Understanding and Predicting Work Performance

in the Canadian Military

RICK D. HACKETT
Michael G. DeGroote School of Business
McMaster University & The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Abstract
Six empirical studies involving the application of industrial-organizational psychology in the Canadian Forces
(CF) are summarized and critiqued within the framework
of the performance model provided by Campbell (1990)
and his associates (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler and Sager,
1993). In their model, performance is multidimensional,
consisting mainly of task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive behaviour and adaptability. It
is concluded that a fuller appreciation of the multidimensionality of performance is critical if the CF wishes to
improve personnel staffing decisions and organizational
cutlure. In particular, it is recommended that the CF give
greater attention to post-training performance criteria,
contextual (non task-specific) performance, adaptability
and counterproductive behaviour.
R6sum6

Six 6tudes empiriques, qui faisaient appel h l'application

de la psychologie industrielle et organisationnelle au sein
des Forces canadiepales (FC), sont r6sum6es et critiqu6es,
sous l'angle du mod61e de rendement de Campbell (1990)
et de ses collaborateurs (Campbell, McClo3~ Oppler et
Sager, 1993). Selon ce mod61e, le rendement est multidimensiopalel et se compose principalement de l'ex6cution
des t~ches, du rendement contextuel, des comportements
improductifs et de l'adaptabilit6. Uauteur conclut que, si
les FC comptent am61iorer leurs d6cisions en mati6re de
dotation en personnel et leur culture organisationnelle, il
leur sera essentiel d'acqu6rir une compr6hension approfondie de l'aspect multidimensionnel du rendement.
L'auteur recommande notamment que les FC se penchent
pr6cis6ment sur les crit6res de rendement post-formation,
le rendement contextuel (c'est-h-dire, non sp6cifique h la
tache), l'adaptabilit6 et les comportements improductifs.

Underlying all studies of this Special Issue is the fundamental question:

How can Industrial-Organizational

(I/0) Psychology theory and practice
help to improve the overall productivity
of the Canadian military?
Productivity of the Canadian Forces (CF) can be
gauged by its effectiveness and efficiency in providing
a public service (e.g., e~hancing national security, protecting lives in peacekeeping operations; Sulsky, this
issue) and is facilitated or constrained by environmental and s i t u a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s (e.g., p r o v i s i o n of
resources such as intelligence; advanced technology
for c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and combat). Effectiveness is
assessed by the extent to which the CF achieves shortand long-term organizational objectives, and efficiency
is expressed in terms of the ratio of resources expended to services provided (see Payne, 2000).
Individual effectiveness is achieved through members behaving in ways valued by the CF. Ideally, the
behaviours that are valued (selected for, trained, and
rewarded) are those behaviours that are instrumental
to achieving (efficiently) organizational goals and
objectives.
Accordingly, CF members who engage in more of
these valued behaviours, at least cost to the CF (in
time, errors, materials), will be more productive (presuming there are no significant constraining situational forces at play). The productivity of each member of
the military contributes to the overall aggregate productivity of the CF.
Organizationally valued work behaviours collectively make up what is commonly referred to as job
performance. As aptly explained by Motowidlo (in
press), "behaviour is what people do; performance is
the expected organizational value of what they do."
Performance results are the route by which individual
behaviour helps or hinders an organization in reaching its objectives, which explains the keen interest in
results. H o w e v e r , r e s u l t s can be h i g h l y s h a p e d ,
favourably or unfavourably, by forces independent of
behaviour, and hence psychologists typically focus on

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,2002, 34:2, 131-140

132 Hackett
behaviour.
The preceding articles deal with performance issues
within the CF - how to select, train, foster, and sustain
(leadership, stress m a n a g e m e n t ) performance.
Accordingly, I begin my commentary with a brief
exposition of current thinking on how performance
evolves, is nourished, and sustained. Working within
this framework, the primary contributions of the studies of this volume of CJBS will be highlighted, and
their implications discussed.

Modelling Performance
The dominant model of performance in the literature
today is the one provided by Campbell (1990) and his
associates (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993),
building on the work of Hunter (1993). Here, the proximal determinants of performance are declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge, skill, and motivation. Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge of
facts, principles and procedures - often measured by
paper and pencil tests. Procedural knowledge and
skill refers to actually doing what must be done (e.g.,
performing the job), and hence is a combination of
knowing what to do and actually being able to do it.
Important here are cognitive skills, psychomotor
skills, physical skills, self-management skills, and
interpersonal skills - measurable by means of job
experience, job simulations, and job sample tests
(Motowidlo, in press). Motivation is expressed in
terms of choice - choice of whether to expend effort;
how much effort to expend; and how long to sustain
the effort. Individual differences in personality, ability,
and interests are presumed to combine and interact
with education, training, and experience to shape
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and
skill, and motivation (Motowidlo, in press). The
impact of these individual differences on performance
is indirect, mediated by knowledge, skill and motivation. Dispositional (conscientiousness, achievement
orientation, interests) and situational (leadership,
work environment) variables incite and impede motivation.

