How Leaders Can Influence the Impact That Stressors Have on Soldiers

Transcription

1 MILITARY MEDICINE, 169, 7:541, 2004 How Leaders Can Influence the Impact That Stressors Have on Soldiers Guarantor: Thomas W. Britt, PhD Contributors: Thomas W. Britt, PhD*; James Davison*; MAJ Paul D. Bliese, MSC USA ; LTC Carl Andrew Castro, MSC USA The present review addresses the importance of leader behaviors in influencing the extent to which various stressors soldiers experience (e.g., high workload and lack of sleep) are related to different types of strains (e.g., psychological health, poor job satisfaction, and low morale). Research conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in the area of leadership is reviewed. Researchers at the WRAIR have examined the role of leadership as a predictor of stress, as a buffer against the negative effects of stress, and as a variable that predicts or enables variables that have been found to decrease the adverse effects of stress (e.g., role clarity, selfefficacy, and job engagement). A key strength of the WRAIR program of research is the use of multilevel modeling to examine how perceptions of leadership at the unit level are related to unit and individual soldier well-being and motivation. Introduction he power of leaders to influence the motivation and performance of soldiers is well accepted within military and civil- T ian communities. 1 4 Consequently, the military devotes considerable resources to leadership development as a means of enhancing organizational effectiveness. Although leadership is undoubtedly important for motivation and performance, leadership also influences soldier health and adaptation to stressful environments. The purpose of the present article was to review recent research on leadership and well-being and to show how leadership protects subordinates from the adverse effects of stressful environments. Much of this work has been conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and is based upon data collected from soldiers in a broad array of settings to include garrison, training, peacekeeping, and humanitarian environments. Understanding the role of leadership in the stressorstrain relationship among soldiers is important for at least two reasons. First, the military exposes soldiers to numerous stressors (i.e., demands) ranging from relatively minor physical hardships to significant physical danger. 5 8 Second, chronic exposure to stressors has been shown to impede immune system functioning and mental health status. 9 Thus, the maintenance of healthy soldiers requires an understanding of how leadership can ameliorate or buffer the effects of stressors. *Department of Psychology, 418 Brackett Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe, CMR 442, APO AE Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army Medical Command. This manuscript was received for review in May The revised manuscript was accepted for publication in September In reviewing research on leadership and the stressor-strain relationship, we first briefly describe a theoretical model of leadership that provides a framework for organizing the WRAIR s program of research. Next, we provide an overall model of how leadership interacts with other variables to influence outcome variables relevant to soldiers, and we describe studies that provide support for the different pathways in the model. House s Reformulated Path-Goal Theory of Work-Unit Leadership House s 3 reformulated path-goal theory is a comprehensive theory of leadership that provides an excellent framework for understanding the role of leadership in soldiers responses to military stressors. House s theory describes 10 different categories of leadership behaviors, and identifies which behaviors are appropriate in specific circumstances. The 10 categories cover a large range of behaviors, including behaviors designed to clarify the work roles of subordinates to behaviors designed to help subordinates achieve excellence in performance. House derives 22 propositions from his theory that provide guidelines for when a specific type of leader behavior is likely to have positive, negative, or no consequences. In determining the effect a particular leader behavior will have, House takes into account aspects of the situation (i.e., whether the work environment is stressful, monotonous, satisfying, or dissatisfying) as well as subordinate characteristics (i.e., how confident the subordinate is in his or her abilities). House argues that matching specific leader behaviors with specific subordinate characteristics promotes superior performance by satisfying subordinates needs and improving the quality of the work environment. In the present review, we focus on two categories of leader behavior discussed by House that are also frequently identified in leadership research: Path-goal clarifying behaviors and supportive behaviors. Path-goal clarifying behaviors consist of actions including (a) clarifying subordinates performance goals, (b) clarifying the means by which subordinates can effectively carry out tasks, (c) clarifying standards by which subordinates performance will by judged, (d) clarifying expectancies that others hold for subordinates to which the subordinate should and should not respond, and (e) judicious use of rewards and punishment which are contingent on performance. 3 Supportive leader behavior consists of behaviors aimed at providing psychological support for subordinates, especially in circumstances that are psychologically or physically distressing. 3 Showing concern for subordinates welfare, for instance, is an example of a supportive behavior. 541

