Research Note 85-84

S0A COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL SENIOR

FIELD GRADE INFANTRY OFFICERS WITH THIOSE OF

0 COMPANY GRADE INFANTRY OFFICERS ANTD CIVILIANS

* Frederick N. Dver and Richard E. Hilligoss

h for

ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, GeorgiaSeward Smith, Chief

TRAINTNG RESEARCH LABORATORYHarold F. O'Neil. Jr., Director

DTIOI flELECTE

~OCT 3 O M5

* E* U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

August 1985

Aop:ove'j for flubhic refease. dtstr;butior. unlimleCd.

85 10 gO 048

BestAvailable

Copy

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

* FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

E)GAR M. JOHNSON ODL, IN

Techncal Directa'r Commanding

NTIS .

By• ..

re /

other primary distribution and will be avilalbe to requeslors only through DTIC or other reference servime suchism the National Technical Inrformation Service (NTIS)• The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this|fw " rare .thoe. of this buthor(o) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army Iposition,

policy, or decision, unleu slo designated by other Off¢icil documen rtlion.I

bil-

t•.i.~ ~~~ ~ ~~W ... i"--"..."-"., •]'--.k-k3':""... "~g 1

Thss e~or ha, een le"re"f""re"e"e"to""e"Dfe"s "'""cl nfrato C"nt" "'""I"'I It " hT""" bee g"' e "' ""o" f"t'T€

- *. . . ..

JI_.•CLAS S IFILED5;L-URITY CLASSICICATICN4 OF TWiS PAGE 'W"en Dt .•'-n rd)

"REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE RVAD INSTRUCl ONSEERORT CONUEMBRNG FORM

I REPORT NUMBER •2. GOVT ACC.ESSION NC-..I - ;P.E'T' CAT ALOT, NUMBER

Research Note 85-84 A 16o'),1 74 TITLeF (and Smeltle) TyPE Rf R QORT 5 PERIOD COVERED

A Comparison of the Values of Highly Successful Oct. 1979-Sept. 1930Senior Field Grade Infantry Officers with Thoseof Company Grade Infantry Officers and 6 PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER• ." Civilianc

7. AUTHOR(e) 8 CONTRACT OR GRANT NuM2EER(p

*i Frederick N. Dyer and Richard E. Hilligoss - -

9 PERFORMING ORCANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGt4AM ELEMENT PROjECT TASK

"ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia, AREA S *OR UN'T NUMRP

P.O. Box 2086, Fort Benning, GA 31905-0686 2Q162722A791

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADCR S 2. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioraland Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenlic,Azer Avenue, 1 NUMBER OF PAG,3

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 1314 MONITORING AG-NCY NAME 8 A&DDRESS(Il different from, ConfrolllnA Office) 1S rFCuR'TY CLASS t , his reprmrr)

Unclassified

I'. _FCL ASSFIC ATiO., DOWN GRADING

16 DSIrIBJThON STATEMENT (of thli Report)

Approved for public releasc; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abesract onfered In Block 20. if dlffetene from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19 KEY WORDS (Continu* on reveree side $I .e.eos ,y aend Identify by block number)

InfantryValuesValue StructuresLeadership

Value Change20. ASSTRACT ('Cr r haue 4o ree.erl aid& tf ns.eey and Idenlify by block number)

"Tie Rokeach Value Scale was used to measure values of highly successfulsenior Infantry officers at the Army War College (AWC). The values of new andexpetienced Infantry junior officers were also measured. All Infantry groups,but especially the AWC group, showed major differences from a national sampleof males. The AWC group ranked the values "An Exciting life, A Sense of Accomp-lishment, National Security, Self-Respect, (being) Capable, (being)Courageous,(being) Honest, (being) Imaginative, (being) Logical, and (being) Responsible"

(over)

DO FOR",73 IM7 EDITION OF I NOV 6S IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIE•DSECURITY CLAISIFICATION OF THIS PA.E 'Wh- Pera F.,•,te,#I)

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION c- THIS PAGE(I'han Del Entered)

20. (continued)

much higher in importance than the national sample of males. The AWC groupranked the values "A Comfortable Life, A World at Peace, a World of Beauty,

* True Friendship, (being) Ambitious, (being) Broadminded, (being) Cheerful,- (being) Clean, (being) Forgiving, (being) Loving, and (being) Polite" much

lower in importance than did the national sample. The three Infantry groups"- also showed differences among themselves, with the AWC colonels and lieutenant

colonels typically differing from the junior Infantry off "-rs in the sameway that all of the Infantry groups differed from the civ .ians. Implicationsof these results for research aimed at changing "deficient" values among new

* Infantry officers are d1lci.qs.d.

