2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

comparing self- and subordinate descriptions reported that correlations ranged between zero and
.23 and were often non-significant. A similar study, found that up to 85% of subordinates did
not agree with their leaders’ self-appraisal (Karlins & Hargis, 1988). Although leaders’ self
ratings are only one dimension of climate measured with the LCS, these results provide support
for the lack of congruence between leaders’ and subordinates’ perceptions.
LEADER CALIBRATION SCALE
In view of leaders’ tendency to over-estimate climate, the Leader Calibration Scale (LCS)
was developed to assess the extent of discrepancy between leader and subordinate perceptions, to
measure confidence in assessments, and, ultimately, to assist officers in re-calibrating any
perceptual discrepancies they have in that regard (Brown & Johnson 2002). The organizational
climate dimensions to be measured were based on those measured within the Unit Climate
Profile (UCP), a 47-item attitudinal scale administered to members of the Canadian Army
holding the rank of Sergeant and below. Both instruments measure the following 11 climate
dimensions: morale/social cohesion, task cohesion, military ethos, professional morale,
perceptions of immediate supervisor, as well as confidence in six different levels of leadership.
Definitions of each climate dimension were developed based on the items used to measure each
construct on the UCP, thereby increasing the likelihood that leaders and subordinates would be
responding to similar constructs. Within the LCS, each climate dimension definition preceded a
question on that dimension. Leaders were first asked to rate the statement “Estimate how the
majority of the soldiers under your command would respond to the following statement” for each
climate dimension (e.g., Morale is very high in my unit) using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The following hypothesis was posited:
Hypothesis 1. Leaders’ estimates of their subordinates’ attitudes toward climate
dimensions would be significantly higher than subordinates’ actual ratings.
Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) stressed the need to assess perceptions of organizational
climate and leadership at a unit level rather than a global level because it is believed that the
direct and mediating effects of local leaders are likely to have large impacts on the processes and
events within the unit. As such, the following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 2a. Perceptions of climate would vary significantly as a function of company
and leader/subordinates membership.
Hypothesis 2b. Perceptions of climate would vary significantly as a function of platoon
and leader/subordinates membership.
The inability to judge soldiers’ attitudes has been attributed to officers’ overconfidence in
their judgments (Korpi, 1965; Farley, 2002). Cognitive and sensory judgment research
has established a relationship between the accuracy and confidence of judgements (Baranski
& Petrusic, 1999): individuals are often overconfident in their judgments, especially when the
judgments in question are difficult to make (Baranski & Petrusic, 1999). Overconfidence in
judgment of sensory tasks has also been found in cognitive judgement and intellectual
knowledge tasks (Baranski & Petrusic, 1995; Baranski & Petrusic, 1999). Based on these
observations, confidence items were developed and included in the LCP. Thus, immediately
following each dimension rating, leaders were asked to rate the following statement “Indicate
how confident you are in the accuracy of your rating” using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (not at all confident) to 4 (highly confident). It was further hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3. Confidence ratings of the leaders will be negatively correlated to the
accuracy ratings of each climate dimension.
711
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003