2 542 Leadership, Stress, and Soldiers Theoretical Framework and Review of Research Relating Leadership to Health Fig. 1. Theoretical framework relating leadership to soldier health. The model presented in Figure 1 combines elements of the WRAIR s Soldier Adaptation Model (the SAM) with House s theory of leadership. 3,10 In terms of the basic components of the model, stressors are aspects of the work environment that place demands on soldiers. Strains represent potential outcomes after exposure to different stressors. The SAM has classified strains into categories of health (well-being and physical symptoms), attitudes (organizational commitment and job satisfaction), and performance. The third major component of the SAM is moderators. Moderators represent variables that can ameliorate or attenuate the relationship between stressors and different strains. For example, soldiers with high unit cohesion may be expected to report low distress in the face of stressors. In this case, unit cohesion would be a moderator, or buffer, of the stressor-strain relationship. Within the domain of moderators, Bliese and Castro 10 postulate three different levels where adaptive moderation may occur: the individual, the group or local leader, and the organization. The novel contribution of the theory depicted in Figure 1 for the present review is that leadership is capable of influencing the stressor-strain relationship in numerous ways. Before illustrating the role of leadership, it is first worth noting that the variables of stressors, strains, moderators, and leadership can all be assessed at the individual or unit level. For example, we could examine individual soldier perceptions of their leaders, or examine the average perceptions of leadership at the unit level. WRAIR researchers have made important contributions toward understanding the latter type of assessment, as described in more detail below. In addition, the arrows in the model are meant to indicate the hypothesized direction of relationship between the various components of the model. For example, stressors are hypothesized to result in strains and leadership is hypothesized to predict moderating variables (see below). The arrows leading from aspects of leadership and moderating variables to the arrow between stressors and strains are meant to signify that both aspects of leaderships and other moderator variables are capable of affecting the relationship between the experience of stressors and the development of strains. The main focus of our review is on how leader behaviors can influence the stressor-strain relationship among their subordinates. According to our model, leadership influences the link between stressors and health outcomes (i.e., strains) in three primary ways: by directly influencing the stressors soldiers experience, by serving as a direct buffer between stressors and health outcomes, and by affecting other variables that have been found to buffer soldiers from the adverse consequences of stressors. One important component of the SAM and the leadership framework presented in this paper is the proposition that leaders influence the working environment. Through behaviors directed at the unit as a whole, leaders create a shared sense of social reality among subordinates (a shared sense of value, mission, and priorities). This shared sense of social reality has direct and indirect effects on the well-being of soldiers. Bliese and his colleagues have developed analytic techniques that have empirically shown that unit membership influences individual and unit-level health outcomes A focus on work climates represents an important shift from traditional leadership research. Traditional leadership research often focuses on the personality of the leader and the specific interactions between a leader and a subordinate or several subordinates. In contrast, the climate-based research adopted at the WRAIR focuses on how leader behaviors influence the working environment, which, in turn, affects subordinate health and performance. Our review of recent empirical research conducted by the WRAIR on leadership and health is organized according to the following themes: leader behaviors as direct predictors of stressors, leader behaviors as buffers against the negative effects of stressors on health, and leader behaviors as facilitators of variables that have been found to buffer soldiers from the adverse effects of stress. As we discuss the implications of leadership for the stressor-strain relationship, we address how the findings are consistent with House s propositions related to the consequences of leader behaviors. Leader Behaviors as Predictors of Stress As seen in Figure 1, leadership behaviors are capable of reducing the actual amount of stress experienced by soldiers in garrison and on military operations. Although there are certain stressors over which leaders have virtually no control (e.g., difficult living conditions in deployments and heavy workload during critical missions), leaders have the capacity to affect certain stressors by providing soldiers with clear expectations for performance and giving soldiers the latitude to exercise judgment over how jobs are done. 17 Research conducted by the WRAIR consistently shows that leaders who provide structure and support decrease the level of stressors soldiers experience. Specifically, leaders who provide structure and support reduce withingroup conflict, perceived role ambiguity, and feelings of task insignificance Stated another way, soldiers who perceive that their leaders provide structure and support tend to get along with each other better (lower conflict), know what to do in their jobs (nonambiguous roles), and feel that they are making more of an important contribution (high task significance). These findings support the first proposition of House s theory of leadership, which argues that when the task demands are satisfying but ambiguous, superiors should clarify the pathways to goals and motivate subordinates. 3 Perhaps not surprisingly, there is evidence to suggest that the ability of the leader to

