Unit Cohesion: Threat to National Security or Boogeyman?

May 11, 2009

This post started as a reply to AzPatriot’s comment on the previous post about Lt. Dan Choi being fired for being gay. My comments grew and grew, speaking to the greater issue rather than his specific comments, so I decided to split it out.

I always find it interesting when people bring up “unit cohesion” as a reason we still need DADT. Two of the primary types of unit cohesion in the military are task cohesion (working toward the same goal) and social cohesion (how the members feel toward one another). It seems to me that the type being referenced when we talk about letting LGBTs serve openly is social cohesion.

If someone in the unit isn’t mature enough to accept someone with a different gender preference, it’s the military’s job to mature him, just like it’s their job to mature soldiers who can’t handle peers of different religion, race, ethnicity, or upbringing. In other words, it isn’t the lesbian soldier who is causing ‘cohesion’ problems, it’s the hypothetical soldier who won’t do his job, or whatever else people think is going to happen if gays openly serve their country.

On that issue, here’s a bit of an article from Dr. Gregory Herek of UC Davis on the subject.

Meta-analyses of studies of the cohesion-performance relationship indicate that a modest positive relationship exists between cohesion and performance, and is greater when a group task requires high levels of coordination, communication, and performance monitoring among group members. A causal direction cannot be concluded on the basis of these correlations. The authors of one study even asserted that the effect of success on cohesion appears to be greater than the effect of cohesion on performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994), although the authors of another study (Gully et al., 1995) argued that too few appropriate studies are currently available to permit any conclusion about causality.

Task cohesion may be more important than social cohesion in enhancing group performance. After reviewing military and civilian studies of cohesion and performance, Professor Robert MacCoun (1996) concluded that it is task cohesion — not social cohesion or group pride — that drives group performance. He pointed out that when social cohesion is too high, deleterious consequences can result, including excessive socializing, groupthink (the failure of a highly cohesive group to engage in effective decisionmaking processes), insubordination, and mutiny.

Moving on, I categorically reject the notion that the US military is just a brainless killing machine. I know enough military members, both active and veteran, to know that there is far more to our military forces than killing people and destroying things.

The very first core value listed by the USMC website is “Marines are held to the highest standards, ethically and morally. Respect for others is essential. Marines are expected to act responsibly in a manner befitting the title they’ve earned.” If a Marine can’t handle that, s/he isn’t fit to be a Marine.

Finally, AzPatriot mentioned wanting to hear from Lt. Choi’s peers themselves rather than take his word that they are supportive. It’s a nice idea and something that I too would like to see, but I wouldn’t count on it. There’s a high price to be paid for telling the truth in the military, as Lt. Choi is finding out.

To join the advocacy group Knights Out or to make a charitable donation to their cause, please visit their website. You can also contribute to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is assisting Lt. Choi and many other victims of DADT.


  • Allyson Robinson

    This is an important point that needs to be made over and over again as we reach the endgame of this fight. A professor at West Point, with whom I spoke when I lectured there regarding gender and transgender issues, put it this way: “The ‘unit cohesion’ argument is clearly a red herring and is self-defeating. If our Army leaders are the best in the world, surely they’re good enough to maintain unit cohesion in an Army that is integrated around sexual orientation.” If they’re not good enough to lead Fortune 500 companies (423 of which have sexual orientation non-discrimination policies), then perhaps our Army’s leadership training is not what it should be. Key question: are taxpayers getting their money’s worth?

  • Allyson Robinson

    This is an important point that needs to be made over and over again as we reach the endgame of this fight. A professor at West Point, with whom I spoke when I lectured there regarding gender and transgender issues, put it this way: “The ‘unit cohesion’ argument is clearly a red herring and is self-defeating. If our Army leaders are the best in the world, surely they’re good enough to maintain unit cohesion in an Army that is integrated around sexual orientation.” If they’re not good enough to lead Fortune 500 companies (423 of which have sexual orientation non-discrimination policies), then perhaps our Army’s leadership training is not what it should be. Key question: are taxpayers getting their money’s worth?

  • AzPatriot

    You are correct that there is far more to the military than killing people and destroying things, but the core mission of the military is to do just that. There are numerous support personnel that do not come into harms way, but they are their to support those that do. The official mission of the marine rifle squad is “to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat.” While not a mindless killing machine, it is nonetheless a very efficient killing machine.

