structures of the issues identified (Wagner, 2002).
This study utilized a quantitative bidirectional approach. A similar questionnaire,
developed and presented to the participants as an on-line survey, the Military CMC
Effectiveness Survey (M-CMCE), developed data of and insights into participant
experiences with virtual communications and teaming in a combat environment. The
survey design for the study utilized with Wagner’s permission, the Wagner Virtual
Teaming Communications Questionnaire as a baseline, adjusted specific data queries-
relevant to this study. The Insights-Discovery Personality Survey quantified participant
typologies. The Army currently uses and accepts the validity of the Insights-Discovery
Personality Survey and its evaluation methodology.
97
The depth domain for this study involved comparative reviews of the data and
findings with two additional researchers involved in personality related CMC studies
These individuals, Claxton (2004) and Walters (2004), conducted research into the
effects of personality on virtual team efficiency in the DOD (Claxton, 2004) and industry
(Walters, 2004). Associating the findings of these two studies established the appropriate
rigor to enable the development of conclusions.
The established tools, the M-CMCE and Insights-Discovery surveys, were the
primary tools for data development of this study. As stated in the design appropriateness
section above, the Insights-Discovery survey is an internationally validated and accepted
tool designed specifically for personality assessments and evaluation. The primary
determinate of selection of this tool was its acceptability for use by the U.S. Army for
analysis of personality aspects per the tool’s authors (Insights Learning and Discovery,
Ltd, 2006).
The M-CMCE survey development stemmed from the Wagner survey tool
utilizing the identical approach and structure, modified only to collect information on
CMC aspects in a military setting. The University of Southern California validated the
Wagner questionnaire in 2003 for use in Dr. Wagner’s successful dissertation. While the
M-CMCE survey utilized a survey format rather than an interview format, the
information elements were sufficiently similar to be acceptable.
Validity: Internal and External
Denzen and Lincoln (2000) identified five types of validity relevant to research:
(a) descriptive, (b) interpretive, (c) theoretical, (d) internal, and (e) external. This study
included an interpretive and descriptive analysis by tools validated through either detailed
98
peer review and university analysis (Insight-Discovery personality assessment tool set) or
approved tools utilized by other researchers, such as communications survey elements
derived from Wagner (2002) and used with Wagner’s permission (see Appendix C). The
researcher considered and utilized each of the five elements identified by Denzen and
Lincoln throughout the analysis. The survey tools provide descriptive and interpretive
data related to the Jung theoretical structures that have received extensive internal and
external validation research.
The M-CMCE questionnaire derives its validity from a review of the tool by two
groups of survey development experts. The first set of experts is the designers of the
Insight-Discovery model and personality researchers at Westminster University, London,
England. These two groups have been researching and validating personality and
cognitive research tools for the past 12 years. The two organizations have conducted
global validation studies of the Insight-Discovery Model over the past 10 years and have
provided their report as validation of that model for this study (Davies, 1998). Their
validation of the M-CMCE survey provides certification of its acceptability to the
academic community. The second validation expert set derives from the Wagner (2002)
virtual communications and interaction survey. Wagner’s original survey is the baseline
for the M-CMCE survey and validated by the University of Southern California. The only
additions to the Wagner survey are the elements designed to obtain data from military
personnel and to relate to specific military demographics.
Specific statistical validity studies for the Insight-Discovery tool are available for
review, as is a sample of a personality profile and analysis included in Appendix D. The
source of the validation is Westminster University, London, England. The university also
99
reviewed the current study’s communications survey instrument in April 2006 to validate
its usability.
Data Analysis
Some of the data was qualitative in nature. Such information contained structures
that suggested their own codification genotypes (Wagner, 2002). These genotypes
comprised the structure for tabulation and the primary and secondary keys or headings to
organize the tables.
Coding requires constant comparison among the data. Through this process codes
are refined, new codes emerge, and in some instances, codes are collapsed into a
single code of broader magnitude. The number of times a code is applied to the
data may be an indication of its importance, but a single instance is also sufficient
to suggest a category. (Glasser & Strauss, 1967, as cited in Wagner, 2002, p. 25)
The data analysis revealed commonalities of cognition during decision analysis,
typifying strengths and weaknesses, areas for unconscious intervention or subjugation of
mental processes, and other factors, as well as the effect on decision making. The
responses on the C-CMC survey was in Likert format with response ranges of 1 – 5; each
numeric value relating to a set of response possibilities directly associated to the question.
Appendix E contains the structure of the questions, the data derived, and the response
keys. The questions each contained a known value, the efficacy of face-to-face
communications, as a control. In the Wagner, Claxton, and Walters studies, face-to-face
communications consistently scored highest in terms of participant confidence of results.
Similar results obtained from this study are indicative of data validity.
100
Following the first stage of this study’s research, analysis of the CMC survey
results, particularly the textual elements, deeper elements of thought or a lack thereof by
the subjects when performing CMC-based operations appeared. Identification of data
indicative of such techniques; such as gut-feeling decision making, least costly
alternative, or other factors; indicated cognitive stress, turbulence, or subsumed
subconscious decision making events. Such situations constituted identifying areas for
deeper investigation. The investigation involved review of the comparison studies for
similar results. Where those results were, the researcher reviewed the factors and
conclusions of the studies to identify underlying causes. The information and, where
available, actual comments, input into the AnSWR tool, allowed for a determination of
commonality between the four studies.
Analysis of Personality-Type Approach
Figure 8 is an example of the output structure of the Insights-Discovery© tool
shown in chapter 4 as a major element of the analysis. Each element of the personality
structure contains a similar matrix, the compilation of which structures the totality of the
individual shown as Figure 9. The CMC survey constructed a comparative matrix
relatable to each individual personality structure. This matrix resulted in a ‘weighted’
ranking where specific personalities show identifiable levels of communications
efficiency. These personalities are assessed, again using the Insights-Discovery© profile,
discussed next, for particular traits that may relate to the performance aspects.
101
Figure 8. Insights-Discovery learning dynamics structure matrix. Note. From Insights
Learning and Discovery, Ltd. (2006). The Insights-Discovery System. Retrieved January
1, 2006, from http://www.insights.com/core/English/ TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm.
Reprinted with permission.
102
Figure 9. Insights-Discovery personality matrix compilation wheel. Note. From Insights
Learning and Discovery, Ltd. (2006). The Insights-Discovery System. Retrieved January
1, 2006, from http://www.insights.com/core/English/ TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm.
Reprinted with permission.
103
The Insights-Discovery process relates the matrix to an internationally validated
psychological profile (Insights Learning and Discovery, 2006). The profile derives from
the work of Jung in The archetypes and collective unconscious (Collected Works of C.J.
Jung, Vol. 9, Part 1) (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968) and has been validated through detailed
study by Westminster University, London, England (Lothian, 2002). The matrices do not
conform to a Likert-type or similar scale. Therefore, comparative analysis was the only
option for assessment. The comparison utilized the Insights matrix position as the
independent variable, matching participant perception of efficacy as the dependent
variable. Perception of efficacy, exposed in the textual responses of the participants,
related to both specific and implied determinations of frustration, success, and
determinations of potential improvement actions. Secondary elements were participants’
levels of education and virtual system experience.
Data Tabulation Procedures
Data developed during the survey and subsequent personal interviews suggested
the appropriate tabulation utilized in Chapter 4 for analysis. The AnSWR model groups
responses utilizing response commonalities while the survey instrument establishes
common traits. Specific headings establish the Chapter 4 primary elements for analysis.
Research Problems – Low Participation Rate
The researcher identified two sources of data for this study. Each source consisted
of military officers of warrant, major, lieutenant-colonel, and colonel rank having both
combat leadership and MCMC experience while in combat. The primary source of
subjects was initially to be the Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) in
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Gaining access to the CGSC student subjects required
104
obtaining permission from the U.S. Army. The Army denied permission to utilize the
CGSC population requiring conversion of effort to the secondary source.
The Army’s letter of denial explained that the soldier-students at CGSC exist as
the only population of veterans with current combat experience in the studied regions. As
such, these soldiers are required to participate in official Army studies as part of their
official duties. These official studies cost the soldiers time needed to complete their
professional development studies. Thus, study requests from collegiate investigators do
not receive priority or acceptance without compelling need. Even with support from
several Army commands, this study did not meet that requirement.
The alternate source of participants selected for this study involved similar
military veterans and retirees not in Army schooling. Selection was through a mix of
personal acquaintance, professional military associations, and recommendations of other
potential subjects by individuals from the first two groups. Subject availability was
limited to the set of individuals known to have the requisite experience with combat
environment military CMC systems.
The returns obtained were suggestive of initial interest in the CMC survey portion
of the study, followed by a waning of interest when asked to complete the personality
survey. Each individual providing CMC survey results, who did not also respond to the
personality survey, received reminders to complete the personality portion. A total of
eleven complied with the requests.
After a delay of three months and numerous attempts to obtain survey data
closure, the researcher decided to complete the study and include a recommendation for
additional experimental study as a primary element of this work. The study, by including
105
the previously discussed comparative analysis of the Wagner (2002), Walters (2004), and
Claxton (2005) studies, limited the impact of the low participation rate on the primary
study analysis.
Limitations of the Research
The research did not address relationships between new communication systems
and developing Army doctrine. The researcher did not seek to make comparisons
between past, current, and future doctrine, processes, or systems. Finally, the researcher
sought only to ascertain a rough order of merit concerning personality typology,
communication dissonance, and decision making, if it exists. Insufficient rigor exists
within the study construct to ascertain the degrees or depths of leadership impact at this
time and remains reserved for future work with the Army involving experimental model
and simulation development. This process establishes the approach and methodology for
the remainder of the study.
Summary
This chapter described the methodology of this study. The correlational
quantitative study assisted in evaluating the potential for degradation of decision making
capability and quality due to the impacts or effects of CMC technologies in a combat
environment. The proposed methodology includes descriptions of the proposed
hypotheses, variables, population, sample, data collection and analysis process, and
validity and reliability.
The results of the study were evaluated to examine the relationship between CMC
communications, human cognition, and personality types in decision making, and combat
stress conditions. The data and results will apply to other research regarding virtual
106
teaming behaviors and perhaps to other research measuring management conservatism
related CMC approaches to management. Chapter 4 contains the results of the study,
information derived from the results, and analysis of the information.
107
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The current quantitative study involved an exploration into the relationship of
individual’s personality to an individual’s perception of decision making efficacy in a
combat environment and to the ability of individuals to communicate effectively as part
of a virtual team in a combat environment. Chapter 1 included the problem and purpose
of the study, as well as limiting and delimiting factors. The use of virtual teaming, so
prolific in industry (Wagner, 2002; Walters, 2004), is expanding into the U.S. Army with
the advent of the FCS program and its reliance on the virtual structure of NCW
operations. Network centric warfare utilizes extensive CMC structures in place of more
traditional person-to-person command, leadership, and control interactions (Holloman,
2004). Thus, the problem for the study was the potential inability of certain types of
people to work efficiently in a virtual team environment.
