Correlates and Consequences of Morale Versus Depression Under Stressful Conditions

Transcription

1 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2007, Vol. 12, No. 1, Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association /07/$12.00 DOI: / Correlates and Consequences of Morale Versus Depression Under Stressful Conditions Thomas W. Britt, James M. Dickinson, DeWayne Moore Clemson University Amy B. Adler U.S. Army Medical Research Unit Europe Carl A. Castro Walter Reed Army Institute of Research The role of morale as a positive psychological construct distinct from the construct of depression was examined using data from a longitudinal study of 1,685 U.S. soldiers on a peacekeeping mission to Kosovo. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed morale was best predicted by indices of engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership, whereas depression was best predicted by deployment stressors and negative events. Morale assessed during the deployment was related to perceiving benefits from deploying six months later, whereas depression was related to posttraumatic stress disorder and negative perceptions of deploying. The relationship between morale and benefits was a function of engagement in meaningful work. Discussion focuses on the importance of longitudinal research in specifying the antecedents of positive and negative outcomes of a stressful work environment. Keywords: morale, stress, positive psychology Researchers have recently noted that the field of organizational stress (and more broadly, organizational behavior) has been primarily focused on the negative consequences of work stressors and has devoted insufficient attention to processes related to thriving under work demands (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001; Luthans, 2002; Nelson & Simmons, 2003; Wright, 2003). The majority of research on organizational stress attempts to determine the conditions Thomas W. Britt, James M. Dickinson, and DeWayne Moore, Clemson University, Clemson, SC; Carl A. Castro, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC; and Amy B. Adler, U.S. Army Medical Research Unit Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army Medical Command. The findings described in this article were collected under WRAIR Research Protocol No. 700, titled A Human Dimensions Assessment of the Impact of OPTEMPO on the Forward-Deployed Soldier under the direction of C. A. Castro (1998). The preparation of this article was facilitated by a contract from the Medical Research and Material Command to Thomas W. Britt (Contract DAJA02-01-P-1694). The authors acknowledge the following individuals for their support in conducting this study: Robert V. Bienvenu, Millie Calhoun, Ann Huffman, and Angela Salvi. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas W. Britt, Department of Psychology, 418 Brackett Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC twbritt@clemson.edu under which negative work experiences and demands (e.g., work overload, abusive supervision, lack of role clarity) lead to negative outcomes (job dissatisfaction, turnover, physical symptoms). Although an understanding of how various work stressors contribute to undesirable outcomes is important, it is equally important to identify how individuals thrive under adversity and how individuals may benefit from responding to work-related demands. The recent impetus for examining positive responses to work demands has been driven in part by the positive psychology movement in the broader discipline of psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Proponents of this movement argue that psychological theory and research have been disproportionately directed toward examining the determinants of dysfunctional outcomes (e.g., psychological disorders, physical problems, poor performance) and have called for an increase in theory and research directed toward understanding what allows individuals to develop positive outcomes such as a sense of thriving and living a productive, meaningful life. Luthans (2002) and Wright (2003) have emphasized the importance of extending the positive psychology framework to the field of organizational behavior (e.g., understanding confidence, hope, and resiliency in the context of work), and Nelson and Simmons (2003) have called for a positive psycho- 34

2 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 35 logical approach to work stress. In the present research, our goal is to examine the differential correlates and consequences of morale versus depression in the stressful context of a military operation. Morale as a Positive Psychological Construct The construct of morale has been used by researchers and military scholars for centuries to describe the psychological factor that presumably causes soldiers to persevere under conditions of extreme duress (see Manning, 1991). Over the years, military analysts and researchers have defined morale in multiple ways (Gal, 1986; Gal & Manning, 1987; Manning, 1991; Motowidlo & Borman, 1978). Some researchers have favored complex definitions of morale that include multiple dimensions such as unit cohesion and esprit de corps (Baynes, 1967; Motowidlo & Borman, 1978). Other researchers have defined morale more narrowly. Ingraham and Manning (1981) defined the construct as a psychological state of mind, characterized by a sense of well-being based on confidence in the self and in primary groups (p. 6). The operationalizations of morale are similarly diverse, ranging from measures with one or two items (see Bliese & Britt, 2001) to measures using multiple scales (see Gal & Manning, 1987; Motowidlo & Borman, 1978; Rosen, Moghadam, & Vaitkus, 1989). The concept of employee morale among civilians also has a long history (see Blake, 1954; Johnson, 1954; Worthy, 1950), and the conceptualizations and operationalizations of morale in the civilian literature parallel the diversity found in the military literature. This point was made by Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman (1999), who argued that when trying to understand employee morale, when pressed for a definition, they [researchers] have difficulty narrowing it down to a single entity and often find it easier to describe morale in many ways (e.g., employees are happy, committed, motivated, and will stick around (p. 311). In fact, Vandenberg et al. (1999) operationalized morale not through a direct measure but as a latent variable reflecting job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. McKnight, Ahmad, and Schroeder (2001) defined employee morale as the degree to which an employee