The existence of group cohesion in the armed forces: A response to Guy Siebold

Armed Forces and Society

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 638-645

  King, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cohesion; Military practice; Sociology

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250330759     PISSN: 0095327X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X07301445     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. A. King, "The Word of Command: Communication and Cohesion in the Military," Armed Forces & Society 32, 1 (July 2006): 493-512.
2. L. Rosen, D. Durand, P. Bliese, R. Halverson, J. Rothbert and N. Harrison, "Cohesion and Readiness in Gender-Integrated Combat Service Support Units: The Impact of Acceptance of Women and Gender Ratio," Armed Forces & Society 22, 4 (Summer 1996): 537-54;
3. L. Rosen and L. Martin, "Sexual Harassment, Cohesion and Combat Readiness in the U.S. Army Support Units," Armed Forces & Society 24, 2 (Winter 1997): 221-244;
4. J. Griffith, "Test of a Model Incorporating Stress, Strain, and Disintegration in the Cohesion-Performance Relation," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27, 17 (September 1997): 1489-1526;
5. J. Griffith, "Multi-Level Effects of Military Cohesion on Soldier Well-Being, Army Identification, Group Disintegration, and Combat Readiness," Military Psychology 14, 3 (2002): 217-240;
6. J. Griffith, "Relating Cohesion to Stress, Strain, Disintegration, and Performance: an Organizing Framework," Military Psychology 11, 1 (1999): 27-55.
7. G. Siebold, "Military Group Cohesion" in T. W. Britt, C. A. Castro, and A. B. Adler (eds.), Military Life: the Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat: Vol. 1, Military Performance (WestpoRt, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006), 185-201;
8. G. Siebold, "The Evolution of the Measurement of Cohesion," Military Psychology 11, 1 (1999): 5-26;
9. G. Siebold and T. Lindsay, "The Relation between Demographic Descriptors and Soldier-Perceived Cohesion and Motivation," Military Psychology 11, 1 (1999): 107-126.
10. G. Siebold, 'The Essence of Military Cohesion," Armed Forces & Society 33, 2 (2007): 291.
11. G. Siebold and T. Lindsay, "The Relation between Demographic Descriptors and Soldier-Perceived Cohesion and Motivation."
12. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," 292.
13. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," Ibid., 288.
14. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," Ibid., 292.
15. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," Ibid., 292.
16. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," Ibid., 293.
17. G. Siebold, "The Essence of Military Cohesion," Ibid., 292.
18. E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Irans. J. Ward Swain (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976), 52.
19. R. MacCoun, E. Kier, and A. Belkin, "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer," Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 (July 2006): 646-654.
20. T. Kolditz, "Research in In Extremis Settings: Expanding the Critique of Why They Fight," Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 (July 2006): 655-658.
21. L. Wong, "Combat Motivation in Today's Soldiers," Armed Forces & Society 32, 4 (July 2006): 659-663.
22. R. MacCoun, "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat," 652.
23. U. Ben-Shalom, Z. Lehrer, and E. Ben-Ari, "Cohesion during Military Operations: A Field Study on Combat Units in the Al-Aqsa Intifada," Armed Forces & Society 32, 1 (2005): 63-79.
24. Stephen Biddle's recent work on military power might also be cited as evidence that cohesion and combat effectiveness in the military are the specific and local products of collective practices which the armed forces are trained to perform together. Against numerical or technological superiority, Biddle prioritizes the employment of combat power-and, therefore, training-as central to military effectiveness. Thus, Operations Michael, Goodwood, and Desert Storm were successful not because the German Army, the Wehrmacht, and the Coalition respectively demonstrated better interpersonal trust than their opponents but because they were more closely unified around collective military practices in planning and executing their missions: S. Biddle, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modem Battle (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).
25. It seems likely that there is a historical dimension to the issue of cohesion. In the mass armies of the twentieth century, standards of training and performance were generally poor, as S. L. A. Marshall's work famously demonstrated. Precisely because collective drills were weak, military forces at this time seem to have emphasized broader social commonalities to unify their soldiers: nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, or locality were drawn on to induce collective performance and commitment where coordinated military practice was actually lacking. In the current era of all-volunteer professional forces, these extramilitary criteria have become less important as forces have unified themselves around collective practices, which have become deeply ingrained through intense and repeated training procedures and operations.
26. G. Siebold, "Military Culture and Values: A Personal View," in T. W. Britt, A. B. Adler, and C. A. Castro (eds.), Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat: Vol. 4, Military Culture (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006), 7-8.
27. G. Siebold, Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat: Vol. 4, Military Culture Ibid., 6.
28. G. Siebold, Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat: Vol. 4, Military Culture Ibid., 9.
29. G. Siebold, Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat: Vol. 4, Military Culture Ibid., 7.