Content uploaded by Paul Bartone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Bartone on Apr 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Resilience Under Military Operational
Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness?
Paul T. Bartone
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
National Defense University
Although many people suffer physical and mental health decrements following expo
-
sure to stress, many others show remarkable resilience, remaining healthy despite
high stress levels. If the factors that account for resilience can be clearly identified
and understood, perhaps resilience can be enhanced even for those most vulnerable
to stress. One potential pathway to resilience is personality hardiness, a characteristic
sense that life is meaningful, we choose our own futures, and change is interesting
and valuable. This article applies this hardiness concept to the context of military op-
erational stress, and argues that highly effective leaders can increase hardy, resilient
responses to stressful circumstances within their units. I discuss the nature of stress in
modern military operations, and briefly review relevant hardiness theory and re-
search. Three sets of considerations lead to the proposition that hardy leaders can in-
deed increase hardy cognitions and behaviors in groups. These considerations con
-
cern (a) the likely underlying mechanisms of hardiness, which have to do with how
experiences get interpreted and made sense of; (b) relevant theoretical positions on
leader social influence, including transformational leadership and path–goal leader
theory; and (c) several empirical studies that have shown indirect support for a hardy
leader influence process. A case vignette is provided to illustrate how leaders might
increase hardy cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors within their organizations during
highly stressful operations. This potential for leaders to boost hardiness as a pathway
to resiliency in groups under stress merits further active investigation.
Military operations across the entire range of conflict expose military personnel
(and increasingly, contract workers) to a multitude of stressors. These stressors can
lead to a variety of negative health consequences, both physical and mental, for
MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 18(Suppl.), S131–S148
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Correspondence should be addressed to Paul T. Bartone, Colonel, U.S. Army, Professor of Behav
-
ioral Sciences, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Ft. McNair,
Washington, DC 20319–5062. E-mail: bartonep@ndu.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
some exposed individuals. For example, Hoge et al. (2004) recently reported that
up to 17% of U.S. veterans of the Iraq conflict reported symptoms of major depres
-
sion, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, a point that is of
-
ten neglected in studies of this kind is that most exposed individuals appear to re
-
spond with remarkable resiliency to stress, and this includes very severe or
traumatic stress (Bonanno, 2004). For example, most survivors of the September
11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon appear to have adjusted extremely well to this
acutely stressful event, with no formal mental health intervention other than practi
-
cal support provided in the aftermath (Ritchie, Leavitt, & Hanish, 2006). Similarly,
as pointed out by Wessely (2005), the vast majority of Londoners responded to the
July 2005 terrorist strikes on the London public transit system not with psycho
-
pathology, but with resilience. One examination of historical events during World
War II also shows the same pattern of broad public resilience, rather than break
-
down in the face of the Nazi German bombings of London that killed 40,000 peo
-
ple (Jones, Woolven, Durodie, & Wessely, 2004).
What accounts for such resiliency? If the factors or pathways that lead to human
resiliency under stress were better understood, perhaps some of these resiliency
factors could be developed or amplified in those who are initially low in resilience,
and more vulnerable to stress. Such an approach now seems even more important,
given the generally recognized failure of postdisaster psychological interventions
such as critical incident stress debriefing (Mitchell & Everly, 2000) to make any
positive difference for those receiving them (van Emmerik, Kamphuis, Hulsbosch,
& Emmelkamp, 2002). Worse, in many cases such interventions appear to increase
rather than decrease the incidence of later psychological problems (Wessely,
2005). This article focuses attention on personality hardiness, one of several poten-
tial “pathways to resilience” posited by Bonanno (2004). Based on both theoretical
and empirical grounds, I argue that leaders in military units may well be able to
foster increases in the kinds of cognitions and behaviors that typify the high-hardy
person’s response to stressful circumstances.
It is useful to begin by describing the nature of the stressors encountered by
troops in modern military operations. Following this, the hardiness construct is ex
-
plained in some detail, including both theoretical background and some empirical
findings showing that hardiness serves to buffer or moderate the ill effects of stress.
I suggest that the primary underlying mechanism in the hardiness–resiliency pro
-
cess involves how stressful experiences get interpreted or made sense of in the con
-
text of one’s entire life experience. Several theoretical positions support the view
that leaders may influence this process in work groups such as military units.
High-hardy leaders may facilitate positive coping with stress by shaping the shared
understandings of stressful events and experiences within the group in a positive
and constructive direction. Although this stands now as a theoretical proposition
for future research to evaluate more fully, several studies already provide indirect
support for this hardy leader influence process. To clarify how this process might
S132
BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
occur in military groups, a brief case report is presented of a U.S. Army unit de
-
ployed to the Middle East.
THE NATURE OF STRESSORS IN MODERN MILITARY
OPERATIONS
Military operations always entail stressors of various kinds for the troops involved.
Historically, the extreme stressors of combat and all-out war have received the
greatest attention. However, military operations in the post-Cold War era bring ad
-
ditional challenges and stressors. For one thing, as the number of peacekeeping,
peacemaking, humanitarian, and other kinds of operations increases, while mili
-
tary organizations shrink in size with the shift to all-volunteer forces, units are de
-
ploying more frequently. Increased deployments entail other stressful changes in
military units as well, such as an increased number (and intensity) of training exer
-
cises, planning sessions, and equipment inspections, all of which increase the
workload and pace of operations (Castro & Adler, 1999). Furthermore, more fre-
quent deployments also involve more family separations, a recognized stressor for
soldiers (Bell, Bartone, Bartone, Schumm, & Gade, 1997).
