The Effects of Cohesiveness and Collaboration on Work Groups: A Theoretical Model.
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.
Citations
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
Cites background from "The Effects of Cohesiveness and Col..."
...Some writers define cohesiveness in terms of the desire of members to remain in the group (Dailey, 1977; Leana, 1985; Marshall & Heslin, 1975; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985; Zander, 1979), as affective bonds (Dion, Miller, & Magnan, 1971), or simply as a sense of belonging (Bugen, 1977)....
[...]
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
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1975TL;DR: In this article, the authors work from a strong theoretical foothold and apply behavioral science knowledge to the development of organizational structures, strategies, and processes, blending theory, concepts and applications in a comprehensive and clear presentation.
Abstract: Market-leading Organization Development and Change blends theory, concepts and applications in a comprehensive and clear presentation. The authors work from a strong theoretical foothold and apply behavioral science knowledge to the development of organizational structures, strategies, and processes.
2,234 citations
Additional excerpts
...Huse (1975) recommends the Job Expectation Technique (JET) for clarifying work relationships, reducing role conflict and ambiguity, and increasing shared perceptions about the jobs by all team members....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors classified alternative mechanisms for coordinating work activities within organizations into impersonal, personal and group modes and investigated how variations and interactions in the use of these coordination mechanisms and modes are explained by task uncertainty, interdependence and unit size.
Abstract: This paper classifies alternative mechanisms for coordinating work activities within organizations into impersonal, personal and group modes. It investigates how variations and interactions in the use of these coordination mechanisms and modes are explained by task uncertainty, interdependence and unit size. Nine hypotheses that relate these three determining factors to the use of the three coordination modes are developed in order to test some key propositions of Thompson (1967) and others on coordination at the work unit or departmental level of organization analysis. Research results from 197 work units within a large employment security agency largely support the hypotheses. The findings suggest that there are differences in degree and kind of influence of each determining factor on the mix of alternative coordination mechanisms used within organizational units.
2,003 citations
311 citations
244 citations
01 Mar 1970
TL;DR: In this article, the effects of group size and task characteristics (production, discussion, and problem solving type tasks) on group performance and member reactions were assessed, and it was found that dyads tended to be most satisfied and dissatisfaction increased in approximately linear fashion for larger groups.
Abstract: The effects of group size (2 through 7 members) and certain task characteristics (production, discussion, and problem solving type tasks) on group performance and member reactions were assessed. Subjects were students at two universities who performed three 15-minute tasks. Results showed that size had negligible effects on performance characteristics and strong effects on member reactions. Dyads tended to be most satisfied, and dissatisfaction increased in approximately linear fashion for larger groups. Type of task strongly affected both performance characteristics and member reactions. Contrary to expectations, there were no substantial interactions between size and task type in predicting member reactions or group performance. Several implications of the results were discussed: (a) the uniqueness of dyads in comparison to other groups sizes; (b) the question of what is the "optimal" group size; (c) the means by which the strong effects of task type may take place; and (d) questions raised by the finding that some substantial differences were obtained for subjects run at the two different universities. Many of the most obvious-and most potent-determiners of group behavior are, ironically enough, also among the least investigated and least understood in the group psychology field. Several reviewers (e.g., Golembiewski, 1962; Collins and Guetzkow, 1964; McGrath and Altman, 1966) have documented the dearth of systematic knowledge about two such factors: group size and the nature of the group task. Clearly, both group size and task characteristics should make differences in the ways people interact in groups and in the kinds of reactions they have to the group experience. The scattered empirical work which has in
226 citations
"The Effects of Cohesiveness and Col..." refers background in this paper
...Hackman and Vidmar (1970) have shown that task characteristics and group size interact to affect levels of group performance and members’ affective responses to the group experience. Van De Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig (1976) have shown that task uncertainty and task interdependence systematically affect work-group processes such...
[...]
...Hackman and Vidmar (1970) have shown that task characteristics and group size interact to affect levels of group performance and members’ affective responses to the group experience....
[...]