INTRODUCTION

Graduates of the University of Defence are a part of human capital the Czech Ministry of Defence has at its disposal. After a basic military training, the university prepares its student for their future careers in leadership positions within the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic, and equips them with knowledge from three basic fields of expertise—military (as defined by reference numbers of given military professions), academic (as defined by the Higher Education Act), and the domain of leadership (as defined by the role of officers of the Czech Armed Forces). After graduation, these alumni can get appointed into leadership positions where they work with the most valuable asset of any organization—its employees[1].

The ability of these graduates to put their leadership expertise into effect upon enlistment into the Czech Armed Forces, i.e. to lead subordinate soldiers, is based on a set of competencies to lead others which was created for graduates of the Faculty of Military Leadership (FoML). This concept is grounded in theoretical recommendations and practical experience in direct leadership from selected foreign armies, and was subsequently adapted to the way FoML graduates get appointed into leadership positions mainly within the Czech Armed Forces. Based on these practices, the competency to lead others was created for FoML graduates, which was later subject to a research survey conducted with the help of selected officers working mostly as platoon commanders in the rank of lieutenants. Frequency of utilization of individual indicators of leadership behaviour in everyday work of young commanders within the armed forces shows the most important aspects of leading others. The aim of this paper is to present the most important results of the aforementioned research using suitable statistical methods, and with emphasis put on definitions of individual competencies.

1          METHODOLOGY

Based on an analysis of current military doctrines, directives of selected foreign armies, regulations set by the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic, and carried out research, a competency to lead others was created for the graduates of the Faculty of Military Leadership using the methods of contextualization and synthesis.

From the point of view of methodology, the research was carried out in accordance with Gavora. It consisted of data preparation, definition of a research set, preparation of research techniques, data collection and processing, and interpretation of obtained results[2]. The authors also used findings of several scientific surveys carried out abroad. During the process, quantitative research methods were applied; to be more specific, a customized survey was submitted to a group of recently graduated commanders and their immediate superiors. As Prochovník recommends, two questionnaires were compiled in order to verify the competency of FoML graduates to lead others. One was designed for a group of new commanders, the other for a group consisting of their immediate superiors. Both versions contained open-ended and close-ended questions[3]. The aim of the questionnaires was to verify whether recently appointed officers fulfil the individual competencies to lead others, which were created for graduates of the FoML. Overall, they consisted of 13 questions identical for both groups of responders, and adhered to Reichel’s recommendations for their compilation.

The first block of questions was focused on the ability to lead others. Using individual indicators, question 1 investigated how frequently leadership behaviour described as “Application of suitable influence methods in order to encourage others” is put into practice. Question 2 focused on utilization of leadership behaviour described as “Balance between professional effort and limitations of subordinates” using its indicators. Question 3 analysed leadership behaviour described as “Compliance with organization standards” using its indicators. Question 4 was a summarizing question for the first part of the questionnaire, and its aim was to find out how the aforementioned types of leadership behaviour (1–3) are used.

The second block of questions was focused on the ability to communicate. Using individual indicators, question 5 investigated how frequently leadership behaviour described as “Establishing mutual understanding” is put into practice. Question 6 focused on utilization of leadership behaviour described as “Active listening” using its indicators. Question 7 analysed leadership behaviour described as “Utilization of engaging communication techniques” using its indicators. Question 8 was a summarizing question for the preceding part of the questionnaire, and its aim was to find out how the aforementioned types of leadership behaviour (5–7) are used.

The third block of questions was focused on the ability to lead by example. Using individual indicators, question 9 investigated how frequently leadership behaviour described as “Translating army values into one's behaviour” is put into practice. Question 10 focused on utilization of leadership behaviour described as “Showing empathy” using its indicators. Question 11 analysed leadership behaviour described as “Requiring discipline” using its indicators. Question 12 was a summarizing question for the preceding part of the questionnaire, and its aim was to find out how the aforementioned types of leadership behaviour (9–11) are used. The purpose of concluding question 13 was to find out which defined ability from the competency set was perceived as the most important one.

Moreover, the questionnaire for the group of recently graduated commanders also contained a block of open-ended questions focused on their experience with preparation for fulfilment of this competency while at the university[4]. Close-ended questions were evaluated using five-point Likert scale, in which 1 point means that a certain type of behaviour is used rarely, and 5 points mean it is applied to a maximum extent[5]. The frequency of utilization of individual indicators which signal fulfilment of abilities defined in the competency shows how important they are in behaviour of army officers. The range of responses offers also “I do not know; I lack such experience” as an answer. It was included in the questionnaire because responders may not have personal experience with some indicators of leadership behaviour.