One obvious way to reduce the stress associated with military operations is to
lessen the frequency and duration of deployments. Although this may be a sensible
policyapproachin principle,it isnot alwayspossible givenpolitical andstrategicre-
alities andlimited resources. Thesame is truein other occupationsand contexts.For
example, following the September 11th terrorist strike on the World Trade Center,
fire, police, and other emergency personnel necessarily maintained continuous op-
erations around the clock with the goal of locating possible survivors, as well as re
-
storing essential services to the affected areas. As this is written, thousands of disas
-
ter response workers are currently working to rescue victims and restore basic
servicesin New Orleansand surroundingareas ravagedby HurricaneKatrina inAu
-
gust 2005. In situations such as this, continuous operations and extreme efforts are
necessary to save lives; easing the pace of work is generally seen as an unacceptable
(ifnot unethical)compromise.So,when reducingstressfuloperations oractivitiesis
not an option, what can be done to minimize or counter the stressors associated with
such operations? In particular, is there anything that leaders can do to facilitate
healthy coping with operational stress? To answer this question with respect to the
militarycase,ithelpstohaveaclearerunderstandingofthenatureofthestressorsen
-
counteredbysoldiersonmodernmilitarydeployments.Whatisitaboutmodern mil
-
itary deployments that is stressful for those performing them? Extensive field re
-
search with U.S. military units deployed to Croatia, Bosnia, Kuwait, and Saudi
Arabia from 1993 through 1996, including interviews, observations, and survey
data, aimed to identify the primary sources of stress for soldiers on operations. This
work led to the identification of five primary psychological stress dimensions in
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S133
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
modern military operations (Bartone, 2001; Bartone, Adler, & Vaitkus, 1998).
These are isolation, ambiguity, powerlessness, boredom, and danger. Today, the in
-
creased frequency and pace of deployments for U.S. forces and the long work hours
and daysthat these deployments entail (Castro& Adler, 1999)merit the inclusion of
another factor, probably best described as workload or deployment stress. These di
-
mensions are summarized in Table 1 and further elaborated next.
S134
BARTONE
TABLE 1
Primary Stressor Dimensions in Modern Military Operations
Stressor Characteristics
1. Isolation Remote location
Foreign culture and language
Distant from family and friends
Unreliable communication tools
Newly configured units, do not know your coworkers
2. Ambiguity Unclear mission or changing mission
Unclear rules of engagement
Unclear command or leadership structure
Role confusion (what is my job?)
Unclear norms or standards of behavior (what is acceptable here and
what is not?)
3. Powerlessness Movement restrictions
Rules of engagement constraints on response options
Policies prevent intervening, providing help
Forced separation from local culture, people, events, and places
Unresponsive supply chain—trouble getting needed supplies and repair
parts
Differing standards of pay, movement, behavior, etc., for different units
in area
Indeterminate deployment length—do not know when we are going
home
Do not know or cannot influence what is happening with family back
home
4. Boredom (alienation) Long periods of repetitive work activities without variety
Lack of work that can be construed as meaningful or important
Overall mission or purpose not understood as worthwhile or important
Few options for play and entertainment
5. Danger (threat) Real risk of serious injury or death, from:
Enemy fire, bullets, mortars, mines, explosive devices, etc.
Accidents, including “friendly fire”
Disease, infection, toxins in the environment
Chemical, biological, or nuclear materials used as weapons
6. Workload High frequency, duration, and pace of deployments
Long work hours and/or days during the deployments
Long work hours and/or days in periods before and after deployments
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Isolation
Soldiers deploy to remote locations, far away from home, separated from their
families, frequently without good tools or methods for communicating. They find
themselves in a strange land and culture, often surrounded by coworkers who are
new to them, as the deployed unit was specially configured for a particular mis
-
sion. They feel isolated and alone.
Ambiguity
Often in modern military operations, the mission and rules of engagement are un
-
clear, there are multiple missions that are in conflict, or the mission changes over
time. The role and purpose of the soldier may be similarly unclear. Confusion and
mystery in the command structure adds to this uncertainty (who is in charge of
what?). Lack of understanding of host nation language and cultural practices, and
how these impact on deployed forces, further adds to the uncertainty (which norms
and practices are acceptable in the host culture, and which are not?). This uncer-
tainty can also pertain to other national contingents in a multinational coalition
force.
Powerlessness
Security and operational concerns (e.g., “force protection”) often lead to move-
ment restrictions; for example, soldiers are not allowed to leave their base camp.
Soldiers may also be unable to interact with the local populace, and are prevented
from doing the things they are used to doing (e.g., running or jogging for exercise,
displaying their home country’s flag), and may also face a variety of restrictions on
dress and behavior. They have few choices. Movement and communication restric
-
tions also prevent soldiers from learning about local culture and language, and re
-
sources that might be available locally, adding to their sense of powerlessness.
