Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat?

Based on a new Army War College study of unit cohesion in the Iraq War, Wong et al. argue that successful unit performance is determined by social cohesion (the strength of interpersonal bonds among members) rather than task cohesion (a sense of shared commitment to the unit’s mission). If correct, these conclusions have important implications for scholarship as well as for numerous U.S. military policies such as the Unit Manning System. However, this article disputes their contentions. Wong et al. ignore a large body of empirical research on military and nonmilitary groups showing that social cohesion has no independent impact on performance. They provide no evidence for the representativeness of the interview quotes they cite as evidence for the reliability or validity of their measures. Their methodology fails to meet social science standards for causal inference (e.g., ruling out causal rival factors)

[1]  Elizabeth Kier Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness , 1998, International Security.

[2]  F. Potier,et al.  What is known , 2003 .

[3]  Stephen A. Saltzburg,et al.  Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment , 1992 .

[4]  Richard K. Betts Military Readiness: Concepts, Choices, Consequences , 1995 .

[5]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[6]  Leo J. Daugherty The bear and the scimitar soviet central asians and the war in Afghanistan 1979–1989 , 1995 .

[7]  James Griffith,et al.  Measurement of Group Cohesion in U. S. Army Units , 1988 .

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

[9]  A. Carrón,et al.  The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire , 1985 .

[10]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Beyond Behaviorism : On the Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes , 2001 .

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

[12]  James T. Quinlivan Coup-proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East , 1999, International Security.

[13]  Profile of a Citizen Army: Shiloh's Soldiers , 1991 .

[14]  Peter C. Boer Small Unit Cohesion: The Case of Fighter Squadron 3-Vl.G.IV , 2001 .

[15]  Paul E. Huston,et al.  Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research, enlarged edition , 1977 .

[16]  Motivation in U.S. Narrative Accounts of the Ground War in Vietnam , 2001 .

[17]  Aharon Tziner,et al.  Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance effectiveness of self-selected tank crews. , 1982 .

[18]  M. Ferguson,et al.  Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Robert A. Zirkle,et al.  Technology, civil‐military relations, and warfare in the developing world , 1996 .

[20]  Edward Shils,et al.  Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II , 1948 .

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

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

[23]  A. Belkin,et al.  When is Strategic Bombing Effective? Domestic Legitimacy and Aerial Denial , 2002 .

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