UNCLASS IFI ED

SECLURITY CLASStIICATIOp. O THIS PAG•_I4•erl Vnt98 )nf.red)

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .. ... 1

METHOD .. . . . . .. . ... I

RESULTS .......... 2

AWC-National Sample Comparisons . 2

Comparisons Among Infantry Groups 5...................5

DISCUSSION 9.............................9

REFERENCES ................................... 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Terminal Value Median Rankings and Composite RankOrders for Army War College (AlC) Infantry Students,National Sample Males and College-Educated NationalSample Males and Females ....................

Table 2. Instrumental Value Median Rankings and Composite RankOrders for Army War Coilege (AWC) Infantry Students,National Sample Males and College-Educated NationalSample Males and Females ... ..............

Table 3 Means, StandarJ Deviations and Composite Rank Ordersfor Infantry Groups on Terminal Values .6.. .. .

Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Composite Rank Ordersfor Infantry Groups on Instrumental Values ................ 7

Table 5. Correlations Among Composite Rank Orders for the TwoNational Sample Subgroups and the Three infantry Groups(Terminal Values Above Diagonal--Instrunnental Valu-sBelow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

S~~~~~......................................-•- -".-"----.- -"<-.-.- .. :- -i-i:--

I NTRODUCr I[ON

The Army has a long tradition of emphasis on proper values for its personnel.

The values Duty, Honor, and Country, for example, have been the slogan of the

U.S. Military Academy since the last century. Proper values for the Army are

still a lkrge concern of the Army's senior leadership. This troy partly refiectcurrent emphasis in behavioral and management science on the associatln between

individuil values and individual behavior (Rokeach, 1973, 1979; Englano, and Lee,1974). Rokeach (1979) has argued that the values of senior leaders in anorganization can be legitimately considered to be the "organization values." The

values of these senior leaders or "gatekeepers", undoubtedly wore a factor incausino the behavior that led to the rise of these porsonnel in the

organization. These senior leaders are also likely to reward and promote

personnel with a similar set o, values.

The research reported here was concerned wi.th the values of highly successful

senior Infcntry otficeis, namely, Infantry branch students at the Army WarCollege (AWC). rhe selectness of this AWC student group is inaicated by thefact that only about one of every 1O0 officers initially commissioned in the

Infantry achieve this important career milestone. The research compared thevalues of this AWC group with the values of all males in Rokeach's NationalSample (Rokeach, 1973). It also compared AWC values with the values of ahighly-educateo subset of the total NaLional Sample (men and women). InSaddition, the xesearch provided a cross-section comparison of these seniorInfantry leader values with the values of newly-commissioned InfanLry officersand Infantry officers approximately five years into their careers.

METHOD

The senior Infantry leaders were 33 Lieutenant Colonels and four Colonels from

the AWC Class of 1980. Their average age was 41.3 years and average time inservice was 19.0 years. These 37 students were all tnat were available fortesting from the total of 41 Infantry students in that class. The experiencedjunior Infantry officers were all of the students in two Infantry OfficerAdvanced Course (IOAC) classes at Fort Benning early in 1980O. fhese 240students were made up of two Second Lieutenants, 142 First Lieutenants and 9UCaptains. Their average age was 27.7 years and average time in service was 5.3years. The 192 newly-commissioned Infantry Second Lieutenants were from asingle Infan•try Officer Basic Course (IuBC) wo ich began at Fort Kenning in iut,:1980. Their average age was 22.1 years. k(okeach's Naticnal Sample of males ,male up o05 men over 21 years oi age trom all strata of U..S. socciety (Kokeach-1973). The ;ational Sample had L5l ;'copie (includinTg ferMalesi) ith college andSgraduate degrees who wore also compared to the well-caucated AWC students.

