Cohesive groups do outperform less cohesive groups. But what is it about a cohesive group that makes it more successful? Does the high level of attraction among members reduce conflict, making it easier for the group to concentrate on its work? Or perhaps group members are more dedicated to their group if it is cohesive, and this sense of dedication and group pride prompts them to expend more effort on behalf of their group. The success of cohesive groups lies, in part, in the enhanced coordination of their members. In non-cohesive groups, members’ activities are uncoordinated and disjointed, but in cohesive groups, each member’s contributions mesh with those of the other group members. Cohesion thus acts as a “lubricant” that “minimizes the friction due to the human ‘grit’ in the system” (Mullen & Copper, 1994, p. 213). Members of cohesive groups all share the same “mental model” of the group’s task and its demands, and this shared prescription for how the task is to be accomplished facilitates their performance. Hence, cohesive groups are particularly likely to outperform non-cohesive groups when the group’s task requires high levels of interaction and interdependence. The degree of interdependency required by the type of tasks the group is working on also determines the size of the cohesion– performance relationship; the more group members must coordinate their activities with one another, the more likely a cohesive group will outperform a less cohesive one (Beal et al., 2003; Gully et al., 1995).
Some analyses confirm the relative performance gains achieved by cohesive groups, but they suggest that attraction and pride are not always enough: without task cohesion and commitment to the group’s goals, a cohesive group may be surprisingly unproductive. In a field study of this process, researchers surveyed 5871 factory workers who worked in 228 groups. They discovered that the more cohesive groups were not necessarily more productive, but their productivity level from one member to the next was less variable. The individuals working in cohesive groups produced nearly equivalent amounts, but individuals in non-cohesive groups varied considerably from one member to the next in their productivity. Furthermore, fairly low standards of performance had developed in some of the highly cohesive groups; thus, productivity was uniformly low in these groups. In contrast, in cohesive groups with relatively high performance goals, members were extremely productive (Seashore, 1954; Langfred, 1998). It indicates, so long as group norms encourage high productivity, cohesiveness and productivity are positively related: The more cohesive the group, the greater its productivity. If group norms encourage low productivity, however, the relationship is negative.
By: Mr. Dennis B. Dizon | Administrator | Department Office of Balanga