We often imagine or even argue at some point how does a group become cohesive and some are not. Why do some groups, but not others, become cohesive? How does cohesion develop over time? What are the positive and negative consequences of cohesion?
Interestingly it will help us understand how upon looking into the processes and the development that unfolds the group into a cohesive team or more closely than others. This is why we have to realize that groups, like all living things, develop over time. The group may begin as a collection of strangers, but uncertainty gives way to cohesion as members become bound to their group by strong social forces. Cohesion, though, is not just group unity or the friendliness of members, but a multifaceted process that influences a wide range of interpersonal and intragroup processes. As cohesion and commitment subside and flow with time, the group’s influence over its members rises and falls.
Cohesion comes about if, and only if, a group exists. Without at least some degree of cohesion, groups would disintegrate as each member withdraw from the group. Cohesiveness is one of the signs of a healthy group. A cohesive group will be more likely to prosper over time, since it retains its members and allows them to reach goals.
Cohesion is the strength of the bonds linking individuals to and in the group, but a variety of factors influence the group’s social, task, perceptual, and emotional unity. These components have multiple causes, and some pertaining to relations among individuals and others connecting individuals to the group itself. Given the complexity of this process, what unifies the members of a work group may not unify the members of a religious congregation, a classroom, or a military squad (Ridgeway, 1983). Just as theorists have debated the precise meaning of the concept of cohesiveness, so have researchers proposed a variety methods for measuring cohesion. Some researchers use social network methods, others rely on observational strategies, monitoring interpersonal relations among members, noting instances of conflict or tension, and judging how smoothly the group works together as a unit (e.g., Fine & Holyfield, 1996). In many cases, too, investigators hope that group members are accurate observers of their group’s cohesiveness and, if asked, will share these perceptions.
Cohesion, as a multilevel concept, can also be measured at multiple levels. Those who consider cohesion to be a psychological quality that is rooted in members’ feelings of attraction for others, the group, and a sense of unity measure cohesion at the individual level. They might ask members of a group to only describe their own attraction to and commitment to the group through such questions as, “Are you attracted to the group?” or “Do you feel a strong sense of belonging to the group?” Other researchers, in contrast, may feel that only a group can be cohesive, and so cohesion should be located at the group level (Mason & Griffin, 2002). These investigators may ask group members to estimate the group’s cohesion directly through such questions as, “Are members attracted to his group?” and “Is this group a cohesive one?” They might also decide to have the group answer these types of questions as a group (see Paskevich et al., 1999). When they measure cohesiveness in different ways, they often report different conclusions. A study using a self-report measure of cohesion might find that cohesive groups out produce groups that are not cohesive, but other investigators may not replicate this finding when they use observational measurement methods (Mullen et al., 1994). Moreover, some operational definitions of cohesion may correspond more closely to the theoretical definition than others. A measure that focuses only on group members’ perceptions of their group’s cohesiveness, for example, may be assessing something very different than a measure that focuses on the actual strength of the relationships linking individuals to their group.
A number of factors combine to determine a group’s level of cohesiveness, including: Attraction: Sherif and Sherif, using a unique field-study method in a boys’ summer camp, found that the same sorts of variables that influence liking and group formation also influence the cohesiveness of the group that is formed. Stability, size, and structure: As defined by Ziller, open groups display less cohesion than closed groups. Smaller groups tend to be more cohesive than larger groups, as do groups with particular structural features (such as the absence of subgroups, less hierarchy, etc.). Initiations: Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance explains why initiations can increase commitment to a group, and Aronson and Mills confirmed that people who go through some kind of initiation to join a group tend to like that group more. However, when an initiation is severe, such as some extreme hazing practices, it does not increase cohesiveness.
Cohesion is, in most cases, the consequence of a period of group development—a pattern of growth and change beginning with initial formation and ending, in most cases, with dissolution. As Hill notes, many theories have been developed to explain group development. Most, however, are consistent with Tuckman’s five stage model: Orientation (forming) stage: Members experience tentative interactions, tension, and concern over ambiguity, growing interdependence, and attempts to identify the nature of the situation. Conflict (storming) stage: Members express dissatisfaction with the group, respond emotionally, criticize one another, and form coalitions. Structure (norming) stage: Unity increases, membership stabilizes, members report increased satisfaction, and the group’s internal dynamics intensify. Work (performing) stage: The group’s focus shifts to the performance of tasks and goal attainment. Not all groups reach this stage, for even highly cohesive groups are not necessarily productive. Dissolution (adjourning) stage: The group disbands. A group’s entry into the dissolution stage can be either planned or spontaneous, but even planned dissolution can create problems for members as they work to reduce their dependence on the group. This development leads to either cohesiveness or closeness and unity as each members evolved in the group for the benefit of group goal achievement or breakdown of a group incase no longer bound to each other.
By: Mr. Dennis B. Dizon | Administrator | Department Office of Balanga