Values -,,ere nea.a;ured wi th the Rokeach Valuea Scale (riokeacn 19/3). i tn is

ins trumertt, swo lists of 18 values are ran.k:u on their impor taonce to thle

ind iv idue in his o0n lifee" . Thie. terminal values and toie in tstrumental vailuecs

are pres3ented in Tables I and 2, resoectivelv. An additional termLnal value'liysical Fitness andl an a.iittic, n..! ir:tr:,I,'n.il value .\ctive W,ý.e a.I,:d .

these vili ue.- appeared to havo high re 1 evi we tnr mi 1 itary personnel. Rukeach 's

inst rument has consisteLttlv becn success tut in discriniinatin- between guctpf

diffCering in .haracteristics such a, sex socioeconomic status, education, life

sty e, and occupation (Rokeach 1973).

Feather (-'u75) has shown the nearly e!uivalent results that are obtaineo trom

rat in, and :ron ri:iloKg, ,,Lt ne ý.Ilties. Inl tie present researc, 'll three

Infantry groups rat.'d thi:calics on the tolwowin, scale:

I. No' al all iLmportant in -iv lifeý.

2 S1i it Ly important i ii " !if,.

3 Somr..ewhat important in nv :ife.

4 Moderately important in -nv life.

5 .1ighly important in my life.

6. Extremely important in yiv life.

7. One of the most important values in my life.

The IOBC and IOAC groups completed a pencil-and-paper version. The AWC group

rated the values at a computer terminal. Following ratings of all values on alist, the AWC student also completed a paired-comparisons procedure which broke

ties for values given the same numerical ratings. This provided a complete

ranking of the values for each AWC student and allowed comparisons with value

rankings of Rokeach's National Sample (Rokeachi, 1973).

RESULFS

AWC-NATION.AZ: SAM 'LE COMPARIbONS

All Infantry ,roups showed -major differ nces from the males in Rokeach s

Nationai Samnp1-e. Statistical comparison was possible between rhe Army War

College groi and the National Sample sutngroups since median ranks wure

available :r ea,-h group. Tabje I orti-nts and compares d.-oian r:!;ks fHr these

three groups for the terminal value list. Table Z presents tihe median ranes tor

the instrumentnl1 wvalies. Tihe mcdtao CO tihe N it onal Sai-le male s-abgroup was

trea'.,:d si t!. "population median" -and tm, AWC "sample" ,median was compared tc

it (Ito ilaider a:-d ;.ol te, 1973, p. On). nly four terminil values ano on!,-three imsur,;me'tal values did not dtfter ,.gnifiantly (p .uS) between tihe AWC

student.l and thle N.jttonn, .aanpie mats.

p2

6f5,-.

"t

L7"

--.

ci 2

'- V.-, 0 , ' t ,-,4-~ ,-, - --- fl •--- j -- 4 •.-JC 0 -N ,-.-. - .4 u a/

I n• -. " -K -K 4.'

-,2 • I -K ! ( "• "-'II I K -K -i - ,- - -. 4. f;~f .- 4 .4 . 4 -4

-r-4r4 00 -4 1Z flCC-)

,,%4

S•K. . -x 4z4c -K ic-M 4 II Ac I-K I ' -K 'C

Lo - I -K -K -9 I -X I I-- K IIK',cI -, I-. "

0 LN I- ,-•C ' .

r N ," _,- -4

0W

""41C - C C-j C ,-r 3-- .-

D (• c N-.

. . * --

-2 'f. t- 'rC)c 0 n 1: 1 30cý 0

-C

I ci 4 -

-l Cý '-C

CI C3C)C

-M -4 4 V 0 f-4) 0i -0 -- -. f,-.----~---. " 4 L0(4 .- : -4 -4-C J $ 4ý) -

X ; -4C Cj 1 C Gr W 1. -1Ur C: -4 Li.4' r-4 C, V,'3 ~ C c ~ o ~ 1 Ct

Cci~ oJ~ ' - -- .Cj -u

0-4

7%1 2 1- ~-~- ~.

r-4

0" \0 IT- n 0s

_- C % -- -- 4 ,- 4 - - 4 - , 4 0 0 x i

-u L

l -. • t -o ',. .:. r) t"-,N 1: t -4 P"- 1--4 ,-', -0 .. r f- r"s (7N tJ" L" -",

C 0 ,- '4 •-, r-,;; " - cn r'-- C O ,,- O f"n -.. 1• 9" LIZ CO 7 .-.

