2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Intrinsic Factors Affecting the Job Performance
of Military Leaders
A study of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, The Five Factor Model,
And Goal Orientation
Landen M. Ellyson
Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, Indiana, USA
(567) 231-6108
Justin H. Gibson
Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, Indiana, USA
(734) 272-9106
Michael Nichols
Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, Indiana, USA
(517) 759-8254
Shawn M. Carraher
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
1
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Intrinsic Factors Affecting the Job Performance of Military Leaders
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This study examines the difference between interpersonal and task oriented leadership
in the military. The paper seeks to explain how personality and goal orientation affect these two
styles of leadership and improve job performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The study collected data from 869 soldiers, comprised of
enlisted personnel and officers. All participants were in the age range of 18 to 55 years old. The
research was gathered from the United States Military during peacetime efforts. The instruments
used for data analysis were Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership, the Least Preferred
Coworker Scale (LPC), Goal Orientation and the Five Factor Model (FFM).
Findings – Findings concluded that goal orientation and the personality trait of
conscientiousness significantly influenced the job performance of military leaders. Both of the
influencing factors are characteristics found in task-oriented leaders. The low LPC scores,
recorded in the data, substantially add to this conclusion.
Research limitations/implications – Research was administered only during a peacetime
environment, limiting the scope of certain aspects affecting military job performance.
Originality/value – The recent study is original due to its attempt to show that Fiedler's LPC is
directly related to certain dimensions of the FFM. The study also reveals that the FFM trait of
Conscientiousness, connected with a strong emphasis on Goal-Orientation, is the strongest
determinant of a successful leader in military operations. Psychologists may also contribute
from the value added by this study in the analysis of FFM, Goal-Orientation and Fred Fiedler’s
Contingency Theory.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
2
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
PURPOSE
This study examines the difference between interpersonal and task oriented leadership in
the military. The paper seeks to explain how personality and goal orientation affect these two
styles of leadership and improve job performance. The Five Factor Model (FFM), Fiedler’s
Contingency Theory, and Goal Orientation will be analyzed within the data gathered from
military personnel.
Since the 1960s, researchers have conducted studies to determine whether there is any
relationship between personality and leadership. They based their studies on the Five Factor
Model consisting of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion
(Bligh, 2009). DeRue, Barnes, & Morgeson discussed recentmeta-analysis that proves there is a
multiple correlation of .39 between the FFM traits and leadership (as cited in Judge, Bono, Ilies,
& Werner, 2002). More specifically, this study’s data analysis will uncover how the FFM
specifically correlates with task-oriented leadership.
Fiedler's Contingency Theory (Fiedler, 1971b, 1978) implies that the effectiveness of
leadership is a function of the interactions between the leader and the leadership situation
(Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985). The purpose of the contingency theory in this study is to
analyze the data relating to the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scale and determine how it
relates to the job performance of task-oriented leaders versus relationship-oriented leaders. By
studying the correlation between the two different orientations of leadership and our data
collection, we hope to narrow down why LPC favors one leadership style over the other.
This study will look at the intrinsic value of goal orientation and how it affects the job
performance of leaders. Scriffignano wrote that the results of previous research suggested goal
orientation can influence an individual’s approach and success in achieving goals (as cited in
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
3
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Carson, Mosley, & Boyar, 2004). A better understanding of the role that goal orientation plays
on leadership could prove the advantages of task-oriented leaders.
LITERATURE REWVIEW
The United States Military has been always been on the forefront of developing quality
leaders, and has been the testing ground for many different leadership theories.Military
leadership is defined as influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation,
while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (Headquarters
Department of the Army, 2007). Military leaders operate in fast paced work environment that is
fraught with complexity. The military is constantly changing, whether it be their tactics,
operational strategy, training exercises, weapons, technology, policies or leadership theories.
These changes increase the level complexity in a commander’s task at all levels and multiply the
challenges faced by military leaders (Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. , 2000).
