{"title":"军事团体凝聚力标准模型评注","authors":"G. Siebold","doi":"10.1177/0095327x231225433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to King’s article on cohesion, this author submitted a critique, “The Essence of Military Group Cohesion” (2007), based on 20 years of research. The critique noted that King had set up several strawmen and presented a narrow focus. Furthermore, the critique introduced the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion as a more widely useful approach. The Model was further articulated in “Key Questions and Challenges to the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion” (2011) and “The Misconceived Construct of Task Cohesion” (2015). This current article describes major conceptual and measurement efforts leading up to the development of the Model, critiques and expansions of the Model, and needed future research to refine the Model as well as combine cohesion with other key variables such as motivation, combatant capacity, and leadership to more fully explain variation in key military outcome variables such as unit performance and retention.","PeriodicalId":130147,"journal":{"name":"Armed Forces & Society","volume":"30 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary on the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion\",\"authors\":\"G. Siebold\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0095327x231225433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to King’s article on cohesion, this author submitted a critique, “The Essence of Military Group Cohesion” (2007), based on 20 years of research. The critique noted that King had set up several strawmen and presented a narrow focus. Furthermore, the critique introduced the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion as a more widely useful approach. The Model was further articulated in “Key Questions and Challenges to the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion” (2011) and “The Misconceived Construct of Task Cohesion” (2015). This current article describes major conceptual and measurement efforts leading up to the development of the Model, critiques and expansions of the Model, and needed future research to refine the Model as well as combine cohesion with other key variables such as motivation, combatant capacity, and leadership to more fully explain variation in key military outcome variables such as unit performance and retention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x231225433\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Armed Forces & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x231225433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
针对 King 关于凝聚力的文章,本文作者在 20 年研究的基础上提交了一篇评论文章《军事团体凝聚力的本质》(2007 年)。该评论指出,King 树立了几个稻草人,提出了一个狭隘的焦点。此外,该评论还提出了 "军事团体凝聚力标准模型",认为这是一种更广泛有用的方法。该模型在《军事团体凝聚力标准模型的关键问题和挑战》(2011 年)和《任务凝聚力的误解结构》(2015 年)中得到了进一步阐述。这篇文章介绍了在开发该模型之前在概念和测量方面所做的主要努力、对该模型的批评和扩展,以及未来需要开展的研究,以完善该模型,并将凝聚力与其他关键变量(如动机、战斗力和领导力)相结合,从而更全面地解释关键军事结果变量(如部队绩效和留用率)的变化。
Commentary on the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion
In response to King’s article on cohesion, this author submitted a critique, “The Essence of Military Group Cohesion” (2007), based on 20 years of research. The critique noted that King had set up several strawmen and presented a narrow focus. Furthermore, the critique introduced the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion as a more widely useful approach. The Model was further articulated in “Key Questions and Challenges to the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion” (2011) and “The Misconceived Construct of Task Cohesion” (2015). This current article describes major conceptual and measurement efforts leading up to the development of the Model, critiques and expansions of the Model, and needed future research to refine the Model as well as combine cohesion with other key variables such as motivation, combatant capacity, and leadership to more fully explain variation in key military outcome variables such as unit performance and retention.