The purpose of the current quantitative study was to examine the potential effects
of personality on individual perceptions of communications efficiency when using a
CMC structure in a combat environment. Understanding and substantiating the nature of
how an individual’s personality interacts with the communications process utilizing CMC
methods provide military engineers and analysts the data necessary to determine if
changes to the basic specifications of the new FCS systems and processes are required.
With this understanding, the Army can structure evaluation and training programs to
maximize individual capabilities to effectively operate in the battle command and control
environment of the future.
The literature examined and cited in chapter 2 depicted a direct linkage between
culture and personality. The literature also contained cited material demonstrating a direct
108
linkage between personality and language. Language is the means by which all
communications occur, both verbal and nonverbal (Allot, 2001). The development of
language within the human species, according to the multiple sources listed in chapter 2,
begins before birth and establishes itself so deeply into the human psyche that humans
desire and expect various nonverbal dynamics to accompany verbal communications and
substitute these expectations when they are not present (Burgoon et al., 2004). Humans,
due to the social and communicative behavior established by lifelong experiences,
generate deeply rooted cognitive expectations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Hale et al., 2005;
Scholl, 1981). Such cognitive expectations establish the basis for data analysis during the
decision making process (Burgoon & Hale; Mason, 2004). When a communicator does
not satisfy necessary cognitive expectations, the potential exists for misunderstanding and
miscommunication by the recipient of the message.
The absence of realized cognitive expectations reveals a major limitation in
virtual communications and virtual teaming (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). In situations of
high stress, the communications receiver expects a particular message based upon the
verbal and nonverbal cues presented by the sender. Combat, which involves the kill-or-
be-killed environment, is a high-stress environment. Bermudez et al. (2004), Goh (2004),
Halone and Pecchioni (2001), Hawkins (2002), and Higgins (2003) established that a
situation of missing cues is particularly prevalent in virtual teams due to the use of
electronic communications media. As the U.S. military is moving rapidly into the world
of CMC, the potential incidence of miscommunications due to psychological conditions
is likely to increase.
109
Description of Population and Data Development
Participants selected for the study were senior military personnel involved in
Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the Bosnian Peace Keeping Force.
The focus of the study was on individuals in positions at Brigade or higher levels of
military organization to ensure the participants’ utilization of CMC systems and decision
making authority for combat operations. A Brigade-level organization is one of the larger
military groupings containing approximately eight thousand soldiers. The individuals
working at Brigade and higher levels of command, a major element of the Army’s
hierarchy, have the requisite authority to plan, conduct, and evaluate military operations
and were the organizations equipped with CMC systems available to the Army during the
previously noted combat campaigns. One hundred potential participants received surveys
for the current discriminate factor quantitative study based upon wartime positions and
were requested to forward the surveys to others in similar positions.
The study involved two surveys. The first, the focused M-CMCE survey,
developed from Wagner’s (2002) virtual teaming analysis study, gathered demographic
and operational perception data on the participants’ use of CMC systems during combat
operations. The second was the Insights-Discovery survey discussed in chapter 3. The
two surveys involved a single web site instrument for ease of control and participant
access.
The Wagner survey involved a study on conflict management on international
virtual teams. Wagner researched design and manufacturing teams to investigate the
relationships of culture, virtual communications media, and the lack of interpersonal
110
relationships to perform and make critical decisions. Thus, the study utilizes M-CMCE
survey, modified, with Wagner’s permission, to address specific situations associated
with CMC decision making in a military environment (see Appendix A).
The Insight-Discovery survey established personality typology and psychosocial
information on each participant depicting Jungian typology values. The individual
typology values, compared to each participant’s responses on virtual communications
questions contained in the M-CMCE survey, related the individual’s perceptions of
efficiency. Some of the M-CMCE survey responses were textual, requiring the use of the
open-source AnSWR statistical analysis tool obtained from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Specific information on the permission affidavit is in Appendix
B. The permission affidavit signed by Wagner is contained in Appendix C.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data for perceived communications efficacy derived from the M-CMCE and
Insights-Discovery survey tool databases. The total number of M-CMCE survey
responses was 34 (N = 34). Data electronic erasure discarded unusable data due to non-
completion of the Insights-Discovery personality survey (N = 11). The actual, usable
population is 23 (N = 23). Microsoft Excel 2003 received the data for sorting and
analysis. No direct contact occurred with the participants by the researcher while
completing the surveys. All contact was by MindStretch, Inc.
Demographic Information
Based on the study demographics, 69% of the participants hold a master’s or
doctoral degree. Nearly 90% of the participants had advanced military schooling. Of this
percentage, 12% were in positions of command leadership and 57% were in principal
111
staff positions supporting the decision making process in high-level combat commands.
All participants had at least basic familiarity with and frequent use of current military
CMC systems, with 10% having daily or constant use during the Gulf War, Bosnian
Crisis, Afghanistan Conflict, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Figure 10 depicts some
demographic information focused on the availability and use of the military virtual
systems and the participants’ familiarity with such technology. In Figure 10, the
abbreviation Bde is the military Brigade organizational structure consisting of
approximately 6,000-8,000 soldiers and associated equipment.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Bde or AboveCommand Positions
ProgrammingExperience
Other CMC Experience
Figure 10. Participants’ demographic data.
Specific Findings
The examination of data involved a search for perceived communications efficacy
while in a combat environment. The following sections contain discussions of the
responses. In summary, all participants either agreed or strongly agreed that they were
better able to communicate instructions, orders, reports, and other critical data in face-to-
face meetings. Forty-one percent reported that communications utilizing graphics and
voice communications were of either low or moderate efficacy, whereas 59% agreed or
112
strongly agreed that this form of communication has similar capabilities as face-to-face
discussions.
When utilizing CMC tools such as Internet chat, e-mail, or a combination of tools,
approximately half of the respondents who indicated a moderate to strong dissatisfaction
with voice (radio or telephone) communications perceived they were only marginally
better able to communicate and arrive at accurate decisions using CMC without graphics.
However, 59% of respondents indicated significant communications improvement
utilizing specifically designed military CMC systems rather than standard chat or e-mail
processes. When asked if they were able to utilize the CMC system to outline and
question specific issues or information in situations of perceived misunderstanding or
miscommunications, 70% of participants indicated a moderate improvement in perceived
comprehension of the message content or meaning. The next section examines the
obtained data with respect to the specific research questions and hypotheses.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Questions
The quantitative study involved an examination into the relationship of
personality to virtual or CMC communications efficacy in combat environments. The
literature review revealed several issues that required study with respect to the topic of
CMC within the military environment and the ability of the soldier to perform leadership
functions in a virtual environment. The research questions for the study were as follows:
1. How is combat decision making altered by the information management and
leadership processes involved in the determination of the appropriate level(s) and type(s)
of information to process, pass, and include in the combat decision evaluation?
113
2. Does previous exposure to virtual environments, personality types, or
education have an impact on the ability of an individual to overcome any degradation of
communication present in a virtual communications environment?
3. What are the effects on individual cognitive processes in an environment
where normal and expected social interactions, such as face-to-face, sensorial, and other
nonverbal stimuli, experience degradation or are nonexistent?
4. How do the effects of expectation violation impact communications at all
levels?
5. When advanced CMC is considered or determined as suspect, what is the
impact on trustworthiness within the command team?
6. What results, positive or negative, do these effects have on the ability of
decision makers to lead their organizations in the high-stress environment of combat?
Hypotheses
H0: There exists no recognizable effect of personality in perceived work
efficiency from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment, nor can personality
be a predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
H1: There exists an observable effect of personality in perceived work efficiency
from utilized CMC systems within a combat environment; and personality can be a
predictor of efficiency in a virtual environment.
114
Findings and Data Analysis
Research Question 1: How is combat decision making altered by the information
management and leadership processes involved in the determination of the appropriate
level(s) and type(s) of information to process, pass, and include in the combat decision
evaluation
Indications exist in the respondents’ survey responses that changes were involved.
The passing of orders via CMC required follow-up with radio or telephonic contact with
each subordinate command to ensure proper understanding. A major element of the
required changes in communications perceived by the respondents involved trust, as
identified in many of the studies of CMC utilization in industry (Wagner, 2005). Wagner
established data showing the need for face-to-face activities to establish a personal
relationship among participants in virtual teams prior to the team performing with
appropriate efficiency. Walters (2004) specifically studied trust in virtual teams in 100
American companies and found that cognitive trust, trust in the team participants’ ability
to perform appropriate and accurate decision making, is the key in developing effective
virtual teams. Walters noted that the issue of trust falls into two specific domains: social
interactions and task-related efficiency. The first domain tracked with the data developed
for the current study with reference to the high-perceived efficacy from face-to-face
operations.
In Figures 11 and 12, the total population quantities display perceptions of strong
efficacy for understanding problems or missions communicated to them by superiors
during face-to-face discussions, and lower, yet still strong, perceptions utilizing the radio
or telephone, CMC without graphics, and CMC with graphics formats. However, the
115
combined population potentially hides a different trend. Figure 10 depicts a continuous
and steep decline in perceived efficacy for one set of respondents and a sharp increase
following an initial drop for a second grouping of respondents, which caused an
examination into the causal factors.
Utilizing AnSWR text analysis, the key phrases of the declining group, identified
in Figures 11-16 as the counter-median, included such words as lack of trust, uncertainty,
and feeling of inaccuracy when discussing utilization of military CMC systems. The
second grouping, identified as the focused mean in Figure 11, indicated a very strong
perception of CMC systems used in combat operations when the systems include various
graphics and decision support tools. Study participants utilized words such as accurate
depiction of data, rapid identification of trends, and trustworthy depiction of reality to
describe the experiences with the CMC systems in combat environments.
Decision-Making Capability
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w /oGraphics
Via CMCw /Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= Tota
l)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 11. Decision making efficacy perception.
116
Figure 12, which presents the ability to obtain required critical information from
subordinates, also depicts the trend to describe an increased perception of efficacy from
face-to-face to CMC with graphics following an initial decrease in the graphs associated
with purely voice methods. Individual respondents who recorded a high perceived
efficacy with full CMC systems in Figures 11 and 12 are the same individuals recording
high full CMC system perceived efficacy in Figures 13-16 as well. The relationship
between a high perceived efficacy for face-to-face and full CMC might indicate a trend of
associated capability beyond education, experience, or systems familiarity.
Understanding the Problem
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w /oGraphics
Via CMCw /Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= Tota
l)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 12. Understanding of the military problem.
117
Obtain Required Critical Information
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w /oGraphics
Via CMCw /Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= Tota
l)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 13. Ability to obtain required critical information.
Research Question 2: Does previous exposure to virtual environments, personality types,
or education have an impact on the ability of an individual to overcome any degradation
of communication present in a virtual communications environment
Demographic and experiential data reported in the chapter 4 demographics section
and Figure 9 revealed that the respondents had moderate to extensive experience with
CMC and other automated systems. A majority, 60%, were experienced programmers of
at least one language or operating system. The demographic data coupled with the data in
Figures 11 to 16 exhibited no apparent relationship between previous experience and
perception of efficacy with CMC systems. In each figure, face-to-face communications
ranked significantly more effective than all other forms. Notably, where the
communications originate with others and move to the respondent, there is a progression
of increased efficacy from radio or telephone to CMC with graphics. Where the
communications originate with the respondent, Figure 14, and then are transmitted to
118
others, perceived efficacy decreases continuously through the four means of
communications studied.
