In this experience sampling study, the authors examined the role of organizational leaders in employees' emotional experiences. Data were collected from health care workers 4 times a day for 2 weeks. Results indicate supervisors were associated with employee emotions in 3 ways: (a) Employees experienced fewer positive emotions when interacting with their supervisors as compared with interactions with coworkers and customers; (b) employees with supervisors high on transformational leadership experienced more positive emotions throughout the workday, including interactions with coworkers and customers; and (c) employees who regulated their emotions experienced decreased job satisfaction and increased stress, but those with supervisors high on transformational leadership were less likely to experience decreased job satisfaction. The results also suggest that the effects of emotional regulation on stress are long lasting (up to 2 hr) and not easily reduced by leadership behaviors.

This research poses 2 applied questions: How large are racial group differences on personality scales and are these differences likely to cause adverse impact in personnel selection? We examined the extent to which racial groups differ across Big 5 personality factors and facets. Large-scale, quantitative estimates based on over 700 effect sizes were meta-analytically summarized. Multiple personality instruments and understudied racial groups, particularly Asian Americans and American Indians, were included in the meta-analyses. Most group comparisons and personality scales yielded negligible differences and are not likely to cause adverse impact in selection. However, facet-level analyses produced different d-values, with some group comparisons showing moderate differences, suggesting that the use of personality measures in selection does not uniformly circumvent adverse impact concerns. The veracity of this conclusion depends on (a) the particular trait in question, (b) the composition of the applicant pool (i.e., which groups are to be compared with one another), (c) the effect size (i.e., d-value), and (d) the selection ratio. For practitioners, we present a quantitatively informed summary of when and where to expect adverse impact to result from personality measures used in personnel selection.As noncognitive predictors, personality variables continue to have considerable appeal to organizations. This shift over the past 2 decades can be explained in part by the theoretical development of the five-factor model of personality. Most notably, this has allowed research to be conducted within a parsimonious taxonomy (Goldberg, 1990), which highlights several ways to use trait measures in applied contexts. First, there is now considerable evidence to suggest that personality is important for accomplishing

Because of the unpredictable nature of the Army's current conflicts, operational requirements demand that Soldiers and leaders become proficient in military judgment and decision-making. This research presents an analysis of military judgment proficiency (MJP), which is judgment and decision-making in environments characterized by cultural, legal/ethical, and tactical complexity. We reviewed relevant literature in the areas of judgment, decision-making, and problem-solving to present a sound theoretical foundation for the MJP construct. We defined MJP as a complex skill and argued that in ambiguous, novel, rapidly changing situations in which there is limited time, information, and resources, Soldiers demonstrating MJP are more likely to select an effective course of action by appropriately identifying the nature of the situation, recognizing relevant situational factors, and forecasting the best overall outcome(s), given the situation. We describe also the initial stages of development of an assessment tool that will distinguish among Soldiers on MJP, and lay out future plans for test validation with Special Forces and non-Special Forces Soldiers.

Effective military leadership is contingent upon a host of performance capabilities. One capability central to success is effective influence across a variety of contexts and people. In the Army, leaders at all levels must be able to influence others across different types of missions. Leaders must be able to influence their own unit and chain of command, as well as personnel from other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and joint, combined, and host nation elements. Because influence has a central role in leadership, it is critical to ensure that influence capabilities are an integral element of the leader assessment and development process. Thus, it is necessary to have a comprehensive picture of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) underlying effective influence behaviors. This report identifies leader influence strategies, describes 64 KSAOs relevant to leader influence, and provides recommendations for measuring and training KSAOs. The identified KSAOs serve as targets for building training and assessment interventions designed to enhance Army leaders ability to influence. Procedure: We reviewed existing academic and military literature regarding leader influence, KSAOs related to influence, and training strategies that could be applied to develop these KSAOs. Relevant literature included social capital, power, influence tactics, persuasion tactics, and impression management. Two models of leader influence-one pertaining to building influence capability and one pertaining to applying influence strategies-were developed from the literature. We organized KSAOs into proximal, medial, and distal predictors (i.e., immediate, midrange, and distant predictors) of influence behaviors. Proximal predictors included selfregulation and procedural knowledge and skills, medial predictors included declarative knowledge and influence motives, and distal predictors included cognitive attributes, noncognitive attributes (e.g., personality), and leadership/influence experience variables. We identified existing measures for the KSAOs and we rated measurement approaches for their utility in assessing each KSAO. Additionally, potential training methods were reviewed and considered visa -vis the KSAOs. Findings: The review indicates that complex relationships among power, influence tactics and influence outcomes exist. With respect to outcomes (i.e., compliance, commitment, and resistance), hard influence tactics (pressure, coalitions, legitimating) are more likely to result in compliance. Conversely, soft tactics-particularly rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation-result in higher commitment and are more effective at influencing others. vi Regardless of the tactic used, influence attempts are more likely to result in favorable outcomes when the leader has high referent power. Research also suggests that applying multiple influence tactics in combination is useful, but research has not yet delineated the best approaches for leaders to combine and sequence tactic...

No abstract