AD-A285 ,hJI IJ~I II[ ~II II [[ FIJII[IJll~942

MTON PAGE

_ o,_0

'Ierage , hou` per response, including the time fo r

~0lec-ion

O-B0Mo o704-o0 o____________ o ,o__,____

eiwng Instructons. searching existing data sources.

aspct of this I inform~ation Send comments regarding this burden estimate Or a iy other12h ,q the 1Jefferson Directorare for information Operations and Reports, Services. HeadquOartefs W shington and &v! Highway. S.uite 1204, Arlington, VA 22)02-4JO) and to the Otic' (ifto0 Vanagement Budget. Parser' .ork Reduction Proect (0704-0188). Washngton, DC 20503

I3. 1

2 REPORT DATE

I" AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

=

18 APRIL 1.994

REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

S. FUNDING NUMBERS

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Human Dimensions Field Evaluation Unit Manning System: of the COHORT Company Replacement Model 6. AUTHOR(S)

Major Mark A.

Vaitkus,

Ph.D. 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Medical Unit 29218 APO AE 09102

'9. SPONSORING /MONITORING

REPORT NUMBER //7

Research Unit-Europe

10. SPONSORING/ MOMITORING

ACENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Coawr• Ft. Detrick 21702-5012 Frederick, MD

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

2a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release;

distribution unlimited

3. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report summarizes findings from five survey data collections carried out by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) between 1983 and 1986 for the purpose of evaluating the COHORT Company Replacement Model of the Unit Manning System (formerly tile New Manning System). Units surveyed include COHORT combat arms companies from various points in their three-year life cycle and a set of traditional individual replacenment (IRS) companies used as scientific controls, often from the same battalions. Number of COHORT companies analyzed ranges from six to nineteen depending on date of data collection. The analysis focuses on the measurement of human dimensions, and cohesion in particular. Across all data collections, results confirm the presence of higher horizontal cohesion in COHORT companies, but do not reveal other positive psychological outcomes unless the COHORT companies are ,let neutral or positive with respect to IRS controls on assessments of such dimensions as leadership, training, and weapons. The tE port also includes documentation on all the survey data sets and associated cohesion sca;es related to WRAIR's field evaluation of the various COHORT models implemented by the Army, including battalion rotation and the 7th Light Infantry.

0

(?D

S14.

15. NUIVI.ER Or PAGES

SUBJECT TERMS

Unit Manning System, New Manning System, COHORT,

16. PRICE COcE

personne! replacement, cohesion, psychological factors 17.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT UNCI(A-. NSN 7540-01-280 5500

18.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE O LNCIN

19,

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT N,ASA

7 Standard Form

198 U&

P~esrv.-b.xNs ANN, ýýj 119 29

02i

2 89)

UNIT MANNING SYSTEM:

HUMAN DIMENSIONS FIELD EVALUATION OF THE COHORT COMPANY REPLACEMENT MODEL

18 April 1994

Major Mark A.

Vaitkus,

Ph.D.

U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe Unit 29218 APO AE 09102-4428

This report was revised and refined while the author was assignnd as Research Psycho.Logist at the U.S. Army Medical Research UnitEurope in Heidelbc :-, Germany,. The original version, dated May 1989, was written 1-y Dr. Vaitkus while assigned at the Walter Reed Army Institute of keseearch in Washington, D.C. The Unit Manning System (UMS) research program was conceived and directed by Dr. David H. Marlowe, Ph.D., Chief, Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of research, Washington; DC 20307-5100. The views of the author do nr necessarily reflect thosc of the Department of the Army or the epartment of Defense (PARA 4-3, AR 360-5).

EXECUTIVE

Background.

