I :hip in complex iuctivit y enhan- ne/ and decision ·ucracy. Exeter, I psychology of .ssociated with rournal of Psy- ior and group :sity Press. or and group organization. 1\merican Psy- ptember 1969. zip : A survey of ·ations, Engle- 20 Optimal Leadership in Small Army Units PAUL T. BARTONE AND FARIS R. KIRKLAND Department of Military Psychiatry Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC 20307- 5100, USA ABSTRACT Small unit cohesion is a critical requirement for effective combat performance. Historically, development of cohesive units has been permitted at the time of need by the slow-paced onset of hostilities. Modern needs for ready forces require cohesive units in being. The US Army is now engaged in strenuous efforts to improve combat unit cohesion. Small unit leadership is crucial to the effectiveness of this process. This chapter develops a multi-stage theory of how such units form, and the leader behavior required at each stage to ensure successful unit development. Trends toward increased violence and isolation on the battlefield have led military planners around the world to place increased emphasis on psycho- logical and human dimensions of force readiness. Vertical and horizontal cohesion, and the ability of small units to function independently for prolonged periods, have become crucial components of com- bat effectiveness. Psychologists will have an ex- panded role in supporting the development of individual and group effectiveness in military or- ganizations. In this chapter, a conceptual model of the social- psychological processes by which cohe- sive and effective small units develop is presented, derived from studies oflsraeli, German, and Ameri- 1 Handbook of M i!itary Psychology. Edited by R. Gal and A. D. Mange lsdorff. :£) 1991 J oh n Wiley & Sons Ltd can military forces (Gal, 1986; Kirkland, 1987; Kirkland et al., 1987; Marlowe, 1985, 1986a, b; Schneider, 1987; Van Creveld, 1982). The primary focus is on a factor that has proved to be most salient in these processes- the behavior of small unit leaders. In the American Civil War and the two World Wars the US Army relied upon technical and logistical superiority to prevail over its adversaries in high-intensity wars (Weigley, 1973). Following World War II, the emphasis shifted from quantity to technological sophistication in equipment and weapons. Military forces of other nations have evolved along similar lines. More accurate and Bartone, P.T. & Kirkland, F.R. (1991). Optimal leadership in small army units. In R. Gal & A.D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of Military Psychology (393-409). West Sussex, England: Wiley.