The Performance Domain

There is growing empirical support for the value in
distinguishing task performance from contextual performance (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Task
performance is comprised of behavioural activities
that directly transform raw materials into the goods
and services provided by the organization, as well as
behaviours that support and maintain these technical
core activities (e.g., purchasing, distribution, planning,
coordinating, supervising). Contextual performance
consists of behaviours that contribute to organization-

al effectiveness through their effects on the psychological, social, and organizational context of w o r k
(Motowidlo, 2000). Motowidlo and his colleagues
(Borman, Buck, Hanson, Motowidlo, Stark, &
Drasgow, 2001) have identified three dimensions of
contextual performance: interpersonal support (helping,
supporting, motivating others); organizational support
(defending and promoting the organization); and conscientious initiative (persistence of individual effort in
completing tasks and in self-development).
Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, and Wiechmann (in
press) have suggested that adaptive performance may
represent yet a third cut of the performance domain
(in addition to task and contextual performance).
Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) have
shown that adaptability is a multidimensional construct, consisting of: solving problems creatively; dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work environments; learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures; interpersonal adaptability; cultural adaptability; and physically oriented adaptability. Pulakos et al.
(2000) have shown that these dimensions of adaptability are differentially important across occupational
groups. It appears certain that some of these dimensions of adaptability would be critically important for
performance in select occupational families in the CF.
Recently, counterproductive behaviour has been
suggested as yet another performance dimension,
defined as behaviour that is intentional and contrary
to the organization's interests (e.g., theft, destruction
of property, misuse of information, misuse of time and
resources, unsafe behaviour, poor attendance, poor
quality work; see Sackett, in press).

The Importance of Slicing the Performance Domain

The importance of understanding these various slices
of the performance domain becomes apparent if each
is linked to a different set of antecedent variables, and
to overall performance (see Borman, Penner, Allen, &
Motowidlo, 2001). In a comprehensive model of performance, then, different performance dimensions
would be recognized, specifying the paths linking
them to declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, skill and motivation. Also included in any complete model would be a specification of the paths linking individual differences to knowledge, skills and
motivation. For example, Schmidt and Hunter (1998)
show that general mental ability provides the capacity
to learn (e.g., link to declarative knowledge), conscientiousness provides the motivation to learn (e.g., link to
motivation), and experience provides the opportunity
to learn (e.g., link to procedural knowledge). Finally, a
complete model of performance would acknowledge
the role of situational/environmental variables.

Understanding and Predicting Work Performance in the Canadian Military 133

Frameworkfor the Commentary

The a b o v e d i a l o g u e on p e r f o r m a n c e p r o v i d e s the
f r a m e w o r k for m y c o m m e n t a r y on the papers comprising this v o l u m e . Specifically, h o w m u c h (and
w h i c h parts) of the p e r f o r m a n c e d o m a i n do these
studies cover? Although I recognize that these papers
"do not begin to capture the vast array of issues/topics routinely under empirical investigation by the CF"
(Sulsky, this issue; see also Lamerson, this issue, and
Prociuk, 1988), m a p p i n g these studies onto the broader performance domain provides a sense for the terrain covered. CF studies not reported here can be also
be m a p p e d into this performance space. Collectively,
we can then see where CF research has been most and
least concentrated. A full and rich understanding of
the m u l t i f a c e t e d n a t u r e of p e r f o r m a n c e in the CF
r e q u i r e s an a p p r e c i a t i o n of the "big picture," the
"gestalt." With this m a p , one can better strategize
"lines of attack" (where to move around resources) in
our search for understanding (Lamerson, this issue). 1
Johnston and Catano report that psychomotor ability
scores from the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)
explained variance in course grades achieved by CF
members in an apprenticeship technical training program, over and above the variance explained by general mental ability ("g") alone. This incremental validity was reported for the mechanical and technical job
families combined, but not for either job family considered separately. Of the three psychomotor predictors ( m a n u a l dexterity, finger dexterity, and m o t o r
coordination), only manual dexterity was statistically
s i g n i f i c a n t . For the c o m b i n e d job f a m i l i e s , "g"
a c c o u n t e d for o n l y 3% of the c r i t e r i o n v a r i a n c e ,
whereas psychomotor ability explained an additional
5%. The additional 5% variance explained compares
f a v o u r a b l y w i t h the 2% i n c r e m e n t a l v a r i a n c e
e x p l a i n e d in U.S. m i l i t a r y s t u d i e s . J o h n s t o n a n d
Catano attribute their higher incremental validity to
having specifically linked, through a job analysis, finer
measures of psychomotor ability (GATB) to technical
training criteria in more homogeneously defined job
families. It is concluded that relying on general mental
ability to classify m e m b e r s into trades training m a y
not result in the most optimal assignments. It is suggested that the CF will need to consider whether it is
more efficient to include testing of psychomotor abilities as part of the initial screening process or to use
this testing for classification.
1 This is likened to senior military officers perusing a map that
has numerous coloured pins showing where troops have been
positioned during warfare, facilitating strategic decisions on
how best to coordinate resources for an effective offensive. In
this case, the foe is ignorance.