This

is

report

SUMMARY

a

reanalysis

of

data

collected

between 1983 and 1986 for the purpose of evaluating the COHORT Company Replacement Model of the Unit Manning System (formerly the New Manning System). The Unit Manning System (UMS) was a large scale attempt by the Department of the Army to enhance cohesion and espt it de corps by reducing personnel turbulence related to the Individual Replacement System (IRS) method of filling units. The UMS consisted of two subsystems: the COHORT Unit Replacement System and the U.S. Army Reqimental System. The current report focuses only on the JOHORT Unit Replacement System. The COHORT

Training)

(acronym

method

of

for

Cohesion,

unit

Operational

replacement

Readiness,

involved

and

forming

and

stabilI7lnq cnbavt arms companies and batteries for a three year unit life cycle. fnilistees recruited for a specific COHORT unit trained

of

tcciethcr

as

a

qroup

during

Initial

Entry

Training

(by

way

Stat ion e

One

together

'pt Training), after which they were assigned FOP:;CuM unit where they were joined by a cadre and

to a

continued traininq. When the unit deployed overseas .;hort tour (a I t r 18 or 2.4 months in :owljs respectively), as an lintact group. COHiORT units disestablished personnel were reassigned 36 months following

for

a

long or did so and their formation.

it

Disestablishment normally took place overseas for deploying units (Department of the Army, 1984). Four different models of the COHORT Unit Replacement System were implemented. The first two of these involved inserting COHORT companies into preexisting battalions both in CONUS and overseas (OCONUS) following deployment. The difference between the two was whether the COHORT company deployed for a long tour (18 monthsModel 1) or short tour (12 months-Model 2). The third model was defined by the creation of COHORT battalions which, upon deployment, rotated with "sister" battalions whose personnel had beer, newly stabilized in Europe. The fourth model was also battalion-based, but did not involve rotation overseas. These latter battalions were part of the 7th Light Infantry formation and spent their 36 month life cycles at Fort Ord, California (except for one battalion that deployed to the Sinai Desert for six months of United Nations peacekeeping duty).

The Data and Study Design. From the time PROJECT COHORT began and the first COHORT units were formed in 1981, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel directed that the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (along with other agencies) collect field data in order to evaluate "human dimensions" outcomes in COHORT

units. WRAIR

Under the executive direction of Dr. David col lot ed survey data measuring cohesion

psycho!;oci-al

"uontrol"

vai-rables

unit,:

between

in

both

COHORT

1983 and 1988.

and

individual

H. Marlowe, and other replacement

The survey data collected

by WRAIR scientists is related to the first, third, and fourth COHORT models introduced above. The seven survey data sets rr-sulting from this effort are described in Appendix A of this report. In addition, there is an eighth data set, collected by L.ieutenant Colonel Terry Fullerton in a Ranger battalion in 1987, that was used to help establish norms for cohesion measures. The current report only discusses survey data collected in Model I COHORT units, i.e. the company replacement model with a long tour in Europe, and their IRS controls. These data provide the first and most straightforward examination of COHORT units, and therefore justify the indepth treatment and reanalysis given here. In fact, most of the WRAIR measures of cohesion refer to the company (or battery) as the primary unit of analyfis and suggest that the company is normally the largest military group in which cohesicn, especially in terms of daily face-to-face interaction, analyses of both tble battalion occurs. Yor information and initial and company COHORT models, the reader is directed to the WRAIR UMS Technical Reports (e.g., Marlowe, 1985, 1987) . WRAIR scientists in the Department of Military Psychiatry and the U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe, as well as contracted agents of BDM Corporation, collected survey data from individual COHORT companies/batteries and their IRS controls between 1983 and 1986. All assigned members of the opportunistic samples of airborne infantry, mechanized infantry, armor, and field artillery units were asked to voluntarily complete a survey. With some exceptions, response rates by company/battery ranged from 60% to 80%, and nonrespondents usually were not available for duty (due to No sick call, etc.) on survey administration dates. leave, systematic underrepresentation of soldiers by demographic categories (e.g., rank, race, marital status) was found for these data collections. The data anaJyses presented herein are broken down into three sections. The first section reports on the first generation of COHORT companies following their deployment to Europe in 1983. Data from ten COHORT line companies from ten different combat arms battalions are compared to IRS data from the same battalions (Data Set #1 in Appendix A). The second section reports on the second generation of COHORT companies following their deployment to Europe i.n 1984 (Data Set #2 in Appendix A). In that section, data from six COHORT line companies from six different combat arms battalions are compared to IRS data, again from the same battalions. Although there are fewer cases for the second generation comparisons, both of these data collections offer a strong scientific design that controls for type of unit, post, and battalion. The third section of the report analyzes ilata from subsequent samples of COHORT companies and IRS controls collected at approximately six month intervals during 1985 and 1986 (part of Data Sets #3, #4, and #5 in Appendix A). Depending on the data set, the COHORT companies represent 10 to 19 battalions and the IRS companies from 6 to 9 battalions. It is not possible in these

ii

analyses to control COHORT versus IRS comparisons by battalion. However, these analyses do permit separate examinations of the COHORT companies by different points in the unit life cycle (beginning, early to middle, middle to late, and enc). They therefore also include COHORT data before deployment while the units were still in CONUS. Significant Findings. The reader is directed to the "Conclusions" section that follows each of the three data analysis sections, as well as to the "Overall Conclusions" that begin on Page 59. These findings may be summarized as follows: o COHORT companies in the company replacement model consistently display higher levels of horizontal cohesion (social bonding with fellow soldiers) than IRS control companies regardless of (1) stage in COHORT unit life cycle, (2) whether or not the IRS controls are from the same battalions as the COHORT companies, (3) whether looking at individual survey items or scale scores, and (4) whether the IRS control companies are higher, lower, or the same on other measures of cohesion (i.e., related to confidence in leadership, weapons, and training). o There is no consistent difference between COHORT and IRS companies on any psychosocial measure except horizontal cohesion. o The effect of COHORT status on horizontal cohesion appears larger when the COHORT sample happens to be net positive (and smaller when the COHORT sample happens to be net negative) with respect to the IRS sample on the other measures of cohesion (i.e., related to confidence in leadership, weapons, and training). This is because all the measures of cohesion are significantly correlated with one another, and thus the effect of COHORT on horizontal cohesion may be diminished or enhanced depending on these other aspects of unit climate. o There is a decline in cohesion over the course of the COHORT unit life cycle, although the decline is less severe for horizontal cohesion than for other measures of cohesion. o COHORT companies score higher than IRS companies on such outcome measures as willingness to go to war with the unit and company pride, but only when they are no worse than net neutral with respect to the IRS sample on the other measures of cohesion (i.e., related to confidence in leadership, weapons, and training). 0 Cohesion levels are lower across the board in both COHORT and IRS companies when compared with those found in a Ranger battalion. It must be kept in mind that these results apply only to first-term enlisted soldiers (El to E4) in combat arms companies and batteries. For the most part, COHORT privates, corporals, and specialists actually experienced personnel stabilization. Many of the results are generalizable to noncommissioned officers, but the

liii

COHORT stabilization goal was realized only partially with NCO's and not at all with officers. Throughout the analyses, the evaluation of COHORT must be seen in the context of an Army program involving a minority of units that was instituted while the Individual Replacement System continued to be the norm. Value of This Report. Beyond adding to the historical record on the Unit Manning System, which was a critical and costly Army personnel initiative of the 1980's, this report contributes the following, most of which has not been previously published: o Documentation of all data sets related to Unit Manning System soldier surveys generated by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. This includes numbers of cases, descriptions of COHORT and IRS units surveyed, variable categories, and dates of data collection. o Documentation of the primary cohesion and psychosocial scales used to evaluate the various COHORT models. This includes reliability and correlational analyses, in addition to (normative) mean scores and standard deviations, both at the individual and company level, for each data set. o The use of different small samples of units over time that reveal clear patterns of consistency on the measure of horizontal cohesion (hypothesized to be related to COHORT status) while allowing great fluctuation on the other measures of cohesion (not hypothesized to be related to COHORT status). This design greatly assists the causative argument with respect to the specific effect of COHORT on cohesion, and validates the hypothesis that cohesion measures are somewhat independent of one another. o Analyses that go beyond sample mean scores to show quantifiably at the paired-company level how a wide variety of contrasting unit climates can undermine or enhance the effect of a structural organizational change such as COHORT. o Analyses that show in a simple way how psychosocial outcome measures are affected by multiple rather than single cohesion factors. o Analyses that point to the importance of separating out a particular model of interest, at least at the beginning, when examining a program as large and complex as COHORT. For this report, this meant isolating the company replacement mode] dat from the battalion model data.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

Company Replacement Model A.

