Measuring Morale, Cohesion and Confidence in Leadership: What Are the Implications for Leaders?

ABSTRACT Although high morale, unit cohesion, and confidence in leadership are considered by military leaders to be essential elements for victory on the battlefield, research indicates that officer assessments of these variables are generally inaccurate. To assist commanding officers in these assessments, the Unit Climate Profile was developed for use with Canadian soldiers in deployed operations. Using data collected from soldiers in Bosnia over a three-year period, the present study was designed to test a model of the relations between morale, cohesion, confidence in leadership, coping strategies, stress, and strain. It was hypothesized that as morale, cohesion, and confidence in leadership are conceptually similar to social support, they would moderate the relation between stress and strain. Structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression were used to test the proposed model and several moderating effects. Results indicate that positive coping, task cohesion, and social cohesion moderate the relation between stress and strain such that those individuals who reported using or seeking higher levels of these resources experienced lower strain. Conversely, negative coping was found to moderate the relation between stress and strain such that those individuals who reported using negative coping strategies tended to report experiencing more strain compared to people who used positive strategies. Finally, positive coping, confidence in one's platoon commander and company commander were found to play underlying or mediating roles in the generation of the interaction between cohesion variables and strain. Implications for leaders in the maintenance of morale and cohesion are discussed. Throughout the history of warfare, high morale, unit cohesion, and capable command have been considered by military leaders to be essential elements for victory on the battlefield (e.g., Kellett, 1982; Mengelsdorff, 1999; Richardson, 1978). According to Wintle's (1989) collection of historical military writings, Xenophon (circa 394 B.C.E) was sure the army "stronger in soul" would be victorious in battle, and Napoleon felt that "moral considerations" accounted for three quarters of the outcome in war. It is clear little had changed the minds of 20th century leaders when Montgomery (1958) stated that "the morale of the soldier is the greatest single factor in war" (p. 36). But how did these leaders assess the level of morale in their own forces and in those of their opponents? How did they understand the relation between morale and physical and mental health? How did they gauge the importance of leadership? Although we have little historical data to examine these questions, we can examine how present day military leaders monitor these variables, the accuracy of their assessments and how this information is used for decision-making purposes. American, European, and Canadian research indicates that officer perceptions of soldier morale, cohesion, and confidence in leadership are generally inaccurate. For example, Stouffer and his colleagues (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) found that US Army officers in World War II (WW II) had consistently inflated views of their subordinates' attitudes toward a range of military issues including pride in the outfit, desire to be a soldier, satisfaction with the job and the importance of the infantry. Similarly, Korpi (1965) found that Swedish officers had "very unreliable notions of the opinions in their units" (p. 302) and that officers were generally unaware that their perceptions of subordinate morale might be inaccurate. Interestingly, the greater confidence officers expressed in their assessments the larger the error in their predictions. More recently, Canadian officers have fared no better. Eyres (1998) found that although all ranks were generally satisfied with leadership at the non-commissioned member (NCM) levels within the unit, this was not the case for leadership at the officer level. …

[1]  Paul D. Bliese,et al.  Gender Composition and Group Cohesion in U.S. Army Units: A Comparision across Five Studies , 1999 .

[2]  G. Siebold The Evolution of the Measurement of Cohesion , 1999 .

[3]  S. Zaccaro,et al.  The Effects of Task and Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Performance of a Disjunctive Group Task1 , 1988 .

[4]  P. Harvey OCCUPATIONAL ROLE STRESS WITHIN THE ROLE SET , 1976 .

[5]  S. Folkman,et al.  Stress, appraisal, and coping , 1974 .

[6]  Charles D. Spielberger,et al.  Job stress in university, corporate, and military personnel , 1994 .

[7]  C. Carver,et al.  Coping with stress: divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Frederick J. Manning,et al.  Morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps. , 1991 .

[9]  Tamotsu Shibutani The Derelicts of Company K: A Sociological Study of Demoralization , 1978 .

[10]  Martine Villeneuve,et al.  Occupational role stress in the Canadian forces: Its association with individual and organizational well-being. , 2002 .

[11]  Leora N. Rosen,et al.  Sexual Harassment, Cohesion, and Combat Readiness in U.S. Army Support Units , 1998 .

[12]  James Griffith,et al.  Relating Cohesion to Stress, Strain, Disintegration, and Performance: An Organizing Framework , 1999 .

[13]  Kelly M. J. Farley,et al.  Morale, Cohesion, and Confidence in Leadership , 2000 .

[14]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. , 1991, Psychological review.

[15]  A V Carron,et al.  The measurement of cohesion in sports teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire. , 1989, Canadian journal of sport sciences = Journal canadien des sciences du sport.

[16]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied Linear Regression Models , 1983 .

[17]  B. Mullen,et al.  The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. , 1994 .

[18]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980 , 1982 .

[19]  M. K. Salazar Job stress. , 1993, AAOHN journal : official journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses.

[20]  Irwin G. Sarason,et al.  Social Support: The Search for Theory , 1990 .

[21]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[22]  A. David Mangelsdorff Preface to the special issue. , 1999 .

[23]  Social support and psychological trauma: A methodological review , 1990 .

[24]  P. E. Mudrack,et al.  Defining Group Cohesiveness , 1989 .

[25]  Norman S. Endler,et al.  Coping and defense: A historical overview. , 1996 .

[26]  Guy L. Siebold,et al.  Development of the Combat Platoon Cohesion Questionnaire , 1988 .

[27]  F. Richardson Fighting Spirit: A Study of Psychological Factors in War , 1978 .

[28]  R. Ursano,et al.  The Impact of a Military Air Disaster on The Health of Assistance Workers: A Prospective Study , 1989, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[29]  W. Korpi A Note on the Ability of MilitaryLeaders to Assess Opinions in Their Units , 1965 .

[30]  C. Carver,et al.  Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Rudolf H. Moos,et al.  Coping, stress resistance, and growth: Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. , 1996 .