THE STRUCTURAL, TRAINING, AND OPERATIONAL …

1 Technical Report 507 THE structural , training , ANDOPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICSOF ARMY TEAMSJean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr.,and Dorothy L. FinleyARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIADTIC~ JAN 2 1 ;8 ArJiU. S. ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesJune 1980 0 21 Aoproved for public release; distribution S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEFOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCESA Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of theDeputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelL. NEALE COSBYJOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, INTechnical Director CommanderIllNOTICESDISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longerneeded.

2 Please do not return it to the Army Research Institute forthe Behavioral and Social : The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, unless so designated by other aggi f edSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE MWtien Data Entered)READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORMI. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBERT echnical Report 507 _---_,Ift_ __ _ (, 14. "TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVEREDThe structural , training , and OPERATIONAL Final Report 1977-1980 Characteristics of Army Teams6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER7. AUTHOR(& S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)Jean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr., and ,IDorothy L. Finley9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10.)

3 PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSUS Army Research Institute Field Unit 2Q762722A765 Post Office Box 2086 2Q162722A765 Fort Benning, Georgia 31905 20263743A794I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATEUS Army Research Institute for the ehavioral June 1980and Social Sciences 1s. NUMBER OF PAGES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 149T4, MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(1I diffternit em Controillinl Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)Unclassified15 .DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWN GRADINGSCHEDULE16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thli Report)Approved for public release; distribution DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abettat entered In Block 20, It different from Report)I. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESIS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse ide If necessary and Identify by block number)Teams Group DynamicsSmall Groups Team StructureArmy training Team Performance and OPERATIONAL CharacteristicsTeam Composition2, ABSTRACT (Caitfrueo reverse eb H necessar a ldemltr by block number)Combat, combat support, and combat service support branches within theArmy were surveyed to identify teams within each branch and to describe theirstructural characteristics according to official organizational tables ofpersonnel and equipment.

4 A total of 255 distinct teams were identified anddescribed, with the Infantry, Field Artillery, and Armor branches containingthe greatest number of teams. Results on such characteristics as team size,member rank, leader/rank, skill level of members, and equipment used, (con't)DD , FO 1473 EDITION OF I NOV GS IS OBSOLETE UnclassifiedDDtJAM7 Unlasiiei SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When to Entered)/,AUnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Who Data )20. A TRACT f=ontinued)-are presented. Teams that perform non-routine tasks were located within theInfantry, Armor, and Engineer Army units were also surveyed. These units rated their teams onthe amount of team training received and needed, leader satisfaction withtraining, training constraints, team characteristics, OPERATIONAL problems, andteam evaluation procedures.

5 The primary training problems and constraintsidentified were the turn-over of team personnel, understrength teams, unquali-fied personnel, insufficient time to train, and unrealistic training . Of teamcharacteristics surveyed, only one was rated as atypical of Army teams --a cpmpensation by one member for inadequate performance by another results provide a data base for future team research within the appendix contains a list of all teams identified in both phases of the study,Iii UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entoted)/+!,,Technical Report 507 THE structural , training , ANDOPERATIONAL CHARARACTERISTICSOF ARMY TEAMSJean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr.,and Dorothy L. FinleySubmitted Strasel, ChiefAIR FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIAA pproved by:E.

6 Ralph Dusek, DirectorPERSONNEL AND TRAININGRESEARCH ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333 Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the ArmyJune 1980IS* IIArmy Project Number Infantry Systems2Q762722A765 Development Research2Q162722A7652Q263743A794 Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. /ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition research reported here is part of a broader program on training forcombat effectiveness being conducted by the US Amy Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences (ARI).

7 A critical element in the combat effec-tiveness of a military unit at the company and battalion levels is the effec-tiveness of subordinate sub-units or ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia, has initiated a team researchprogram whose long-term goal is to improve the training and evaluation proceduresof military teams. The initial step in this program, identifying Army teams anddescribing their basic characteristics, is reported conducts research on Amy OPERATIONAL problems through in-house effortsand the efforts of selected qualified contract groups. This research was per-formed primarily by Fort Benning Field Unit staff. This in-house effort wassupplemented by personnel from the Litton-Mellonics System Development Division,who performed the actual survey under contract DA-C 19-77-C-0011.

8 The researchwas funded as part of Army RDTE Projects 2Q762722A765 (FY 77), 2Q162722A765(FY 78 and 79), and 2Q263743A794 (FY 80). The research is directly responsiveto research requirements of the US Army Infantry School and the US Army Trainingand Doctrine Command.,JO~ EPH ZE~NERQe hnical Director'orvvX9~, Cc\ e _ \THE structural , training , AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY TEAMSBRIEFR equirement:The Defense Science Bcdrd report of 1976 pointed out the need for greateremphasis on the appropriate training for crews/groups/teams/units throughoutthe armed services. The report also highlighted the needs for extensiveresearch into the nature of team performance and the requirements for bettertechnology for defining training requirements and methods for team team training has been developed and conducted in a hit and miss fashionover the years, largely because there is little knowledge of what team perfor-mance really is, of how to develop appropriate training materials and methods,and of how to train teams to perform better.

9 Specific research requirementsare to identify: the population of Army teams and their characteristics, thecurrent level of team skills and deficiencies, and procedures for determiningteam skill requirements and selecting appropriate training methods. This proj-ect was designed to satisfy the first requirement and to begin to address :First, TRADOC (US Army training and Doctrine Command) organizationalexperts identified teams within the official Tables of Organization and Equip-ment (TOE) for each of the branches surveyed. In addition, the experts describedthe composition of each team in terms of the position, rank, skill level, andMOS held by each member, the activities performed by the team, and whether or not most team activities could be accomplished by routine, pre-established pro-cedures.

10 Then questionnaires were sent to training personnel witbin FORSCOM units requesting them to rate each of the teams within their units on the am untof team training received and needed, leader satisfaction with training , traia-ing constraints, team characteristics, OPERATIONAL problems, and team :A total of 255 distinct teams were identified and described in the firstphase of the study. Of the twelve branches surveyed, the Infantry, FieldArtillery, and Armor branches had the greatest number of teams. In terms ofsize, MOS, and leader and member rank four major categories of teams occurred:small (2-3 members), homogeneous (with respect to member rank and MOS) teamsled by enlisted men; medium-sized (4-8 members), homogeneous teams led byenlisted men; medium-sized, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted men orofficers; and large (nore than 9 members), heterogeneous teams led by seniorenlisted men or officers.