The way in which performance within the military can be observed is often very
challenging due to multi-faceted responsibilities that are placed upon military leaders. Different
wars and international operations have proved that the context in which leadership takes place
can drastically change the expectations of leadership-behavior and its perception by subordinates
and the leaders themselves (Rozčenkova, A., & Dimdiņš, Ģ. , 2010). Military leadership is
dynamic in its nature and it may be necessary to clearly define leadership in its different contexts
in order to be able to truly evaluate a leaders effectiveness (Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. ,
2003).
Rozčenkova and Dimdiņš, (2010) used 203 members of international militaries in conflict
environments in order to define the relationship between self-reported transformational
leadership and social identification in the military. Striving to prove a difference in self-reported
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
4
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
leadership behavior among officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, they conduct a
multivariate analysis of variance with the levels of hierarchy and the member’s nationality as
independent variables. They also used the subscales of self-reported leadership behavior as
dependent variables. Through Rozčenkova and Dimdiņš’ research, it was partially confirmed
that higher-ranking officers would report more transformational leadership behavior than lower
ranking officers and soldiers would. These findings are in concurrence with previous research
conducted by Kane and Tremble (2000) who also found differences in transformational
leadership between different organizational levels.
Utecht and Heier (1976) studied a group of 479 officers out of a total population of 744.
They hypothesized that according to Fred Fiedler’s contingency model, that military leaders
primarily have attained their success by holding positions that cater towards their leadership
style. Leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power were used as situational
variables to determine whether a group is favorable or unfavorable to a leader. The null
hypothesis of this study was accepted and it was concluded that the success of military leaders is
not primarily because they are placed in positions that cater towards their leadership style.
Fiedler’s contingency model failed to accurately predict successful leaders, which poses the
question; what factors can be used to predict successful military leadership?
Kell et al. (2010) investigated 13 volunteer subject matter experts(SMEs) and 11 human
factors professionals (HFP) SMEs, to findassociations between Big Five expressions and
behavioral effectiveness judgments in the context of job performance. Motowidlo (2003) defines
job performance, as“the value to the organization of a worker’s behaviors that are performed
while on the job”.Through their research, Kell et al. found that for both HFP and volunteer jobs,
Openness and Agreeableness had more of an effect in interpersonal situations while Expressions
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
5
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability had more effectiveness in task oriented situations.
These findings strongly implicate that certain job characteristics effect the correlation between
behavioral trait expressions and ratings in job performance.
Brown and O'Donnell (2011) studied 438 undergraduate seniors enrolled in a Strategic
Management capstone course to find if learning goal orientation combined with the Big Five in
any way has a direct correlation to job performance. They measured conscientiousness,
neuroticism, learning goal orientation, proactive personality, and effort. A total of six
hypothesis’s were analyzed and hypothesis 1 and 2 solidified research done in the past by
proving that Conscientiousness positively related to learning goal orientation while neuroticism
had a negative relationship.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
The present study surveyed 869 soldiers from the United States Military (461 men; 383
women; 25 missing in the system). Their ages range from 18 – 55 with the mean age being 21.
The surveyed individuals included enlisted military personnel as well as officers. Results of this
research where gathered in a peacetime environment.
The primary instruments used were Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership,
more specifically the Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC) as well as Goal Orientation, and the
Five Factor Model (FFM), which consists of extraversion, openness, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and emotional stability. The data analyzes each of these different areas in order to
show what effect goal orientation and the FFM have on job performance within the military.
FINDINGS
The average standard coefficient beta for Goal Orientation, LPC, and FFM is .071, with 4
of the 7 having a negative effect on the dependent variable, job performance. Conscientiousness
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
6
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
has the greatest effect on job performance in the military with a .441 standard coefficient beta. It
is a trait that is proven to be more effective in work-related task situations, which could be
explained by the fact that task situations are more relevant to the expression of conscientiousness
than the other traits (Kell, Rittmayer, Crook, & Motowidlo, 2010).
1. Population
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
461
53.0
54.6
54.6
2
System
383
25
869
44.1
2.9
97.1
45.4
100.0
100.0
1 = Male 2 = Females
2. Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
age
810
18
55
21.09
4.807
Valid N (listwise)
810
*Results are from a peacetime environment.
3. ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
84.468
7
12.067
100.538
.000a
Residual
51.850
432
.120
Total
136.318
439
a. Predictors: (Constant), REGR FACTOR SCORE 5 FOR ANALYSIS 1, REGR
FACTOR SCORE 4 FOR ANALYSIS 1, lpctot, REGR FACTOR SCORE 3 FOR
ANALYSIS 1, REGR FACTOR SCORE 2 FOR ANALYSIS 1, goalor, REGR
FACTOR SCORE 1 FOR ANALYSIS 1
b. Dependent Variable: perform
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
7
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
4. Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
a
1
.787
.620
.613
.34644
a. Predictors: (Constant), REGR FACTOR SCORE 5 FOR ANALYSIS 1, REGR
FACTOR SCORE 4 FOR ANALYSIS 1, lpctot, REGR FACTOR SCORE 3 FOR
ANALYSIS 1, REGR FACTOR SCORE 2 FOR ANALYSIS 1, goalor, REGR
FACTOR SCORE 1 FOR ANALYSIS 1
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
2.649
.138
goalor
.362
.035
lpctot
.002
Extraversion
Model
1
t
Sig.
19.140
.000
.398
10.304
.000
.001
.109
3.599
.000
-.079
.021
-.149
-3.846
.000
Openness
to Experience
-.045
.015
-.093
-2.988
.003
Conscientiousness
.219
.020
.441
10.928
.000
Agreeableness
-.110
.017
-.197
-6.453
.000
Emotional Stability
-.006
.014
-.014
-.439
.661
a. Dependent Variable: perform
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
8
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Another reason that conscientiousness correlates more directly to positive job
performance is that as an individual gets older, Conscientiousness continuously increases in
rank-order stability, whereas the other traits, Extraversion (-.079), Openness (-.045),
Agreeableness (-.110), and Emotional stability (-.006), reach a peak before digressing in rankorder stability (Specht, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011). This means that over time individuals tend to
become more conscientious, which in return increases the significance it has on one’s job
performance.
A study done by Kell, Rittmayer,Crook, & Motowidlo, 2010, showed that
Conscientiousness and emotional stability prove to be effective in task oriented leadership styles.
For the purpose of this study emotional stability will be not be acknowledged as it does not hold
a proper amount of significance in the data. This lack of significance can be explained by the fact
the military has strong restrictions on who they recruit. Individuals who are emotionally unstable
are usually weeded out during the recruiting process.
The United States Military has sought after and nurtured proactive people who are goal
oriented ever since the military began. A proactive person is someone who takes personal
initiative to be influential no matter what the situation is. They display initiative, set goals, push
through, improvise, and overcome all obstacles (Bateman & Crant, 1993). These types of leaders
are known for exceptional job performance and that explains why goal orientation has a strong
correlation with a standard coefficient beta of .398. Leaderswho set goals where they see
themselves as able to progress successfully, or as more of an asset, instead where they see
themselves as stuck or unimportant will be much more effective (Hannah, & Avolio, 2010).It has
been discovered that conscientiousness is positively related to one’s desire to learn goal
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
9
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
orientation, while emotional stability was found to be negatively related (Colquitt, LePine, &
Noe, 2000)
The LPC holds a standard coefficient beta of 1.09, which seems to play less of an affect
on job performance than Conscientiousness or Goal Orientation. However, both
Conscientiousness and Goal Orientation relate heavily to task oriented leadership. Task oriented
leaders receive low scores on the LPC. Those low scores translate into a smaller standard
coefficient beta in this data set. A smaller standard coefficient beta for the LPC proves that traits
that pertain to task oriented leadership improve job performance more so than interpersonal
leadership traits, because if interpersonal leadership traits where more important to job
performance they would score higher on the LPC, thus causing it to have a higher standard
coefficient.
ORIGNINALITY/VALUE/CONTRIBUTION
The recent study is original due to its attempt to show that Fiedler's LPC is directly
related to certain dimensions of the FFM. The study also reveals that the FFM trait of
Conscientiousness, connected with a strong emphasis on Goal-Orientation, is the strongest
determinant of a successful leader in military operations. In his doctorate dissertation for the
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Keith Alan Francoeur conducted a study on the
relationship between the FFM and preferred leadership styles in initiating structure. He
concluded that Conscientiousness was positively correlated to initiating structure (2008), which
is a component vital to military leadership.
