While chain of command is universal in any hierarchical organization be it military or civilian, the military’s view of that chain is the probably the most stringent.  This presents unique problems for public affairs specialists and officers.  What is the most effective way to tell the commander he or she is wrong about throwing the media off the base?  How do they get the commander to see that talking to the media IS important?  Through developing a method of analyzing and understanding perceptions and how to change them through persuasion tactics, PA practitioners can better deal with non-supportive attitudes from their commanders.  Research such as this will help PA practitioners develop tactics that are easily operationalized in “real-world” settings.  

Incumbent upon PA professionals is their responsibility to educate their commanders about the proper role of public affairs and the benefits that it brings to the mission.  It is not simply enough for a PAO to determine that his commander is non-supportive, and then give up trying to initiate effective programs.  Without an ongoing process of educating commanders, public affairs will be left by the wayside.  PAOs have to be their own advocates, and they must constantly stress the importance of their mission in accomplishing unit goals.  Until all commanders realize what public affairs brings to the fight, it will continue to be an underused and undervalued, yet critical resource. 

 The concept of leadership itself is more than simply telling someone what to do or dropping bombs on target.  Too often some leaders lose sight of the fact that they do more than “drop bombs on target.”  While this is essential to the combat mission, leadership hardly stops there.  Leadership is developing subordinates both professionally and personally, directing multi-group taskings, praising and rebuking appropriately, establishing credibility with subordinates, learning “people” skills, and so on.  Some have these abilities naturally, most have to learn them through practice, observation, and education.  This type of research is not only effective for identifying “what not to do,” but also expanding on the positive and essential skills leaders can currently use.

 In generating new theory, research of this nature can establish alternate ways of looking at the senior-subordinate relationship as it deals with the military.  This survey can be used to develop a leadership grid similar to the one outlined by Harris and Sherblom (1999).  While that managerial grid can be applied to the military is some fashion, it does not take into consideration the culture of the military.  In the research, the authors only found theories of leadership that can be generically applied to the military leader.  By expanding and developing this research, by modifying or adapting the Leader-Member Exchange theory to accommodate military philosophy, new ideas and models can be developed to explain or predict the behavior of not only leaders, but subordinates as well.  One suggestion would be to consider modifying the current survey to establish the commander’s perceived leadership style, be it authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire, the impact it has on the public affairs program, and what image it gives the commander in the external and internal media.  Continued study of this nature in the public affairs area as well as the general military leadership field, will generate large amounts of new data to continue to modify existing theories of leader and subordinate behavior, and create new theories as well.