feels good about his or her work environment (p. 467) and assessed morale by using measures of pride in work and organizational commitment. Finally, like some research in military settings, Paterson and Cary (2002) assessed morale through two global items, although these items were not provided. Such a review indicates that the definitions and operationalizations of the concept of morale have been at best unfocused and indicate a gap in theoretical understanding of how morale is a unique component of the work environment. There is a clear need for conceptual integration regarding the definition, assessment, predictors, and consequences of morale in both civilian and military populations. The first step in understanding the role of morale as a positive psychology construct is a clear definition. In a review of theory and research on morale in military settings, Britt and Dickinson (2006) defined morale as a service member s level of motivation and enthusiasm for achieving mission success (p. 162). According to this definition, morale is a motivational construct that is driven by an enthusiastic orientation to the mission. We do not view morale as an emotional state such as subjective well-being, positive affect, lack of depression, or a cognitive state of mind, such as being satisfied with work, as have some previous authors. Instead, we view morale as a variable that is capable of energizing a service member s efforts in ways that will lead to better adjustment under stressful conditions. It is worth noting that this definition of morale is similar to a definition given by Hart (1994) in his study of teachers. He defined morale as the energy, enthusiasm, team spirit, and pride that teachers experience in their school (p. 113). Although there are differences in these definitions, both define morale as reflecting energy and enthusiasm, and therefore both view morale as a positive motivational construct. To further demonstrate the motivational nature of morale, it must be distinguished from the affectbased construct of emotional well-being. Britt (1997) demonstrated the unique components of morale using a prototype analysis adapted from cognitive psychology. He asked a sample of U.S. soldiers to indicate what they thought were the key characteristics of morale, and he found that soldiers were more likely to indicate attributes of motivation and drive in their conceptualizations of morale rather than emotional attributes such as happiness and contentment. Although only a single occupational sample was used to justify an emphasis on motivational features of morale, it is worth noting that other authors examining different civilian occupations (i.e., teachers) have also viewed morale in motivational terms (Hart, 1994). Thus, morale as defined in the present research is motivation and enthusiasm to perform well within a specified context (such as a military operation). Two aspects of this definition help to indicate morale as a unique motivational construct. First, morale should

3 36 BRITT, DICKINSON, MOORE, CASTRO, AND ADLER always be assessed with a referent. This referent will change depending on the specific work-related construct being examined. For example, researchers interested in predicting overall job performance would assess morale in reference to the components of an employee s job performance, whereas researchers interested in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors would assess morale in the context of broader organizational goals. In the present research we examine morale among soldiers on a military operation, and therefore the military operation is the presumed reference. However, morale as conceived in the present research also has meaning in civilian contexts, which have different referents (e.g., a school as a referent; Hart, 1994). Second, as described in more detail later, morale represents enthusiasm and energy directed toward an activity or entity that is driven by a sense of purpose, meaning, and optimism, rather than by drive reduction or homeostatic mechanisms (see Deci & Ryan, 2000). Correlates and Outcomes of Morale Britt and Dickinson (2006) have argued that morale is best predicted by work conditions and leadership behaviors that provide the individual with purpose, meaningfulness, confidence, and/or optimism. In the present research we examined two general classes of variables that should be related to purpose, meaningfulness, confidence, and optimism: engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership. Engagement in meaningful work connects an individual s identity to his or her work, which provides the individual with a greater sense of purpose (Britt, 1999; Britt et al., 2001; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Individuals engage in behaviors because of either an inherent interest in the domain or because they believe their involvement is meaningfully related to central aspects of their self-concept (see Kernis, 2003; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Hackman (1980) has also argued that job characteristics such as task significance are desirable for employee motivation and importance. High levels of these types of variables should provide employees with the meaningfulness, purpose, and confidence that are hypothesized to be associated with morale. In addition to job-related attributes, we also hypothesized that perceptions of unit climate would be related to morale. In the present research we assessed confidence in unit functioning and leadership by measuring unit cohesion, perceived recognition for excellent performance, collective efficacy at performing group tasks, and ratings of officer and noncommissioned officer (NCO) leadership. Being part of a highly cohesive and effective unit with high quality leadership should also provide soldiers with confidence and optimism about successfully accomplishing mission objectives (Jex & Bliese, 1999) and serve to link soldiers actions with appropriate rewards (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999). Much of the prior research on the predictors and consequences of health during military operations has focused on how various traumatic events and stressors experienced on a deployment result in immediate psychological distress or depression during the deployment (Britt & Bliese, 2003; Bliese & Halverson, 2002) or delayed psychological problems such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following the deployment (Adler, Vaitkus, & Martin, 1996; Weisaeth, 2003). Although we believe that research on the causes of PTSD is important, like the broader field of organizational stress (see Nelson & Simmons, 2003), research in military psychology has been focused more on understanding what causes a minority of service members to develop psychological disorders than what predicts the adaptive experience of high morale. It is this disparity in research on maladaptive and adaptive responses that has drawn the attention of proponents of positive psychology, who see thriving and dysfunction not as opposite ends of a single continuum, but as two separate dimensions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). For example, Hart and his colleagues examined positive and negative work experiences as predictors of morale and psychological distress among teachers (Hart, 1994; Hart, Wearing, Conn, Carter, & Dingle, 2000). Hart (1994) argued that positive work experiences would be more strongly related to morale than psychological distress, whereas negative work experiences would be more strongly related to psychological distress than morale. In his study of teachers, Hart found that morale and psychological distress operated as two separate constructs rather than opposite ends of the same construct and that the positive affective state created by positive work experiences is more related to the positive motivational state of morale than the negative emotional state of psychological distress. Our first set of hypotheses proposes that variables reflective of engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership will be more predictive of morale than depression during a military operation, whereas stressful experiences and

4 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 37 events encountered during the deployment will be more related to depression. Hypothesis 1: Engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership will be more strongly related to morale than depression. Hypothesis 2: Exposure to different stressors will be more strongly related to depression than morale. The hypothesis that morale and depression represent separate constructs with differential antecedents and consequences is consistent with recent theoretical work emphasizing distinct regulatory systems associated with promotion (approaching pleasure) and prevention (avoiding pain). Higgins (1997, 1998) has argued that promotion-focused regulatory strategies emphasize the attainment of hopes and aspirations, whereas prevention-focused regulatory strategies emphasize avoiding the failure to live up to duties and obligations. We argue that morale as predicted by engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership is most reflective of the degree to which individuals approach their workrelated objectives with a promotion-focused desire to succeed. Although prior research has argued for the distinction between morale and psychological distress as separate outcomes with unique predictors, we are not aware of any research addressing whether morale and psychological distress are prospectively related to different types of outcomes. Britt et al. (2001) pointed out that most research on organizational stress has emphasized the negative outcomes that occur as a result of exposure to demands, including physical symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and turnover. However, a growing body of research on stressful events outside of an organizational context has supported the theory that successfully coping with stressful events may lead to benefits such as an increased ability to deal with stress, self-confidence, and realizing the importance of relationships (Affleck & Tennen, 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1998). Britt et al. (2001) found that soldiers who were engaged in meaningful work during a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia were more likely to report benefits from the deployment months after it was over, even after controlling for differences among soldiers in the personality variable of hardiness. This research suggests that positive work experiences are related to beneficial outcomes, yet these findings have not received a great deal of attention within the organizational stress literature despite their implications for building on the existing strengths of work environments. In the present study we predict the following: Hypothesis 3: Morale will be more strongly related than depression to deriving benefits from the deployment, whereas depression will be more related than morale to PTSD and perceiving negative consequences of the deployment. Method Participants and Procedure Participants were soldiers who were deployed on a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. The peacekeeping mission in Kosovo represented a challenging operation for U.S. soldiers. The mission directly followed the Kosovo air war against Yugoslavia, with negotiations between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the Yugoslavian military still ongoing (see Thomas & Castro, 2003). Both of the factions were still engaged in hostile actions, which made the mission more dangerous and uncertain than many prior peacekeeping operations in which the United States had been involved. The data used in the present article were taken from a larger longitudinal project that has been described elsewhere (Castro, Bienvenu, Huffman, & Adler, 2000). The soldiers were surveyed at two time periods: once at middeployment and once at postdeployment. For data collected at middeployment, surveys were administered to company-sized groups or to individual soldiers at base camps throughout Kosovo. Postdeployment data were collected in company-sized groups with units that had returned to their U.S. Army bases in Germany. An attempt was made to survey all members of participating units but the rate of participation was affected because many soldiers in the middeployment sample had left the unit or were on training exercises when the postdeployment survey was conducted. The overall response rate is usually quite high (greater than 85%) for this type of survey research conducted with soldiers (see Britt & Bliese, 2003). Personnel available on any given day are assembled, briefed, and asked to participate. Given that personnel are already assembled for the purpose of providing an assessment, most complete the surveys that are provided. A total N 1,685 completed the survey at middeployment. These participants were 92% male and 8% female, and 59% of the participants were white,

5 38 BRITT, DICKINSON, MOORE, CASTRO, AND ADLER 21% were African American, 11% were Hispanic American, 2% were Asian American, and 7% indicated other for their ethnicity. The average age of the sample was 26.5 years, SD The rank breakdown of the sample included 53% junior enlisted soldiers (private to specialist), 35% noncommissioned officers (Sergeant to Sergeant Major), and 12% officers. Of the original sample who completed surveys at middeployment, 40% (N 668) also completed a postdeployment survey (completed 6 months after the middeployment survey). The demographic characteristics of these participants were similar to those of the full sample. They were 93% male and 7% female, and 57% of the participants were white, 24% were African American, 10% were Hispanic American, 3% were Asian American, and 7% indicated other for their ethnicity. The average age of this sample was 26.0 years, SD The rank breakdown of the matched sample included 58% junior enlisted soldiers (private to specialist), 35% noncommissioned officers (Sergeant to Sergeant Major), and 6% officers. Materials: Middeployment Assessment Morale. Morale was assessed by a four-item scale where soldiers rated, on a five-point response format from very low to very high, their level of personal morale, motivation, energy, and drive. This scale was developed based on research by Britt (1997), who found that soldiers conceived of morale as reflecting motivation and energy (see also Britt & Dickinson, 2006). Although not explicitly stated, soldiers likely responded to these questions considering their reactions to the current military operation. Britt and Dawson (2005) reported a Cronbach alpha of.91 for this measure. The Cronbach alphas for all the continuous measures in the present research are presented in Table 1. Depression. Depression was measured through a modified, seven-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The shortened scale is correlated with the full measure (r.92) (Mirowsky, 1996; see also Santor & Coyne, 1997). Soldiers reported the number of days in the past week they had experienced symptoms such as felt sad and felt you couldn t shake the blues. Responses were on a frequency scale for the past week, from 0 days to 7 days. Engagement in meaningful work. Researchers have used a variety of measures to assess the extent to which individuals are personally involved in work that has meaning and purpose. In the present study we used four established scales to assess this broader construct. All measures were completed on five-point scales (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). Task significance measured the degree to which soldiers felt they were making a contribution to the mission (Bliese, Escolas, Christ, & Castro, 1998). Sample items from the three-item scale include I feel that what I am doing is important for accomplishing my unit s mission and I am making a real contribution to accomplishing my unit s mission. Military pride refers to the extent to which soldiers feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in their job and was assessed by a scale adapted from the Military Self-Esteem Scale (Marlowe et al., 1985; Vaitkus, 1994). Sample items include I am proud to be in the U.S. Army and I am an important part of my company. Job engagement was assessed with a fouritem scale that was a modified version of a measure used in past research (Britt, 2003; Britt et al., 2001; Britt, Castro, & Adler, 2005). The items assess how responsible an individual feels for his or her job performance (e.g., I feel responsible for my job performance ) and how much job performance matters to the individual (e.g., How well I do in my job matters a great deal to me ). Challenge at work was assessed by a two-item shortened version of the scale used by Brown and Leigh (1996). The items were my job is very challenging and it takes all my resources to achieve my work objectives. Together, these four measures tap into service members active involvement in challenging and meaningful work during the military operation. Confidence in unit functioning and leadership. A number of measures were included assessing soldiers perceptions of their unit and their unit leadership. Collectively, these measures assess the extent to which soldiers believed their unit was cohesive and capable of effective performance and whether their leaders provided structure and cared about them through recognizing effective performance. All measures were completed on five-point scales (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). Collective efficacy measured soldier ratings of confidence in their units ability to perform the mission and was assessed with four items responded to on a 5-point scale (Marlowe et al., 1985; Vaitkus, 1994). Sample items include I think my unit would do a better job in combat than most U.S. Army units and I have real confidence in my unit s ability to perform its mission. Unit cohesion was assessed with a threeitem scale revised from a cohesion scale developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994). Sample items

6 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 39 Table 1 Correlations Among the Measured Variables at Middeployment Variable Alpha Morale.89 Depression * Task significance *.16 * Military pride *.31 *.56 * Job engagement *.12 *.48 *.51 * Challenging work * *.38 *.37 * Unit cohesion *.30 *.30 *.44 *.24 *.19 * Collective efficacy *.22 *.37 *.52 *.25 *.24 *.59 * Officer leadership *.31 *.30 *.44 *.23 *.22 *.55 *.54 * NCO leadership *.29 *.29 *.42 *.27 *.18 *.57 *.47 *.51 * Job recognition *.31 *.30 *.30 *.20 *.18 *.39 *.39 *.55 *.47 * Deployment stress NA.18 *.32 * * *.11 *.18 *.11 *.17 * Deployment events NA.08 *.12 *.06 * * * *.09 * Work overload *.21 *.09 * *.15 *.19 *.13 *.11 * Benefits *.10 *.33 *.28 *.27 *.18 *.23 *.23 *.16 *.15 *.20 *.11 * Costs *.20 * * *.17 *.12 *.14 *.13 *.16 *.28 * *.21 * PTSD *.39 * * *.11 *.10 *.16 * *.22 *.17 *.15 * * Note. Ns range from 1,636 to 1,676 for correlations involving middeployment variables (1 14). Ns range from 651 to 664 for postdeployment variables (15 17). NA not applicable. * Correlation is significant at the p 0.01 level (two-tailed). include the members of my unit are cooperative with each other and the members of my unit stand up for each other. Perceptions of leadership were assessed by two scales focusing on the rating of officer and NCO leadership. In the U.S. Army, NCOs have the most immediate contact with soldiers and are responsible for direct training, whereas officers have a more indirect role but also have greater responsibility for unit performance. NCO and officer leadership were assessed with the same items, the only difference being who was being rated. The leadership items were generated by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and include items that assess a leader s ability to initiate structure and show consideration (Bliese & Halverson, 1996; Marlowe et al., 1985; Vaitkus, 1994). NCO and officer leadership were each assessed by six items. Sample items include the officers [NCOs] in my unit establish clear work objectives and the officers [NCOs] in my unit are interested in my personal welfare. Job recognition refers to the extent to which soldiers felt their work was recognized and appreciated by leaders and was measured by a threeitem scale (Brown & Leigh, 1996). One of the items detracted from the internal consistency of the scale and was therefore not used. The two remaining items were my superiors generally appreciate the way I do my job and the organization recognizes the significance of the contributions I make. Measures of stressors and negative events. Two measures were created to assess the extent to which soldiers experienced stressors and encountered negative events when on the deployment. Deployment stressors were assessed with the nine-item Deployment Stressors Scale containing questions about various concerns soldiers might have during the deployment, including accidents, disease, and financial problems. The Deployment Stressors Scale was based on an earlier scale developed by U.S. Army researchers (e.g., Bartone, Adler, & Vaitkus, 1998) and adapted for the current deployment (e.g., Bienvenu, Huffman, Adler, & Castro, 1999; Castro, Bienvenu, Huffman, & Adler, 2000). The stressors were rated on a five-point scale (1 very low to 5 very high and an option for does not apply). Potentially traumatic deployment-related events (Castro et al., 2000) were measured on a dichotomous yes or no scale featuring 16 items. These statements, such as being shot at, witnessing an explosion, and contact with traumatized civilians were developed to cover a wide range of events that soldiers may encounter while on a peacekeeping mis-

7 40 BRITT, DICKINSON, MOORE, CASTRO, AND ADLER sion and were adapted from previous U.S. Army studies (Adler et al., 1996; Castro, Bartone, Britt, & Adler, 1998). Work overload was assessed through a modified three-item version of the Role Overload Scale (see Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983). Sample items include I have so much work to do I cannot do everything well and I never seem to have enough time to get everything done. Items are based on a five-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). Materials: Postdeployment Assessment Benefits and costs of deployments. Soldiers responded to a number of items assessing potential benefits and costs of deploying. 1 Three items assessed benefits of deploying. These benefits were based on a scale presented in Britt et al. (2001) and addressed how the deployment showed soldiers the utility and importance of their work. Participants responded to the items on a five-point scale. Sample items included the deployment showed me how important my job is and the deployments have made my work more interesting. Costs of the deployment represented perceptions that deployments have had negative consequences for the soldier. This scale included six items (e.g., the number of deployments has put a big strain on my family and I am planning to get out of the military because there are too many deployments ). PTSD was assessed using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL; Blanchard, Jones-Alexander, Buckley, & Forneris, 1996; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993). This well-validated measure includes 17 items that correspond to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the DSM IV. The items are responded to on a five-point Likert scale (from not at all to extremely). Sample items include repeated, disturbing dreams of stressful experiences in Kosovo and feeling irritability or having angry outbursts since you returned from Kosovo? Results The results are organized into three sections: correlations between the measured variables, a confirmatory factor analysis of the reflective variables involved in the structural equation model, and the presentation of the structural equation model. 2 Correlations Between the Measured Variables The correlations between the measured variables at mid- and postdeployment are presented in Table 1. It is first worth noting that the correlation between morale and depression at middeployment was.53, p.001, indicating a moderately strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation is not surprising given our measurement of morale focusing primarily on energy and drive, which are opposite of some characteristics of depression (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Otherwise, the pattern of correlations reveals moderately strong, positive relationships between the measures assessing engagement in meaningful work, confidence in unit functioning and leadership, and morale. Only modest positive correlations were obtained between exposure to deployment events, stressors, work overload, and morale. It can also be seen that these negative deployment events were only slightly related, if at all, to the variables assessing engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership. Depression was moderately negatively related to indexes of engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership and moderately positively related to exposure to deployment events, stressors, and work overload. Correlations also indicate that indexes of engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning in leadership were related to perceiving benefits to deploying 6 months later and that deployment stressors and negative events were related to PTSD. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Based on EQS 6.0; Bentler, 2004) The measurement model for the seven reflective factors is presented in Table 2. Engagement in Meaningful Work (Engage) was indicated by measures of Task Significance, Job Engagement, Challenge at Work, and Military Pride. Confidence in Unit Func- 1 Perceptions of the benefits and costs of deploying were also assessed on the middeployment survey. However, we only analyzed these measures on the postdeployment survey so that the soldier would have some time following the deployment to reflect on the costs and benefits of deploying. 2 Even though soldiers reported on their individual level of morale, we assessed the extent to which morale evidenced unit-level influences by examining the ICC1 and ICC2 coefficients for company-level influences on morale (see Bliese, 2002). The ICC1 for morale was.019, and the ICC2 was.523. These coefficients indicate that morale did not have strong unit-level influences.

8 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 41 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Interfactor Correlations Latent factor Engage Conf Dep Morale Posdepl Negdepl PTSD Variable Significance.76 * Engagement.68 * Challenge.54 * Pride.54 *.37 * Recognition.62 * Officer leadership.67 * NCO leadership.76 * Efficacy.80 * Cohesion.79 * Depression 1.74 * Depression 2.77 * Depression 3.63 * Depression 4.69 * Depression 5.68 * Depression 6.77 * Depression 7.83 * Morale 1.70 * Morale 2.93 * Morale 3.78 * Morale 4.84 * Benefit Deployment1.67 * Benefit Deployment2.87 * Benefit Deployment3.84 * Costs Deployment 1.74 * Costs Deployment 2.80 * Costs Deployment 3.76 * Costs Deployment 4.64 * Costs Deployment 5.50 * Costs Deployment 6.67 * Re-experiencing Event.86 * Avoidance.94 * Arousal.88 * Interfactor correlations Engage Conf.49 * Dep.18 *.48 * Morale.52 *.56 *.59 * Posdepl.45 *.25 * * Negdepl *.20 *.13 *.22 * PTSD *.44 *.22 * * Note. Conf confidence in unit functioning and leadership; Dep depression; Posdepl benefits of Deployment; Negdepl costs of Deploying; PTSD posttraumatic stress disorder; NCO noncommissioned officer. * p.05. tioning and Leadership (Conf) was indicated by Military Pride, Job Recognition, Officer Leadership, NCO Leadership, Collective Efficacy, and Unit Cohesion. This factor had two significant error covariances: Collective Efficacy with NCO Leadership (.24) and Officer Leadership with Job Recognition (.25). Each of the indicators was a calculated average of the items representing that scale on the middeployment survey. Depression (Dep) was a latent variable with seven indicators, and Morale was a latent variable with four indicators. The indicators were the individual items representing morale and depression on the middeployment survey. The three postdeployment constructs were Benefits of Deployment (Posdepl), Costs of Deploying (Negdepl), and PTSD. Benefits and costs of deploying were indicated by

9 42 BRITT, DICKINSON, MOORE, CASTRO, AND ADLER averaging individual items assessing the constructs. PTSD was indicated by a calculated average of the items comprising each of the three major subscales of the construct (reexperiencing the event, avoidance of others, general arousal). Factor covariances were freely estimated. This model had good fit: 2 (433) , p.05, Comparative Fit Index.96, Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation.04. All factor loadings were significant and moderate to large. Furthermore, only one measured variable (Military Pride) exhibited a loading on two latent variables. Structural Equation Model The structural model is presented in Figure 1. Negative Experiences was modeled as a formative factor, where the indicators are treated as causes of the construct (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Jarvis, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). Formative factors are theoretically justified when it is unlikely that an underlying latent construct is producing differences in the measured variables. Stress and life event measures have been conceptualized as formative measures (Cohen, Cohen, Teresi, Marchi, & Velez, 1990), because the experience of multiple stressors or negative life events causes high levels of stress and negative life events, respectively. In the present case, higher levels of deployment stressors, negative events, and work overload are seen as causing higher levels of negative experiences. This model exhibited good fit: CFI.95, RM- SEA.04. Negative Experiences predicted Depression with a path coefficient equaling.31 and Morale with a path coefficient of.14. Negative Experiences also predicted each of the three postdeployment measures: Benefits of Deploying (.17), Costs of Deploying (.28), and PTSD (.15). Engagement in Meaningful Work predicted Morale with a coefficient of.36 but was a nonsignificant predictor of Depression (.01). Engagement in Meaningful Work also predicted Benefits of Deploying (.44). Confidence in Unit Functioning and Leadership predicted morale with a path coefficient of.35, Depression with a path coefficient of.41, and Costs of Deploying with a path coefficient of.16. Middeployment Depression predicted PTSD with a coefficient of.41 but was not a significant predictor of the other postdeployment measures. Contrary to expectations, Morale did not predict Benefits of Deploying at postdeployment in the full model. In light of the nonsignificant effects of Morale and Depression on particular postdeployment measures, a second structural model was analyzed removing the middeployment latent variables of Negative Experiences, Engagement in Meaningful Work, and Confidence in Unit Functioning and Leadership. In this model Morale and Depression are treated as exogenous variables predicting the postdeployment measures. This model exhibited good fit: CFI.97, RMSEA.05. In this model, Depression emerged as a significant predictor of Costs of Deploying (.20), and morale emerged as a significant predictor of Benefits of Deploying (.34). These additional paths are indicated by dotted lines in Figure 1. These results suggest that when considered alone, Morale and Depression relate to postdeployment outcomes in theoretically expected ways. However, the results of the complete structural model suggest that the relationship between Morale and Benefits of Deploying is a function of the relationship Morale shares with Engagement in Meaningful Work, and the relationship between Depression and Costs of Deploying is a function of the relationship Depression shares with Negative Experiences during the deployment. Discussion One point made by researchers studying positive psychology is that we cannot understand what allows people to thrive by simply arguing that the determinants of thriving will be the opposite of those factors that contribute to pathology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Adaptive functioning and dysfunctional problems do not lie at opposite ends of a continuum but instead represent two different constructs that are likely to have different antecedents and consequences. The results of the present study contribute to the incorporation of a positive psychology framework in the area of occupational health by illustrating the different predictors and consequences of morale, a positive motivational state, versus depression, a dysfunctional problem. The results suggest that morale was best predicted by variables assessing engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership. The correlations between indices of these variables and morale were higher than the correlations between negative deployment experiences and morale, and structural equation modeling showed strong paths between latent variables of engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and the latent variable of morale. In contrast, depression was best predicted by negative experiences during the deployment such as exposure to aversive events and the experience of de-