As well as tying together multiple personality theories, the wide variety of test subjects
adds further validity to the FFM and LPC. The test subjects consisted of peacetime armed service
members serving across all military branches and across a wide variety of military occupational
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
10
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
specialties, and LPC task structures. Despite the diversity of the test population,
Conscientiousness and Goal-Orientation was consistently rated higher than all other personality
and leadership traits. This only adds credibility to the FFM and also reveals that leaders rated
most highly in the area of performance tend to display traits consistent with a low LPC score.
The data collected from the study also reveals a unique perspective as it relates to the
FFM. Since the military does not recruit emotionally unstable individuals into the armed forces,
the FFM trait of Emotional Stability can be disregarded since it is irrelevant to this test group.
This allows the data to provide more accurate results on the differentiating traits of successful
military leadership. Therefore, the absence of the Emotional Stability factor only provides a
clearer understanding of which FFM traits are present in successful military leaders.
The study contributed to the field of psychology in regards to Goal-Orientation, FFM,
and the LPC. By collecting data from a wide population of armed service members, we were able
to see that high performing military leaders had certain traits in common. By analyzing the data
we determined that these successful leaders were Goal-Oriented and held traits consistent with
the Conscientiousness trait of the FFM. We also noticed that these traits from the FFM are
consistent with a low LPC score. Therefore we concluded that the highest performing leaders in
the United States military are task-oriented.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Utecht and Heier used the Contingency Model to study whether or not the successfulness
of military leaders could be directly related to their positions being complimentary to their
leadership styles. The two researchers found that the Contingency Model was no better than
pure chance at predicting successful military leaders. (Utecht, Heier, 1976) There are varying
degrees of situational favorableness that are identified by dissecting the LPC. They are
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
11
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
dichotomized into three different factors (leader-member relations, task structure, and position
power) that make up eight specific leadership situations (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985).
One of Utecht and Heier’s main points was that position power should not always be used as a
variable, depending on the situation.
Their research should not lead to the belief that contingency model is not a practical tool.
Fiedler would not have spent significant time developing the theory if there was no solid basis.
Furthermore, other studies have proven the model effective in different settings. However there
is a need to create a new model that is more accurate. After analyzing our results, we predict that
if FFM and Goal-Orientation were used coherently to create a new model, the resulting tool
would have the ability to effectively predict successful leaders in both military and non-military
organizations.
Future research would gain from additional data sets and performance measurements. From the
results of the data, it is noteworthy to observe the relationship between task oriented leadership
and performance. Similar future studies could focus on the comparison wartime and peacetime
military personnel as well as other population factors. We were limited to gathering data from
soldiers in the United States Military in a peacetime environment. It would be suggested to
gather data from several different militaries in both peacetime and wartime settings. For
example, future sample sizes could be segregated by amount of time served, deployment
location, military rank, military occupation, active duty status, or reservist status. Also, it would
be beneficial to incorporate other variables such as expanded personality factors or locus’s of
control. This would give researchers the most well rounded data. This information would benefit
militaries and researchers alike by being helping determine and suggest how leaders should adapt
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
12
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
from environment to environment and when working on a global platform with foreign
militaries. Still, the scope of future research is not limited only to the military.
Perhaps the most interesting research would come from examining the effects of task
oriented leadership, goal orientation, and conscientiousness on performance in environments
with structured tasks, and poor leader-member relations; environments that generally call for
leaders with a high LPC score (Fiedler, 1968). By testing these areas, current conceptions of
certain work environments could successfully be challenged.
In regards to future research, the relationship between these three variables should be examined
in other industries and environments. It would be beneficial to run similar studies in
environments traditionally associated with an emphasis on task oriented leadership; areas such as
construction, information technology (Petrides, 2000), and engineering. Still, there are other
areas for potential research as well.
As an example, in the area of customer service it has been determined that transactional
or transformational leadership has no effect on the quality of customer service (Gerhardt 2006).
