466 



MORALE AND LEADERSHIP 



lent external difficulties, the former may be 

 said to have higher morale. If it can be 

 shoTVTi that groups which achieve their goals 

 efficiently exhibit a high degree of cohesive- 

 ness, think well of their leaders, do not fight 

 much among themselves, agree on their ob- 

 jectives, have confidence in their equipment, 

 and so on, then these manifestations repre- 

 sent high morale; but only if a relationship 

 to goal attainment can be shown. Individ- 

 ual happiness, enthusiasm, "good" behavior, 

 and so on, are all very desirable, but from 

 the standpoint of group functioning they are 

 irrelevant unless they indicate the presence 

 of conditions conducive to the attainment of 

 group goals. 



Thus, group morale may be considered 

 operationally equivalent to group effective- 

 ness, or potential effectiveness, as it has been 

 defined here.^ But this is only a beginning. 

 What is needed for research purposes is a 

 more detailed and precise behavioral defini- 

 tion. In working out such a definition, it 

 would seem that extensive empirical observa- 

 tion and analysis might well supplement the 

 worn armchair favored by the majority of 

 past writers on morale. Starting from gen- 

 eral assumptions such as those previously 

 discussed, it is possible to elaborate various 

 hypotheses as to phenomena which should 

 appear in groups functioning at various 

 levels of effectiveness, e.g., that in poorly 

 functioning groups the frustration of impor- 

 tant needs of members should produce a 

 relatively high level of aggression. It would 

 then be desirable to secure for a series of 

 groups of a given type as richly varied an 

 assortment of measures of these phenomena 

 as possible. As will be noted later, there 

 are many possible measures of morale which 

 seem promising. The interrelationships of 

 these measures might then be analyzed to 

 ascertain the pcssible existence of clusters or 



2 In a discussion of factors influencing combat 

 effectiveness in air groups, Darley (26) has raised 

 the question as to whether morale may not be 

 considered equivalent to psychological effective- 

 ness. To the present writer this seems the most 

 fruitful working assumption. 



factors showing relatively independent varia- 

 tion. Since the possible manifestations of 

 effective functioning are numerous and the 

 underlying conditions complex, it is not too 

 much to suppose, as many writers have sug- 

 gested, that morale may comprise a number 

 of different variables. Apphcation of factor 

 analysis procedures to data of the above sort 

 would serve at least to clean out some of the 

 underbrush and provide a conveniently eco- 

 nomical, although tentative, behavioral defi- 

 nition. 



Parts of this necessary empirical program 

 have attracted the attention of investigators. 

 Many have hypothesized sets of morale com- 

 ponents or categories of morale phenomena. 

 A few (e.g., 74, 42, 29) have developed meas- 

 ures on the basis of such hypotheses, and 

 made some analysis of the interrelationships 

 in their results. One (42) has carried 

 through a factor analysis. McNemar (72) 

 has examined these studies critically with 

 reference to techniques of measurement and 

 analysis, and has suggested possible improve- 

 ments. Of broader significance, however, 

 is the preoccupation of these investigations 

 with questionnaiie data and with popula- 

 tions of individuals.^ Further work aimed 

 at clarifying the concept of morale could 

 fruitfully employ a greater variety of meas- 

 ures, and follow the suggestion of Cattell 

 (17) in applying factor analysis to a popu- 

 lation of groups. 



Methods of Appraising Morale or Group 



Effectiveness 



A number of social psychological tech- 

 niques are adaptable to obtaining the kind of 



3 It is, of course, possible to develop a concept of 

 individual morale, with reference either to an 

 individual's life in general or to his membership in 

 a particular group (21), and the term is often em- 

 ployed popularly with both of these connotations, 

 but in the evaluation of group functioning the 

 group is properly taken as a unit. It will be seen 

 in the discussion of possible measures of group 

 morale that some have no meaning in terms of 

 specific individuals. In the case of other measures, 

 which involve gathering primary data on an in- 

 dividual basis, a rough measure for the group may 

 be obtained through some process of averaging. 