Commentary to Johnston and Catano. The criterion measure of course grades in the apprenticeship training
p r o g r a m a p p e a r s to h a v e i n c l u d e d a s s e s s m e n t of
declarative k n o w l e d g e and "practical proficiency"
(procedural knowledge), both proximal antecedents to
performance in Campbell's (1990) model. We would
expect that both "g" and psychomotor abilities would
explain unique amounts of variance in course grades.
If measures of declarative k n o w l e d g e and practical
proficiency were separated in the evaluation of training performance, "g" is likely to be the better predictor of the declarative knowledge component, and psychomotor skills the better predictor of "practical proficiency." If unique contextual performance expectations
were associated with these mechanical and technical
jobs, then the measure of training performance could
be broadened to incorporate them, and the predictor
equation expanded (i.e., personality). 2 As to whether
psychomotor testing should be used in military selection (screening) or classification for mechanical and
technical military jobs, the costs of d e v e l o p i n g and
a d m i n i s t e r i n g s u c h a p r o g r a m m u s t be carefully
weighed against projected benefits. In this regard, the
5% incremental validity reported for the combined job
families has not been cross-validated, nor h a v e the
reported regressions been "corrected for shrinkage" (to
c o m p e n s a t e for c a p i t a l i z a t i o n on chance). 3 If p s y chomotor testing is implemented in the CF, it would
seem more efficient and effective to use it for classification, assuming that it is unlikely that such fine motor
skills are required for most job families within the military. Moreover, if p s y c h o m o t o r testing were to be
implemented to improve classification for mechanical
and technical job families, the results reported here
suggest that it m a y be enough to focus on manual dexterity alone. Again, caution must be exercised before
any s u c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , b e c a u s e the set of p s y chomotor ability scores did not explain a statistically
2 For example, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) reported that
measures of both task performance and interpersonal facilitation (contextual performance) provided unique explanatory variance in overall measures of job performance for U.S. Air Force
mechanics.

3 While this suggests that the potential importance of psychomotor abilities in predicting technical proficiency may be
~overestimated" in this study, this should be balanced by the
observation that research has shown the importance of psychomotor abilities in task proficiency to increase, and the importance of ~g" to diminish, when performance becomes more automated - once the technical aspects of the job become well
learned (see Ackerman, 1988). This would argue that the importance of psychomotor ability in predicting task proficiency in
technical and manual military jobs has been underestimated.

134 Hackett
significant a m o u n t of variance in training performance beyond "g" for either mechanical or technical
job-families separately. It would be of interest to see
whether adding manual dexterity scores alone provides significant incremental variance in the equations
for the separate job families, since the finger dexterity
scores and motor coordination scores each "consume"
one degree of freedom. The analysis done on the combined sample suggests that it is the specific variance
associated with manual dexterity that provides prediction, not the shared variance a m o n g the three psychomotor ability scores. Finally, any decision to use
p s y c h o m o t o r abilities in screening or classification
based on results reported here must recognize that the
declarative k n o w l e d g e and p r o c e d u r a l k n o w l e d g e
assessed by the course grades are unlikely to predict
nontask performance in mechanical and technical jobs
(contextual performance, adaptability, counterproductive behaviour). This may not be problematic, however, if CF members have already been screened, at entry
to the military, using assessments predictive of the
nontask performance dimensions important to these
job families. 4
Woycheshin examined the predictive validity of performance scores from the Canadian Automated Pilot
Selection System (CAPSS), a computerized simulator of
a single-engine light aircraft used to select pilots,
against various indices of performance in Primary
Flight Training (PFT). Performance criteria from flight
training included pass/fail, overall course grade, flying performance rating, and ground-training academic
averages. The CAPSS assessment consists of five onehour sessions. Results showed that an overall CAPSS
score (composite of Hours 1, 2, and 4 of assessment)
was an inferior predictor of each measure of training
performance compared to previous pilot experience.
Moreover, Hour 2 CAPSS scores correlated higher with
all PFT performance measures than did the overall
CAPSS scores, or the Hour 4 CAPSS scores alone. The
Hour 4 session of CAPSS introduces more complicated
tasks than the Hour 1 and Hour 2 sessions. It is suggested that more efficient (and equally effective) selection decisions can be made by using H o u r 2 CAPSS
scores alone. It is also suggested that significant cost
4 The reader is reminded that Pulakos et al. (2000) found that
adaptability requirements varied by job. It is quite likely that
occupational families differ by their nontask performance
requirements. This would suggest that, similar to attempts to
link specific psychomotor requirements to task requirements, we
should be linking specific predictors of nontask performance to
the specificnontask performance dimensions most important for
each occupational family (see Schmitt, Motowidlo, DeGroot,
Cross, & Kiker, 1996)

savings can be realized by having pilot experience

substitute for CAPSS scores in selection decisions, with
no loss in predictive validity.

