United States Military Cohesion after the Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was projected by politicians and military personnel alike to have a negative impact on unit cohesion. The findings of this study indicated that overall military cohesion was high, and that many military members found that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had no impact on task or social cohesion. However, using the Chi Square test, there were two noted significant associations when observing participant pay grade and perceptions of how the repeal of DADT has affected a unit’s ability to work together to complete tasks get the job done (χ (5) = 13.37, p = . 020), and when observing participant pay grade and how the repeal of DADT has affected how much service members in the immediate unit care about each other (χ (5) = 12.92, p = . 024). When an impact on cohesion was noted, the repeal had a positive or very positive effect. US MILITARY COHESION AFTER DADT 3 United States Military Cohesion after the Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” The 2010 repeal of the military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was monumental for gay and lesbian soldiers serving in the military. For the first time since World War II, gay and lesbian service members were allowed to serve openly in the US Military. For many politicians, citizen, and military members, the repeal of DADT was cause for concern: what effect would the repeal of this policy have on the force readiness of the military as a whole? One aspect of readiness is cohesion measured at the unit level. This paper examines the effect of the DADT repeal on unit cohesion. Unit cohesion has both social and task-focused components. Task cohesion is likely to have a greater direct impact on force readiness. However, a 2010 Department of Defense (DoD) study indicated that social cohesion was at risk to decrease after the repeal. Social cohesion plays an important role in whether or not military members feel as though they are part of a group which they can trust in times of war, which could, in turn, affect task cohesion. Task and Social Cohesion Task and social cohesion are the two major types of cohesion (Friedkin, 2004). The working definition of task cohesion is a shared commitment among group members to work together in order to achieve the goal that has been set before them (Griffith, 2002). Social cohesion, on the other hand, depends on the relationship between group members, specifically, whether or not they spend their free time together, like each other, or feel an emotional bond with their fellow members (Friedkin, 2004). While current literature suggests that task cohesion is a stronger predictor of performance than social cohesion, it is noted (e.g., Friedkin, 2004; Griffith, 2002) that social cohesion is measured quite often at the individual level and not the group level, as it deals with an US MILITARY COHESION AFTER DADT 4 individual’s perception of how well they relate and interact with their group. Task cohesion is often measured at the group level because task cohesion has a more direct impact on group performance than social cohesion (Griffith, 2002). Social cohesion, on the other hand, is indirectly related to group performance, in that it has a direct effect on whether or not group members stay in a particular unit (Griffith, 2002). Friedkin (2004) states that groups are most cohesive when there are strong membership attractions and attachments. The interpersonal interactions between group members lead to a maintenance or disintegration of group level