-4 ý!) -- -

'r , -x A-

4-c -x - 4ckK '-,4 1 ."c UN. c I' P l- II I

M U < " 4. -: •: " ID" "-4 1- -I C4 C), uI 2 0

-4 ~.. .-4 * .0r (7 M C..'-,IJ . -4 4 U1 -4 ~ -r

, -- - ,-i - t ,- .- " .- ,.. , 4 - ,,- .- ,4 ,-,-" ,-M N C-), r, -, C

ol,)- -4,-4

W -, I---- .. . . .-9 -K4- t.3 ,.:,. -,,, 4, -,,-,• .. • -4 ' 4 1 - -- C .)

- 0

C4t _T 00Vl1 - -L

40 • 0 -CC -. 4 * 0,.

-4 0cC) ao- Ln 00i G

c- 't( -0 . ý 11 4 .lýC

4 4 4

4-

÷ +- +" •" + g•- -+ " • '+- : -: • ' •+ " •- -" * " - *-,w" " • r ,- - .:,-.- r ,+-r •, .r 4 . - -+ . .

All .Li *\rirv "itt.ul -I ~ ' Eiiz , t tidti , h, .i I 'sI t,; aid d: tat+ , ,; it' anld Ict -hi- r'-,)i their v.1ltjes --. ro 0 , so -omparmd with tilte valu .s I; i the 151j al e,-e-t .1 tic at ed people in Rokench' t ;at;, , mple. "p ess i I L ic 1 tided botlI

%/• Mal.-s an. foýmrales since .ivlailab' h1 - ..- k- i, z of the Na t jieona l S:ra pIe did no;ta! 1:n,, thie ",tre "t' propri aj,.,le ct'n.p'irr.cn at .,C stn1s witi; ., ol ' -vducatedmales. -',r 24 .t. the 3t val tie;, tnu sar.T: di t',rent~cs and absence of differen:-,'s

* that llhd appeeared between AWkC ,d tt,.nIs and the lii-rio .c nampIe wt-re. t.u.dbetween AWC students and the new cotlog.e-educ.ateal male-f,.male sarpl,- however,for the values A Comfortal,.le Lif,, A Sonse .)f .CCtfpli &l~t t, tiappiness, MaturuLove, Pleaitre, ,imbitiout;i Independent andi Pol it,'; 0 rmorre, largf d fferences invalne rankings disappeared or wu-, ;r,ratLLV reductied . Soc ;a1 Recognit iton and(h ded -.it , wit i c, pr.v ious Iv had TinOt shown , Ift L' r,.ne C 5 0' '%t.0,0 ,I'.l stu dents and

ivO itan mal es , oaw were rank.-d sign fic antIy lower in iriptatan.: t v thecollee-eut.ica t'd ',Lttkio.11 Sal)p)I. V sd,.; tad not dJif it'- d bet ween AWC studentsIand all mal,'s i,,it was rated hii iher in import.tice by college-ecucatod 7-r11.es andf er•alos It

T hos,.- di f:e-, r, i-; 'Q tween t -f co- : P.'e r.qri Iv ratikins toet Liti two ýj L1onai Samp I.

subli.r,,iis nay hua: refltec ed eithler tho. t'tlticit jill dii ter,',ic,s , th t- sexSdi ft tre;ices or hoth. lHowever, ev.Aoticu t exists tialt the eatticat ion dtixft,.-rcncesou t ýe •.Ieh set difs!r.<nc ls . Rake a,-h hiad fottini no ttve r ill mal e- fema I e di f tference,in rankings co thii' valite thbd iont. Ye,-t this valu,I '-Atich proevi usl- had showi noAWC-Nat ional s:amtle. t..ile diffrnt• _, di fferet sintificantly mien the comparisongr.:, cl;an.id in cdic at jt and sex crompos ', on. In aud it i :, the overa 1i

1alf- cita oc T!.if tcrenct' Kokecach feutid in rink 1ns ei A Sense or Accomplishmentwould hav'Ž opera teti to mauni ifv the AWC-mal, Nataional Satwpnle difterence, whien .Vnustudents were .:- pared to the coll ee,-educ,,teJd eroup, not. cI iminat.k It, asactually rccorred.

