Review of Literature
2.8 Unit/Group cohesiveness
who had experienced a great deal of combat. In the Indian context a study by Sharma (2015) found that ineffective leadership was a stressor amongst the soldiers in the Indian Army.
Indian Army is based on a regimented system where obedience to the leadership is mandatory at all levels without question. Research literature clearly signifies that the quality of leadership has a strong effect on the well-being of the subordinates. In military, leader-follower relationship is a very important one which can have life and death implications. Currently there is less empirical evidence available about the quality of leadership in the military and it’s impact on the subjective and psychological well-being of soldiers in Indian Army. Due to the same reason this variable is important for the current study.
potency. Group pride refers to the degree of a group member’s identification with the group (Dion, 2000; Griffith, 2009; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Shamir, Brainin, Zakay, & Popper, 2000).
Synonymous terms used when referring to cohesion often include morale and espirt de corps.
Manning (1994) clarified a distinction between these two terms. Morale describes the enthusiasm and persistence of an individual in engaging in behaviors prescribed by group membership, while esprit de corps is the degree of cohesiveness among higher organizational entities. Collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000) is a more recent construct about how group members see themselves as cooperatively achieving the shared goals of the group. The greater the shared expectancies, the greater group efforts can attain the desired effects. Some military studies show that these perceptions contribute more to group performance than other aspects of cohesion (Jordan, Field,
& Armenakis, 2002; Shamir et al., 2000). The construct of trust that occurs at various levels in the organization has also been discussed in the context of the development of cohesion in a group.
Trust may be defined as having confidence that the trusted entity will behave as expected in a situation. Trust as a construct can be applied to individual members (i.e., fellow soldier performs duties to provide safety for others) and members as a whole (i.e., higher headquarters provides equipment and materials as promised). Trust hence, can refer to the individual’s trust in his fellow soldiers, in the leaders, and in the organization and institution as a whole (Griffith, 1988; Siebold
& Kelly, 1988). The expectations in trust are based on well-defined roles of the trusted individuals or entities. Evidence also suggests that trust can develop quickly among group members based on the other individual’s membership in trustworthy groups (e.g., medical professionals), role-based trust (e.g., senior rank which is an indicator of past experience and knowledge), and rule-based trust (e.g., shared norms about what is expected in terms of behaviors) (Kramer, 1999; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Holingshead, 2007).
The Department of Defence researchers explain cohesion as the bonding of soldiers so as to sustain their will and commitment to one another and the mission accomplishment despite environmental barriers e.g. intra-group factions, turbulence, demands of combat, mission stress etc. For them cohesion is one of the most important aspects of group dynamics that facilitates team performance and protects the team members (unit) against psychiatric break down in combat. Psychologists from the Department of Defence in their research found that the initial bonding that soldiers went through among themselves was based on fairly superficial lines that were defined by a common demography. The deeper levels of bonding which ultimately leads to cohesiveness is dependent on more qualitative factors e.g. similar attitudes. Even though a great deal of morale and cohesion is dependent on demography. Demography concerns race, culture, and any other parameter that groups can identify with in terms of a specific geographical region (Lee & Farh, 2004).
Authors and researchers from the Army War college and the Naval War College additionally, speak of a common shared purpose that binds individuals together and motivates them. The Army war college calls it cohesion and defines it as being characterized by pride, loyalty and a shared understanding of a common purpose and most importantly a collective confidence in this common purpose (Wong, 1985). On the contrary for The Naval war college review the definition is founded in leadership which is “bound together” with morale, for example a leader’s confidence in his troops and vice versa (Neves, 1995).
For a soldier, it is essential that in combat he is respected and is able to experience bonding as a part of a well-knit group. S.L.A Marshall spoke about the cohesion and morale of soldiers, stating that units won’t adhere in combat whether trained or not if they lack the tactical unity in relation to personal knowledge and a sympathetic understanding of each other (Scull, 1990). The major aspect which enables an infantry soldier to keep going in his combat is the near presence or the
presumed or perceived presence of a comrade. His morale is sustained by his fellow soldiers and his weapons. In fact given a choice, the common soldier would rather be unarmed and with friends than possessing the most advanced weapon and be alone (Marshall, 1947).