Commentary to Woycheshin. The PFT performance criteria assess p r e d o m i n a n t l y d e c l a r a t i v e k n o w l e d g e

(ground-training academic average) and procedural
knowledge (flying performance rating), with a clear
focus on predicting post-training task performance. As
CAPSS is reported to have been developed to assist in
selection decisions for Basic Flight Training (BFT),
which is more advanced than PFT, and the relationships reported here pertain to PFT performance criteria, decisions concerning the use of CAPSS for BFT
selection cannot be made. With regard to using CAPSS
for selection into PFT, the findings suggest that either
pilot experience or Hour 2 test results alone predict
PFT performance as well as, or better than, the overall
composite CAPSS scores. To evaluate the potential contribution of CAPSS to improving selection decisions,
however, it is advisable to assess w h e t h e r CAPSS
scores (either the Hour 2 scores alone or the composite
score) explain unique variance in PFT performance
measures over and above pilot experience.
C o n d u c t i n g these hierarchical regressions appears
promising in that pilot experience correlated only .35
with the composite CAPSS scores and correlated only
.38 with the Hour 2 CAPSS scores (correlation between
composite CAPSS scores and Hour 2 CAPSS scores are
not reported). Moreover, all three predictors (composite CAPSS scores, Hour 2 CAPSS scores, and pilot experience) correlate significantly with all PFT performance
measures. Selection decisions can likely be improved
further by adding a measure of cognitive ability to the
predictor set (i.e., scores from the Canadian Forces
Aptitude Test or Aircrew Test Series). PFT participants
had been assessed on predictors of "counterproductive
behaviour" (criminal record and credit check), and
also assessed on predictors of contextual performance
(personal reliability checks), in an earlier stage of a
multiple-hurdle selection process. I suggest that prediction of PFT training performance can be improved
significantly by including in the regression equation
p r e d i c t o r s of m o t i v a t i o n (i.e., c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s ,
achievement motivation), in addition to measures of
cognitive ability, pilot experience, and CAPSS scores.
Hierarchical regressions will reveal which of these
predictors explain significant unique variance in each
PFT performance measure. With these additions, we
have predictors of declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and motivation, the proximal antecedents
of on-the-job performance. Finally, the addition of
these predictors into a compensatory model is likely to
lessen any adverse impact on designated minorities

Understanding and Predicting Work Performance in the Canadian Military 135

associated with using pilot experience as the sole predictor.
Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau, and Meyer drew on longitudinal data in examining relationships between
personality and leadership in a sample of CF officer
candidates. Personality assessments were obtained
from recruiting centres at Time 1, from interviewers,
references, and self-reports. Six to nine months later
(Time 2), 174 officer candidates were evaluated by
instructors and peers on various aspects of the Basic
Officer Training Course (BOTC). Self-ratings of personality at Time 1 predicted Time 2 BOTC final grade
(locus of control, r - .15), Time 2 peer-ratings of leadership (dominance, r - .23; achievement, r -. 18, and
energy level, r - .18), and Time 2 instructors' ratings of
leadership (locus of control, r - .18). References' ratings
of dominance and surgency (Time 1) predicted Time 2
BOTC final grade (r - .22) and Time 2 BOTC leadership
grade (r - .20) respectively. Time 3 data, collected four
years following completion of the BOTC, were available from 53 officer candidates. Self-report (Time 1)
measures of dominance predicted (Time 3) physical
fitness grade (r - .39), final military assessment (r .28), self- and peer-ratings of transformational leadership style (r - .48 and r - .31, respectively), self-ratings
of contingent reward (r - .42), and peer-ratings of
management-by-exception (r - .34). Finally, Time 1
self-reported "energy level" and "internal control"
predicted self-ratings of transformational leadership (r
.40; Time 3) and self-ratings of m a n a g e m e n t - b y exception (r - -.30; Time 3), respectively.

al measures of leadership performance at Time 3. A

significant shortcoming of this study is that no modelbased causal paths were h y p o t h e s i z e d and tested.
Bradely et al. acknowledge this limitation in their discussion section, when they note that looking for statistical significance among the myriad zero-order correlations of this study increases chances of making a
"Type 1 error." The richness of this dataset has yet to
be "mined." Despite this, their findings are consistent
with other research on personality and leadership.
Specifically, meta-analytic research has s h o w n that
facets of extraversion ("energy level," "dominance")
and conscientiousness ("achievement") are the personality variables that best explain variance in managerial
job performance and most i m p o r t a n t in predicting
advancement to leadership positions (Hough, Ones, &
Viswesvaran, 1998). 2 Bradley et al. found that these
same three personality facets ("energy level, .... dominance," and "achievement") were the most consistent
personality correlates of leadership over time and criteria (with dominance being the strongest and most
consistent). Finally, Bradley et al. note that the CF currently selects officer candidates using cognitive ability,
academic grades, references, biodata, and selection
officers' ratings of suitability, and that the use of pers o n a l i t y m e a s u r e s in s e l e c t i o n c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y
improve prediction of leadership. Clearly, this would
call for hierarchical regressions where the incremental
c o n t r i b u t i o n of e a c h p r e d i c t o r in the set can be
assessed.

