Toward A General Model of Military Leadership for the Canadian Armed Forces

By Lieutenant-Colonel  J.C. Eggenberger
Department of Military Leadership and Management
The Royal Military College of Canada
Kingston, Ontario

Departmental  Manuscript 79-1
May, 1979

The views expressed are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect official views or policy of the
Royal Military College or the Department of National Defence.


An intuitively developed framework to support forthcoming development of a General Model of Military Leadership for Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officers of the Canadian Armed Forces is presented. The framework is founded upon definitional differences among Command, Leadership, and Management. It is asserted that the study of military leadership rests upon the disciplines of psychology, social psychology and sociology. A generalized time/activity/location person development matrix is proposed and sub cells of the matrix are divided into cognitive and affective kn6wledge as well as resultant sets of behavior. Five leadership ingredients; interpersonal skills. influence, power, ethics, and technical competence are argued to be common across all military situations. The hierarchical structure of the Command/leader and the led is portrayed and discussed within the context of the responsibilities of the military officer. The framework, and current leadership education and training at Canadian Military Colleges is related to sequential phases of learning objectives and curricula orientation.


Un cadre de travail e’labbre intuitive ment pour soatenir le developpement futur d’un Modele general de Leadership militaire pour les officiers et lessous.officiers eat presente. ILe cadre de travail a pour fondement les differences definies entre les commandements, les types de leadership et les types de gestion. L’asserticn a l’effet que ‘etude du leadership milifaire repose sur les sciencespsychologique, psycho sociale et sociologique est presentee. Une matrice de developpernent in dividuel global incluant les elements temps/activitie/emplacement est proposee avec inclusion en plus des sous elements des domanes cdgnipf et affectif aussi bien que des comporternents qul en resultent. il est soutena que cinq composantes da leadership, a savoir les habilete’s interpersonnelles, l’influence, Ia puissance, l’ethique et la compétence technique, sont communes a toutes situations miiitaires. La hiachie commandant/leader et sub alterne est decrite et discutee dans le cadre des responsabilites de l’officier militaire. Le cadre de travail, ainsi que l’education actuelle quant au leadership et l’instruction dans les colleges militaires canadiens, est relie’ aux etapes consecutives d’objectifs d’apprentissage etd’orientation des programmes.

Table of Contents


Table of Contents

Table of Figures



Background for Military Leadership

Officer Development Matrix

Responsibilities of the Military Officer

Ingredients of the Leadership Phenomena

Theorems Arising from the Ingredients

Leadership Postulates Arising from the Responsibilities of Military Leadership

The Commander/Leader and the Led: Social Interaction

Psychology, Social Psychology and Sociology and the Ingredients of Military Leadership

Foci for the Study of Leadership Ingredients

Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Teaching Military Leadership

A Beginning


Table of Figures

Figure 1 – Components of Officership

Figure 2 – Officers General Development Matrix

Figure 3 – Components of Each Cell of the General Developmental Matrix

Figure 4 – Leadership Situation, Ingredients and Officer Behavior

Figure 5 – Basic Leader/Led Structure

Figure 6 – Hierarchical Commander/Leader and Led Structure

Figure 7 – Multiple Criteria Framework for Evaluating Interpersonal Relationships

Figure 8 – A Communication Model


Model formulation and theory construction are inextricably linked, and both depend on the foundation of a linguistic back drop; or as George (1970) argues: – “We must be reasonably clear, in our prior linguistic analysis of the problem, as to what we are searching for, what methods are appropriate to our search; and in what precise context we are working.”

It will become clear that this search is for a framework to support a general model of military leadership for commissioned, and non commissioned officers which will blend the disciplines of psychology, social psychology, and sociology within the context of the military organization in order to train, educate and research upon the phenomena of leadership in both combat and non combat arenas.

While the framework for the model arises intuitively, it shifts to a perspective which permits a forthcoming integration of leadership research thence operationalization for testing its explicative strength (Hellner, 1978).