During the training period before the actual warfare, patriotism and belief in the shared cause were important factors for the development of the Unit cohesion. But these had little effect on unit cohesion during the actual period of combat (Cox, 1995). Shils and Janowitz (1948), in their classic study of the German Wehrmacht during World War II, concluded that the army’s continued resistance in the face of overwhelming odds could be assigned mainly to the solidarity that the members of small groups of soldiers shared: “When the individual’s immediate group, and its supporting formations, met his basic organic needs, offered him affection and esteem from both officers and comrades, supplied him with a sense of power and adequately regulated his relations with authority, the element of self-concern in battle, which would lead to disruption of the effective functioning of his primary group, was minimized” (p. 281). Shils (1950) found the same to be true for the American Army in World War II. He reported that the cohesive primary group “served two principle functions in combat motivation: it set and emphasized group standards of behavior and it supported and sustained the individual in stresses he would otherwise not have been able to withstand” (p. 25). In a more recent study, Vaughan and Schum (2001) examined 20 published narrative accounts of American combat soldiers who fought the Vietnam War. Most common reasons why American combat soldiers fought this war were: for members of their primary group (e.g., squad), for respected and valued leaders, out of a sense of duty, and for survival. These reasons are further confirmed by observations of American soldiers during World War II (Traversa, 1995), the Korean War (Kellett, 1987; Little, 1964), the Vietnam War (Moskos, 1977), and the Iraqi War (Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). Studies by Gully, Devine, and Whitney
(1995) and Griffith and Vaitkus (1999) reported strong links between cohesion and performance when reported at the group level and not at the individual level. Griffith (2002) in his research found that a soldier’s experience of supportive leadership and cooperative peer relationships both at the individual and group levels help in building their identification with the unit. It decreases the chances of their leaving the unit and the Army and increase their perceptions of being combat ready.
Unit cohesion has been established as a potentially modifiable factor in the etiology of mental illness and a protective factor in cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), common mental disorder and physical ill health when it comes to military personnel (Oliver et al., 1999; Brailey et al, 2007; Rona et al., 2009; Manning, & Fullerton, 1988). On the contrary, little has been understood about the impact that unit cohesion has on alcohol misuse in military personnel (Williams et al., 2016). Alcohol has long been used by military personnel as a bonding tool and a coping device (Jones, & Fear, 2011). Williams et al. (2016) have found that high levels of comradeship and low levels of leadership were linked to heavy drinking. A 2012 study by Preez et al on unit cohesion and mental health in the UK Army personnel examined the link between unit cohesion, post- traumatic stress disorder, common mental disorder and alcohol abuse in soldiers deployed in Iraq. It was established that unit cohesion had a linear relationship with less portable PTSD and common mental disorder. The perception of the quality of leadership was associated with less portable PTSD and common mental disorder. Comradeship was associated with greater alcohol misuse among regular personnel. The feeling of being able to talk about their personal problems was associated with less alcohol misuse for reserve personnel. A study by Fontana, Rosenheck and Horvath (1997) on psychopathology among Vietnam veterans concluded that there was a non-linear moderating effect of unit cohesion on psychopathology. Some studies
also found support for a linear moderating effect of unit cohesion on life experiences when it came to the etiology of PTSD (Oliver et al., 1999; Fontana, Rosenheck, & Horvath, 1997).
There is a considerable dearth of literature about unit cohesion and subjective and psychological well- being amongst soldiers not currently in a war situation both internationally as well as in India. Units offer a supportive network to the soldiers both physically and psychologically in the absence of other primary support networks. The climate of the unit whether cohesive or conflictive will have an effect on the well-being of the soldiers. Hence the need to explore it in detail in our study.
The next chapter will propose and discuss theoretical models derived based on the literature review. The variables identified in this chapter will be sorted into risk and protective factors for soldier’s well-being and also how they interact to influence well-being.