3 Leadership, Stress, and Soldiers provide structure is particularly important the more ambiguous the operational environment. Britt and Bliese 19 found leader structuring behaviors (path-goal clarifying behaviors) to be particularly important during the peacekeeping mission to Bosnia (Operation Joint Endeavor) in Leader Behaviors as Moderators of the Stressor-Strain Relationship In addition to examining whether leadership behaviors are associated with the perceptions of certain types of stressors, WRAIR researchers have also examined whether leadership is capable of buffering soldiers from the adverse effects of an already stressful environment. Bliese and Halverson 13 conducted a multilevel study examining the stress-buffering effects of supportive leadership behaviors (e.g., concern about the soldier s personal welfare) among companies (N 49) deployed to Haiti in support of Operation Uphold Democracy. The authors found that companies who perceived their leaders as supportive reported low levels of hostility, even when they viewed the job they were performing as insignificant. In contrast, those companies who perceived their leaders as unsupportive reported elevated hostility levels in the face of insignificant work. These results suggest that supportive leadership was able to protect the psychological health of soldiers exposed to the stressor of performing an insignificant task. Another study illustrating the stress-buffering effects of supportive leadership among soldiers using a multilevel approach was conducted by Bliese and his colleagues 18 in which soldiers in garrison (N 2,403) completed measures of interpersonal conflict (a stressor), lack of commitment to the Army (a strain), and the extent to which their leaders (noncommissioned officers [NCOs] and officers) exhibited supportive behaviors. The results revealed that company perceptions of supportive behaviors among officers and NCOs moderated the relationship between interpersonal conflict in the unit and a soldier s level of commitment to an Army career. Soldiers from companies with supportive NCOs and officers evidenced a high level of commitment to the Army even when interpersonal conflict in the unit was high. Bliese and Castro 16 examined the buffering effects of leadership in a study based upon data collected from soldiers involved in Task Force XXI, a force modernization program in which an entire U.S. Army brigade received and was trained on cuttingedge technology in 1996 and A survey of soldiers (N 1,538) assessed the extent to which NCOs provided supportive leadership, role clarity, work overload, and psychological strain (using the General Severity Index of the Brief Symptoms Inventory). The results of this study illustrated that a positive NCO leadership work environment coupled with high role clarity was capable of negating the detrimental effects of high workload on psychological strain. Interestingly, high role clarity without a positive NCO leadership environment failed to negate the negative effects of high workload. Finally, additional support for leader behaviors as moderators of the stressor-strain relationship was obtained in a recent study conducted by Castro and Adler. 21 These authors examined the extent to which receiving useful information from leaders could buffer soldiers from the adverse effects of a high workload on work-family conflict among forward deployed soldiers (N 685) in Europe. The authors found that when soldiers received information from leaders that allowed them to better predict their schedules, work-family conflict remained relatively low even when soldiers reported working a high number of hours. However, when soldiers did not get reliable information from leaders, working a higher number of hours was more strongly related to increased work-family conflict. Taken together, the WRAIR research on supportive leadership as a buffer against the adverse health consequences of stress provides support for a key proposition in House s theory of leadership. Proposition 14 of his theory states that When subordinates tasks or work environments are dangerous, monotonous, stressful, or frustrating, supportive leader behavior will lead to increased subordinate effort and satisfaction by enhancing leader subordinate relationships and self-confidence, lowering stress and anxiety, and compensating for unpleasant aspects of the work. 3 The results of WRAIR research suggest that supportive leader behavior is not only related to reduced levels of stress, but also ameliorates the negative health and relationship consequences of many stressors. Leader Behaviors as Facilitators of Buffers That Reduce the Effects of Stress 543 As indicated in Figure 1, leaders are capable of influencing health reactions to stress not only by directly reducing the stressors experienced and the impact of the stressors, but also by facilitating the development of factors that have been identified as stress buffers. The capacity of leader behaviors to influence responses to stressors in this manner is highly compatible with one of the central axioms of House s theory that emphasizes the importance of leader behaviors for motivation. According to House, the relationship between leader behaviors and key outcome measures such as performance is mediated by the influence that leader behaviors have on the motivation of subordinates (e.g., job satisfaction and commitment to organizational goals). 