First Round Deployment 1. General Results ......................................

B.

C.

2. Paired Company Results ..............................

11

3.

16

Conclusions ........................................

Second Round Deployment 1. General Results ....................................

18

2.

23

Paired Company Results ..............................

3. Specific Leadership Problems .......................

29

4.

33

Conclusions ........................................

Subsequent Company Replacement Model Samples 1. Introduction .......................................

38

2.

Development of Unit Climate and Cohesion Scales ....

38

3.

Results ...........................................

46

4.

Conclusions ........................................

58

D. Overall Conclusions ..................................... II.

1

59

Appendices A. Description of Data Sets ................................

61

B. Questionnaire Items Used in Scales ......................

69

C. Characteristics of Scales ................................

81

D. Estimated Response Rates ................................

91

E.

Abbreviations ...........................................

92

F.

References .............................................

93

COMPANY

First

Round

REPLACEMENT

Deployment-General

MODEL

Results

field company or battalion-based different fourteen Of the four only COHORT concept, were developed around the models that the involved two of these The first implemented. were ever and their OSUT-trained companies OCONUS, deployment of individual their remainder of for the battalions preexisting into insertion meant a COHORT "long tour" this In USAREUR, cycle. 36 month life one of 12 months Korea a "short" of 18 months (Model 1) and in COHORT companies from individual The Walter Reed data (Model 2). must and care only Model 1 units #1-5 include Data Sets found in company entire the to be taken in generalizing therefore replacement method of COHORT implementation. COHORT companies or batteries of set of the first For ten measures were human dimension survey USAREUR, to deployed thus in arrival months following taken once between two and six to prior units these for available are data No survey Europe. from the data Data Set #1 contains USAREUR deployment. their units COHORT line ten the to administered instrument survey short the to matched of IRS companies/batteries to" a set as as wel! armor, three mechanized infantry, For three by battalion. latter line we can compare a COHORT battalions, infantry and three In same battalion. the company within company with an IRS line can company, we line infantry a COHORT airborne for addition, its IRS companies in remaining five to the compare results For all units. and support headquarters the including battalion, we can compare survey therefore, companies, 10 COHORT line same battalion, the company in one IRS line least at to results command and battalion post, type of unit, for controlling thus climate. are variables psychological outcomes on social Since evaluate want to we ideally of causes, by a wide variety affected such with all any, if of being a CuIORi' company, effect the in of course, impossible, This is held equal. conditions causal included. military the organizations, world of social the real command of battalion level the down to controls set to Being able direction, the right a step in is definitely however, climate, one on the effects has different ultimately such climate even if with out-of-sync is because it e.g. the unit, COHORT company in on battalion poses a drain schedule, training the battalion of a company's worth of arrival due to the simultaneous resources as demanding special perceived or is otherwise personnel, company The paired COHORT label. of the as a result attention not we can since then, significant, esoecially are results comparing COHORT comes to when it .;uch control exercise rotation model. the battalion and IRS companies in and performance of in, cohesiveness, The arrival, settlinq USAREUR have been be deployed to to COHORT units the first et Report #1 (Marlowe, in UMS Technical some detail documented in Our purpose here results. survey initial including 1985), al., do so in and to results, survey to review and expand upon the is

m mm |

•m • m m •1

we will of a general framework for measuring cohesion that light detect to is objective The overall use throughout the report. with respect to cohesion, despite the among COHORT units patterns unit individual in their exist that may actually many differences climates. cohesion is a military As conceived here, but not are related dimensions multidimensional concept, whose bonding, soldier of levels Unit the same as one another. and training, pride, and confidence in leaders, organizational some to another one with overlap and interact weapons certainly When well. as variation independent some extent, but possess COHORT on innovation like assessing the impact of some structural new the that assume to incorrect is it cohesion, therefore, of dimensions the all on effects equivalent have will structure of some on effect direct a have will it cohesion, or even that to imagine Indeed it would be difficult the dimensions at all. so. do would that strategy replacement personnel any single with intended have may founders its what of Regardless and NCOs, of officers and stabilization respect to the training junior keep to served chiefly COHORT that is the bottom line at least from groups company-size in together soldiers enlisted served had they until unit a into entry the time of their in the In add tion, for three years. same unit together in that gone had soldiers COHORT the all model, replacement .ompany fellow company members via One Station through IET with their we expect there to be some basis, this On (OSUT). Training Unit on survey items that companies IRS and COHORT between difference do not expect other but soldiers, among relations social evaluate items that to respect with differences chance random than of quality relations, soldier-leader example, for concern, self. in confidence even or weapons, in confidence training, of COHORT on the however indirect, There well may be some effect, at effects such hypothesizing not are we but phenomena, latter time. this Aside from the Psychological General Well-Being scale, no forces us to look scales were developed for Data Set #1 and this time, we do not same the At themselves. items the individual at individual items the within contained information the of ani lose we will that activity an scale, a within them adding by caused the selecting By beyond. and #3 Set Data for enouigh pursue soon our whether learn to first hope we 1, Table in appear items that of members enlisted term first the that correct prediction is among their solidarity social COHORT companies reveal greater question is The counterparts. IRS their than fellow soldiers are simply we that clear is it but ways, different framed in so much not unit, the in bonding social general asking about each other or being fun to be with) as a (e.g. liking affect the common is, sense of shared knowledge about who everyone else for one concern their and existence, group their of circumstances lack of relative Compared to finding this welfare. another's that in COHORT companies, any other effects social indifference we might run across between COHORT and IRS companies would truly alone. be less understandable in terms of COHORT s.atus in fact It should quickly be apparent from Table 1 that 2

soldiers from COHORT companies are more tightly bonded and therefore less alienated from one another than IRS soldiers from companies within the same battalions. For example, when asked whether "people in this company feel very close to each other," members of COHORT companies are significantly more likely to agree and agree strongly and less likely to disagree or disagree strongly than their IRS counterparts by nearly a full point on a five-point scale (3.38 vs. 2.43). Furthermore, the COHORT mean indicates a preponderance of positive responses since it is over the neutral ("don't know") point of 3.0, whereas the IRS mean informs us of a preponderance of negative responses (i.e., it is less than 3.0). We can find the actual proportions of these response types by looking at the percentage distribution of responses on the item: P2 CLOSE

COHORT (N=404)

IRS (N=286)

9% 17% 19% 38% 17%

25% 35% 15% 23% 2%

3.38

2.43

Strongly Disagree Disagree Don't Know Agree Strongly Agree Mean Score

Thus, the respective mean scores of 3.38 and 2.43 on Item P2 really mean that 55% of the COHORT junior enlisted soldiers agree or agree strongly that people in their company feel very close to each other compared with just 25% of IRS junior enlisted soldiers, and likewise that 60% of the IRS soldiers versus just 26% of COHORT soldiers disagree or disagree strongly with the statement. Each of the remaining items in Table 1 tells a similar story with respect to the higher degree of social integration in COHORT units

on the horizontal level hypothesized.-.,A total of 70% COHORT El-E4s agree or strongly agree that they really know of the people they work with very well in contrast to 49% of IRS El-E4s (Means of 3.62 vs. 3.26). With respect to their closest friendships, 49% of IRS first-termers disagree or disagree strongly that these are the people with whom they compared with 38% of COHORT first-termers (Means of 2.92 vs.work 3.20). Similarly, COHORT soldiers are more likely than IRS soldiers to agree that their after-duty hours are spent with fellow members of their company (Means of 3.35 vs. 3.18). Finally, nearly double the proportion of COHORT to IRS soldiers strongly agree or agree that people in their company really look out for each other (40% vs. 22%, Means of 2.90 vs. 2.46). All of these differences in levels of horizontal bonding are statistically significant, and in the hypothesized direction favoring COHORT units. The results in Table 1 are noteworthy for a number reasons, most importantly because the samples were drawn of within the same battalions and represent equal. numbers of from