To an Armed Force, leadership is paramount, and for the Canadian Forces it”‘.. is the primary reason for the existence of all officers . . .” (CFP 131(2), 1966, Chap. 1 p.1-1); furthermore? “leadership has always been the primary function of all . . non-commissioned officers in the Canadian Forces” (CFP 131(1), 1966 p. iii). Inevitably all members of an Armed Force are engaged in leadership activity at different levels of intensity; moreover, as stated within the Canadian Forces Officer General Specifications; “The qualities of a professional military officer are many, but above all, he must be a leader of men. It is this requirement that sets military officers apart from other professionals” (CFP 150 (1), 1977, Chap. 1 p.1-1). History also records that the foundation of successful command of men in arms before, during, and after battle is leadership . . (Basilisk, 1940). Consequently, leadership is the focus of continuous and intense scrutiny by men in arms. Important questions persist about what leadership is and how best to teach “it”, or even if “it” can be taught. Especially in times of national stress these questions must be addressed for if in the final analysis a nations survival depends on its men under arms, and if they in turn depend on leadership to win, then it is essential to comprehend the phenomena of leadership.

While a good deal is understood in a common sense fashion about leadership (Jennmgs, 1972), and still more is known in a research sense (Stogdill, 1974) much of the phenomena remains a mystery However, it can at least be concluded that leadership is a person to person process; that there is a leader and the led. Consequently, the study of military leadership falls within the domain of psychology, social psychology, and soci6logy, that is, the study of individual human behavior, as well as the study of groups and societies which have developed overtime and in which people live.

One of the first among many who pointed up the connection between leadership and psychology was the l3ritish General, Sir Walter Kirke who asserted in 1944; “Psychology as a science is a comparatively new subject, certainly as far as the Army is concerned. This is not to say that the necessity for its study has not always existed, nor that the successful leader has not unconsciously studied it throughout his service” (Copeland, 1944, p. ii). Concomitantly, the leader must un4erstand the dynamic nature of the natural home of the men in arms, the Regiment, the Ship, or the Squadron; (Eggenberger 1976c) or, as Weber (1947) has in4icated, the society in which the individual lives provides the back drop for understanding individual and group behavior;

Unfortunately, leadership research and teaching strategies for the Canadian Forces are not yet anchored by consistent theory and practice which are connected to the research knowledge of the disciplines of psychology, social psychology and sociology. The purpose of this document is, therefore, to propose a framework to supp6rt a General Model of Leadership for the Canadian Forces which can accommodate past and present knowledge of the military leadership phenomena as well as current knowledge accrued from the disciplines of psychology, social psychology, and sociology. Such a framework may provide a mosaic from which future military leadership research and teaching strategies can be generated.

Background for Military Leadership

Carpenter (1973) argued for six definitional components to officership.  His approach was stimulated by a Desire to cut though the semantic confusion which occasionally emotionally masked the dialogue between Heads of Military Leadership and Management. These components were (a) Command, (b) Leadership, (c) Management, (d)   Administrator, (e) Training, (fi and Education. From Carpenter’s distinction, three components i.e., Command, Leadership and Management are asserted to be central and as stated within the Officer General Specifications of the Canadian Forces, an Officer must Command, Lead and Manage. Each of these components of officership can be defined differently: -Command is defined as the lawful authority (and power) which a superior officer exerts over his subordinates by virtue of his rank and appointment; and the authority for Command flows from the Parliament of Canada, through the Queens Commission, which asserts in part”… and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such orders and directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any your superior Officer, according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you. . .” (Queens Commission Parchment 1979). This Statement is the fundamental ethic and foundation of the Canadian Forces Officer Corps. The warrant for the non-commissioned officer is founded upon the same principle and ethic.

Leadership is defined as “. . . the art of influencing human behavior so as to accomplish a mission in the manner described by the leader    (CFP 131(1), 1966, Chap. 2 p. 2-l); also “. . . the art of influencing others to do willingly what is required in order to achieve an aim or goal. . .” (CFP 150 (2), 1977, Chap. I p.1-I). However, it is troublesome to each and research upon military leadership when anchored to these definitions. Much of the difficulty may be caused by the use of the word “influence” which can have a pejorative connotation – perhaps resulting from its currently accepted meaning, best expressed by Hayakawa: “. . . to bring about a change in another’s actions or thoughts by persuasion, example, or action often of an indirect sort. . .” (author underline) (Hayakawa, 1968, p.306). It is proposed that the Canadian Forces is more comfortable and at ease with direct, rather than indirect sorts of persuasion, example, and action. Therefore, to provide a broader and less emotionally loaded definition, leadership is herein defined as: “. . . art of engaging others in the achievement of the aim.” (de Chastelain 1978).

