PSYCH 424 blog

Group cohesion is one of the most important attributes inherent in successful small unit (i.e. team) military operations, at least in my own experience. When I reference small unit, imagine a four to ten soldier team (the latter referred to as a squad, or up to a ~30-person platoon/~120-person company) maneuvering harmoniously through a field. Or kicking in an insurgent’s door, and flowing room to room through the dark interior of a hostile house until they meet their target. If applied social psychology has taught us anything about organizational and sports teams it is that cohesion has a strong positive correlation with performance, especially task cohesion (Gruman, Schneider, and Coutts, 2017, p 181). If group and task cohesion is important when sales numbers or playoff births are on the line, imagine how important unity and working together proficiently is when it is the lives of you and your team members on the line.

Military personnel rosters are constantly changing, whereby familiar faces are promoted or transferred to other units or duty stations, or exit the military service altogether, and their absences filled by young privates or lieutenants fresh out of their initial training or new faces in general. As well, the branches of the United States military, like the nation it serves, is a diverse melting pot consisting of individuals from all walks of life. The men and women one conducts training with for up to a year or more might not all be the same that end up going off to war with them. Therefore, social cohesion can be a slow roll, and ebb and flow, as bonds are made, and tempers boil over, much as they can with any team. Much to the last point is the fact that the racial make-up of the United States Armed Forces is well representative of the American population. In my experience, whites predominantly makeup most of a unit, followed closely by black and Latino, and thereafter by a smaller percentage of races and ethnicities that do not fall into any of those constructions. Despite such background and racial differences, Widmeyer, Silva, and Hardy (1992) found that athletes reported “social and racial similarities to be of minimal importance toward the task and social cohesion of their team” (Gruman et al, 2017, p. 185). I have found the same to be true in my experience, of course, and if anything, it is diversity that fosters greater depth of experience and helps to avoid group think. Moreover, the bonds that are formed through shared misery and hardship that can be the crucible of training, and war, help to strengthen the social and racial cohesion of smaller military units.

Despite the bonds infighting still does occur within even the tightest knit of military units. It may even occur because of how close the groups are, both in shared space, duration, frequency, and duration (and often because of too much testosterone and bravado (in all male units); and sometimes too much alcohol). Nonetheless, task cohesion can prevail despite upward and downward trends in group social cohesion. Task cohesion can remain high, in a well drilled and trained group, because roles are clearly defined, and role clarity amongst members, where the expectations of individuals and groups is reinforced and rehearsed. When role performance is lacking, or even when carried out in flawless precision as planned, military units stimulate performance growth and reinforcement (whether positive or negative/reward or punishment) through routine feedback.

Few organizations or teams find success without effective communication. Imagine how unlikely it would be for the five best basketball players to play together if they were not able to call for passes, or signal for a pick and roll. Or between a baseball pitcher and catcher to know what the next pitch will be; or for the runner on first to know that his third base coach wants him to steal second. Just the same, effective communication within and between small or larger sized military units is key to their “exchange of resources,” as Roloff (1981) defines it (Gruman et al., 2017, 197) to enhance coordination and ensure comprehension. I like to think that the military has mastered nonverbal communication, the best that can be done without delving into actual sign language anyway, such that I can lead a small group through many different combat scenarios with only the use of hand and arm signals and no verbal communication at all. While the universality and proliferative use of hand and arm signaling is effective toward task cohesion in tactical situations, it is the congratulatory fist bump in triumph, the pat on the back for a job well done, or the hugging embrace of another member in the worst of situations that highlights the effectiveness of nonverbal communication toward social cohesion, and social cohesion in general, within the small units and the profession of arms.

Reference

Gruman, J., Schneider, F., and Coutts, L. (Eds.) (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4833-6973-. pp. 181, 185, 197