3

units (three artillery and field mechanized infantry, armor, Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that battalions each). unit were more than half-way through their these COHORT soldiers cycle (20-24 months in company) when we would have expected life along with any the initial "high" coming from OSUT training, of the doubt they might have naive hopes or simple benefit In fact, to have waned considerably. into..the new unit, carried of positive show, the deterioration analyses will as our later attitudes toward the unit is a common phenomenon among first-term beginning within a couple months following IET and soldiers, continuing almost unabated with each successive month in company. of our all and on practically In both COHORT and IRS units, are soldiers cohesion, we find that measures including horizontal with the achievement of the units about their positive the least than a year before E-4 grade, especially when occurring with less In the Data Set #1 samples of mechanized infantry, the ETS date. El-E4s, the COHORT sample is made up artillery armor, and field and 69% E4s compared with 4% Els, 23% of 4% Els, 9% E2s, 19% E3s, Thus, the COHORT the IRS sample. 33% E3s, and 40% E4s in E s, on horizontal bonding demonstrated in Table 1 should be effect under the of the true effect considered a conservative estimate condition of equivalent grade distribution. scale on some ideal or absolute While one could argue that is high," it that not "all still an item mean of less than 4.0 is to the IRS members of these nine to deny that relative difficult the COHORT members, many more of whom were within one battalions, out of the Army, exhibited markedly reduced year of getting companies within their alienation of soldier-to-soldier levels COHORT the that be might doubt serious A more batteries. and and bping feeling of label, COHORT the to solely due are effects nonCOHORT within a largely special or different made to feel or group structural social than the actual rather Army, theory This labeling cycle itself. experience of the COHORT life welcome the difficult when we recall the more plausible seems all received following deployment (as round COHORT units thesu first documented in Technical Report #1 (Marlowe, et al., 1985)). the to Lesponding were units in COHORT soldiers If or were on possessing the COHORT label based solely questionnaire regarding questioning outsiders' all to reacting defensively we would expect to find a COHORT effect ut~its' integrity, their From an bonding items. horizontal the just than more on many The case. the be to appear not does this 2, examination of Table dimensions represent table this in presented items of collection and on which horizontal, cohesion that are not strictly of unit the with linked been have necessarily would not differences the words, other In se. per COHORT of implementation structural them. might exist, but we were not predicting differences IThe

airborne

infantry battalion soldiers were not included in are five IRS companies there because section the analyses in this of The analysis one COHORT company within the sample. and just section is deferred to the paired company results battalion this that follows.

4

TABLE 1 SURVEY ITEMS WHERE COHORT IS HYPOTHESIZED TO HAVE AN EFFECT First Round Post-Deployment COHORT Companies vs. Same Battalion IRS Companies (3 BNS Each, Line Companies) Mechanized Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery T-Tests for EI-E4s COHORT Mean

IRS Mean

T Stat

3.38

2.43

10.3*

3.62

3.26

5.7*

3.35

3.18

l.7*

3.20

2.92

2.6*

2.90

2.46

4.8*

404-406

283-287

9

9

Code Item P2

People in this each other.

company feel

very close to

P7

I really know the people I work with very well.

P9

I spend my after

duty hours with other

people

in this company. P10

P29

My closest work with.

friendships

People really company.

look out

are with the people I

for each other

in

my

N N(Companies/Batteries)

-----*Statistically

I----------------------------------------------------------------Significant

Item Response Codes: l=Strongly Disagree

Difference

2=Disagree

at P