10 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 43 Negative Events Deployment Stressors Work Overload Negative Experiences Depression.407 PTSD Confidence in Unit Functioning and Leadership Costs of deploying Engagement in Meaningful Work Morale.343 Benefits of deploying Figure 1. Structural model of negative deployment experiences, engagement in meaningful work, and confidence in unit functioning and leadership, morale, and depression as predictors of deployment outcomes ; df 526; CFI.95; RMSEA.04.

11 44 BRITT, DICKINSON, MOORE, CASTRO, AND ADLER ployment stressors. Correlations between variables reflecting negative experiences and depression were higher than the correlations between these measures and morale. In addition, the results of structural equation modeling indicated that a formative latent variable defined by variables assessing negative deployment events and experiences was a stronger predictor of depression during the deployment than morale. However, one unexpected finding was the strong negative relationship between confidence in unit functioning and leadership and depression. These results indicate that confidence in unit functioning and leadership predicts both morale and depression, unlike engagement in meaningful work, which only predicted morale. Lacking confidence in unit functioning and leadership may be linked to depression by a lack of support mechanisms for soldiers in a stressful environment (see Britt, Davison, Bliese, & Castro, 1994; Solomon, 1993). In addition to examining the differential correlates of morale and depression during a military operation, we also wanted to examine the differential consequences of morale and depression. We predicted that morale would be positively related to positive consequences following the deployment, in terms of perceiving benefits from deploying. We predicted that depression would not be negatively related to positive consequences following the deployment but instead would be positively related to another psychology difficulty (PTSD) and perceiving negative outcomes associated with the deployment. The present results revealed support for this predicted pattern of results, but only when the hypothesized antecedents of morale and depression were not included in the structural model. In the complete structural model, morale did not predict benefits of deploying, whereas engagement in meaningful work emerged as a stronger predictor of benefits. This pattern of results is not surprising, because Britt et al. (2001) also found that engagement in meaningful work predicted benefits following a deployment. The present results indicate the morale s relationship with postdeployment outcomes is a function of engagement in meaningful work. This finding illustrates the importance of including theoretically related antecedents of motivational variables such as morale when conducting longitudinal research. We believe that one reason engagement in meaningful work accounted for morale s ability to predict benefits following the deployment is that items measuring both engagement in meaningful work and benefits of deploying included the individual s job as a referent in the items. A similar pattern of findings emerged in examining the relationship between depression and the postdeployment outcomes. When middeployment antecedents were removed from the model, depression was a significant, positive predictor of perceived costs of deploying. For the full structural model, however, negative experiences during the deployment were a significant predictor of perceiving costs of deploying, whereas depression did not emerge as a unique predictor. Again, this pattern reveals a theoretical antecedent of depression being more strongly related to an outcome than depression itself. In thinking about research on positive motivational states versus dysfunctional psychological difficulties, proponents of a positive approach to occupational health still recognize the importance of examining the occupational determinants of psychological and physical difficulties. Research has indicated that many military personnel report symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems after returning from deployment (Hoge et al., 2004; King, King, Fairbank, Keane, & Adams, 1999; Wolfe, Erickson, Sharkansky, King, & King, 1999). However, given that the majority of soldiers do not develop psychological problems following a deployment, much can be learned from their successful adaptation. This emphasis on positive psychology can be used to investigate constructs indicative of adaptive functioning and determine the predictors and consequences of these variables. By focusing on these predictors of morale, organizations can actively support characteristics of the work environment that result in enhanced motivation and enthusiasm. Improving leadership, recognition, and job engagement are just some of the ways that the military can encourage the successful adaptation of service members experiencing the stress of deployment. Future research can examine the specific behaviors and policies associated with supporting individual morale. Limitations of the Present Research The main limitation of the present research was using self-report measures to assess the primary variables. Although this raises concerns about the possibility of a same-source bias influencing the obtained relationships, we argue that self-reports of the variables included in this study were the most direct way of assessing the constructs (see Beehr & Newman, 1987; Jex, 1998; McGrath, 1976). Furthermore, the results of the structural equation modeling show superior fit for models reflective of the central hypotheses of the present research.

12 MORALE AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 45 A second limitation to address is the extent to which the results of the present study, in a sample of U.S. Army soldiers on a peacekeeping operation, will generalize to other military personnel on combat deployments and employees in other occupations and settings. We are encouraged that our middeployment analyses involving morale and depression conceptually replicated prior work with civilian populations (Hart, 1994) and that our theoretical definition and assessment of morale during a military operation shares similarities with civilian conceptualizations of morale (Hart, 1994; Hart & Cooper, 2001). Future research examining both combat and civilian samples will be necessary to strengthen support for generalizability of these findings. One final limitation we discuss is our measurement of morale. In the present study we directly assessed morale as motivation, energy, and drive that presumably follow from a sense of purpose and confidence relevant to job and mission success (Britt & Dickinson, 2006). Although we showed that morale was best predicted by variables that give rise to a sense of purpose and confidence in self and unit functioning, we did not include items in our morale scale, which assessed motivation and enthusiasm with regard to the specific mission. Even though we believe that soldiers were considering the current mission when responding to the items assessing morale, in future research we recommend targeting the assessment of morale to the current mission or environment in which soldiers are working. Of course, such measurement precision would come at the cost of the ability to make comparisons between morale and broader psychological states and emotions (e.g., depression, positive affect). Not including the mission as a specific referent for the items may account for the moderately strong negative correlation that was obtained between morale and depression. It is not surprising that these two measures were negatively related, because lack of energy and drive is considered a symptom of depression (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Furthermore, one of the items in the depression scale includes trouble getting going, which clearly reflects a lack of energy. We argue that having participants respond to the morale items with reference to the specific mission would likely weaken the correlation between morale and depression and might even increase the strength of the present findings. On the other hand, the moderately strong correlation between morale and depression showed that negative correlations in the.50 range were possible between theoretically related variables, and therefore the failure to find stronger negative correlations between particular variables was not simply a function of the wording of the items in the scale as positive or negative. Conclusions The present results provide support for the hypothesis that the correlates and consequences of morale during a military operation are different than the correlates and consequences of depression. Morale was more consistently related to engagement in meaningful work and confidence in unit functioning and leadership, whereas depression was more consistently related to deployment stressors and negative events. Morale was prospectively related to perceiving benefits from the deployment, whereas depression was prospectively related to perceiving costs from the deployment and PTSD. Future research is needed to examine the consequences of morale for job performance, as morale may be especially related to performance under adverse conditions and organizational citizenship behaviors (see Britt & Dickinson, 2006). Perhaps the biggest practical application to be taken from the present study involves the importance of examining both demands and opportunities as predictors of positive and negative outcomes associated with stressful events. Interventions designed to both decrease stressors and increase engagement in meaningful work may not only prevent negative consequences for workers but may also promote healthy adaptation to work demands. References Adler, A. B., Vaitkus, M. A., & Martin, J. A. (1996). The impact of combat exposure on post-traumatic stress symptomatology among U.S. soldiers deployed to the Gulf War. Military Psychology, 8(1), Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1996). Construing benefit from adversity: Adaptational significance and dispositional underpinnings. Journal of Personality, 64, American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Bartone, P. T., Adler, A. B., & Vaitkus, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of psychological stress in peacekeeping operations. Military Medicine, 163, Baynes, J. C. (1967). Morale. New York: Praeger. Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6.0: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bienvenu, R. V., Huffman, A. H., Adler, A. B., & Castro, C. A. (1999). USAREUR Soldier Study II: Kosovo middeployment (Technical Brief 99 04). Heidelberg: U.S. Army Medical Research Unit Europe.