They may also observe soldiers from other branches or national contingents oper
-
ating with different rules and privileges in the same environment, but have no ex
-
planation for these different standards. And soldiers may see local people in need
of help—wounded, ill, hungry, or despairing—but be unable to give assistance due
to movement and contact rules and regulations.
1
Boredom
Modern military missions frequently involve long periods of “staying in place,” of
-
ten without significant work to do. As the weeks and months tick by, soldiers start
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S135
1
Others have noted the significance of a sense of powerlessness in peacekeeping operations. For ex
-
ample, Weisaeth and Sund (1982) found that in Norwegian soldiers serving in Lebanon under the
UNIFIL United Nations peacekeeping mission, the feeling of being powerless to act or intervene was a
main contributor to posttraumatic stress symptoms.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to get bored. To some degree, this can be countered by providing more entertain
-
ment and sports activities for soldiers. However, the real problem of boredom
seems to result from lack of meaningful work or constructive activities in which to
engage. Daily tasks often take on a repetitive dullness, with a sense that nothing
important is being accomplished.
Danger
This dimension encompasses the real physical dangers and threats that are often
present in the deployed environment, threats that can result in injury or death.
Things like bullets, mines, bombs, or other hazards in the deployed setting are in
-
cluded here, as well as the risk of accidents, disease, and exposure to toxic sub
-
stances. In current U.S. and coalition operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, this in
-
cludes many hidden dangers such as suicide bombers, snipers, and improvised
explosive devices (IEDs). This source of stress can be direct, representing threats
to oneself, or indirect, representing threats to one’s comrades. Exposure to se-
verely injured or dead people, and the psychological stress this can entail, is also
considered under this stress dimension.
Workload
This factor represents the increasing frequency, length, and rapid pace of deploy-
ments that many military units are encountering. Also, most deployments are char-
acterized by a 24-hr, 7-day-a-week work schedule in which soldiers are always on
duty, with no time off. Work-related sleep deprivation is often a related feature.
Training and preparation activities in the period leading up to a deployment also
usually entail a heavy workload and extremely long days. The same is generally
true for military units returning home from a deployment, who must work overtime
to assure that all vehicles and equipment are properly cleaned, maintained, and ac
-
counted for.
It is important to remember that although these major dimensions of stress on
modern military operations are discussed as six distinct factors, in practice they
overlap and interact in multiple ways (Bartone, 2001; Bartone et al., 1998). The
next question is what tools, strategies, or coping mechanisms can be applied to in
-
crease resiliency or resistance to these stressors, both at the individual and unit lev
-
els. Some authors have suggested that unit cohesion is a powerful influence on unit
resiliency under stress (Ingraham & Manning, 1981; Paton, 1997), and that leader
-
ship can also play an important role (Kirkland, Bartone, & Marlowe, 1993; Wat
-
son, Ritchie, Demer, Bartone, & Pfefferbaum, 2006). In what follows I focus atten
-
tion on the personality dimension of hardiness, and suggest how leaders might
utilize this construct to increase individual and group resiliency under stress.
S136
BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PERSONALITY HARDINESS
In considering the question of what leaders can do to facilitate healthy coping with
the stress of military operations, it is useful to take a closer look at what hardiness
is, and consider how it might operate as a stress resiliency factor. Conceptually,
hardiness is a personality dimension that develops early in life and is reasonably
stable over time, although amenable to change and probably trainable under cer
-
tain conditions (Kobasa, 1979; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Hardy persons have a
high sense of life and work commitment, a greater feeling of control, and are more
open to change and challenges in life. They tend to interpret stressful and painful
experiences as a normal aspect of existence, part of life that is overall interesting
and worthwhile.
The concept of hardiness is not new. It is theoretically grounded in the work of
existential philosophers and psychologists such as Heidegger (1986), Frankl
(1960), and Binswanger (1963), and involves the creation of meaning in life, even
life that is sometimes painful or absurd, and having the courage to live life fully de-
spite its inherent pain and futility. It is a global perspective that affects how one
views the self, others, work, and even the physical world (in existential terms,
Umwelt, the “around” or physical world; Mitwelt, the “with” or social world; and
Eigenwelt, the world of the self or me). As early as 1967, using somewhat different
terms, Maddi outlined the hardy personality type and contrasted it with the
nonhardy “existential neurotic.” He used the term ideal identity to describe the per-
son who lives a vigorous and proactive life, with an abiding sense of meaning and
purpose, and a belief in his own ability to influence things.
Since Kobasa’s (1979) original report on hardiness and health in executives, an
extensive body of research has accumulated showing that hardiness protects
against the ill effects of stress on health and performance. Studies with a variety of
occupational groups have found that hardiness operates as a significant moderator
or buffer of stress (e.g., Bartone, 1989; Contrada, 1989; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn,
1982; Roth, Wiebe, Fillingim, & Shay, 1989; Wiebe, 1991). Hardiness has also
been identified as a moderator of combat exposure stress in Gulf War soldiers
(Bartone, 1993, 1999a, 2000). Personality hardiness has emerged as a stress buffer
in other military groups as well, including U.S. Army casualty assistance workers
(Bartone, Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham, 1989), peacekeeping soldiers (Bartone,
1996; Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001), Israeli soldiers in combat training (Florian,
Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995), Israeli officer candidates (Westman, 1990), and
Norwegian Navy cadets (Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, & Laberg, 2002).