Commentary to Bradley et al. The strengths of this paper

lie in its longitudinal design and the fact that predictor
and criteria measures were collected from multiple
sources. Moreover, the criteria (ratings- and nonratings-based), assessed several aspects of performance.
The breadth of criteria measured suggests some coverage of each of the proximal determinants of perform a n c e in C a m p b e l l ' s (1990) m o d e l - d e c l a r a t i v e
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and motivation.
For e x a m p l e , BOTC final g r a d e s w e r e e v a l u a t e d
through a mix of instructor ratings, practical tests, and
written examinations. Ratings of leadership provided
by peers and instructors during the BOTC assess "procedural knowledge." Leadership appointments, peerand supervisor-ratings of leadership, and "number of
bars" earned (stripes on one's uniform designating
leadership status) taken four years following the BOTC
are likely indicators of leadership performance. Ideally,
causal maps would be drawn from individual personality attributes at Time 1, to measures of the three
proximal performance determinants at Time 2, to actu-

H o l d e n a n d S c h o l t z a s s e s s e d the H o l d e n
Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI) as a predictor of graduation among a sample of 423 noncommissioned recruits in a 10-week CF basic miliary training
course.
Canadian military male recruits were better psychologically adjusted than the general Canadian adult
male population. Specifically, compared to the normative means for Canadian men, male military recruits
scored significantly lower on "psychiatric symptomatology" and "depression," and higher on "social symptomatology." Compared to the normative means for
C a n a d i a n w o m e n , female military recruits scored
lower on "psychiatric symptomatology," "depression"

5 Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Werner, (under review), in their metaanalysis of personality and leadership, report the following population estimates (across business and nonbusiness settings) of
the relationship of personality to overall measures of leadership:
emotional stability 24; agreeableness .08;extraversion = .31;
dominance/potency .37; sociability .37; openness to experience .24;conscientiousness .28;achievement = .35; dependability .30;internal locus of control .13.

136 Hackett
and "social symptomatology." Moreover, male graduates of basic military training showed greater psychological adjustment (lower "psychiatric symptomatology" and "depression") than the training releases.
Female graduates of basic military training had lower
depression scores than female recruits who were
released from training. These results are consistent
with previous U.S.-based research that has shown
depression predicted military training outcome. It is
suggested that the HPSI be considered as a screening
tool for selection into the CF. Other suggested applications for the HPSI include screening for overseas
deployment or special forces training, evaluating personnel receiving treatment, or in monitoring individuals who are deployed in psychologically "at risk" situations.
Commentary on Holden and Sholtz. As mentioned previously, this study focuses mostly on the counterproductive-behaviour space of the performance domain. 6 The
specific criterion variable examined was attrition from
basic military training; however, it is suggested that
the HPSI be considered for use in screening CF members for overseas deployment or special forces training. Individuals inclined to depression may be particularly vulnerable in overseas peacekeeping operations
where a sense of isolation and despair can quickly
take hold in the absence of strong countervailing support s y s t e m s (see Wong, Escobar, Lesage, Loyer,
Vanier, & Sakinofsky, 2001). For example, Wong et al.
(2001) studied the cases of 66 suicides in the Canadian
military between 1990 and 1995. They reported that
"although peacekeeping per se does not increase overall suicide risk, military lifestyles may strain interpersonal relationships, encourage alcohol abuse, and contribute to psychiatric illness and suicide among a
minority of vulnerable individuals irrespective of peacekeeping assignment," (p. 103). They echo the recommendation of Holden and Sholtz that there be careful
selection of CF m e m b e r s for these a s s i g n m e n t s .
Holden and Sholtz additionally recommend that the
HPSI be used to monitor individuals who are deployed
in psychologically at-risk situations. These are eminently sensible recommendations. As acknowledged
by H o l d e n and Sholtz, decisions on where to set
appropriate cut-offs will require the collection of more
normative data from larger samples. Finally, use of
the HPSI for initial screening into the military could be

6 of course, psychologicalmaladjustment would also be expected to affect task performance. Hough (1992) reported a metaanalytic mean correlation of .19 between emotional stability and
combat effectiveness,drawing data from 13 studies with a combined sample size of 3,880.

