Unit cohesion is amilitary concept, defined by one formerUnited StatesChief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, theunit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress".[1] This concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts,sociologists andpsychologists, however.[2]
Unit cohesion is a military concept dating back to at leastCarl von Clausewitz, if not toantiquity.[3]
Several scholars have cited the influence ofSigmund Freud's thinking on theories of unit cohesion.[4][5][6] A number of them noted that Freud wrote ofcohesion breakdown amongsoldiers, asserting that it leads topanic,insubordination, self-interested rather thancooperative reactions to threats, and "a gigantic and senseless dread".[7]
The later development of the concept is strongly informed by the work ofMorris Janowitz, who, withEdward Shils, began writing on the topic in the late 1940s.[8] Janowitz continued to work in this area in hissociological work, as the disruptive policy of frequently rotating individual soldiers andofficers during theVietnam War came under scrutiny as a large factor behind lowmorale.[9]
Following the studies of severalWorld War II armies, sociologists concluded thatcomradely ties between small combat units is a decisive factor in providing good morale, cohesion, and organization framework.[10]
The defeat of the Western forces by the poorly equippedChinesePeople's Liberation Army in theKorean War in 1950 further generated interest on the role of "human elements" on modernbattlefields.[11] Although Western armies traditionally created ties between soldiers through informal means such asteamwork or shared hardships instilled bymilitary discipline,[12] the Chinese army relied on formal methods to assimilate recruits into their units.[13] The assimilation process involved features such ascoercive persuasion,surveillance, andpolitical control,[14] whilemilitary ranks and physical punishments were abolished to allow closer relations between officers and soldiers.[15] The stringent assimilation methods allowed the Chinese to create high morale and cohesion compared to the Western forces.[16] However, high casualty rates and the lack of modern equipment later resulted in a significant erosion of morale and cohesion as the Korean War dragged on.[17] One of the worst cases of this erosion was the partial disintegration of the Chinese army during the spring offensive in May 1951.[18]
In the late 1980s, one researcher stated that, regardless of whether unit cohesion was an actualmotivator or merely a stabilizer, what mattered was that unit cohesion "enhanced fighting power", because it reduced "combat inhibitors (stress, fear, isolation)" and promoted "esprit de corps, morale and teamwork".[19] Other research has, however, concluded that there is value in distinguishing the components ofsocial cohesion and "[t]ask cohesion ... the commitment to working together on a shared goal", since some studies conclude that uniteffectiveness correlates strongly with task cohesion, not with social cohesion.[2] This debate about the relative importance, or even need for, the concepts of social cohesion and task cohesion is exemplified by an exchange between Anthony King and Guy Siebold in the journalArmed Forces & Society in 2006–2007.[20]
One U.S. military researcher has drawn a distinction between teamwork and unit cohesion—claiming teamwork as being merely "collaboration", while unit cohesion involves a bond that can sustain mutual commitment, not just to the mission, but to each other, and to the group as a whole. This added bond, he argued, enabled teamwork under conditions under which an organization might otherwise break down.[4]
The concept of cohesion was originally used primarily to examine combat behavior. However, more recently models of cohesion have been applied to other phenomena characterized by stress, uncertainty, and the strategic interaction of groups.[21] Kanesarajah et al. examined the effects of high unit cohesion on mental health outcomes for military personnel and found that higher exposure to traumatic events on deployment was associated with greater risk of PTSD symptoms and that efforts to improve military unit cohesion may help to improve the mental health resilience of military personnel, regardless of their level of traumatic exposure, while Paul Bartone and Amy Adler examined cohesion in a multi-nationalpeacekeeping operation.[22] Terence Lee used a broad concept of cohesion to explain military behavior during events in China in 1989 and Indonesia in 1998 and, in another article, the Philippines in 1986 and Indonesia in 1998.[23]
Lucan Way andSteven Levitsky also used a broad concept of cohesion in order to explain regime maintenance in theformer Soviet Union.[24] Jesse Lehrke developed a multi-level model to facilitate the use of both social and task cohesion for examining military behavior during revolutions.[25] Less elaborate versions of this approach can also be seen in work by Dale Herspring and earlier work by Jesse Lehrke.[26]
... Clausewitz makes the inference that the unit cohesion is more a factor of the morale of the unit as a whole rather than an equally decisive factor. He does not, however, underrate the value of cohesion. He wrote that the loss of order and cohesion in a unit often makes even the resistance of individual units fatal for them.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)Freud maintains that cohesion is found in a group when all members introject the same subject into their ego ideal and then identify with each other. ... This phenomenon explains why soldiers willingly give up their thinking capacity and blindly follow orders from their leader. ... The soldiers as a group become a cohesive unit because they have all identified with each other.