Research Question 3: What are the effects on individual cognitive processes in an
environment where normal and expected social interactions, such as face-to-face,
sensorial, and other nonverbal stimuli, experience degradation or are nonexistent
The literature included circumstances in which military individuals operating in
combat situations using a primarily CMC environment would switch from the CMC
system back to processes requiring face-to-face and radio or telephonic processes
(Wilson, 2005). Interviews with various military personnel revealed a feeling of being
overwhelmed with information forcing the users to adjust how they would look at data
and their methods for processing the information into usable intelligence. Wilson
concluded the fault lay in the level of trust the soldiers felt for the CMC systems in use
but not explain why. Figures 13 to 15 depict a relationship between some factor other
than education, experience, or system familiarity and perceived efficacy utilizing CMC
for standard cognitive process such as the ability to compose, transmit, and clarify
complex ideas and concepts.
As discussed in chapter 2, humans obtain feedback via sources other than
standard communications, such as nonverbal and visual cues. When these cues are
absent, as discussed in Burgoon et al. (2004)’s writing on expectation violation, the
individual may be unable to perceive the impact and clarity of his or her communications.
The correlation of Burgoon’s theory of expectation violation and the data in Figure 14,
regarding a respondent’s perception of efficacy, supports a conjecture that the respondent
perceives a miscommunication that may be either real or imagined, as there is no
119
feedback mechanism to determine the perception’s reality. The respondent attempts
further communications to clarify, which is again without expected feedback, potentially
resulting in decreased trust in the system, as depicted by the data in Figure 14.
Ability to Communicate with Superiors and Obtain Support/Agreement
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w /oGraphics
Via CMCw /Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= Tota
l)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 14. Ability to communicate efficiently with superiors.
Figure 14 also depicts an increase in perceived efficacy for the focused-median
group when not in the presence of superiors. The results show that in a face-to-face
encounter with a superior, the counter-median group perceives a very low efficacy level
in communications. The perceived efficacy increases slightly and stays at this increased
level, higher than the focus group, over the span of the methodologies. This is a focus of
comparison in the next section when personality types are included in the analysis.
The data in Figure 15 clearly demonstrate near equality in the respondents’
perceptions of their ability to clarify misperceptions and miscommunications in any
120
domain other than face-to-face. The data maintains a steady low perceived ability to
clarify misperceptions for both the focused-median and the counter-median groups up to
the point where full CMC systems indicate a rise in the focused-median group. The
counter-median group experiences a perceived decrease in efficacy. Further discussion
occurs in chapter 5.
Ability to Clarify Misperceptions/Miscommunications
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w /oGraphics
Via CMCw /Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= Tota
l)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 15. Ability to clarify misperceptions or miscommunications.
The data of Figure 16 depict a strong reliance on face-to-face for both the focused
mean and counter-median groups and only slight changes in the non-face-to-face
categories with the exception of the CMC with graphics (full CMC). Here, both CMC
without graphics and the full CMC experienced a rise in perceived efficacy, indicating a
trust in being able to communicate effectively especially when pictures of the concept are
included.
121
Ability to Communicate Significantly Complex Dynamics and/or Data
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Face-to-Face Via Radio/Tel Via CMC w/oGraphics
Via CMCw/Graphics
Agre
emen
t (0
= N
eith
er; 5
= T
otal
)
Population Median
Focused Median
Counter-Median
Figure 16. Ability to communicate significantly complex dynamics or data.
Research Question 4: How do the effects of expectation violation impact communications
at all levels
Considering Figures 14 to 16 again, supporting evidence indicates that when the
participant is involved in the transmission of information, perceived efficacy decreases
from the high of face-to-face communications as the results proceed through the other
methodologies of radio or telephone, CMC without graphics, and full CMC systems.
Focused research and experimentation may confirm this observation. Additionally, the
physical nature of combat, as addressed by Wesenstein, Belenky, and Balkin (2005, p.
99), is that the very cognitive aspects so necessary for efficient operation in a CMC
environment are the ones most stressed in the battlefield environment. When
experiencing such conditions, as discussed in chapter 2, the human brain automatically
122
reverts to known and accepted processes and expectations, conditions discussed in the
research of Burgoon and Hale (1988).
Research Question 5: When advanced CMC is considered or determined as suspect, what
is the impact on trustworthiness within the command team
The textual survey data did not establish specific information on Research
Question 5; however, the survey did develop information on the participants’ trust in the
systems utilized, whether telephonic or radio or CMC. Specific words identified when the
respondents discussed either trust, or the lack thereof, in the systems or the data the
systems exhibited. The respondents’ trust comments in the text do not equate to a lack of
or effect on team trust of each other, but only in the CMC systems. The data in Figures
11-16 indicate the tendency to revert to processes of greater trust to ensure personal
feelings of understanding on the part of the participant when communicating to others.
Yet, when others are communicating with the study’s participants, the data indicate
greater trust in self-understanding irrespective of the communications medium; see
Figures 14-16.
Research Question 6: What results, positive or negative, do these effects have on the
ability of decision makers to lead their organizations in the high-stress environment of
combat
The study data did not provide information on participants’ ability to lead.
Textual survey questions designed to solicit data of this type were either not answered or
did not contain information of sufficient clarity to include in the study. Had sample size
been greater or involved a greater cross-section of the military organization with specific
questions on perceived command efficacy at lower levels, the question may have been
123
addressed. However, examination of command efficacy was beyond the scope of the
study.
Personality Results
The results from the Insights-Discovery survey consisted of four identifying
colors or labels—red, green, yellow, and blue—which correlate to specific Jungian
personality typology functions or attributes described in Table 3. The functions or
attributes shown relate to personality characteristics, how individual participants display
the typology characteristics during personal interactions. Chapter 2 contains specific
information concerning the data in Table 3 and Jungian structure behind the color
dynamics.
Table 3
Insight-Discovery Color Dynamics
124
The issue of small sample size affects the analysis of personality as well as the
perception of efficacy. Of the 23 individuals responding to the M-CMCE survey, only
50% completed the personality survey. The data provided some projection of what might
occur with a larger sample; however, per analysis utilizing the MiniTab 15 tool, it is of
insufficient size to be valid for statistical analysis. Of the respondents on the M-CMCE
survey who responded with high-perceived efficacy, 7 also completed the personality
survey element.
A combination of Table 3 and Figure 17 indicates participants expressing a
perception of full CMC efficacy have primary personality functionality of thinking and
introverted, or what Insights-Discovery labels the Blue factor. Blue emerged as 31% of
the respondent structure. Blue individuals have primary personality traits of being highly
analytical and precise; however, others see Blue individuals as indecisive and prone to
focus on minutiae.
Focused Respondents Personality Structure
31%
23%
20%
26%
Blue
Green
Yellow
Red
Figure 17. Focused respondents’ personality structure summary.
125
Twenty-three percent of the respondents had thinking and extroverted, or Red,
tendencies. Individuals with a Red tendency have as their personality traits a value of
taking action, making decisions, and mental challenges. However, Red individuals
generally do not tolerate indecision in others or themselves (Jung et al., 1968). Red
individuals also have a high degree of confidence in their own abilities, but communicate
to others a degree of lack of trust that may not truly be a part of their personality
construct. Individuals having a score of Blue are analytical, precise, cautious, deliberate,
and others perceive this as indecisive (Jung et al.). Figure 17 depicts the results of the
color dynamics in a related scoring value for comparative analysis.
Of specific interest are the positions of the various result points in Figure 18. The
Insights Wheel segregates into the various typology color zones and further subdivided
into degrees of strength in three concentric circles. The closer the respondent scores are
toward the center of the graph, the lower the strength of the typology. Additionally, the
closer the respondent scores are toward one of the dividers, the greater is the focus of the
respondent to that typology subcategory. For example, the respondent scoring 35 on the
wheel is a primary Blue with strong observer tendencies, yet edges toward a reformer
attitude. The participant with a score of 36 is a strong Blue reformer. Each has specific
traits not part of the current study.
126
Figure 18. The Insights Wheel asterisk group. Note. Figure created expressly for the
current study and reprinted with the permission of Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd.
via MindStretch, Inc. Copyright 2008 by MindStretch, Inc.
Discussions with Insights-Discovery analysts revealed that what appear to be
outliers on this graph are, in fact, not (personal discussions with Amerman, 2008). The
coordinator/supporter structures reflect similar aspects to the other structures with the
primary differentiation being the coordinator/ supporter group represents introversion
127
rather than extraversion, which reflects a greater selection to attention on the preference
of sensing rather than thinking. Jung discussed that these preferences are focused
typologies or human differences (Jung et al., 1968). The Jungian typologies, when
combined, describe specific differences among people (Amerman, 2008). The
introversion typology focuses energy and attention inward (Jung et al., 1968). The inner
world is the real world, which determines the person’s behavior. The outer world is less
real, exerting less influence on behavior (Jung et al.).
The individual in the supporter, or Green, position focuses on introverted feeling
and shows more attention to others. A Green person has a need to observe others’ level of
honesty, available in face-to-face communications and not CMC. Confirmation of this
evaluation comes from the respondents’ textual survey responses. Participants scoring in
the Green typology revealed the need to observe which responses exist in the nonverbal
communication of others and a concern for ensuring the others’ complete understanding
of the message sent by the respondents. However, the respondents also discussed a
comfort with CMC systems not mentioned by participants scoring virtual systems lower.
The respondents’ comments may come from a high degree of experience and training in
the CMC systems not indicated in the limited Likert range of the M-CMCE survey.
Figure 19 contains the personality rankings for the respondents who registered
their perception of CMC efficacy as lower than face-to-face communications. Although
the rankings appear similar, the scorings show a typology strength difference. Figure 20
diagrams a reversal of strength in both the Blue (observer/reformer) scales as well as the
Red (reformer/director) scales in side-by-side depictions. The comparison demonstrates
the relationship between the two sets and the change in typology strengths. The lines
128
between the two charts are not depicting a change in scorings that are from the same
individuals, but are rather of different individuals from the two separated groups.
Figure 19. The Insights Wheel nonasterisk group. Note. Figure created expressly for the
current study and reprinted with the permission of Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd.
via MindStretch, Inc. Copyright 2008 by MindStretch, Inc.
129
Figure 20
. The
Insigh
ts W
heel non
asterisk
gro
up. N
ote. F
igur
e cr
eated ex
pres
sly fo
r the
cur
rent
stu
dy and
repr
inted with
the
perm
ission
of I
nsight
s Lea
rnin
g an
d Disco
very
, Ltd
. via M
indS
tretch
, Inc
. Cop
yrig
ht 200
8 by
Min
dStretch
, Inc
.
130
The rankings in Figure 20 reflect the respondent personality types where each
respondent is in a leadership or leadership staff position. Claxton (2004) focused on
participants in leadership or leadership staff positions within the U.S. DOD. Thus, the
relationship of the Blue and Red rankings indicate similar findings to the findings
discussed by Claxton (2004) in his dissertation involving personality types and leadership
roles in the U.S. DOD.