Figure 1 shows results from a study on hardiness, combat stress, and PTSD
symptoms in U.S. active duty soldiers who fought in the Gulf War (Bartone, 2000).
This figure shows the typical, and rather robust interaction of hardiness and stress,
wherein it is under high-stress conditions that the resiliency effects of hardiness are
most apparent. In this study, high-hardy U.S. Army soldiers exposed to combat
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S137
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
stress in the Gulf War showed significantly fewer traumatic stress symptoms (as
assessed by the Impact of Events Scale; Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979).
PERSONALITY HARDINESS AS A FRAMEWORK
FOR UNDERSTANDING POSITIVE LEADER INFLUENCE
How does hardiness operate to increase resiliency to stress? Although the underly-
ing processes are still not clear, a critical aspect of the hardiness resiliency mecha-
nism likely involves the interpretation, or the meaning that people attach to events
around them and their own place in this world of experiences. High-hardy people
typically interpret experience as (a) overall interesting and worthwhile; (b) some
-
thing they can exert control over; and (c) challenging, presenting opportunities to
learn and grow. It seems likely that in organized work groups such as the military,
this meaning-making process is something that leaders can have considerable in
-
fluence over. Military units by their nature are group oriented and highly interde
-
pendent. The typical tasks and missions are group ones, and the hierarchical au
-
thority structure frequently puts leaders in a position to exercise substantial control
and influence over subordinates. By the policies and priorities they establish, the
directives they give, the advice and counsel they offer, the stories they tell, and per
-
haps most important the examples they provide, leaders may indeed alter the man
-
ner in which their subordinates interpret and make sense of their experiences.
Some empirical support for this notion comes from a study by Britt et al. (2001),
who found (using structural equation modeling) that hardiness increases the per
-
ception of meaningful work, which in turn increases the perception of positive
benefits associated with a stressful military deployment to Bosnia.
S138
BARTONE
FIGURE 1 Gulf War combat stress exposure predicting Impact of Events Scale scores for
low and high hardy groups, active duty sample. Displays Hardy × Combat Stress Exposure in
-
teraction (p < .0001) in regression model, N = 824 active duty, unstandardized betas used to map
regression lines. Reprinted from Bartone (2000). Used with permission.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Many authors have commented on how social processes can influence the cre
-
ation of meaning by individuals. Notable examples include Berger and Luckmann
(1966) on the social construction of reality, Janis (1982) on groupthink, and Weik
(1995) on the process of sensemaking in organizations. Even Allport (1985), the
distinguished American personality psychologist, viewed individual meaning as
often largely the result of social influence processes. It would seem that peers,
leaders, indeed the entire unit or organizational culture can influence how experi
-
ences get interpreted. This leads to what we can term the hardy leader influence
hypothesis: Leaders who are high in hardiness themselves exert influence on their
subordinates to interpret stressful experiences in ways characteristic of high-hardy
persons.
RESEARCH SUPPORTING THE HARDY LEADER
INFLUENCE HYPOTHESIS
Data from several studies with cadets in training to be military officers lend sup-
port to the notion that leaders high in hardiness may influence subordinates to
think and behave in more hardy or resilient ways. To measure hardiness, these
studies used a 15-item scale that (a) includes both positively and negatively keyed
items; (b) covers the three hardiness facets of commitment, control, and challenge;
and (c) shows excellent validity and reliability (Bartone, 1995, 2000; Bartone &
Snook, 2000). This measure is a shortened version of the Dispositional Resilience
Scale (DRS; Bartone et al., 1989) identified by Funk (1992) in his review of hardi-
ness theory and research as the best available tool for assessing hardiness. Also
using the DRS hardiness measure, Sinclair and Tetrick (2000) found that hardiness
operates independently of neuroticism (Funk & Houston, 1987), and that the
theoretical structure of three facets (commitment, control, and challenge) nested
beneath a superordinate hardiness construct is supported by confirmatory factor
analysis.
In the first cadet study, the short hardiness scale was administered to a single
West Point cohort (N = 435) during spring of their senior (fourth and final) year at
the academy. Leader performance was assessed with military development (MD)
grades, which are assigned to cadets at the end of each academic semester at West
Point. These grades represent an average of leader performance ratings given by an
officer supervisor, and the ratings of two or three cadet (upperclassmen) supervi
-
sors (U.S. Corps of Cadets, 1995). Multiple regression analysis predicting cumula
-
tive MD grades across 4 years (multiple R = .23), F(8, 1141) = 11.95, p < .001,
identified hardiness, transformational leadership style (Bass, 1998), and several
other variables as significant independent predictors of leader performance
(Bartone, 1999b; Milan, Bourne, Zazanis, & Bartone, 2002). Personality hardiness
emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor of military development
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S139
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
grades for these officer cadets (Table 2). In a similar study, hardiness proved to be
an even stronger predictor of leader performance for women cadets, as compared
to men (Bartone & Snook, 2000). These studies show that cadets who are high in
hardiness perform more effectively as leaders, as indicated by external ratings of
cadet peers and faculty supervisors. This does not indicate that they are influencing
hardiness levels in their subordinates. However, it does show that cadets high in
hardiness are rated more favorably on the various criteria included in the definition
of effective leadership at West Point. In particular, it shows that they are admired
by their subordinates. This provides a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for the
hardy leader social influence process posited here.
