| The Force XXI Army leadership model presents the requisite skills for junior officer performance in Force XXI operations. One set of skills for junior officer performance in Force XXI operations is possible if a more inclusive acceptance of the leadership construct is posited. The more inclusive acceptance of the leadership construct infers one set of dimensions (e.g., skills) across all populations and organizational settings. A less inclusive acceptance of the leadership construct infers different sets of dimensions for the various populations and organizational settings.;Senior officers attending the Army War College completed the instrument, which consisted of ranking and rating data. The rating data were assessed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 3 split-plot design for each of the dependent variables.;The design measured the impact of two independent variables: battlefield functional area (combat, and combat support and combat service support), and operation (combat, stability, and garrison) on the dependent variables, which were the nine junior officer skills listed in the Army leadership model.;The results indicated that there was no interaction between battlefield functional area and operation (p > .01). Additionally, there was no main effects for battlefield functional area (p > .01). Main effects for the operation variable was mixed. Communication, motivation, problem solving, and reasoning were insignificant (p > .01). Counseling, creativity, supervision, team building, and technical capacity were significant (p < .01). In each of the statistically significant differences, combat operations were rated as more important than either stability or garrison operations. When stability and garrison operations were compared, stability operations were rated more important than garrison operations.;The significance of the findings indicated that in assessing skills, there tends to be a more inclusive acceptance of the leadership construct across various populations. On the other hand, there tends to be a less inclusive acceptance of the leadership construct across organizational settings. |
