New Body of Cohesion Research at a Macrolevel

In 2018, Ilmari Käikhö published a special collection in Armed Forces & Society on the debate about small unit cohesion. Later, in reaction to a response by Guy Siebold, he published a further intervention with Peter Haldén. Focusing on my 2006 article in the journal and my subsequent debate, Käikhö has claimed that the cohesion debate is too narrow. It ignores organizational factors in the armed forces and wider political factors, including nationalism and state policy. Consequently, it is incapable of analyzing non-Western state or irregular forces and is only relevant for the 20th and 21st centuries. This response shows that while Käikhö’s extension of the empirical archive to non-Western armed groups is to be welcomed, none of his theoretical claims are sustainable.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening the Perspective on Military Cohesion? A Reply

King

2020

“…A final notable limitation is that extending an individual-level construct to the organizational level is a challenge and must be done cautiously (Aguinis et al, 2011; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Siebold (2020) highlighted some of the challenges relative to the study of cohesion at the meso and macro levels in the military, indicating researchers should focus on clearly defining the construct at the micro, meso, and macro levels. This study used vertical theory borrowing (Whetten et al, 2009) to extend the micro level principles of individual grit to conceptualizations at the meso (team) and macro (organizational) levels of consideration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Culture of Organizational Grit From the Perspective of U.S. Military Officers: A Qualitative Inquiry

Luning

Attoh

Gong

et al. 2021

With the backdrop of the utility of grit at the individual level, speculation has begun to circulate that grit may exist as an organizational level phenomenon. To explore this potential construct, this study used an exploratory, qualitative research design. This study explored grit at the organizational level by interviewing leaders’ perceptions of what may be a culture of organizational grit. Participants included 14 U.S. military officers. Seven themes emerged relative to the research question: “What do U.S. military officers perceive as a culture of organizational grit?” Themes included professional pride, team unity, resilience-determination, mission accomplishment, core values, growth mindset, and deliberate practice. This study indicated that a culture of organizational grit is likely a combination of converging organizational elements. Overall, findings indicate that there may be a culture of organizational grit in the military and at the least, more research examining the concept is warranted.

“…This is why military institutions place such special emphasis on loyalty and intensely socialize new recruits. Sublimation of individual identity into one of the strong group identification is a key purpose of military training and addresses the problem of motivation to fight (Janowitz, 1959;Moskos, 1976;Shils & Janowitz, 1948;Siebold, 2006Siebold, , 2007Siebold, , 2011Siebold, , 2018. This is elsewhere classified as primary-group cohesion, defined as the emotional bonds within the unit and toward its leader (Salo & Sinkko, 2012).…”

Section: Loyalty As a Moral Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, Salo and Sinkko (2012) acknowledge the importance of loyalty in their affective component of cohesion yet do not explore it further. Similarly, Verweijen (2018) notes the importance of loyalty but does not explain it, while Käihkö (2018), in a review of the literature critiqued by Siebold (2018), calls for new approaches. What we offer to this debate is a more theoretically and empirically grounded exploration of the experiences of loyalty from servicemen.…”

Section: Loyalty As a Moral Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Military Loyalty as a Moral Emotion

Connor

Andrews

Noack-Lundberg

et al. 2019

Loyalty between soldiers is idealized as an emotion that promotes cohesion and combat effectiveness. However, little empirical work has examined how military personnel understand, feel, and enact loyalty. We use a symbolic interactionalist informed frame to explore the lived experience of 24 retired Australian Defence Force members via in-depth semi-structured interviews. Our analysis revealed three core themes: (1) Loyalty as reciprocity, where there was an expectation that loyalty would be returned no matter what. (2) The importance of emotional connection for cohesion. (3) Loyalty as a prioritizing process, where a soldier’s loyalties gave them a way of choosing between competing demands. Loyalty is a moral emotion that enabled sensemaking. Close interpersonal loyalties tended to trump wider/diffused loyalties. Respondents understood their loyalties to fellow soldiers within wider social constructs of mateship and professionalism. The findings show the risks that come from a reliance on loyalty for combat cohesion.