The Misconceived Construct of Task Cohesion

I Am, I Go, and I Do

The most basic and frequently used concepts tend to evolve linguistically over time into the fewest and shortest words. ⁴ Thus, for example, television became TV. In terms of human behavior at the individual level, there are three absolutely fundamental and frequently used concepts whose word lengths are minimal and expressed as the shortest sentences in the English language: I am (existence); I go (mobility); and I do (action and work). Comparably at the group level are: we are (group of members); we go (group movement); and we do (group action and teamwork).

With respect to military group cohesion, the fundamental concept of we are pertains to the recognition of members as being part of the group and to each member’s relationship to the other members of the group and the group as a whole. Particularly important are the degree of stability, clarity, trust, and functionality in those relationships. The fundamental concepts of we go and we do pertain in terms of cohesion to the capacity (not action) of the members of the group to move in unison and work together to accomplish their mission tasks. In short, group cohesion is very basic to the human condition and derived from the most fundamental nature of humans—I am, I go, and I do. Group cohesion is found in the relationships of group members and their capacity for joint action to achieve their missions. ⁵

Task Cohesion

Rightly conceptualized, task cohesion refers to whether a set of task components fit together to form a coherent whole. The subject matter belongs to job and task analysts. The inquiry is whether a set of tasks and their components fit together in terms of such factors as logical sequencing, efficiency of movement, timing to standards, common equipment compatibility, task length, compatible operator skills, and so forth.

Early on in small group research, investigators identified those in the group who tended to keep the group focused on its tasks and those who tended to smooth the ruffled feathers of group members as their interactions and words annoyed one another. Thus were born the concepts of the task leader and the socioemotional leader. ⁶ Permutations through sports psychology developed these concepts into task cohesion and social cohesion. ⁷ Subsequently, the terminology got picked up in military group cohesion research. ⁸ There unfortunately the term task cohesion became confused with the we go and we do ideas of group action and teamwork—to move in tactical formation and accomplish the required mission tasks. In other words, the action performance criterion was conceptualized as part of the measure of the cohesion predictor. Similarly, the social–emotional leader morphed into the construct of attraction to the group, which was easily measurable. Attraction to the group then became the surrogate to measure military group social cohesion.

An example of this confusion of terminology can be found in MacCoun, Kier, and Belkin. ⁹ In their social agenda oriented article, they defined social cohesion in terms of “whether group members like each other” and task cohesion in terms of “whether they share the same goals.” The latter definition, of course, belongs more to the realm of motivation than that of cohesion and strays far from conceptualizing task cohesion as coordinated joint action.

As noted elsewhere, the standard model of military group cohesion corrects these misconceptualizations. ¹⁰ In the model, the we are idea is expressed as group cohesion and is composed of such elements as trust among the members and their perceived capacity for joint action. Thus, the term task cohesion is not appropriate as part of the concept of military group cohesion but rather may be one of the outcome criteria to measure it if expressed as cohesive group action and performance of mission tasks.

Consequences

The misuse of the term task cohesion still often occurs today. Even some of the most erudite, skilled, and justifiably esteemed military researchers insert the phrase task cohesion either incorrectly or ambiguously in their writings and presentations, including those at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society conferences. ¹¹ In doing so, they detract from the usual high quality and artfulness of their work. The foregoing suggests two important consequences for military group research. As implied, research design and measurement need to clearly separate out predictors such as group cohesion from action criteria such as cohesive task performance. This is also important, as cohesion is integrated into research on closely related topics such as resilience. ¹² Second, analyses and reviews of past research need to differentiate and sort out where task cohesion measures have been used incorrectly as predictors instead of criteria. This sorting may of course be difficult to the extent that the measures of task cohesion are not clearly presented. The purpose of this current writing is to articulate the terminology problem and highlight its effects in hopes that more precise terminology will be used in the future.