In these cadet data, transformational leadership style (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978)
also predicts leadership performance in cadets, although not as strongly as hardi-
ness. A subsequent correlational analysis revealed that transformational leadership
is not significantly correlated with hardiness, although transformational leadership
is moderately correlated with the hardiness facet of commitment. It is possible that
those high in personality hardiness are more apt to develop a transformational
leadership style, but that this occurs only under certain environmental or organiza
-
tional conditions. This is an important question for future research to address.
Together these results indicate that Army cadets who are higher in hardiness—a
characteristic sense of commitment, control, and challenge—are more effective as
leaders in a military-type organization. Again, this shows that such leaders have
the esteem of their subordinates, which may be a necessary precondition for hardy
leader social influence to occur. To the extent that leader performance ratings also
reflect performance of the groups being led, and that group performance is at least
partly a function of effective coping with stress, these results also lend indirect sup
-
port to the hardy leader social influence process. This is to say that the high-hardy
cadet is rated as a better leader in part because he or she has aided the group to ad
-
just and perform well under stressful conditions.
S140
BARTONE
TABLE 2
Leadership (Military Development) Predictors, West Point, 4 Years Total
Predictor β Tp
Hardiness .15 5.1 < .00
Transformational leadership .11 3.9 < .00
College entrance scores .07 2.5 < .01
Social judgment .07 2.3 < .02
Emotional stability –.07 –2.2 < .03
Extraversion .07 2.0 < .04
Traditional values .07 2.0 < .04
Note. From Bartone (1999b). Multiple regression, backward elimination, mean substitution for
missing data. Model: F(8, 1141) = 11.95, p < .0001. Multiple R = .23.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Another study done with Norwegian Navy officer cadets also supports a
hardy leader effect on groups. This study sought to identify factors that contrib
-
ute to developing cohesion in squad-sized units undergoing an intense 2-week
training exercise (Bartone et al., 2002). Results showed that hardiness and small
unit leadership influenced cohesion levels in a positive direction, and that hardi
-
ness and leadership interacted to influence cohesion. This suggests that what
leaders do, and how they are perceived by their subordinates, can have a team-
building or cohesion-enhancing effect on the unit. An additional finding, that
personality hardiness is also associated with higher cohesion levels in the wake
of a stressful group experience, further suggests a sense-making mechanism for
such leader effects.
The key operative power of hardiness to buffer or transform stressful experi
-
ences seems to be related to the particular interpretations of such experiences
that are typically made by the hardy person. If a stressful or painful experience
can be cognitively framed and made sense of within a broader perspective that
holds that all of existence is essentially interesting, worthwhile, fun, a matter of
personal choice, and providing chances to learn and grow, then the stressful ex-
perience can have beneficial psychological effects instead of harmful ones. In a
small group context, leaders are in a unique position to shape how stressful ex-
periences are understood by members of the group. The leader who, through ex-
ample and discussion, communicates a positive construction or reconstruction of
shared stressful experiences, may exert an influence on the entire group in the
direction of his or her interpretation of experience. Thus, leaders who are high in
hardiness likely have a greater impact in their groups under high-stress condi-
tions, when by their example, as well as by the explanations they give to the
group, they encourage others to interpret stressful events as interesting chal
-
lenges that they are capable of meeting, and in any case can learn and benefit
from. This process itself, as well as the positive result (a shared understanding of
the stressful event as something worthwhile and beneficial) could also be ex
-
pected to generate an increased sense of shared values, mutual respect, and co
-
hesion. Further support for this interpretation comes from the regression results
showing that hardiness and leadership interact to affect postexercise cohesion
levels (Bartone et al., 2002). This interaction effect means that the positive influ
-
ence of leaders on the growth of unit cohesion is greater when hardiness levels
in the unit are high to begin with. Once again, this does not confirm a direct in
-
fluence of leaders on the hardiness levels of subordinates; however, it does sug
-
gest that leaders can influence positive interpretations of stressful events within a
group, and that hardiness plays a role in this process.
Several theoretical ideas from the leadership literature are also relevant to the
hardy leader influence process postulated here. In a thoughtful essay on the psy
-
chology of military leadership, Gal (1987) argued that for future and more de
-
manding military operations, military leaders are needed who can increase the
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S141
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
commitment of subordinates. According to Gal, this is the central operative activ
-
ity of transformational leaders; that is, to increase the overall commitment levels of
subordinates. The research on hardiness and leader performance summarized ear
-
lier suggests that leaders who are high in hardiness may be especially skilled at
building up this sense of commitment in subordinates, and further suggests that
how experiences get interpreted (interpretations shaped by leaders) is a critical part
of the process.
Another relevant leadership theory is generally referred to as transformational
leadership (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978). As elaborated by Bass (1998), trans
-
formational leadership goes beyond reward and punishment approaches, and
inspires subordinates to higher levels of effort and commitment. Conceptually, it
includes the four elements of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, indi
-
vidualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The
transformational leader dimension of inspirational motivation is one of special rel
-
evance to the question of how hardy leaders might influence others in a work
group. Bass and Avolio described inspirational motivation as follows:
Transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them
by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’work. Team spirit is aroused.
Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. The leader gets followers involved in envi-
sioning attractive future states. The leader clearly communicates expectations that
followers want to meet and also demonstrates commitment to goals and the shared
vision. (p. 3)
This description makes it clear that transformational leadership is believed to
work in part through some process whereby leaders generate an increased sense of
meaning, commitment, and challenge among their subordinates. The process itself
is not further elaborated by transformational leadership theorists. The hardy leader
influence hypothesis presented here suggests a possible mechanism underlying the
inspirational motivation aspect of transformational leadership.
Increasing commitment and motivation is also an important feature of
path–goal leadership theory, which focuses attention on how leaders influence
the motivation of subordinates by identifying significant goals, structuring situa
-
tions so that subordinates experience personal rewards for goal attainment, and
clarifying the pathways for achieving these desired goals (House, 1971, 1996).
According to path–goal theory, leaders may demonstrate supportive, directive,
participative, or achievement leadership depending on their personal style and
preference, as well as the contingencies of particular situations or tasks (House
& Mitchell, 1974). Most relevant to the hardy leader influence hypothesis is the
achievement leadership orientation of path–goal theory. This leader is somehow
able to tap into and even increase followers’ motivation to surmount obstacles
and achieve goals, and to orient this achievement motivation toward important
S142
BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
group goals. This is very similar to what the high-hardy person does at the indi
-
vidual level when confronted with unexpected or highly stressful situations; he
or she tends to interpret these situations as challenges to meet head-on, to learn
and grow from, rather than as threats or disruptions to be avoided. Path–goal
leadership theory thus provides a broader framework for understanding how
high-hardy leaders might influence the motivation, thinking, and behavior of
subordinates.
CASE STUDY: HOW A HARDY LEADER CAN INFLUENCE
GROUP HARDINESS ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
The following case vignette is provided to illustrate how the hardy leader influence
process might operate in a deployed military unit. The case is a real one, identified
during research conducted in 1995 with a U.S. Army unit deployed to Saudi Ara
-
bia as part of a deterrent or peace enforcement operation. I had the opportunity to
visit this unit as part of a study of deployment stress, morale, and cohesion in U.S.
Army Air Defense Artillery (ADA) battalions. After the Gulf War ended in 1991,
ADA battalions were stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to guard against possi-
ble Iraqi missile attacks. Units deployed for about 6 months, and then were re-
placed by other ADA units.
The unit under study was about 4.5 months into the mission, and things had by
this time become dull and predictable for the soldiers. As the research team con-
ducted interviews and surveys throughout the battalion, it became clear that unit
morale was extremely low, as was cohesion in all the batteries or companies exam-
ined. However, morale and cohesion levels were dramatically different in one part
of the battalion: the headquarters and maintenance company. Here, morale was
high and cohesion was strong, in dramatic contrast to the other elements of the bat
-
talion. How could this difference be understood?
The company commander provided a ready explanation for his unit’s high mo
-
rale and cohesion. As he told it, shortly after they arrived in theater he put the com
-
pany to work on a major task that provided a common goal, and a tangible mission
to work on during their 6 months in the desert. He had heard about a nearby area
that had been used as an equipment dump after the Gulf War. Tons of old military
equipment and parts were buried in the sand, rusted, and dirty. The commander de
-
cided to assign his unit the task of excavating this area, and recovering, cleaning,
and repairing as much equipment as possible over the course of their deployment.
By the final stage of their 6-month rotation, they had salvaged over $1 million
worth of equipment from the dump, and returned it to the Army supply system in
good working order. The walls of their company work area and meeting room were
bedecked with photographs showing before-and-after scenes of the equipment
dump. Adding to the sense of accomplishment and transformation, the soldiers had
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S143
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
built a multipurpose athletic field on the former dump site, which the entire battal
-
ion was using for sports events. Regardless of rank, all unit members spoke with
great pride about this accomplishment.
This small example shows how a proactive, committed, high-hardy leader
might influence an entire work group in the direction of greater hardiness and
stress resiliency. The company commander took creative control of an ambigu
-
ous situation, and proceeded to define a meaningful mission for his unit. He es
-
sentially created a major task, something that was challenging, that he and his
troops could exercise control over; then he helped his soldiers develop a shared
sense of commitment to the task. It is also noteworthy that the task he generated
had a clear goal or end state that could be accomplished with the available re
-
sources and time. He got his soldiers and subordinate leaders involved in the
planning and execution, and led by example throughout. This leader also knew
how to capitalize on recognition and pride in accomplishment, posting pictures
and progress reports, and arranging for outside recognition from senior leaders
and national news media. This external recognition further contributed to an en-
hanced sense of positive meaning within the work group, and a shared belief that
what they had done was important and valuable. Whereas other units in the same
battalion languished in alienation, boredom, and powerlessness, under the same
external stressful conditions this one leader was able to increase unit morale and
cohesion, commitment, control, and challenge within his company. This exam-
ple suggests how a high-hardy leader may be able to influence his or her entire
unit toward more hardy interpretations of experience, and the positive, resilient
reactions that can follow.