Claxton’s (2004) work utilized the Myers-Briggs methodology rather than
Insights-Discovery; however, both methodologies originate in the work of Jung. Claxton
found that 57% of his population ranked in the thinking/judging domain, which is similar
though not identical to the thinking/extrovert domain of the Insights-Discovery process
(pp. 94-98). Claxton establishes a caveat on his finding with a quote from Fitzgerald and
Kirby (1997), who noted that the Myers-Briggs thinking/judging domain was “an over
presentation when compared to the general population” (as cited in Claxton, p. 93).
According to Claxton, organizations prefer thinking and judging individuals in leadership
roles. Thus, personality surveys of leaders skew to the thinking/judging domain
(Claxton). The skewing tendency was also evident in the Insights-Discovery results for
the study respondents in the current study.
As in the current study, Claxton (2004) reviewed the data from several
personality-based studies of industrial leadership, comparing them to his study of military
leadership. Claxton concluded the “group sample mean level matched the norm values
showing that the overall leadership effectiveness was neither better nor worse than that of
managers in the [industrial] norm” (p. 123). The similarity of the results between the two
131
studies supports the contention of viability of the study data for combat environment
leaders. It is therefore appropriate to utilize Claxton’s results in comparison for
leadership relationships.
The importance of the developed data of the current study, and an issue not
considered by Claxton (2004), is the strength of the rankings. There are four zones or
circles within the Insights Wheel. The further toward the outer circle, the more embedded
in the category the respondent lies, and the less the secondary personality preference
influences behavior. Conversely, the nearer the center, the stronger the relationship
between the types the personality becomes (Amerman, 2008). Thus, while the current
study both supports and is supported by Claxton’s work, the aspect of the general nature
of personality types of individuals in leadership positions becomes non sequitur as it is a
constant. The important aspect is the change in strength within the domains. Further
research with a larger participant base is necessary to confirm this conclusion.
Additionally, expanding the participant base to nonleadership roles may correct any
possible bias.
Conclusion
Chapter 4 depicted the findings and data developed during the study. The chapter
presented evidence potentially sufficient to reject the null hypothesis that no influence of
personality exists on the communications efficacy of a virtual CMC structure used in a
combat environment, thus indicating that such an influence exists. Further, the apparent
influence of individual personality is sufficient to justify additional, experimental
research. Chapter 5 contains conclusions, implications, and recommendations resulting
from the findings presented in chapter 4 for further research.
132
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the current quantitative comparative study was to explore the
potential of measuring the effect of personality on the perceived ability of military
leaders to communicate and make decisions in combat environments when utilizing
virtual systems. The research involved the incorporation of a set of survey tools to
develop data and then included a comparison of these data with three other studies
involving virtual teaming, personality influences on military leadership in noncombat
environments, and trust in perceived virtual team effectiveness. The three studies,
conducted by Claxton (2004), Wagner (2002), and Walters (2004), do not constitute the
developed data. The studies are strictly points of comparison during the analysis
processes that provide contrast to the developed data of chapter 4.
The survey participants were military officers in command positions during
combat operations who utilized virtual communications systems during their decision
making activities. The researcher identified and contacted one hundred officers with
combat experience between 1995 and 2005, 23 of who provided usable data. The data
provided through the M-CMCE survey responses identified the officers’ perceived
decision making efficacy when utilizing CMC systems in combat. Additionally, the
officers completed the Insights-Discovery survey, a structured personality test that
identified the respondents’ baseline Jungian typology. The two surveys provided the basis
for the study.
Importance of the Study
The study importance derived from the fact that
133
The United States Army exists to serve the American people, to protect enduring
national interests and to fulfill national military responsibilities. To achieve its
mission, the Army is providing the Joint Force with capabilities required to
prevail in the protracted Global War on Terror and sustain the full range of its
global commitments. At the same time, the Army is undergoing one of its most
profound transformations since World War II. Army Transformation [the FCS
program] will meet the needs of Joint Force Commanders today and tomorrow, by
providing a campaign-quality Army with joint and expeditionary capabilities.
(U.S. Army, 2005, ¶ 1)
The FCS program under development by the U.S. Army involves a search to
provide the tools U.S. troops need before the next major war. The FCS structure relies
upon systems primarily based upon electronic networks and virtual CMC. This new
military structure is designed to enable soldiers at all levels to understand the military
situation and communicate conditions and requirements through networked CMC
systems and to respond rapidly and decisively (Alberts et al., 1999). However, limitations
exist in CMC-based systems.
Computer-mediated communications systems limit a basic element of
communications, which is the ability to observe visibly the parties involved in
communication and obtain nonverbal inputs. The current study included an examination
into the potential influence on decision making due to the absence of direct observation
and nonverbal inputs. The study also included an examination into why the effect is less
on some individuals than on others in the same environment. The final chapter includes a
summary of the findings of the study based upon the interpretation of the data contained
134
in chapter 4. Chapter 5 also contains recommendations for future U.S. Army research in
the FCS training program and as a means to establish measurement methodologies for
virtual system human–machine interface efficacy.
Conclusions
Insufficient survey data occurred from the study to statistically accept or reject the
hypotheses or to specifically answer the research questions due to the small respondent
sample size (N = 23). However, sufficient qualitative information provided through the
examination of the Claxton (2004), Wagner (2002), and Walters (2004) studies, when
contrasted with the combat-based quantitative data of the current study, exists to establish
the necessary answers to the research questions. These answers, in turn, provide
justification for supporting the tentative rejection of the null hypothesis and acceptance of
the primary study hypothesis. The study conclusion is that personality typology may
influence decision making efficacy of individuals utilizing CMC systems in combat
environments. From this conclusion, the identification of three specific elements as likely
influencing factors was possible: strength of individual personality typology, trust, and
cognitive expectation.
Strength of Individual Personality Typology
The results shown in Figure 16 and specifically compared to the demographics
from Figure 11 show the participants were all familiar with CMC systems, yet perceived
greater confidence with face-to-face processes. The survey data shown in Figures 12-16
identified a measurable perception of communication efficacy and gave a descriptor of
the method of transmission of information. The perceptions of efficacy also show a
measurable difference between two distinct sets of participants. Both participant sets
135
show a high perception of efficacy when utilizing face-to-face communications
methodologies.
When the use of fully capable CMC systems, identified as CMC with full
graphics, was under consideration, one set of the respondents recorded increased
perceptions of efficacy while the other set did not. The divergence in perception did not
derive from differences in the respondents’ education, virtual system experience,
knowledge of information technology systems, or level of authority while in combat
environments. Rather, the respondents’ data revealed nearly identical demographics. The
most likely remaining element of influence, as derived from the data, is individual
typology.
A comparison of personality data from both the current study’s Insights-
Discovery survey results and the Claxton (2004) study’s results revealed the individual
typology conclusion appears the most likely factor influencing the perception divergence.
More accurately, the data indicate the possibility that the strength of the personality
typology may be the primary influence. The current study and the Claxton (2004) study
revealed the identification of very similar personality typologies for individuals in
leadership positions, varying primarily in the intensity or strength of the typology.
Supporting evidence of the possibility that typology strength might be a critical variable
in CMC decision making efficacy. The M-CMCE survey participant textual responses,
which included verbiage indicative of experiences directly tied to the respondent’s
perception scores, such as a need for visual cues for those scoring CMC system efficacy
low and the disassociation of these cue requirements for those scoring CMC system
efficacy high, provided further support for this conclusion.
136
Therefore, given the similar results of the Claxton (2004) study and the current
study, the conclusion may be drawn that a relationship exists between personality
typology strength and decision making. However, the Claxton study provides only one
additional data point. Comparing specific combat-related decision making efficacy data
utilizing virtual systems and the Walters (2004) and Wagner (2002) studies provided
more information of a similar nature. The Walters study related trust and personality to
industrial virtual team decision making efficacy, whereas Wagner examined trust and
culture in international virtual teams. The results of the Walters and Wagner studies,
contrasted with the Claxton study and the current study, provide strong additional support
for acceptance of the primary hypothesis. The following sections include discussions and
comparisons of the Walters and Wagner studies.
Two primary constraints for both the Claxton study and the current study involve
limited participation and the requirement for more detailed data. Therefore, the
recommendation is for the U.S. Army to initiate an in-depth study to determine the
degree to which personality typology in virtual environments influences performance.
Such a study, utilizing attendees at the Command and General Staff College and the
Army War College, coupled with a constructed experiment utilizing FCS trained
personnel and FCS equipment at the Future Force Integration Directorate location in Ft.
Bliss, Texas, may ascertain specific divergences and establish a means to influence the
dynamics positively.
Such a comparative analysis of individual combat virtual system experiences from
Army college attendees to a structured experiment utilizing the FCS CMC systems
should confirm the primary hypothesis. Given the limited participation for both the
137
Claxton study and the current study, utilizing the military colleges would increase the
relative sample and resulting return to over 1,000 participants, thus establishing statistical
validity and rigor. Once confirmed, a solid theory for construction of a virtual system-
training program for U.S. Army personnel may be available to provide appropriate
systems training to those who utilize FCS CMC systems.
Moreover, as the Claxton (2004) study methodology and personality tool base and
the current study’s methodology and tool base are sufficiently similar for close
comparison, the similarities of the study results further support the concept that specific
leadership personality relationships are a possible constant. The theory possibility,
therefore, is that a relationship exists between personality strength and communications
clarity within a CMC structure in a combat environment. Given the researched
relationship between both personality and communications clarity and decision making,
there exists a potential relationship between personality and decision making efficacy
when utilizing CMC systems within a combat environment. The study, therefore,
supports the potential for rejection of the null hypothesis and support for the acceptance
of the primary hypothesis. However, more study with detailed experimental construction
is necessary prior to finalizing this conclusion.
Trust
Although the current study’s methodology was limited to typologies, some of the
developed data addressed the issue of trust. The trust issue developed from the M-CMCE
survey data focuses on two primary domains: trust of the information arriving through the
CMC systems and the participants’ trust of their own ability to communicate effectively
via CMC systems. The M-CMCE survey was constructed to develop data on decision
138
making efficacy, not individual trust issues such as addressed in the Wagner (2002) and
Walters (2004) studies. However, comparisons with the Wagner and Walters studies
resulted in information similar to the two trust domains identified in the current study’s
data.
Wagner (2002) identified correlations in the importance or risk associated with a
specific communication message and the communications technology utilized. The nature
of the issue open for discussion by the virtual team members, according to Wagner, is a
key to the technology the teams chose to use. Walters (2004) concluded that the less
confidence or trust in the team, the sensitive or personal nature of the message, or its
possible negative reception, the more likely an individual is to select a lower technology
such as e-mail. If the message is of high importance or requires verification of
understanding, is volatile, or is of high criticality, the team member is more likely to
select a face-to-face meeting or visual technology. When trust relationships are high,
advanced technology receives primary selection (Walters).
Walters (2004) also focused on individual trust in cognitive activities such as
decision making. A primary finding by Walters (2004) indicated a greater basis of virtual
team individual trust in the cognitive nature of the team member than in the individual’s
experience or institutional position. The cognitive nature of the team member finding
closely links to individual perception of team efficacy (Walters). Walters noted that
individuals who preferred to work on virtual teams had statistically significantly higher
trust in the virtual nature and ability of the team members, indicating a concurrent trust in
the technology utilized as well as the individuals involved as an element of the
individual’s typology (Walters).
139
The developed data and conclusions contained in the Walters (2004) study are
similar to the data developed in the current study. Specifically, M-CMCE survey text and
Likert score data indicated an enhanced trust in the CMC systems by participants scoring
CMC system use high. Simultaneously, the M-CMCE survey participants scoring CMC
system perceived efficacy low likewise expressed low trust in both the systems and team
members. Thus, a comparison with the Walters study also supported acceptance of the
current study’s primary hypothesis.
Cognitive Expectation
A key factor in the current study’s conclusion had a basis in the individual’s
nature to rely upon experiences and cultural dynamics to establish expectations of which
verbal and nonverbal inputs are cognitively necessary to formulate decisions. These
expectations, when violated through their absence, result in the brain substituting
potentially inappropriate memories for missing data points. A similar occurrence exists in
the psychology rubric in which a participant reads a paragraph from which all vowels are
removed. Because the cognitive expectation has the vowels present, the brain inserts the
absent vowels, enabling the reader to understand the paragraph.
The M-CMCE survey data supported the premise of the individual’s need to
revert to familiar mental processes due to the emotional comfort the processes provide.
The support derives from the participant statements expressing the desire for face-to-face
communications in sensitive situations and the participants’ simultaneous low scoring of
CMC system perceived efficacy. Such reversion to familiar mental processes is the basis
for the expectation violation theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Burgoon and Hale
determined that, when faced with the absence of specific, required inputs, an individual
140
experiences increased stress and cognitive disassociation. At this point, the data appear to
support the concept of expectation violation as a factor in CMC perceived efficacy, at
least when the perception measurement originates with the participant in the message
sender’s perspective.
Comparison with the Wagner (2002), Claxton (2004), and Walters (2004) studies
again supported the conclusion that expectation violation may constitute a primary factor
in the observed participants’ perception differences. As stated in the Trust section,
Wagner (2002) found that participants’ perception of cognitive efficacy on the part of
team members was a key to the participants’ selection of virtual team involvement.
Wagner (p. 47) quoted Lewis and Weigert (1985), noting, “We cognitively choose whom
we will trust in what respects and under what circumstances, and we base the choice on
what we take to be ‘good reasons’ constituting evidence of trustworthiness (p. 969).” A
cognitive choice creates an expectation as the choice derives from “what we take to be
‘good reasons’” (Lewis & Weigert, as cited in Wagner, p. 47). These reasons derive from
experience, a key element in Burgoon’s theory of expectation violation (Burgoon & Hale,
1998). Violation of what the individual considers a good reason results in stress and
cognitive dissonance.
Therefore, the conclusion of the current study, based on available survey data and
the exegetic information, is that personality typology may directly influence perceived
CMC and decision making efficacy, particularly in the highly stressful environment of
combat conditions. Additionally, there is sufficient information present to hypothesize a
direct relationship in typology strength and degree of individual reliance upon previous
141
experiences and decision making efficacy based upon expectation violation in virtual
CMC environments.
Possible Areas of Improvement and Future Study
Had the researcher obtained permission from the U.S. Army to survey the class
present at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College as requested, the sample
size would have been increased to approximately 900 with a concomitant increase in the
return rate. The researcher intends to present the current findings to senior members of
TRADOC via the Director of the Future Force Integration Division (FFID) located at
Fort Bliss, Texas, to identify a champion for expansion of the study. Definitive
confirmation of the conclusion requires a cooperative study with the U.S. Army FFID
field laboratory during the training, development, and fielding of the FCS organization
and equipment.
Based on the conclusions of the study, there exists the potential for varying
degrees of actual efficacy of soldiers assigned to the virtual CMC-reliant positions of
leadership within the developing FCS Brigade Combat Teams. As stated earlier in the
study, the U.S. Army investments in CMC-reliant systems demonstrate the Army’s focus
on developing and fielding such systems as the primary means of future combat
command and control. Other countries, specifically Great Britain, France, and Australia,
are now investigating and budgeting for similar resources as evidenced by recent
cooperation and contracted efforts between the FFID, the system developers, and the
military commands of these nations. Thus, the requirement to understand the full
ramifications of this technology when linked to a human environment becomes vital for
both defense and industrial domains.
142
Recommendations
Additional study and controlled experimentation within the basis of the virtual
network, intelligence, command and control, and physical equipment structures may
likely result in information allowing the U.S. Army to structure training and behavior
enhancement education to maximize virtual performance capabilities. Initially, this
experimentation may be used to identify appropriate personnel for key FCS Brigade
Combat Teams leadership and training positions. The inherent confidence with virtual
CMC systems such trained individuals display may likely reinforce the performance
confidence of their subordinates.
Summary
The current qualitative study involved research and exploration into the
relationship between individual personality and decision making efficacy when using
virtual CMC systems while engaged in a combat environment. The framework indicated
that an individual’s personality influenced his or her ability to understand, transmit, and
interpret information passed primarily through virtual means. Literature research
established the relationship between language, culture, neurological development, and
personality development. Literature research further identified several theories of
personal interaction that potentially affected how personality aspects reveal themselves in
the decision making process. Although gross personality types were shown to be similar,
the strength of the personality type, or, rather, the degree to which the individual utilized
the attributes of that type, demonstrates sufficient variance to be a causal variable.
Chapter 5 concludes the research study. The findings revealed sufficient evidence
to justify further experimental investigation into the dynamics utilizing the methodology
143
developed for the study. It is recommended that the U.S. Army enable suitable research
on the subject of personality influences on CMC efficacy as researched in this study to
minimize potential issues in the integration of soldiers into a strong virtual command and
control environment and maximize the strengths of the technology for the good of the
U.S. Army.
144
REFERENCES
1st Armored Division (2008). Retrieved from http://www.1ad.army.mil/ on February 24,
2008
Alberts, D. S. (1996). The unintended consequences of information age technologies.
Washington, DC: National Defense University.
Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., Hayes, R. E., & Signori, D.A. (2001). Understanding
information age warfare. Washington, DC: National Defense University.
Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). Network centric warfare: Developing
and leveraging information superiority (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National
Defense University.
Aldridge, J. W. (2001). A multidimensional model for building knowledge assets:
Applying socio-technical systems to online action research. Santa Barbara, CA:
Fielding Graduate Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from the EBSCO
database.
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions. (2005). Retrieved March 13, 2005,
from http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_communications.html
Allot, R. (2001). The physical foundation of language. Hebworth, UK: Able. Retrieved
on June 10, 2005 from http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/hypothesis.htm.
American Neurological Association. (2006). Retrieved on January 2, 2006 from
http://www.aneuroa.org/
Amerman, L. (2008). The structure of Jungian psychology. Houston, TX: MindStretch.
145
Anderson-Rudisill, K. C. (2005). The effect of aikido training on computer-mediated
communication between virtual teams. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Phoenix. (UMI No. 921020171)
Barnett, T. P. M. (2005). The Pentagon’s new map: War and peace in the twenty-first
century. New York: Putnam and Sons.
Baylor College of Medicine (2004). Seminar on Neurological Processing.
Bermudez, J., Westenskow, D., Foresti, D., Strayer, D., Agutter, J., Syroid, N., et al.
(2004). Visual representation of integrated physiological data. Retrieved March
12, 2005, from http://faculty.arch.utah.edu/people/faculty/julio/res.htm
Bissoonauth, B. (2002). Virtual project work: Investigating critical success factors of
virtual project performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, Concordia University.
(UMI No. 0-612-77952-1)
Boudreau, M., Loch, K. D., Robey, D., & Straud, D. (1998). Going global: Using
information technology to advance the competitiveness of the virtual transnational
organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120-128. Retrieved
November 28, 2005, from EBSCOhost.
Bridgland, M. F., & Watro, R. J. (1987). Fault-tolerant decision making in totally
asynchronous distributed systems. Bedford, MA: MITRE. Retrieved December
10, 2004, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=41845
Brown, M. (2004, June 15-17). Rapid knowledge formation in an information rich
environment. Paper presented at the DODCRTS Symposium, San Diego, CA.
Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/
CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
146
Buchanan, J., & Kock, N. (2000). Information overload: A decision making perspective
(MCDM2000). Retrieved February 18, 2005, from
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/mnss/john/iomcdm2000_1.pdf
Buckoltz, A. (2001). Moltke and the German Wars, 1864-1871 (European History in
Perspective). New York: Palgrave.
Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication
Theory, 6, 203-242.
Burgoon, J. K. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. Journal of Social
Issues, 105-128. Retrieved October 1, 2004, from
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0342/is_1_56/ai_63716504
Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., Kruse, J., Jensen, M. L., Meservy, T., Twitchell, D. P., et al.
(2005). An approach for intent identification by building on deception detection.
Retrieved December 18, 2005, from
http://cbim.rutgers.edu/papers/Hawaii2_2005.pdf#search=%22Effects%20of%20
Communications%20Modality%20on%20Arousal%2C%20Cognitive%20Comple
xity%2C%20Behavioral%20Control%20and%20Deception%20Detection%20Dur
ing%20Deceptive%20Episodes%22
Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Moyer, F. (2003, November 19-23) Effects of
communications modality on arousal, cognitive complexity, behavioral control
and deception detection during deceptive episodes. Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami, FL.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration
and application to immediacy behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
147
Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal
communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G., & Dawson, E. J. (1994). Human communication.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burgoon, M., & Ruffner, M. (1978). Human communication. New York: Holt Rinehart
and Winston.
Caldwell, B. S., & Everhart, N. C. (1998). Information flow and development of
coordination in distributed supervisory control teams. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 51-70.
Campo, S., Cameron, K. A., Broussard, D., & Frazier, M. S. (2002, November 11).
Social norms and expectancy violation theories: Assessing the effectiveness of
health communication campaigns. Poster session presented at the annual meeting
of the American Public Health Association, Ithaca, NY.
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method
evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
Retrieved February 20, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-
3737%28199322%2915%3A2%3C195%3ADASFME%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
1&size=SMALL
Card, S. K., Hutchins, S., & Pirolli, P. (2003, May 15-17). Use of critical analysis method
to conduct a cognitive task analysis of intelligence analysts. Presented at the 6th
International Conference on Naturalistic Decision making, Pensacola Beach, FL.
Carson, B. (2005). Avoiding Abilene: Breaking Out of Groupthink. Unpublished Paper
Georgetown University. Washington DC.
148
Cebrowski, A. (2003, January). Untitled Speech to Network Centric Warfare 2003
Conference. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.oft.osd.mil
Chen, P., Gori, R., & Pozgay, A. (2004, June). Systems and capability relation
management in defense systems-of-systems context. Paper presented at the
DODCCRTS Symposium, San Diego, CA.
Cho, H. K. (2004). The impacts of Delphi communication structure on small and medium
sized asynchronous virtual teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Jersey
Institute of Technology. (UMI No. 3177232)
Clausen, H. C., & Lee, B. (2001). Pearl Harbor: Final judgement. Cambridge, MA: Da
Capo Press.
Claxton, J. D. (2004). An Examination of Personality Type Dominating Leadership
Positions in Department of Defense Program Management. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California (UMI No. 3140458).
Comadena, M. A. (1990). Book reviews. [Review of the books Nonverbal
communications: The unspoken dialogue; Nonverbal communications: Studies
and applications (2nd ed.); and The nonverbal communication reader].
Communication Education, 38, 161.
Command and Control Research and Technology Organization. (2006). Retrieved
November 22, 2006, from http://www.dodccrp.org/
Cooper, J. (2004, October 7). Vicarious cognitive dissonance: Attitude change based on
someone else’s behavior [Lecture]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Cueni, T., & Seiz, M. (1999). Virtual organizations: The next economic revolution?
Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://www.nubix.ch/vo/virtual.pdf
149
Darwin, C. (1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals (Reprinted).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Defense Acquisition and Research Product Agency. (2005). Future combat systems.
Retrieved March 6, 2005, from http://www.darpa.mil/tto/PROGRAMS/ fcs.html
Denzen, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Saussure, F. (1993). Third course of lectures on general linguistics (1910-1911).
London: Pergamon Press
Dickson, M. W., BeShears, R. S., & Gupta, B. (2004). The impact of societal culture and
industry on organizational culture. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dobrow, M. J. (2003). Context-based evidence-based decision making case study
evidence utilization in the development of cancer screening policy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (UMI No.
765681241)
Donath, J. (2004). Being real. In K. Goldberg (Ed.), The robot in the garden:
Telerobotics and telepistemology in the age of the Internet. Boston:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Retrieved on October 19, 2005 from
http://duplox.wz-berlin.de/docs/panel/judith.html.
Dunn, C., Powell, G., Martin, C., Hamilton, M., & Pangle, C. (2004, June 15-17).
Information superiority/battle command (Network Centric Warfare Environment).
U.S. Army Battle Command Battle Laboratory, DODCRTS Symposium, San
150
Diego, CA. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/
2004/CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Firth, D. R. (2003). Supply of information into, search for information within, and use of
information from information technology-based organizational memory systems.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. (UMI
No. 765684231)
Foley, R. T., & McCartney, H. B. (2006). The Somme: An eyewitness history. London:
Folio Society.
Fontenot, G., Degen, E. J., & Tohn, D. (2004). On point: The United States Army in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Lessons
Learned.
Ford, D., & Chan, Y. (2002). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural setting: A case
study. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from http://business.queensu.ca/
knowledge/workingpapers/abstracts/abstract_02_09.htm
Future Combat System: About the FCS program. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2005
from http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/fcs/bia/index.html.
Gadanho, S. C., & Custodio, L. (2002). Asynchronous learning by emotions and
cognition. Lisbon, Portugal: Institute of Systems and Robotics. Retrieved
November 28, 2004, from http://omni.isr.ist.utl.pt/~sandra/papers/
Gadanho_sab02.pdf
151
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G., Alcordo, T. C., Ahanassiou, N. A., Baba, M. L.,
Blackburn, R., et al. (2003). Virtual teams that work. Jossey-Bass Business and
Management Series. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Goh, K. (2004). The role of cognition and emotion regulation in conflict: A study of the
impact on organizational and virtual teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California. (UMI No. 3145203)
Griffin, E., McClish, G., & Bacon, J. (2003). A first look at communication theory.
Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2004). Global strategy and organization. New York:
Wiley.
Hale, J. L., Burgoon, J. K., & Householder, B. (2005). The relational communication
scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical
model. Communications Reports, 14, 1-4.
Hawkins, D. R. (2002). Power vs. force: The hidden determinants of human behavior.
Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.
Henderson, E. D. (1999). Model for adaptive decision making behavior of distributed
hierarchical teams under high temporal workload. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. (UMI No. 733980671)
Heylighen F., Joslyn, C., & Turchin V. (Eds.). (1995). The quantum of evolution. World
Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 45, 1-4.
152
Higgins, M. A. (2003). Persuasion, pitch and presentation: The effects of information
style on individual decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Arizona, Tucson. (UMI No. 765028771)
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions.
New York: Wiley
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollingshead, A.B., & McGrath, J.E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review
of the empirical research. In I.L. Goldstein (Ed.), Team Effectiveness and
Decision making in Organizations. 46-78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Holloman, K. (2004, January 20). The network centric operations conceptual framework.
Presentation at the Network Centric Warfare 2004 Conference, Washington, DC.
Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/
library.cfm?libcol= 2
Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd. (2006). The Insights-Discovery© System.
Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://www.insights.com/core/English/
TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm
Jang, C. Y. (2003). Awareness in global virtual teams: Its antecedents and implications.
Lansing: Michigan State University. (UMI No. 3115982)
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual
teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4). Retrieved July 25,
2004, from www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html
153
Jensen, M. L., Meservy, T. O., Kruse, J., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2005).
Lessons learned from developing systems to automatically detect deception in
various modalities. The Business Review, Cambridge, 4, 37-43. Retrieved
September 10, 2005, from the ProQuest database.
Jung, C. J., Adler, G., & Hull, R. F. C. (1968). The archetypes and collective unconscious
(Collected Works of C.J. Jung, Vol. 9, Part 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2005). Dynamic Nature of Trust in Virtual Teams.
Retrieved on March 12, 2006 from http://sprouts.case.edu/2002/020204.pdf
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual
Reviews in Psychology, 55, 623-655.
Kim, Y. (2001). A comparative study of the “Abilene paradox” and “Groupthink.” Public
Administration Quarterly, 25, 168-190.
Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. Human
Communication Research Series. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kring, J. P. (2004). Communication modality and after action review performance in a
distributed immersive virtual environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Central Florida, Orlando. (UMI No. 862908891)
Lane, D. R. (n.d.). Function and impact of nonverbal communication in a computer
mediated communication context: An investigation of defining issues. Retrieved
February 18, 2005, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/techno/nvcmc.htm
154
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95735570
Laszlo, V. S. de (Ed). (1990). The basic writings of C.G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Lee, J. (1999). Leader-member exchange, gender, and member’s communication
expectations with leaders. Communications Quarterly, 47(4). Retrieved
September 17, 2004, from the Questia database.
Lothian, A. (2002). Statistical validity and reliability. Dundee, Scotland: Insights, Inc.
Lussier, C. M. (2002). Does dynamic assessment reduce the influence of stress on
memory and reasoning. Unpublished document, University of California-
Riverside. Retrieved September 3, 2004, from
http://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.html
Mahoney, M. (2003, January 13). The subconscious mind of the consumer (and how to
reach it). Harvard Business School Weekly Publication. Retrieved March 14,
2005, from http://www.olsonzaltman.com/oza/NEWS/WorkingKnowledge.htm
Malaspina, D., & Coleman, E. (2003). Olfaction and social drive in schizophrenia.
Archive of General Psychiatry, 60, 578-584. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from
www.archgenpsychiatry.com
Mason, L. G. (2004). Emotional intelligence: An interview study of three female
administrators’ decision making processes in response to contemporary issues.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (UMI No.
3129191)
155
Maxwell, J.S. (2006). Emotion-Related Asymmetries and Individual Differences in
Cognition and Behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin (UMI
No. 3234721)
McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, R. P.
(2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks.
Neuron, 44, 379-387. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from
http://www.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/articles/Read/McClureLi2004.pdf
McPhee, R., & Cushman, D. P. (1980). Message-attitude-behavior relationship: Theory,
methodology and application. Human Communication Research Series. New
York: Academic Press. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from the ProQuest
database.
Miller, N. L., & Shattuck, L. G. (2006). A dynamic process model for the design and
assessment of network centric systems. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate
School.
Moffat, J. (2003). Complexity theory and network centric warfare. Washington, DC:
National Defense University.
Monge, P. R., & Cappella, J. N. (1979). Multivariate techniques in human
communication research. New York: Academic Press.
Moser, P. K., & Vander Nat, A. (2003). Human knowledge: Classical and contemporary
approaches. New York: Oxford University Press
Mulder A.G.E. (2000). Trends in Gestural Control of Music, Marcelo Wanderley and
Marc Battier (eds.), Paris, France
156
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (1996, February). Hand
gestures for HCI: Research on human movement behavior reviewed in the context
of hand centered input. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.cs.sfu.ca/
people/ResearchStaff/amulder/personal/vmi/HCI-gestures.htm
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
(5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Nimon, H. I. (2004). Issues and requirements for information processing modeling within
the scenarios and wargaming group (White paper). Huntington Beach, CA:
Boeing.
Phister, P., & Plonish, I. (2004, June 15-17). Information and knowledge centric warfare:
The next steps in the evolution of warfare. Paper presented at the DODCRTS
Symposium, San Diego, CA. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
Pidd, M., Mackenzie, A., Rooksby, J., Sommerville, I., Warren, I., & Westcombe, M.
(2003). Wisdom, decision support and paradigms of decision making. Lancaster,
England: Lancaster University. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from the ProQuest
database.
Powell, G. (2004, June 15-17). Army intelligence analysis and interpretation: Assessing
the utility and limitations of computational diagnostic reasoning. U.S. Army
Research, Development, and Engineering Command (AMSRD-CER-IW-BM).
Paper presented at the DODCRTS Symposium, San Diego, CA. Retrieved
September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/
CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
157
Petrosky, D. LTG (Ret.). Personal interview conducted December 12, 2005.
Pickvance, C.G. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of housing and
the Build Environment 16, 7-28. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from the ProQuest
database.
Reynolds, R. A., Koper, R. J., & Burgoon, M. (1982). The effects of communication
context, source credibility and message valence as predictors of perceived
compliance-gaining message appropriateness and social influence.
Communication: The Journal of the Communication Association of the Pacific,
11, 58-77. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the ProQuest database.
Ryan, A. J. (2002). Optimizing group utility in collaborative decision making process.
Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://classweb.gmu.edu/ajryan/gdm.pdf
Ryan, D. J. (1997). INFOSEC and INFOWAR: Considerations for military intelligence.
Washington, DC: Science Applications. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from
http://www.danjryan.com/MIntl.html
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative
research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 1-8. Retrieved March 16,
2006, from http://www.advancesinnursingscience.com/pt/re/ans/home.htm
Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organization commitment from expectancy as a
motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599. Retrieved March
4, 2005, from http://www.cba.uri.edu/scholl/Papers/Commitment.html
Scholz, M. W. (2003). Characteristics and best practices of successful information
technology virtual teams: A case study. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University.
Retrieved January 28, 2006, from the ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3112993)
158
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2005). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the
power of mental force. New York: HarperCollins.
Sherman, D. (1975). Noun-verb stress alternation: An example of the lexical diffusion of
sound change in the English language. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/300/pdf/
sherman75.pdf
Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (1997). Research design and mixed method approach. Ithica, NY:
Cornel University. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Sydenstricker/bolsa.html
Tasa, K. (2002). The impact of collective efficacy on issue interpretation and strategic
decision making processes and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from
the ProQuest database.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guide
and resource (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
Thomas, R. S. (2003). Real-time decision making for adversarial environments using a
plan-based heuristic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University,
Chicago. Retrieved August 3, 2004, from the ProQuest database.
Ulrich, T. (1999). Computer mediated communications and group decision making.
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Retrieved December 4, 2004, from
www.uwm.edu/ Course/com813/ulrich5.htm
159
U.S. Army. (2004a). Future combat systems. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
January 5, 2006, from http://www.army.mil/fcs/
U.S. Army. (2004b, March 12). Unit of employment (UE) operations (White Paper
Version 3.0, UE ICT Review Version). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Army TRADOC. (2006). www.tradoc.army.mil/
U.S. Army UAMBLE. (2006). http://www.knox.army.mil/center/uambl/
U.S. Army (2004). Training Newsletter. Western Military District Headquarters.
U.S. Army (2005). Posture Statement. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from
http://www.army.mil.APS/05/mission.html
U.S. Department of Defense. (2001). Report on network centric warfare. Retrieved
March 14, 2005, from http://www.defenselink.mil/nii/NCW/ncw_sense.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Analysis Software for Word-
based Records (AnSWR). Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/Hiv/
SOFTWARE/answr.htm
Wagner, K. H. (2002). An investigation of conflict management in global virtual teams.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. (UMI
No. 3076600)
Wallheim, R. (1999). On the emotions: The Ernst Cassirer lectures. London, CT: Yale
University Press.
Walters, K.K.G. (2004). A Study of the Relationship Between Trust and Perceived
Effectiveness in Virtual Teams. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University,
Minneapolis, Mn. (UMI No. 3138510.
Walton, M. (1986). The Deming management method. New York: Putnam.
160
Warner, N., & Wroblewski, E. (2004, June 15-17). The cognitive processes used in team
collaboration during asynchronous, distributed decision making. Naval Air
Systems Command. Paper presented at the DODCRTS Symposium, San Diego,
CA. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/
CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
Wass de Czege, H. (2001). “New paradigm” tactics: A primer on the transformation of
land power. Washington, DC: Association of the U.S. Army.
Wass de Czege, H., & Sinnreich, R. H. (2002). Conceptual foundations of a transformed
U.S. Army. Washington, DC: Association of the U.S. Army.
Webster’s International Dictionary. (2005). New York, NY: Merriam-Webster
Publishers
Wesensten, N. J., Belenky, G., and Balkin, T.J. (2005) Cognitive Readiness in Network-
Centric Operations, Parameters Spring 2005. 94-105. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army
War College
Wilson, C. (2005). Report to the US Congress: Network centric warfare: Background
and oversight issues for Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32411.pdf
Yoogalingam, R. (2003). Applications of evolutionary algorithms and simulation to
decision making under uncertainty. Retrieved January 8, 2005, from
http://www.schulich.yorku.ca/ssb-extra/phd.nsf/0/
3751c20e40c86f4c85256b200072e586?OpenDocument
Young, R. B. (2000). Army aviation in Vietnam, 1963–1966. Ramsey, NJ: Huey.
161
Zaltman, G. (2005). How customers think: essential insights into the mind of the market.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
162
APPENDIX A: VIRTUAL TEAMING COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY PARTICIPATION FORM
The survey questionnaires contained within this site relate to a study being
conducted on the effects of certain types of communications media used during the
planning and execution of combat operations. It focuses on your experiences using such
equipment as SINGARS, MSE, CPOF, SBCB2, C2PC, or other network-based planning
and communications structures that remove you from face-to-face interactions with your
superiors and/or subordinates. The survey is conducted in two parts. The first is a
personality type survey known as the Insights-Discovery© survey. The only reason for
this survey is to relate personality types to the experiences using the above equipment.
No aspect of this survey will be revealed to any person. The MindStretch agency, being
used to distribute the survey and collect the responses, is a bonded organization and
insures respondent privacy. The researcher nor the U.S. Army ever will have access to
identifying information.
The second part of the survey applies only to the activities you perform with
respect to your military position as it relates to your use of the above equipment. Answer
each question as completely as possible. There are no ‘right’ answers. Do not try to
answer with what you might believe the researcher would like to hear. We are truly
interested in what you think, feel, and believe concerning how you have to do your job
under the concepts of a virtual systems structure. Your answers will assist in the
development of a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of the program and
in the design of doctrine and training to enhance future capabilities.
163
All answers are totally and completely confidential. This is a requirement
established by law for this type of study. To participate in the survey, you will be asked
questions concerning your name and contact information for possible follow-up
interviews by the data collection agency. This information will be held by a third party
and not by the researcher. If a follow-up interview is desired, the third party will contact
you to obtain your permission to release your contact information to the researcher.
If you agree to participate in this survey, enter the appropriate demographic
information and toggle the ‘Yes I agree to participate in this survey’ button below. A
specially coded identification number will be provided to enter the on-line survey. Only
the third party will have the relationship between the coded number and your contact
information.
(NOTE: The survey site will have the appropriate toggle button)
164
APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO USE EXISTING SURVEY—INSIGHTS-
DISCOVERY SURVEY
165
APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO USE EXISTING SURVEY—WAGNER SURVEY
166
APPENDIX D: INSIGHTS DISCOVERY SURVEY
167
168
169
170
171
APP
ENDIX
E: C
OM
PUTER-M
EDIA
TED C
OM
MUNIC
ATIO
NS
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Edu
cation
level
of sub
ject; b
oth
military and
civilia
n
Highe
st le
vel o
f mili
tary
ed
ucatio
n BNOC, A
NOC, O
BC, O
AC, C
AS3
, CGSC
, War C
ollege
Pr
ovid
es und
erstan
ding
of t
he sub
ject’s
potent
ial m
ental c
apab
ilitie
s as
well a
s th
eir i
nteg
ratio
n in
to th
e m
ilitary
cul
ture
and jo
b sk
ill set
Highe
st le
vel o
f civ
ilian
ed
ucatio
n <
HS
grad
, HS
grad
, 2 yr C
ollege
, 4
yr C
ollege
, gradu
ate sc
hool
, pos
t-gr
adua
te sch
ool
Position of
authority
Cur
rent
mili
tary
rank
Cur
rent
mili
tary
rank
Giv
es le
vel o
f aut
hority
with
in th
e m
ilitary
hiera
rchy
with
resp
ect t
o th
e traini
ng obt
aine
d du
ring
the pe
riod
of
use of
the CM
C sys
tem
s.
Mili
tary
pos
ition
whe
n us
ing
virtua
l com
mun
icatio
ns
system
s
Org
anizatio
n an
d jo
b Giv
es ope
ratio
nal r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d kn
owledg
e of
the su
bjec
t’s di
rect
interactio
n with
the vi
rtua
l sys
tem
s;
determ
inatio
n of
whe
ther
sub
ject
interfac
ed w
ith sys
tem
s or
oth
er hum
ans
mor
e di
rectly
Und
erstan
ding
of and
expe
rien
ce in
on
-line
commun
ications
to in
clud
e the
individu
al's
ability to
ada
pt
to a non
-FTF
cultur
e.
How
pro
ficien
t are you
with
In
tern
et-b
ased
co
mm
unicatio
ns suc
h as
In
tern
et M
esse
nger; A
pple-
talk
, or o
ther suc
h sy
stem
s
Lik
ert r
ange
1-5
with
5 being
mos
t pr
oficient
Und
erstan
ding
and
com
fort w
ith use
of
Intern
et activ
ities
.
Prof
icienc
y with
e-m
ail p
rogr
ams
Lik
ert r
ange
1-5
with
5 being
mos
t pr
oficient
Und
erstan
ding
and
com
fort w
ith use
of
Intern
et activ
ities
. Pr
oficienc
y with
gam
ing
prog
ram
s –
Strategic (W
ar-
figh
ter; JANUS,
etc)
Lik
ert r
ange
1-5
with
5 being
mos
t pr
oficient
Und
erstan
ding
and
com
fort w
ith use
of
Intern
et activ
ities
.
172
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
– Ope
ratio
nal
(BBS/
CBS;
JCATS;
OTB, e
tc.)
– Tac
tical (C
2B2, etc)
Use
of C
omm
and Po
st of t
he
Futu
re (C
POF)
or s
imila
r sy
stem
(ide
ntify sy
stem
)
Lik
ert r
ange
1-5
with
5 being
mos
t pr
oficient
Und
erstan
ding
and
com
fort w
ith use
of
curren
t mili
tary
CM
C sys
tem
s
Kin
d of
Intern
et gro
ups,
blog
s, serve
r gro
ups, etc.
Tex
t selec
tion
Und
erstan
ding
and
com
fort w
ith use
of
Intern
et activ
ities
. Se
t to de
term
ine
individu
al
activities using
CMC and
comfort
level/e
fficienc
y
Set to establish
the pa
rticipan
t's
unde
rstand
ing
of th
e stru
ctur
e an
d pu
rpose of
the team
they
are serving on
Briefly
cha
racter
ize th
e pu
rpos
e of
the team
. The
pur
pose
of t
he te
am sho
uld be
so
methi
ng in
ass
ociatio
n with
the
mili
tary
struc
ture
. The
indi
vidu
al
shou
ld be in
a pos
ition
whe
re th
ey
eith
er sup
port th
e de
cision
mak
ing
proc
ess, are direc
tly in
volv
ed in
pr
ovid
ing in
put,
or are
the de
cision
-m
aker.
Estab
lishe
s th
e relativ
e po
sitio
n of
the
particip
ant i
n th
e pr
oces
s be
ing stud
ied.
If th
e in
divi
dual is
of a
pos
ition
whe
re
they
sim
ply pa
ss m
essa
ges, th
eir
resp
onse
s m
ay not
be weigh
ted as
he
avily
as a da
ta-fin
der o
r pro
vide
r.
173
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Wha
t is yo
ur te
am's
size
and
in
tern
al struc
ture. L
imit
your
an
swer to
num
ber o
f peo
ple
with
who
m you
and
you
r gr
oup ha
ve direc
t con
tact
with
or c
ontrol
ove
r, po
sitio
n(s) of t
hese
in
divi
duals, and
whi
ch
positio
ns are co-
loca
ted with
yo
u or
ava
ilabl
e on
ly by
elec
tron
ic m
eans
.
Thi
s sh
ould
estab
lish th
e or
gani
zatio
n, struc
ture, a
nd jo
bs of
the team
to in
clud
e whe
ther th
e gr
oup is co-
loca
ted, or p
artia
lly
virtua
l.
Estab
lishe
s th
e po
sitio
n of
the
particip
ant w
ithin
the gr
oup be
ing
stud
ied.
To th
e be
st of yo
ur
know
ledg
e, pleas
e pr
ovid
e th
e fo
llowin
g in
form
atio
n fo
r ea
ch cor
e m
embe
r of yo
ur
team
:
The
se are
prim
arily
yes
/no an
swers
and will
be au
tom
ated
bas
ed upo
n th
e type
s of
pos
ition
s se
lected
by th
e pa
rticip
ant.
Thi
s will
not
be a free
-text
field stru
ctur
e. O
nly ce
rtain
selectio
ns w
ill be pe
rmitt
ed to
lim
it th
e am
ount
of i
nterpr
etatio
n ne
cess
ary by
the an
alys
t.
Estab
lishe
s th
e de
cision
mak
ing
auth
ority
of e
ach elem
ent a
s pe
rceive
d by
the pa
rticip
ant.