Avera-,; rnting:,, stanoard dcviatntons and the Cn apos ire rank orders for terminal

vaI.urs ft-o troe three In .atitr! g n t pll.5ý at'- e , Se.'n+sr Ced In Table 3. rat,e. -+ tr':+ntth.es.+ dat a or the instrumental viljles, It can he seen ti. the, :omp~o it e rankorde-s ( rank orders basd,i on Ithe average rat ings for the entire grcup) are very"*: s tinstar auiong the three group. Caelrrtlatorns amotng tiicsu conipu., itc rank orders

were calctiat,.d and are presevLti in) Tih!e 5. Table 5 at.-o includes, t:.2"" c avvc;trinn,, among Lhe composite r.iik ,lrdt-rs for the two ihti,-t l'iau Sim t.l

suh ;rj l,,s an.'! compo; t..alk orders t' t eaci of tlte Intantr. gr.up .

Co,-retat i.-s involving teLrtinai ti'22 s le .re prcsente-d above tnt. tL'QonaJ ar,* orrel at: ons .nv-lv-ing inf'trurlena_ '.'alutes are presented boelow ,he diagonalthe v!ry high v iorrelattns aion o; li.'anttv groups contrast sharpLy '4ith thie lowL)mo erate cc, r.'iait ins bett'e,! the ,.t '.i S.ampl, stt): ''s and vaJlt oi CrieInfantry i-r tups.

* Comparisons Amottg Iifantry Croeep

Althougigh .iiltatitv among the thro.,, Infaitry groups was ',te primary resilt,*-:" si.•nitican. di fferences (p<,.U5) 3 xisted rttong these thre.' grou.ss e-n their

--.- ratings CZ bat: 1ists of '.'utu . Considering. tirst the termin.i values, the"" Ar,' War Cuileg,, grotip rated tle valoes Pthy's ical Fitness, Self-Re,;pect arnd

-K

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L -ý tin -0 - , - - 2 -' ' 1 - (I C -4

t_ 0-. co 0~ .PO 0- 00 -L .0" 00r C- %I. C-o -j ' L

-1 1

Cu

rnr,,N -

SC~~~~L ~C ~ - ~~ 0 00 - - (Nj Ln

o OC- 1 4 4 N 4 .f) ~ C-4 O.C r7' - -4' - 4 -

C~ý C. - ' C) C . cn c-I C7 en (n- N N C a-

- ~ - -~. 4 -4 4 --4 -4 . . 4 - - ( , 4 ...

- -4

0ý -,T -,I- ~ 2 C' - C'- -7 '.0 C) 00 ' 40 "~ 4) 02 (

iL '0 n- '0 C L4~ i1, Lý 'D it, 4ý -7 '. - )

4- -

20

VV

* 4 ( - CI it ( ~ - .. -4 -- 1 ) I *) (A *~) I, -

(C - -4 MI M4 -4-4 - - ' '- N 0 '- ' --- 4

ý4-

-4 n ~ -l - 4 ',I 'o

-IXI

[]-,I . . .. .7(N - I' - ,1

43

•- ". - " • CD oo , -0 f" .. -C' 4 C, C. Cý ,.4 -, •" . -q QJ.4 NO~ C" C &' - - C (N C N CC. 4 4 c~C c

I. In I -> tiN In < .. • "O ..n In• ¢'-'4 In It ' tfl It' ,- I ti ' .C •' • "fl

,.., ,..-, ,'.-- ,,' .- .p ,-' ' .4 -' " , . ,- . ,.-. ,. NO .- , -.

