The operating theaters that soldiers face today are characterized by greater complexity than ever before. Changes in the global environment have led to an increase in asymmetric threats, growth in joint and coalition based military activities, and a shift to effects based operations. To succeed in these environments, not only do missions require the coordination between different branches of the military, the missions often require coordination and collaboration with military units and non-governmental organizations of various countries. These missions while combining elevated levels of interoperability and jointness that rely on a shared situational awareness (Warne et al., 2004) are also characterized by dynamism, ambiguity, and time pressure which serve to challenge team decision making as military teams face an enemy who is extremely adaptive in its use of unconventional warfare. Despite the increased complexity which characterizes such environments, leadership and decision-making activities are being pushed down to increasing lower levels than ever before in attempts to adaptively and flexibly respond to an unconventional enemy. The complexity of such environments is illustrated by the following blog from a soldier in Iraq (see Burden, 2006):While the situation above illustrates the complexity present in many military environments, complexity within operating environments is not limited to the military, but appears in many public and private organizations (e.g., development teams, mission control teams, medical teams, SWAT teams). In today’s operating environment teams often operate in situations where cognitive demands can be overwhelming, leading to stress and corresponding catastrophic errors (see below).

Abstract : Today s warfighter performs more complex, cognitively demanding tasks than ever before. Despite the need for more extensive training to perform these tasks, acquisition professionals are often tasked to reduce training budgets and identify optimal tradeoffs. Tools are available to help them make these decisions that provide empirical evidence of how performance and mission requirements will be affected by design decisions. This article offers insights into the utility of implementing a Workload Task Analysis (WLTA) early in weapon systems acquisition for the purpose of focusing on training system decisions, and provides a description of where WLTA occurs within the top-down functional analysis process. It concludes with several examples of how the WLTA results can be used to guide training development.

Leaders have been argued to play a key role in determining organizational effectiveness across all levels (e.g., individual, team, unit) that exist within organizations. A key component in a leader's ability to be effective within such environments is the degree to which subordinates and co-workers trust him/her. Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers and practitioners alike are interested in identifying the mechanisms through which trust in leadership can be developed as well as those factors which moderate this relationship [e.g., Gillespie, N. A., Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588–607; Kouzes and Posner, 1995; Roberts, K. H., O'Reilly, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205–215; Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 389–404]. Despite this, research that has addressed the factors that foster trust in leaders and the outcomes of this trust has been disjointed and, as yet, no comprehensive model has been presented to systematically examine these factors. Therefore, the purpose of this article will be to present an integrative model of trust in leadership.

FEATURE AT A GLANCE: Today's organizations exist in an ever-changing, global, knowledge-based environment. As such, they expect employees to rapidly gain new knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to ensure the organization's viability. Blended learning, which evolved from e-learning, has been offered as one means to support employee development and organizational viability. A review of the literature makes it clear that most guidance offered to practitioners has focused on the “bells and whistles” of the technology rather than the pedagogical value of blended learning. We offer 10 research-based guidelines to aid in the development of blended learning courses that are theoretically sound, engage trainees, and lead to effective learning outcomes.

The study of teamwork has been fragmented through the years, and the findings are generally unable to be used practically. This article argues that it is possible to boil down what researchers know about teamwork into five core components that the authors submit as the “Big Five” in teamwork. The core components of teamwork include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and team orientation. Furthermore, the authors examine how these core components require supporting coordinating mechanisms (e.g., shared mental modes, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust) and vary in their importance during the life of the team and the team task. Finally, the authors submit a set of propositions for future research.

Medicine has responded to this complexity by becoming specialized. However, although each clinician has extensive skills in his or her own specialization, it is the coordination among those skills that make the quality of the patient’s treatment a seamless success. Communication across multiple units, physicians, nurses, and others becomes vital to ensuring that accurate and complete information is available, properly exchanged, and regularly updated.