Instructor and Trainee Judgments of Cohesion in Mixed-Gender Military Teams.

Introduction: In integrating women into combat roles, one key question has been whether women will reduce the cohesion of small teams, which is their ability to stick together and perform well under pressure. Among other things, team cohesion protects the mental health of military personnel during initial training as well in operational zones. To provide new converging evidence on the cohesion of all-male versus mixed-gender recruit teams at the end of training, cohesion ratings were obtained from both recruits and their instructors.

Materials and Methods: The recruits consisted of 83 females, 398 males, and 8 non-specified individuals across 46 small teams. The teams' gender mix varied from 0% female (all males) up to 64% female. The recruit questionnaire comprised 18 items that covered the bonding of the recruits with each other (horizontal), with their instructor leaders (vertical), and with the wider Army (organizational). In addition, two to three instructors rated each team on their horizontal and vertical bonding. This study had Defence ethics approval (DPR-LREP 069-15).

Results: (1). The ratings of recruits and instructors were significantly correlated for both horizontal bonding (r = 0.44) and vertical bonding (r = 0.49). These correlations were similar to correlations obtained previously from U.S. Army infantry platoons. (2). The recruits in the present study gave their teams significantly higher ratings for horizontal bonding (M = 4.18, SD =0.33) than did their instructors (M = 3.95, SD =0.31), F(1,45) = 22.12, p < 0.001). Neither the ratings of recruits nor their instructors were significantly correlated with the percentage of females per team, rs = 0.063, 0.249, ps > 0.05. (3). For vertical bonding, the recruits' ratings (M = 4.48, SD =0.37) were high and similar to those of instructors (M = 4.56, SD =0.44), F(1,45) = 1.65, p > 0.20). The vertical bonding scores were also not significantly correlated with the percentage of females per team, rs = -0.168, -0.139, ps > 0.25.

Conclusions: Our findings agree with a previously published analysis of recruit performance over a 5-year period (2011-2015). Composite instructor ratings of recruit performance, including their teamwork, were similar for males and females regardless of the gender composition of platoons, which ranged from all male to 45% female. The next step in this research is to determine the pattern and dynamics of bonding between team members and their leaders as soldiers progress through their advanced training and ultimately operational deployment. Such research should reveal whether any differences in cohesion appear in relation to team gender composition. The present results have useful implications for health professionals. When discussing feelings of stress, depression, and/or with male or female military clients, health professionals may find it worthwhile to explore their clients' sense of bonding with their team members, their leaders, and their wider organization as one possible contributor to the individual's concern. By the same token, advice aimed at promoting the three dimensions of cohesion may help capitalize on their protective effects.