problematic from the perspective of human rights. The

CF m u s t abide by the Canadian Human Rights Act
(CHRA), which prohibits a screening-out of job candidates on m e d i c a l g r o u n d s prior to a job offer.
Administering the HPSI prior to an offer of employment may be contrary to the CHRA, in which case the
HPSI w o u l d be g i v e n after a c o n t i n g e n t offer of
employment. Moreover, the CF would be required to
demonstrate that the psychiatric symptomatology as
measured by the HPSI is a significant impairment to
performance in the CF. Whether an empirical link
between psychiatric symptomatology, as measured by
HPSI and attrition from basic military training, is sufficient for establishing a bona-fide occupational requirement (BFOR) argument with h u m a n rights tribunals
and courts is uncertain. Accordingly, before implementing the HPSI for screening into the military, it
would be p r u d e n t to assess relationships between
HPSI profiles and actual performance of CF members
(by job and across various assignments, such as overseas peacekeeping). Even where such relationships are
e s t a b l i s h e d , the CF m a y be e x p e c t e d to
"accommodate," by giving "at-risk" individuals "lowrisk" assignments, and providing for appropriate supports.
D o b r e v a - M a r t i n o v a , Villeneuve, Strickland, and
Matheson examined the association of occupational
role stress with CF members' health, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment, and assessed individual coping strategies, workplace leadership, and
perceived organizational support as potential moderators of these relationships. "Role conflict" was the
strongest and most consistent predictor of individual
strain (+), job satisfaction (-), and affective organizational commitment (-). No moderating effects were
found for individual coping strategies, workplace
leadership, or perceived o r g a n i z a t i o n a l support.
However, perceived lack of organizational support
and use of avoidance-coping strategies were associated with greater individual strain. Leadership consideration and perceived organizational support were associated with greater job satisfaction. Perceived organizational support significantly predicted strain (-), job
satisfaction (+), and affective organizational commitment (+). Dobreva-Martinova et al. suggest that these
findings underscore the importance of providing organizational supports and teaching CF members effective
stress-coping strategies.
Commentary on Dobreva-Martinova et al. This work
builds on the results of a study by Leiter, Clark, and
Durup (1994), who examined the impact of work envir o n m e n t factors and coping styles on e m o t i o n a l

Understanding and Predicting Work Performance in the Canadian Military 137

exhaustion, organizational commitment, and psychosomatic symptoms for 473 members of the CF (232
men, 241 women). They found that occupational stress
and organizational commitment in the CF are associated with distinct aspects of the organizational context
of men and women. Specifically, although peer cohesion and supervisory support were important to both
sexes in combating emotional exhaustion (a precursor
to burnout), and in fostering organizational commitment, peer cohesion was more i m p o r t a n t for the
women, and supervisory support more important to
the men. Cohesion was indirectly related to organizational commitment by way of personal accomplishment for men, but directly related to commitment for
w o m e n . Moreover, w o m e n perceived their w o r k
groups as less cohesive, and their supervisors less supportive, than did the men. This perceived lack of support was associated with a greater tendency to resort
to avoidance strategies when encountering work problems. Leiter et al. (1994) speculate that the greater tendency of females to resort to escape coping strategies,
compared to males, may indicate a felt sense of powerlessness to effectively address problems in a tradit i o n a l l y m a l e - o r i e n t e d w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t . Yet,
Dobreva-Martinova et al. have shown that this coping
strategy was maladaptive, predicting increased strain.
It is unfortunate that Dobreva-Martinova et al. did not
investigate sex differences, though it is unclear how
many males and females comprised their sample. I
would speculate that role conflict, the strongest and
most consistent predictor of individual strain, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, would be
more prevalent among the females than the males.
Nevertheless, these two studies of stress in the CF
underscore the importance of providing appropriate
social-emotional supports for members of the military.
Klammer, Skarlicki, and Barclay studied civic virtue
(CV) as one aspect of the organizational support comp o n e n t of c o n t e x t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . CV refers to
employees "speaking up" and making constructive
suggestions for organizational improvements. They
predicted, and found, that providing mechanisms for
CF members to voice their concerns and suggestions
related positively to CV, and that this relationship was
partially mediated by whether members felt that they
were "being heard." They also hypothesized, and
found, that the relationship between being heard and
CV was m o d e r a t e d by CF m e m b e r s ' generational
group. Specifically, "baby boomers" (age 37 and over)
engaged in CV if they "felt heard" by the organization,
while "Generation-Xers" (age 30 years and younger)
engaged in CV notwithstanding perceptions of being
heard. The generational differences were attributed to

differences in familial upbringing and differences in

the amount of deference shown to authoritative structures. Klammer et al. recommend that the CF provide and encourage the use of - mechanisms for the expression of CV. Moreover, particular care should be taken
to assure CF "baby boomers" that they are "being
heard."
Commentary to Klammer et al. The Canadian military
today operates in an environment of increasing technological complexity, rapid information generation,
and shortened decision-making cycles. These forces
call for agile flexible leaders, and increasing empowerment to CF members. The concepts of empowerment
and mission-oriented command connote a degree of
authority for individual action among subordinates.
For CF members to flourish in this environment, with
positive impact to the military, they must be given
opportunities (and encouraged) to "speak up" and let
their suggestions for ongoing organizational improvements be known - that is, they must be active partners
in the transformation of the CF that is called for by
these environmental forces. It is in this sense that the
study by Klammer et al. is timely. It is likely that
understanding, predicting, and managing contextual
performance will take on increasing importance in the
C a n a d i a n military, given the c h a n g i n g n a t u r e of
d e m a n d s on its members. For example, success in
combat is increasingly becoming a function of the
effective management and coordination of intelligence
and technology within and among teams of military
personnel. The results of Klammer et al. (this issue)
also suggest that the Canadian military be attuned to
changing values, beliefs, and expectations of new
recruits, and understand how generational demands
among CF members might call for different management strategies. Klammer et al. executed a simple,
"clean" study and reported clear, easy-to-understand
results. A strength of their study is the use of peer-ratings of CV ( c o m b a t i n g the p r o b l e m of " c o m m o n
method variance" associated with complete reliance
on self-report measures). However, understanding the
underlying reasons for the generational differences
found in this study awaits future research, as beliefs,
values, and expectations were not measured.
Concluding Comments
According to Campbell and his associates (Campbell,
1990; Campbell et al., 1993), the proximal precursors to
performance are declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge and skills, and motivation. Simplified,
declarative knowledge refers to knowing what to do
and how to do it. Procedural knowledge and skills
refers to actually being able to do what has to be done.