    I actually would like to see the men under Choi’s command, not his peers, speak out regarding their opinion of his leadership and command skills and if his orientation in any way had an impact on their respect for Choi.

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      Again, I’d love to see straight military personnel come forward too, but the price for doing that is very high. I wouldn’t count on soldiers telling the press that they knew their CO was gay and didn’t speak up. If there’s one thing DADT doesn’t encourage, it’s honesty.

  • AzPatriot

    You are correct that there is far more to the military than killing people and destroying things, but the core mission of the military is to do just that. There are numerous support personnel that do not come into harms way, but they are their to support those that do. The official mission of the marine rifle squad is “to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat.” While not a mindless killing machine, it is nonetheless a very efficient killing machine.

    I actually would like to see the men under Choi’s command, not his peers, speak out regarding their opinion of his leadership and command skills and if his orientation in any way had an impact on their respect for Choi.

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      Again, I’d love to see straight military personnel come forward too, but the price for doing that is very high. I wouldn’t count on soldiers telling the press that they knew their CO was gay and didn’t speak up. If there’s one thing DADT doesn’t encourage, it’s honesty.

  • Mickey

    Ceratinly there might be soldiers in his command who don't respect him as much as they would otherwise but by the same token, there are plenty of other non-gay commanders who, for various reasons, are not respected by the soldiers they command. Unless you support throwing everyone out of the military who doesn't command sufficient respect from their fellow soldeirs, I don't see why sexual orientation should be so singled out. The important inquiry isn't whether there are some soldiers who would have a problem, it is whether it is legitimate to think less of a commander solely because of they are gay. If it isn't then soldiers who don't respect their commanders should be the ones whose service should be questioned. The military should not cater to ignorance or prejudice. If my commander was a conservative, I would have no respect for his intellectual abilities but I hardly think the military would indulge my sensibilities and transfer me to a commander custom fit to my notion of an ideal commander.

  • Mickey

    Ceratinly there might be soldiers in his command who don't respect him as much as they would otherwise but by the same token, there are plenty of other non-gay commanders who, for various reasons, are not respected by the soldiers they command. Unless you support throwing everyone out of the military who doesn't command sufficient respect from their fellow soldeirs, I don't see why sexual orientation should be so singled out. The important inquiry isn't whether there are some soldiers who would have a problem, it is whether it is legitimate to think less of a commander solely because of they are gay. If it isn't then soldiers who don't respect their commanders should be the ones whose service should be questioned. The military should not cater to ignorance or prejudice. If my commander was a conservative, I would have no respect for his intellectual abilities but I hardly think the military would indulge my sensibilities and transfer me to a commander custom fit to my notion of an ideal commander.

  • Mickey

    Ceratinly there might be soldiers in his command who don't respect him as much as they would otherwise but by the same token, there are plenty of other non-gay commanders who, for various reasons, are not respected by the soldiers they command. Unless you support throwing everyone out of the military who doesn't command sufficient respect from their fellow soldeirs, I don't see why sexual orientation should be so singled out. The important inquiry isn't whether there are some soldiers who would have a problem, it is whether it is legitimate to think less of a commander solely because of they are gay. If it isn't then soldiers who don't respect their commanders should be the ones whose service should be questioned. The military should not cater to ignorance or prejudice. If my commander was a conservative, I would have no respect for his intellectual abilities but I hardly think the military would indulge my sensibilities and transfer me to a commander custom fit to my notion of an ideal commander.

  • Mickey

    Ceratinly there might be soldiers in his command who don't respect him as much as they would otherwise but by the same token, there are plenty of other non-gay commanders who, for various reasons, are not respected by the soldiers they command. Unless you support throwing everyone out of the military who doesn't command sufficient respect from their fellow soldeirs, I don't see why sexual orientation should be so singled out. The important inquiry isn't whether there are some soldiers who would have a problem, it is whether it is legitimate to think less of a commander solely because of they are gay. If it isn't then soldiers who don't respect their commanders should be the ones whose service should be questioned. The military should not cater to ignorance or prejudice. If my commander was a conservative, I would have no respect for his intellectual abilities but I hardly think the military would indulge my sensibilities and transfer me to a commander custom fit to my notion of an ideal commander.