- C0 , 4 -" !fl ,--- . - ." In - . - - -, (-J ---

CD %0 co ( -. 0 •", ': 0 40 00 r... c'4 C%• C',I - .)' kn• •.•

0

ZtO < a NC V L 0 7I-,

W- Do C"1L o 1 C " % ý o r - c

N• U-. V-) - "' t C "Q - " Ln0 N. < C" -4

0>

LiF

.4 (j

-~ 0.

o L"I

C c 0 -"" -.." 4: L.-. N. C' -; '!.-, ,-. ,- (N r ,-.I CC < 0 *-."

cia r - C -4 . 4 ,4 I - - .i 0. .2 C - - - rN N

I

Table 5

C-)trrlatiom ,;-ACng Co:npGsiLC Rank Orders for the Two Nationalfampie Stihgrokips :ind the Tlirci. Infantry Gtoups

(T'eiminal Values Abovy. Dii-•-enaL--Inst rumental Vilues Oclow)

"Nat tona!Sample(College-

Nation.al Educated

Sample Males &(Males) Females) A.,C IOAC IB C

Nat ionalSample -- .79 .36 44 .46(Mil t):

Nati onTlS .vgn p Itc

(ColleIIe- .81 -- .40 .48 .60LdJu uc-. t ,dJMales &Fenma es)

AW/ 47 . 75 .79il

IOAC .49 -79.9.4

IBC 5. 076 .82 .96-

A TrianglQ..; rcpresent the correlaiicnis bt-tween the composite rank orders

for the I nfantry groups onl1..

Rectanr-les 'epresent the ccrrelations hetween th. comiposite r.ink ordersfor thCe Infantry groups and the national sample .',ubgroupL.

. . , , , • , % . .• 1 % % ° % , ° . --, .° ,. %*-.* q, % * *, ° *,• ° - .* *,. , ."

So- ia I(ecugnit ion signi ficantr Iv hi Ilier in importance thaI eithIer fUAAL or I ObC

studcent r. Tl( same was true f'or the valuti Nat ionaI Security eXcept t hat tileidi i ferenc., between AWC and 1O0C unly approached signiticance (pK<.Iu) [he Annv

*War Colloge students rated thf v:lu..s , A ','orld of '.edutv, [til,, IH 1i ,lit., Ma. l ,,rLove, Pleasure and True Friendship ,igniricantly lower in importance than theywere rated by the IOAC and IBC students. The AWC students rated a C;.,,fortableLife signif iciintly lower in importaice than the IOAC proup t'ut the & ftorerice

between AlC and [OBC was not signiricant, tor this value.

The following, di.fferences in rating, appeared between IOBC and IOAC tor th:

terminal values. IUAC students rat:, A Comfortable Life, Pleasure and SocialRecognition signif icantly higher ill iinport•ico than they were rated by IOBC

students. On the other hand, 10BIL; student:- rated True Friendship ald WiLSjom

significantly higher than IOAC studerts.

For instrumental valuls , the Army •,ar College .t.idents rated CapaaleCourcigeo.s, lh.horist, 1ma):inative .wed .esponsible signlfi nt'y higter in

impur! atnce tUan ei ther 1OBHo or -O,,C stu(!ieiits. The ICAC ant LOISC students bcti.• Cher Hil, Cl uan, Loving im,; joelite highor in importance than they were

ratd bv the Army War College groo,. 10,',(: and IOBC difftered ir, th.Tr -. itingswith IOAC ratin op lioest, Logical a.iu Responsible higher in iinportanci: and ludCr:;ttng Polite hig;her in impor-ianc,:.

M lSCUL!'.S 1, kJ

he .:ion-level ., lil',faiitry ,fticars ari :.o-t of the iunior Infantry officerssh'. d ;tri'kio,. di[fercnc's in val,,e rankings from Rok,.-;ch's Nitional a.ipple o"U.S. M'al. • and 1lso front a :o[l1Pg,:-edu-.at- . sb')set of hIs total 11,t.ional Sample-The much higiier comnitirnnt of these %W-' officers to the vu As .n r.;citing LiteNatiional .½_'curity and Courageot:; ,ou d have been read ily predic ted. flowever,their higher rankings than the male sample on A Se,.ise of Accoomplishinent, Setlf-

Respect, Capable, Honest, Imaginative, l,,gical and Responsible, plus LIeir muchlower rankings of a Comfortable Life and Pleasure illus.rate a commitmrent tchigh-quality hard work and to self-sacrifi,:e which might nut fit as readily witha tereotypes o. an officer in the Combat Arms.

