MILITARY UNIT COHESION: SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24919/2522-4700.45.9Keywords:
cohesion, professional component, social component, cohesion indicators.Abstract
Summary. The goal of the article is to study the phenomenon of military unit cohesion, to highlight the essence of cohesion, single out its components, and analyse the impact of military unit cohesion on the effectiveness of a combat mission. Methodological principles of the study include systemic, subjective, activity, and competencybased approaches, as well as the methodology of structural-functional and system-theoretical analysis. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is a set of philosophical, general scientific, and special methods that provide an interdisciplinary analysis of military unit cohesion. Scientific novelty consists in revealing the essence of the phenomenon of military unit cohesion, determining the factors that influence it, defining its components, highlighting the role of the psychological atmosphere for military unit cohesion, and understanding the impact of cohesion on carrying out the combat mission. Conclusions. Cohesion is the main integrative social and psychological indicator of the degree of development and unity of all aspects of social consciousness, psychology and activity of the military collective and the most important factor in its combat capability, high military discipline, and effectiveness of service and combat activities. Cohesion contains professional and social components in their philosophical unity and continuity. The indicators of the cohesion of a military unit are the unity of views and beliefs; the unity of actions; psychological unity; the level of development of the personal sphere of each member of the military unit. The military education system should train officers who have strong professional knowledge, who are able to unite the unit entrusted to them, and are ready to combine the skills of a military professional and a humanist, a commander and a teacher in the broadest sense of the word.
References
1. Алещенко В.І. Морально-психологічне забезпечення в період забезпечення підготовки миротворчого контингенту до участі у миротворчій операції. Теорія і практика управління соціальними системами. 2. 2011, c. 55-58. DOI: https://www.kpi.kharkov.ua/archive/Наукова_періодика/Tipuss/2011_2/Aleshen.pdf.
2. Бородін Б.Д. Проблема оцінювання згуртованості військового підрозділу. Честь і закон. № 2, (65). 2018, С. 97-101. DOI: http://appsychology.org.ua/data/jrn/v1/i47/21.pdf.
3. Пустовий О.М. Соціально-психологічні чинники групової взаємодії військовослужбовців: теоретична модель. Актуальні проблеми психології. Том І. Випуск 47. 2019, C. 108-112. DOI: http://appsychology.org.ua/data/jrn/v1/i47/21.pdf
4. Словник військових термінів та скорочень (абревіатур). Воєнно-наукове управління Генерального штабу Збройних сил України, 2020. 52 с.
5. Шапар В. Б. Сучасний тлумачний психологічний словник. X.: Прапор, 2007. 640 с.
6. Ягупов В.В. Військова психологія. [Підручник], Київ: Тандем, 2004. 656 с.
7. Ahronson, A., Cameron, J.E. The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample. Military Psychology, Vol. 19. No. 1, 2007, p.p. 9–25. DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08995600701323277
8. Balkundi, P., Harrison, D. A. Ties, Leaders, and Time in Teams: Strong Inference About Network Structure’s Effects on Team Viability and
Performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4. 2006. DOI: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2006.20785500.
9. Bandura, A. Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 9. No. 3, 2000, pp. 75–78.
DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182630.
10. Beal, D. J. Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations / Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke,
M. J., McLendon, C. L. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88. No.6, 2003, pp. 989–1004.
11. Bullock, D. How Wars Are Won: Leadership, Friendship, Family, and Unit Cohesion. Xlibris US, 2016. 217 p.
12. Carless, S. A., de Paola, C. The Measurement of Cohesion in Work Teams. Small Group Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2000, p.71. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104649640003100104.
13. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/104649640003100105.
14. Casey-Campbell, Milly, and Martin L. Martens, “Sticking It All Together: A Critical Assessment of the Group Cohesion–Performance
Literature,” International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2009, pp. 223–246. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.
15. Castillo, J. Endurance and War: The National Sources of Military Cohesion. Stanford Security Studies, 2014. 328 p.
16. Chang, A., Prashant, B. A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion–Group Performance Relationship. Small Group
Research, Vol. 32. No. 4. 2001, p. 379. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104649640103200401.
17. Chiocchio, F., Essiembre, H. Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review of Disparities Between Project Teams, Production Teams, and Service Teams. Small Group Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2009, pp. 382–420. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1046496409335103
18. Dion, K. L. Group Cohesion: From ‘Field of Forces’ to Multidimensional Construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2000, pp. 7–26. DOI: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232446576_Group_Cohesion_From_Field_of_Forces_to_Multidimensional_Construct.
19. Griffith, J. Measurement of Group Cohesion in U.S. Army Units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1988, pp. 149–171. DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15324834basp0902_6.
20. Griffith, J. Multilevel Analysis of Cohesion’s Relation to Stress, Well-Being, Identification, isintegration, and Perceived Combat Readiness. Military Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2002, pp. 217–239. DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1207/S15327876MP1403_3
21. Henderson, Wm. D. Cohesion: The Human Element in Combat,Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1985. DOI: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/139659/1985-02_Cohesion_Human_Element.pdf
22. Jordan, M. H., Field, H.S., Armenakis, A. A. The Relationship of Group Process Variables and Team Performance: A Team-Level Analysis in a Field Setting. Small Group Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2002, p. 121. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104649640203300104.
23. Langerholc, B. Cohesion in Multinational Military Units. Biblio Scholar, 2012. 138 p.
24. Marshall, S. L. A Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War, New York: William Morrow, 1947.
25. Moskos, Ch. C. Vietnam: Why Men Fight / in Martin Oppenheimer, ed., The American Military, Transaction, Inc., 1971, pp. 16–36.
26. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2),
210–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210.
27. Salas, E., Burke, C. Sh., Cannon-Bowers, J. A. Teamwork: Emerging Principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 2, No. 4,
2000, p. 339. DOI: https:www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Teamwork%3Aemerging-principles-Salas-Burke/0aeac19247510f7b66b914df40e1fa884aa1dfea.
28. Segal, D. R., Kestnbaum, M. Professional Closure in the Military Labor Market: A Critique of Pure Cohesion / in D. M. Snider and G. L. Watkins, eds. The Future of the Army Profession, New York: McGraw Hill, 2002, pp. 439–458.
29. Shamir, B., Brainin, E., Zakay, E., Popper,. Perceived Combat Readiness as Collective Efficacy: Individual- and Group-Level Analysis. Military
Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2000, pp. 105–119. DOI: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
247503383_Perceived_Combat_Readiness_as_Collective_Efficacy_Individual_and_Group-Level_Analysis.
30. Shils, E. A., Janowitz, M. Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1948, p.p. 280–315. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2745268.
31. Siebold, G. L. The Essence of Military Group Cohesion. Armed Forces and Society. Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 286–295. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095327X06294173
32. Spencer, J. Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connections in Modern War. Potomac Books. 2021. 280 p.
33. Stouffer, S. A. The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life/Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., Devinney, L. C., Star, S. A., Williams, R. M.
(Jr.). Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 1, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1949, p.p. xii-599. DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/abs/10.1177/000271624926500124.
34. Van Epps, G. Relooking Unit Cohesion: A Sensemaking Approach. Scholar's Choice, 2015. 24 p.
35. Wong, L., Kolditz, T. A., Millen, R. A., Potter, T. M. Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq War, Carlisle, Pa.: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2003. DOI: https:press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/788.