The sample set consisted of professional soldiers—former FoML students who graduated between 2014 and 2016, and were appointed into commanding positions (mainly within the Czech Armed Forces) immediately upon graduation. Altogether, the graduates were assigned to 12 organization units. In regard of individual units, the survey was sent via electronic mail (staff information system, military e-mail connection), and the new commanders were asked to hand over the questionnaire also to their immediate superiors. The survey results were anonymous, so it was not necessary to obtain more detailed information on these superiors. Based on the answers received from the individual organization units, it was found out that there are 66 commanders who had graduated in the monitored period and are currently working in the structures of Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces of the Czech Republic. Others may have already left, transferred into units which were not included in the survey due to its restrictive conditions, and the like. The results from individual organization units show that these recently graduated commanders have 57 immediate superiors in total. The response rate was 49 filled-in questionnaires for the group of new commanders, which is 74,24%; 50 questionnaires came back from their immediate superiors, which means the response rate was 87,71%.

In order to compare the level of answers obtained from new commanders and their immediate superiors, both parametric and non-parametric approaches were taken. All tests were carried out at the 5% significance level. The hypothesis on equality of mean values of both groups of responders was tested for all questions using two-sample t-test[6]; for testing the equality of medians, two-sample Wilcoxon test was applied[7]. In order to assess whether the unit the specific respondent works for has a significant influence on their answers, Kruskal-Wallis test[8] and one-way analysis of variance[9] were used. For the purpose of finding a statistical link between questions (4, 8 and 12) and their sub-questions (1–3, 5–7 and 9–11) which fulfil them, the significance of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient ρ was tested (H: ρ  = 0 vs A: ρ ≠ 0)[10].

2          RESULTS

Based on the results of theoretical research and in accordance with the practice of appointing FoML graduates into commanding positions mainly within the Czech Armed Forces immediately upon graduation, a set of competencies to lead others was created for them.

Its purpose is to train FoML graduates so that they would be able to comply with demands put on military commanders; i.e. to lead their subordinates, to be an example to others, and to communicate in an appropriate manner.

The ability to lead (question number 4 in the survey, consist of questions 1–3) means to:

• Apply suitable influence methods in order to encourage subordinates[11] (question number 4A in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Whenever possible, allow the subordinates to fulfil a task at their own discretion; Require consistent follow-up analyses of encountered problems in order to learn from them; Make synergies and consultations with subordinate soldiers a priority[12].
• Find a balance between professional effort and limitations of subordinates[13] (question number 4B in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Regularly assess risks posed by task fulfilment and elimination thereof; Pay attention to physical and mental health of subordinates; Know the strengths and weaknesses of your unit[14].
• Comply with organization standards[15] (question number 4C in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Abide by the Czech Armed Forces dressing rules; Demand that subordinate soldiers adhere to the Military Code of Ethics; Remind subordinates of military values (memorable days of their unit, veterans, moral values etc.).

The ability to communicate (question number 8 in the survey, consist of questions 5–7) means to:

• Establish mutual understanding[16] (question number 8A in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Be open to conversations about professional and private life, should they impact your work; Share information with subordinates in time; Tailor communication to the listener’s needs (pace, choice of words, intonation)[17].
• Listen actively[18] (question number 8B in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Read your listener’s body language; Actively communicate using paraphrases, gestures; Regularly find time for personal conversations with subordinates[19].
• Utilize engaging communication techniques[20] (question number 8C in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Make eye contact, use comparisons, slang; Use appropriate gestures; Use suitable communication channels (direct leadership, deputy platoon commander, squad leader, etc.)[21].

The ability to lead by example (question number 12 in the survey, consist of questions 9–11) means to:

• Show empathy[22] (question number 12A in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Pay attention to emotions manifested in subordinates’ behaviour and reflects on them; Show sympathy towards subordinate soldiers; predict how subordinate soldiers are likely to react in certain situations[23].
• Translate army values into one's behaviour[24] (question number 12B in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Try to lead subordinate soldiers by example when fulfilling your military obligations; Appreciate when subordinate soldiers manifest adherence to military values; Emphasize army values using examples from military history[25].
• Require discipline[26] (question number 12C in the survey). This behaviour is fulfilled by the following indicators: Leaders comply with the same standards as their subordinates; Adhere to planned schedules; Appreciate exemplary behaviour of subordinates, and reproach subordinates who do not adhere to agreed-upon rules[27].

In total, 99 respondents took part in the survey (49 in the group of recently graduated commanders, and 50 in the group of their immediate superiors). Out of this number, 9% were women, and 91% were men. The largest number of participants (27%) works in the 7^th Mechanized Brigade and in the 4^thRapid Deployment Brigade; 16% of respondents work in the 14^th Logistics Support Regiment, and 12% in the 15^th Engineer Regiment. Other units were represented only by a small number of contributors. Interestingly, 69% of all responders serve in combat troops, and 31% in non-combat troops.

Given the large extent of the survey and the limited scope of this paper, only the most important parts of the research (i.e. questions 4, 8, and 12) will be interpreted further on. In order to compare the level of answers from both groups of participants, two-sample t-test and two-sample Wilcoxon test were used. Table 1 presents their results. The first column contains reference numbers of the selected questions; the second column contains mean values of answers submitted by the new commanders, whereas mean values of answers given by their immediate superiors can be found in the third column. The fourth column contains medians of answers selected by the graduates, and the fifth column presents medians of answers submitted by their superiors. The most important values can be found in the last two columns, which contain p-values. To be more specific, column T shows p-value of the two-sample t-test, and column W presents p-value of the two-sample Wilcoxon test. Asterisk (*) denotes all p-values for which the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% level of significance. Results of the statistical analysis indicate that the null hypothesis stating that values of answers given both by new commanders and their superiors will not differ was not rejected for question 8B (“Listen actively”). The remaining questions showed statistically significant differences in levels of answers given by both groups of respondents. Table 1 also demonstrates that as for the group of recently graduated commanders, the highest mean value of answers (4.22) was given for question 12C; on the other hand, the lowest mean value (3.08) is related to question 12A. Regarding the group of their immediate superiors, they reached the highest mean value (3.38) in question 8B, and the lowest mean value of answers (2.54) was detected in question 12A.

Table 1: Results of two-sample t-test and two-sample Wilcoxon test for questions 4, 8, and 12. Asterisk (*) denotes p-values, for which the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% level of significance

Both groups of participants perceive fulfilment of individual indicators of leadership behaviour mentioned in the questionnaire differently. The only exceptions are questions 1A (“Apply suitable influence methods in order to encourage subordinates”), 7B (“Be open to conversations”), and 9C (“Emphasize army values using examples from military history”). Levels of answers submitted by the recently graduated commanders show that they put individual indicators into practice more frequently than their immediate superiors perceive. The cause of such a discrepancy may be that the new commanders give themselves more credit and evaluate themselves higher than how they actually perform. Or, their immediate superiors are not present every time the new commanders show leadership behaviour, so they cannot assess them objectively. In the concluding question 13, both groups agreed that the most important part of the particular competency is the ability to communicate.

In order to graphically compare the levels of answers obtained from individual units where respondents work, boxplots were created for questions 4 and 12. As shown in Figure 1 below, they illustrate a comparison of two extreme cases. In the graph on the left (question 4C—“Comply with organization standards”), as a comparison of mean answers submitted in individual units implies, all participants gave very similar answers. On the contrary, the graph on the right summarizes answers for question 12B (“Show empathy”), and it clearly demonstrates that unlike in case of question 4C, the answers varied to a great extent.

The aim of subsequent statistical tests was to verify the hypothesis whether the unit has a statistically significant impact on the answers given in the questionnaire (i.e. if it influences leadership behaviour in terms of a set of competencies to lead other created for FoML graduates). Results of these tests are presented in Table 2. Its first column contains reference numbers of individual questions; in column F, the resulting statistics of single-factor analysis of variance can be found, and the third column contains its p-values. Column Q presents the resulting statistics of Kruskal-Wallis test, and the fifth column contains its p-values. Moreover, this table also includes results of a correlation analysis (column RS), which will be discussed later. The resulting p-values of the aforementioned tests shown in Table 2 imply that at the 5% significance level, the null hypothesis connected to these questions was not rejected, and the mean values (or more precisely, medians) are equal. Based on these results, it can be said that the influence of military unit the respondents work in on answering questions 4A, 4B, 4C, 8A, 8B, 8C, 12A, 12B and 12C is inconclusive. It follows that individual abilities are applied in leadership behaviour, and should be cultivated in all future commanders. On that account, regardless of service positions FoML graduates get appointed into upon graduation, they will utilize abilities defined in the competency to lead others created for graduates of the Faculty of Military Leadership.

Legend: 13. dp – 13^thArtillery Regiment; 14. plog – 14^th Logistic Support Regiment; 15. zp – 15^th Engineer Regiment; 2. pp – 102^nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 4. brn – 4^th Rapid Deployment Brigade, 7.mb – 7^th Mechanised Brigade; both airbases belong to the Air Force.

Figure 1: Graphic comparison of levels of answers for questions 4C (left graph) and 12B (right graph) given in individual units

In order to assess statistical links between questions (4, 8 and 12) and sub-questions (1–3, 5–6 and 9–11) regarding individual competencies, correlation analysis was carried out; to be more specific, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used. The obtained results are presented in Table 2 in the last column, which contains only statistically significant correlations at the 5% significance level. Answers to questions 12A, 12B and 12C correlate significantly with all sub-questions 9A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11A, 11B and 11C. Furthermore, answers to questions 8A, 8B, and 8C also correlate significantly with sub-questions 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7A, 7B and 7C. Answers to question 4A correlate significantly with sub-questions 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B and 3C. Moreover, answers to question 4B correlate significantly with sub-questions 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A and 3B. And finally, answers to question 4C correlate significantly with sub-questions 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B and 3C.

Table 2: Results of Variance Analysis, Kruskal-Wallis Test, and Correlation Analysis for Questions 4, 8 and 12

Correlation analysis results show that answers to questions 4A, 4B and 4C do not correlate significantly with question 1A (“Whenever possible, allow the subordinates to fulfil a task at their own discretion”) at the 5% significance level. On that account, this indicator will be excluded from the set of competencies. Statistically insignificant correlations at the 5% significance level were discovered also between questions 4B and 3C (“Remind subordinates of military values”), and between questions 4C and 1C (“Make synergies and consultations with subordinate soldiers a priority”). This fact denotes that these indicators of leadership behaviour are of lesser importance.

3          DISCUSSION

As the results show, the recently graduated commanders apply all indicators of leadership behaviour defined in each competency. Answers submitted by both groups of respondents may serve as an evidence. On that account, it can be claimed that the selected indicators are good examples of direct leadership, and that the new commanders put them into practice. Statistical processing of data obtained through the survey returned important information on statistically significant differences in level of answers submitted by both groups of participants; only questions 1A, 7B, 8B and 9C show statistically insignificant differences. Furthermore, the results of Kruskal-Wallis test and one-way analysis of variance presented in Table 2 show that the influence of military units regarding questions 4A, 4B, 4C, 8A, 8B, 8C, 12A, 12B or 12C was not proven. The correlation analysis confirms a high degree of statistical link between the main questions and their sub-questions. The test of significance of Spearman’s correlation coefficient (α = 5%) revealed statistically insignificant correlations only between questions 4A, B, C and 1A, 4B and 3C, and also between questions 4C and 1C.

It means that the set of competencies was created appropriately, is well-grounded in theory, and reflects current processes connected to appointment of fresh FoML graduates into leadership positions within the Czech Armed Forces. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that if this set of competencies was used as a part of curriculum for current FoML students, they would gain deeper knowledge in the field of leadership, and would be better prepared to fulfil their duties after appointment into their military positions as commanding officers within the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic.

On the other hand, immediate superiors of these new commanders perceive that the recently graduated officers apply these indicators of leadership behaviour to a lesser extent than these respondents claim to do. The reasons for such a discrepancy might be two—the new commanders may give themselves more credit, and/or their immediate superiors are not always present when the aforementioned principles are applied. In regard to these findings, more surveys in regular time intervals might be carried out in order to determine whether opinions of both participating groups tend to converge or not. This would uncover how the graduates evolve in terms of application of individual indicators in their leadership behaviour.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents results of a research on direct leadership; specifically, it is related to appointment of graduates of the Faculty of Military Leadership (University of Defence) into leadership positions within the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic immediately upon graduation, where they command and lead their subordinate units. The competency to lead works as an assessment of their leadership abilities, and, as a result, also evaluates their readiness to perform tasks in their commanding roles. The results revealed interesting information on specific components of leadership behaviour which are used by the new officers in everyday practice.

The research was carried out on two groups of respondents. The first group consisted of the young commanders (alumni appointed into leadership positions immediately after the university) and the second group consisted of the closest superiors of those commanders. Three main abilities of the competency to lead are the ability to lead, the ability to communicate and the ability to lead by example. Based on the statistical comparison it is found out that both of two groups of respondents have the same opinion. All the abilities are used and necessary in daily military life of commander. The difference is in the rate of utilization of the behavior. The closest superiors think, that the behavior is carried out less than young commanders think. Thanks to these findings it can be recommended that young commanders should practice this standard of leading behavior before their appointment. It could be a good preparation for commanding position. The next very important result is that there is a significant correlation between the ability and the specific behavior which is related to the ability in all cases apart from the correlations 1A and 1C. It means that these indicators (1A and 1C) of leadership behaviour are less important. These results also helped to structure the final competency to lead others for graduates of FoML. This competency is useful instrument for preparation of next commanders during the studies at FoML.

The model of competency to lead others for the graduates of the FoML is based on principles of direct leadership, which has proven as suitable in the process of appointing FoML graduates into commanding positions within the Czech Armed Forces. These tried and tested competencies also serve as a solid foundation for further development of FoML students’ abilities, and help to prepare them for a potential future appointment at leadership positions within military organization.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Defence – project LEADER (DZRO K-104).

REMARKS AND CITATIONS

[1]VESELÝ, A. Teorie mnohačetných forem kapitálu. Praha: FSV UK, Smetanovo nábřeží 6, 2006. ISSN 1801–5999 [online]. Dostupné z WWW: http://publication.fsv.cuni.cz/attachments/117_014_Vesely.pdf.

[2]GAVORA, P. Úvod do pedagogického výzkumu. Brno: Paido, 2000. ISBN 80-85931-79-6.

[3]PROCHOVNÍK, Š. Metody a techniky sociologického výzkumu. Ostrava: Vysoká škola báňská v Ostravě, Katedra společenských věd, ústav sociologie a psychologie, 1991. ISBN 80-7078-094-0.

[4]REICHEL, J. Kapitoly metodologie sociálních výzkumů. Praha: Grada, 2009. ISBN 978–80–247–3006–6.

[5]PROCHOVNÍK, Š. Metody a techniky sociologického výzkumu. Ostrava: Vysoká škola báňská v Ostravě, Katedra společenských věd, ústav sociologie a psychologie, 1991. ISBN 80-7078-094-0.

[6]ANDĚL, J. Základy matematické statistiky. Praha: Matfyzpress, 2007. ISBN 80-86732-40-1.

[7]BUDÍKOVÁ, M., KRÁLOVÁ, M. a B. MAROŠ. Průvodce základními statistickými metodami. Praha: Grada, 2010. ISBN 978-80-247-3243-5.

[8]Ibid.

[9]Ibid.

[10]ŘEZANKOVÁ, H. Analýza dat z dotazníkových šetření. Praha: Professional Publishing, 2010. ISBN: 978-80-7431-062.

[11]FIELD MANUAL No. 6-22. Leader Development. Washington, DC Headquarters Department of the Army, 2015. PIN 083592-000.

[12]Ibid.

[13]Ibid.

[14]FIELD MANUAL ARMY 6-22. Leadership Competent, Confident, and Agile. Washington: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006. PIN: 083592-000.

[15]FIELD MANUAL No. 6-22. Leader Development. Washington, DC Headquarters Department of the Army, 2015. PIN 083592-000.

[16]FIELD MANUAL ARMY 6-22. Leadership Competent, Confident, and Agile. Washington: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006. PIN: 083592-000.

[17]Ibid.

[18]FIELD MANUAL ARMY 6-22. Leadership Competent, Confident, and Agile. Washington: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006. PIN: 083592-000.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Ibid.

[22]FIELD MANUAL No. 6-22. Leader Development. Washington, DC Headquarters Department of the Army, 2015. PIN 083592-000.

[23]Ibid.

[24]FIELD MANUAL No. 6-22. Leader Development. Washington, DC Headquarters Department of the Army, 2015. PIN 083592-000.

[25]Ibid.

[26]FIELD MANUAL No. 6-22. Leader Development. Washington, DC Headquarters Department of the Army, 2015. PIN 083592-000.

[27]Ibid.