A Diary-Based Case Study in the Development of Unit Cohesion During Basic Training in the Swedish Air Force

A Diary-Based Case Study in the Development of Unit Cohesion during Basic Training in the Swedish Air Force By Johan Österberg & Joel Nilsson Military training is a life-changing experience,1 and military service provides a robust set of norms and behaviours. Compliance with these requirements is rewarded and previous practices can become outdated and may even be disciplined. According to Jackson et al. (2012), this socialization process can facilitate changes in personality. However, personality traits and life satisfaction seem to remain stable, regardless of the considerable changes in an individual’s life associated with military training. Military service coincides largely with early adulthood, which is a time when most people start to live on their own, and undergo several changes in life. Throughout that period, young people tend to grow more mature personalities (Lüdtke et al., 2011), and men who join the armed services seem to be no exception.2 When novices enter a new social institution as recruits, their behaviour during the initiation period is characterized by a great deal of insecurity. In the military context, instructors (to various degrees) deliberately enforce insecurity. To some extent, the initiation period sets out to break the recruits’ civilian identities, to internalize a new set of military norms and develop a military identity (Rothacher, 1980). According to Wollinger (2000), conscription has traditionally been regarded as a fast track into adult life. In military education, there are requirements for both individual and group development. Some of the traits individuals are expected to acquire during military education are the ability to take responsibility, become independent, and develop the ability to work in a group (Lindholm, 2006). In this context, military group cohesion can be described as a particular type of cohesion, where the group is part of a large, long- standing organization that is somewhat isolated, hierarchical and highly regulated, and which the group member cannot easily leave (Siebold, 2006). Sociologist Erving Goffman used the military, among others, as an example of an institution designed to execute a specific task, which is justified solely on its instrumental foundation. He uses the term total institution and defines it “as a place of residence and work where a large number of like- situated individuals, cut off from time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life” (Goffman, 1961: p.xiii). For instance, when entering military education, individuals have a set of social values, such as how to live their lives, and how to behave in certain situations. Within total institutions, there is a departure not only from what Goffman calls the “basic work-payment structure of our society”, but also from family life 1 Elder, Gimbel & Ivie, 1991. 2 Lönnqvist, Mäkinen, Paunonen, Henriksson & Verkasalo, 2008. Published/ publié in Res Militaris (http://resmilitaris.net), vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 2 (Goffman, 1961). In their daily routines, the recruits wear the same uniforms and are mostly subject to control 24 hours a day, as well as being surrounded by life-threatening weapons and major combat systems. Even though they are part of a larger group, individuals often carry out a number of individual tasks that are part of a more comprehensive task for a more comprehensive purpose. Therefore, the ways in which cohesion is shaped and groups are formed, in a military environment, make it difficult for them to be fully transferred to, or be of concern, in many non-military groups (Siebold, 2006). Cohesion There are different aspects of cohesion, and different definitions. In the specific military context, the leader and the team are equally significant factors, and the military team’s social climate is often referred to as cohesion. We will use this broad definition of unit cohesion, the social climate in the group. Cohesion is seen as important both for performance and for psychological well-being.3 Earlier research makes a distinction between horizontal and vertical cohesion.4 They define horizontal cohesion as the bonding among members of a unit, and vertical cohesion as the bonding between members and their leaders. Festinger (1950) defined cohesion as the result of all the forces acting on all members to remain in the group. At that time, there were generally two definitions of cohesion. According to Cartwright (1968), the first definition (i.e. the degree to which the members of a group desire to remain in the group) is related to the attractiveness of the group for the individual member, and to the degree to which group membership is linked to personal rewards.5 Another definition refers to how resistant the group is to disturbing influences.6 This feature mirrors a degree of bonding where members share a strong commitment to one another and the purpose of the group. Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), Hackman (1976), Tziner (1982) and Zaccaro (1991) argue that both an individual’s attraction to the group and the group’s resistance to disruption can have a social and/or task focus. Siebold (2006) makes a clear distinction between group cohesion and task cohesion, where group cohesion is found in group members’ relationships and their stated capability for cooperative action in order to accomplish their mission. In addition, individual knowledge, skill, and capability within a group have been shown to be predictors of group productivity.7 A number of attitudinal variables have been found to predict productivity, including cohesion.8 Cohesion is a well-researched topic, as esprit de corps and cohesion are regarded as fundamental concepts within the military (Manning, 1991). General Edward Meyer (ex-Chief of Staff, US Army) defined military unit cohesion as “the 3 For example, see Bartone & Wright, 1990 ; Griffith, 2002 ; Siebold, 2006 ; Ahronson & Cameron, 2007. 4 Marlowe, 1979 ; Siebold & Kelly, 1988. 5 Thibaut & Kelly, 1959. 6 Gross & Martin, 1952. 7 Tannenbaum, Beard & Salas, 1992. 8 Mullen & Copper, 1994. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 3 bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress”.9 Marlowe (1959) claims that by adding “unit” to cohesion, this definition implies that most of the literature on cohesion is based on a definition of cohesion that focuses on interpersonal issues, with no reflection of the member’s enthusiasm for an assigned task. Adding “unit” to cohesion draws attention to a group focused on a task. Case Study Case study research has been used previously to study everyday life, social interaction and networks in urban environment (Whyte, 1943), factory workers and the nature of workplace organizations (Beynon, 1973) and experiences of housework from women’s point of view (Oakley, 1974). More recently, Navarro, Arrieta and Ballén (2007) used the diary method to study the dynamics of work motivation. In the SAF, we have identified one similar study by ethnologist Susanne Wollinger (2000). In the mid-1990s, she followed a group of male recruits serving in an artillery regiment. Case study research has been defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (Yin, 2014:16). This research method is used when the aim is to examine complex phenomena in their natural setting to gain a better understanding of them (Hamel, 1993). The wide range of definitions of “case study” have made it difficult for most researchers to see the full potential of using it as a research strategy, and although frequently used, it has been described as a poorly understood method.10 However, the discussion of what should or should not be considered a case should be seen as a question of epistemology, in which a qualitative understanding of a case requires experience of the case as it takes place, and in its particular situation (Stake, 2006). To elaborate, what separates case study research from other data collecting methods is the researcher’s position in the research process. He or she needs to be even more adaptive when collecting research data. Newly encountered situations should be seen as opportunities and not threats. Even though data collection in most case studies (including ours) follows a protocol, the researcher needs to review the evidence continuously, and then evaluate why events or perceptions appear as they do (Yin, 2014). In the case study process, the researcher shifts between gathering empirical data and conducting analysis. A single case study design is applicable when the researcher wants to study a person in a specific group, or a group of people (Yin, 2014). It also gives the researcher the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of the subject at hand. However, there is no 11 guarantee that rich theoretical insight will emerge when studying a case in detail. 9 Little in Janowitz (ed.), 1964, p.91. 10 Sandelowski, 2011 ; Gerring 2011. 11 Dyer & Wilkins, 1991. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 4 Aim The purpose of this study was to get a clearer insight into the social life of military recruits during military basic training – which in Sweden lasts three months, followed by a six- or eight-month period of further training upon completion

Load more