Group cohesion in high stress environments
Cohesive teams are more than just "nice to have" but rather necessary psychological protection in high stress environments.
Many authors have studied the benefits of team cohesion in military environments. For example, RAAF Squadron Leader Gary Williams and Captain Arthur Smith draw on historical analyses including comparisons of deployment patterns in the Korean and Vietnam wars to offer compelling evidence that cohesive teams produce:
Higher performance
Higher commitment
Greater individual wellbeing
Greater team resilience under stress
Less inter-team conflict
Less deliberate misconduct and sabotaging acts
In cohesive teams, the web of deep and highly meaningful interpersonal ties constructed through trust, dependence, and mutual reliance prevents disintegration of the individual psyche under extreme pressure.
Smith describes team cohesion as essential “psychological armor” that mitigates the effects of stress, sustains commitment, enhances perceived safety and competence of the team, and helps individuals endure grief, loss, or trauma.
While there are easy and obvious parallels to be drawn between military group cohesion and other civilian environments such as emergency departments, tech startups, and fire response teams, the lessons of cohesion apply more broadly as well.
Anytime there are significant levels of hardship, risk, and suffering, cohesion is essential to success. These terms should be broadly understood — for example, crunch time in finishing a video game development cycle would meet the criteria.
Cohesive teams are more likely to form where:
There is a strong sense of belonging and commitment to common goals, sometimes expressed as “shared fate” and “skin in the game” among staff, supervisors, and managers
There is a strong sense of survivability in a hostile environment; that is, everything is being done to keep people safe despite the challenges
People are confident in their team’s training and in the ability of team members to step in or step up as required
These factors can be summarised as affiliation, safety, purpose, and trust.
Teams can survive in low-hazard environments without a strong emphasis on cohesion, but the higher the stakes, the greater the need for cohesive teams.
And managers should recognise the risks too: If you are creating a hazardous environment and aren’t part of the solution, the outcomes of these natural cohesion processes may lead to them seeing you as a force to be resisted, rather than as part of the solution.