138 Hackett
Motivation refers to choosing: whether to do what has
to be done, how much effort to "put out" in doing it,
and how long to persist. Individual differences in personality, ability, and interests are presumed to combine
and interact with education, training, and experience
to shape k n o w l e d g e , skills, and motivation
(Motowidlo, in press). Performance is multidimensional, consisting minimally of task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive behaviour,
and adaptability.
Research directed at understanding and predicting
performance can be aided by situating CF studies into
this performance model. Specifically, the performance
model provides a frame-of-reference for interpreting
the cumulative knowledge from disparate studies, and
helps identify areas in need of research. Piece by piece,
the performance puzzle is completed and a fuller picture (understanding) of performance emerges.
The studies of this special issue provide valuable
pieces to the performance puzzle. It is clear that these
studies have targeted different areas of the performance domain, including core task proficiency
(Johnston & Catano; Woycheshin), noncore task proficiency (Bradley et al.), contextual p e r f o r m a n c e
(Klammer et al.), c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e b e h a v i o u r
(Dobreva-Martinova; Holden & Scholtz), and indirectly (implicitly) adaptability. A fuller appreciation of the
multidimensionality of performance is critical if the CF
wishes to improve selection and classification decisions. Specifically, the CF needs to go beyond predictions of overall performance, and seek predictions of
the specific performance dimensions. "To build our
science and our theories on relationships based only
on overall job performance is akin to building a sand
castle out of, and onto, quicksand" ( H o u g h &
Fur~ham, in press). 7
It is important to distinguish actual work performance from its precursors. Specifically, the predictive
validation studies by the CF tend to focus on performance in training. Training course grades, heavily
influenced by tests of newly acquired knowledge, predominantly measure declarative knowledge. Ratings
of task proficiency during training (i.e., flight performance) measure procedural knowledge and skill. The
same can be said with regard to instructor- and peerratings of leadership. These all represent measures of
performance potential (not actual work performance).
The study by Bradley et. al. is exceptional in having
7 In several places throughout this manuscript, I have recommended hierarchical regressions. These regressions could be
done on separate performance dimension scores, or on scores of
overall job performance based on some linear composite of
dimension scores.

used as criterion measures "leadership appointments

achieved" and "military grade" three years post-training. Although acknowledging the cost savings to the
CF in being able to predict success in training, equal
recognition must be given to the cost benefits of predicting post-training performance. This distinction is
important because assessments in training capture
mostly "maximal performance" while on-the-job
(post-training) performance better captures "typical
performance" (See Sackett, Zedeck & Folgi, 1988;
Schmitt & Chan, 1998). Also, the strength of specific
performance predictors changes depending on what
point in the learning cycle performance is measured
(Ackerman, 1987, 1988).
In expanding the criterion space, more attention
should be given to adaptive behaviour (Pulakos et al.,
2000). Undoubtedly, many CF jobs require versatility
and tolerance for ambiguity. Several of the dimensions
of adaptability identified by Pulakos et al. appear
critical for many military positions (i.e., handling
emergencies and crises, demonstrating interpersonal,
cultural and physically oriented adaptability).
Determining the relative importance of each of these
dimensions for various CF jobs (or job families), and
identifying effective predictors, is one path of research
that the Canadian military may wish to consider.
Indeed, adaptive performance may predict long-term
organizational effectiveness in ways that task and contextual performance do not (Schmitt et al., in press).
An expanded (multidimensional) performance
domain is likely to call for an expanded predictor set.
For example, adaptability may be best predicted by
emotional stability, behavioural flexibility, and situational awareness (Schmitt et al., in press). To the
extent that the focus of effective performance in the
military is the team rather than the individual, personality as a predictor of performance may assume
greater importance (LePine, Hanson, Borman, &
Motowidlo, 2000). Hough and Fun~ham (in press) call
for more study of proactive personality (Bateman &
Crant, 1993; Crant & Bateman, 2000), socio-political
intelligence (Hogan & Hogan, 1992) "emotional intelligence" and "social competence" (Goleman, 1998;
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, 2000; Schneider, Hough, &
Dunnette, 1996). Situational judgement tests (SJTs) also
show great promise for predicting performance
(McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, &
Braverman, 2001). Indeed, McDaniel et al. (2001)
reported a population mean correlation of .57 between
SJTs and measures of overall performance. Moreover,
they showed that SJTs can be constructed with minimal correlations with "g" (showing promise for providing incremental validity while decreasing adverse
impact). Presumably, much of what is captured in the

Understanding and Predicting Work Performance in the Canadian Military 139

typical SJT is similar to what is being captured by
Combat Arms Officer Selection Boards (CAOSB) and
Naval Officer Selection Boards (NOSB), which involve
a multiple-assessment centre approach to selection
(Prociuk, 1988), with candidates receiving a weighted
score on practical exercises (leadership tasks, leaderless group discussions, situational interviews).
Finally, ongoing attention m u s t be given to the
work environment within which CF members operate.
This environment must provide for appropriate socialemotional supports, and opportunities for CF members to voice concerns and suggestions. The work by
Klammer et al. and Dobreva-Martinova also alert us to
the merits of exploring person-organization fit measures that are based on a careful analysis of the values
and needs of new recruits (see Werbel & Gilliland,
1999).
This paper was written while the author was a Visiting
Scholar with the Department of Management of
Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology (HKUST). This research was supported by
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (Grant #410-96-8089) and by HKUST (Grant
#DAG01/02.BM23). The author is grateful for their support.
References

Ackerman, P.L. (1987). Individual differences in skill

learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin,
102, 3-27.
Ackerman, P.L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and
information processing. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 117, 288-318.
Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Borman, W.C., Buck, D.E., Hanson, M.A., Motowidlo, S.J.,
Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the
comparative reliability, validit~ and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive
rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965-973.
Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D., & Motowidlo,
S.J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizel~ship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
9, 52-69.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. (2nd ed., Vol.
1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J.P., McClo~ R.A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, C.E.

(1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C.
Borman (Eds.), Personnel in organizations (pp. 258-299).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Crant, J.M., & Bateman, T.S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence.
New York: Bantam Books.
Hogan, R.T., Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory
manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hough, L.M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables
- construct confusion: Description versus prediction.
Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
Hough, L.M., & Furr~ham, A. (in press). Importance and
use of personality variables in work settings. In W.C.
Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.),

Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial

and organizational psychology. New York:
Wiley.
Hough, L.M., Ones, D.S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998).
Personality correlates of managerial performance
constructs. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Hunter, J.E. (1993). A causal analysis of cognitive ability,
job knowledge, job performance, and supervisory ratings. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.),
Performance measurement and theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Werner, M. Personality
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Unpublished manuscript.
Leiter, M.P., Clark, D., & Durup, J. (1994). Distinct models
of burnout and commitment among men and women
in the military. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30
(1), 63-82.
LePine, J.A., Hanson, M.A., Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo,
S.J. (2000). Contextual performance and teamwork:
Implications for staffing. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 19, 53-90.
Mayer, J.D., Salove~ P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of
emotional intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420). New York:
Cambridge.
McDaniel, M.A., Morgeson, F.P., Finnegan, E.B.,
Campion, M.A., & Braverman, E.P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A
clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86 (4), 730-740.
Motowidlo, S.J. (in press). Job performance. In W.C.
Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 12:
Industrial and organizational psychology. New York:

140 Hackett
Wiley.
Motowidlo, S.J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizel~ship
behavior in human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 10, (No.l), 115-126.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A
theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.
Payne, S.C. (2000). Efficiency orientation: Establishing measurement and predictive properties. Unpublished dissertation, George Mason Universit~ Fairfax, VA.
Prociuk, T.J. (1988). Applied psychology in the Canadian
Forces: An overview of current research. Canadian
Psychology, 29, 94-102.
Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A., & Plamondon,
K.E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624.
Sackett, P.R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive
work behaviors: Dimensionality and relatiol~ships
with facets of job performance. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10, 97-103
Sackett, P.R., Zedeck, S., & Folgi, L. (1988). Relatiol~s
between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482-486.
Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implicatiol~s of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Schmit, M.C., Motowidlo, S.J., DeGroot, T., Cross, T., &

Kiker, D.S. (April, 1996). Explaining the relationship

between personality and job performance. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Schmitt, N., &Chan, D. (1998). Personnel selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmitt, N., Cortina, J.M., Ingerick, M.J., & Wiechmann,
D. (in press). Persoruael selection and employee performance. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 12:
Industrial and organizational psychology. New York:
Wiley.
Schneider, R.J., Hough, L.M., & Dunnette, M.D. (1996).
Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five
dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 639-655.
Van Scotter, J.R., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1996). Interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication a separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
525-531.
Werbel, J.D., & Gilliland, S.W. (1999). Person-environment
fit in the selection process. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research
in personnel and human resources management, (pp. 209244). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Wong, A., Escobar, M., Lesage, A., Loyer, M., Vanier, C., &
Sakinofsky, I. (2001). Are UN peacekeepers at risk for
suicide? Suicide and Life Threatening Behaviour, 31(1),
103-112.

Received November 17, 2001