Positio
n Titl
e Fu
nctio
n Loc
atio
n (C
o-lo
cated or
sep
arated
ev
en if
onl
y by
a w
all,
in ano
ther
'veh
icle', or
artificially
by ex
perim
ent
instru
ctio
n)
Gen
der
Dec
isio
n-m
aker
: (wha
t and
to w
hat
degr
ee)
174
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Estab
lishm
ent
of degree of
person
al con
tact
during
cou
rse of
duty day
.
Hav
e yo
u ha
d an
y wor
k-related fa
ce-to-
face
con
tact
with
mem
bers of yo
ur te
am
during
the da
ily cou
rse of
yo
ur jo
b? If
so, pleas
e de
sign
ate whi
ch one
s an
d ho
w often
.
Que
stio
nnaire w
ill in
clud
e ab
ility to
ch
eckm
ark ea
ch pos
ition
as to
face
-to
-fac
e co
ntac
t and
Lik
ert s
cale of 1
-5 fo
r am
ount
of d
aily
con
tact.
Estab
lishe
s am
ount
of f
ace-to
-fac
e du
ring
the co
urse
of t
he w
ork da
y.
Estab
lishm
ent
of prior
know
ledg
e of
team
mem
bers
and pe
rson
ality
relation
ship
Hav
e yo
u wor
ked with
any
m
embe
r(s) of yo
ur te
am prior
to
this ass
ignm
ent? If
so,
whe
n an
d fo
r how
long
.
Free
-tex
t ent
ry
Estab
lishe
s pr
ior r
elatio
nshi
p an
d co
nstruc
tion of
previ
ous ex
pectatio
n stru
ctur
e fo
r thi
s pa
rticul
ar pair o
r gr
oupi
ng.
Relationship of
decision
mak
ing
activities to
othe
r stan
dard
activities
App
roxi
mately wha
t per
cent
of
you
r wor
k tim
e do
you
de
vote to
activ
ities
ass
ociated
with
eith
er gathe
ring
in
form
atio
n to
sup
port a
decision
or t
he actua
l act of
decision
mak
ing?
Percen
tage
ent
ry
Estab
lishe
s am
ount
of w
ork ac
tivity
in
volv
ed in
sup
portin
g or
perfo
rmin
g de
cision
mak
ing.
Doe
s th
is perce
ntag
e ch
ange
th
e na
ture of t
he activ
ities
and
if so, how
and
to w
hat e
xten
t?
Tex
t ent
ry.
App
roxi
mately wha
t per
cent
of
ove
rall
team
wor
k tim
e is
devo
ted to
activ
ities
as
sociated
with
eith
er
gath
erin
g in
form
atio
n to
Percen
tage
ent
ry
175
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
supp
ort a
dec
isio
n or
the
actu
al act of d
ecisio
n m
akin
g?
Determination
of effectivene
ss
of decision
mak
ing
Con
side
r a con
ditio
n whe
re a
non-
criti
cal d
ecisio
n was
requ
ired
on yo
ur or a
noth
er
team
mem
ber's
par
t. Rate, on
the fo
llowin
g sc
ale, w
hich
m
odes
of c
omm
unicatio
ns
invo
lved
in dec
isio
n m
akin
g m
ade th
e pr
oces
s of
com
ing
to a dec
isio
n th
e ea
sies
t.
Scale is 1-6
with
6 and
relates to
the
activ
ities
listed
below
Ent
ries
may
onl
y be
use
d on
ce.
Res
pons
es estab
lish whe
re th
e pa
rticip
ant v
iews th
e ea
sies
t to
unde
rstand
asp
ects of
Fa
ce-to-
face
activ
ities
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one fo
llowed
up by
face
-to
-fac
e
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one on
ly w
ith no face
-to-
face
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
e-m
ail e
ither bef
ore, dur
ing, or a
fter
the vo
ice co
mm
unicatio
ns.
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
picto
rial graph
ics
176
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
only
Graph
ical com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r ne
twor
ks w
ithou
t voi
ce or f
ace-to
-face
Con
side
r a con
ditio
n whe
re a
criti
cal d
ecisio
n was
requ
ired
on
you
r or a
noth
er te
am
mem
ber's
part.
Rate, on th
e fo
llowin
g sc
ale, w
hich
mod
es
of com
mun
icatio
ns in
volv
ed
in dec
isio
n m
akin
g m
ade th
e pr
oces
s of
com
ing to
a
decision
the ea
sies
t.
Scale is 1-6
with
6 and
relates to
the
activ
ities
listed
below
Ent
ries
may
onl
y be
use
d on
ce.
Res
pons
es estab
lish whe
re th
e pa
rticip
ant v
iews th
e ea
sies
t to
unde
rstand
asp
ects of
Fa
ce-to-
face
activ
ities
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one fo
llowed
up by
face
-to
-fac
e
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one on
ly w
ith no face
-to-
face
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
e-m
ail e
ither bef
ore, dur
ing, or a
fter
the vo
ice co
mm
unicatio
ns.
177
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
picto
rial graph
ics
only
Graph
ical com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r ne
twor
ks w
ithou
t voi
ce or f
ace-to
-face
Con
side
r a con
ditio
n whe
re a
criti
cal c
omba
t-related
decision
was
requ
ired
on yo
ur
or ano
ther te
am m
embe
r's
part. R
ate, on th
e fo
llowin
g sc
ale, w
hich
mod
es of
com
mun
icatio
ns in
volv
ed in
de
cision
mak
ing m
ade th
e pr
oces
s of
com
ing to
a
decision
the ea
sies
t.
Scale is 1-6
with
6 and
relates to
the
activ
ities
listed
below
Ent
ries
may
onl
y be
use
d on
ce.
Res
pons
es estab
lish whe
re th
e pa
rticip
ant v
iews th
e ea
sies
t to
unde
rstand
asp
ects of
Fa
ce-to-
face
activ
ities
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one fo
llowed
up by
face
-to
-fac
e
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one on
ly w
ith no face
-to-
face
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
e-m
ail e
ither bef
ore, dur
ing, or a
fter
178
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
the vo
ice co
mm
unicatio
ns.
Voi
ce com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r radi
o/teleph
one with
out f
ace-to
-fac
e an
d su
ppor
ted by
picto
rial graph
ics
only
Graph
ical com
mun
icatio
ns ove
r ne
twor
ks w
ithou
t voi
ce or f
ace-to
-face
Persona
l Observa
tion
s Briefly
des
crib
e a co
mba
t or
othe
r ope
ratio
nal s
ituatio
n whe
re you
feel th
at th
e de
cision
mad
e by
eith
er
your
self or t
he sen
ior
decision
-mak
er w
as
cons
idered
ver
y in
sigh
tful
or
com
pletely ap
prop
riate to
the
situ
atio
n.
Free
Tex
t Pr
ovid
es an ex
ampl
e of
a 'g
ood' dec
isio
n as
perce
ived
by th
e ob
serv
er.
Briefly
des
crib
e a co
mba
t or
othe
r ope
ratio
nal s
ituatio
n whe
re you
feel th
at th
e de
cision
mad
e by
eith
er
your
self or t
he sen
ior
decision
-mak
er w
as
cons
idered
inap
prop
riate to
th
e situ
atio
n or
resu
lted in
a
situ
atio
n of
disad
vant
age.
Prov
ides
an ex
ampl
e of
a 'b
ad' d
ecisio
n as
perce
ived
by th
e ob
serv
er.
179
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Rem
embe
ring
the situ
atio
n whe
re th
e de
cision
was
co
nsid
ered
inap
prop
riate or
to
a di
sadv
antage
, wha
t thi
ngs
do you
thin
k yo
u an
d/or
the
decision
-mak
er nee
ded an
d di
d no
t hav
e to
be ab
le to
m
ake a be
tter d
ecisio
n?
Estab
lishe
s in
form
atio
n on
the 'bad
' de
cision
Rem
embe
ring
the situ
atio
n whe
re th
e de
cision
was
co
nsid
ered
inap
prop
riate or
to
a di
sadv
antage
for t
he
situ
atio
n, w
hat w
as th
e pr
incipl
e m
eans
of
com
mun
icatin
g in
form
atio
n related to
and
nec
essa
ry to
m
ake th
e de
cision
?
Con
flict
Resolution
Tell m
e in
detail a
bout
a
com
bat o
r com
bat-related
situ
atio
n in
whi
ch you
had
a
disa
gree
men
t with
a sup
erio
r or
sub
ordi
nate con
cern
ing
eith
er a dec
isio
n or
in
form
atio
n ne
eded
for a
de
cision
.
Ans
wers ar
e pr
ovid
ed as free
text
an
d m
ay con
tain
the po
ssib
le
info
rmatio
n ite
ms lis
ted be
low.
Iden
tifies a situ
atio
n of
pot
entia
l pe
rson
ality
con
flict w
here
in th
e situ
atio
n was
initi
ated
, con
ducted
, and
/or r
esol
ved
via CM
C ra
ther th
an fa
ce-to-
face
W
hat d
id th
e di
sagr
eem
ent (
conf
lict)
rega
rd?
How
did
you
first f
ind ou
t abo
ut it
in
180
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
term
s of
the m
etho
d of
learni
ng
abou
t the
situ
atio
n
Who
was
invo
lved
?
How
impo
rtan
t was
the issu
e to
the
mission
of t
he gro
up?
How
impo
rtan
t was
the issu
e to
the
abili
ty to
mak
e a co
rrec
t dec
isio
n?
How
was
the situ
atio
n ha
ndled in
or
der t
o reso
lve th
e issu
e from
the
perspe
ctiv
e of
wha
t com
mun
icatio
ns
occu
rred
, how
, using
wha
t metho
ds
and/
or sys
tem
s, and
do yo
u co
nsid
er
the issu
e wor
th th
e tim
e sp
ent u
sing
th
at sys
tem
? W
ould
a better
metho
dolo
gy, i
n yo
ur opi
nion
, reso
lve th
e situ
atio
n m
ore
efficien
tly?
How
long
did
it ta
ke to
reso
lve th
e situ
atio
n?
How
do yo
u fe
el abo
ut how
the
situ
atio
n was
han
dled
?
How
do yo
u fe
el con
cern
ing th
e m
etho
ds use
d to
com
mun
icate yo
ur
idea
s an
d m
eani
ng to
the in
divi
duals
invo
lved
? W
hy?
181
Inform
ation
Desired
Question
Possible Respo
nses
Pur
pose of L
ine of Q
uestioning
Specific
opinions of
virtua
l teaming
and
commun
ications
Thi
nkin
g ab
out y
our c
omba
t op
eratio
nal s
ituatio
ns, d
o yo
u find
wor
king
with
indi
vidu
als
via th
e In
tern
et or v
ia th
e Com
mon
Ope
ratin
g Pi
ctur
e or
oth
er graph
ical m
ilitary
co
mm
unicatio
ns m
ediu
m
mor
e or
less
efficient
than
ot
her m
etho
ds of i
nterac
tion
you ha
ve use
d?
Free
Tex
t
W
hat m
etho
ds of i
nterac
tion
have
you
foun
d m
ost e
fficient
whe
n de
alin
g with
mili
tary
situ
atio
ns of t
his na
ture.
Free
Tex
t
