Title: Keeping up spirits: The effects of trust in lower-level and higher-level leaders and morale
on perceived operational demands
Demanding conditions are pervasive during military deployments. Soldiers are
continuously exposed to stress-arousing conditions such as daily hassles of living in the
deployment environment, legal ambiguity concerning complex rules of engagement, or hostile
life-threatening situations. Despite the stressful nature of the work, it is important to note that
most soldiers maintain positive functioning during deployment and positively look back on it
afterwards (Mouthaan, Euwema & Weerts, 2005; Newby et al., 2005; Parmak, Euwema & Mylle,
2011; Schok, Kleber, Elands, & Weerts, 2008). These positive responses are attributed to the
resilience of soldiers. It thus seems vital to understand which factors influence these resilient
responses.
It is generally agreed that the ‘objective’ environment is not necessarily predictive of
stress reactions but it is the perception of the situation and its meaning to the individual that are
the critical for determining the extent to which any environment is demanding (Britt, T. W.,
Dickinson, Moore, Castro, & Adler, 2007; King, King, Foy, & Gudanowski, 1995; Lazarus,
DeLongis, Folkman, & Gruen, 1985; Schok, Kleber, & Lensvelt-Mulders, 2010). Solomon et al.
(1987) for instance, showed that the subjective experience of threat during deployment was
more predictive of combat stress reactions than an objective measure of acute situations.
Similarly, Fineman et al. (1988) showed that role conflict and ambiguity only predicted stress if
the person saw them as threatening; some participants actually preferred such characteristics.
Given the subjective nature of perceived demands, we seek insights into what factors buffers
against demands from critical incidents (CI) and lack of control. More specifically we focus on
‘trust in leadership’ and morale.
Especially in environments that are characterized by a high level of uncertainty or
unpredictability, in combination with the potential for CI’s, trust between soldiers and their
leaders is crucial. Trust in leadership is defined as the extent to which a soldier perceives his
leader as being capable, showing care and consideration and being credible as a source of
information (Dirks et al., 2002). It facilitates open communication, mutual cooperation, mutual
dependence and empowerment – factors that are indispensable in dangerous and challenging
situations. Moreover, followers who trust their leader are more willing to accept his or her
attempts to influence them, even in life-threatening conditions (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004;
Sweeney, Thompson, & Blanton, 2009), and contributes to the establishment of positive
relationships that enhance both individual and group effectiveness (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, &
Salas, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Zand, 1997).
So far, the relationship between different hierarchical leaders and follower outcomes has
not received much research attention (Cole, Bedeian, & Bruch, 2011; Cole, Bruch, & Bedeian,
2009). Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) argued that most research has focused on direct
leaders, while indirect leaders received less attention. Taking the hierarchical leadership
structure into account is important as it changes the nature and role of key processes, such as
how leaders influence their followers and even the range and scope of this influence (Zaccaro et
al., 2001). The few studies that have taken this into account suggest that the strength of the
associations between direct and indirect leadership and follower outcomes may differ, in favour
of the direct leader (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Chen & Bliese, 2002). We therefore seek to
determine the effects of trust in different hierarchical leaders on soldiers’ perceptions CI-related
and control-related concerns. Based on previous research, we expect that trust in lower-level
leaders will be most strongly and negatively associated with the extent to which soldiers are
burdened by the potential for acute situations and being concerned about a lack of control, as
compared to trust in higher-levels of leadership.
In addition, we seek to determine whether morale mediates the relationship between
trust in different hierarchical leaders and concerns for acute situations and control-related job
characteristics. Morale is characterized by the two core dimensions enthusiasm and persistence
in achieving mission goals (Dickinson et al., 2006; Boxmeer et al., 2010). Without a personal
sense of morale, deployment work would lose its meaning, lacking the spice that imbues their
experiences with meaning and significance (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001; Britt & Bliese, 2003).
Morale has been associated with improved levels of operational performance (Britt & Dickinson,
2006), organisational commitment, effort (including extra effort) put in to the job, and combat
readiness (Van Boxmeer, Verwijs, Euwema, & Dalenberg, 2010). Furthermore, morale has been
found to act as a buffer against the negative effects of work-related stressors (Britt, Castro, &
Adler, 2005) and against developing duty-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
(Iversen et al., 2008).
The present study was conducted across three rotations of Dutch soldiers (n=631) who
were part of the ISAF-mission led by the NATO, between the end of 2009 and the beginning of
2010. Soldiers were members of combat units and were stationed either in Tarin Kowt or in Deh
Rahwod. As part of standardized leadership and mental health support, the Behavioral Sciences
Institute of the Netherlands Armed Forces (NLD AF) assesses resources for resilience, among
which are a measure of soldiers’ personal morale (Cronbachs’ alpha = .91), their trust in three
hierarchical levels of leaders (i.e., company-, platoon-, group-leader; Cronbachs’ alpha
= .95, .95, .94, resp.). To create an index of concerns about acute situations, soldiers indicated the
extent to which they perceived IED’s, missiles, suicide attacks and accidents as demanding
(Cronbachs’ alpha = .80). To create an index of lack of control, soldiers rated the extent to which
they perceived constrains or ambiguity concerning the Rules Of Engagement as demanding, as
well as ‘unresponsive chain supply’, ‘unclear command structure’ and ‘unfair differences
between units in theatre’ (Cronbachs’ alpha = .72).
Correlations showed that trust in the higher-level company leaders was marginally
related to soldiers’ concerns about acute situations and lack of control. However, trust in both
the group- and platoon leader were negatively associated with concerns for acute situations
whereas only the platoon commander was negatively related with control-related demands.
Noteworthy is that the enthusiasm-dimension of morale was not associated with concerns about
acute situations, whereas persistence was associated with both concerns for acute situations and
lack of control.
Multilevel analyses were performed to determine the effect of group- and platoon
leaders on concerns about acute situations and mediation effects of morale. Location, platoon
membership, rotation, and deployment experience were included as control variables. All
predictor variables were grand-mean centered. Only the effect of group leaders remained
significantly related to soldiers’ concerns about acute situations and was therefore included in
further analyses. Mediation analyses showed that the effect of the group leader on concerns
about acute situations was partly mediated through the persistence-dimension of morale, but
still remained significant. The effect of the platoon leader on concerns about a lack of control
was fully mediated through the enthusiasm-dimension.
The results highlight that leaders at different hierarchical levels are distinctly related to
soldiers’ perceptions of operational demands. In addition, the dimensions of morale are
distinctly related to concerns about acute situations and lack of control. Confirming our
hypothesis, trust in higher-level company leaders was least associated with concerns about
acute situations or having a lack of control. Trust in lower-level group leaders was specifically
important when dealing with acute situation; soldiers who trusted their direct group leaders
were felt less burdened by the potential for acute situations. This could partly be explained by
the finding that group leaders encourage soldiers’ to persist, even in the face of potentially lifethreatening situations. However, trust in direct group leaders remained important in its own
right which can easily be explained as when facing acute situations, soldiers have to trust the
decisions their leaders make. Trust in middle-level platoon leaders however, was specifically
important for dealing with a lack of control. One way through which they achieve this is by
inspiring soldiers with enthusiasm for the mission, even though they are constraint by Rules Of
Engagement and by providing clarity and treating all units equally. These results can be used to
inform leaders at different hierarchical levels how to support their followers in dealing with the
demands of modern military operations.