I__. - International Military Testing Association

(c) Take-home package observations on CTC performance, by 00, for 12 CTC rotations which
/ took place during 1988, 1989, and 1990.
(d) Individual and small group interview responses of squad members, squad leaders, platoon
sergeants, platoon leaders, company commanders, battalion executive officers, and battalion
commanders in five battalions shortly after they completed their CTC rotation.
(e) Post-CTC questionnaire responses by squad members, squad leaders, platoon sergeants,
platoon leaders, and company commanders in five battalions shortly after they completed their
CTC rotation.
1. Soldier views of initiative.
Results
Pre-CTC Questionnaires. Squad members, squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and platoon leaders
from two battalions (n=600) were asked, “When the leaders in your unit talk about initiative, what do they
typically mean?” About 85% of the respondents to this open-ended question indicated that initiative was
seen as involving the performance of routine or SOP behavior, without being told and/or without being
supervised. It involved the accomplishment of their own job or the job of the leader in his absence. The
remaining 15% of the respondents indicated that when leaders encourage them to use initiative, they use
initiative to mean: do what we tell you to do, do objectionable tasks (e.g.. extra work, unpleasant tasks,
low-level work), and/or make the leaders look good.
Post-CTC Interviews. Most of the responses to the post-CTC interviews (from five battalions)
indicated that the respondents felt that initiative involved the activity of carrying out their jobs or taking
over for an absent leader. Initiative was seen as the initiation or continuation of behavior without being
told or without the supervisor’s presence. Several of the examples of initiative that were given involved
the recognition of a problem and the request to a higher level leader to be permitted to follow a different
course of action (that was still within the scope of their job). In addition, there were a few incidents of
initiative reported which involved the recognition that something beyond one’s own immediate
responsibilities needed to be done, and personally performing the necessary tasks to get it done. When
asked directly about the importance of encouraging subordinates to carry out the commander’s intent by
exploiting successes boldly, taking advantage of unforeseen opportunities, deviating from the expected
course of battle, and taking risks, respondents indicated that these were not really high priorities. From
battalion commander on down, they said, in essence, the main thing is to have subordinates at each
level who are well disciplined, technically and tactically competent, and are motivated to do their jobs
well.
2. The relationshia between leader initiative and unit combat performan-.
Interview respondents indicated that they felt initiative (i.e., accomplishing the job without being told
and/or without being supervised) is very important for success in combat. Pre-CTC questionnaires were
examined to determine whether leader initiative was, in fact, a predictor of unit performance at a CTC.
Table 1 shows that pre-CTC squad member ratings of the level of squad leader initiative are significantly
related to OC ratings of platoon performance at a CTC. Similarly, pre-CTC squad member and squad
leader ratings of platoon sergeant initiative are significantly related to OC ratings of platoon performance
at CTC. However, pre-CTC ratings of platoon leader initiative by squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and
company commanders are not significantly related to OC ratings of platoon performance at a CTC.
Initiative, in the context of doing one’s job in the absence of being told or supervised, is not
perceived as the same as motivation. For example, OC ratings of platoon motivation and platoon
initiative at a CTC were not significantly correlated (r= .12). Neither were OC ratings of how hard ?he
platoon worked and tried hard to do as good a job as possible significantly correlated with their ratings
of platoon initiative (r=.19). Furthermore, OC ratings of platoon motivation and how hard the pla?oon
worked were not significantfy correlated with their ratings of platoon performance, whereas OC ratings or
platoon initiative were related to OC ratings of performance (r= .45, p < .05). Even more support of the
relationship between initiative and performance comes from the significant correlation (r = .44. p 6. .35: