|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Further Considerations Concerning the Cohesion-Performance Relation in Military Settings
James Griffith
Maryland Army National Guard Headquarters, GriffithJH{at}comcast.net
A recent issue of Armed Forces and Society published an interchange among MacCoun, Wong, Kolditz, and others regarding the relation of cohesion to performance. The discussion was purposefully narrow in its scope, but other literature should be considered to properly frame the larger question of cohesion's function in military settings. Specifically, current and future discussions should acknowledge: (1) the primary function of cohesion as revealed in historical and observational accounts of soldiers in combat; (2) emergent similarities between social support and cohesion, which support the notion that cohesion acts as a moderator rather than a main effect of performance; and (3) findings from a recent meta-analysis that contradict those of Mullen and Cooper. Viewing cohesion's relation to performance as indirect rather than direct has very different and important implications for research, applications, and expected effects of cohesion on group performance.
Key Words: cohesion • military • combat motivation • soldier performance
References
- Thomas A. Kolditz, "Research in In Extremis Settings," Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 ( 2006): 655-8; Robert J. MacCoun, Elizabeth Kier, and Aaron Belkin, " Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat?" Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 (2006): 646-54; Leonard Wong, "Combat Motivation in Today's Soldiers," Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 (2006): 659-63.
- Leonard Wong et al., Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq War ( Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2003).
- Wong et al., Why They Fight, 2003, 25.
- MacCoun et al., " Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat?" 2006.
- Wong et al., Why They Fight, 2003, 23.
- Robert J. MacCoun, " What is Known about Unit Cohesion and Military Performance," in Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1993), 283-331.
- MacCoun, "What is Known about Unit Cohesion and Military Performance," 1993.
- James Griffith, "The Measurement of Group Cohesion in U.S. Army Units," Basic and Applied Social Psychology 9 (1988): 149-71; James Griffith and Mark Vaitkus, "Relating Cohesion to Stress, Strain, Disintegration, and Performance: An Organizing Framework," Military Psychology 11, 1 (1999): 27-55.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- In addition, cross-lagged analysis conducted in the study suggested that the direction of the cohesion-performance relation was from performance to cohesion rather than the traditionally held view of cohesion leading to performance.
- Except for the last example, the other examples seemingly imply motivation based on nature of social and emotional bonds between the individual and larger group and between the individual and society, rather than based on agreement of the collective task. Fighting because of belief in obligation to country and belief in freedom and liberty have distinct similarities to Eighmey's motivational theme of "fidelity," an emergent factor from reasons to serve in the military involving faithfulness to people who share the same goals or the individual felt sense of obligation toward others; see John Eighmey, " Why Do Youth Enlist?," Armed Forces & Society 32, 2 (2006): 307-28; reasons include to serve the country, to work cooperatively with others, and to be personally challenged.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wong, "Combat Motivation in Today's Soldiers," 2006.
- Wong et al., Why They Fight, 2003, 25.
- Edward A. Shils and Morris Janowitz, "Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II," Public Opinion Quarterly 12 (1948): 279-315.
- Edward A. Shils, " Primary Groups in the American Army," in Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Scope and Method of the American Soldier eds. R. K. Merton and P. F. Lazarsfeld (Salem, NH: Ayer, 1950), 16-39.
- Norman Gross and William E. Martin, "On Group Cohesiveness," American Journal of Sociology 52 ( 1952): 546-54.
- Lewis Coser, Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956).
- A.A. Stein, "Conflict and Cohesion: A Review of the Literature," Social Forces 20, 1 (1976): 143-72.
- David H. Marlowe, "Cohesion, Anticipated Breakdown, and Endurance in Battle: Consideration for Severe and High Intensity Combat" (unpublished manuscript available from author, 1979).
- Department of the Army, Training, Developing, and Maintaining Unit Cohesion (Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 350-2; Washington, DC: Author, June 1982).
- Sheldon Cohen and Thomas A. Wills, "Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis," Psychological Bulletin 98 (1985): 310-57; Sheldon Cohen, "Stress, Social Support, and Disorder," in The Meaning and Measurement of Social Support, eds. H. O. F. Veiel & U. Baumann (New York: Hemisphere, 1992), 109-23; Thomas A. Wills, "Supportive Functions of Interpersonal Relationships," in Social Support and Health, eds. Sheldon Cohen and S. Leonard Syme (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985), 61-82.
- Brian Mullen and Carolyn Cooper, " The Relation between Group Cohesion and Performance: An Integration," Psychological Bulletin 115 (1994 ): 210-27.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Albert A. Cota et al., "The Structure of Group Cohesion," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 6 ( 1995): 572-80.[Abstract]
- Guy L. Siebold, The Case for Unit Cohesion (paper presented at the 101st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 1993).
- Carolyn E. Cutrona, "Stress and Social Support: In Search of Optimal Matching," Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9, 1 (1990): 3-14.[Web of Science]
- Cota et al., " The Structure of Group Cohesion," 1995.
- W. Neil Widmeyer, Lawrence R. Brawley, and Albert V. Carron, The Measurement of Cohesion in Sports Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire ( London, Canada: Sports Dynamics, 1985).
- Siebold, The Case for Cohesion, 1993.
- Cutrona, " Stress and Social Support: In Search of Optimal Matching," 1990.
- Raymond B. Flannery, "Social Support and Psychological Trauma: A Methodological Review," Journal of Traumatic Stress 3, 4 (1990): 593-611.[CrossRef]
- Irwin G. Sarason, Barbara R. Sarason, and Gregory R. Pierce, "Social Support: The Search for Theory," Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9, 1 (1990): 133-47.[Web of Science]
- Shils and Janowitz, "Cohesion and Disintegration," 1948; Edward P. Torrance, " The Behavior of Small Groups under Stress Conditions of `Survival,'" American Sociological Review 19 ( 1954): 751-55; Edward P. Torrance, " What Happens to the Sociometric Structure of Small Groups in Emergencies and Extreme Conditions?" Group Psychotherapy 10 (1957): 212-20.
- Paul L. Savage and Richard A. Gabriel, "Cohesion and Disintegration in the American Army," Armed Forces & Society 2, 3 (1976): 340-76; Shils, "Primary Groups in the American Army," 1950; Shils and Janowitz, "Cohesion and Disintegration," 1948; Zahava Solomon and Mario Mikulincer, "Life Events and Combat-related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: The Intervening Role of Locus of Control and Social Support," Military Psychology 2 (1990): 241-56; Zahava Solomon, Mario Mikulincer, and Stevan E. Hobfoll, " Effects of Social and Battle Intensity on Loneliness and Breakdown during Combat," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986): 1269-76; M. Steiner and M. Neumann, "Traumatic Neurosis and Social Support in the Yom Kippur War Returnees," Military Medicine 143 (1978): 866-8; Samuel A. Stouffer et al., The American Soldier: Combat and Its Aftermath: Vol. 2. Studies in Social Psychology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949).
- Solomon et al., " Effects of Social and Battle Intensity on Loneliness and Breakdown during Combat," 1986.
- K.S. Spink, "Mediational Effects of Social Cohesion on the Leadership Behavior-Intention to Return Relationship in Sport," Group Dynamics 2, 2 (1998): 92-100.[CrossRef]
- Unit Manning System (UMS) or common training and deployment personnel policy as described in Manning Task Force, U.S. Army Manning System Concept Paper (Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army, 1981); see also ARCOST Analysis Team, Improving Stability and Enhancing Cohesion in the U.S. Army, (Washington, DC: unpublished technical report available from author, May 1980).
- Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills, "The Effects of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59 (1959): 177-81; L. George, "Primary Groups, Organizations, and Military Performance," in Handbook of Military Institutions, ed. R. W. Little (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1971), 293-318; Stanley Schachter, The Psychology of Affiliation (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. 1959).[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Darwin Cartwright, "The Nature of Group Cohesiveness," in Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd Ed.), eds. Darwin Cartwright and Alvin Sander (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 91-107.
- J.M. Darley and E. Berscheid, "Increased Liking as a Result of the Anticipation of Personal Contact," Human Relations 20 (1967): 29-39.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Chester A. Insko and M. Wilson, "Interpersonal Attraction as a Function of Social Interaction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977): 903-11.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Mark Vaitkus and James Griffith, "An Evaluation of Unit Replacement on Individual Morale and Unit Cohesion in the All-Volunteer Army," Military Psychology 2, 1 (1990): 221-39; Similarly, Goodacre observed that well-performing squads spent more of their time with squad members and exhibited more pride in their squad than did poorly performing squads; see Daniel M. Goodacre, " Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing Combat Units," Sociometry 16 (1953): 168-79.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- James Griffith, " The Army's New Unit Personnel Replacement and Its Relationship to Unit Cohesion and Social Support," Military Psychology 1, 1 ( 1989): 17-34.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Daniel J. Beal et al., "Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-analysis Clarification of Construct Relations," Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 6 (2003): 989-1004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Mullen and Cooper, "The Relation between Group Cohesion and Performance: An Integration," 1994; Beal et al., "Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-analysis Clarification of Construct Relations," 2003.
- Kolditz, "Research in In Extremis Settings," 2006.
- Robert M. Baron and David A. Kenny, "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986): 1173-82.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Irving L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd Ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982).
- Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, 1954).
- Michael A. Hogg, The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity (New York: New York University Press, 1992).
Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 34, No. 1,
138-147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X06294620
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
|
|
