Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

to you or other parsons in the branch/division/department?" The critical
incident question addressing ineffective performance was similar to the
one above, but asked about something that an officer did that actually
delayed or hinder& accouplishnent of the units' mission.
The content analysis of the 269 critical incidents received in this
second study was conducted by a group of officer/students working independently
from the group who content analyzed the data from the first
critical incident study. The results of the second critical incident
study are summarized in Table V. (h’here it would not do violence
categories found in the second study, their labels were changed to
thdse found in the first study.)
TABLE V
Broad Categories of Responses Plade Concerning
Effective and Ineffective Qaval Officer
Performance - Study 11
(X=289 Savy Enlisted ?len)
to the
match
Percent of the Total
Catecorv Responses in this Category
1. Trust in Slibk\rdinates 26.8
2. Professional Competence 24.3
3. Involvement in Job 13.4
4. Sensitivity to Human Seeds 1l.h
5. Training of Subordinates 10.4
6. Conmunicatiens 6.5
7. Safety 5.0
8. Discipline 1.5
9. Over Famili.rrity with Subordinates @.7
A comparison of Tables IV and V shows that there is a high overlap
between the categories derived from the critical incidents gathered during
the two studies. The second study (Table V) yielded five categories not
found in the first study (Table IV): Training of Subordinates, Communications,
Safety, Discipline, .ind Familiarity with Subordinates. The first study, on
the other hand, yicld& a Personal Characteristics category not found in the
second study. The nsthors suspect that the difference between the questions
in the two s;urweys -- Kk second addressing mission success while the first
,_ .._. .-..
i
-.‘-. - -- . . . .._ .’ ._ . . .._... .