The values A Sense of Accomplishment, A Comfortarle Lifte and ['leasur,, did notdiffer betwt:en AWC students and the college-educated sample indicating that someof the val•in differences between the AWC students and th,_ total m.,le NationalSample were probably associated with the higner education levels of tile AWC

students. Other chang Cor the AWC-college-educated-sainple comparison werethaL the values Social i..ecognition and Obedient now were ranked I:ignificantl,higher in iLnportance by the AWC ztudents. Wisdom, on the other !hand, was rankled1,igher by the ceIlege-educated National S~imp i[ subi:ruup . None of these. th11,evalues had differed between the AWC stodentL; and the all male sampic.

Althou,-,h the najot differences of ill Three Infantry groups from tile civilitiancomparis,in groups are mort, 9tr king,, real difterenses did occir among the tnrecInfantry groups. The AWC students -ated the values National Security, PhysicalFitness, Self Respect, Social Rococnition, Capable, Coura,,eous, M-oInst,Imag'inative arnd Responsihlle .;i);niticantlv hlgher in importancE than they wererate-l by either the TOAC or IOBC studetitf. AWC students rated the values

9

A World ot beauty, Inner Harmony, Mature i.ave, Pleasure, True Friendsh ip,Cheerful, Clean, Loving and Polite lower In importance tnan they were rated byeither the IOAC or IOBC students. It is intertstcing that these AWC studentdifferences from the other Infantry groups are quite similar to tho differencesof all three Infantry groups froM 0 he Nationatl Sample subgroups.

Many factors could account for the difterences between the AWC Infantry Branchstudents arnd the two Infantry junior officer groups. One possible explanationis tihat those officers wiio did not consider National Security, Physical Fitness,Self-Resiect, etc., as highly i;aportant throughout their careers, -ever achievedthe important career milestone of attendance at the Arm'.y Var College. Age andexperierce di f ferencis among the three groups are other possible explanntions,but these would predict monotonic changes in value raLing. going from IUB&,thrc.ugh ICAc, to AWC. Such Thanges occurred for 21 ot 38 values but thi:i doesn'rt *if[. r si".nificantlv from the 19 monotonic relationships that would hecxpcrcted by ch.ince.

Additrionl1 r'..c.!rch is underwav wh > a wilt bWi ar un this qqiestion of wdhetherindivioual diff,-r'nc.,, in valu- ratinys are a tactt r ,:, -ticco&ýs of Infantryltadler3. Viliie ratings of IOBL ;tuitents are being correlatea with a number ofo'icce!s fni r ftoin the 10I1C (e.L,., Lvprt Infantry Badge attainment). Valueratinyqs will atio be correlaLt,, wt0h leadership performance ratings made attertneir first year as Platnoon Leaders. In addition, those IOI3C students whodemonstrate laree discrepancies from the AWC students (and from inost of theirIODC colleagues) on the key values of National Security, a Sense ofAccompli::hment, and Physical Fitness are '-eing randomly assigned to a feedbackor a no-teedback group to test whether value ratings will change as a result o[this feedback. 'if more importance, will be the test of whether performanceduring IOBC and after are also modified by the feedback. Rokeach (0973) hasconsistently demonstrated changes in values and behavior as a result of feedbackto a person about value discrepancies heLween the person and his referencegroup. If we successfully improve ieadership performance of new Infantryofficers by the simple administration of a pencil-and-paper value gcale and bycomparing an individual's results to those of successful Infautry leaders, wemay have demonstrated the most cost-effective leadership training ever.

i_ REFERENCES

England, G. !-'. atid Lee, R. The relationship ietween managerial vale:i andmanagerial success in the United State-, Japan, India, and Australia..Jnurnal of Applied P3Vchology, 1971, 5--., ", ii-419.

Feather, Ni. T. Valuca in Education and So, ie, fh' Free Pre.sn, New YorK, I175.

li,.Llandet, N. and Wolfe, D. A. Nonparawettic Statistical Methods, Wylie, ,%,wYork, 1972.

Rukeach, M. The Nature of iHuman Vnluoe;. The. ree Press, New York, 1973.

Rokeach, M. Understanding Human Valuetz. The Frpe Preqs, New York, 1919.

10

i "'" " . . /."."- ." .". ." ".'. " - .',"". ". . -- ". " ""-".-. - " " "- . . •'-"' "-".-----'-%"