Rallying the troops or beating the horses? How project-related demands can lead to either high performance or abusive supervision

In today's high-pressure work environment, project managers are often forced to “do more with less.” We argue that this imperative can lead project managers to engage in either high-performance or abusive supervision behaviors. To understand this process, we develop a model and associated propositions linking a project manager's cognitive appraisal of project-related demands to high-performance work practices versus abusive supervision behaviors—both of which impact three project outcomes: stakeholder relationships, people-related project success factors, and employee well-being. We propose that the choice between high-performance work practices and abusive supervision behaviors is moderated by a project manager's personal resources (psychological capital, emotional intelligence, and dark triad personality).

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

The comparative behaviour of two combat boots under impact

Background Improvised explosive devices have become the characteristic weapon of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While little can be done to mitigate against the effects of blast in free-field explosions, scaled blast simulations have shown that the combat boot can attenuate the effects on the vehicle occupants of anti-vehicular mine blasts. Although the combat boot offers some protection to the lower limb, its behaviour at the energies seen in anti-vehicular mine blast has not been documented previously. Methods The sole of eight same-size combat boots from two brands currently used by UK troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were impacted at energies of up to 518 J, using a spring-assisted drop rig. Results The results showed that the Meindl Desert Fox combat boot consistently experienced a lower peak force at lower impact energies and a longer time-to-peak force at higher impact energies when compared with the Lowa Desert Fox combat boot. Discussion This reduction in the peak force and extended rise time, resulting in a lower energy transfer rate, is a potentially positive mitigating effect in terms of the trauma experienced by the lower limb. Conclusion Currently, combat boots are tested under impact at the energies seen during heel strike in running. Through the identification of significantly different behaviours at high loading, this study has shown that there is rationale in adding the performance of combat boots under impact at energies above those set out in international standards to the list of criteria for the selection of a combat boot.

In-vehicle extremity injuries from improvised explosive devices : current and future foci

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been epitomized by the insurgents’ use of the improvised explosive device against vehicle-borne security forces. These weapons, capable of causing multiple severely injured casualties in a single incident, pose the most prevalent single threat to Coalition troops operating in the region. Improvements in personal protection and medical care have resulted in increasing numbers of casualties surviving with complex lower limb injuries, often leading to long-term disability. Thus, there exists an urgent requirement to investigate and mitigate against the mechanism of extremity injury caused by these devices. This will necessitate an ontological approach, linking molecular, cellular and tissue interaction to physiological dysfunction. This can only be achieved via a collaborative approach between clinicians, natural scientists and engineers, combining physical and numerical modelling tools with clinical data from the battlefield. In this article, we compile existing knowledge on the effects of explosions on skeletal injury, review and critique relevant experimental and computational research related to lower limb injury and damage and propose research foci required to drive the development of future mitigation technologies.