Management is defined as the science of employing men and material in the economical accomplishment of a mission (CFP 131(1), 1966, Chap. 2 p.2-i). This definition permits blending a “person/object” concept within an organizational array such that a complete man/machine resource package can be planned, organized and deployed in a single operation, i.e., an operation of action which integrates people and material and is operated in accordance with appropriate environmental principles to achieve a mission goal. This definition of management does not include Direction”; direction properly belongs with Command.

This definition of management is not to be confused with “personnel management” which is defined as an organizational subsystem providing for the “. . . recruitment, selection, development, utilization of and accommo­dation to human resources by organizations. . .” (French, 1978, Chap. 1 p.3); as exemplified within the Canadian Forces Pilot Selection Research System (Eggenberger, 1976b).

To summarize, there are three components to officership. Whence Command provides for the legitimate execution of a mission, while Leadership is that special person td person process which assures that Commands, once given, will be carried out; and Management techniques ensure that men and material are economically deployed in mission accomplishment.

Consequently, there are three distinct components to the education and training of individuals for the responsibility of officership as shown at Figure I. The Venn diagram at Figure I is designed to convey the notion that the total set of officer behaviors are more than the subset behaviors of Command, Leadership and Management; as well as indicating that the subsets of Command and Management are linked through the subset of Leadership.

Figure 1 - Components of Officership

Officer Development Matrix

After an individual has been recruited and selected for training and education as an officer or a non-commissioned officer his development can be identified within a general matrix, as illustrated at Figure 2.

The time parameter at figure 2 may be of any chosen duration, e.g., hour, day, week, month, or year. Time 0 is a time which an individual is granted his commission, or warrant as a non-commissioned officer. Time N is any selected time in an individual’s further development. The location/activity parameter can include any chosen location where a defined activity may take place, e.g., sports facility/hockey; parade square/drill; barracks/study; mess/dine; classroom/attend a lecture; military training area, e.g., gun butts/target shoot; and so on.

Figure 2 - Officers General Development Matrix

The matrix at Figure 2 is further expanded at Figure 3 to illustrate the components of education/training purposes of the location/activity at any chosen time (cell) with respect to the officers functions Command, Leadership, and Management. Figure 3 portrays numbered columns (I , 2, 3, 4, 5) and lettered rows (A, B, C): dotted separations indicate that the components of the cell are not mutually exclusive, and that there is continual interaction among them, and these components are linked within total officer behaviour.

Columns 3 and 4 identify the educational purpose and level of the cognitive and affective domains of Educational objectives as denoted by Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy. Briefly, the cognitive educational objectives are:

knowledge, and intellectual abilities/skills, e.g., knowledge of specifics, terminology, conventions, trends, sequences, criteria. etc. The intellectual abilities/skills of this domain refer to organized modes of operations and generalized techniques for dealing with problems, e.g., comprehension, extrapolation, analyses, syntheses, judgments and comparisons of plans in terms of internal and external evidence, etc

Figure 3 - Components of Each Cell of the General Developmental Matrix

On the other hand, affective educational objectives focus upon an awareness of, and attention to, subjective phenomena such as interests, attitudes and values. For example, the affective continuum as described by Bloom (1956) is applied to the phenomena of the military ethos as follows:-

“an individual must be aware of the phenomena, be able to perceive it, be willing to attend to it, then respond to it with a positive feeling, even going out of his way to respond to it. At some point these feelings are welded with behavior, and are organized into a structure which eventually becomes his life outlook or “Weltanschauung.” (Eggenberger, 1979c)

Moreover, the essential leadership values are embedded in the words RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST and a leaders attitudes must include:

  1. a willingness to take a leadership role,
  2. a willingness to accept the autonomy and the risks of leadership, and;
  3. a willingness to maintain a discipline; to take, accept, and an authority. (Euro/NATO Minutes 68 Feb 79).

Column 5 of Figure 3 permits the identification of a training purpose and skill level attached to a specific performance objective which can be observed as sets of behavior.

In summary; the behavior of an officer and a non-commissioned officer results from the accumulation of knowledge from cognitive and affective domains about Command, Leadership, and Management as they progress From one time/location, and activity to another. This sequence of events, cast before individuals who are perceptive and receptive to the components of the events, provides the mosaic for the teaching and education of officership, both commissioned and non-commissioned. It is asserted  that  the difference between commissioned and non-commissioned officers lies solely in the levels of and responsibilities of Command, not the arenas of leadership and management

Responsibilities of the Military Officer

The responsibilities of the Military Officer are:


  1. an officer must know, discipline and develop himself;
  2. an officer must know, discipline and develop his subordinates;
  3. an officer must know his objectives and be able to state them in terms his men can understand;
  4. an officer must know of, and know how, to deploy his resources; and
  5. an officer must know the arena of conflict; then


  1. an officer must know the enemy, which may be anyone or any situation which stands in the way of mission accomplishment; and,
  2. an officer must know the opposing leaders and their men, resources, and goals


  1. engage the enemy and defeat them.

Ingredients of the Leadership Phenomena

Five ingredients or components, of the leadership phenomenon for the military officer are identified and are asserted to be common across all situations, (Carpenter et al, 1977). These ingredients are:

  1. interpersonal skills, because the leader has to be competent at the process of dealing with others, This skill is heavily dependent upon the capacity to communicate; and
  2. influence, because the leader has to be able to sway opinion and feelings; that is, to understand the application of influence; and
  3. power, because above all else, the leader must accomplish the mission, and where interpersonal skills and influence fail he must use power without hesitation; and
  4. ethics, because the led depend upon, and count on their leader to display a set of ethics that are consistent with those of the larger society and are congruent with the ethos of men in arms in the service of the society; and
  5. technical competence, because the leader must know the details of his job well enough to teach his subordinates, to coach and correct them to set standards from this competence and insist that they are met solely by virtue of his knowledge of the job.

Theorems Arising from the Ingredients

Theorem 1: The leadership ingredients of an officer training and education curriculum are not situationally dependent. The amount and intensity of each leadership ingredient will vary from situation to situation; but some amount and intensity of each ingredient will be found in every leadership situation.

Theorem 2: To train and educate for officership, the trainee must know what the task (or aim) is, but teaching to the task components – is not – the essential foundation of leadership training and education for the officer: certainly, the components of the task must be taught early, but it is the completion of the task with those he leads that becomes the mission of leadership training for the officer trainee, not learning the components of the task.

Leadership Postulates Arising from the Responsibilities of Military Leadership:

Postulate 1: Any situation, goal, and group, will demand that the officer select and use all of the leadership ingredients.

Postulate 2: Differing groups, goals and situations will demand the officer select differing intensities of each leadership ingredient.

Postulate 3: Officership success depends upon the use of the selection of the components and intensities of each leadership ingredient.

The Commander/Leader and the Led: Social Interaction

The social interaction between the commander/leader and the led is characterized by the degree to which each interaction call up some component and quality of each of the leadership ingredients, which are:

interpersonal skills, influence, power, ethics, and technical competence; which the leader combines and blends in order to engage the led in the aim. As shown at Figure 4 each situation, with its specific aim which the officer must achieve, will call up a set of leadership behaviors which will be a resultant of his cognitive and affective knowledge of each ingredient, as well as the appropriate selection of the ingredients, necessary to engage others in the aim and enable the execution of command;

Figure 4 - Leadership Situation, Ingredients and Officer Behavior

The basic military Commander/Leader and led structure is illustrated at Figure 5, such that each leadership event is enclosed by a permeable envelope which encloses the leader (LDR) and those he leads (LED). The social interaction links between the LDR and the LED and between LED and LED are shown as lines with arrows on both ends. The total number of LED for this leadership model is stated to be always less than or equal to 12. At the bedrock level, the foundation group, the LDR is also the “Commander” and “Manager”, and therefore lines if’ Command and Management are not shown.

Figure 5 - Basic Leader/Led Structure

Figure 6 shows the hierarchical LDR/LED structure at one higher level of complexity, with the basic LDR/LED structure shown at Figure 5 forming the foundation of the formation to demonstrate that the LDR of Figure 5 becomes LED by an organizationally higher LDR. The social interaction between those LED shown at Figure 5 and the COMMANDER/LDR of Figure 5 is one of Command, but this individual has a LEADER relationship with the LED as shown at Figure 5. The Commander begins to distribute some of his powers of Command, and Management responsibilities to those he leads, who in turn are responsible for carrying out these responsibilities to the Commander. This distribution permits the Commander ample opportunity to be seen by all members of all levels of his Command as well opportunity for him to engage in non-directive social commerce with members of his Command which can enhance his image as Commander.

Figure 6 - Hierarchical Commander/Leader and Led Structure

Psychology, Social Psychology and Sociology and the Ingredients of Military Leadership

Leadership is a person to person process to be examined and investigated using the methods of the science of:

  1. Psychology – the scientific study of human behavior (Aiken 1969);
  2. Social Psychology – the scientific study of”. . how the thought, feeling and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others.” (Wrightsman 1977);
  3. Sociology – the science which undertakes the study of relationships among individuals. The emphasis is notion the person, or the individual but on a form of reality that emerges when two or more persons are bound together in a “System of relationships” (Dobriner 1969)

From these disciplines flow the foundation of knowledge and information about the ingredients of military leadership.

Foci for the Study of Leadership Ingredients

Interpersonal Skills

There are two foci to the study of interpersonal skills as an ingredient of Military Leadership. One focus is of Military upon the dyadic relationship, as described by Athos and Gabarro (1978), and paraphrased to:

  1. increase. . . awareness of the process of communication – to see and hear more of what is taking place in relationships with others; and
  2. refine an ability to understand another person and deepen a capacity to “imagine the real” of another’s experiencing; and
  3. develop an insight into oneself   to be more in touch with one’s own needs, aspirations and experiencing; and
  4. deepen our understanding of the dynamics of relationships as they evolve over time, how they are formed, the roles that people tacitly agree to play in them, and the unstated “Contracts” that often are at the core of relationships; and
  5. develop skills in listening to and responding to others and thus develop a capacity to understand, help, and work with others; and
  6. sharpen an awareness of some of the important questions and dilemmas of interpersonal relationships, notably those related to the values and life choices common to many.

An example of a suitable framework for evaluating the primary function of interpersonal relationships is provided by Bennis et al (1968) and is shown at Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Multiple Criteria Framework for Evaluating Interpersonal Relationships

The second focus is on small group dynamics; or, the psychology of small group behaviors as exemplified by Shaw (1976) who argues that “. a group having 10 or fewer members is certainly a small group; one with more than 10 members is definitely a larger group.” Also, according to Shaw (1976), the great majority of small group research studies deal with 5 or fewer members and the small group is additionally identified through the members mutual awareness of, and degree of congruence upon:

  1. perceptions and cognition’s of group members individual and team; and
  2. motivation and need satisfaction; and
  3. group goals; and
  4. group organization; and
  5. interdependence of group members; and
  6. interactions.

Both foci are dependent upon a knowledge of communication processes such as proposed by Schramm (1975) who portrays a communication system as shown at figure 8.

Figure 8 - A Communication Model

The field of experience circles are to be thought of as the accumulated experience of the two individuals (or groups) trying to communicate. The source can encode and the destination can decode, only in terms of experience each has had (Eggenberger, 1976a).


There are two foci to the study of influence in Military leadership; one focus is upon impression management, or the process of attempting to control the images that others form of him (Wrightsman 1977), and the second focus is upon the mechanisms of the organizational reward-punishment Paradigm, personal evaluation systems, and organizational climate (Korman, 1977).


Power entails the realization in human affairs of the will of one party (either an individual or group) over the will of  another party. It implies that a change is brought about in one party – in attitude;, behavior, intention, motivation or direction  that would not have occurred in the absence of power as expressed in Vander Zanden 11)77). The subcomponents or types of power to be studied in military leadership are identified by French and Raven (1960) as;

  1. Reward Power  – when P has the ability to determine 0‘s rewards, he has reward power over him.
  2. Coercive Power – when  P has the ability to determine 0‘s punishments he has coercive power over him.
  3. Expert Power –  when 0 perceives that P has special knowledge in a situation, P has expert power over him
  4. Legitimate Power – when 0 accepts a set of social norms that say he should accept influence from P, P has legitimate power over him.

NOTE    P – Person;     0 – Other


Ethics for the military leader rests upon acts that are voluntary, and affect the basic direction of living in an Armed Force. These acts are purposeful and to he effective must be consistent and congruent with an officer’s code of honor such as that offered by Gabriel and Savage (1978 p.167).

  • “the nature of any command is a moral charge which places each officer at the center of ethical responsibility.
  • an officer’s sense of moral integrity is at the center of his leadership effectiveness. The advancement of one’s career is never justified at the expense of violating one’s sense of honor.
  • every officer holds a special position of moral trust and responsibility. No officer will ever violate that trust or avoid his responsibility for any of his actions regardless of the personal cost.
  • an officer’s first loyalty is to the welfare of his command. He will never allow his men to be misused or abused in any way.
  • an officer will never require his men to endure hardships or suffer dangers to which he is unwilling to expose himself. He must openly share the burden of risk and sacrifice to which his men are exposed.
  • an officer is first and foremost a leader of men. He must lead his men by example and personal actions. He cannot manage his command to effectiveness . . they must be led; an officer must therefore set the standard for personal bravery and leadership.
  • an officer will never execute an order which he regards to be ethically wrong and he will report all such orders, policies, or actions to appropriate authorities.
  • no officer will willfully conceal any act of his superiors, subordinates, or peers that violate his sense of ethics.
  • all officers are responsible for the actions of all their brother officers. The dishonorable acts of one officer diminish the corps; the actions of the officer c6rps are only determined by the acts of its members and these actions must always be above reproach.”

Technical Competence

Technical Competence refers to the competence level of the leader at the technical aspects of the task to be completed within the envelope of the leadership situation. The realm of technical competence includes the management function of planning and organizing, as well as the specific environmental and situational task characteristics.

Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Teaching Military Leadership

As asserted in the ADM(PER) Military Development Task Force Report on Military Development at the Canadian Military Colleges (1977), the objectives of leadership training and education for those that teach the aspiring officer, which blend with this model are;

a. to define and encourage military professionalism;

b. to provide knowledge that will enable (officers) to understand and work wish people:

c. to foster a propensity toward self-discipline; and

d. to teach interpersonal and leadership skills. (13)

And these objectives are transformed through the knowledge within the sciences of psychology, social psychology and sociology into sequential phases as follows:-Phase I  Objective:  – the. acquisition of basic knowledge of individual behavior which is founded on fundamental psychological principles.

Phase I Objective: the acquisition of basic knowledge of individual behavior which is founded upon fundamental psychological principles.
  Orientation: : know and develop self,- the development of the self as a subordinate.
Phase II Objective: the acquisition of a knowledge of small groups, psychology and sociology which provides a foundation for learning the process of group operations.
  Orientation: know and develop self in a group.
    (How does the group influence you)
    (How do you influence the group)
Phase Ill Objective: the acquisition of a knowledge of the process of moving self, individuals and groups toward   goals through the application of motivational theory and communication skills.
  Orientation: develop the capacity to know and develop others, especially subordinates as individuals in groups.
Phase IV Objective: the acquisition of a knowledge about the components, structures, and procedures of Societies and organizations, both military and civilian, past and present within which military leaders and groups operate, especially the applicable military personnel management system; then blend this knowledge with that of Phase 1, II, and Ill.
  Orientation: develop a capacity to cope with the role of the officer; 

  • In command,
  • as a Leader, and
  • as a Manager
Phase V Objective: the acquisition of a knowledge about enemy leaders, their men, resources, and goals, within the fabric of their social and cultural networks.
  Orientation: develop the capacity to comprehend the enemies likely methods of managing their men, and material, as well as, their methods of Command and Leadership, so that as an Officer he can and will be able to deploy his resources, close with the enemy with intent to win, and achieve his aim.