However, potential research could be conducted on the effects of goal orientation, and the FFM
in customer other service. Besides customer service, there are many other business environments
commonly thought to be congruent with a relational leadership style; in which the FFM, task
oriented leadership, and goal orientation could be tested.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there are numerous issues involved in defining successful military
leadership and the extent that certain leadership styles have on job performance. The vast amount
of responsibilities combined with the complexity of military operations, make it difficult to
clearly predict with absoluteness a specific leadership theory that encompasses all possible
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
13
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
scenarios. Although further investigation within this field of research is clearly necessary, this
paper contributes in that it shows decidedly that Conscientiousness and Learning Goal
Orientation play a large part in successful job performance. It is essential that as the military
trains leaders to function in highly volatile and fast paced environment, that they indoctrinate
Conscientiousness and Learning Goal Orientation into the core of their leadership development.
The instrument used in this paper can also make a contribution into future research into
developing a leadership theory that takes into account the vast amount of performance measures
that define successful military leadership. We recommend that additional research be done on the
various aspects that make up job performance within military leadership, in hopes of the
development of a multi-functioning leadership theory that can predict successful leaders in an
environment that contains so many variants.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
14
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Resources
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Bligh, Michelle C. “Personality Theories of Leadership.” Encyclopedia of Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations. 2009. SAGE Publications. 8 Apr. 2011.
Brown, S., & O'Donnell, E. (2011). PROACTIVE PERSONALITY AND GOAL
ORIENTATION: A MODEL OF DIRECTED EFFORT. Journal Of Organizational
Culture, Communications & Conflict, 15(1), 103-119.
Carson, C.M., Mosley, D.C., & Boyar, S.L. (2004). Goal orientation and supervisory
behaviors: Impacting SMWT effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 10(7/8),
152 �162.
Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A
meta-analytic pathanalysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678–707.
DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. (2010). Understanding the Motivational
Contingencies of Team Leadership. Small Group Research, 41(5), 621-651.
doi:10.1177/1046496410373808
Fiedler, F. (1971b). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128–148.
Fiedler, F. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In
L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59–112). New
York: Academic Press.
Gerhardt, P. L. (2006). Exploring transformational and transactional leadership types and
customer service success in retail: An effectiveness exploratory case study. Capella
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 156 p. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.oak.indwes.edu/docview/304909009?accountid=6363
Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental
readiness of leaders?. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1181-1187.
doi:10.1002/job.675
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (2007). Military Leadership. Army Regulations 600–
100.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
15
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Kane, T. D., & Tremble, T. R. (2000). Transformational Leadership Effects at Different Level
theArmy. Military Psychology, 12, 137–160.
Kell, H. J., Rittmayer, A. D., Crook, A. E., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2010). Situational Content
Moderates the Association Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Behavioral
Effectiveness. Human Performance, 23(3), 213-228. doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.488458
Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.
39–53). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's Contingency Theory of
Leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter.
Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274-285. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274
Petrides, L. A. (2000). Exploring transformational and transactional leadership types and
customer service success in retail: An effectiveness exploratory case study. (1st ed.).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Rozčenkova, A., & Dimdiņš, Ģ. (2010). The Relationship between Self-Reported
Transformational Leadership and Social Identification in the Military. Baltic Journal Of
Psychology, 11(1/2), 5-17.
Scriffignano, R. S. (2011). Coaching within organisations: examining the influence of goal
orientation on leaders' professional development. Coaching: An International Journal Of
Theory, Research & Practiccae, 4(1), 20-31. doi:10.1080/17521882.2010.550898
Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. (2000). CHALLENGES OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP IN
CHANGING ARMIES. Journal Of Political & Military Sociology, 28(1), 43.
Specht, J., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). Stability and Change of Personality Across the
Life Course: The Impact of Age and Major Life Events on Mean-Level and Rank-Order
Stability of the Big Five. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 101(4), 862-882.
doi:10.1037/a0024950
Tett, R., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and crosssituational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 397–423.
Utecht, R. E., & Heier, W. D. (1976). The Contingency Model and Successful Military
Leadership. Academy Of Management Journal, 19(4), 606-618. doi:10.2307/255794
Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 657–692.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
16
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
ISBN : 9780974211428
17