CONCLUSIONS
As we have seen, several theoretical formulations as well as a number of research
studies lend support to the hypothesis that hardy leaders can generate increasingly
“hardy” and positive shared interpretations of experience, at least in the context of
highly demanding military training activities and exercises. Can this valuable
leader influence apply in other circumstances as well, such as mass casualties or
disasters, or modern military deployments that entail the kinds of psychological
stressors outlined earlier?
Although more focused research is certainly needed to answer this question
definitively, there is now sufficient evidence to justify a qualified affirmative,
and to provide a preliminary profile of how the high-hardy leader behaves to in
-
fluence hardiness and stress resilience in an entire unit. The prototypical hardy
leader leads by example, providing subordinates with a role model of the hardy
approach to life, work, and reactions to stressful experiences. Through actions
and words, he or she demonstrates a strong sense of commitment, control, and
S144
BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
challenge, and a way of responding to stressful circumstances that demonstrates
stress can be valuable, and that stressful events always at least provide the op
-
portunity to learn and grow. A hardy leader facilitates “hardy” group sense-mak
-
ing of experience, in how tasks or missions are planned, discussed, and exe
-
cuted, and also as to how mistakes, failures, and casualties are spoken about and
interpreted. Although most of this sense-making influence occurs through nor
-
mal day-to-day interactions and communications, occasionally it can happen in
the context of more formal after-action reviews, or debriefings that can focus at
-
tention on events as learning opportunities and create shared positive construc
-
tions of events and responses around events.
2
A hardy leader also seeks out (or
creates if necessary) meaningful and challenging group tasks, and then capital
-
izes on group accomplishments by providing recognition, awards, and opportu
-
nities to reflect on and magnify positive results (e.g., photographs, news ac
-
counts, and other tangible mementos).
In work groups such as the military, where individuals are regularly exposed to
extreme work-related stressors and hazards, leaders are in a unique position to
shape how stressful experiences are made sense of, interpreted, and understood by
members of the group. The leader who by example, discussion, and policies com-
municates a positive construction or reconstruction of shared stressful experi-
ences, may exert an influence on the entire group in the direction of his or her inter-
pretation of experience—toward more resilient and hardy sense making. Given the
promising results seen thus far, this hardy leader influence process merits further
active empirical investigation. A better knowledge and understanding of the pro-
cesses underlying resilience would be of substantial value not just for military or-
ganizations, but for anyone interested in promoting resiliency and health in groups
exposed to highly stressful circumstances.
ACNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this article appeared in Bartone, P. T. (2004). Increasing resiliency
through shared sensemaking: Building hardiness in groups. In D. Paton, J. M.
Violanti, C. Dunning, & L. M. Smith (Eds.), Managing traumatic stress risk: A
proactive approach (pp. 129–140). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS? S145
2
A recent National Institute of Mental Health (2002) report on best practices for early psychological
interventions following mass violence events noted great confusion regarding the term debriefing. The
authors recommend that the term be reserved for operational after-action reviews, and not be applied to
psychological treatment interventions such as critical incident stress debriefing (Mitchell & Everly,
2000). I maintain that for groups such as the military, after-action group debriefings, properly timed and
conducted and focused on events rather than emotions and reactions, can have great therapeutic value
for many participants by helping them to place potentially traumatizing events in a broader context of
positive meaning (Bartone, 1997).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York: Random House.
Bartone, P. T. (1989). Predictors of stress-related illness in city bus drivers. Journal of Occupational
Medicine, 31, 657–663.
Bartone, P. T. (1993, June). Psychosocial predictors of soldier adjustment to combat stress. Paper pre
-
sented at the Third European Conference on Traumatic Stress, Bergen, Norway.
Bartone, P. T. (1995, July). A short hardiness scale. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
American Psychological Society, New York.
Bartone, P. T. (1996, August). Stress and hardiness in U.S. peacekeeping soldiers. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bartone, P. T. (1997). Einsatzorientierte Nachbesprechung (Debriefing): Was jeder militärische Führer
wissen sollte [Event-oriented debriefing following military operations: What every leader should
know]. In T. Sporner (Ed.), Streßbewältigung und Psychotraumatologie im UN- und humanitären
Hilfseinsatz (pp. 126–133). Bonn, Germany: Beta Verlag.
Bartone, P. T. (1999a). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in Army reserve forces. Consulting
Psychology Journal, 51, 72–82.
Bartone, P. T. (1999b, November). Personality hardiness as a predictor of officer cadet leadership per
-
formance. Paper presented at the International Military Testing Association Meeting, Monterey, CA.
Bartone, P. T. (2000). Hardiness as a resiliency factor for United States forces in the Gulf War. In J. M.
Violanti, D. Paton, & C. Dunning (Eds.), Posttraumatic stress intervention: Challenges, issues, and
perspectives (pp. 115–133). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Bartone, P. T. (2001, June). Psychosocial stressors in future military operations. Paper presented at the
Cantigny Conference Series on Future of Armed Conflict, Wheaton, IL.
Bartone, P. T., Adler, A. B., & Vaitkus, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of psychological stress in peacekeep-
ing operations. Military Medicine, 163, 587–593.
Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small unit
cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14, 1–22.
