I__. - International Military Testing Association

Conclusion
This paper focused on leader initiative and looked at the relationship of leader initiative to unit
performance. In this context, both doctrinal and field views of initiative were presented. Initiative, in the
sense of doing one’s job without being told and/or being supervised, is seen as very important by
soldiers and leaders. It was shown that leader initiative is significantly correlated with unit performance,
and yet is clearly distinguishable from motivation. The fact that field views of the inhibitors of initiative
are broader than those presented in doctrinal sources suggests that the information gained in this
research might be of benefit to doctrinal proponents as well as those developing leader training courses
or conducting field training.
References
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., Hanser, L. M. (1987). Development of a model of soldier
gffectiveness, (AR1 Technical Report 741). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research.
Institute.
DePuy, W. E. (1984). Letter, General W. E. DePuy to General Fred C. Weyand, Chief of Staff, Army, 18
February 1976. In John L. Romjue, From active defense to airland battle: The develoDment
gf Armv Doctrine 1973-1982. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Headquarters Department of the Army, (1982). Ooerations, (Field Manual 100-5). Washington, DC:
Department of the Army.
Headquarters Department of the Army, (1983). Militarv Leadership, (Field Manual 22-100).
Rogers, R. W., Lllley, L. W., Wellins, R. S., Fischl, M. A., & Burke, W. P. (1982). Development of the
P), (AR1 Technical Report 560).
dexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
Starry, D. A. (1984). Commanders Notes No 3, Operational concepts and doctrine, 20 February 1979. In
John L. Romjue, From active defense to airland battle: The develoDment of Army Doctrine 1973-1982.
Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
459
.
.