A Beginning

What has been proposed is the framework for a General Model of Leadership for the Canadian Military Officer; yet to be operationalized, related to leadership research or subjected to testable study – either in laboratory settings or in field situations. Consequently the present formulation is not extensively elaborated; nevertheless, this formulation about Military Leadership is offered as a beginning, not an end, to the never-ending search for knowledge and understanding of that very special person – the officer, both commissioned and non commissioned of the Canadian Armed Forces upon whom we depend for leadership.


Athos, G.A., & Gabarro, J.J., Interpersonal Behavior, Communication and Understanding in Relationships.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hail, USA 1978.

Aiken, L.P. Jr., General Psychology: A Survey. Chandler Publishing Co., Scranton, USA, 1969.

Basilisk. Talks on Leadership: Address to Young Officers. Hugh Rees limited, Pall Mall, London, UK 1940

Bloom, R.S., & Krathwohl, D.R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. David Mckay Inc., USA 1956.

Carpenter GJ. A Categorization of Officer Functions with Names & Definitions (unpublished Service Document) Royal Military College, Kingston, MLM RMC 12/73, 1973.

Carpenter, G.J., Lafleur, J., Eggenberger, J.C., & Bain, E. Leadership: A Position Paper (Unpublished Manuscript). Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit (CF-PARU), Toronto, Ontario, Canada 1977.

Canadian Forces Publication 131 Vol 2 Leadership for the Professional Officer, 1 Oct.1966.

Canadian Forces Publication 131 Vol 1 Junior Leaders Manual, 1 May 1966.

Canadian Forces Publication 131 Vol 2, Part 1, Officer General Specifications. In Draft 1977.

Copeland, N. Psychology and’ the Soldier: The Art of Leadership: Working, Unwin Brothers Limited 1944.

de Chastelain, A.J.G.D., Brigadier-General, Military Development at the Canadian Military College (Unpublished Service Document). Royal Military College, Kingston. 1180-3 (COMPT) 21 Sep 78.

Dobriner, W.M., Social Structures and S>stems’ A Sociological Overview. Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., California, USA 1969.

Eggenberger, J.C. (a) Communicating Cognitive and Affective Vocational Information using various modes of presentation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta Canada, 1976.

Eggenberger, J.C. (b) Pilot Selection Research System Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit, Report 76-7, (CF-PARU) Toronto, Ontario, 1976.

Eggenberger, J.C. (c) Problems of Setting Education and Training Objectives in the Affective Domain of Leadership:

A paper presented to NATO attitudes Objectives Conference U.K., Feb 1979.

French, P. Jr., & Raven, B., The Basis of Social Power. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (eds.) Group Dynamics:

Research and Theory. Evanston, Illinois.. Ross Peterson & Co., 1960, pp.607-623.

French, W.L., The Personal Management Process Human Resources Administration and Development Houghton Miflin G. Boston, USA, 1978.

Gabriel R. A., and Savage, P.L, Crisis in Command, New York: Hill and Wang, USA 1978.

George, F.H., Models of Thinking. Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 1972.

Hayakawa, S.I., Use the Right Word. The Reader’s Digest, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1968.

Helliner, K.P., Psychology of Learning, Pergamon Press, New York, USA, 1978.

Jennings, E. E., An Anatomy of Leadership, Princes, Heroes and Supermen. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, USA, 1972.

Korman  A.K., Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall  Inc.. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1977.

Minutes: Euro/NATO Training Conference, held at RAF NEWTON Nottingham, England 6-8 Feb 79.

NDHQ ADM(PER) Docunient. Military Development Task Force Report on Military Development at the Canadian Military Colleges, Chapter 3. Mar 77

Queen’s Commission Parchement. (1979).

Schramm, W., Men, Messages and Media. New York, Harper & Row USA 1973.

Shaw, M.E., Group Dynamics, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., USA, 1976.

Stogdill, R.M., Handbook of leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. The Free Press, New York, USA, 1974.

Vander Zanden, J.W., Social Psychology, Random House, New York, USA, 1977.

Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Trans & Ed., Parsons, T., & Henderson, AM. New York; Oxford University Press, USA 1947.

Wrightman, L.S., Social Psychology, 2nd Edition, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Monterey, California, USA, 1977.

This entry was posted in Opinion Pieces. Bookmark the permalink.