Author
Robert C. Dailey
Bio: Robert C. Dailey is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Group cohesiveness & Working group. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 16 citations.
Topics: Group cohesiveness, Working group
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, both cohesiveness and collaboration are identified as co-determinants of group productivity and affective responses of group members, and a theoretic model detailing the interaction of these variables is presented.
Abstract: Both cohesiveness and collaboration are identified as co-determinants of group productivity and affective responses of group members. A theoreti cal model detailing the interaction of these variables is presented. Four situations are given that describe the effects of cohesiveness and collab oration on important group, individual, and organizational outcomes. In each case, managerial strategies are discussed that may have beneficial effects on groups low on either or both of the variables. Finally, it is argued that application of group-dynamic models to specific organiza tional settings could improve management practice and performance assessment.
16 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a meta-analytic integration of the relation between group cohesiveness and performance was reported, and the results of this analysis suggest that the more direct effect may be from performance-to-cohesiveness rather than from Cohesiveness to performance.
Abstract: : This paper reports on a meta-analytic integration of the relation between group cohesiveness and performance. Overall, the cohesiveness-performance effect was highly significant and of small magnitude. Several theoretically informative determinants of the cohesiveness-performance effect were examined. This effect was significantly stronger when cohesiveness was operationalized in terms of measurements of group members' perceptions of cohesiveness than when cohesiveness was operationalized in terms of experimental inductions of cohesiveness. The results of this analysis suggest that the more direct effect may be from performance to cohesiveness rather than from cohesiveness to performance. Discussion considers the implications of these results for future research on the relation between cohesiveness and performance.
1,475 citations
TL;DR: This paper used a 2 by 2 experimental design to examine group processes (information sharing, morale building, planning, critical evaluation, commitment, monitoring, and cooperation) that mediate the effect of relationship level on group performance.
Abstract: This study used multiple methods to examine group processes (information sharing, morale building, planning, critical evaluation, commitment, monitoring, and cooperation) that mediate the effect of relationship level on group performance. The study uses a 2 by 2 experimental design, crossing relationship (friendship vs. acquaintance) as a between-subjects variable and task type (decision making vs. motor) as a within-subject variable. Fifty-three 3-person groups participated in the study, and data from 4 types of measurement were used to analyze the mediating processes between relationship level and task performance. Friendship groups performed significantly better than acquaintance groups on both decision-making and motor tasks because of a greater degree of group commitment and cooperation. Critical evaluation and task monitoring also significantly increased decision-making performance, whereas positive communication mediated the relationship between friendship and motor task performance.
540 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe a multidisciplinary conceptualization of collaboration and discuss the implications of this integrative theory to human resource management and strategy development as well as future research efforts.
263 citations
TL;DR: The definition of group cohesiveness has proven to be astonishingly difficult to define precisely and consistently as mentioned in this paper, and as a consequence, many contemporary researchers leave this construct undefined, without necessarily being aware of the confusion and inconsistencies embodied in these definitions.
Abstract: Cohesiveness remains a critical group-level variable, and while it may seem unnecessary to suggest that investigators should link their nominal definition of this construct with its operationalization, few researchers make this important connection. Group cohesiveness has proven to be astonishingly difficult to define precisely and consistently. Perhaps as a consequence, many contemporary researchers leave this construct undefined. Many others rely on classic definitions of cohesiveness developed during the 1950s, without necessarily being aware of the confusion and inconsistencies embodied in these definitions. Greater focus on the definitional issue should improve the quality of future research.
221 citations
TL;DR: Montréal. as discussed by the authors offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998, i.e., offrègles d'criture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domains du savoir.
Abstract: Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI
115 citations