Bartone, P. T., & Snook, S. A. (2000, June). Gender differences in predictors of leader performance
over time. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society convention, Miami, FL.
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. W., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military air di
-
saster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis
-
ease, 177, 317–328.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving or
-
ganizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 1–9). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bell, D. B., Bartone, J., Bartone, P. T., Schumm, W. R., & Gade, P. A. (1997). USAREUR family support
during Operation Joint Endeavor: Summary report (ARI Special Rep. No. 34). Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. AD-A339 016)
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Binswanger, L. (1963). Being in the world: Selected papers of Ludwig Binswanger. New York: Basic
Books.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capac
-
ity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of
engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,
53–63.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
S146 BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Castro, C., & Adler, A. (1999). OPTEMPO: Effects on soldier and unit readiness. Parameters, 29,
86–95.
Contrada, R. J. (1989). Type A behavior, personality hardiness, and cardiovascular responses to stress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 895–903.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a
stressful real life situation? The role of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psy
-
chology, 68, 687–695.
Frankl, V. (1960). The doctor and the soul. New York: Knopf.
Funk, S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health Psychology, 11, 335–345.
Funk, S. C., & Houston, B. K. (1987). A critical analysis of the hardiness scale’s validity and utility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 572–578.
Gal, R. (1987). Military leadership for the 1990s: Commitment-derived leadership. In L. Atwater & R.
Penn (Eds.), Military leadership: Traditions and future trends (pp. 53–59). Annapolis, MD: U.S. Na
-
val Academy.
Heidegger, M. (1986). Being and time. New York: HarperCollins.
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat
duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of
Medicine, 351, 13–22.
Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Events Scale: A measure of subjective
stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209–218.
House, R. J. (1971). A path–goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,
321–339.
House, R. J. (1996). Path–goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path–goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3,
81–98.
Ingraham, L. H., & Manning, F. J. (1981). Cohesion: Who needs it, what is it and how do we get it to
them? Military Review, 61, 3–12.
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jones, E., Woolven, R., Durodie, W., & Wessely, S. (2004). Public panic and morale: A reassessment of
civilian reactions during the Blitz and World War 2. Journal of Social History, 17, 463–479.
Kirkland, F. R., Bartone, P. T., & Marlowe, D. H. (1993). Commanders’ priorities and psychological
readiness. Armed Forces and Society, 19, 579–598.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168–177.
Maddi, S. R. (1967). The existential neurosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 311–325.
Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Milan, L. M., Bourne, D. M., Zazanis, M. M., & Bartone, P. T. (2002). Measures collected on the
USMA class of 1998 as part of the Baseline Officer Longitudinal Data Set (BOLDS) (ARI Tech.
Rep. No. 1127). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sci
-
ences.
Mitchell, J. T., & Everly, G. S. (2000). Critical incident stress management and critical incident stress
debriefing: Evolutions, effects, and outcomes. In B. Raphael & J. P. Wilson (Eds.), Psychological de
-
briefing: Theory, practice and evidence (pp. 71–90). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2002). Mental health and mass violence: Evidence-based early
psychological intervention for victims/survivors of mass violence. A workshop to reach consensus on
best practices (NIH Publication No. 02–5138). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
CAN LEADERS INFLUENCE HARDINESS?
S147
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Paton, D. (1997). Managing work-related psychological trauma: An organizational psychology of re
-
sponse and recovery. Australian Psychologist, 32, 46–55.
Ritchie, E. C., Leavitt, F., & Hanish, S. (2006). The mental health response to the 9/11 attack on the
Pentagon. In Y. Neria, R. Gross, R. Marshall, & E. Susser (Eds.), 9/11: Mental health in the wake of a
terrorist attack. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, D. L., Wiebe, D. J., Fillingim, R. B., & Shay, K. A. (1989). Life events, fitness, hardiness, and
health: A simultaneous analysis of proposed stress-resistance effects. Journal of Personality and So
-
cial Psychology, 57, 136–142.
Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (2000). Implications of item wording for hardiness structure, relation
with neuroticism, and stress buffering. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 1–25.
U.S. Corps of Cadets. (1995). Leadership evaluation and developmental ratings (USCC Regulation
No. 623–1). West Point, NY: U.S. Military Academy.
van Emmerik, A. A., Kamphuis, J. H., Hulsbosch, A. M., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (2002). Single session
debriefing after psychological trauma: A metaanalysis. Lancet, 360, 766–771.
Watson, P. J., Ritchie, E. C., Demer, J., Bartone, P., & Pfefferbaum, B. J. (2006). Improving resilience
trajectories following mass violence and disaster. In E. C. Ritchie, P. J. Watson, & M. J. Friedman
(Eds.), Interventions following mass violence and disaster (pp. 37–53). New York: Guilford.
Weik, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weisaeth, L., & Sund, A. (1982). Psychiatric problems in UNIFIL and the UN-soldier’s stress syn
-
drome. International Review of Army, Air Force and Navy Medical Service, 55, 109–116.
Wessely, S. (2005). Victimhood and resilience. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 548–550.
Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress and performance: The moderating effect of hardi-
ness. Human Performance, 3, 141–155.
Wiebe, D. J. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of proposed mechanisms. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 60, 89–99.
S148 BARTONE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
