I__. - International Military Testing Association

--
higher. The second approach was to count the total number of
breaks that occurred anywhere in the chain of command. In both
approaches, z-scores were computed to determine if and where
breaks occurred. The decision rule for a break to occur required
a z-score I -.5 on the scale measuring cohesion between one
position in the chain of command and a higher position. Where
two or more scores for rating a particular leader were available
(e.g., SMs, SLs, and PSs each rating PL) only one of the scores
.was required to meet the decision rule of z 5 -.5. By example, a
platoon could have a z ( -.5 at the SM-SL level and also at the
PL-CC level. It would be included in the SL lowest break group
and not considered for further lowest break groups. However, in
composing the number of break groups, this platoon would be
counted as having two breaks.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The lowest break in the chain of command could occur at any
point. Table 1 shows where the lowest level break occurs and
lists the number of platoons per battalion in each cn the
categories.
Table 1.
Frequency at Which the : Frequency Distribution of Lowest
Lowest Break Occurred : Break by Battalion
.
Level of Platoon . Battalion Level of Lowest Break
Lowest Break Freq. % : SL PS PL CC NONE
. ---
:
SL 20 33 : V 3 0 3 3 3
.
PS 16 27 :
.
W 4 5 2 0 1
PL 10 17 :
.
X 3 2 1 1 5
cc 4 7 :
.
Y 6 4 10 1
NONE 10 17 : z 4 5 3 0 0
Table 2 gives similar information for the analysis approach
considering the total number of breaks within each platoon
focused chain of command. As there were four levels within each
chain, a range of zero to four breaks was possible.
Correlations indicating the relationship between the lowest
break and the number of breaks in the vertical cohesion chain of
command with the performance scales are listed in Table 3.