3 That is, leader behaviors influence the motivation of subordinates, which produces differences in performance and persistence. Research by Britt and Bliese 19 examined the role of leadership as a driver of other moderating factors among soldiers (N 1,200) deployed to Bosnia in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. These authors examined soldier perceptions of leader clarifying and supportive behaviors, and the pathways through which these behaviors influenced soldier job engagement. Job engagement reflects the extent to which soldiers feel responsible for and committed to superior performance, and is positively associated with effort, which predicts job performance. 22,23 The authors found that leaders who were seen as providing clarifying structure had soldiers who felt the guidelines for their performance were clear. Soldiers with clear performance guidelines, in turn, had high job engagement. Most importantly, however, soldiers level of job engagement was found to moderate the relationships between different sources of stressors (e.g., difficult environmental conditions, family separation, and lack of sleep) and psychological strain (as measured by the Brief Symptoms Inventory). Soldiers who reported high job engagement did not report as great an increase in psychological strain under high levels of stress as did soldiers who had low job engagement. 24 These results suggest that leader behaviors were predictive of increased job engagement,

4 544 Leadership, Stress, and Soldiers which subsequently buffered soldiers from increased negative consequences of stressors. The results are consonant with House s proposition that leader clarifying behaviors should have the biggest impact on motivation in situations where job guidelines are ambiguous and confusing. 3 Given the ambiguities present in peacekeeping operations, job clarifying behaviors on the part of leaders should be especially important in predicting a soldier s motivation to do well. 17 Another example of leadership serving as an immediate predictor of variables that have been found to moderate the stressor-strain relationship is provided by Chen and Bliese. 20 These researchers conducted a multilevel investigation of the extent to which leadership behaviors of NCOs and officers were predictive of self-efficacy (belief that one can perform one s job) and collective efficacy (a group s belief that they can successfully perform their job) among soldiers (N 2,585) participating in the Task Force XXI exercise in 1996 and The authors found that clarifying and supportive behaviors by NCOs and officers at the unit level were predictive of soldiers level of self-efficacy, and that clarifying and supportive behaviors by officers were especially predictive of the collective efficacy of soldiers. This research suggests that leader behaviors drive two variables (selfefficacy and collective efficacy) that have been found to buffer soldiers from the adverse health consequences of a stressful environment. 25 Future Directions Although much has been learned about leadership, several key areas remain unexplored. First, to date, leaders and the unit climates they create have only been assessed on two dimensions supportive and task clarifying. Although these two dimensions have strong historical roots in leadership research, they are also recognized to be limited in accounting for the complete spectrum of leader behaviors. 3 Thus, there is a need to develop instruments that are capable of assessing a broader range of leadership behaviors. Examples of such behaviors could include setting the example of self-sacrifice and behaviors designed to pull together unit members to accomplish objectives. Second, for practical purposes, there is a need to clearly link dimensions of leadership to clearly specified behaviors. Pragmatically, a company commander or first sergeant needs to know what types of behaviors are associated with specific leadership dimensions. What, for instance, do highly supportive leaders do that make them highly supportive? Third, leadership research on the well-being of soldiers needs to be systematically examined across a wide variety of settings. We hint, for example, at the notion that path-clarifying behaviors seem particularly important in ambiguous deployed situations, but there is a need to clearly identify when and where specific leadership behaviors are most important. Finally, as a unit diagnostic tool, we need to explore ways in which leadership information might identify units at risk for high levels of strain. Some interesting work by Bliese and his colleagues 12,15 shows that soldiers response patterns around ratings of leadership are related to unit well-being. All else being equal, units that agree about leadership have better average well-being than do units where there is little agreement about leadership. A very practical instrument to assess the psychological risk of units may be a very short survey instrument that assesses unit leadership; in analyzing this instrument, however, it may be just as important to see whether unit members agree about leadership as it is to see whether they rate the leadership positively or negatively. Implications of WRAIR S Research on Leadership The present review of the WRAIR s program of research on leadership and strains provides compelling evidence for the importance of leadership in the prediction of the psychological consequences of stressors. The actions leaders take directly related to the amount of stress soldiers experience. Arguably more important, however, is that leaders are able to help buffer soldiers from the negative effect of stressors, through leadership behaviors themselves (i.e., providing support) or by influencing known buffers such as job engagement and self-efficacy. The nature of military operations is such that soldiers will always be exposed to a wide variety of stressors ranging from high workload to horrific stressors associated with combat. Military leaders and planners need to realize that the execution of clarifying and supportive behaviors will not only lead to a greater likelihood of mission success, but will also increase the psychological resiliency of soldiers. Acknowledgments The preparation of this manuscript was supported by a contract from the Medical Research and Material Command to Thomas W. Britt (Contract DAJA02-01-P-1694). References 1. FM : Military Leadership. Fort Leavenworth, KS, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Chemers MM: Leadership research and theory: a functional integration. Leadership Q, 2000; 4: House RJ: Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Q 1996; 7: Yukl G, Van Fleet DD: Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In: Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Ed 2, Vol 3, pp Edited by Dunnette MD, Hough LM. Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press, King LA, King DW, Fairbank J, Keane TM, Adams GA: Resilience recovery factors in post-traumatic stress disorder among female and male Vietnam veterans: hardiness, postwar social support, and additional stressful life events. J Pers Social Psychol 1998; 74: Adler N, Matthews KA: Health and psychology: why do some people get sick and some people get well? Annu Rev Psychol 1994; 45: Britt TW: Psychological ambiguities in peacekeeping. In: The Psychology of Peacekeeping, pp Edited by Langholtz HJ. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, Britt TW, Adler AB: Stress and health during medical humanitarian assistance missions. Milit Med 1999; 164: Cohen S, Williamson GM: Stress and infectious disease in humans. Psychol Bull 1991; 109: Bliese PD, Castro CA: The soldier adaptation model (SAM): application to peacekeeping. In: The Psychology of the Peacekeeper: Lessons from the Field, pp Edited by Britt TW, Adler AB. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, Bliese PD: Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research: examples using SAS and S-PLUS. In: Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis. Edited by Drasgow F, Schmitt N. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, Bliese PD, Halverson RR: Group consensus and psychological well-being: a large field study. J Appl Social Psychol 1998; 28: Bliese PD, Halverson RR: Using random group resampling in multilevel research:

5 Leadership, Stress, and Soldiers 545 an example of the buffering effects of leadership climate. Leadership Q 2002; 13: Bliese PD, Halverson RR, Rothberg JM: Within-group agreement scores: using resampling procedures to estimate expected variance. Acad Manage Best Paper Proc 1994, Bliese PD, Britt TW: Social support, group consensus, and stressor-strain relationships: social context matters. J Organizational Behav 2001; 22: Bliese PD, Castro CA: Role clarity, work overload, and organizational support: multilevel evidence for the importance of support. Work Stress 2000; 14: Britt TW: Responsibility, morale, and commitment. Milit Rev 1998; 73: Bliese PD, Ritzer D, Thomas JT, Jex SM: Supervisory support and stressorcommitment relations: a multi-level investigation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, August 3 8, 2001, San Diego, CA. 19. Britt TW, Bliese P: Leadership, perceptions of work, and the stress-buffering effects of job engagement. Colloquium presented at the Center for Creative Leadership as winner of the Walter F. Ulmer, Jr. Applied Research Award, Chen G, Bliese PD: The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. J Appl Psychol 2002; 87: Castro CA, Adler AB: The impact of operations tempo: issues in measurement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association, Edinburgh UK, November 6 9, Britt TW: Engaging the self in the field: testing the Triangle Model of Responsibility. Pers Social Psychol Bull 1999; 25: Brown SP: A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychol Bull 1996; 120: Britt TW, Bliese PB: Testing the stress-buffering effects of self engagement among soldiers on a military operation. J Pers 2003; 72: Jex SM, Bliese PD: Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multi-level study. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84: