Psychological Reports, 1975, 36, 439-445. @ Psychological Reports 1975
A TACTICAL PACIFICATION GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT1 WILLIAM C. MUDGETT, PHILLIP L. HUNSAKER. AND BAYARD E. WYNNE University of Wisconsin-Milwuuhee
Summary.-The structure of rhe Tactical Pacification Game is described and applications for evaluating and developing leadership competence are explained. Relevant research paradigms and specially developed measurement instruments are presented as they relate to the study of leadership and decision rnding. Examples of current and future applications of the simulation are presented. Development of the Tactical Pacification Game represents an extension of a complex decision-making environment (Streufert, et dl., 1965) for use in leadership assessment, development, and research. The over-all environment and interaction format are similar to earlier versions of the simulation, but the problem content, role assignments, behavioral expectations, and assessment procedures are unique. Like similar behavioral simulations (e.g., Driver & Hunsaker, 1972; Streufert, et al., 1967; Guetzkow, et al., 1963), the Tactical Pacification Game can be utilized for research in individual and group decision-making. In addition, it provides a behavioral environment for identification of individuals who possess comparatively better leadership skills in complex and changing situations. The ability to cope with this type of environment is an aspect of leadership which may assume critical importance in the domain of technical-managerial leadership as described by Helme, Willemin, and Grafton ( 1971). The new procedure was constructed on premises set forth in the General Incongruity Adaptation Level hypothesis (Driver & Streufert, 1965) and research concerning the ability to cope with turbulence (Raynolds, 1971; Hunsaker, 1973a, 1973b). This construct, as expanded in earlier work (Wynne, Hunsaker, & Mudgett, 1974), implies that a subjective optimum in decisionmaking effectiveness exists depending on prior experience with incongruity, i.e., complexity, change, and ambiguity. Individuals attempt to maintain a preferred optimum of incongruity in the environment. Decision-making effectiveness is posited to decrease if environmental incongruity is either too high, e.g., flight and avoidance, or too low, e.g., conflict generation. In this simulation, environmental incongruity is similar for all participants allowing assessment of leadership and decision-making skills based on differences in individual abilities.
Simulation Environment The simulation environment is posed within a socio-political military con'Support for the development of this simulation was provided by the Army Research Insritute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
440
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
text. The setting is a hypothetical underdeveloped nation, which is governed by a quasi-military dictatorship and described as unstable. A rebellion against the present government is underway, but the amount of popular support for the rebellion is not clearly known. The present government has requested and is receiving aid from a foreign power, the Union of Northern Hemispheric States, in putting down the rebellion. Two player's manuals are provided and thoroughly studied by Ss before beginning the simulation. One manual describes physical, military, economic and social-political aspects similar to those encountered during U. S. involvement in the Vietnam and Korean conflicts. The other describes the same situation seen from the opposing point of view. These aspects are abstracted and generalized so that previous knowledge of actual or specific events is not elicited. Although stereotypic role playing, i.e., military officer, is suggested by the environment, the insertion of economic and socialpolitical aspects provide situations which foster unique reactions. High involvement by Ss is induced by the construction of problems to be solved and competition between teams. Ss' knowledge of events in the environment is provided by the delivery of message cards describing occurrences in the hypothetical country and by feedback concerning the consequences of their decisions. Ss' output is obtained from " 'action,' 'planning,' and 'communication,' forms" on which they describe their specific reactions and/or initiatives to the message inputs. Message cards usually present at least three alternatives for dealing with the event. Estimates of the importance of the events, the effectiveness of planned actions, and chances for success of the chosen alternative are elicited by the "action forms." Ss are also requested to originate alternatives and fully plan responses on a "planning form." "Communication forms" are used for searching out procedural information or other interaction between Ss and the environment. In response to the actions selected or planned by each team, E sends a consequence message which explains the outcomes and scores of the actions. The scoring system ensures a sense of interteam competition and is constructed out of the responses of both teams to the same problem. A cumulative scoring form showing the progress of both teams is displayed for both teams to see. The units for measuring consequences are presented in a matrix format to show Ss that the values of actions are dependent upon corresponding actions of the opposing team.
Use requirement^ The simulation consists of three packages of materials: one for the experimenter or instructor, one for participants, and one which contains a large map of the hypothetical land area together with movable pieces representing troop 'The instructor's manual describing these materials and their use is available from the first author and also in Document NAPS-02540, Microfiche Publications, 440 Park Ave. S., New York, N . Y. 10016. Remit $1.50 for microfiche or $5.00 for photocopy.
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
441
units, etc. Other required items beyond these three packages are a clock or watch, pencils, and scratch paper. Physical requirements for conducting the simulation are two tables, a blackboard divider, and a space sufficient to accommodate Ss, observers, and/or simulation operator. Observers and controllers should be able to work at a "controllers" table without interferring with Ss' behavior. Ideally, a room equipped with a one-way mirror or TV cameras enhances unobstructive observation. During debriefings in pilot studies, Ss consistently showed that involvement in the simulation was so complete that awareness of the physical settings and the fact they were being observed was greatly diminished or went entirely unnoticed. Selection of subjects is at instructor/experimenter discretion. Since knowledge of military, diplomacy, or other pertinent information can effect influence patterns, group structure, and information processing, selection should be controlled to ensure Ss are at approximately the same level in these knowledge and experience dimensions. Prepanation of Sabjects Because Ss must be thoroughly acquainted with the simulation environment, manuals containing all the necessary information are given to Ss on the day before the simulation is conducted. A brief exam or review of that material may be given at the discretion of the instructor just prior to beginning the simulation in order to assure that Ss are -prepared. Ss are instructed not to discuss the material among themselves after this preparation and prior to the starting time. During the question and answer period preceding the first period of the simulation, rules, forms and schedules are explained. Instructions are given at this time to Ss regarding assigned roles: each team consists of four members in the roles of commander, economic advisor, tactical military advisor and socio-political advisor. N o instructions are given on how team members are to interact or how tasks such as completing forms are to be distributed. Only procedural questions from Ss are allowed after the simulation begins. P~ocedu~e Each team begins in an identical initial situation with the same set of overlapping objectives, i.e., success in tactics, socio-political, and economic dimensions. A sequence of pre-specified problems are given to the team in fixed order at controlled frequencies. Although members have assigned formal roles, teams are left free to organize themselves and make decisions in any manner they feel is most appropriate. Team decisions are communicated on action, planning or communication forms to the game controller. The simulation includes introduction-role assignment, problem-solving,
442
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
skill assessment, and debriefing segments. It is conducted over several periods -usually consisting of four 1-hr. sessions. During the problem-solving segment, Ss are rotated through four role assignments so that the formal leadership performance of each can be observed. Whether, and if so, how, an assigned leader reorganizes the team to deal with the general flow of events and specific problems are major behavioral variables of interest during this segment as well as the process of informal leadership emergence. Another important variable is how formal organization and leader emergence relate to the attributes of Ss. Following completion of the problem-solving segment, each S assesses the leadership qualities of himself and of his teammates. Observers also assess the performance of each S. The final phase is Ss' debriefing. The debriefing provides time for training feedback, synthesis of knowledge, and data gathering, etc., depending upon experimenter's objectives. Simulation Applications While the general environment remains constant, the simulation may be adapted to several purposes by altering the quantity, content and timing of the input message string. Adjustment in this parameter allows utilization of the simulation as a training vehicle, an assessment device, or a research instrument. In the case of training, feedback addressed to actual responses is used as reinforcement. This requires that responses be evaluated quickly and either a prepared consequence message selected or created within a reasonable time. These consequence messages are delivered before the next problem. The debriefing session at the end of the simulation takes on additional importance as a reinforcement vehicle in the training version. When used as an assessment device, feedback messages may or may not be used as long as the message set is consistent over the entire group of Ss being assessed. The important aspect of this use is the evaluation process which includes both decision output analysis, and observation of Ss' interaction patterns by trained observers. The leadership and decision-making processes of team members are of primary concern in these evaluations. Various research objectives may be pursued during the simulation. The simulation environment can remain constant and consistent control can be exercised over the input parameters. Of specific research interest are correlations which may be tested between personality inventories administered before the simulation and the analysis of data derived from the written output and behavioral observation (Wynne, Hunsaker, & Mudgett, 1974). In addition, relationships between information quantity and/or complexity and other variables may be tested by varying selection of Ss, pre-conditioning Ss or comparing expected observable behavior with changes in degree of information quantity or complexity (Suedfeld & Streufert, 1966; Streufert & Schroder, 1965).
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Data Collection and Analysis Five complementary types of data may be generated during the course of a team simulation experiment. Collectively, these data provide measures which serve to distinguish among members of Mintzberg's (1973) three dimensions of leadership activities, i.e., interpersonal, informational, and decision-making. Self-report inventories may be completed by each simulation participant in advance of the team experiment. These inventories can include measures of authoritarianism, defensiveness, need-achievement, achievement anxiety, general incongruity adaptation level, and complexity of cognitive structure. The leadership description scale was developed for this research. It contains 12 items on a Likert-scale basis. Each team member is described by each of his cohorts on a checklist at the conclusion of the problem-solving segment of the simulation. Three scores are derived from the form in order to rate Ss mice with respect to: ( 1 ) administrative competence, ( 2 ) decision-making skills, and ( 3 ) team-building expertise. A 23-item Decision Style Classification form was also developed in this program. Each item is a stem phrase about decision-making, with four alternative completion phrases for description of individuals. Comparison of the responses by and about each person is judged by each S and by others in relation to each of four decision styles implicit in the response stems: decisive, flexible, hierarchic, and integrative." These styles are consistent with other postulated leadership processes (Vroom & Yetten, 1973). Content analysis techniques are applied to the teams' written outputs to measure degrees of integration, frequency of decision, relation of decisions to goals, strategy formation and information search (cf. Streufert & Driver, 1965; Streufert & Schroder, 1965; Streufert, et al., 1965; Castore & Streufert, 1966; Suedfeld and Streufert, 1966; Wynne, Mudgett, & Hunsaker, 1974).4 Specific analyses of content can be created to adapt to the version of the simulation which is being used. For instance, if the training version is employed, a system of analysis relating to the specific emphasis of training can be designed. An example of the method developed for analyzing decision style perceptions within small groups is provided via data gathered in a developmental pilot study of the simulation. In this case, the behavioral variable of concern was decision style as related to the dimensions of adaptability and complexity. The measurement instrument is the Decision Style Classification form.5 This method allows for sociometric perceptual appraisals among team members regarding their similarities and differences. 3M. J. Driver & 1. F. Lintott, Management decision sryles. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Southern California. 1973) 'B. E. Wynne, W. C. Mudgem. & P. L. Hunsaker. A method of analyzing perception within small groups. (Unpublished manuscript. Univer. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1974) 'Copies of the ~gcision~ G l eClassification f&m and instructions for its use, including a computer program, are available in B. E. Wynne. W. C. Mudgetr, & P. L. Hunsaker. A method of analyzing perception within small groups. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1974)
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
444
Each of the 2 3 scale items represents an aspect of one of the four decision style categories. Completed provide descriptions of each person by each person resulting in a dyadic perception vector which links to one of the four decision styles. After questionnaire responses are converted into relative dyad matrices, all dyadic relationships are considered in sequential order to distill the essence of all individual judgments into a description of each member of the team. An example of final inferences that could have been drawn via this method is presented in the following matrix: TEAM MEMBER
I
;I\
A RELEIVE. ADAPTABILITY
C B
.I
RELATIVE COMPLEXITY
INTEGRATIVENESS
Final evaluations represented in the matrix demonstrate that B was perceived as the most adaptable member of the team. D was seen as the least adaptable, and A was seen as more adaptable than C. D was perceived as the most complex, followed by B, A, and C respectively. Based on the two-dimensional rankings, adaptability and complexity, a decision classification can be obtained. It is clear, for example, that D is the most "decisive" person on the team, i.e., low on both dimensions. B appears to have the most "integrative" style, A is seen as most "flexible," and C appears to have the strongest "hierarchic" tendencies. Further analysis would provide data concerning commonalities, concurrences, differences, and other aspects of group sociometry. REFERENCES
CASTORE. C. H.,
&
STREUFERT, S. The perception of experimentally induced failure.
Psychonomic Science, 196G, 4, 137-138. & HUNSAKER. P. L. The Luna I moon colony: a programmed simulation for the analysis of individual and group decision making. Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 879-888. DRIVER. M. J., & STREUPERT, S. The general incongruity adaptation level (GIAL) hypothesis: an analysis and integration of cognitive approaches to motivation. (Paper No. 114. Purdue Univer. Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, West Lafayeme, Indiana, 1965) GUETZKOW, H., ALGER,C. F., BRODY, R. A., NOEL,R. C., & SNYDER, R. C. Sirnulation i n international relations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. HELME,W. H., WILLEMIN, L. P., & GRAPTON, F. C. Dimensions of leadership in a simulated combat sicuation. Technical Research Repor#, 1172, U. S. Army Behavior and Systems Research Laboratory. July. 1971. HUNSAKER, P. L. The effects of differences in incongruity adaptation levels and environmental turbulence on successful completion and leadership effectiveness in
DRIVER.M. J.,
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
445
officer candidate school. Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention o f the A m e r i w n Psychological Arrociation, 1973, 9, 743-744. ( a ) HUNSAKER,P. L. The effects of incongruity adaptation levels on risk preference in turbulent decision-making environments. Proceedings, A c a d e w o f Managemen$, 33rd Annual Meeting, 1973, 475-482. ( b ) MIN'IZBERG,H. T h e nature o f managerial work. New Yock, N. Y.: Harper & Row, 1973. RAYNOLDS,P. A. Developing managerial capabilities for coping with turbulent environment. Academy o f Mamgement Proceedings, 3111 Annual Meeting, 1971, 86-91. STREUFERT, S., CLARDY,M. A., DRIVER, M. J., KARLINS, M.,SCHRODER,H. M., & SUEDFELD,P. A tactical game for the analysis of complex decision making in individuals and groups. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 723-729. STREUFERT,S., & DRIVER, M. J. Conceptual structure, information load and perceptual complexiry. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 249-250. STREUFERT,S., KLIGER,S. C., CASTORE,C. H., & Dm=, M. J. Tactical and negociations game for analysis of decision integration across decision areas. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 155-157. STREUFERT, S., & SCHRODER,H. M. Conceptual structure, environmental complexity and task performance. Journal o f Experimental Research i n Personality, 1965, 1, 132-137. S~REUFERT, S.,. SumPaLD, P., & DRIVER, M. J. Conceptual structures, information search and information utilization. J o u r ~ of l Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2. 736-740. SUEDPELD,P., & STREUFERT,S. Information search as a function of conceptual and environmental complexiry. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 351-352. VROOM. V.. & YETTEN,P. W. Leadership and decision-making. Pinsburgh: Univer. of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. WYNNE, B. E., HUNSAKER,P. L., & MUDGETT,W. C. Social decision behavior in turbulent environments. Proceedings, Fifth Annual Midwest Meeting, American institute for Decision science^, 1974, 2-12,
Accepted December 31, 1974.
A TACTICAL PACIFICATION GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT1 WILLIAM C. MUDGETT, PHILLIP L. HUNSAKER. AND BAYARD E. WYNNE University of Wisconsin-Milwuuhee
Summary.-The structure of rhe Tactical Pacification Game is described and applications for evaluating and developing leadership competence are explained. Relevant research paradigms and specially developed measurement instruments are presented as they relate to the study of leadership and decision rnding. Examples of current and future applications of the simulation are presented. Development of the Tactical Pacification Game represents an extension of a complex decision-making environment (Streufert, et dl., 1965) for use in leadership assessment, development, and research. The over-all environment and interaction format are similar to earlier versions of the simulation, but the problem content, role assignments, behavioral expectations, and assessment procedures are unique. Like similar behavioral simulations (e.g., Driver & Hunsaker, 1972; Streufert, et al., 1967; Guetzkow, et al., 1963), the Tactical Pacification Game can be utilized for research in individual and group decision-making. In addition, it provides a behavioral environment for identification of individuals who possess comparatively better leadership skills in complex and changing situations. The ability to cope with this type of environment is an aspect of leadership which may assume critical importance in the domain of technical-managerial leadership as described by Helme, Willemin, and Grafton ( 1971). The new procedure was constructed on premises set forth in the General Incongruity Adaptation Level hypothesis (Driver & Streufert, 1965) and research concerning the ability to cope with turbulence (Raynolds, 1971; Hunsaker, 1973a, 1973b). This construct, as expanded in earlier work (Wynne, Hunsaker, & Mudgett, 1974), implies that a subjective optimum in decisionmaking effectiveness exists depending on prior experience with incongruity, i.e., complexity, change, and ambiguity. Individuals attempt to maintain a preferred optimum of incongruity in the environment. Decision-making effectiveness is posited to decrease if environmental incongruity is either too high, e.g., flight and avoidance, or too low, e.g., conflict generation. In this simulation, environmental incongruity is similar for all participants allowing assessment of leadership and decision-making skills based on differences in individual abilities.
Simulation Environment The simulation environment is posed within a socio-political military con'Support for the development of this simulation was provided by the Army Research Insritute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
440
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
text. The setting is a hypothetical underdeveloped nation, which is governed by a quasi-military dictatorship and described as unstable. A rebellion against the present government is underway, but the amount of popular support for the rebellion is not clearly known. The present government has requested and is receiving aid from a foreign power, the Union of Northern Hemispheric States, in putting down the rebellion. Two player's manuals are provided and thoroughly studied by Ss before beginning the simulation. One manual describes physical, military, economic and social-political aspects similar to those encountered during U. S. involvement in the Vietnam and Korean conflicts. The other describes the same situation seen from the opposing point of view. These aspects are abstracted and generalized so that previous knowledge of actual or specific events is not elicited. Although stereotypic role playing, i.e., military officer, is suggested by the environment, the insertion of economic and socialpolitical aspects provide situations which foster unique reactions. High involvement by Ss is induced by the construction of problems to be solved and competition between teams. Ss' knowledge of events in the environment is provided by the delivery of message cards describing occurrences in the hypothetical country and by feedback concerning the consequences of their decisions. Ss' output is obtained from " 'action,' 'planning,' and 'communication,' forms" on which they describe their specific reactions and/or initiatives to the message inputs. Message cards usually present at least three alternatives for dealing with the event. Estimates of the importance of the events, the effectiveness of planned actions, and chances for success of the chosen alternative are elicited by the "action forms." Ss are also requested to originate alternatives and fully plan responses on a "planning form." "Communication forms" are used for searching out procedural information or other interaction between Ss and the environment. In response to the actions selected or planned by each team, E sends a consequence message which explains the outcomes and scores of the actions. The scoring system ensures a sense of interteam competition and is constructed out of the responses of both teams to the same problem. A cumulative scoring form showing the progress of both teams is displayed for both teams to see. The units for measuring consequences are presented in a matrix format to show Ss that the values of actions are dependent upon corresponding actions of the opposing team.
Use requirement^ The simulation consists of three packages of materials: one for the experimenter or instructor, one for participants, and one which contains a large map of the hypothetical land area together with movable pieces representing troop 'The instructor's manual describing these materials and their use is available from the first author and also in Document NAPS-02540, Microfiche Publications, 440 Park Ave. S., New York, N . Y. 10016. Remit $1.50 for microfiche or $5.00 for photocopy.
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
441
units, etc. Other required items beyond these three packages are a clock or watch, pencils, and scratch paper. Physical requirements for conducting the simulation are two tables, a blackboard divider, and a space sufficient to accommodate Ss, observers, and/or simulation operator. Observers and controllers should be able to work at a "controllers" table without interferring with Ss' behavior. Ideally, a room equipped with a one-way mirror or TV cameras enhances unobstructive observation. During debriefings in pilot studies, Ss consistently showed that involvement in the simulation was so complete that awareness of the physical settings and the fact they were being observed was greatly diminished or went entirely unnoticed. Selection of subjects is at instructor/experimenter discretion. Since knowledge of military, diplomacy, or other pertinent information can effect influence patterns, group structure, and information processing, selection should be controlled to ensure Ss are at approximately the same level in these knowledge and experience dimensions. Prepanation of Sabjects Because Ss must be thoroughly acquainted with the simulation environment, manuals containing all the necessary information are given to Ss on the day before the simulation is conducted. A brief exam or review of that material may be given at the discretion of the instructor just prior to beginning the simulation in order to assure that Ss are -prepared. Ss are instructed not to discuss the material among themselves after this preparation and prior to the starting time. During the question and answer period preceding the first period of the simulation, rules, forms and schedules are explained. Instructions are given at this time to Ss regarding assigned roles: each team consists of four members in the roles of commander, economic advisor, tactical military advisor and socio-political advisor. N o instructions are given on how team members are to interact or how tasks such as completing forms are to be distributed. Only procedural questions from Ss are allowed after the simulation begins. P~ocedu~e Each team begins in an identical initial situation with the same set of overlapping objectives, i.e., success in tactics, socio-political, and economic dimensions. A sequence of pre-specified problems are given to the team in fixed order at controlled frequencies. Although members have assigned formal roles, teams are left free to organize themselves and make decisions in any manner they feel is most appropriate. Team decisions are communicated on action, planning or communication forms to the game controller. The simulation includes introduction-role assignment, problem-solving,
442
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
skill assessment, and debriefing segments. It is conducted over several periods -usually consisting of four 1-hr. sessions. During the problem-solving segment, Ss are rotated through four role assignments so that the formal leadership performance of each can be observed. Whether, and if so, how, an assigned leader reorganizes the team to deal with the general flow of events and specific problems are major behavioral variables of interest during this segment as well as the process of informal leadership emergence. Another important variable is how formal organization and leader emergence relate to the attributes of Ss. Following completion of the problem-solving segment, each S assesses the leadership qualities of himself and of his teammates. Observers also assess the performance of each S. The final phase is Ss' debriefing. The debriefing provides time for training feedback, synthesis of knowledge, and data gathering, etc., depending upon experimenter's objectives. Simulation Applications While the general environment remains constant, the simulation may be adapted to several purposes by altering the quantity, content and timing of the input message string. Adjustment in this parameter allows utilization of the simulation as a training vehicle, an assessment device, or a research instrument. In the case of training, feedback addressed to actual responses is used as reinforcement. This requires that responses be evaluated quickly and either a prepared consequence message selected or created within a reasonable time. These consequence messages are delivered before the next problem. The debriefing session at the end of the simulation takes on additional importance as a reinforcement vehicle in the training version. When used as an assessment device, feedback messages may or may not be used as long as the message set is consistent over the entire group of Ss being assessed. The important aspect of this use is the evaluation process which includes both decision output analysis, and observation of Ss' interaction patterns by trained observers. The leadership and decision-making processes of team members are of primary concern in these evaluations. Various research objectives may be pursued during the simulation. The simulation environment can remain constant and consistent control can be exercised over the input parameters. Of specific research interest are correlations which may be tested between personality inventories administered before the simulation and the analysis of data derived from the written output and behavioral observation (Wynne, Hunsaker, & Mudgett, 1974). In addition, relationships between information quantity and/or complexity and other variables may be tested by varying selection of Ss, pre-conditioning Ss or comparing expected observable behavior with changes in degree of information quantity or complexity (Suedfeld & Streufert, 1966; Streufert & Schroder, 1965).
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Data Collection and Analysis Five complementary types of data may be generated during the course of a team simulation experiment. Collectively, these data provide measures which serve to distinguish among members of Mintzberg's (1973) three dimensions of leadership activities, i.e., interpersonal, informational, and decision-making. Self-report inventories may be completed by each simulation participant in advance of the team experiment. These inventories can include measures of authoritarianism, defensiveness, need-achievement, achievement anxiety, general incongruity adaptation level, and complexity of cognitive structure. The leadership description scale was developed for this research. It contains 12 items on a Likert-scale basis. Each team member is described by each of his cohorts on a checklist at the conclusion of the problem-solving segment of the simulation. Three scores are derived from the form in order to rate Ss mice with respect to: ( 1 ) administrative competence, ( 2 ) decision-making skills, and ( 3 ) team-building expertise. A 23-item Decision Style Classification form was also developed in this program. Each item is a stem phrase about decision-making, with four alternative completion phrases for description of individuals. Comparison of the responses by and about each person is judged by each S and by others in relation to each of four decision styles implicit in the response stems: decisive, flexible, hierarchic, and integrative." These styles are consistent with other postulated leadership processes (Vroom & Yetten, 1973). Content analysis techniques are applied to the teams' written outputs to measure degrees of integration, frequency of decision, relation of decisions to goals, strategy formation and information search (cf. Streufert & Driver, 1965; Streufert & Schroder, 1965; Streufert, et al., 1965; Castore & Streufert, 1966; Suedfeld and Streufert, 1966; Wynne, Mudgett, & Hunsaker, 1974).4 Specific analyses of content can be created to adapt to the version of the simulation which is being used. For instance, if the training version is employed, a system of analysis relating to the specific emphasis of training can be designed. An example of the method developed for analyzing decision style perceptions within small groups is provided via data gathered in a developmental pilot study of the simulation. In this case, the behavioral variable of concern was decision style as related to the dimensions of adaptability and complexity. The measurement instrument is the Decision Style Classification form.5 This method allows for sociometric perceptual appraisals among team members regarding their similarities and differences. 3M. J. Driver & 1. F. Lintott, Management decision sryles. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Southern California. 1973) 'B. E. Wynne, W. C. Mudgem. & P. L. Hunsaker. A method of analyzing perception within small groups. (Unpublished manuscript. Univer. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1974) 'Copies of the ~gcision~ G l eClassification f&m and instructions for its use, including a computer program, are available in B. E. Wynne. W. C. Mudgetr, & P. L. Hunsaker. A method of analyzing perception within small groups. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1974)
W. C. MUDGETT, ET AL.
444
Each of the 2 3 scale items represents an aspect of one of the four decision style categories. Completed provide descriptions of each person by each person resulting in a dyadic perception vector which links to one of the four decision styles. After questionnaire responses are converted into relative dyad matrices, all dyadic relationships are considered in sequential order to distill the essence of all individual judgments into a description of each member of the team. An example of final inferences that could have been drawn via this method is presented in the following matrix: TEAM MEMBER
I
;I\
A RELEIVE. ADAPTABILITY
C B
.I
RELATIVE COMPLEXITY
INTEGRATIVENESS
Final evaluations represented in the matrix demonstrate that B was perceived as the most adaptable member of the team. D was seen as the least adaptable, and A was seen as more adaptable than C. D was perceived as the most complex, followed by B, A, and C respectively. Based on the two-dimensional rankings, adaptability and complexity, a decision classification can be obtained. It is clear, for example, that D is the most "decisive" person on the team, i.e., low on both dimensions. B appears to have the most "integrative" style, A is seen as most "flexible," and C appears to have the strongest "hierarchic" tendencies. Further analysis would provide data concerning commonalities, concurrences, differences, and other aspects of group sociometry. REFERENCES
CASTORE. C. H.,
&
STREUFERT, S. The perception of experimentally induced failure.
Psychonomic Science, 196G, 4, 137-138. & HUNSAKER. P. L. The Luna I moon colony: a programmed simulation for the analysis of individual and group decision making. Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 879-888. DRIVER. M. J., & STREUPERT, S. The general incongruity adaptation level (GIAL) hypothesis: an analysis and integration of cognitive approaches to motivation. (Paper No. 114. Purdue Univer. Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, West Lafayeme, Indiana, 1965) GUETZKOW, H., ALGER,C. F., BRODY, R. A., NOEL,R. C., & SNYDER, R. C. Sirnulation i n international relations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. HELME,W. H., WILLEMIN, L. P., & GRAPTON, F. C. Dimensions of leadership in a simulated combat sicuation. Technical Research Repor#, 1172, U. S. Army Behavior and Systems Research Laboratory. July. 1971. HUNSAKER, P. L. The effects of differences in incongruity adaptation levels and environmental turbulence on successful completion and leadership effectiveness in
DRIVER.M. J.,
GAME FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
445
officer candidate school. Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention o f the A m e r i w n Psychological Arrociation, 1973, 9, 743-744. ( a ) HUNSAKER,P. L. The effects of incongruity adaptation levels on risk preference in turbulent decision-making environments. Proceedings, A c a d e w o f Managemen$, 33rd Annual Meeting, 1973, 475-482. ( b ) MIN'IZBERG,H. T h e nature o f managerial work. New Yock, N. Y.: Harper & Row, 1973. RAYNOLDS,P. A. Developing managerial capabilities for coping with turbulent environment. Academy o f Mamgement Proceedings, 3111 Annual Meeting, 1971, 86-91. STREUFERT, S., CLARDY,M. A., DRIVER, M. J., KARLINS, M.,SCHRODER,H. M., & SUEDFELD,P. A tactical game for the analysis of complex decision making in individuals and groups. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 723-729. STREUFERT,S., & DRIVER, M. J. Conceptual structure, information load and perceptual complexiry. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 249-250. STREUFERT,S., KLIGER,S. C., CASTORE,C. H., & Dm=, M. J. Tactical and negociations game for analysis of decision integration across decision areas. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 155-157. STREUFERT, S., & SCHRODER,H. M. Conceptual structure, environmental complexity and task performance. Journal o f Experimental Research i n Personality, 1965, 1, 132-137. S~REUFERT, S.,. SumPaLD, P., & DRIVER, M. J. Conceptual structures, information search and information utilization. J o u r ~ of l Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2. 736-740. SUEDPELD,P., & STREUFERT,S. Information search as a function of conceptual and environmental complexiry. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 351-352. VROOM. V.. & YETTEN,P. W. Leadership and decision-making. Pinsburgh: Univer. of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. WYNNE, B. E., HUNSAKER,P. L., & MUDGETT,W. C. Social decision behavior in turbulent environments. Proceedings, Fifth Annual Midwest Meeting, American institute for Decision science^, 1974, 2-12,
Accepted December 31, 1974.
